Slitherine

before talking of various things who are ridiculous, i need to know if this is an historical game at least in the troops type available.

I was never that interested in military history when I studied it at uni, so I'm no expert. But I highly doubt it meets expectations of historical accuracy for anyone who truly cares about it. The game at surface level is too simple to meet the average grognards bar of historical accuracy. I will say though, it creates, organically, highly interesting and historically precedented situations like no game I've seen has been able to do outside the modern warfare era. I've lost armies plunging to deep into a much weaker barbarians territory, I've had to use a line of garrisons across multiple provinces to cordon off Hibernian holdouts in a single province because I can't break them. I've had wars go back and forth and end with me peacing out because I don't see it any longer being feasible for me to bring it to a decisive close etc. These might not line up with the equipment and naming conventions of historical accuracy, but in my mind they're endlessly more important.

IMHO the game really well translates the Ancient times historical dynamics.
Units are historical, map, tribe names, political systems are as well. The various parameters to manage are quite historical as well: food, unrest, conquests, pop and slave management...
Sure a game will soon stray quite afar of history, there's no historical rails, and many game systems are abstractions.
Overall I'd say it's as historical or even more than EU&al, themselves much more historical than TW or Civ...

i understand that many things can't be historical and ok, it's not too bad but it is a shame that at least some troops are irrelevant.

I play Carthage, impossible to recruit light javelinmens ! it is the most common and easier troops to have but no. You conquer lybia who is renown for his light troops, what you have ? camels riders ! who does not exist at this era ! all your enemies in north Africa have tons of camel riders ! seriously ?
you attack the capital of north African barbarian and what you have ? superior pikemens ! the well known numidians pikemens of course ! seriously ?
Carthage can build pikemens at the start of the game ! never heards of carthaginians pikemens too ! Carthage mercenary hoplites are pikemens !!!!
WTF !!!

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:59 pm i understand that many things can't be historical and ok, it's not too bad but it is a shame that at least some troops are irrelevant.

I play Carthage, impossible to recruit light javelinmens ! it is the most common and easier troops to have but no. You conquer lybia who is renown for his light troops, what you have ? camels riders ! who does not exist at this era ! all your enemies in north Africa have tons of camel riders ! seriously ?
you attack the capital of north African barbarian and what you have ? superior pikemens ! the well known numidians pikemens of course ! seriously ?
Carthage can build pikemens at the start of the game ! never heards of carthaginians pikemens too ! Carthage mercenary hoplites are pikemens !!!!
WTF !!!

I agree that it feels weird not having foot javeliners from North Africa as Carthage. You substitute with light cav and island mercs, of course, but still..

Camel cavalry in this region is also news to me haha

Not sure what is your problem with ''pikemen'', could you expand on that?

The FoG2 Carthage army lists are different from the FoGE exports, for example the javelin:slinger ratio is around 2:1 in FoG2, and mercenary hoplites are heavy spearmen not pikes. These quirks appear to be a result of unit translations between the games, which was apparently handled by the FoG2 developer.

pnoff wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:16 pm

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:59 pm i understand that many things can't be historical and ok, it's not too bad but it is a shame that at least some troops are irrelevant.

I play Carthage, impossible to recruit light javelinmens ! it is the most common and easier troops to have but no. You conquer lybia who is renown for his light troops, what you have ? camels riders ! who does not exist at this era ! all your enemies in north Africa have tons of camel riders ! seriously ?
you attack the capital of north African barbarian and what you have ? superior pikemens ! the well known numidians pikemens of course ! seriously ?
Carthage can build pikemens at the start of the game ! never heards of carthaginians pikemens too ! Carthage mercenary hoplites are pikemens !!!!
WTF !!!

I agree that it feels weird not having foot javeliners from North Africa as Carthage. You substitute with light cav and island mercs, of course, but still..

Camel cavalry in this region is also news to me haha

Not sure what is your problem with ''pikemen'', could you expand on that?

My problem with pike is that except hellenistic amies no one use it ! Simply, Carthage have only hoplites and no pikemens.

In FOGE, I think the North African Pikes the Palace Guard for the most part - is that right? I don't recall seeing other Pikes, but those should be changed to something else.

The Sacred Band are also a bit too dark-skinned and the North African spears use the same model as them, but with different colors. The North African spears should use the FOG 2 model that they get exported as with the linen armor. The Sacred Band should also be tweaked to the skin tones of the Numidian horse in FOG 2.

As noted up-thread, the exports into FOG 2 are different and some of the Carthaginian (Mercenary?) phalanx become very low-quality pike phalanges in the successor style. I think they should just translate to become average or high-quality Mercenary Hoplites instead (which is what the Carthaginian list has in FOG 2).

There's a number of factions who can't recruit light infantry of any kind until they get some provincial units. The Dacians have this issue and it's worse because they can't get slingers like Carthage unless they take certain Thracian territory (which itself seems to operate a bit strangely because there are slingers available that aren't provincial troops - possibly in Moesia, IIRC). Access to javelin skirmishers should be nearly universal, IMO.

The Macedonian phalanges also use an odd anachronistic model of ultra-heavy classical era hoplites in bronze cuirass too - this is not even close for the period and comes from the Immortal Fire FOG 2 DLC. They should be switched to the standard successor phalanges model - the one that's currently used for the palace guard and is what they already become when exported into FOG 2.

Every faction and province should be reviewed on this front.

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:59 pm i understand that many things can't be historical and ok, it's not too bad but it is a shame that at least some troops are irrelevant.

I play Carthage, impossible to recruit light javelinmens ! it is the most common and easier troops to have but no. You conquer lybia who is renown for his light troops, what you have ? camels riders ! who does not exist at this era ! all your enemies in north Africa have tons of camel riders ! seriously ?
you attack the capital of north African barbarian and what you have ? superior pikemens ! the well known numidians pikemens of course ! seriously ?
Carthage can build pikemens at the start of the game ! never heards of carthaginians pikemens too ! Carthage mercenary hoplites are pikemens !!!!
WTF !!!

Your cities have Javelinmen, you can't conscript them they appear and disappear if your cities are assaulted or as regio defenders. If you look for skirmishers you have to enlist them on the Mediterranean Isles, named Mercenary Skirmishers. North Africa makes you can recruit Light Cavalry named Mercenary Horsemen. Warbands from Spain, Elephants from Africa. The Mercenary Hoplite has no regio but is 20% higher in price each next one you buy. So you build those troops at different places and have to transport them to a central place and create the fabled combined arms forces the Carthaginians fielded. Sounds all good to me.

Hendricus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:54 pm

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:59 pm i understand that many things can't be historical and ok, it's not too bad but it is a shame that at least some troops are irrelevant.

I play Carthage, impossible to recruit light javelinmens ! it is the most common and easier troops to have but no. You conquer lybia who is renown for his light troops, what you have ? camels riders ! who does not exist at this era ! all your enemies in north Africa have tons of camel riders ! seriously ?
you attack the capital of north African barbarian and what you have ? superior pikemens ! the well known numidians pikemens of course ! seriously ?
Carthage can build pikemens at the start of the game ! never heards of carthaginians pikemens too ! Carthage mercenary hoplites are pikemens !!!!
WTF !!!

Your cities have Javelinmen, you can't conscript them they appear and disappear if your cities are assaulted or as regio defenders. If you look for skirmishers you have to enlist them on the Mediterranean Isles, named Mercenary Skirmishers. North Africa makes you can recruit Light Cavalry named Mercenary Horsemen. Warbands from Spain, Elephants from Africa. The Mercenary Hoplite has no regio but is 20% higher in price each next one you buy. So you build those troops at different places and have to transport them to a central place and create the fabled combined arms forces the Carthaginians fielded. Sounds all good to me.

It sound good to you that carthage have pikemens and the only troops available in north africa are cavalry and inexistant carmel riders ? Where javelinmen are the common troop type of antiquity !
It sound good to you that palace guard of many non hellenistic nation are pikemens ?

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:20 pm
It sound good to you that carthage have pikemens and the only troops available in north africa are cavalry and inexistant carmel riders ? Where javelinmen are the common troop type of antiquity !
It sound good to you that palace guard of many non hellenistic nation are pikemens ?

where you see pikeman? all carthage infantry have hoplite model - or their spear so big so you think it is pike?

about camels - i think it's because they set that all desert reguions can recruit this

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:20 pm

Hendricus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:54 pm

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:59 pm i understand that many things can't be historical and ok, it's not too bad but it is a shame that at least some troops are irrelevant.

I play Carthage, impossible to recruit light javelinmens ! it is the most common and easier troops to have but no. You conquer lybia who is renown for his light troops, what you have ? camels riders ! who does not exist at this era ! all your enemies in north Africa have tons of camel riders ! seriously ?
you attack the capital of north African barbarian and what you have ? superior pikemens ! the well known numidians pikemens of course ! seriously ?
Carthage can build pikemens at the start of the game ! never heards of carthaginians pikemens too ! Carthage mercenary hoplites are pikemens !!!!
WTF !!!

Your cities have Javelinmen, you can't conscript them they appear and disappear if your cities are assaulted or as regio defenders. If you look for skirmishers you have to enlist them on the Mediterranean Isles, named Mercenary Skirmishers. North Africa makes you can recruit Light Cavalry named Mercenary Horsemen. Warbands from Spain, Elephants from Africa. The Mercenary Hoplite has no regio but is 20% higher in price each next one you buy. So you build those troops at different places and have to transport them to a central place and create the fabled combined arms forces the Carthaginians fielded. Sounds all good to me.

It sound good to you that carthage have pikemens and the only troops available in north africa are cavalry and inexistant carmel riders ? Where javelinmen are the common troop type of antiquity !
It sound good to you that palace guard of many non hellenistic nation are pikemens ?

As I said, I really doubt it will meet most grognards standards of historical accuracy. They could probably improve, but a game this abstract is probably never going to satisfy requirements, particularly if it wants to create balance. Considering how abstracted all the systems are (a flat number for decadence?, you can only build one building at a time?, your cdr rank and effects are dependent on some random country on the other side of the world?) I am always genuinely surprised when people quibble over the misnaming of troops, or missing units/ahistorical additions. It really seems if you're looking for historical accuracy that is the least of your worries, by far. It's a fun game though, and plays like a very good board game/pc mash up without overly complex systems and a fairly reasonable AI (compared to most games).

The things it does do, as I said, creating realistic historical situations that mirror actual historical events, this game does better than pretty much any other grand strategy I've played, including games with far more complexity like GG's War in the East. Or maybe the situations it recreates are just so novel for this type of game, that I just think it's better at doing it. Either way, I'll give it a higher score for historical flavour than even the most painstaking recreation of unit types and equipment.

Hendricus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:54 pmIf you look for skirmishers you have to enlist them on the Mediterranean Isles, named Mercenary Skirmishers.

The mercenary skirmishers recruited from the islands are exported as slingers in FoG2. This might be a programming error though.

Ragu777 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:29 pm

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:20 pm
It sound good to you that carthage have pikemens and the only troops available in north africa are cavalry and inexistant carmel riders ? Where javelinmen are the common troop type of antiquity !
It sound good to you that palace guard of many non hellenistic nation are pikemens ?

where you see pikeman? all carthage infantry have hoplite model - or their spear so big so you think it is pike?

about camels - i think it's because they set that all desert reguions can recruit this

if you import your battle in FoG2, you will see that mercenary hoplites are pikemens and the carthaginian "phalanx" are thureophoroi.

ledo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:37 pm

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:20 pm

Hendricus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:54 pm

Your cities have Javelinmen, you can't conscript them they appear and disappear if your cities are assaulted or as regio defenders. If you look for skirmishers you have to enlist them on the Mediterranean Isles, named Mercenary Skirmishers. North Africa makes you can recruit Light Cavalry named Mercenary Horsemen. Warbands from Spain, Elephants from Africa. The Mercenary Hoplite has no regio but is 20% higher in price each next one you buy. So you build those troops at different places and have to transport them to a central place and create the fabled combined arms forces the Carthaginians fielded. Sounds all good to me.

It sound good to you that carthage have pikemens and the only troops available in north africa are cavalry and inexistant carmel riders ? Where javelinmen are the common troop type of antiquity !
It sound good to you that palace guard of many non hellenistic nation are pikemens ?

As I said, I really doubt it will meet most grognards standards of historical accuracy. They could probably improve, but a game this abstract is probably never going to satisfy requirements, particularly if it wants to create balance. Considering how abstracted all the systems are (a flat number for decadence?, you can only build one building at a time?, your cdr rank and effects are dependent on some random country on the other side of the world?) I am always genuinely surprised when people quibble over the misnaming of troops, or missing units/ahistorical additions. It really seems if you're looking for historical accuracy that is the least of your worries, by far. It's a fun game though, and plays like a very good board game/pc mash up without overly complex systems and a fairly reasonable AI (compared to most games).

The things it does do, as I said, creating realistic historical situations that mirror actual historical events, this game does better than pretty much any other grand strategy I've played, including games with far more complexity like GG's War in the East. Or maybe the situations it recreates are just so novel for this type of game, that I just think it's better at doing it. Either way, I'll give it a higher score for historical flavour than even the most painstaking recreation of unit types and equipment.

Making the game feel historic with correct troops type is the easiest thing to do, for the game mechanism there will be correction to slightly improve them i think.

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:31 am

ledo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:37 pm

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:20 pm

It sound good to you that carthage have pikemens and the only troops available in north africa are cavalry and inexistant carmel riders ? Where javelinmen are the common troop type of antiquity !
It sound good to you that palace guard of many non hellenistic nation are pikemens ?

As I said, I really doubt it will meet most grognards standards of historical accuracy. They could probably improve, but a game this abstract is probably never going to satisfy requirements, particularly if it wants to create balance. Considering how abstracted all the systems are (a flat number for decadence?, you can only build one building at a time?, your cdr rank and effects are dependent on some random country on the other side of the world?) I am always genuinely surprised when people quibble over the misnaming of troops, or missing units/ahistorical additions. It really seems if you're looking for historical accuracy that is the least of your worries, by far. It's a fun game though, and plays like a very good board game/pc mash up without overly complex systems and a fairly reasonable AI (compared to most games).

The things it does do, as I said, creating realistic historical situations that mirror actual historical events, this game does better than pretty much any other grand strategy I've played, including games with far more complexity like GG's War in the East. Or maybe the situations it recreates are just so novel for this type of game, that I just think it's better at doing it. Either way, I'll give it a higher score for historical flavour than even the most painstaking recreation of unit types and equipment.

Making the game feel historic with correct troops type is the easiest thing to do, for the game mechanism there will be correction to slightly improve them i think.

Sure, maybe. Depending at what point people will be satisfied that it's enough. I know some of the things you've stated seem pretty easy to change if they felt inclined. But then I'm sure that there'll be the next level of easy improvments and then the next. Not that I think it's necessarily a bad idea to go down that route, it's just I doubt it ever is really easy and it's not 100% clear it's worth it. I for one would much rather all attention go to fixing issues with diplomacy and territory swap bugs because those things actually affect my gameplay in a meaningful and direct way.

But then I don't really care about historical accuracy beyond the surface level and the overall flavour. The troop types and equipment are largely irrelevant beyond they 'look' pretty ancient to me. Military history was never really that interesting to me, besides how it affected everything else. I did write a paper at uni about Alexander the great, but it was on strategic mindsets, I had little interest in the specific designs of armour beyond a quick reading of what made the Macedonians effective.

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:24 am
if you import your battle in FoG2, you will see that mercenary hoplites are pikemens and the carthaginian "phalanx" are thureophoroi.

so it not problem with FoG:E, because it different games, with bonus option to import battles

jhornborg wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:03 am

Hendricus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:54 pmIf you look for skirmishers you have to enlist them on the Mediterranean Isles, named Mercenary Skirmishers.

The mercenary skirmishers recruited from the islands are exported as slingers in FoG2. This might be a programming error though.

It's a bit strange and not historical to be that limited in skirmishers recruitment, whereas light cavalry is available nearly everywhere..
And the lack of javelinmen too.

PDiFolco wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:53 am

jhornborg wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:03 am

Hendricus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:54 pmIf you look for skirmishers you have to enlist them on the Mediterranean Isles, named Mercenary Skirmishers.

The mercenary skirmishers recruited from the islands are exported as slingers in FoG2. This might be a programming error though.

It's a bit strange and not historical to be that limited in skirmishers recruitment, whereas light cavalry is available nearly everywhere..
And the lack of javelinmen too.

i agree, you can built armies of elephants, armies of camel riders but you must conquer the world to have skirmishers !

ledo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:14 am

Sennacherib wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:31 am

ledo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:37 pm

As I said, I really doubt it will meet most grognards standards of historical accuracy. They could probably improve, but a game this abstract is probably never going to satisfy requirements, particularly if it wants to create balance. Considering how abstracted all the systems are (a flat number for decadence?, you can only build one building at a time?, your cdr rank and effects are dependent on some random country on the other side of the world?) I am always genuinely surprised when people quibble over the misnaming of troops, or missing units/ahistorical additions. It really seems if you're looking for historical accuracy that is the least of your worries, by far. It's a fun game though, and plays like a very good board game/pc mash up without overly complex systems and a fairly reasonable AI (compared to most games).

The things it does do, as I said, creating realistic historical situations that mirror actual historical events, this game does better than pretty much any other grand strategy I've played, including games with far more complexity like GG's War in the East. Or maybe the situations it recreates are just so novel for this type of game, that I just think it's better at doing it. Either way, I'll give it a higher score for historical flavour than even the most painstaking recreation of unit types and equipment.

Making the game feel historic with correct troops type is the easiest thing to do, for the game mechanism there will be correction to slightly improve them i think.

Sure, maybe. Depending at what point people will be satisfied that it's enough. I know some of the things you've stated seem pretty easy to change if they felt inclined. But then I'm sure that there'll be the next level of easy improvments and then the next. Not that I think it's necessarily a bad idea to go down that route, it's just I doubt it ever is really easy and it's not 100% clear it's worth it. I for one would much rather all attention go to fixing issues with diplomacy and territory swap bugs because those things actually affect my gameplay in a meaningful and direct way.

But then I don't really care about historical accuracy beyond the surface level and the overall flavour. The troop types and equipment are largely irrelevant beyond they 'look' pretty ancient to me. Military history was never really that interesting to me, besides how it affected everything else. I did write a paper at uni about Alexander the great, but it was on strategic mindsets, I had little interest in the specific designs of armour beyond a quick reading of what made the Macedonians effective.

like all video games, it will be finished one year after it came out ! we will see what priorities the developers have !