Slitherine

It's intereting to see that my Pot Luck game generated these two opponents. But in my knowledge, Moravian and Abbasid isn't adjacent to each other. Did they indeed have battles one or two in the history?

probably not.

You didn't by chance have filters turned off in your battle generator?

Karvon

I didn't. You can have a try to confirm it.

melm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:47 am It's intereting to see that my Pot Luck game generated these two opponents. But in my knowledge, Moravian and Abbasid isn't adjacent to each other. Did they indeed have battles one or two in the history?

It's a consequence of how the armies geographical areas are defined. In the ArmyList.txt each army has values for it's minimum and maximum Latitude and Longitude values, these are based upon the farthest points North, South, West and East that the army fought. So therefore each army has a rectangular area of historical usage. It's a very imprecise way of defining it, as there will be areas in the corners of that rectangle where the army never historically fought in, but there is no other simple way of doing it.

If two armies areas overlap, then they will be possible opponents, so this sometimes leads to non historical matchups when you get two areas overlapping at the corners. Maybe RBS can just check the latitude and longitude values of the Moravians and Abbasids to make sure they are correct.

The Abbasids were closer to Moravia than India was to Macedon

I hope to see a book of the Anabasis of a Moravian or a Abbasid.

Obviously we are fighting over who gets first shot at besieging Constantinople.

Paul59 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:59 am

melm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:47 am It's intereting to see that my Pot Luck game generated these two opponents. But in my knowledge, Moravian and Abbasid isn't adjacent to each other. Did they indeed have battles one or two in the history?

It's a consequence of how the armies geographical areas are defined. In the ArmyList.txt each army has values for it's minimum and maximum Latitude and Longitude values, these are based upon the farthest points North, South, West and East that the army fought. So therefore each army has a rectangular area of historical usage. It's a very imprecise way of defining it, as there will be areas in the corners of that rectangle where the army never historically fought in, but there is no other simple way of doing it.

If two armies areas overlap, then they will be possible opponents, so this sometimes leads to non historical matchups when you get two areas overlapping at the corners. Maybe RBS can just check the latitude and longitude values of the Moravians and Abbasids to make sure they are correct.

If anyone didn't understand my hung-over attempt to explain the FOG2 geographical system, and I don't blame you, here is a graphical representation:

Here are is a rough approximation of the Abbasid Caliphate and Greater Moravia at their greatest extent, note that their armies may have fought beyond these borders, but for simplicity lets just look at the borders:



In this next picture I have overlaid the two rectangular boxes defined by the latitude and longitude limits of the two empires. Light green for the Abbasids and orange for the Moravians. The brown areas are where the two rectangular geographical zones overlap, hence the two factions are potential opponents for each other in FOG2 skirmish battles and campaigns:



If anyone can suggest a better way of doing it I am sure RBS would be interested!

Makes sense. I guess having each army in the list have a corresponding list of potential adversaries, similar to list of allies, would require too much time to implement.

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:34 pm Makes sense. I guess having each army in the list have a corresponding list of potential adversaries, similar to list of allies, would require too much time to implement.

It's also questionable whether the end result would be any more realistic. Records of many conflicts have surely disappeared over time if they were even recorded in the first place. Personally I prefer erring on the side of variety over rendering the pot luck pointless for many army lists.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:40 pm

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:34 pm Makes sense. I guess having each army in the list have a corresponding list of potential adversaries, similar to list of allies, would require too much time to implement.

It's also questionable whether the end result would be any more realistic. Records of many conflicts have surely disappeared over time if they were even recorded in the first place. Personally I prefer erring on the side of variety over rendering the pot luck pointless for many army lists.

I just remembered that there are the "Quick Battles" where you can pick an faction, then a historical enemy of that faction and a specific conflict between those two. It doesn't directly work for the custom campaigns and the ally feature isn't implemented there but if you want more historical opponents than you get with the filtered pot luck then that's a convenient source of reference.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:16 pm

MVP7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:40 pm

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:34 pm Makes sense. I guess having each army in the list have a corresponding list of potential adversaries, similar to list of allies, would require too much time to implement.

It's also questionable whether the end result would be any more realistic. Records of many conflicts have surely disappeared over time if they were even recorded in the first place. Personally I prefer erring on the side of variety over rendering the pot luck pointless for many army lists.

I just remembered that there are the "Quick Battles" where you can pick an faction, then a historical enemy of that faction and a specific conflict between those two. It doesn't directly work for the custom campaigns and the ally feature isn't implemented there but if you want more historical opponents than you get with the filtered pot luck then that's a convenient source of reference.

I have completely forgotten about that. Thanks!