Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
Kaede11
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:34 am

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by Kaede11 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:50 pm

Ironclad wrote:
Don't know how feasible it is but it would be really neat if one could take the end results of this campaign and use it as the starting point for repeating the campaign so ending up with a possible series of interlocking campaigns within a continuing war between the two powers concerned. With allies becoming available depending on its progress. It occurs to me that such a facility of inputting a previous campaigns results could allow a over-arching campaign being run outside the game to utlise FOG 2 campaigns as well as its battles but thats probably being far too ambitious for whats achievable.
^This would be awesome

JaM2013
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:02 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by JaM2013 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:02 pm

not an sandbox campaign idea, but what about instead of historical famous battles represented as single scenario, these battles would be represented by short mini-campaigns? as i mentioned in other thread - battles like Zama, which were divided into multiple stages (initial clash with elephants, infantry fight, and finishing with clash against Hannibal's veterans) which player would have to win in order to win the "battle"
Image

matlegob
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by matlegob » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:11 am

I like some little improvements with the C-in-C:

- a differetn bannier than other sub generals
- a more impact on troops when we loose the C-in-C (maybe a larger zone of moral test)

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22419
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:38 am

matlegob wrote:- a more impact on troops when we loose the C-in-C (maybe a larger zone of moral test)
That is already there - 2 squares radius instead of 1.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

matlegob
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by matlegob » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:44 am

Yes it's true but I like a larger radius (4 squares?)

QuasiZ
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:34 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by QuasiZ » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:56 pm

More battle variety. Open Battle happens way too often, and every other scenario happens too rarely or not at all. Please add all the existing scenarios to the campaign. If it is an option for a battle, it should have an even chance of happening in the campaign. Keep the last battle being an Open Battle, but the rest should be way more varied and random.

Alternative deployment zones would also be great. For example, a flank battle where one side deploys in square, while the other deploys in L-Shaped zone around it. Or a ambush battle where army deploys in long thin line down middle with enemy deployed on either side, perhaps with baggage to protect.

More terrain variety affecting some battles. Make it possible for the battlefield center to be half forest or marsh. Perhaps a town consisting of a temple and several villages.

More strategic choice variety. Currently it is much too repetitive. The goal is for these choices to modify the upcoming battle in some interesting way. For example:

Drunkards - No sub-generals only C-in-C
Chaos - All command radius reduced by 3
Disease - one or more units begin fragmented
Omens - one or more units begin disrupted
Advanced Scouts - increased deployment area for skirmishers
Hasty Arrival - reduced deployment area for regulars
Bitter Rivalry - units adjacent to same friendly troop type suffer penalty
Friendly Rivalry - units adjacent to different friendly troop type gain bonus
Scorn - light foot must deploy in area behind regulars
Outcasts - unit can't be part of any command
Scarcity - ammo reduced by 1
Abundance - ammo increased by 1
Doomsayers - cowardly entourage causes generals to grant no POA bonus
Bodyguards - courageous entourage causes generals to grant extra POA bonus
Inspiring Speech - generals in combat give double cohesion bonus to nearby units
Demoralizing Speech - generals in combat give no cohesion bonus to nearby units
Impetuous - unit must deploy in area ahead of regulars
Vulnerable - baggage present for battle and can't exit but impacts break point if lost
Deadly Ground - battle must be won by 60% and can't be won at 40%
Skirmish - one skirmisher unit may deploy in center, if it does enemy skirmisher deploys opposite it
Duel - one unit with a general may deploy in center, if it does enemy general deploys opposite it
Refugees - battle begins with each side having half-dozen routed Rabble in the middle of the map

The above present as choices, for example: Do you write an Inspiring Speech or train Bodyguards to help you fight?

Weather Effects
Add rain and snow. These already exist in game. Why not use them in the campaign? Perhaps 15% chance of weather per battle? Others could be added:

Heat Wave - after 12th turn all units suffer -1 to cohesion tests.
Earthquake - causes every unit to take immediate cohesion test
Lightning Strike - causes random unit to suffer casualties
Gusting Winds - for this turn all range attacks cause reduced casualties


Alternative Sandbox Campaigns
You can make one highly configurable sandbox campaign or several specialized ones.

Fall of Rome Campaign
Identical to Rise of Rome, except the player can lose, both battles and the entire campaign. Campaign progresses despite battle defeat but becomes more difficult: fewer points for next battle or less casualties are replaced.

Enemies of Rome Campaign
Same as Rise of Rome, but each battle is against a random enemy from those your army would have fought. Requires some flavor text to set the stage for each battle. Something like this:

"Time passes and your army marches on. Now it finds itself fighting a new foe. Your struggle against the enemy has culminated In this decisive moment. Victory here will decide the outcome of the war against them."

From their it can use any of the normal Rise of Rome strategic choices.

Pax Imperium Campaign
Same as Enemies of Rome but like Fall of Rome, battles and campaign can be lost.


AI League and Tournament Alternatives
This campaign works just like a sports league or tournament, but you units gain experience as in the sandbox campaign. This may satisfy players that want to campaign against a variety of foes. In essence, instead of simulating a historical campaign the game simulates being part of a wargaming club.
Last edited by QuasiZ on Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

QuasiZ
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:34 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by QuasiZ » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:22 pm

To Summarize there are 3 key concepts.

Currently too repetitive, it needs More variety of: scenario, deployment, terrain, weather, events and strategic choices.

Not enough tension, allow players to lose both battles and the campaign.

Tournament and leagues are popular and fun, so allow solo players to experience this too by playing against the AI.

KOB001
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:12 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by KOB001 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:26 pm

Nijjs made this post in the Parthia thread...
LH armies may be a good faction as attackers in baggage train mode. And would probably perform this sort of action in a campaign rather than a outright battle.


Maybe designate some armies as "light" or "mobile"? Quick battles and campaigns would be more likely to place them in baggage train attack mode, and while they'd fight some set-piece (ie, representing siege relief and the like) this would be less common. Also, maybe they wouldn't fight each other - not because they never did, but because those fights weren't really amenable to the FoG2 system. Armies composed mainly of light infantry who inhabit mountain terrain might also fit this category.
I love the idea of a major power invading Parthian & Arabian lands only to have to defend their baggage & rarely having a set-piece battle at all :-).

Also rather than having LH armies unable to fight each other perhaps just disable "evade" for such "light/mobile vs light/mobile" campaigns & battles?

Igorputski
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by Igorputski » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:36 am

QuasiZ wrote:More battle variety. Open Battle happens way too often, and every other scenario happens too rarely or not at all. Please add all the existing scenarios to the campaign. If it is an option for a battle, it should have an even chance of happening in the campaign. Keep the last battle being an Open Battle, but the rest should be way more varied and random.

Alternative deployment zones would also be great. For example, a flank battle where one side deploys in square, while the other deploys in L-Shaped zone around it. Or a ambush battle where army deploys in long thin line down middle with enemy deployed on either side, perhaps with baggage to protect.

More terrain variety affecting 20% of battles. Make it possible for the battlefield center to be half forest or marsh. Perhaps a small impassable mountain or lake breaks up the middle, or a town consisting of a temple and several villages.

More strategic choice variety. Currently it is much too repetitive. The goal is for these choices to modify the upcoming battle in some interesting way. For example:

Drunkards - No sub-generals only C-in-C
Chaos - All command radius reduced by 3
Disease - one or more units begin fragmented
Omens - one or more units begin disrupted
Advanced Scouts - increased deployment area for skirmishers
Hasty Arrival - reduced deployment area for regulars
Bitter Rivalry - units adjacent to same friendly troop type suffer penalty
Friendly Rivalry - units adjacent to different friendly troop type gain bonus
Scorn - light foot must deploy in area behind regulars
Outcasts - unit can't be part of any command
Scarcity - ammo reduced by 1
Abundance - ammo increased by 1
Doomsayers - cowardly entourage causes generals to grant no POA bonus
Bodyguards - courageous entourage causes generals to grant extra POA bonus
Inspiring Speech - generals in combat give double cohesion bonus to nearby units
Demoralizing Speech - generals in combat give no cohesion bonus to nearby units
Impetuous - unit must deploy in area ahead of regulars
Vulnerable - baggage present for battle and can't exit but impacts break point if lost
Deadly Ground - battle must be won by 60% and can't be won at 40%
Skirmish - one skirmisher unit may deploy in center, if it does enemy skirmisher deploys opposite it
Duel - one unit with a general may deploy in center, if it does enemy general deploys opposite it
Refugees - battle begins with each side having half-dozen routed Rabble in the middle of the map

The above present as choices, for example: Do you write an Inspiring Speech or train Bodyguards to help you fight?

Weather Effects
Add rain and snow. These already exist in game. Why not use them in the campaign? Perhaps 15% chance of weather per battle? Others could be added:

Heat Wave - after 12th turn all units suffer -2 to cohesion tests.
Earthquake - causes every unit to take immediate cohesion test
Lightning Strike - causes random unit to suffer casualties
Gusting Winds - for this turn all range attacks cause reduced casualties


Alternative Sandbox Campaigns
You can make one highly configurable sandbox campaign or several specialized ones.

Fall of Rome Campaign
Identical to Rise of Rome, except the player can lose, both battles and the entire campaign. Campaign progresses despite battle defeat but becomes more difficult: fewer points for next battle or less casualties are replaced.

Enemies of Rome Campaign
Same as Rise of Rome, but each battle is against a random enemy from those your army would have fought. Requires some flavor text to set the stage for each battle. Something like this:

"Time passes and your army marches on. Now it finds itself fighting a new foe. Your struggle against the enemy has culminated In this decisive moment. Victory here will decide the outcome of the war against them."

From their it can use any of the normal Rise of Rome strategic choices.

Pax Imperium Campaign
Same as Enemies of Rome but like Fall of Rome, battles and campaign can be lost.


AI League and Tournament Alternatives
This campaign works just like a sports league or tournament, but you units gain experience as in the sandbox campaign. This may satisfy players that want to campaign against a variety of foes. In essence, instead of simulating a historical campaign the game simulates being part of a wargaming club.
Lol Richard you opened up a can of worms when you made this game; now many are wanting you to rewrite it for each one of them individually. Look at THIS guys suggestions. lol

Everyone is a 'designer' hardly anyone wants to do the work to code it though.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22419
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:05 am

Vektor T (on STEAM) wrote:

"So I'm having a blast with the game campaign, really awesome, so far I did 4 with the romans, all different eras against historical enemies of the era, and I'm about to start some with the seleucids or greeks and do the same, but from what I think the experience could be way better with so changes that seens easy to implement and some that may be hard and may even need a DLC (totally would pay for it), but could really make this game REALLY epic and overshadow anything in my opinion:

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Small (?) Changes \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- 7 battles campaign are way to short. Let us choose more, way more if we want to.

- Let us customize how much of the enemy we must rout before the battle ends, both how much more than our own fource and the limit of 60%. Sometimes I had battles that ended when I thought it still was inconclusive and/or could last more for fun and challenge.

- Let us customize more reinforcements than 15% for our army, both to balance previous suggestion and/or higher difficulties.

- To balance out experience level in longer battles and campaigns (as must so we dont end with a bunch of Elites early on), the XP a unit win could be divided by their loses: so if a unit won a battle but lost 40% of it forces, it gain 100% - 40% of the XP it had from that battle, meaning slow progress (I have no idea how the code is for units improving quality right now, so take it as a blind guess). Routed units may even have a chance to gain no XP at all, dispersed unit may have a chance of disbanding. Thoses risks could also have a slider, that could be set from 0% if the player wish (or 100% if he want to go hardcore).

I know nothing of the game code, but I don't think those four should be difficulty to do. I would be nice to have a slider in the campaign options to set this just like we have for difficulty, battle size and number of battles. The XP based on losses may be a check box. Only those changes I think already will add a lot to the game with minor changes, while the bigger suggestion below are actually way more complex and I'm not sure of their practicability both in codes and cost.


\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Bigger Changes (DLC maybe?) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

First I would like to note: you guys was right, I don't actually miss a Total War, Paradox or Civilization maps, just battle after battle while gaining veterancy and purchasing new ones actually works just nice and let me focus on what Slitherine does better: awesome turn-based battles! But I still would like more in depth and complex campaigns with more context, so adding up to the previous "small" changes:

- Right of the bat: more battles types. I like using my allies, rear echelon, baggage defence, etc, works nice and are fun, but could be more like ambushes, ally joining up, bridge battle and, more important than all others, siege battles. All of them both on offense and defense.

- A campaing map to give some context. No, not something interactive or not even like Pike and Shot, just a map of, say, Greece if Rome vs Greece showing where the battle is happening, than after that where is the next one with an arrow liking them to give you a sense of where you are going. Sometimes you had a option of what to do next or where to advance (kinda like we have right now with echelons, woods or baggage, etc) and the two options show on the map and you can click where you want to go. The map could have some "areas" that impact battle map, like if you move into a wood in the campaign map, the battle map should have more woods, mountain regions will have more hills, mountains and so on.

- You can have a basic context: who is invading who (the map is of the defending one) and them the game moves from that. Your overall performance could have a impact on the choices you have (from previous suggestion) and your choices impact on how the campaign unfolds, like moving to attack their allies to prevent them from joining in, pursue their routing forces after a major victory meaning they will have less numbers for one battle, go back to help your allies or they will be out of the campaign, sieging a city may give them time to regroup but can prevent them from having more veteran units later on (give some random veteran units for the AI). Those choices can also have a impact on reinforcement: you can choose to miss an opportunity of a easy siege or battle because you advanced lower (bonus reinforcement) or if you keep pushing you will receive less and less reinforcement because you are going to fast.

- The enemy army could also gain experience like yours, but do suffer the same effect from my XP suggestions from the "Small" changes. So you may want to target and rout some stronger units so they dont gain XP. Enemy units that suffer heavy losses and rout/disperse may have a chance from totally disbanding and be removed from the game. So if you are having a bunch of tough-as-nail battles or even losing, the tendency may be the enemy forces also winning veterancy and becoming tougher, meaning harder battles, but they also may have less time to reinforce or recruit new units meaning they forces also will become smaller. On the other hand, if you keep crushing them, they may have less veterans but will be recruiting more units, meaning bigger armies.

- Overall the player is expected to lose some battles in the campaign if he is not careful with his choices, especially because he may choose to lay siege in a heavily guarded city too soon, is advancing to fast and reinforcements grew thin, isn't advancing fast enough and the enemy is bulking up, made an options to ignore enemy allies and they arrived in time to join the battle meaning overhelming forces... whatever, the point is that a loss or short series of them may not necessarily mean the end of the campaign, after all unless if you are Alexander every war has wins and defeats on both sides. Say if you advanced too fast and ended with a thin force and the enemy defeated you in one battle. The enemy may choose not to pursuit you and reinforce themselves, meaning you also will have to reinforce more, or they could chase you and you can have an option to leave some units behind for a almost impossible battle, they are likely destroyed but you will have more reinforcements and point to purchase new units to make a comeback.

- An important addition may be that at some points you control more than army and/or split your forces. You know when you are purchasing new units that less common units could be purchased in smaller quantities? Imagine that this units for a battle are being purchased from a "stock" that represents your full force. When you recruit a unit, you take from that stock, and when you reinforce, you also take from that stock. That stock reinforces after each battle but at different rates for each unit. So if you recruit too much units of a single type, you may start to lack enough reinforcements to replish all of them, meaning you should use less of them in battle or disband them. Units moved to guarrison are actually "saved" there for later use, so if you had, say, 5 veteran hastati and had heavy losses in a battle and not enough reinforcements to all of them, you may "move to garrison" two of them and all the reinforcement will go to the ones you are still using, but the garrisoned one still will be there so you don't loses his battle experience. So that way the player may even have ocasionally to fight two battles with two different armies, like one marched east and the other north, and he have to split his forces and when their armies meet again some units will had to go to garrison because of the single army force limit. All this stuff means that sometimes the player may choose or have to use some of those units he never uses in his army options because the "stock" of the most used ones are growing thin while the one of the less used ones are abundant. Also it means that during the course of the campaign he wont be able to really field tons of that units with just 1 avaiability recruint one by one, because at some point he will start to lack the stock to reinforce / recruit more and he may need to disband some of them so they go back to stock and reinforce the others or at least leave most of them at garrison while the stock replinishes.

- Sometimes you may be able to recruit from allies, using units that dont belong to your faction hoster. Let's say the ally army could only be 5 units big (depending on the battle size), not always are avaiable and all of them will belong to their own general, but you may choose wich units their use to better suits you needs. When you actually do a battle with your ally forces, like sometimes you do right now, you dont choose at all, but the small force you was using with your main army may be avaiable.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Sorry for the really long post, but so far in this topic I was speaking blindly, but now I do have some ingame experience and would like to share my views with players that also are looking for better campaigns and with the devs themselves. Also I really dont want this thread and discussion to die... it's being awesome so far!"

Vektor T
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Cumandante
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:53 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by Cumandante » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:07 am

QuasiZ wrote:Weather Effects
Add rain and snow. These already exist in game. Why not use them in the campaign?
They do? I haven't seen weather effects yet... :(

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22419
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:11 am

Cumandante wrote:
QuasiZ wrote:Weather Effects
Add rain and snow. These already exist in game. Why not use them in the campaign?
They do? I haven't seen weather effects yet... :(
They have not been used yet.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22419
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:17 am

Great suggestions guys.

It is going to take time to sift through them all and implement the best of them, so please be patient, but keep the suggestions coming.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Cumandante
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:53 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by Cumandante » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:23 am

What if, when AI units survive a battle, they gain some experience, just like our units do? If you face that nation again in the campaign you would have to fight those veterans.

Benedict151
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 691
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:46 am

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by Benedict151 » Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:27 am

rbodleyscott wrote:Great suggestions guys.

It is going to take time to sift through them all and implement the best of them, so please be patient, but keep the suggestions coming.
Indeed, we are making a list to review at this very moment!

Igorputski
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by Igorputski » Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:18 pm

JC_von_Preussen wrote:Although I still need to play some more campaigns, for the moment, I have to join with Jam and Igor's suggestions.

Especially : losing a battle should be a full part of a campaign, not the end of the world, it should open plenty of new possibilities for next battles. Campaign screen results is also a must have.
This is the part where a game has to put aside history for gaming purposes. Don't force a way to play; make options for it.

Cumandante
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:53 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by Cumandante » Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:28 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Cumandante wrote:
QuasiZ wrote:Weather Effects
Add rain and snow. These already exist in game. Why not use them in the campaign?
They do? I haven't seen weather effects yet... :(
They have not been used yet.
I would love to see weather effects in the game. Perhaps a random chance, depending on the terrain.

VektorT
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by VektorT » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:19 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:Vektor T (on STEAM) wrote:

"So I'm having a blast with the game campaign, really awesome, so far I did 4 with the romans, all different eras against historical enemies of the era, and I'm about to start some with the seleucids or greeks and do the same, but from what I think the experience could be way better with so changes that seens easy to implement and some that may be hard and may even need a DLC (totally would pay for it), but could really make this game REALLY epic and overshadow anything in my opinion:

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Small (?) Changes \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- 7 battles campaign are way to short. Let us choose more, way more if we want to.

- Let us customize how much of the enemy we must rout before the battle ends, both how much more than our own fource and the limit of 60%. Sometimes I had battles that ended when I thought it still was inconclusive and/or could last more for fun and challenge.

- Let us customize more reinforcements than 15% for our army, both to balance previous suggestion and/or higher difficulties.

- To balance out experience level in longer battles and campaigns (as must so we dont end with a bunch of Elites early on), the XP a unit win could be divided by their loses: so if a unit won a battle but lost 40% of it forces, it gain 100% - 40% of the XP it had from that battle, meaning slow progress (I have no idea how the code is for units improving quality right now, so take it as a blind guess). Routed units may even have a chance to gain no XP at all, dispersed unit may have a chance of disbanding. Thoses risks could also have a slider, that could be set from 0% if the player wish (or 100% if he want to go hardcore).

I know nothing of the game code, but I don't think those four should be difficulty to do. I would be nice to have a slider in the campaign options to set this just like we have for difficulty, battle size and number of battles. The XP based on losses may be a check box. Only those changes I think already will add a lot to the game with minor changes, while the bigger suggestion below are actually way more complex and I'm not sure of their practicability both in codes and cost.


\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Bigger Changes (DLC maybe?) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

First I would like to note: you guys was right, I don't actually miss a Total War, Paradox or Civilization maps, just battle after battle while gaining veterancy and purchasing new ones actually works just nice and let me focus on what Slitherine does better: awesome turn-based battles! But I still would like more in depth and complex campaigns with more context, so adding up to the previous "small" changes:

- Right of the bat: more battles types. I like using my allies, rear echelon, baggage defence, etc, works nice and are fun, but could be more like ambushes, ally joining up, bridge battle and, more important than all others, siege battles. All of them both on offense and defense.

- A campaing map to give some context. No, not something interactive or not even like Pike and Shot, just a map of, say, Greece if Rome vs Greece showing where the battle is happening, than after that where is the next one with an arrow liking them to give you a sense of where you are going. Sometimes you had a option of what to do next or where to advance (kinda like we have right now with echelons, woods or baggage, etc) and the two options show on the map and you can click where you want to go. The map could have some "areas" that impact battle map, like if you move into a wood in the campaign map, the battle map should have more woods, mountain regions will have more hills, mountains and so on.

- You can have a basic context: who is invading who (the map is of the defending one) and them the game moves from that. Your overall performance could have a impact on the choices you have (from previous suggestion) and your choices impact on how the campaign unfolds, like moving to attack their allies to prevent them from joining in, pursue their routing forces after a major victory meaning they will have less numbers for one battle, go back to help your allies or they will be out of the campaign, sieging a city may give them time to regroup but can prevent them from having more veteran units later on (give some random veteran units for the AI). Those choices can also have a impact on reinforcement: you can choose to miss an opportunity of a easy siege or battle because you advanced lower (bonus reinforcement) or if you keep pushing you will receive less and less reinforcement because you are going to fast.

- The enemy army could also gain experience like yours, but do suffer the same effect from my XP suggestions from the "Small" changes. So you may want to target and rout some stronger units so they dont gain XP. Enemy units that suffer heavy losses and rout/disperse may have a chance from totally disbanding and be removed from the game. So if you are having a bunch of tough-as-nail battles or even losing, the tendency may be the enemy forces also winning veterancy and becoming tougher, meaning harder battles, but they also may have less time to reinforce or recruit new units meaning they forces also will become smaller. On the other hand, if you keep crushing them, they may have less veterans but will be recruiting more units, meaning bigger armies.

- Overall the player is expected to lose some battles in the campaign if he is not careful with his choices, especially because he may choose to lay siege in a heavily guarded city too soon, is advancing to fast and reinforcements grew thin, isn't advancing fast enough and the enemy is bulking up, made an options to ignore enemy allies and they arrived in time to join the battle meaning overhelming forces... whatever, the point is that a loss or short series of them may not necessarily mean the end of the campaign, after all unless if you are Alexander every war has wins and defeats on both sides. Say if you advanced too fast and ended with a thin force and the enemy defeated you in one battle. The enemy may choose not to pursuit you and reinforce themselves, meaning you also will have to reinforce more, or they could chase you and you can have an option to leave some units behind for a almost impossible battle, they are likely destroyed but you will have more reinforcements and point to purchase new units to make a comeback.

- An important addition may be that at some points you control more than army and/or split your forces. You know when you are purchasing new units that less common units could be purchased in smaller quantities? Imagine that this units for a battle are being purchased from a "stock" that represents your full force. When you recruit a unit, you take from that stock, and when you reinforce, you also take from that stock. That stock reinforces after each battle but at different rates for each unit. So if you recruit too much units of a single type, you may start to lack enough reinforcements to replish all of them, meaning you should use less of them in battle or disband them. Units moved to guarrison are actually "saved" there for later use, so if you had, say, 5 veteran hastati and had heavy losses in a battle and not enough reinforcements to all of them, you may "move to garrison" two of them and all the reinforcement will go to the ones you are still using, but the garrisoned one still will be there so you don't loses his battle experience. So that way the player may even have ocasionally to fight two battles with two different armies, like one marched east and the other north, and he have to split his forces and when their armies meet again some units will had to go to garrison because of the single army force limit. All this stuff means that sometimes the player may choose or have to use some of those units he never uses in his army options because the "stock" of the most used ones are growing thin while the one of the less used ones are abundant. Also it means that during the course of the campaign he wont be able to really field tons of that units with just 1 avaiability recruint one by one, because at some point he will start to lack the stock to reinforce / recruit more and he may need to disband some of them so they go back to stock and reinforce the others or at least leave most of them at garrison while the stock replinishes.

- Sometimes you may be able to recruit from allies, using units that dont belong to your faction hoster. Let's say the ally army could only be 5 units big (depending on the battle size), not always are avaiable and all of them will belong to their own general, but you may choose wich units their use to better suits you needs. When you actually do a battle with your ally forces, like sometimes you do right now, you dont choose at all, but the small force you was using with your main army may be avaiable.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Sorry for the really long post, but so far in this topic I was speaking blindly, but now I do have some ingame experience and would like to share my views with players that also are looking for better campaigns and with the devs themselves. Also I really dont want this thread and discussion to die... it's being awesome so far!"

Vektor T
Thanks a lot for bringing my post here, rbodleyscott! Also for sharing the link of this thread there too! It's nice to see this discussion is happening here in the forums too and that it's not much different from the one on Steam! Actually it gives me hope we have an enough player base to justifiy at least a small increment in the campaign!

QuasiZ
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:34 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by QuasiZ » Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:29 am

Igorputski wrote:Look at THIS guys suggestions. lol

Everyone is a 'designer' hardly anyone wants to do the work to code it though.
:D

Some of the things I mentioned are actually in the game, they're just not being used. The more exotic stuff, such as a mid-battle earthquake and troop type rivalries, was just meant to get the devs thinking outside the box.

I think most people are just brainstorming. It's up to the devs to crunch the numbers and 2.0 the Sandbox!

QuasiZ
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:34 pm

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Post by QuasiZ » Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:02 am

To help the devs here's a summary of many of the suggestions.

MORE VARIETY
More enemy variety
More battle type scenario variety
More strategic choice variety
More terrain variety
Longer than 7 battles
Reinforcement variety by recruiting a few allies
Enemy units can gain experience

MORE TENSION
Can lose battle and campaign
Reinforcements depletion (also more variety by forcing use of other units)

MORE CONTEXT
An actual map based campaign
Post campaign stats
Unit stats (also more personalized)
Link Sandbox campaigns together by results

MORE PERSONALIZED
Name units
Name generals

***Outside Scope of Sandbox***
Single player tournaments or league against AI
Mini-campaigns to recreate multi-part battles

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”