Page 4 of 8

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:31 am
by QuasiZ
Regardless of anything else, you need to change the sandbox name from Rise of Rome to something more obvious. The reviewer at Strategamer.com didn't even realize what it was. He thinks it is just one of the historical campaigns.

How about calling it: Custom Campaign

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:35 am
by rbodleyscott
QuasiZ wrote:Regardless of anything else, you need to change the sandbox name from Rise of Rome to something more obvious. The reviewer at Strategamer.com didn't even realize what it was. He thinks it is just one of the historical campaigns.

How about calling it: Custom Campaign
We will be changing it to "Field of Glory II Campaigns" when the first DLC is released, because all of the new army lists will be added to the previous list, rather than being in a separate module. If a player owns the DLC the extra army lists will be available for selection. So if you turn off the realism filters you could play any army against any other.

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:31 am
by Kaede11
Do you think it would be possible to create some kind of multiplayer campaign? I think it would be possible, basically choosing two armies and both sides get acces to pre-battle options, just like you do in single player campaign.

Then the battle takes place and the results affect the next options the player can take. Also, experience would be carried from battle to battle for both sides, just as it happen right now.

Let's say something like:
Attackers: Rome
Defenders: Chartage

Rome options:

A) Go through the forest area
B) Go through the mountain area

Chartage options:

A) Defend the hill
B) Send flanking forces

** Battle takes place **

** Both sides get experience and prepare for the next one and the following options depend on what happened on the first battle. **
Also, if this can be done, it could be expanded to allow 2 vs 2 campaigns, things would work exactly the same. Let's say iberians are rome's allies and macedon is chartage ally.

Maybe it would be Hispania against chartage and Rome against macedon and one of the players could "give" some of their units to their ally for their next battle or things like that.
Hispania options:

A) Send some troops to your ally for his next battle. (This would help the romans, but you would have less troops for your own battle)
B) Go for an open battle against your foe
C) Try to ambush your enemy (This option would prevent your enemy from sending troops to their ally if they chose to do it, giving you the edge in the next battle. But if done when your enemy was not sending troops to their allies, the ambush would fail and you would be disadvantaged. Guessing game!)
What do you think?

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:24 am
by rbodleyscott
MP campaigns are on our wishlist but will require significant changes to the engine to allow them to be possible. It's a long-term project.

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:13 pm
by sull51
An alternate sandbox campaign suggestion would be set at the beginning a point total representing the manpower that could be recruited for the overall campaign for each side.
You would be restricted to a choice within a range of points for each battle. Between battles losses would be replaced from the pool of points and a choice to increase or decrease your army All battles are fought to the death (or sunset) When you are unable to field an army (no points left) the campaign is over The campaign should be a civil war where both sides would have same weapons and type of units to pick from

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:00 pm
by Aryaman
I would like to have the option in campaign battles to save turns. Currently I have very little time to play, so while a single turn in MP can be a question of few minutes, to complete a battle in campaign takes much longer, and there is always something to do at home while I am on the verge of achieving a massive victory, and have to close the battle.

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:01 pm
by Paul59
Aryaman wrote:I would like to have the option in campaign battles to save turns. Currently I have very little time to play, so while a single turn in MP can be a question of few minutes, to complete a battle in campaign takes much longer, and there is always something to do at home while I am on the verge of achieving a massive victory, and have to close the battle.
But you can save campaign games in mid turn!

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:33 pm
by rbodleyscott
Aryaman wrote:I would like to have the option in campaign battles to save turns. Currently I have very little time to play, so while a single turn in MP can be a question of few minutes, to complete a battle in campaign takes much longer, and there is always something to do at home while I am on the verge of achieving a massive victory, and have to close the battle.
Campaign battles can be saved at any time except during the AI turn, the same as other battles.

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:53 pm
by Ktonos
More decision events between battles, while the decision's themselves should be more related to ancient warfare operational level decision making. As it currently is the decision part of the game are there to create an illusion that this is a campaign instead of a series of custom battles.

The battle engine and the army variety are of epic quality. The campaign part do them no justice. Apart from this, I don't remember any game dealing with ancient warfare that went through the operational level aspects of ancient campaigns.

In my opinion we should have more decisions. Each decision has more than two options, and each option should have a strong to severe impact to the next battle. Results could vary from having an extra "side" battle, avoiding a major battle, adding a friendly faction in your army choices, take casualties, lose or gain moral etc. Also, if the player is the invader or the defender should be defined and play a strong role in the decisions.

There are so many events that could give context and meaning. And we have the whole spectrum of history of ancient warfare operations to draw from. Decisions could be about:

1. The relations with the local powers where the campaign takes place. Befriend, intimidate or ignore the local powers?
2. Logistical issues. How will you feed the army? Raid, forage or have a huge baggage train to slow you down and make you target practice for skirmishers?
3. Maneuver the army to the appropriate field to offer battle. Maybe you have to sacrifice your rearguard to avoid fighting in that wooded map.
4. How do you handle wintering? Maybe if you don't have good relations with the locals, you must capture a city by force.

e.g. a decision could be: the X local city-state requests your military support against their rivals a) ignore them b) provide minor support (c) provide great support. a) leads to losing their roster from your battles for the rest of the campaign, b) leads to an automated random result of the battle between your friends and their rivals with different effects, and c) leads to an extra side battle of you against their rivals, where you will have options to add units from their roster but your loses ofcourse carry on to the campaign AND the future of your relations depend on the battle result regardless)

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:06 pm
by rbodleyscott
Thanks.

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:30 pm
by OliversArmy
Would it be possible to be able to select the type of terrain the campaign will be fought over?
I set up an Ancient British v Roman campaign and we appeared to be disturbing the peace in a rural Mediterranean setting at the first battle.
be good if we could restrict the area of operations.

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:30 am
by rbodleyscott
OliversArmy wrote:Would it be possible to be able to select the type of terrain the campaign will be fought over?
I set up an Ancient British v Roman campaign and we appeared to be disturbing the peace in a rural Mediterranean setting at the first battle.
be good if we could restrict the area of operations.
Yes, we have an idea how to prevent such oddities. (At present the program randomly chooses between the opposing sides' regions, but that does not work well for matchups like the one you played).

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:55 pm
by Adraeth
I feel more battles variations on sandbox campaign, it is just me or this was intended? ...ps I like it

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:30 pm
by fuzzayd
This is a menu suggestion for the multi-battle campaigns, so I both apologize if this is posting in the wrong place, or repeating another's comment. I love the game and have both downloaded community content and purchased Immortal Fire.

However, this leads to some tidiness/navigation issues in the multi-battle campaign selection. I am lucky to be a student of history so it is easy for me to separate the campaign of Xenophon from, say, the campaigns of Phyrros*. However I doubt everyone can separate so easily. I am wondering if it is possible to assign each campaign a menu, or an icon, indicating its status as base game, DLC, community content, etc.?

Perhaps simply adding a line above the text of the campaign description itself with 'Immortal Fire Campaign' or 'Rise of Rome Campaign' would suffice, as the rest of the campaign description text is clear and concise. I've attached a screenshot of the menu I'm referencing.
20171207071610_1.jpg
20171207071610_1.jpg (401.68 KiB) Viewed 3199 times
Thank you and thanks as well for the excellent game!

*(meant to say Phryrros rather than Seleukos)

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:34 pm
by rbodleyscott
It is a good suggestion.

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 6:17 am
by GiveWarAchance
I would really like to have a second type of campaign like Sengoku Jidai style where you get 2 or more piles of troops on a map of provinces that you have to take over and you can join or split armies and move them about the provinces whilst fighting enemy armies with some other clans also included perhaps. That sandbox style of campaign was what I like most about the Sengoku game. The reason I like it is cause the level of attrition in battle for both sides directly affects what we will have left for the next battles, and we can buy new troops after the tax collection season passes when money becomes available; therefore, the army sizes change a lot and the campaigns have a lot of replay value and I become personally attached to my campaigns.

Note that I also quite like the campaigns both sandbox and designed campaigns like Hannibal already in FOG2 with the series of battles and want more like them too in future DLCs.

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:53 am
by rbodleyscott
Thanks. We currently have no plans to add map campaigns, but we do have major improvements to the current campaign system in the pipeline.

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:00 pm
by GiveWarAchance
I'm looking forward to your campaigns. I like campaigns the best about these games. I can play Sengoku when I want a map style game.

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:14 am
by sull51
A sand box campaign based on supply and leadership

In ancient times as well throughout history victory in a campaign was based on maintaining supply and keeping the leadership alive besides killing the enemy.

If each side starts with 4,000 points in the first battle they deploy 1,600 points
When the total points fall below 2,000 points you deploy 1,200 points
When the total points fall below 1,000 points you deploy 800 points
When your campaign total fall to zero campaign is over

In each battle supply is represented by a supply unit (supply wagon) one per 400 points
With the loss of a supply unit you lose 400 points
With the loss of a leader unit you lose 400 points

As for combat losses the battle loser in addition to KIA losses includes wounded and prisoners
left behind The percentage of the combat losses would be subtracted from the points deployed

A campaign that is based on defending leadership and supply as well as killing the enemy will create a shorter but more enjoyable campaign in the long run.

Re: Sandbox Campaign suggestions

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:09 am
by rbodleyscott
Thanks. Sounds like a good idea for a manually run campaign.