Slitherine

I hope there will be some user made guides for this game. The manual has many useful information but there is still a place for guides focused strictly on the battle and combat rules. For example I can't find in the manual precise values for autobreak for each quality level. Actually I cant even find any complete list of the quality levels.
For now the best sources to learn the game are the manual and the detailed combat reports.

I will use CheatEngine when buying units in skirmishes to increase points for experimentation with lots of units. Also, to beat the AI

Watch YouTube? Though some of them are also clueless on intricacies of the rules.

I have been playing with potluck armies in random battles, and it's been pretty fun. I actually win more often than I lose, which is not true of my experience in Pike & Shot.

Cheimison wrote:I have been playing with potluck armies in random battles, and it's been pretty fun. I actually win more often than I lose, which is not true of my experience in Pike & Shot.

Time to increase difficulty. Hahaha

jomni wrote:

Cheimison wrote:I have been playing with potluck armies in random battles, and it's been pretty fun. I actually win more often than I lose, which is not true of my experience in Pike & Shot.

Time to increase difficulty. Hahaha

I rarely play on difficulties above normal/medium. I get frustrated easily, and I'd rather get to the point where I can smash in a game and move onto something else. Especially because I have like 30 strategy/operational/tactical games and have hardly played most of them.

jomni wrote:Watch YouTube? Though some of them are also clueless on intricacies of the rules.

The problem I find with YT is as newbie how do you sort out what it and isn’t worth watching.

Jabster wrote:

jomni wrote:Watch YouTube? Though some of them are also clueless on intricacies of the rules.

The problem I find with YT is as newbie how do you sort out what it and isn’t worth watching.

Something AGEOD does which I wish more companies did: make detailed tutorial videos by people that know how to play the game.

Cheimison wrote:

Jabster wrote:

jomni wrote:Watch YouTube? Though some of them are also clueless on intricacies of the rules.

The problem I find with YT is as newbie how do you sort out what it and isn’t worth watching.

Something AGEOD does which I wish more companies did: make detailed tutorial videos by people that know how to play the game.

So far the only negative I have for the game is the tutorial battles as although the explain some of the mechanics they aren’t that good at how the game fits together. Showing me how to buy units for my army is easy, how I balance my army is harder.

Bombax wrote:I'm wondering if the Seleucids might be a bit confusing for a 'beginner'? I agree that Romans are a good choice, also maybe try the Gauls - pretty effective Warband and Cavalry, and relatively simple to use!

Why do you say this, please? I am interested in knowing what about the Seleucids would be confusing for a beginner? Thank you!

FroBodine wrote:

Bombax wrote:I'm wondering if the Seleucids might be a bit confusing for a 'beginner'? I agree that Romans are a good choice, also maybe try the Gauls - pretty effective Warband and Cavalry, and relatively simple to use!

Why do you say this, please? I am interested in knowing what about the Seleucids would be confusing for a beginner? Thank you!

The Seleucids have a very wide range of available units, many of which are expensive and unusual. They can be played more or less as a straight phalanx army, though, if you manually buy the army.

Jabster wrote:So far the only negative I have for the game is the tutorial battles as although the explain some of the mechanics they aren’t that good at how the game fits together. Showing me how to buy units for my army is easy, how I balance my army is harder.

This is the mark of a good game I think. Easy to learn, hard to master. The rules of chess are straight-forward, but it's hard to teach someone to be good from the start.

How to balance your army - first questions are: which army; what terrain; what opponent army?

Lots of practice against the AI helps because the AI is already quite respectable - not perfect, and it is going to be improved slightly, but it's far better as an opponent for practice than many other games' AI. You can practice different army compositions, quit the game after a few moves if you can see it's not working out... all without waiting for an opponent or annoying someone. You can save at the end of each turn, if you realize you've made a terrible blunder in a previous move, just go back to there and try again. This isn't cheating, since your goal is to learn. You can also practice against different opponent tactics, aside from the AI, by playing a hotseat game against yourself.

Regarding youtube, if someone has quite a few games uploaded, especially if they were doing beta testing, then that can indicate they've got a reasonable grasp of the game. Even if they aren't a perfect player you learn from their mistakes, and their successes, and you see a variety of play styles.

For me, the biggest help is seeing other players do their thing.

DasTactic has a nice playthrough of a campaign he made starting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT1SI51j-zE&t=43s

If you search 'Let's Play Field of Glory II' on youtube I bet there are more. I've started my own but I'm hardly good enough to learn from

Thanks for all the advice and ideas. Currently I’m concentrating on trying to get more to grips with deployment (use of terrain) and having an overall plan but for the moment I still let the army be auto-filled. The AI seems decent enough, playing at level III, to give a challenge but not be overwhelming. One thing it does seem to make a habit of is its powerful units being too easily distracted by weaker units. I’ve decided not to try and employ this as a tactic as it doesn’t seem to be a good one for real opponents.

Of course sod’s law dictates that when I try and carefully set up my troops with a strong force on one flank the AI has the same idea!

Jabster wrote:. One thing it does seem to make a habit of is its powerful units being too easily distracted by weaker units. I’ve decided not to try and employ this as a tactic as it doesn’t seem to be a good one for real opponents.

Once my skirmishers are out of ammo that's the best thing I've found to do with them. It's funny watching the Romans send two cohorts from their reserve to fight a half dead bunch of archers while I roll up their flank a few squares away.

Cheimison wrote:

Jabster wrote:. One thing it does seem to make a habit of is its powerful units being too easily distracted by weaker units. I’ve decided not to try and employ this as a tactic as it doesn’t seem to be a good one for real opponents.

Once my skirmishers are out of ammo that's the best thing I've found to do with them. It's funny watching the Romans send two cohorts from their reserve to fight a half dead bunch of archers while I roll up their flank a few squares away.

To be fair I think it does a pretty decent job considering how hard it is to translate what can be quite abstract ideas into a set of ‘rules’ to follow. To many AI’s seem limited to either doing really dumb things or just sitting in place and waiting to be attacked. I also like the idea that the difficult level is changed by the amount of units and not that the AI is luckier. The latter just doesn’t help the suspension of disbelief.

Jabster wrote:

Cheimison wrote:

Jabster wrote:. One thing it does seem to make a habit of is its powerful units being too easily distracted by weaker units. I’ve decided not to try and employ this as a tactic as it doesn’t seem to be a good one for real opponents.

Once my skirmishers are out of ammo that's the best thing I've found to do with them. It's funny watching the Romans send two cohorts from their reserve to fight a half dead bunch of archers while I roll up their flank a few squares away.

To be fair I think it does a pretty decent job considering how hard it is to translate what can be quite abstract ideas into a set of ‘rules’ to follow. To many AI’s seem limited to either doing really dumb things or just sitting in place and waiting to be attacked. I also like the idea that the difficult level is changed by the amount of units and not that the AI is luckier. The latter just doesn’t help the suspension of disbelief.

The AI is most unlikely to chase light foot with legions. I suspect that was a player, not the AI.

The AI is most unlikely to chase light foot with legions. I suspect that was a player, not the AI.[/quote]

The ones I remember, in the context of human memory being quite fallible, where an elephant and pike unit (both on flanks) becoming preoccupied with light units. It could of course by my understanding of the game but it would have seemed better to take the pain and join the main fight where they were really needed.

Jabster wrote:

The AI is most unlikely to chase light foot with legions. I suspect that was a player, not the AI.

The ones I remember, in the context of human memory being quite fallible, where an elephant and pike unit (both on flanks) becoming preoccupied with light units. It could of course by my understanding of the game but it would have seemed better to take the pain and join the main fight where they were really needed.

No doubt. If you get another example of this, could you take a screenshot please, as generally speaking non-light troops are scripted to mostly ignore light troops.

I certainly will if I see something unusual again. As a slight aside it’s very refreshing to see the dev. team interacting with the community so much.