Generals

[JorgenCAB]

Generals did have a sphere of influence of their command in reality this should be reflected by your line of vision and their ability to send out runners to give orders to unit commanders. Also armies almost never moved in small individual cohort sized units but where divided into battles or smaller sections. As battle progressed it would become more chaotic and difficult to control. A commander leading from the back like Ceasar did have an important advantage over leading troops from the front such as Alexander, this is also evident in the way Caesar managed to react to battle conditions over more involved generals.

As jomni said above, the reason we did not make the effect of generals more important than we did (in Sengoku Jidai and FOG2) was to avoid degrading the AI compared with a player.

It isn't an oversight, it is a deliberate design decision for the overall benefit of the game as a game.

And this I completely understand... would be nice with an advanced command mode for multi-player or Hotseat down the road though.

[TDefender]

There are several "omissis" in FoG 2 which in my humble opinion seem to come from engine's limits rather than "deliberate design decision". With the exception of the army movement (which is a nice feature but nothing amazing) anything that is not the previous titles (P&S and and Shadow of the Shogun) is not in FoG 2, I really don't think it's just a case

[lapdog666]

There are several "omissis" in FoG 2 which in my humble opinion seem to come from engine's limits rather than "deliberate design decision". With the exception of the army movement (which is a nice feature but nothing amazing) anything that is not the previous titles (P&S and and Shadow of the Shogun) is not in FoG 2, I really don't think it's just a case

after thinking about it i think the biggest issue of fog 2 for me currently (besides non existant live mp and generic units ) is Command structure/flavor and Generals being too simple

i'd like to be able to pick what kind of general i want. ofcourse devs can make that choice be huge ,significant or minor. but give me something to work with

also each unit on the map could have its own commander, which can interact with the main generals. deeper representation of Command structure would be something i 'd love, without it being too complicated.

also units should be harder to move where we want them to move, if not in general's range

keeping the game tidy ,clean and simple while sacrificing reasonable complexity is not something anyone from non arcade camp should accept
and moving the game slightly/considerably towards arcade camp , only because of AI, is not acceptable imo

[JorgenCAB]

There are several "omissis" in FoG 2 which in my humble opinion seem to come from engine's limits rather than "deliberate design decision". With the exception of the army movement (which is a nice feature but nothing amazing) anything that is not the previous titles (P&S and and Shadow of the Shogun) is not in FoG 2, I really don't think it's just a case

after thinking about it i think the biggest issue of fog 2 for me currently (besides non existant live mp and generic units ) is Command structure/flavor and Generals being too simple

i'd like to be able to pick what kind of general i want. ofcourse devs can make that choice be huge ,significant or minor. but give me something to work with

also each unit on the map could have its own commander, which can interact with the main generals. deeper representation of Command structure would be something i 'd love, without it being too complicated.

also units should be harder to move where we want them to move, if not in general's range

keeping the game tidy ,clean and simple while sacrificing reasonable complexity is not something anyone from non arcade camp should accept
and moving the game slightly/considerably towards arcade camp , only because of AI, is not acceptable imo

That is why they could have an advanced MP (and Hotseat) mode not available in SP mode, done!

[lapdog666]

There are several "omissis" in FoG 2 which in my humble opinion seem to come from engine's limits rather than "deliberate design decision". With the exception of the army movement (which is a nice feature but nothing amazing) anything that is not the previous titles (P&S and and Shadow of the Shogun) is not in FoG 2, I really don't think it's just a case

after thinking about it i think the biggest issue of fog 2 for me currently (besides non existant live mp and generic units ) is Command structure/flavor and Generals being too simple

i'd like to be able to pick what kind of general i want. ofcourse devs can make that choice be huge ,significant or minor. but give me something to work with

also each unit on the map could have its own commander, which can interact with the main generals. deeper representation of Command structure would be something i 'd love, without it being too complicated.

also units should be harder to move where we want them to move, if not in general's range

keeping the game tidy ,clean and simple while sacrificing reasonable complexity is not something anyone from non arcade camp should accept
and moving the game slightly/considerably towards arcade camp , only because of AI, is not acceptable imo

That is why they could have an advanced MP (and Hotseat) mode not available in SP mode, done!

i completely agree. now we just need to convince them to do it, sooner than 2019 anno domini

[MikeC_81]

Generals did have a sphere of influence of their command in reality this should be reflected by your line of vision and their ability to send out runners to give orders to unit commanders. Also armies almost never moved in small individual cohort sized units but where divided into battles or smaller sections. As battle progressed it would become more chaotic and difficult to control. A commander leading from the back like Ceasar did have an important advantage over leading troops from the front such as Alexander, this is also evident in the way Caesar managed to react to battle conditions over more involved generals.

This is difficult to comment on given inherent lack of consistency in human behavior and the lack of first hand sources from the soldiers themselves who fought in ancient times as the effect of a General. I do personally believe that a General's presence does have some impact given my readings on wars and battles in time periods where we do have a good written record.

The American Civil War for example, is replete with first hand accounts where the presence of a Commanding General and his personal display of courage riding up and down the battle line shouting encouragement helped firm up the resolve of his men in difficult situations and kept them from breaking. This was a very real effect according to them men in the ranks who wrote these accounts and I could see how an Alexander or a Henry V who stood on the battle line and personally led troops in the fray or at least made their presence known could inspire large bodies of men to hold or attack in situations where they could not have done so without.

However I also recognize the time when the presence of a General did much of nothing at all to stem the tide of a retreat or had to personally invest himself into rallying single units at a time during a rout. My favorite story is from Gettysburg where Oliver Howard was trying to rally his broken Corps on the first day and he had to personally convince a colour bearer for a regiment to come with him side by side and plant the regimental colours back on the north slope of Cementary Hill to rally his regiment.

So yes imo there are cases both for and against some sort of "aura" but also times where like in the game, a General has to personally invest himself for a significant period of time to rally or firm up exceedingly small bodies of men.

Edit: I recognize the developer's stance on this however. I would personally never make a game design stance based on whether or not the AI could handle it since the AI is always a poor substitute in any game but I don't see it as a massive issue or that it does some great injustice to the subject matter.

[JorgenCAB]

Generals did have a sphere of influence of their command in reality this should be reflected by your line of vision and their ability to send out runners to give orders to unit commanders. Also armies almost never moved in small individual cohort sized units but where divided into battles or smaller sections. As battle progressed it would become more chaotic and difficult to control. A commander leading from the back like Ceasar did have an important advantage over leading troops from the front such as Alexander, this is also evident in the way Caesar managed to react to battle conditions over more involved generals.

This is difficult to comment on given inherent lack of consistency in human behavior and the lack of first hand sources from the soldiers themselves who fought in ancient times as the effect of a General. I do personally believe that a General's presence does have some impact given my readings on wars and battles in time periods where we do have a good written record.

The American Civil War for example, is replete with first hand accounts where the presence of a Commanding General and his personal display of courage riding up and down the battle line shouting encouragement helped firm up the resolve of his men in difficult situations and kept them from breaking. This was a very real effect according to them men in the ranks who wrote these accounts and I could see how an Alexander or a Henry V who stood on the battle line and personally led troops in the fray or at least made their presence known could inspire large bodies of men to hold or attack in situations where they could not have done so without.

However I also recognize the time when the presence of a General did much of nothing at all to stem the tide of a retreat or had to personally invest himself into rallying single units at a time during a rout. My favorite story is from Gettysburg where Oliver Howard was trying to rally his broken Corps on the first day and he had to personally convince a colour bearer for a regiment to come with him side by side and plant the regimental colours back on the north slope of Cementary Hill to rally his regiment.

So yes imo there are cases both for and against some sort of "aura" but also times where like in the game, a General has to personally invest himself for a significant period of time to rally or firm up exceedingly small bodies of men.

Edit: I recognize the developer's stance on this however. I would personally never make a game design stance based on whether or not the AI could handle it since the AI is always a poor substitute in any game but I don't see it as a massive issue or that it does some great injustice to the subject matter.

I would say that since time is an abstract thing and a turn does not have to be a specific set of minutes or hours at any given turn and neither does a generals exact whereabouts at any given time then having some sphere of influence is reasonable. But this sphere of influence could very well differ depending on what type of influence you are talking about.
When it comes to rallying troops it should most likely be something very close such as giving a bonus to any square next to him an guarantee a roll with the unit he is with. When it comes to giving orders to units that is not in melee that range should be as far as he can see but with diminishing effect the further out he tries to effect the troops.
Coherence of troops in his current command should probably also play a big role on his ability to command at distance to. If troops in his immediate command are disrupted and not in line formation most of his effort would automatically be caught up in that and therefore his area of influence would diminish. There could very well be some point system with some random numbers tied to it, or some such.

In any way, a command system have to be abstract enough to simulate the effect of command decently... I don't believe in detailed systems because they always break down in that you can't get all the details right anyway.

As of the developers stance in AI and development I actually agree with them. The AI in a game MUST be able to use ALL the game mechanics or I would consider the game broken. Every layer of mechanic you introduce to a game the AI can't use properly will propagate in its difficulty in a squared fashion. But they could very well have features for MP only since a game like this is very much MP friendly and probably the best way to enjoy it.

[lapdog666]

Generals did have a sphere of influence of their command in reality this should be reflected by your line of vision and their ability to send out runners to give orders to unit commanders. Also armies almost never moved in small individual cohort sized units but where divided into battles or smaller sections. As battle progressed it would become more chaotic and difficult to control. A commander leading from the back like Ceasar did have an important advantage over leading troops from the front such as Alexander, this is also evident in the way Caesar managed to react to battle conditions over more involved generals.

This is difficult to comment on given inherent lack of consistency in human behavior and the lack of first hand sources from the soldiers themselves who fought in ancient times as the effect of a General. I do personally believe that a General's presence does have some impact given my readings on wars and battles in time periods where we do have a good written record.

The American Civil War for example, is replete with first hand accounts where the presence of a Commanding General and his personal display of courage riding up and down the battle line shouting encouragement helped firm up the resolve of his men in difficult situations and kept them from breaking. This was a very real effect according to them men in the ranks who wrote these accounts and I could see how an Alexander or a Henry V who stood on the battle line and personally led troops in the fray or at least made their presence known could inspire large bodies of men to hold or attack in situations where they could not have done so without.

However I also recognize the time when the presence of a General did much of nothing at all to stem the tide of a retreat or had to personally invest himself into rallying single units at a time during a rout. My favorite story is from Gettysburg where Oliver Howard was trying to rally his broken Corps on the first day and he had to personally convince a colour bearer for a regiment to come with him side by side and plant the regimental colours back on the north slope of Cementary Hill to rally his regiment.

So yes imo there are cases both for and against some sort of "aura" but also times where like in the game, a General has to personally invest himself for a significant period of time to rally or firm up exceedingly small bodies of men.

Edit: I recognize the developer's stance on this however. I would personally never make a game design stance based on whether or not the AI could handle it since the AI is always a poor substitute in any game but I don't see it as a massive issue or that it does some great injustice to the subject matter.

I would say that since time is an abstract thing and a turn does not have to be a specific set of minutes or hours at any given turn and neither does a generals exact whereabouts at any given time then having some sphere of influence is reasonable. But this sphere of influence could very well differ depending on what type of influence you are talking about.
When it comes to rallying troops it should most likely be something very close such as giving a bonus to any square next to him an guarantee a roll with the unit he is with. When it comes to giving orders to units that is not in melee that range should be as far as he can see but with diminishing effect the further out he tries to effect the troops.
Coherence of troops in his current command should probably also play a big role on his ability to command at distance to. If troops in his immediate command are disrupted and not in line formation most of his effort would automatically be caught up in that and therefore his area of influence would diminish. There could very well be some point system with some random numbers tied to it, or some such.

In any way, a command system have to be abstract enough to simulate the effect of command decently... I don't believe in detailed systems because they always break down in that you can't get all the details right anyway.

As of the developers stance in AI and development I actually agree with them. The AI in a game MUST be able to use ALL the game mechanics or I would consider the game broken. Every layer of mechanic you introduce to a game the AI can't use properly will propagate in its difficulty in a squared fashion. But they could very well have features for MP only since a game like this is very much MP friendly and probably the best way to enjoy it.

problem is, ai is already de facto broken against experienced players

give us mp players superior game, and SP guys can continue their game , everybody wins

[Christolos]

Light troops do not need to join a group under a commander. They have their own skirmish group if you haven't noticed. This is only for the convenience of group move at the start of battle.
Unmaneovrable units stay that way, no free 45 degree turn. No movement benefit except for the convenience of group move.

Commander improves rallying only for the unit they occupy. The mere presence of a nearby commander in another unit does not help rally troops. He is a normal human being and does not have a "magical aura" that inspires people miles away like you see in many games. Just imagine the commander physically rallying (shouting, whipping) the troops himself so only the unit he occupies is affected. But the death of a commander will affect the unit he occupies and adjacent units.

Take note that if the commanders were made more influential, it would then be very crucial for the AI to learn how to use them properly. The developers made the effects important but subtle so that the AI won't be handicapped severely. AI in many games break because of many rules and details that the AI cannot handle. Keeping the rules manageable makes the AI in this series (Pike and Shot, Sengoku Jidai, Field of Glory 2) plausible and puts up a good challenge without "cheating" (die roll bonuses).

Thanks jomni and all others who have commented.

So the only extra advantage unmaneovrable units get by being attached to a command, is the ability to group move?

This doesn't really amount to a benefit when each unit can still be moved individually if not attached to a command.

I also noticed that light troops don't need to be attached to a command, so why does the game design allow them to be attached if there is no added benefit?

Cheers,

C

[JorgenCAB]

Only reason is if would want to swap a general to any of those units. A general can only be in a unit within his command except for the C-in-C.

There is basically no reason not to get you general stuck in if you have mostly unmaneouverabe units.

[MikeC_81]

Thanks jomni and all others who have commented.

So the only extra advantage unmaneovrable units get by being attached to a command, is the ability to group move?

This doesn't really amount to a benefit when each unit can still be moved individually if not attached to a command.

I also noticed that light troops don't need to be attached to a command, so why does the game design allow them to be attached if there is no added benefit?

Cheers,

C

If you have unmaneuverable units, the only advantage is that your Generals will confer a +50 PoA in combat and once the General is in combat, units that are within command range/4 tiles of him get a +1 to any morale checks they have to make (ie lose in combat, test morale or be disrupted/fragmented). The +50 PoA is not game breaking, but it isn't chicken feed either. The morale check is also very useful especially if you have average or raw troops that are are 50/50 to pass any checks and might get disrupted. A big thing in this game is forcing your opponent to make morale checks and failing them. Even a very sturdy unit like Legionaries that don't rely on specific PoA boosts tied to morale lose a boatload of effectiveness when even their morale drops to fragmented or disrupted. To the point where they will lose against units they normally beat or draw against and thus start the chain reaction of taking another morale test and drop another morale level. A General in combat is very useful to counteract or tilt the odds in these situations

This is balanced by the risk that a General in combat could be killed. C&C's from my early experience make the best foot generals for maneuverable units since they have a big command range and can cover a lot of a heavy foot line. Sub Generals tend to have much smaller command zones so their benefit is much smaller in combat. I stick most of those in as cavalry units to give them an extra oomph if they get a chance to flank someone so I can really put the hurt on them.

problem is, ai is already de facto broken against experienced players

give us mp players superior game, and SP guys can continue their game , everybody wins

Hmm not sure if making the SP a different game rules wise, is a good idea. After some more thought, the current system sounds pretty good. I would rather have the General give his +1 to morale tests regardless of whether he is in action or not but that is such a minor nitpick to justify bifurcating the rules.

[lapdog666]

Thanks jomni and all others who have commented.

So the only extra advantage unmaneovrable units get by being attached to a command, is the ability to group move?

This doesn't really amount to a benefit when each unit can still be moved individually if not attached to a command.

I also noticed that light troops don't need to be attached to a command, so why does the game design allow them to be attached if there is no added benefit?

Cheers,

C

If you have unmaneuverable units, the only advantage is that your Generals will confer a +50 PoA in combat and once the General is in combat, units that are within command range/4 tiles of him get a +1 to any morale checks they have to make (ie lose in combat, test morale or be disrupted/fragmented). The +50 PoA is not game breaking, but it isn't chicken feed either. The morale check is also very useful especially if you have average or raw troops that are are 50/50 to pass any checks and might get disrupted. A big thing in this game is forcing your opponent to make morale checks and failing them. Even a very sturdy unit like Legionaries that don't rely on specific PoA boosts tied to morale lose a boatload of effectiveness when even their morale drops to fragmented or disrupted. To the point where they will lose against units they normally beat or draw against and thus start the chain reaction of taking another morale test and drop another morale level. A General in combat is very useful to counteract or tilt the odds in these situations

This is balanced by the risk that a General in combat could be killed. C&C's from my early experience make the best foot generals for maneuverable units since they have a big command range and can cover a lot of a heavy foot line. Sub Generals tend to have much smaller command zones so their benefit is much smaller in combat. I stick most of those in as cavalry units to give them an extra oomph if they get a chance to flank someone so I can really put the hurt on them.

problem is, ai is already de facto broken against experienced players

give us mp players superior game, and SP guys can continue their game , everybody wins

Hmm not sure if making the SP a different game rules wise, is a good idea. After some more thought, the current system sounds pretty good. I would rather have the General give his +1 to morale tests regardless of whether he is in action or not but that is such a minor nitpick to justify bifurcating the rules.

those bonuses seem about fine , they are easily modable i think, but my main point is to make generals interaction with units more complex,more important ,less abstract and harder

changes to the relation of Line of sight/command range to our ability to issue orders in short

also general dying is not a big deal, usually i just continue as if nothing happened

[Scutarii]

Maybe one thing you can do is made all units have a commander and create a semi chain command system.

-Made the General units have lower command range.
-Made that units have a commander that have a radious of 1-2 squares that represent his area to receive orders.
-Commanders need be inside the radious of a general or a commander that is in general radious to be under general command.
-If general is killed the commanders under his command pass a cohesion test and as a chain reaction the cohesion test expand for commanders in command chain but far from general is the commander lower chance to lose test.
-Kill a commander only affect the unit he commands.

In the end until appear radio and other comunication systems or you use guys to send orders or you use visual system.

Kill a general now is only know for units that can see falling and this for me is ok to represent a effect area reduced of 1-2 squares.

[kujalar]

Maybe some kind of a command point system would help. That could also give friction to units in command radius.
This is turn based game, and as such it is hard to implement friction.

If you could form groups of warbands those groups could have a leader and leader could have a command capacity. Shooting would be free, but moving would cost some capacity points. If you move whole troop it would cost a point and if you would move a single unit, it would cost also a point. Something like that perhaps.

[AlessandroD]

It is too early for me to have a good understanding about the leadership (around 15 games so far, 10 MP and the rest SP) but my feeling is rather neutral.
I mean, I don't see anything bad or broken but nothing very interesting or difficult neither.
Just put your generals in the middle of the line and charge if your units are going down, at the moment you don't have important tactical choices to make them a challenge during the game.

Of course, imho

[lapdog666]

It is too early for me to have a good understanding about the leadership (around 15 games so far, 10 MP and the rest SP) but my feeling is rather neutral.
I mean, I don't see anything bad or broken but nothing very interesting or difficult neither.
Just put your generals in the middle of the line and charge if your units are going down, at the moment you don't have important tactical choices to make them a challenge during the game.

Of course, imho

same, could be imporoved considerably

[lapdog666]

any plans by the devs to improve generals/cnc?

[Kaede11]

I don't want to seem disrespectful but I don't understand why "the ai can't handle this" is a justification for simplifiying the game.

Some aspects of the rules could be simplified or streamlined if it makes up for an entertaining and maybe better product while remaining as satisfiying as the original rules. Changing rules because "The ai can't handle them" is a bad excuse from my point of view and it should not be accepted. My answer to this would be "Improve the ai, so it can handle it". And if that's not possible, well, try a different approach which mimic old rules... without making the AI hopeless when interacting with them.

I don't care if the AI does not perfectly know how to use X rule of the game. Maybe they just use it properly 60% / 70% of the time. We, as a players, can work around this and we'll comment here, in these forums, if the AI does something horribly wrong. We all know that the real deal are other humans and there is no game in the market with an AI being as good as a human rival. Whenever I player against the AI I just expect them to play well enough to be entertaining and this means not being horribly stupid. It doesn't have to be a world class player.

I'm having fun with the game and it's good, but I just can't understand it when the devs justify not including extra rules that would make the game more interesting / strategic (and were available in the first FOG!) because the AI can't handle it. And I can't understand why us, as players, accept that answer.

As I said I don't want anyone to feel insulted or offended, but that's how I feel about it. I'm having a great time with the game and I expect it to become even better with every new versions and dlc which I'll buy for sure.

[TDefender]

I don't want to seem disrespectful but I don't understand why "the ai can't handle this" is a justification for simplifiying the game.

I don't want to seem disrespectful too but imho all those "choices" came from the limit of the engine rather than deliberate developing ideas. Just play Pike and Shot or Sengoku (very good games) or check out the manuals and you will find that graphics is (obviously) changed a lot (and I find it amazing!) but the gameplay simply isn't. The more I play it the more I think they just shouldn't call it FoG 2. New dlc just adding new armies won't get things better, at least for me.

[Kaede11]

I don't want to seem disrespectful but I don't understand why "the ai can't handle this" is a justification for simplifiying the game.

I don't want to seem disrespectful too but imho all those "choices" came from the limit of the engine rather than deliberate developing ideas. Just play Pike and Shot or Sengoku (very good games) or check out the manuals and you will find that graphics is (obviously) changed a lot (and I find it amazing!) but the gameplay simply isn't. The more I play it the more I think they just shouldn't call it FoG 2. New dlc just adding new armies won't get things better, at least for me.

Maybe not just adding armies but also changing some mechanics and adding others.