DLC worth it?

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
lapdog666
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:25 pm

Re: DLC worth it?

Post by lapdog666 » Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:15 am

MikeC_81 wrote:
lapdog666 wrote: Take a look at this example: Gaulish Warband and Frankish warband look the same
while
Gothic Spearmen on other hand have their unique textures and models even
we are talking about Main units for these 3 factions, not talking about optional light cavalry

what is the rationalization here? arbitrarily devs decide who gets bare bones flavor and who doesn't, thats what it is

point is, fog2 is not a moba where only playstyle matters (even tho mobas have a lot of flavor). this game needs historical feeling, even if its sometimes historically incorrect , IF.
Take a risk
As mentioned, this is almost certainly a cost issue. 3D models and animations don't come cheap. It does raise a valid point about whether going 3D really makes it a better experience if it indeed is a steep increase in production cost, especially in a niche genre. Banner Saga is an excellent indie game that uses tile-based unit combat just like FoG2 but with 2D sprites and it looks fantastic. Though the decision for a 3D engine is obviously not something they can reverse course on.

In terms of mechanics, as I mentioned before I don't see any real reason to try and differentiate between Ptolemaic pikemen and Seleucid pikemen as you alluded to before. Any differences between the two almost certainly were superficial. There is no evidence they diverged significantly in terms of fighting tactics in the early years after Alexander's death. Certainly, you cannot say whether regional archers performed better or worse than their counterparts. We already do have things like Cretan archers as a separate and distinct unit because they were famed in the ancient world for this skill.

And the early Ptolemaic list plays very differently from an early Selecuid list. While superficially similar because they both have Pikes, the weight of the Seleucid army is focused much more on high-quality armoured cavalry and playing a more mobile game vs a distinct emphasis on foot units by the Ptolemaic lists where one they have access to very cost effective Raw Pikes as well as a much better selection of Medium Foot. They play against each other and against the opposing field much differently. The fact that you see them as similar may be because of your inclination to load up on heavy units no matter what army you end up playing.
Archaeologist1970 wrote:I'm glad this thing is finally getting called out for what it is. A great idea of a computer wargame, stuck with the fog paradigm, with a designer who's ideas are the only correct ones because of his years of tabletop gaming. Hate to break it to you, but many of us have many years of tabletop experience as well and when we tell you, units pushed back five turns in a row is not fun, not accurate, and your response is, that's the way it intended, you get comments like these above. This thing had so much potential with community ideas like make the generals do something, or we want a better campaign system, but they ignored.
Welcome back. I am surprised you didn't open with 'I have a masters in Classics so I must be right' :wink:
i agree about phalanx mechanics, there shouldnt be difference, but textures (as this is tabletop game kinda) should be different for each faction.

also regional units should be present imo , even if they are mechanically same, it helps to get to that nerdy table top feeling of : " here my babylonian archers in their unique clothes/textures are going to move forward" instead of " here my massed bowmen are going to move forward"

i know for some or many people this isnt an issue, but for me it is. not a huge issue but visible

you might say : " adding such unnecessary units takes our resources from creating new dlcs"
my answer to that is: well arent dlcs doing the exactly same thing

it comes down to where do we put our resources? into 300bc - 1AD or do we spread them all the way to the middle ages.
problem in my view is , that spreading resources all over the place results in bland factions. it doesnt help if there are 300 factions if most of them are not complete and if they feel the same or boring

frankly i am horrified when the only thing that differentiates between my seleucids and your ptolemaics (visually) is the name in the upper left corner during battle
i may also add that i am sceptical when it comes to dev's honesty regarding how much time is needed for X and Y (new textures)
i lie too , sometimes
Last edited by lapdog666 on Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:23 am, edited 6 times in total.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22316
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: DLC worth it?

Post by rbodleyscott » Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:18 am

Scutarii wrote:The RNG in game is sometimes very frustrating because looks used VS AI as a way to made battles "harder", i refer that is very easy VS AI see enemy units mantein firm VS a lot of better quality units in better combat status while your best units crack very fast.
As we have stated before, the game mechanics and RNG do not favour the AI in any way. This is a pillar of our game design philosophy.

The phenomenon of players perceiving the AI as "luckier" than they are is just part of human nature.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Scutarii
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 559
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:28 am

Re: DLC worth it?

Post by Scutarii » Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:00 am

The perception that RNG favour AI sure is subjetive but the presence of to much RNG is objetive apart strange mechanics that made 3 units in melee VS one when the unit break in the first attack the other 2 units in melee CANT perform any action... FOG II improve some aspects from FOG I but in others is a step back.

In the relation time-quality in DLCs i see a true killer rush DLCs with no "soul" than need another 3 months extra to have the next DLC... i refer that is good have every 3 months a DLC IF the DLC is well done and offer TRUE content... in the armies Belisarious offer (17 if i dont remember bad) over 50% are chaff armies that simple are copy paste with a change of name in units and army, nothing more... with that model i doubt i continue buying more DLCs for FOG II because is a waste of money and i can wait discounts and buy them for their real value.

The lack of diferent graphic models per army is obviously a money question and i can deal with it BUT the very poor army unit composition is more based in made it easy to have it faster... i dont see a lot quality in the part related with army units and if you cant release every army with his own "colours" and as bonus you made clonic armies with poor unit selection...

As i said except last 2 DCLs for FOG I i buy all them in release day, with FOG II i am doing the same even more, i had for free the base game + Inmortal fire for Steam and i buy them in Slitherine to support game but after Belisarious i am loosing interest in DCLs because the relation content/quality-cost is very low compared with FOG I.

This is a constructive criticism, you need invest more TIME and a little more money in DLCs if you want keep game alive and foment collector´s fever.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22316
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: DLC worth it?

Post by rbodleyscott » Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:07 am

Scutarii wrote:The perception that RNG favour AI sure is subjetive but the presence of to much RNG is objetive.
Apologies, I misunderstood your comment.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”