Slitherine

I bought the base game when it came out but kinda got bored in the end by the RNG based system. Have the patches and DLC improved the game?

Searry wrote:I bought the base game when it came out but kinda got bored in the end by the RNG based system. Have the patches and DLC improved the game?

I would say yes of course the patches/DLC's have improved the game. If you dont like "random number generation" though, that is still there and not fundamentally changed.

I'm considering buying this game. What is the RNG being discussed here?
Thanks.

stormbringer3 wrote:I'm considering buying this game. What is the RNG being discussed here?
Thanks.

The op was vague in his complaint, but like most war games combat etc has a degree of randomness to it. So on a macro scale, two mirror image armies of equivalent units, except one side of superior quality, that one(excluding really good tactics) will prevail. On a unit by unit basis though, the average unit might here or there win a local combat.

Maybe he prefers chess or rocks-papers-scissors type games; where there's no randomness and just pure strategy.

I greatly disliked the incalculable and unpredictable results when sometimes you had a massive advantage. It really threw you off many times in multiplayer. I feel like you had greater predictability in Pike and Shot for example.

Searry wrote:I greatly disliked the incalculable and unpredictable results when sometimes you had a massive advantage. It really threw you off many times in multiplayer. I feel like you had greater predictability in Pike and Shot for example.

Yes there is a small element of uncertainty but if your complaints were valid about the effects of RNG changing the course of games with such regularity how do you explain how the best players in the Digital League and indeed Slitherine's own MP tournaments consistently top the leader boards ?

Should I be consulting them for lottery numbers ?

devoncop wrote:

Searry wrote:I greatly disliked the incalculable and unpredictable results when sometimes you had a massive advantage. It really threw you off many times in multiplayer. I feel like you had greater predictability in Pike and Shot for example.

Yes there is a small element of uncertainty but if your complaints were valid about the effects of RNG changing the course of games with such regularity how do you explain how the best players in the Digital League and indeed Slitherine's own MP tournaments consistently top the leader boards ?

Should I be consulting them for lottery numbers ?

Hmm, I did not know that. Maybe it is confirmation bias then? I probably should buy the DLC and start working on my skills again.

i love the game, in my top 3 (non rpg) games i EVER played but i see very little value in dlcs. even base game is thin on units and flavor, these dlcs create another bland era. but considering how good the game is , id buy dlcs just to support it (and tt mod helps with blandness)

lapdog666 wrote:i love the game, in my top 3 (non rpg) games i EVER played but i see very little value in dlcs. even base game is thin on units and flavor, these dlcs create another bland era. but considering how good the game is , id buy dlcs just to support it (and tt mod helps with blandness)

If you like multiplayer and the most compatibility with other players, getting the DLC is the way to go.
There is some subtle change during different eras. If you know your history, you will notice.
That said, sticking to the base game is also good as engine updates still make their way into the game. DLC are just optional anyway.

The base game is very good, DLCs add more variety in army types... here maybe i find "Inmortal fire" as the best of all 3 avaliable DLCs with "Legions Triumphant" very close... saddly last DLC for me add not a lot variety in the army options and increase the number of "empty armies", i think that around over 50% of the armies avaliable in DLCs are formed by very limited unit options and very clonic with ridiculous armies with only 3 unit types... here as FOG I veteran find the army composition become in FOG II a lot more simple and poor in unit options (there is a mod that for me rise a lot the quality of army composition apart improve the art part).

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.

In general game has a to much RNG taste specially in the moment in FOG II medium infantry see increased his combat value at the cost of be less mobile (i prefer medium foot base more his value in mobility and ability to catch enemy flanks-rear and in combat only a better performance in defense to stay alive a little more but NOT at the point of perform heavy infantry role).

I like the game but oposite to FOG I i dont find every new DLC expand options as i expected... maybe next DLC needs be something more than a bunch of "new" lists and need jump more in time, or to medieval era or to very early era... but with total diferent armies and a more deep composition to increase the quality in the options you have.

Scutarii wrote:The base game is very good, DLCs add more variety in army types... here maybe i find "Inmortal fire" as the best of all 3 avaliable DLCs with "Legions Triumphant" very close... saddly last DLC for me add not a lot variety in the army options and increase the number of "empty armies", i think that around over 50% of the armies avaliable in DLCs are formed by very limited unit options and very clonic with ridiculous armies with only 3 unit types... here as FOG I veteran find the army composition become in FOG II a lot more simple and poor in unit options (there is a mod that for me rise a lot the quality of army composition apart improve the art part).

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.

In general game has a to much RNG taste specially in the moment in FOG II medium infantry see increased his combat value at the cost of be less mobile (i prefer medium foot base more his value in mobility and ability to catch enemy flanks-rear and in combat only a better performance in defense to stay alive a little more but NOT at the point of perform heavy infantry role).

I like the game but oposite to FOG I i dont find every new DLC expand options as i expected... maybe next DLC needs be something more than a bunch of "new" lists and need jump more in time, or to medieval era or to very early era... but with total diferent armies and a more deep composition to increase the quality in the options you have.

problem is they have set a certain standard by now.(very low standard in my opinion) they cannot afford and do not want to increase it now substantially. we will never see a dlc which creates completely full and complete Faction.

if i could choose i 'd rather choose following COMPLETE factions : 2 european tribes , rome, carthage, 3 diadochi, 1 or 2 greek cities or leagues ,parthians and indians instead of these dead and completely untrue army lists and factions.

like who enjoys playing ligurians? except just for fun to see the abomination in action

i cannot believe that people see value in army list : 1)generic irregular foot 2) generic cataphract 3) generic Archers

and there are tons of such unrealistic and boring lists

even diadochi for example: we do not have different textures for their armies. different textures should be given to each diadochi,because frankly what is the difference between early seleucids and early ptolemais. + - number of thureophoroi lol. why even bother have them both. i mean i am sorry but i cant be tricked that way

i'd add regional units , for example carian medium infantry, babylonian archers, syrian archers, nubian X Y . where is ptolemaic royal guard where are peltastai outside phalanx formation.. there are way too many units missing for me to consider these dlcs seriously , from a quality persepective

the only faction that seems to be completed or is complete and does not need substantial rework is Rome , in every dlc. faction that passes the test

In general FOG II offer a more simple buy list compared with FOG I, this is good and bad, good because you dont break your head with all that artificial limitations in units that come in groups (you can buy a minimum of 2 and a max of 5 of X-Y-Z units) but at same time kill the variety of units, in what they can offer and model variety (a basic unit NEEDS diferent model per army and even diferent stats to complete more limited armies).

The TT mod for me offer more what game needs be because vainilla is to simple at the point that after buy 3 DLCs i am burned compared with FOG I and i only dont buy last 2 DLCs here because they cant work over 1.8.1 version of game (the rework was a complete disaster and i admit i feel sad to dont add vikings).

I really expect next DLC be a change and introduce something really new and that made me want buy it because if follow the actual progresion... every DLC for me has lower value compared with the previous one... with more armies in the list news DLCs introduce less diferent armies.

Maybe if they dont want rework army lists, at least can offer the option to buy for an army "mercenaries" paying more for that kind units as a way to complete an army poor in options and introduce a certain random component in battles... or introduce the allied system like in FOG I.

PD: i am curious about whats going to be next DLC, i think move focus to medieval period is a better movement than expand more armies between Belisarious and medieval period... a more complex DLC, that even could work as new game for non FOG II buyers and as DLC for FOG II buyers of course with a little higher price... full price if you dont have FOG II and around 20 € if you have FOG II (with 2 € discount for every DLC you have to).

Lets see what they are going to do now.

Scutarii wrote:In general FOG II offer a more simple buy list compared with FOG I, this is good and bad, good because you dont break your head with all that artificial limitations in units that come in groups (you can buy a minimum of 2 and a max of 5 of X-Y-Z units) but at same time kill the variety of units, in what they can offer and model variety (a basic unit NEEDS diferent model per army and even diferent stats to complete more limited armies).

The TT mod for me offer more what game needs be because vainilla is to simple at the point that after buy 3 DLCs i am burned compared with FOG I and i only dont buy last 2 DLCs here because they cant work over 1.8.1 version of game (the rework was a complete disaster and i admit i feel sad to dont add vikings).

I really expect next DLC be a change and introduce something really new and that made me want buy it because if follow the actual progresion... every DLC for me has lower value compared with the previous one... with more armies in the list news DLCs introduce less diferent armies.

Maybe if they dont want rework army lists, at least can offer the option to buy for an army "mercenaries" paying more for that kind units as a way to complete an army poor in options and introduce a certain random component in battles... or introduce the allied system like in FOG I.

PD: i am curious about whats going to be next DLC, i think move focus to medieval period is a better movement than expand more armies between Belisarious and medieval period... a more complex DLC, that even could work as new game for non FOG II buyers and as DLC for FOG II buyers of course with a little higher price... full price if you dont have FOG II and around 20 € if you have FOG II (with 2 € discount for every DLC you have to).

Lets see what they are going to do now.

i'd pay 50 USD for a proper dlc with some new mechanics and full armies, instead of these in my opinion good for nothing mini packs which never bring something substantial to the table. waiting for modders or , more honestly said 1 modder : paul, to make new textures is not a solution

and i am from serbia where minimum wage is 250 dollars. people from the west can easily afford that, 5 times easier than me

its not even about the money. game is good. give us MORE of it. not these crumbs of bread every 3 months,which achieve nothing

its also hard for me to believe that 10 new textures (and couple models) takes 3 months and blood and sweat (which is what we get in the dlcs)

Scutarii wrote:The base game is very good, DLCs add more variety in army types... here maybe i find "Inmortal fire" as the best of all 3 avaliable DLCs with "Legions Triumphant" very close... saddly last DLC for me add not a lot variety in the army options and increase the number of "empty armies", i think that around over 50% of the armies avaliable in DLCs are formed by very limited unit options and very clonic with ridiculous armies with only 3 unit types... here as FOG I veteran find the army composition become in FOG II a lot more simple and poor in unit options (there is a mod that for me rise a lot the quality of army composition apart improve the art part).

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.

In general game has a to much RNG taste specially in the moment in FOG II medium infantry see increased his combat value at the cost of be less mobile (i prefer medium foot base more his value in mobility and ability to catch enemy flanks-rear and in combat only a better performance in defense to stay alive a little more but NOT at the point of perform heavy infantry role).

I like the game but oposite to FOG I i dont find every new DLC expand options as i expected... maybe next DLC needs be something more than a bunch of "new" lists and need jump more in time, or to medieval era or to very early era... but with total diferent armies and a more deep composition to increase the quality in the options you have.

The DLC price point is definitely on the high side although compared to industry standards for in the niche wargame genre, it is not unprecedented. Then again, a lot of AAA games have high price point DLC that comes with little content so I guess it's not that out of line with the rest of the games industry as a whole. Not to say that this is what I consider a consumer-friendly practice but it has been, unfortunately, the norm. I play multiplayer almost exclusively so I don't have a choice unless I want to be cut out of the latest player run tournaments that feature armies in this era. There are numerous single player campaign improvements but your mileage may vary depending on how much single player you play.

Age of Belisarius is definitely feels like the thinnest expansion so far in terms of meaningful content for factions. For comparison, Immortal Fires brought the Persians and their armoured massed foot archery with limited melee capabilities. While not a top-tier multiplayer contender on the tournament scene, it definitely was a different experience to play with unique strategies compared to the factions available in the base game. Legions Triumphant added another playstyle with the Late Roman Empire with their sturdy core of defensive infantry and access to a wide array of cavalry. It also increased the number of cavalry archer armies with the Sassanids and various Steppe tribes. Belisarius really only adds Byzantine Lancers as a mechanically different unit with their 50% Bows mounted on the formidable Lancer cavalry base unit. The rest of the Byzantine lists feels similar to the Late Romans. Dismountable troops may be something cool and different but I haven't played with it much yet or understand how to use it in a competitive setting.

In terms of unit variety, I can understand why there are no new units and you get the sense of recycled material for a lot of even new army lists. I mean the Anglo Saxon warbands play exactly like every other warbands army found in the base game with the exception that they lack chariots. Part of that is that the fact that there was no sense of tactical innovation in historical terms to justify a new mechanically different unit. Too often, too much is made of things like changes in armour or weapons when really the fighting style was very much the same as their predecessors. The thing is though, while on the surface there is a lot of "copy/paste" army lists, there are quite a few that use pre-existing unit types to allow a different play style due to expanded capabilities, and those with tweaked unit stats that also make for a much different experience.

The Franks are a good example of the former where it is a standardish Warbands list with a large slab of Sub-Roman Foot attached as options. This changes things entirely since this will be one of the few Warbands lists that has access to a cheap filler heavy foot unit that can be used to flank and/or protect the flanks of Warband units who have Impacted and pushed through the enemy line by serving as a follow-on secondary unit. This helps address one of the crippling weaknesses of existing Warband lists. Maybe this in concert with the cost adjustment for the Warbands will mean that we finally will have a decent Warbands list that is competitive and gives the player something to do other than line up your men and hope the opponent breaks on Impact. The Arab City army list is an example of the latter where you get a "new" unit in the form of an Undrilled Average Light Spear/Swordsman 480 men heavy foot backed by Average Lancer units, both of which are stupendously cheap. That army definitely plays differently than anything else that came before it in content before Age of Belisarius. I am far more concerned with getting a different play experience than I am with getting textures.

At the end of the day, only you can decide whether the DLC is worth it or not. If you are a player who plays multiplayer a lot and want to keep up with things like the FoG2 Digital League continues to move along, you have no choice although I guess you can always just limit yourself to the classical antiquity division of play.

MikeC_81 wrote:

Scutarii wrote:The base game is very good, DLCs add more variety in army types... here maybe i find "Inmortal fire" as the best of all 3 avaliable DLCs with "Legions Triumphant" very close... saddly last DLC for me add not a lot variety in the army options and increase the number of "empty armies", i think that around over 50% of the armies avaliable in DLCs are formed by very limited unit options and very clonic with ridiculous armies with only 3 unit types... here as FOG I veteran find the army composition become in FOG II a lot more simple and poor in unit options (there is a mod that for me rise a lot the quality of army composition apart improve the art part).

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.

In general game has a to much RNG taste specially in the moment in FOG II medium infantry see increased his combat value at the cost of be less mobile (i prefer medium foot base more his value in mobility and ability to catch enemy flanks-rear and in combat only a better performance in defense to stay alive a little more but NOT at the point of perform heavy infantry role).

I like the game but oposite to FOG I i dont find every new DLC expand options as i expected... maybe next DLC needs be something more than a bunch of "new" lists and need jump more in time, or to medieval era or to very early era... but with total diferent armies and a more deep composition to increase the quality in the options you have.

The DLC price point is definitely on the high side although compared to industry standards for in the niche wargame genre, it is not unprecedented. Then again, a lot of AAA games have high price point DLC that comes with little content so I guess it's not that out of line with the rest of the games industry as a whole. Not to say that this is what I consider a consumer-friendly practice but it has been, unfortunately, the norm. I play multiplayer almost exclusively so I don't have a choice unless I want to be cut out of the latest player run tournaments that feature armies in this era. There are numerous single player campaign improvements but your mileage may vary depending on how much single player you play.

Age of Belisarius is definitely feels like the thinnest expansion so far in terms of meaningful content for factions. For comparison, Immortal Fires brought the Persians and their armoured massed foot archery with limited melee capabilities. While not a top-tier multiplayer contender on the tournament scene, it definitely was a different experience to play with unique strategies compared to the factions available in the base game. Legions Triumphant added another playstyle with the Late Roman Empire with their sturdy core of defensive infantry and access to a wide array of cavalry. It also increased the number of cavalry archer armies with the Sassanids and various Steppe tribes. Belisarius really only adds Byzantine Lancers as a mechanically different unit with their 50% Bows mounted on the formidable Lancer cavalry base unit. The rest of the Byzantine lists feels similar to the Late Romans. Dismountable troops may be something cool and different but I haven't played with it much yet or understand how to use it in a competitive setting.

In terms of unit variety, I can understand why there are no new units and you get the sense of recycled material for a lot of even new army lists. I mean the Anglo Saxon warbands play exactly like every other warbands army found in the base game with the exception that they lack chariots. Part of that is that the fact that there was no sense of tactical innovation in historical terms to justify a new mechanically different unit. Too often, too much is made of things like changes in armour or weapons when really the fighting style was very much the same as their predecessors. The thing is though, while on the surface there is a lot of "copy/paste" army lists, there are quite a few that use pre-existing unit types to allow a different play style due to expanded capabilities, and those with tweaked unit stats that also make for a much different experience.

The Franks are a good example of the former where it is a standardish Warbands list with a large slab of Sub-Roman Foot attached as options. This changes things entirely since this will be one of the few Warbands lists that has access to a cheap filler heavy foot unit that can be used to flank and/or protect the flanks of Warband units who have Impacted and pushed through the enemy line by serving as a follow-on secondary unit. This helps address one of the crippling weaknesses of existing Warband lists. Maybe this in concert with the cost adjustment for the Warbands will mean that we finally will have a decent Warbands list that is competitive and gives the player something to do other than line up your men and hope the opponent breaks on Impact. The Arab City army list is an example of the latter where you get a "new" unit in the form of an Undrilled Average Light Spear/Swordsman 480 men heavy foot backed by Average Lancer units, both of which are stupendously cheap. That army definitely plays differently than anything else that came before it in content before Age of Belisarius. I am far more concerned with getting a different play experience than I am with getting textures.

At the end of the day, only you can decide whether the DLC is worth it or not. If you are a player who plays multiplayer a lot and want to keep up with things like the FoG2 Digital League continues to move along, you have no choice although I guess you can always just limit yourself to the classical antiquity division of play.

both textures and different mechanics/Units. they complement one another

Game feels incomplete and inconsistent texture/flavor wise besides lacking many core units across the board


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

Regarding textures and 3D models, it’s all about economics. Unique textures and models require work. And they need to pay the artist. And it takes time. Rather pay for something that is reusable than being used by only one faction. This way, they are able to bring out expansions faster; with only a few model additions per DLC. Then spend the budget on bigger eras. This is the downside of using animated 3D units as opposed to static blocks or 2D pictures/ sprites

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.

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'

I have a bachelors is classics and it dosnt make me right just a little educated in the subject. Sorry your still butthurt about that chess man. Do you need citations for that?