My big issues with this game

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
vonZipper
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:23 pm

My big issues with this game

Post by vonZipper » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:53 pm

Overall I really like this game, but a couple of mechanisms are just head-scratchers to me.

As it stands right now, skirmishers can evade and then take a full turn afterwards. How is this possible? It effectively gives them the ability to use double the AP's of any other troops. I would think that evading should eat into their next turn, so if they evade they have 0 AP's during their turn, or at least minus what they used to evade if less than full AP's. Perhaps they can get a free facing change and shoot at a reduced effectiveness, but otherwise, the evading should count as their next turn.

My other big issue is foot skirmishers evading cavalry. In rough terrain that seems feasible, but in the open, very doubtful. Unless the cavalry started their charge further away.

Other than these things, kudos on a great game. I love the era, the models and the game play (other than the above). Great work!

KiwiWarlord
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:39 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by KiwiWarlord » Wed Dec 26, 2018 9:53 pm

Totally agree vonZipper.
Skirmishers are far too powerful in this game. Super troops.
I always take the maximum and make good use of them.

jomni
Sengoku Jidai
Sengoku Jidai
Posts: 1393
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:20 am

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by jomni » Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:24 am

Skirmishers don’t hold formation. A single person can do an about face in an instant.

Also skirmishers moving faster than horse is an abstraction. When the horse unit attacks, the skirmishers scatter to all directions, hide behind rocks and trees. The horse unit keeps a coherent formation, they can’t just break formation and chase everyone down. This effectively means they can’t chase the whole skirmisher unit, only the stranglers. As a result, the skirmisher unit escapes with some casualties and regroup.

vonZipper
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:23 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by vonZipper » Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:56 am

jomni wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:24 am
Skirmishers don’t hold formation. A single person can do an about face in an instant.
And? The issue is that an evading skirmish unit can use 2X AP and a non-evading skirmish unit can use X AP. So, just by evading, a skirmish unit can do twice what they can normally.
jomni wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:24 am
Also skirmishers moving faster than horse is an abstraction. When the horse unit attacks, the skirmishers scatter to all directions, hide behind rocks and trees. The horse unit keeps a coherent formation, they can’t just break formation and chase everyone down. This effectively means they can’t chase the whole skirmisher unit, only the stranglers. As a result, the skirmisher unit escapes with some casualties and regroup.
As I said, rough terrain is where skirmishers would have the survival advantage, but in open terrain they would be demolished by cavalry. And, even taking into account them hiding behind rocks and trees, minus radio communication they would be lucky to reform into a usable unit by the end of the battle.

Throughout history, no foot skirmiish unit would approach cavalry unless they had somewhere to run to, either formed units or rough terrain, and for a very good reason.

deve
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:32 am

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by deve » Thu Dec 27, 2018 3:52 am

I agree with vonZipper. Not that skirmishers are overpowered but their current implementation is weird and unrealistic. They can cover more "miles" than any mounted unit over the course of the battle.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4693
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by TheGrayMouser » Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:44 pm

Perhaps there should be a reminder sticker that this is an igo you go game, not real-time, not wego.. :)

Does an evading skirmisher that is now frozen and cannot move on its active turn add realism or game play value? For me, no it does not. If it was worth changing the rules, better to have them just test to drop a cohesion level from the evade.

As for the skirmishers being hard to catch comment. I wouldn’t mind so much if Cavalry had better odds to catch the buggers, perhaps by giving Cavalry a small chance to get a second vmd if it rolls high enough.

Cheers, happy holidays!

vonZipper
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:23 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by vonZipper » Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:26 pm

In the case of evading skirmishers it's Igo, Yougo, Igo, Igo again

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4693
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by TheGrayMouser » Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:56 pm

vonZipper wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:26 pm
In the case of evading skirmishers it's Igo, Yougo, Igo, Igo again
Surely there’s a difference between active movement during your turn versus involuntary movement during your opponents? Also by logic if you change this you need change routed units to only move on their turn , pursuers on theirs etc.

I still don’t see how freezing a skirmisher that evades enables more realism or better gameplay. And why stop with skirmishers, by the logic presented, formed Cavalry should “freeze” too, rendering HA armies useless.

vonZipper
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:23 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by vonZipper » Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:01 pm

AP's should take into account what a unit can do in an allotted amount of time. So, let's say, for the sake of argument, each turn a skirmisher can move 200yards. If a skirmisher moves, then evades, then moves next turn. they will have been able to move 200yards farther than a non-evading skirmisher unit, in the same span of time.

The evasion should be, to my mind, just an earlier use of their next turns' available AP's, since it is an igo/yougo system.

Froz
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by Froz » Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:07 pm

Freezing the skirmishers (or taking major part of their AP) would not be fun, because one side would take the other's side power to steer its units. To put it in other words - autoescape doesn't know where you would want the unit to escape to. It's already irritating at times, but I can live with it, because I can correct it on my turn. Don't take this away from me.

Making skirmishers test for cohesion drop would make sense. Alternatively, make them disordered for a turn after they escape charge (to simulate more clearly what jomni described earlier in the thread), so the effect is not that huge and is always temporary.

However, to me the issue is not that much with skirmishers, as it is with the cavalry. Cavalry (the medium-heavy kind, not the superheavy kind) is not as manoeuvrable as I feel it should be, especially compared to light infantry units. I understand why it is done as it is though. It would be too easy to outmanoeuvre and flank medium/heavy infantry.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4693
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by TheGrayMouser » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:05 am

vonZipper wrote:
Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:01 pm
AP's should take into account what a unit can do in an allotted amount of time.


Ok, but if you try to demand that TIME be linear and mean the same thing for all units across the board at all times, you'll end up finding things "wrong" with pretty much every aspect of ANY turn based wargame.

It like ZOC's. Do they represent "reaction" ability with long range weapons?, a moral "force field" preventing movement into or out of by enemy units? or do they represent actual physical presence? Considering that a game like this with its smaller scale ( opposed to say a game where a unit is a dispersed WW2 army corp with a 20 kilo grid size) , I would argue a ZOC might actually mean "presence" ie, part or all of the unit, despite the graphical representation in the game, is partially or even totally in one of the hexes or grids it exerts a ZOC into... Certainly a sword doesnt have interdiction or area denial ability like a heavy machine gun or artillery... A swordsman cannot intercept a fast moving horse entering his "ZOC" , or can he?? Hmm, maybe he shouldnt because it not his turn :) Yet he still gets to exert a ZOC in the game.. My point is you could add layers of rules on this( infantry can only exert a ZOC on mounted if they still have 1/2 their AP's at the end of the turn, see rule 7.5.3.21.4 for exceptions) and you would still never cover all of the combinations of oddities that would crop up...

IMHO, in a turn based game like this, time is wiggly, space is wiggly. If the end result is reasonably realistic, then the exact path how you get there can( and will end up) being abstract.
So in short the answer really is, its a game mechanic to allow evading types to be able to evade, and still be as usefull as they were historically.

SnuggleBunnies
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1045
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by SnuggleBunnies » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:29 am

The thing is, the AP and turn system are simply not based on the idea that a turn is a set amount of time, or that a unit's actions are constrained by a set unit of time. Instead, the game system is supposed to help create those massive, sudden turns of fortune that decided a battle. If unit actions were strictly based on AP, those epic cavalry flank charges crashing down a whole line, or a scattering mass of lights being ridden down one after the other, would not be possible.

Also, light foot don't have an easy time evading cavalry; start your charge next to the lights and you are guaranteed to catch them. Two tiles away and you are still more likely than not to catch them. Finally, bringing some of your own lights to support your heavies can make all the difference - a combined arms force always has an advantage over any one type of enemy, after all.

SLancaster
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:42 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by SLancaster » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:49 am

Maybe I would make the evade mechanic a little less likely especially towards the end of a game when casualties are quite high. I had a situation where an opponent brought 6-7 skirimisher units and I was chasing them to the end of the battlefield with 5 units of medium and heavy foot. It was quite tedious as they evaded 25-30 times or something. Surely some of these units would get tired or break in reality?

kvnrthr
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:37 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by kvnrthr » Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:54 am

Cohesion test for any evading unit makes a lot of sense.

If heavy infantry withdrawing back one square must take a test then surely a group of javelinmen running for their lives from very annoyed legionaries should too.

A group of soldiers who turn their back to the enemy and scram is not likely to turn it around again, unless they were particularly tough (hence higher quality skirmishers can distinguish themselves).

vonZipper
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:23 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by vonZipper » Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:59 am

kvnrthr wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:54 am
Cohesion test for any evading unit makes a lot of sense.

If heavy infantry withdrawing back one square must take a test then surely a group of javelinmen running for their lives from very annoyed legionaries should too.

A group of soldiers who turn their back to the enemy and scram is not likely to turn it around again, unless they were particularly tough (hence higher quality skirmishers can distinguish themselves).
This seems like a good solution to me.

jomni
Sengoku Jidai
Sengoku Jidai
Posts: 1393
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:20 am

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by jomni » Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:12 am

vonZipper wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:59 am
kvnrthr wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:54 am
Cohesion test for any evading unit makes a lot of sense.

If heavy infantry withdrawing back one square must take a test then surely a group of javelinmen running for their lives from very annoyed legionaries should too.

A group of soldiers who turn their back to the enemy and scram is not likely to turn it around again, unless they were particularly tough (hence higher quality skirmishers can distinguish themselves).
This seems like a good solution to me.
Interesting. I think Richard mentioned that the lights are rarely mentioned in historical text after the initial phases of battle. This can prevent them form staying in the battle for too long. That said, there are cavalry formations that evade too. Does that apply to them? It will make hit and run harder.

melm
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 554
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by melm » Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:05 am

From gameplay aspect, my deep concern is that weakening skirmisher may reward turtling-play style, which deprives the fun.

kvnrthr
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:37 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by kvnrthr » Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:24 am

jomni wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:12 am
Interesting. I think Richard mentioned that the lights are rarely mentioned in historical text after the initial phases of battle. This can prevent them form staying in the battle for too long. That said, there are cavalry formations that evade too. Does that apply to them? It will make hit and run harder.
Game balance wise, perhaps it shouldn't apply to non-skirmisher units as their maneuverability isn't too high to be a problem. I find that I need a turn to get them in position before firing again, compared to skirmishers that can turn immediately and shoot. Only some playtesting will tell.

Which script controls when a unit takes a cohesion test? I'd like to try editing it myself and see how it goes.

Historically I'm not too sure. When you chased a horse archer and they retreated, were they still organized? I don't know of any accounts of the "face of battle" from a horse archer's perspective.
melm wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:05 am
From gameplay aspect, my deep concern is that weakening skirmisher may reward turtling-play style, which deprives the fun.
You do have a point there, although charging a skirmisher will at least take enemy troops out of whatever good position they may be in. At the very least the cavalry will be sent out.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22695
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:12 am

This:
TheGrayMouser wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:05 am
IMHO, in a turn based game like this, time is wiggly, space is wiggly. If the end result is reasonably realistic, then the exact path how you get there can( and will end up) being abstract. So in short the answer really is, its a game mechanic to allow evading types to be able to evade, and still be as usefull as they were historically.
and this:
SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:29 am
The thing is, the AP and turn system are simply not based on the idea that a turn is a set amount of time, or that a unit's actions are constrained by a set unit of time. Instead, the game system is supposed to help create those massive, sudden turns of fortune that decided a battle. If unit actions were strictly based on AP, those epic cavalry flank charges crashing down a whole line, or a scattering mass of lights being ridden down one after the other, would not be possible.
As TGM and Snuggles say, the game design is not a time-slice model, but an episodic model. Action and counter-action.

Battles were not clockwork automatons with all units moving at their best speed in perfect synchrony. There was a lot of hanging about, and plenty of time in the interstices for sudden bursts of activity by some troops while other troops are doing not very much.

This paradigm is part of the basic design of the game. Trying to force it into a time-slice mould would not improve the overall simulation.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

vonZipper
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:23 pm

Re: My big issues with this game

Post by vonZipper » Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:40 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:05 am


IMHO, in a turn based game like this, time is wiggly, space is wiggly. If the end result is reasonably realistic, then the exact path how you get there can( and will end up) being abstract.
So in short the answer really is, its a game mechanic to allow evading types to be able to evade, and still be as usefull as they were historically.
I'm OK on the wiggly point, but I don't feel that skirmishers being able to evade turn after turn without suffering any real ill effects on their effectiveness is really all that realistic.

Another point I would make is that I'm a bit confounded by the fact that heavy and medium troops have to charge (and subsequently pursue) skirmishers in open ground to dislodge them. In reality all a maniple or phalanx would have to do is advance - the skirmishers would fall back naturally.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”