Storm of Arrows Scenarios

PC/Mac : Digital version of the popular tabletop gaming system. Fight battles on your desktop in single and mutiplayer!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, NewRoSoft, FoG PC Moderator

Xiggy
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:55 pm

Post by Xiggy » Fri May 28, 2010 3:54 am

Generals. I think hannibal (1) becasue of his going over the alps may have been the best or alexander (2) , because of the supply situation as much as his tactical genious. I think alexander lost in india. That is why he turned around and came back. He died at 28 so we never knew what he would have been if he was alive long enough to consolidate his empire. Alexander did amazing things in a short time. Pyrrus would be third. he beat rome but eventually just ran out of troops. A city state vs an empire bad odds. Scipio would be 4th. He seemd to learn from each battle. Julius Caesar seems to be one of the more overated generals. But he may have been the best politician of the bunch.

Since history is written by the victors, we generally have a limited view of what really happened. Also, 2500 years is a long time to get really good information.

berto
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: Oak Park, Illinois USA

Post by berto » Fri May 28, 2010 7:26 am

I find it a bit dismaying that a thread titled "[Medieval] Storm of Arrows Scenarios" has wandered off into an extended discussion of ... ancient warfare.

<sigh> :(
Campaign Series Legion, http://cslegion.com/csl/
CS Lead Coder http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1515
PzB Lead Coder http://johntillersoftware.com/PanzerBattles.html
CWB Lead Coder http://johntillersoftware.com/CivilWarBattles.html

IainMcNeil
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13522
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am

Post by IainMcNeil » Fri May 28, 2010 8:19 am

Yes lets try and stay on topic. If you want to discuss this start a new thread.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4682
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Fri May 28, 2010 1:06 pm

berto wrote:
Examinondas wrote:
berto wrote:And, given their simplified portrayal in this game system, it's not as if these scenarios require much time or effort to research.
It takes me at least one week to produce a scenario, usually more like 2 or 3 weeks. It takes quite a lot of research (forces involved, commanders, deployment, map), planning (number of BGs, strength of the BGs, map creation), and playtesting.
Okay.

Given the simplified portrayal of the forces and maps, relatively speaking, it just seems like less time and effort would be required to create FoG scenarios compared to, say, HPS Ancient Warfare (Greek Wars, etc.) or American Civil War (Campaign Peninsula, etc.) scenarios. I could be wrong.

In my estimation, though, there's more value in HPS games for sure.
You asre of course correct that the thread got off topic....

Value is in the eyes of the beholder, the HPS games your refer to are very good games, although imho they are less flexibale in what you can do to create scenarios, and there is no map editor.... FOG will eventually give us units from 2000 years of history that you can use in any combination with editor created scenarios or dag battle... HPS games you buy a single engine where you are playing only with the forces avaiable for a very specific war or limited period of history.... The original game in the series, had to use forces that were ahistorical to represent some battles do to the lack of flexibility inherent in the game... (romans had to represent Pheonica I beleive) that being said they are good games as well, just differnt philosophy

I dont know why you think creating scenarios would be easier In FOG, even if you feel that making a scenario is all about finding an OOB and slapping units down on the map, the ist step is good luck finding an accurate OOB that everyone accepts... That is the research part that really never ends and alway up for debate

Historical game play? both series use diffent mechanics and both seem reasonably to portay combat, I will argue that in some respects HPS are harder when playing vs the AI, if only because the learning curve is much steeper due to the wego, phased based movement system.... However do I think phalanxes are any more realisticly represented ? No , because they still zipp around the map as independent little battle groups that can do as they want and not maintain a linear formation..
I think the only game that came close to repesenting phalanxes more accuratley was the GMT games where they actually took up TWO hexes, of course these games had other issues as well...

I hope you give the game a chance , and once you start playing on the MP server, I dont think you will mind so much that there arnt a lot of canned scenarios, at least at this time

Gersen
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 6:57 am

Post by Gersen » Fri May 28, 2010 1:34 pm

I lose interest rapidly if there is no historical context to a game. So the DAG is a last resort for me. Just started my first mp game, and that is the best way to play FoG, I am sure, but with historical scenarios please!

Leads me to my next comment. I've had a look at the scenario editor, and it is both robust and refreshingly easy, but still very limited. Fairly simple enhancements should be in the pipeline, such as fixing units for a period of time, bringing on units after set number of turns, and victory point hexes. Without the like, engagements like Bosworth Field will be very difficult to replicate, thus limiting the number and type of historical scenarios to the "just charge at each other" category.

Just some early opinions.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4682
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Fri May 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Gersen wrote:I lose interest rapidly if there is no historical context to a game. So the DAG is a last resort for me. Just started my first mp game, and that is the best way to play FoG, I am sure, but with historical scenarios please!

Leads me to my next comment. I've had a look at the scenario editor, and it is both robust and refreshingly easy, but still very limited. Fairly simple enhancements should be in the pipeline, such as fixing units for a period of time, bringing on units after set number of turns, and victory point hexes. Without the like, engagements like Bosworth Field will be very difficult to replicate, thus limiting the number and type of historical scenarios to the "just charge at each other" category.

Just some early opinions.
To be honest i hate playing scenarios where units are fixed.... It makes the game even more ahistorical, if for the only reason that your opponent knows they are fixed and can plan accordingly. I like historical scenarios but , if I am the player i want to play my forces as i see fit.... I guess it comes down to if you want to play a game or a simulation.

Victory hexes? They can be useful to help the ai, but realistically, no piece of ground is ever truly an obective in most battles. If the battle lines swing wide of a hill top, that hilltop no longer has any meaning for the forces involved, so why should you still need to capture it?

Gersen
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 6:57 am

Post by Gersen » Mon May 31, 2010 8:43 am

TheGrayMouser wrote:
Gersen wrote:I lose interest rapidly if there is no historical context to a game. So the DAG is a last resort for me. Just started my first mp game, and that is the best way to play FoG, I am sure, but with historical scenarios please!

Leads me to my next comment. I've had a look at the scenario editor, and it is both robust and refreshingly easy, but still very limited. Fairly simple enhancements should be in the pipeline, such as fixing units for a period of time, bringing on units after set number of turns, and victory point hexes. Without the like, engagements like Bosworth Field will be very difficult to replicate, thus limiting the number and type of historical scenarios to the "just charge at each other" category.

Just some early opinions.
To be honest i hate playing scenarios where units are fixed.... It makes the game even more ahistorical, if for the only reason that your opponent knows they are fixed and can plan accordingly. I like historical scenarios but , if I am the player i want to play my forces as i see fit.... I guess it comes down to if you want to play a game or a simulation.
Hear what you say. On the other hand, going back to the likes of Bosworth Field, the climactic battle of the War of the Roses, we will always find it difficult to provide even a close approximation of it, when you have half the forces on either side, waiting to see how the battle goes before diving in... hold that thought...
Victory hexes? They can be useful to help the ai, but realistically, no piece of ground is ever truly an obective in most battles. If the battle lines swing wide of a hill top, that hilltop no longer has any meaning for the forces involved, so why should you still need to capture it?
You are right, I am really talking about the AI responding to actions. My thinking is a bit woolly here, I admit. What I am trying to describe is more like Trigger points on the map, which when reached, tell the AI to do something. Going back to Bosworth for two examples:

1. Half of Richard 3rds army under Northumberland, stood there and did nothing, waiting to see how it played out. Of course, if they had been attacked, they would have fought back, so a trigger of being attacked or having the enemy within x number of hexes would "unfix" them.

2. Henry gallops off with 200 men to parley with the Stanley's, who are also there enjoying the view. Seeing what is going on, R3 charges after him, and this triggers the Stanley's into action, attack R3, kill him, war over, Tudors rule - Henry 7th, 8th and all that. So you have another possible proximity trigger to unfix the Stanley's, and get them involved.

A long time ago, I wrote the odd scenario for Combat Flight Simulator 2 (bear with me), and the editor there had an action/proximity trigger mechanism working a similar way. It really helped create interesting and involving scenarios. I suppose FoG development may view this as a level of complexity too far, and given the close tie with TT games, not necessary, but the current offering is somewhat limiting. Come the day, they bring out a Napoleonic expansion, you are gonna want to those Prussians coming on at the last minute at Waterloo!

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4682
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Mon May 31, 2010 2:38 pm

I suppose trigger points could be a useful thing to have but that implies scripting, and I just dont like scripting :D

I see you point about non -commital troops.... There is a game that I own that simulates this by flagging certain troops as "unreliable"
The ist time the owning player of these unreliable tropps attempts to use them, they roll to see if they can be used or it they rout, I belive if the enemy aproaches within x amount of hexes they do the same... The key is that both players have the ability based on the unkown factor, on whether those troops are brought into the battle or not...
I believe someting like that would be quite good to have.

MesaDon
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:53 am
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Post by MesaDon » Mon May 31, 2010 4:44 pm

The problem with this discussion is anyone with enough knowledge can pick a battle that will well suit their point. Some of us enjoy the battles without heavy duty historical content just the units, terrain and basic set-up. As no game can completely meet the requirements of both sides a compromise is required. I find FOG the most enjoyable "wargame" I have played wither solo or against others. It has a easy break in for new players yet quite a bit of depth. The SOA addition is enjoyable because of the extra types of units and armies involved. Fun to play those "fantasy historical" battles (whatever that means). In other words no one is really wrong in this discussion. :D

omarquatar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:48 am

Post by omarquatar » Mon May 31, 2010 5:02 pm

MesaDon wrote: Fun to play those "fantasy historical" battles (whatever that means). In other words no one is really wrong in this discussion. :D
still, i'd like to see more HISTORICAL scenarios :(

Brigz
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:42 am

Post by Brigz » Mon May 31, 2010 7:05 pm

MesaDon wrote:Some of us enjoy the battles without heavy duty historical content just the units, terrain and basic set-up.
I tend to agree with this. What fun is a battle if you are forced to recreate the historical failures of the losing side? I'm currently re-reading Harold Lamb's "Hannibal". Taking the battle of Cannae as an example, why would any player make the same mistake as the Roman and blindly rush into the Carthagenian trap and allow his army to be surrounded and compressed into a disasterous position. I'd much rather fight a battle given the historical armies, terrain and setup, but be given the freedom to use my own strategy to win. I thought one of the best aspects or wargaming was to have the ability to change history. I can see having some historical restrictions imposed (Agincourt comes to mind) but only so far as it gives both sides a chance to win.

Gersen
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 6:57 am

Post by Gersen » Mon May 31, 2010 7:32 pm

I see no point in recreating battles either. That is one extreme, and the sandbox approach of the DAG is the other. I just prefer somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, with sufficient historical context to provide flavour and some knowledge.

I wonder if I am the only one who quickly references a battle in Wikipedia or similar ahead of playing it. It adds to my enjoyment of the subject.

You're not the only one, although I'm sadly old fashioned & still use books myself, but some of the scenario designers add a link to wika for good background info.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4682
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:36 am

Brigz wrote:
MesaDon wrote:Some of us enjoy the battles without heavy duty historical content just the units, terrain and basic set-up.
I tend to agree with this. What fun is a battle if you are forced to recreate the historical failures of the losing side? I'm currently re-reading Harold Lamb's "Hannibal". Taking the battle of Cannae as an example, why would any player make the same mistake as the Roman and blindly rush into the Carthagenian trap and allow his army to be surrounded and compressed into a disasterous position. I'd much rather fight a battle given the historical armies, terrain and setup, but be given the freedom to use my own strategy to win. I thought one of the best aspects or wargaming was to have the ability to change history. I can see having some historical restrictions imposed (Agincourt comes to mind) but only so far as it gives both sides a chance to win.
Well, because it almost won! The Roman tactic of rupturing the center of the enemy line basically was a proven tactic, especially considering they had no cavalry arm worthy of winning on the flanks... I think it is always with great hindsite we point out the failures of ancient commanders... Paulus did what basically had worked in the past, there was no reason to believe it wouldnt have worked at Cannae, What if the weak Cartho center failed to hold for 20 more minutes? One never knows...

That be said I completely agree with you and prefer a historical set up but the freedom to maneuver as I see fit.... Fixed units , scripting, limiting your forces ability to move based on "simulation" factors to achieve the historical result does not interest me...

Brigz
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:42 am

Post by Brigz » Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:50 am

TheGrayMouser wrote: Well, because it almost won! The Roman tactic of rupturing the center of the enemy line basically was a proven tactic, especially considering they had no cavalry arm worthy of winning on the flanks... I think it is always with great hindsite we point out the failures of ancient commanders... Paulus did what basically had worked in the past, there was no reason to believe it wouldnt have worked at Cannae, What if the weak Cartho center failed to hold for 20 more minutes? One never knows...

That be said I completely agree with you and prefer a historical set up but the freedom to maneuver as I see fit.... Fixed units , scripting, limiting your forces ability to move based on "simulation" factors to achieve the historical result does not interest me...
I guess I didn't mean that the Romans couldn't have won Cannae, I was talking about scenarios that try to recreate the historical battle and force the Romans into a similar situation. But to take this particular battle further, I think Fabius was on the right track in avoiding a direct confrontation at that time. However, the political climate was against him and his strategy was ill favored.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4682
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Tue Jun 01, 2010 1:11 am

I would love more set piece battle as well, whether they are "starter battles" or historic... As much as I enjoy the DAG battles, the blind deployment sometimes gets to me...

Take SOA starter battle 3... Look how the swiss are deployed in that battle... Now no player wouod ever deploy that way in a Swiss vs early Burgundian battle... The burgundians actually have a chance!

Gersen
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 6:57 am

Post by Gersen » Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:54 am

Gersen wrote:I see no point in recreating battles either. That is one extreme, and the sandbox approach of the DAG is the other. I just prefer somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, with sufficient historical context to provide flavour and some knowledge.

I wonder if I am the only one who quickly references a battle in Wikipedia or similar ahead of playing it. It adds to my enjoyment of the subject.

You're not the only one, although I'm sadly old fashioned & still use books myself, but some of the scenario designers add a link to wika for good background info.
Spooky, I know I am getting more and more senior moments, but I could swear I didn't write the last sentence.

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1099
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Post by 76mm » Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:08 am

On the other hand, if I play historical scenarios at all, I don't play them more than once--it sort of defeats the purpose of playing for me if you can replay the same battle over and over and over again, all the while tweaking and refining your tactics, based on your increasing knowledge of the enemy's troops and tactical disposition.

IMO, not only is this not fun, it is very gamey, as real commanders get one chance and one chance only to win a battle. That's why I much prefer DAG battles, which despite being completely ahistorical, I find to be much more realistic for this reason.

While I can appreciate why people expect a wargame to come with historical scenarios, its not really for me...

IainMcNeil
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13522
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am

Post by IainMcNeil » Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:26 am

I think we have to accept that some people like historical battles and others don't. We'll look to try and provide more historical scenarios in future. We didnt realise there was a big demand for them with the Digital Army Generator - we thought that would take over.

omarquatar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:48 am

Post by omarquatar » Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:38 am

iainmcneil wrote:I think we have to accept that some people like historical battles and others don't. We'll look to try and provide more historical scenarios in future. We didnt realise there was a big demand for them with the Digital Army Generator - we thought that would take over.
yes thanks
i think that the DAG system is more oriented to TT gamers, but FOG PC could (and should) please also historical boardgame players.

CaptainHuge
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:32 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Post by CaptainHuge » Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:46 am

Well, I for one prefer the Digital Army Generator for most of my games, but I like to occasionally play the historical scenarios to get a feel for what kind of situation the commanders were in and see if things could have turned out differently. I do find that historical scenarios have the disadvantage of becoming repetitive, with a general lack of possibilities. From a historical interest point of view, I like working with the Digital Army Generator as a way of examining the general makeup of armies. Like how the Castilians could field a boat load of light troops, or how the Late Grenadines could rival ancient nomad armies for the amount of light cavalry. I find things like that really cool.

So, if anyone is counting, I find the DAG at least as important as the historical scenarios, if not more so.

Just my opinion. :)

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory Digital”