A bit of a rant

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

Post Reply
jonno
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:43 am
Location: Perth, Australia

A bit of a rant

Post by jonno » Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:45 am

I'm hot and irritable - it was 42 degrees C yesterday and a mild 30 heading to 33 today...

I have seen a number of threads on what people would like fixed / improved / changed with the game.

A couple of things on that...
1. I wonder if it is possible for someone to collect the ideas into a more structured format - maybe a wiki page / pages
2. Are we likely to see some changes made.

There are enough things that irritate me that I have stopped buying expansion packs - and will wait for some game system updates

I think the whole damage / casualty system could be better - but my two biggest gripes are

Auto-charge thru formed troops - I recently had a unit of knights auto charge thru a unit of heavy foot. This fails a basic plausability test.
Personally I would like to see more complexity in the auto charge - less likely if on a hill, more likely if under missle fire.

Cohesion - this could do with some work....
I just had a case where a unit rallied - only to have a friend rout thru that unit to it routed again. Then to add insult to injury that rout caused three units that were in contact to test and loose cohesion.

And the cascading loss of cohesion - where unit 1 routs and causes units 2 and 3 to loose cohesion which means that units 2 routs and then 3 looses cohesion again.

How about a unit can only lose cohesion 1 per turn (apart from loss from combat).

There are many other basic game mechanics that annoy me... And it is these that i think should be fixed before going on to anything new.

Now where is the cat - I need something to kick.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9359
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Post by stockwellpete » Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:12 am

jonno, this list was compiled by TGM and myself and sent to Slitherine on 22/12 after we had left in the forum for comment. We have received an acknowledgement from Slitherine. They are currently talking to HexWar about that company's disengagement from FOG this year and then Slitherine will be putting new arrangements in place. This new development team will then consider this document of ours as soon as they can . . .

DOCUMENT

Single Player and Multiplayer DAG Improvements
a) hot seat DAG battles
b) players can build AI army and deploy AI army in SP battles
c) better routines for AI picks in its armies i.e.: it takes too many leaders, never chooses allies etc
d) AI tweaks: specifically AI careless with lights, AI does not use non missile lights, use of poor quality troops needs adjusting
e) deployment zones away from the map side edges, additional forward deployment space for palisades (plus the troops to man), and artillery
f) replay an entire battle from start to finish/view the battle while it is the other player's turn
g) ability to specify game play preferences when posting challenges
h) 2 player vs. 2 player MP matches (or more!)
i) custom maps for MP battles
j) name your leaders, custom battle flags
k) add functionality for "flank marches" (as per the TT rules)
l) custom DAG armies

Add-on Functions and Game Play Improvements (all would need significant thought and play testing for balance)
a) campaign game comprised of (not mutually inclusive nor exclusive of others)
-a series of interlinked scenarios getting progressively more challenging
-themed with real generals – for example, Hannibal, Caesar and Alexander
-continuity from one scenario to the next: casualties carry over
-customizable “core” army built via AP’s (think Panzer Corp)
-personalization of generals and units that can gain battle honors, and improve in experience
-customizable size of campaign
-be able to incorporate multiple players using the server
b) combat and missile fire amended so that there are far fewer "extreme" results
c) add a command and control function
d) commanders set to be in the front rank or in the rear rank, differing risk/reward
e) light foot in terrain remain hidden even if in “line of sight” unless they move or shoot
f) routed elephants have variable rout paths possibly thru friendly or enemy units (rampage)
g) consider additional breaks off situations such as cavalry from elephants, light from heavies etc
h) units that attempt to break off but cant should drop a cohesion level (per the TT rules)
i) pursuing units can leave the map and then queue to return.
j) introduce variable army morale breaking point instead of rigid 50% rule
k) deploy 25% of your troops at a time, round robin

Scenario Editor Improvements
a) larger maps
b) introduce new terrain i.e. buildings, walls
c) road movement
d) camps and palisades
e) realistic impassible hexes, ideally two types with support for multiple graphics impassible that blocks LOS and missile, another that does neither ( as is now)
f) greater customization of units : any combination of weapons, armor etc. ability to set individual units: % casualties, cohesion levels, break point worth etc. for the start of a scenario
g) add allies using the editor (currently bugged)
h) ability to modify POA charts, weapons ranges, movement rates
i) support for custom BG graphics
j) fixed units, reinforcements, limited scripting of units, set aggression levels, “defend” “attack”
k) allow specified units/leaders the chance to change sides before a battle (treachery)
l) allow reinforcements during a battle (units arriving late from your camp, flanking movements)
m) add victory conditions (death of the C-in-C is an automatic win or x amount of BP’s, victory hexes to be captured etc.

Miscellaneous
a) add a data dump to upload to the server for ease of tracking and reporting bugs “live”
b) continued support for fixing known bugs


viewtopic.php?t=30161&start=0

jonno
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:43 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Post by jonno » Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:54 pm

Pete

This issue I have there are a lot of basic game mechanics that need fixing first.

I still only have a vague idea of what happens when a unit evades - and where it will go.
I do know that it is different if he (the unit I charge) is close to the edge of the board I am defending or the edge he is defending.... At my edge he will run along the edge at his he will run off.

I have no idea when and if i will get a pursuit - or how far it will be. And sometimes i don t even get my full charge move.
I pursue into enemy units and I attack a unit at random. I want to either a) choose OR b) attack the one I have the best chance of winning
I hate the in-base contact and not in combat situation. I often dont watch replays, and if i do not that closely so when the unit runs away it is annoying.
How can I be in contact with two units - both to my front and only be able to fight one of them?

Jon

dazzam
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:47 pm

Post by dazzam » Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:49 pm

I concur with jonno's concerns re evading/pursuing and base contacts.

Re evading and purusing why can't the mechanics of how these are determined be published. In particular things like distance traveled in evade, chance of being caught by charger, method of determining how many hexes a unit will charge if the enemy evades. This is effectively a war game yet we are not shown some of the important rules.

Re base to base contact without being engaged as well this is also pretty annoying. Presumably one should be able to see if a unit is engaged or not. Furthermore if they are in adjacent hexes I can't see why they should not be engaged. At the very least please tell us how this engagement is determined.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9359
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Post by stockwellpete » Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:21 pm

jonno wrote:Pete

This issue I have there are a lot of basic game mechanics that need fixing first.

I still only have a vague idea of what happens when a unit evades - and where it will go.
I do know that it is different if he (the unit I charge) is close to the edge of the board I am defending or the edge he is defending.... At my edge he will run along the edge at his he will run off.

I have no idea when and if i will get a pursuit - or how far it will be. And sometimes i don t even get my full charge move.
I pursue into enemy units and I attack a unit at random. I want to either a) choose OR b) attack the one I have the best chance of winning
I hate the in-base contact and not in combat situation. I often dont watch replays, and if i do not that closely so when the unit runs away it is annoying.
How can I be in contact with two units - both to my front and only be able to fight one of them?

Jon
I don't disagree that there are some fairly basic things that might be looked at again, jonno. In terms of this pursuit business, have you looked at the "Combat Tutorial Video" that is just 5 or 6 topics down on the forum from this one? It is very good at explaining the TT mechanics of combat and pursuit and you can see how it has been translated to the PC game. And I feel that it might partly answer the first of your two basic questions here.

What the video says happens is that a routing unit has to roll a dice in TT and depending on that roll, the routed units runs away a certain distance. Then the triumphant units throw a dice in the same way - and depending on what they throw they may catch up with the routing units or they may not. So there are variable routing and pursuing distances included in the TT game, which seem to be incorporated in the PC game as well. In which direction the unit will go is also a mystery to me but presumably there is another random factor at work here as well. :?

I don't actually study the information the game can give you about all the dice rolls and POA's all that much. I prefer to play a more "naturalistic" type of game where I try and do what "feels right" for my units, if you see what I mean (this is why I will never be able to beat the very top players of FOG). So I don't know if these pursuit and rout dice rolls are included in the information given - I suspect that they are not.

When my units are in contact with other units, while in pursuit of them, and they get no melee opportunity, I just assume this is because they have not finished killing everyone in the first unit that they have caught up with.

IainMcNeil
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13503
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am

Post by IainMcNeil » Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:01 am

Hi guys

we know this is taking some time but the project is pretty massive and complex and findining the rigth partner to take it over is no small issue. We are making progres but I do not have a time line for when anything will be ready to move forwards. Initially the new team will just need some time to get up to speed on what we currently have. Taking on someone elses code is an absolute nightmare.

Until we have completed the handover there wont be any changes made and initially changes will need to be small to avoid breaking anything as they get up to speed.

Thanks for you patience.

gazxtrix
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Perth Australia

Post by gazxtrix » Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:00 am

1 more thing i would like to see changed.


rear charges - can we have it so that you cant charge a unit in the rear if you start in front of the unit.

at present has this been deliberately done or is it a bug?

Old_Warrior
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:13 am

Post by Old_Warrior » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:43 pm

dazzam wrote:I concur with jonno's concerns re evading/pursuing and base contacts.

Re evading and purusing why can't the mechanics of how these are determined be published. In particular things like distance traveled in evade, chance of being caught by charger, method of determining how many hexes a unit will charge if the enemy evades. This is effectively a war game yet we are not shown some of the important rules.

Re base to base contact without being engaged as well this is also pretty annoying. Presumably one should be able to see if a unit is engaged or not. Furthermore if they are in adjacent hexes I can't see why they should not be engaged. At the very least please tell us how this engagement is determined.
Because programmers and game companies are notorious and not documenting things. Pure and simple.

The Help section for this game needs more attention. Since we dot get a manual with the game I would think that a PDF file that is filled with MANY illustrations should be included. Sure, the price of a manual may be prohibitive but a good PDF file is cheap.

And yes, there is another website (???) that has examples of play. That should be covered in a PDF file. Not another website that is based on the customer having an internet connection when he wants to look up how things work.

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

Post by Gersen » Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Jonno, I actually like the "cascading loss of cohesion". Simulates panic spreading through an army which I would bet happened quite regularly. Obviously not much fun when it happens to you, but I feel it is realistic.

Old_Warrior
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:13 am

Post by Old_Warrior » Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:47 pm

I am getting adept at knowing how to get it to roll. That worries me as it means I control the outcome. That is def. not historical.

It breeds a kind of gamer that the original game did not have - the Blitzer.

If you time it right you can get some pretty catastrophic results against your opponent.

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Re: A bit of a rant

Post by deadtorius » Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:23 am

You should have seen the chaos it caused back in the original beta... send troops routing down the line and take out half your opponents with 1 well placed melee :shock: due to bursting through friends. At least they toned that one down. :wink:

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

Re:

Post by Brigz » Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:28 pm

Old_Warrior wrote:I am getting adept at knowing how to get it to roll. That worries me as it means I control the outcome. That is def. not historical.

It breeds a kind of gamer that the original game did not have - the Blitzer.

If you time it right you can get some pretty catastrophic results against your opponent.
Getting adept at causing the enemy to rout, controlling the outcome of a battle, and getting catastrophic results against your opponent all sound like historical objectives to me. Isn't that basically what happens in ancient warfare... both armies clash until one breaks and routs from the field? Sounds to me like you are becoming an efficient commander.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory Digital”