Sandbox Campaign suggestions

[JaM2013]

While campaigns are fun to play, i think there is still some room for improvement. Here are few ideas for you:

- Allow player to chose secondary enemy - many wars were fought between alliances, in some battles you could meet different forces send by enemy allies. I think it would be good to have option to select secondary enemy at the campaign setup, then this enemy would be met in minority of battles during campaign, or its troops could serve as auxiliary troops available to player.
- Allow player to chose secondary ally - similarly, player would chose his allied side, then would be able to recruit certain allied units in his campaign.
- Allow player to chose map/campaign location.
- Display time period during campaign.
- more battle variety - not every battle during campaign needs to be large pitched battle. some could be about skirmishes that will lead into major battle. Battle type you get, could depend on result you got in previous battle. Player should be allowed to lose a battle, but then should be put into situation where enemy is pursuing him and he needs to buy time with his rearguard. Some could be just skirmishes before battle, as it was common practice to have cavalry and light infantry to engage each other while armies entrenched camps or prepared for battle.

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks. We are looking to extend and improve the campaign system, so suggestions like these are very useful.

Hopefully others will also come up with suggestions.

We are particularly in the market for additional decision tree options.

[Igorputski]

The continue the campaign after loss is my suggestion. Like he said above with future battles based on the loss without destroying the chance to win future battles.

[JC_von_Preussen]

Although I still need to play some more campaigns, for the moment, I have to join with Jam and Igor's suggestions.

Especially : losing a battle should be a full part of a campaign, not the end of the world, it should open plenty of new possibilities for next battles. Campaign screen results is also a must have.

[rbodleyscott]

Campaign screen results is also a must have.

What information would you like to see in a campaign results screen?

[vincere]

1. Firstly: love the game, but campaign needs more interaction. Even if it was things like just assigning replacements. Campaign battle losses list.

2. Nothing is going to substitute fully for a campaign maps of some sort. I am hoping one makes an appearance at some point.
Doesn't have to have economy or be complex. Could be stylised line and points, like the board games 'Hannibal: Rome v Carthage' or 'Columbia's Julius Caesar' block game.

3. Failing a map. Then some quasi map graphical representation picturing the choices.

4. Really like OP's idea of choosing secondary enemy and/or ally.

5. Maybe strategic initiative. Win the battle and have the initiative and able chose the ground for next one. Choose out of 3 choices for the next one. Could throw in some choices branches with that. Keep wining, can chose the ground now and not have replacements or allies. Or wait for replacements and lose initiative.

6. Name units. A great thing I'm finding with FG2 is that you have the mechanics so well tuned the battles create stories, like heroic stands, or rash push through. Naming units could help follow the story and enhance that. Name units in battle, maybe with even a window to make short unit citation notes. Keep unit names through the campaign. This could also add to the drama when one of them routes.

7. Decision tree options, off top of head.
Keep winning- sickness hits encampment- battle now with X number units lower strength and one level lower or wait but the enemy will be stronger or on better ground.
Or strike now on good ground, or wait for Allies to stop sacking the local town and have worse ground or stronger enemy.

Sack town and troops and allies happy. But news spreads and enemy force grows larger with local allies/volunteers. Don't sack town, troops not happy, some loose enthusiasm loose level of skill for next battle, and/or some desertions.

[Ironclad]

Thanks Richard, great game. Wonderful to play it first hand after watching all those You Tube videos that so whetted the appetite.

Re campaign ideas and drawing inpiration from the Roman/Sassanid conflicts (even if out of our current period). How about the war starts with a battle for a border city? Consequences could be 1. Draw or Minoir victory/defeat - battle is renewed for that or another border city with local aliies/mercenaries joining in or 2. Major victory for one side leading to it invading the other's interior and targetting for the next battle a major city. Another victory for the invader would lead to a battle further in the interior - maybe involving baggage train movement or crossing a defended river. Eventually leading to a final battle for the enemy regional capital. If the defender wins the position is reversed leading back towards the border and an opportunity for him to counter-invade the enemy territory.

Don't know how feasible it is but it would be really neat if one could take the end results of this campaign and use it as the starting point for repeating the campaign so ending up with a possible series of interlocking campaigns within a continuing war between the two powers concerned. With allies becoming available depending on its progress. It occurs to me that such a facility of inputting a previous campaigns results could allow a over-arching campaign being run outside the game to utlise FOG 2 campaigns as well as its battles but thats probably being far too ambitious for whats achievable.

[Ironclad]

Other features that could be included are use of river transport (crews deducted like garrisons), capturing supply sources eg desert oasis, alternative routes with differing hazards/duration/seasonal effects, field fortifications, dealing with a mercenary or slave revolt and death of ruler or change of strategic direction leading to withdrawal of units.

[Adraeth]

For battle variety i had to say i experienced a "pursuit the enemy" that was like just a very small open battle, nice narrative feeling.

[rbodleyscott]

1. Firstly: love the game, but campaign needs more interaction. Even if it was things like just assigning replacements. Campaign battle losses list.

2. Nothing is going to substitute fully for a campaign maps of some sort. I am hoping one makes an appearance at some point.
Doesn't have to have economy or be complex. Could be stylised line and points, like the board games 'Hannibal: Rome v Carthage' or 'Columbia's Julius Caesar' block game.

3. Failing a map. Then some quasi map graphical representation picturing the choices.

4. Really like OP's idea of choosing secondary enemy and/or ally.

5. Maybe strategic initiative. Win the battle and have the initiative and able chose the ground for next one. Choose out of 3 choices for the next one. Could throw in some choices branches with that. Keep wining, can chose the ground now and not have replacements or allies. Or wait for replacements and lose initiative.

6. Name units. A great thing I'm finding with FG2 is that you have the mechanics so well tuned the battles create stories, like heroic stands, or rash push through. Naming units could help follow the story and enhance that. Name units in battle, maybe with even a window to make short unit citation notes. Keep unit names through the campaign. This could also add to the drama when one of them routes.

7. Decision tree options, off top of head.
Keep winning- sickness hits encampment- battle now with X number units lower strength and one level lower or wait but the enemy will be stronger or on better ground.
Or strike now on good ground, or wait for Allies to stop sacking the local town and have worse ground or stronger enemy.

Sack town and troops and allies happy. But news spreads and enemy force grows larger with local allies/volunteers. Don't sack town, troops not happy, some loose enthusiasm loose level of skill for next battle, and/or some desertions.

Nice suggestions

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks Richard, great game. Wonderful to play it first hand after watching all those You Tube videos that so whetted the appetite.

Re campaign ideas and drawing inpiration from the Roman/Sassanid conflicts (even if out of our current period). How about the war starts with a battle for a border city? Consequences could be 1. Draw or Minoir victory/defeat - battle is renewed for that or another border city with local aliies/mercenaries joining in or 2. Major victory for one side leading to it invading the other's interior and targetting for the next battle a major city. Another victory for the invader would lead to a battle further in the interior - maybe involving baggage train movement or crossing a defended river. Eventually leading to a final battle for the enemy regional capital. If the defender wins the position is reversed leading back towards the border and an opportunity for him to counter-invade the enemy territory.

Don't know how feasible it is but it would be really neat if one could take the end results of this campaign and use it as the starting point for repeating the campaign so ending up with a possible series of interlocking campaigns within a continuing war between the two powers concerned. With allies becoming available depending on its progress. It occurs to me that such a facility of inputting a previous campaigns results could allow a over-arching campaign being run outside the game to utlise FOG 2 campaigns as well as its battles but thats probably being far too ambitious for whats achievable.

We we can certainly look into the possibility. The data does exist at the end of the campaign, so linking a series of campaigns together would at least be possible to implement. Will give it some thought.

[rbodleyscott]

Other features that could be included are use of river transport (crews deducted like garrisons), capturing supply sources eg desert oasis, alternative routes with differing hazards/duration/seasonal effects, field fortifications, dealing with a mercenary or slave revolt and death of ruler or change of strategic direction leading to withdrawal of units.

Yes, all good ideas.

[rbodleyscott]

Obviously, once we have coded alternative strategic choices, they can also be incorporated into historically-based campaigns, including user-created ones.

[stockwellpete]

I made a contribution to another player who is working on a multi-player campaign game that should appear on the forum in the not too distant future. It will be hosted by the player in question and he will keep a record of what happens with pen and paper and then post instructions for subsequent rounds as required. Some of my ideas were incorporated into the campaign design and I also think that some of them might be incorporated or adapted to the single player campaign system of FOG2.

Here is what I put down . . .

Some ideas for a Mediterranean campaign (276-200BCE)

Major powers (5)
A - Rome
B - Carthage
C - Seleucids
D - Macedonians
E - Ptolemaic Egypt

Secondary powers (10)
Gauls
Galatians
Parthians
Graeco-Bactrians
Spanish
Libyans (for Nubians)
Pyrrhus
Greeks
Syracuse
Mauryan Indian

Conflicts to be represented in the campaign

280-275 Galatian invasion of Greece (Macedonians v Galatians 280-63BC)
280-275 Pyrrhus war against Carthage (Carthaginians 280-263BC v Pyrrhic)
270s Ptolemaic war against Kush (Ptolemaics v Libyans)
267-261 Chremonidean War (Macedonians v Greek 280-228BC)
264-240 First Punic War (Romans 280-220BC v Carthaginians 262-236BC)
251-240 Achaean League revolt against Macedon (Macedonians v Greek 280-228BC)
246-241 Third Syrian War (Seleucids v Ptolemaics)
240s Graeco-Bactrian revolt against Seleucids (Seleucids v Graeco-Bactrians)
230s Parthian revolt against the Seleucids (Seleucids v Parthians)
230s Carthage expansion into Spain (Carthaginian 235-146BC v Spanish)
229-228 Roman invasion of Illyria (Romans 280-220BC v Illyrians)
220s Roman invasion of Cisalpine Gaul (Roman 280-220BC v Gallic 300-101BC)
220-217 Social War (Macedonians v Greeks 227-146BC)
219-217 Fourth Syrian War (Seleucids v Ptolemaics)
218-202 Second Punic War (Rome 219-200BC v Carthaginians H218-217BC)
210s Egyptian rebellion against Ptolemaic Egypt (Ptolemaics v Libyans)

Notes
This gives each major power (except Macedon) 2 battles against other major powers and 2 battles against secondary powers - and Macedon 4 battles against secondary powers. Of course, there is nothing to stop you stipulating that each conflict will consist of two or three separate battles, as long as each player has the opportunity to fight the same number of battles.

I have omitted some prominent conflicts in order to balance out the battles. They include the First and Second Syrian Wars (which seemed to have been less consequential than the Third and Fourth); and the Pyrrhus invasion of Macedonia.

The Dynamic Element
So far the campaign consists of battles generated by a fairly conventional historical timeline. In order to spice things up a bit, each player will be able to play an "Invasion" card once during the campaign that will allow players to step outside the timeline.

The choices of "invasion" for the major powers are . . .
Rome - Macedon, Ptolemaic, Pyrrhus, Syracuse
Carthage - Gauls 300-101BC, Numidians, Ptolemaic, Spanish
Seleucids - Graeco-Bactrians, Indians, Macedon, Parthians
Macedonians - Galatians, Greeks 280-228BC, Ptolemaic, Seleucids
Ptolemaic Egypt - Carthage 262-236BC, Greeks 280-228BC, Macedon, Rome 280-220BC

Notes
These invasions will consist of either 2 or 3 separate battles.
Some of the armies are easier to invade than others so a points differential could be used here with a win against armies such as the Syracusan, Numidian (Libyan), Spanish being worth a bit less. It would make sense to choose terrain categories favourable to the army being invaded.

What else needs doing?
A schedule so that each player has one battle going on at all times. It may be necessary to slightly adjust conflicts in the timeline to facilitate this. It doesn't really matter as the purpose of the timeline is to bring this period of history to life for the players.
A victory points system. Players can only score victory points when playing as their own major power - they will not score victory points when playing as a secondary power.

By all means pick the bones out of this. There might be one or two ideas that suggest something to you.

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks

[JaM2013]

also, i think it wouldnt hurt if some enemy units were actually going through campaign too, so AI would also gain experience during campaign. it could be linked with some difficulty level to make game experience more dynamic.


And maybe you could also add a total casualties list when campaign ends. something like "only dead seen end of war" with numbers for both sides.

[hjc]

We we can certainly look into the possibility. The data does exist at the end of the campaign, so linking a series of campaigns together would at least be possible to implement. Will give it some thought.

On a related note, is the state of each army and its units saved somewhere after a single, non-campaign battle? (number of men remaining, killed, wounded, etc) This could be helpful for campaigns where the strategic moves are managed outside of the game, but battles resolved in-game.

[zonks]

What would have been epic would have been a campaign map like AGEOD, but the battles being fought on the map using Field of Glory II, kind of like Crown of Glory, that would be what I call a campaign.

[rbodleyscott]

We we can certainly look into the possibility. The data does exist at the end of the campaign, so linking a series of campaigns together would at least be possible to implement. Will give it some thought.

On a related note, is the state of each army and its units saved somewhere after a single, non-campaign battle? (number of men remaining, killed, wounded, etc) This could be helpful for campaigns where the strategic moves are managed outside of the game, but battles resolved in-game.

Not currently

[JaM2013]

What about dividing battle into stages? So you would have let say 3 major battles in the campaign, but each battle would start with initial skirmishing phase, where both sides would deploy light units and cavalry trying to gain best position for main battle. Typically, these fights were happening so either side could gain best possible place for a camp. Victory in this stage would give player or AI ability to better prepare for battle, ability to send flanking force etc..Then you would fight the main battle, with whole force, and based on outcome, there would be another mini-battle, where you would either chase withdrawing enemy with your front guard (skirmishers and cavalry) or try to hold off enemy while rest of your army is withdrawing (in this case, victory condition could be the timer) - this way, with 3 major battles, you have 9 battles fought.. add some intermission randomized decisions like you have right now (marching through hills, engaging reinforcements etc) and you end up with nice 12-15 battle sandbox campaign that might play quite differently one from another all based on how those battles were fought..

And you could link more stuff to those initial skirmish battles, like if you win decisively, then you control countryside,therefore you could engage enemy supply train, or engage his reinforcements etc.. Also, sometimes you might lose main battle but win the skirmish fight, therefore enemy would not have enough forces to pursue you after battle, which means player will be able to easily protect his withdrawal, and consolidate his forces for next major battle.