Fog II and Pike and Shot II?

[AlexDetrojan]

Not to give anything away, but Richard and his team should really create Pike and Shot II, using the Fog II game engine! This is such an enjoyable game and I feel that P&S would really be outstanding using it. Just a random thought...

[Lancier]

+1 ^^

[w_michael]

I would like a rules update for Pike & Shot Campaigns (and I would be willing to pay for it), but I wouldn't want the unit graphics to change. The 3-D modelling in Field of Glory II is both a content bottleneck and economic constraint.

[rbodleyscott]

I would like a rules update for Pike & Shot Campaigns (and I would be willing to pay for it), but I wouldn't want the unit graphics to change. The 3-D modelling in Field of Glory II is both a content bottleneck and economic constraint.

Which rules would you like updated?

[Jishmael]

I would like a rules update for Pike & Shot Campaigns (and I would be willing to pay for it), but I wouldn't want the unit graphics to change. The 3-D modelling in Field of Glory II is both a content bottleneck and economic constraint.

Which rules would you like updated?

generals and cnc effects come to mind immediately.

the protection of nearby artillery by infantry units from sengoku jidai is another thing id love for P&S (not sure if its period appropriate though)

I personally really like the pushback mechanic, but again not sure if it fits the scale and period of P&S

[rbodleyscott]

the protection of nearby artillery by infantry units from sengoku jidai is another thing id love for P&S (not sure if its period appropriate though)

It certainly is.

[julianbarker]

I agree that the P&S graphics should not change. P&S looks like a battle is being fought in front of you. FoGII looks like a wargame is being played in front of you.

[nikgaukroger]

I agree that the P&S graphics should not change. P&S looks like a battle is being fought in front of you. FoGII looks like a wargame is being played in front of you.

I'd agree that I'd like the style of the P&S graphics to remain, however, it would be nice to make them a bit nicer as they are quite basic at present.

Must admit that I personally wouldn't want much changed in P&S - FWIW I think it is a better game than FoGII anyway.

[w_michael]

I would like a rules update for Pike & Shot Campaigns (and I would be willing to pay for it), but I wouldn't want the unit graphics to change. The 3-D modelling in Field of Glory II is both a content bottleneck and economic constraint.

Which rules would you like updated?

I don't want ammo limits, so automatic fire is good.
Undo move.
Generals w/ command group move.
Turn and shoot (in one click).
Push backs & follow ups.
Pass through.
Right-mouse dragging to rotate map view.
1 = LOF, 2 = LOS, 3 = Command range
Post-Battle review.
Right-click to adjudicate existing melees.
Red coloured floating casualty markers to indicate a lost combat.
Remove the Player Side army list groupings (Pro-Imperialist/Anti-Imperialist) so that any army list can be matched against any other.
Player colour surround of national banners on units so that when Sienna vs. Florence you can tell one side's units from the other (both Italian 1494-1530 lists).

[TheGrayMouser]

If I could only pick three:
The new ZOC rules.
Ammo (reaction fire would need be assessed)
New skirmish map types ie steppe desert and battle; advanced/ rear guard and baggage train

[Jishmael]

I wouldnt want ammo personally. but heck yes to the interface and pass through!

edit:
argument: ammo limit with armies and gameplay that are heavily reliant on shooting might just make the whole thing tedious in my opinion.

[stockwellpete]

Which rules would you like updated?

Far fewer "scruffy battles" . . .

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 99&t=73438

Camps, baggage trains, ammunition supply wagons etc. To give each army a rear. They just seem to have a front at the moment. It is one of the main reasons why I didn't play the game as much as I do FOG, although much of it is really excellent. I can't remember where the debate got to about generals either. They need to be represented in some way, even if it is predominantly to enhance the game's historical atmosphere.

[Yggdrassil]

Since we're voicing wishes, I would love for a wargame (any wargame - P&S, FoG II, a third entity...) to incorporate 16th-17th century sieges (vauban system!) in a more realistic fashion. I am thinking stuff like laying down saps and trenches, deciding where to build artillery platforms, concentrating fire on section of walls, undermining walls, keeping an eye on supply... I think it could work well in a turn based system, with 1 turn being a day/night, until a wall is breached - then a separate battle focusing on the storming of the breach can be played out as a separate battle with standard turn times. If the attack on the breach fails, the attacker either goes back to the siege phase (if enough attack points/supply/whatever), or a siege is lifted (if the attacker fails the points check).

A guy can dream, right ?

[Aryaman]

I would like a change in the movement, so that units changing direction wheel instead of rotate,
Also I would like late 17th century units to be less manoeuvrable,
Finally I would like units changing face in front of enemy units to run a morale check like the one of units stepping back

[SundiataWTF]

I differ from most of the posters in that I WOULD like to see P&S graphics updated to FOG2 standards. I'm a gamer for whom graphics help with immersion, which, for me, is kin to entertainment.

[SnuggleBunnies]

The only things I would like would be the addition of secondary zoc, and pushbacks.

[Bombax]

Things I would like to see included -
- Undo Move

Things I wouldn't like to see included -
- New graphics
- Ammo limit (ugh!)
- Er, anything else...

[julianbarker]

I differ from most of the posters in that I WOULD like to see P&S graphics updated to FOG2 standards. I'm a gamer for whom graphics help with immersion, which, for me, is kin to entertainment.

For me supersized out of scale animated figures repeating the same moves over and over destroy the immersion. It makes the game look like a tabletop wargame (which for FoG might make sense as it is derived from a table top game) but P&S graphics look like 16th and 17th century illustrations of battles so for me help with the immersion as you are seeing the battle as a contemporary would imagine a battle from on high. I would rather see a pike phalanx as a solid block of close order troops under flowing banners etc rather than a dozen or so figures dancing around or shadow boxing. I never bought FoG due to the tabletop look and nearly didn't buy FoG II for this reason.

[Yggdrassil]

For me supersized out of scale animated figures repeating the same moves over and over destroy the immersion. It makes the game look like a tabletop wargame (which for FoG might make sense as it is derived from a table top game) but P&S graphics look like 16th and 17th century illustrations of battles so for me help with the immersion as you are seeing the battle as a contemporary would imagine a battle from on high. I would rather see a pike phalanx as a solid block of close order troops under flowing banners etc rather than a dozen or so figures dancing around or shadow boxing. I never bought FoG due to the tabletop look and nearly didn't buy FoG II for this reason.

I agree with this completely. P&S units gove the impression of actual units, as in clumps on men standing in formation. FoGII units look like token figures.

Though higher level of detail is very much needed. And more artwork to appear as illustrations of said units - right now everything uses the same few pictures - swiss, landesknechts, tercios, swedish units...everything is the same.

Though, as understand it, there will be no P&S 2. We will get maybe in future the appropriate module for FoG II but that's it. FoGII basically is the sequel.

[Yggdrassil]

And not too be overlooked are the system requirements. FoGII is a resource hog. I enjoy playing P&S on my windows tablet. With FoGII this is impossible. Even my wife's laptop is too weak to run it.