Any chance for real new gameplay features (not just new units) in the future ?

[Scutarii]

Rear support only worded for heavy foot and well, was a good way to give something usefull to do for RAW units.

I dont dislike see the feature returning to game BUT maybe the problem is we are playing in squares and not hexes... bad because you need double the number of units in rear to have the bonus (inf FOG I with 1 unit you provide the bonus to 2 front units) and because if you want all front line has the bonus you block the option for front units to retreat when they lose a battle but good because you need invest double troops to have all first line with the bonus and if unit is defeated in front line CANT retreat and the unit could be hurt more in cohesion test or even disband.

Maybe is more interesting here add a "shield wall" bonus that made heavy foot units with flanks covered by other heavy foot units suffer less chance to be disrupted when lose a battle and are pushed back.

Other feature i want see back if heavy foot receive the rear support or shield war bonus is that medium foot recover the mobility of 3 hexes/squares from FOG I because is going to be less usable in the front line because is going to lack the cohesion bonus of heavy foot.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I haven't. I'm curious, but it looks a little difficult to use, and I'm a bit lazy about learning new systems. Not that I need my games idiot proof, but an official mode would have the UI to keep the learning process simple.

[stockwellpete]

The feature that I would like to see added at some point is the weather. Rain certainly did affect some later medieval battles when firearms and cannons started being used, and wind and rain would always have affected archers to a certain extent. It wouldn't have to be too complicated. If it started raining, all missile troops would be less effective. If it rained for more than a certain number of turns then missile troops would not be able to fire at all. Wind direction would not be too hard either. Like rain it would be intermittent and if it is blowing directly at one army then their archers would suffer a penalty.

[jomni]

Not too mention open ground becomes muddy and infantry and cavalry mobility and combat effectiveness affected.

[stockwellpete]

Not too mention open ground becomes muddy and infantry and cavalry mobility and combat effectiveness affected.

Yes, and then there is mist/fog and snow that could reduce visibility somewhat. It would be a fabulous development to the game.

[shawkhan2]

I think the LOS rules are much too generous in this game as it is. Many of Hannibal's ambush stratagems are completely unworkable in this system. One reason that generals liked to ride was that they could see over their own troops. Horse should have a longer LOS than foot. I think that enemy troops deployed behind their front lines should be replaced with question marks if shown at all.
As other people have already stated, weather effects would further reduce visibility. Even dust raised on the battlefield, especially by horse could drastically reduce visibility.
Reducing LOS would allow more deception in battles and perhaps be more realistic

[melm]

Tides of Conquest is nice start. However, it is still amateur level mod far from sophisticated product like FOGII. I think Niji needs more support to accelerate the developing speed to finally make it look like decent add-on for FOGII.

[TheGrayMouser]

I’m still hoping we can get team games in multiplayer someday...1 vs 2 , 2 vs 2 ...

[Morbio]

I think the LOS rules are much too generous in this game as it is. Many of Hannibal's ambush stratagems are completely unworkable in this system. One reason that generals liked to ride was that they could see over their own troops. Horse should have a longer LOS than foot. I think that enemy troops deployed behind their front lines should be replaced with question marks if shown at all.
As other people have already stated, weather effects would further reduce visibility. Even dust raised on the battlefield, especially by horse could drastically reduce visibility.
Reducing LOS would allow more deception in battles and perhaps be more realistic

I agree with the suggestion to restrict LOS to for units behind the first rank.... unless the opposition has higher terrain of course. I like the idea of question marks being displayed as it's probable that generals would know that something is there, but not necessarily what is there. I'd restrict this feature to exclude Elephants, I'm fairly sure these would be visible even with troops in front of them!

[MVP7]

I'm personally not a fan of limiting LOS under normal/ideal conditions, especially in the open where visibility would not be an issue in that scale. Weather and especially (visual) dust effects for desert maps and such would be different matter but I really don't think hiding the second line would serve any real purpose.

[pinwolf]

... but I really don't think hiding the second line would serve any real purpose.

How about this:

[TimDee58]

Wow, quoting Donald Featherstone! (I like it)

[pinwolf]

Actually, it's Phil Barker not Don Featherstone. ("Ancient Wargaming", AIRFIX Magazine Guide 9, 1975)

[MVP7]

That doesn't really require or even presume the second line to be invisible for it to work and it would be spotted before sandwiching phase anyway.

[TimDee58]

oops, my bad, I did last read that in 1975 lol

[kongxinga]

Also +1 for Tides of Conquest, check out the ongoing campaign in the Tournament section too.

Bowmen can still work in the second line by leaving a gap in the front line. The gap is covered by ZOC of the units in front.

So

FOF
OBO
Where F is footmen and B is bowmen and O is empty space. You can even do for really missile heavy lists

FOOF
OBBO

But since being engaged drops ZOC, this is kinda risky once the front footmen get engaged. The first formation at least has the other footman to cover if one footmen was engaged.

[olddog52]

As above, choices should be available if they were actually available at the time. Even if they were, were they used often enough to warrant inclusion in all battles in the game?

For example, the much requested testudo formation is not included in the game. Now, it's likely that it was used in a few battles here and there, but in general, it was a siege formation. The Romans were not marching into every battle in testudo. Furthermore, what would the addition of such a formation add to the game? It would make for ahistorical tactics that make the powerful Roman armies even more powerful than they already are.

As for light troops firing into melee - sure, this probably happened sometimes. But overall, it seems from accounts of battle that the lights scattered out of the way when the real fighting began. Allowing players to fire into melee would require coding friendly fire. Remember the scene from "Braveheart" when Evil English Edward orders his archers to fire into the melee because they'll hit the enemy as well, and reinforcements were available? That didn't happen during the real battle. Why not? Because for one thing, it would be terrible for moral. In addition, a hail of arrows from the rear would probably lead to a confused rout, as men assumed the enemy was behind them. In-game, it would lead to players pinning stronger units with weaker ones and then hosing down both with missiles. Yes, theoretically this could be done. Was it done, in reality? If it was, not often enough to warrant inclusion in the game. The one real life example I can think of is the 1781 battle of Guilford Courthouse - rather outside our timeframe, and noted because it was such an unusual occurrence even at the time.

These discussions remind me of the many times players asked why Pike and Shot units could not charge cavalry in Pike and Shot. Yes, theoretically, it might be possible. The problem is, there are virtually no accounts of such units doing so - which leads to the likelihood that these units were formed defensively in the face of cavalry. So, having that additional tactical option available to the player would just be wrong. Finally, more options does not = more strategy. Limiting a players options often increases strategy. One comment newer people sometimes make is that they find the slow pace of movement frustrating. Yet that slow pace is what rewards cunning deployments, and maneuvers that begin several turns before they can come to fruition.

As for new features - a simple provincial campaign in the style of Shogun Total War 1 would make me happy, particularly if a multiplayer version with PBEM simultaneous campaign turns resolved on the battle map could be rigged up with many players. But I realize creating such a feature would be very difficult.

Yes!
this is so what i want.
As for new features - a simple provincial campaign in the style of Shogun Total War 1 would make me happy, particularly if a multiplayer version with PBEM simultaneous campaign turns resolved on the battle map could be rigged up with many players. But I realize creating such a feature would be very difficult.

[Morbio]

I'd like to see multi-multi-player. Where 2 or 3 players could command the same side so that we could recreate the sort of challenge, or confusion, that a real commander would have in a battle. e.g. Hannibal meets with Mago and Hasdrubal and outlines his battle strategy on the eve of the battle. But once the battle starts it's very much up to that local commander to manage his units as best he can to that strategy and have to adapt to changing circumstances as they happen.

In PBEM a team of 2 or 3 could play a side, all submitting their moves simultaneously and independently of each other (this could be time-bound). Once all the moves are in (or when the time is up) the moves are processed. Most would process as desired, but occasionally some may collide in going for the same square, but rules could be determined to resolve this. Then the same process takes place for the other side.

I believe this could create a real team experience and add a new level of fun and complexity for some challenges or events. Obviously a team could get together by Skype and micro-manage all the moves, but I think most players would play in the spirit and this could be interesting.

It may need a pre-deployment phase to specify the points per commander, and possibly deployment zones for each commanders units, specified by the CIC. But after that it would process similarly as today, but with the team's moves being processed in parallel.

Food for thought perhaps?

[rbodleyscott]

Indeed

[imitation_legionary]

The feature that I would like to see added at some point is the weather. Rain certainly did affect some later medieval battles when firearms and cannons started being used, and wind and rain would always have affected archers to a certain extent. It wouldn't have to be too complicated. If it started raining, all missile troops would be less effective. If it rained for more than a certain number of turns then missile troops would not be able to fire at all. Wind direction would not be too hard either. Like rain it would be intermittent and if it is blowing directly at one army then their archers would suffer a penalty.

While what you say is certainly true, it strikes me that I have almost never read of the weather impacting an ancient battle. The only execption I can think of right away is the Volturnus wind which Polybius (?) mentions as an explanation for the Roman defeat at Cannae (they couldn't see or even throw their pila properly).

Lack of weather factor may of course simply be down to the sources, but I also suspect it is due to the Mediterranean climate and/or a shorter campaign season. The contrast with medieval battles is striking, where wet weather is a key factor in several major battles in western and northern Europe (e.g. Agincourt).

I guess you could even mention soil type: the heavy clay soils of nothern and central Europe become a glutinous mud (of WWI fame) when wet, unlike the lighter Mediterranean varieties.