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

[SnuggleBunnies]

I do think, all debates here aside, that something like 80 or 90 percent of players do SP almost exclusively.

[rbodleyscott]

Round about 90% of players playing only SP is what Slitherine tells me, from their previous research. It seems otherwise on the boards only because the MP players post more.

[pipfromslitherine]

Round about 90% of players playing only SP is what Slitherine tells me, from their previous research. It seems otherwise on the boards only because the MP players post more.

That is about right from our experience. As you say, people who play MP are also often more active in the community. And it's worth remembering that perhaps 0.1% of players will ever post anything at all

Cheers

Pip

[mceochaidh]

melm wrote: ↑15 Oct 2018 04:41
"If Richard wants to boost the sale, more resources should be thrown into singleplayer campaign. Grand campaign map, logistic system, fog of war for grand campaign map, weather and season change, etc. Because according to my experience, with steamdb data, majority of the game players are singleplayers."

Based on Richard's and Pip's replies, I think that programming resources should be focused on those features that would please single players and encourage more game sales. The game is solid and the best of its kind. The addition of new campaign features, especially maps and fog of war, would be a great new addition.

I can see that adding weather may be a little complex. However, I can envision a simple system in which, for example, there is a chance of weather reducing visibility which is announced at the start of the game. I do not think a change in graphics is necessary. If it is dusty, as in my example above, perhaps visibility is reduced to a certain number of squares. Anything that would increase the "fog of war" would add realism to the game.

Regarding command and control, I suggest that units out of command range would have a -1 when they take a cohesion test, in addition to the other factors. This would encourage using generals to keep units together without any changes to movement. I would also consider this as a companion rule: Add a new general type - say a wing commander - with a range of 6 squares. Troop commanders would no longer have the ability to inspire units is close combat, so units would lose the +1 in cohesion tests. In addition, when a general is killed, a unit commander would be promoted to Troop commander and immediately replace the killed commander, with the command range of 4 squares. I think the overall result would be the judicious use of commanders to keep units in command range. It does not seem to me that changes would be time consuming to implement, but Richard and Pip would have to determine this.

[MVP7]

...
Regarding command and control, I suggest that units out of command range would have a -1 when they take a cohesion test, in addition to the other factors. This would encourage using generals to keep units together without any changes to movement. I would also consider this as a companion rule: Add a new general type - say a wing commander - with a range of 6 squares. Troop commanders would no longer have the ability to inspire units is close combat, so units would lose the +1 in cohesion tests. In addition, when a general is killed, a unit commander would be promoted to Troop commander and immediately replace the killed commander, with the command range of 4 squares. I think the overall result would be the judicious use of commanders to keep units in command range. It does not seem to me that changes would be time consuming to implement, but Richard and Pip would have to determine this.

How would this make the gameplay better? Would it add depth and meaningful decisions to the gameplay or reduce them?

[mceochaidh]

I am assuming a level of abstraction in which generals are relevant. If they are, then I believe this change may foster game play which is more historically accurate. I often see battle line foot units heading off by themselves as there is not enough of a compelling reason to think about keeping a group of foot units next to each other in certain circumstances. I also see generals bunched together along an attacking front to take advantage of the close combat rules. A typical assignment of troops to a general includes a range of heavy infantry, cavalry and perhaps light troops as well, which allows generals to concentrate against a part of an enemy line by all joining (for example) a heavy infantry unit under their command.

Even the commander in chief normally positioned himself in the centre or a wing and stayed with his troops during the battle. Did they move around among the units in their command to rally their troops? Yes they did. The change would not prevent generals from bunching together, but may impact units on the flank who may then be out of command range.

Perhaps I am completely wrong about this, but I am under the impression that presently, units who are not in command range of their assigned general can still function without the movement penalty if they are in command range of another general. It seems that the limitation is that generals can only join a unit under their command. Are both statements correct?

Light troops would certainly be affected by the change I am proposing. Perhaps their command range should be increased. I would also modify my suggestion to read "-1 if out of command range, unless inspired by a friendly general fighting in close combat." I would define inspired to be within 3 squares of Great Commanders, 2 squares of Field Commanders and 1 square of Wing Commanders. Troop Commanders would not have this ability. Ideally, generals should be costed and points paid. However, I know from previous posts that this may be difficult to program. Therefore, I think that if 4 commanders are generated, 1 would probably be a great commander, 1 a field commander and 2 wing commanders. The troop commander would only be used when a general was killed or wounded.

Were these changes in place, I would certainly have to think more about how I plan an advance to insure units stayed under control and to think a bit more about when generals joined an attacking unit or unit already in melee or when a general would try to rally a unit. Would this change restrict choice a bit? Yes it would, but short of more complicated morale and fatigue rules, I think that is not a bad thing, as I think the game would better reflect how troops who find themselves isolated would act.

[MVP7]

Units get the free turn if they are in command range of their own general or the C-in-C.

There are several layers of leaders below generals who would have far more effect on the immediate morale and functioning of the men than the relative position of some higher level leader. I'm a bit skeptical of how aware an infantryman engaged in melee would be of the distance to and the inspirational rating of their nearest general. I also can't think of battles where a melee would have been lost because a specific general was couple units too far away. The suggested penalty wouldn't primarily effect "isolated" units either but flankers and parts of solid front between fighting generals.

More "complicated" doesn't automatically mean more realistic and this just seems more complex for the sake of it. The current system already encourages spreading the generals evenly across the front and you do get penalties for having all your generals in one place. One very simple change that could increase the importance of well spread generals would be significantly reducing the command range of C-in-C and maybe slightly increasing the minimum command range for sub-generals.

[TheGrayMouser]

Off the cuff an issue with the above would be troops winning combats and pursuing out of range, units subject to push backs, and even fall backs can easily be displaced outside this abstract "range" and penalized with combat based abilities degradation, but nothing is fundamentally done for command and control, which is the concern. I believe the game itself would need to have had its basis on a command control mechanics as being the PRIME gameplay consideration to go beyond what we have in meaningful way. The FOG based games were never about that. Well known games(s) that di focus on C&C were the old GMT "Great battles" games. The combat mechanics there were good but the game revolved around the command oriented "activations' and "trumping" etc.. You cant just splice something like that into FOG, especially considering the open ended nature of the skirmish battles

To truly prevent players sending individual units "ad hoc" anywhere the players whimsy at the moment dictates, cannot be stopped by mere combat penalties unless they are crippling. In that case they would just frustrate and bog down games play and likely be incredibly unrealistic.

I personally don't like the automatic combat bonus given for generals. Some generals SOMETIMES perhaps inspired men to fight harder, but even Alexander had a bad day or too when his troops were perhaps indifferent about dying for him... ( perhaps if it was random haha)

[mceochaidh]

TGM

Valid points. I surrender!

Mac

[SimonLancaster]

I don’t believe that 90% of players only play sp. Mp battles are the key element of any wargame. One reason being that the AI is usually so poor compared to human players. Sp mode and the campaigns should still be improved, though. There are people only really interested in campaigns.

[rbodleyscott]

The main reason the effect of being out of command range has been kept relatively light is to avoid degrading the AI.

[stockwellpete]

The main reason the effect of being out of command range has been kept relatively light is to avoid degrading the AI.

Is an "advanced rules" package just for multi-player a possibility at some stage, or is it ruled out completely, Richard? Some posters are saying that we should not divide the community in this way but it strikes me that it is already divided, primarily between those who either just play single player or multi-player, but also between those who prefer to play scenarios rather than "skirmish" battles, and those who prefer the automated tournaments to the Digital League, to give a few examples. I don't regard these divisions as particularly problematic, to be honest. It is just that the game as a diverse player base, which is a good thing.

[rbodleyscott]

The main reason the effect of being out of command range has been kept relatively light is to avoid degrading the AI.

Is an "advanced rules" package just for multi-player a possibility at some stage, or is it ruled out completely, Richard? Some posters are saying that we should not divide the community in this way but it strikes me that it is already divided, primarily between those who either just play single player or multi-player, but also between those who prefer to play scenarios rather than "skirmish" battles, and those who prefer the automated tournaments to the Digital League, to give a few examples. I don't regard these divisions as particularly problematic, to be honest. It is just that the game as a diverse player base, which is a good thing.

No decision has yet been made. We have avoided it so far for the reasons that have been cited above.

[pipfromslitherine]

I don’t believe that 90% of players only play sp. Mp battles are the key element of any wargame. One reason being that the AI is usually so poor compared to human players. Sp mode and the campaigns should still be improved, though. There are people only really interested in campaigns.

This isn't a feeling we have , it is based on sales vs the number of people playing MP games on the server. This was also true back in the days of RTS's like Dune or C&C. Even taking into account the rise in MP popularity the vast majority of players never play MP on any game.

Cheers

Pip

[SimonLancaster]

I don’t believe that 90% of players only play sp. Mp battles are the key element of any wargame. One reason being that the AI is usually so poor compared to human players. Sp mode and the campaigns should still be improved, though. There are people only really interested in campaigns.

This isn't a feeling we have , it is based on sales vs the number of people playing MP games on the server. This was also true back in the days of RTS's like Dune or C&C. Even taking into account the rise in MP popularity the vast majority of players never play MP on any game.

Cheers

Pip

I take your point about there being many people who only play single player games. However, your research above is probably quite flawed if it looks at sales v people playing on the multiplayer mode. I only have to look at my six Steam friends who have Field of Glory 2. Three of them never play the game so they wouldn’t be playing multiplayer, anyway!

[melm]

To be honest, the most wanted feature by me is replay. Either it can be good snack for me in my leisure time to evaluate the game, or it will be easy for youtubers to make the video that can help expanding the fame of the game. So far the game played and the result disappeared in a few days unless you used third party video recording software.
Plus, I can't find single game in my mind, which is heavily MP oriented, doesn't have the replay function.

[SimonLancaster]

Replay is a good idea! +1 from Lancaster!

[TimDee58]

+1 from Dee58

[MVP7]

I don’t believe that 90% of players only play sp. Mp battles are the key element of any wargame. One reason being that the AI is usually so poor compared to human players. Sp mode and the campaigns should still be improved, though. There are people only really interested in campaigns.

This isn't a feeling we have , it is based on sales vs the number of people playing MP games on the server. This was also true back in the days of RTS's like Dune or C&C. Even taking into account the rise in MP popularity the vast majority of players never play MP on any game.

Cheers

Pip

I take your point about there being many people who only play single player games. However, your research above is probably quite flawed if it looks at sales v people playing on the multiplayer mode. I only have to look at my six Steam friends who have Field of Glory 2. Three of them never play the game so they wouldn’t be playing multiplayer, anyway!

Those numbers are consistent with what I have heard of other strategy games. I don't see any factors that would make FoG2 different. Even if only half of the people who have purchased the game ever played it (which is unlikely estimate since it has never boomed on youtube/twitch or been on massive sale) that would still mean that 80% of the players only play single-player.

[rbodleyscott]

The title of this thread has been bugging me for some time. I have edited my first post on the first page of the thread:

It is also worth noting that the title of this thread is misleading. We have introduced lots of "real new gameplay features" since the game was released. The fact that we choose to give these features away free to all (instead of locking them behind DLC purchases) ought to be a cause for a pat on the back, IMO, rather than being treated as if we have not added any new game features!

A mild vent, but I think it needed saying. If you give away all the new gameplay features for free, then of course the DLCs will only include new units, armies, battles and campaigns.