Small suggestions thread

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
MikeC_81
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by MikeC_81 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:13 am

Christolos wrote:That is the point. Perhaps not all shocks troops should push back/follow-up a fall back with the same probability...

C
What basis do you have that troops would not follow up on an enemy in the press of melee when they were ordered to attack? Shock troops only followup when they were the aggressor in the fight.

Would a unit engage in a furious melee be as aware of the battlefield as a player would who has a bird's eye view of the situation and independently make the decision to not followup?
Archaeologist1970 wrote:Mike wants a game with no variance where he can calculate everything out like a chess match. While I respect his position, it has no place in an ancient battlefield game.
I am curious, why does it not have any place in an ancient battlefield game?
Stratford Scramble Tournament

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093

FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11717
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:13 am

Christolos wrote:That is the point. Perhaps not all shocks troops should push back/follow-up a fall back with the same probability...C
The problem for me starts with the second pushback. If, say, your veteran pike unit with a leader gets the better of an enemy pike block and pushes it back out of the middle of the enemy line, it remains in contact with friendly units after the first push back, but it becomes completely detached after the second push back (assuming friendly units have not also pushed back the enemy). Would soldiers keep pushing forward in these circumstances or would they be more inclined to hold their position? I think it would depend partly on their discipline and experience, warbands being more impetuous than legionaries, for example. I am not completely against push backs, but I think some ridiculous situations occur in the game because of them. I would limit it to two push backs in any on-going melee even though units will still become detached from friendly units. At least stop the occasions where three or even four push backs occur.

Archaeologist1970
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:45 pm

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by Archaeologist1970 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:23 pm

I think local seargents are not going to break their battleline especially if they know it means certain death by outflanking. Ancient battle is a supposed to be filled with a mix of chaos and unpredictability. So many battles in history on paper should have gone a certain way, but then weird things happen here and there, a flank suddenly collapse, or a elephant routes, and it's all over.

MikeC_81
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by MikeC_81 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:32 pm

Archaeologist1970 wrote:I think local seargents are not going to break their battleline especially if they know it means certain death by outflanking.
Despite the fact that this happened over and over again in history? Sections of line going too far, the entire battle line separating in the multiple independent engagements.
Archaeologist1970 wrote:Ancient battle is a supposed to be filled with a mix of chaos and unpredictability. So many battles in history on paper should have gone a certain way, but then weird things happen here and there, a flank suddenly collapse, or a elephant routes, and it's all over.
Your argument seems inconsistent. You want unprovoked charges but you cannot deal with the possibility of a unit going too far after you yourself ordered the advance.
Stratford Scramble Tournament

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093

FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

Archaeologist1970
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:45 pm

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by Archaeologist1970 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:47 pm

It should be based on training, no luck. Barbarian hordes are completely different from trained pikemen or romans. Come on man, you know this. Disciplined armies have a distinct advantage over. I want FOG to play like a ancients battle game, not Napoleonics where I can send riders or wave some flags and get units to do complex maneuvers. I think both unprovoked charges and halted folllow ups should based on variance that incorporates level of trained troops. If you dont get that, its fine.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11717
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:34 pm

Archaeologist1970 wrote:It should be based on training, no luck. Barbarian hordes are completely different from trained pikemen or romans . . . I think both unprovoked charges and halted follow ups should based on variance that incorporates level of trained troops.
Yes, I think this is the way to approach this issue.

I was just thinking about the situation where, say, a veteran pike block (with a leader) pushes back another pike block for the first time. it moves forward one square and remains in contact with the enemy. If the opposing army has a second line then that veteran pike block could be hit by two new enemy units attacking it diagonally on the next turn. So then it would be facing three units and it would continue the melee at a 40% disadvantage for being outnumbered. It would get no respite for a while because those two new enemy units would also stop the enemy units either side of the now-advanced veteran pike block from being pushed back. For help to come to the veteran pike unit (from friendly units that were in the same line at the start of the melee) one of the enemy units adjacent to it would have to be destroyed. So pushing back an enemy unit just once can get you into serious trouble, if the enemy is depending in depth, so maybe there is a case for saying that one push back is enough.

MikeC_81
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by MikeC_81 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:00 pm

Archaeologist1970 wrote: Come on man, you know this. Disciplined armies have a distinct advantage over. I want FOG to play like a ancients battle game, not Napoleonics where I can send riders or wave some flags and get units to do complex maneuvers.
No I do not know. And I doubt you *know*either. The argument seems far less rooted in what was 'historical' bit rather what type of variance you are or are not willing to live with.

Also how do we know Ancients did not have some sort of of signalling either through horns or flags
Stratford Scramble Tournament

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093

FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

Archaeologist1970
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:45 pm

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by Archaeologist1970 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:30 pm

My Classics BA ancient history and my Masters in Archaeology and Heritage may not make me know everything, but I certainly have a good understanding of battles after reading plenty of books and accounts. If we were totally accurate the troops would line up and the only order you would give is to attack or not. Proper set up got you a good chance, but winning was at the local level. FOG II tries to recreate this with the cohesion checks so some extent. No matter your take on the variance, drilled and trained troops should almost always have the tactical advantage over untrained rabble and warbands. Warbands won by overwhelming all of that nice discipline and training with raw energy. They are a hammer not a precision tool that you want. Drilled troops are not going to pushback and actively break their lines. I could see this with say, raw legions, or poorly trained troop, but not going to happen ever with a veteran legion.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:54 pm

Isn't mentioning your qualifications one variant of Godwin's Law? :mrgreen:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Archaeologist1970
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:45 pm

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by Archaeologist1970 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:05 pm

Totally. And I hated to do it. But I just wanted to I had somewhat of a clue yet not start spouting off texts and citations, especially not on a game forum...

shawkhan2
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:03 pm

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by shawkhan2 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:34 pm

I think that is the point. This is a Game, not an historical simulation. We all play by the rules of the game.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 11717
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:55 pm

shawkhan2 wrote:I think that is the point. This is a Game, not an historical simulation. We all play by the rules of the game.
Well, you have arcade-type historical games at one end of the continuum and strict historical simulations at the other. The question is where FOG2 should be on this continuum. I think Richard has got the balance about right, but I am one of these people who will always want "just a little more history" (as I understand it, of course - and often I am wrong about things). :wink:

Gnaeus
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:20 pm

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by Gnaeus » Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:09 pm

Archaeologist1970 wrote:My Classics BA ancient history and my Masters in Archaeology and Heritage may not make me know everything, but I certainly have a good understanding of battles after reading plenty of books and accounts. If we were totally accurate the troops would line up and the only order you would give is to attack or not. Proper set up got you a good chance, but winning was at the local level. FOG II tries to recreate this with the cohesion checks so some extent. No matter your take on the variance, drilled and trained troops should almost always have the tactical advantage over untrained rabble and warbands. Warbands won by overwhelming all of that nice discipline and training with raw energy. They are a hammer not a precision tool that you want. Drilled troops are not going to pushback and actively break their lines. I could see this with say, raw legions, or poorly trained troop, but not going to happen ever with a veteran legion.
Military history? Military archaeology? Then it should be easy for you to to summarize the actual evidence citing the available sources and provide it to the designer -- in a separate thread. The designer seems quite knowledgeable himself and is in the best position to evaluate whether changes should be made given the constraints of the program. Sometimes greater accuracy at the micro scale results in less accuracy at the macro scale.

MikeC_81
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 935
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by MikeC_81 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:28 pm

He hasn't cited any sources despite multiple posts because it most likely doesn't exist. We have next to no first hand accounts for the vast majority of ancient battles.

Certainly nothing that would come close to the minutae of giving any certainty whether "trained" troops would behave the fashion suggested here or not.

The argument for accuracy stems from his vision of how battles went down back in the day.
Stratford Scramble Tournament

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093

FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

Archaeologist1970
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:45 pm

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by Archaeologist1970 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:17 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
shawkhan2 wrote:I think that is the point. This is a Game, not an historical simulation. We all play by the rules of the game.
Well, you have arcade-type historical games at one end of the continuum and strict historical simulations at the other. The question is where FOG2 should be on this continuum. I think Richard has got the balance about right, but I am one of these people who will always want "just a little more history" (as I understand it, of course - and often I am wrong about things). :wink:

Count me in the same boat then.

Gnaeus
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:20 pm

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by Gnaeus » Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:15 am

stockwellpete wrote:
shawkhan2 wrote:I think that is the point. This is a Game, not an historical simulation. We all play by the rules of the game.
Well, you have arcade-type historical games at one end of the continuum and strict historical simulations at the other. The question is where FOG2 should be on this continuum. I think Richard has got the balance about right, but I am one of these people who will always want "just a little more history" (as I understand it, of course - and often I am wrong about things). :wink:
But the question is what constitutes history.

In Warry, Warfare in the Classical World, Univ. Okla. Press 1980, Warry says that it has been suggested that Greek hoplite warfare relied on the weight of pushing by the back ranks and resembled a "rugger scrum" with "both sides pushing until one gave way." p. 37. Presumably, this would tend to limit the ability of units to control their advance in the middle of battle. He notes that longer lances would make this tactic more difficult, p. 37, but in discussing Philip of Macedon's army, which was equipped with sarissas, he states that "t would seem that the Macedonian formation was equally prepared to thrust with its pikes or push with its shields." p. 68.

Warry doesn't discuss whether this shoving match is likely to have resulted in a gradual retreat over a significant amount of ground or whether it would take place in a relatively limited space before one side broke and ran. Maybe In game terms the issue is whether there could be enough of an uncontrolled advance against an enemy being pushed back to allow some type of flank attack as represented in the game. Given the limitations imposed by the size of the squares, this might require a longer advance than in reality to give the appropriate combat result.

I'm not an expert on this, I don't know what Warry's reputation is in the field, and I don't have an opinion. However, I think we need a little more evidence before concluding that this is more a "game" than a "simulation," leaving aside the question of whether you need to "game" certain aspects of the system at one level to produce overall accuracy as a simulation.

Lancier
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:46 am
Location: İstanbul
Contact:

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by Lancier » Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:08 am

a) Is it possible to write the names and "the winner side and player names" on result chart?
(we use these result screens a lot in the wargaming club so everytime prnscreen the image & writing names on paint becomes hard ^^)
Image
b) Is it possible to write "degree of victories" to the result screen chart based on the % (margin?) losses? like:
marginal victory // significant victory // decisive victory // overwhelming victory

c) Is it possible to have blind challenges (both sides with no tooltips)?
edit: if above not possible at least maybe add "no tooltip" option to the settings?
Image
Colbert ✯ TWC Co-founder
https://thewargamingclub.online/

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 23882
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:01 am

Lancier wrote:a) Is it possible to write the names and "the winner side and player names" on result chart?
(we use these result screens a lot in the wargaming club so everytime prnscreen the image & writing names on paint becomes hard ^^)
Not easy, but we will look into it.
b) Is it possible to write "degree of victories" to the result screen chart based on the % (margin?) losses? like:
marginal victory // significant victory // decisive victory // overwhelming victory
But would every club etc. be willing to accept our definition of these?
c) Is it possible to have blind challenges (both sides with no tooltips)?
edit: if above not possible at least maybe add "no tooltip" option to the settings?
I am not sure I understand what you are asking for. Which tooltip? For truly blind challenges, why not Pot Luck? If it isn't Pot Luck, then surely the side who sets up the challenge will know what the armies are?
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Lancier
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 6:46 am
Location: İstanbul
Contact:

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by Lancier » Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:33 am

Lancier: a) Is it possible to write the names and "the winner side and player names" on result chart?
(we use these result screens a lot in the wargaming club so everytime prnscreen the image & writing names on paint becomes hard ^^)

rbodleyscott: Not easy, but we will look into it.
Thanks Richard.

Lancier: b) Is it possible to write "degree of victories" to the result screen chart based on the % (margin?) losses? like:
marginal victory // significant victory // decisive victory // overwhelming victory

rbodleyscott: But would every club etc. be willing to accept our definition of these?
It will be official so it is up to clubs/people how to use them. Any margin the creator of the game puts between victory levels will be ok for us, we will use it accordingly.
Lancier: c) Is it possible to have blind challenges (both sides with no tooltips)?
edit: if above not possible at least maybe add "no tooltip" option to the settings?

rbodleyscott: I am not sure I understand what you are asking for. Which tooltip? For truly blind challenges, why not Pot Luck? If it isn't Pot Luck, then surely the side who sets up the challenge will know what the armies are?
Sorry i was not clear.
Image
Now with simple or detailed tooltips on settings you can see the approximate % of impact and melees win/draw/lose chances before you go for it. Thats ok and very helpful. But there is no way to turn off the tooltips completely i think if someone wants to like we can turn off the close combat log or close combat reports. While blind challenges i meant this not the factions or Pot Luck. So with tooltips off (blind) these will not help players before they push the charge button course if both sides dont want to...
Image
Colbert ✯ TWC Co-founder
https://thewargamingclub.online/

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 23882
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Small suggestions thread

Post by rbodleyscott » Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:56 am

Lancier wrote:Image
Now with simple or detailed tooltips on settings you can see the approximate % of impact and melees win/draw/lose chances before you go for it. Thats ok and very helpful. But there is no way to turn off the tooltips completely i think if someone wants to like we can turn off the close combat log or close combat reports. While blind challenges i meant this not the factions or Pot Luck. So with tooltips off (blind) these will not help players before they push the charge button course if both sides dont want to...
We could have such an option but it would be hard to enforce in MP. The data passed to and from the server does not include Options settings, let alone enforce them, and I suspect that those at Slitherine who are the ultimate arbiters of how MP should work would not want it to.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”