I've struggled hard to like this game...

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
Cunningcairn
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by Cunningcairn » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:44 am

SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:16 pm
Cunningcairn wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:57 pm
Geffalrus wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:50 pm
This game is a paradise compared to the battle mechanics of Rome Total War.
LOL! Thanks for the heads up. I love this game and all the iterations, including the TT rules sets that RBS and his team have been involved with. Every single one had initial teething problems but there was always acceptance of the issues and the willingness to correct them. This time there appears to be a reluctance to accept there are issues which is not helped by certain people who talk more than they play saying it is predictable and there are no issues.
Talk more than play? Well I've been too busy playing to talk, but I guess I'm obligated to now. Having dabbled in FoG1, the RNG results are far, far, less crazy in FoG2, and the ability to order lights to 'hold' in the face of, say, cataphracts was just ridiculous. There is not a reluctance to accept that there are issues - see the changes made to the pushback system. This aspect of the game, in my opinion as someone who generally plays more than talks, is in a good place. You can disagree and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that your opinion ought to prevail in the design of the game. RBS can't please everyone, so he ultimately has to make decisions based on what proportion of players want certain changes, and how much those changes gel with his vision of the balance between gameplay and historical accuracy. The reason this game is so good, IMO, is because he has the clarity of vision to generally know when a change should be made, and when it would be best to stick to his vision, instead of listening to loud voices that insist they are a majority.

And no, I'm not saying that there are no issues, just that this is not an issue to me, and that the things I do think need to be worked on either are or likely will be worked on. And if there are a couple aspects of the game that I wish were different, that doesn't mean I'll struggle to like it. Even my favorite games have things that I wish were a little different, because everybody has different preferences, and nobody is making games for a market that consists of just me.
I wasn't talking about you.

Pkunzipper
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:17 pm

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by Pkunzipper » Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:10 am

SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:16 pm
Cunningcairn wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:57 pm
Geffalrus wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:50 pm
This game is a paradise compared to the battle mechanics of Rome Total War.
LOL! Thanks for the heads up. I love this game and all the iterations, including the TT rules sets that RBS and his team have been involved with. Every single one had initial teething problems but there was always acceptance of the issues and the willingness to correct them. This time there appears to be a reluctance to accept there are issues which is not helped by certain people who talk more than they play saying it is predictable and there are no issues.
Talk more than play? Well I've been too busy playing to talk, but I guess I'm obligated to now. Having dabbled in FoG1, the RNG results are far, far, less crazy in FoG2, and the ability to order lights to 'hold' in the face of, say, cataphracts was just ridiculous. There is not a reluctance to accept that there are issues - see the changes made to the pushback system. This aspect of the game, in my opinion as someone who generally plays more than talks, is in a good place. You can disagree and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that your opinion ought to prevail in the design of the game. RBS can't please everyone, so he ultimately has to make decisions based on what proportion of players want certain changes, and how much those changes gel with his vision of the balance between gameplay and historical accuracy. The reason this game is so good, IMO, is because he has the clarity of vision to generally know when a change should be made, and when it would be best to stick to his vision, instead of listening to loud voices that insist they are a majority.

And no, I'm not saying that there are no issues, just that this is not an issue to me, and that the things I do think need to be worked on either are or likely will be worked on. And if there are a couple aspects of the game that I wish were different, that doesn't mean I'll struggle to like it. Even my favorite games have things that I wish were a little different, because everybody has different preferences, and nobody is making games for a market that consists of just me.
+1

NikiforosFokas
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:59 pm
Location: Greece

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by NikiforosFokas » Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:35 am

Come on guys,
There is no need to be unpolite to each other.
I disagree with Martyn (aka Cunningcrain) but I know whatever he says he does because he loves the game and the community since FoG1 times.
For Byzantium!!

Cunningcairn
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by Cunningcairn » Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:18 am

NikiforosFokas wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:35 am
Come on guys,
There is no need to be unpolite to each other.
I disagree with Martyn (aka Cunningcrain) but I know whatever he says he does because he loves the game and the community since FoG1 times.
Thanks for the kind words Kostas! Snugglebunnies for some reason thought I was talking about him "talking and not playing" which I wasn't so I apologise to him if I have offended him. I have asked a number of questions about why, what seem to be questionable outcomes, are deemed to be appropriate and no-one has even attempted to answer the questions. There has been a lot of comment about what peoples preferences are but no actual answers to my questions. My understanding of a good war games rule set is that if you apply tactics of the period covered you will do well without needing to read the small print. I believe this was the design philosophy of all WRG rule sets. RBS is this the design philosophy behind FOG2? It doesn't make sense for players to rely on inferior troops to delay/prevent enemy flanking maneuvers at critical points in a battle line or for warband lines to standoff watching each other because whoever attacks first will probably lose the battle. The ability of raw medium foot to pin Superior armoured lancers in open terrain, fragmented light troops standing for multiple turns against superior opponents, the absolute advantage of quantity over quality, the extended runs of bad luck that many experience etc. This is causing players to use "game" tactics that are not representative of actual tactics of the period. It is also evident by the choices of armies in the FDL as we are seeing the mass MF and cavalry armies starting to dominate. Having said all that I will cease to comment on the rules and will now retire to the FOG battlefield and adapt to the system. I look forward to meeting you all there!

SnuggleBunnies
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 981
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by SnuggleBunnies » Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:42 pm

Cunningcairn wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:18 am
NikiforosFokas wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:35 am
Come on guys,
There is no need to be unpolite to each other.
I disagree with Martyn (aka Cunningcrain) but I know whatever he says he does because he loves the game and the community since FoG1 times.
Thanks for the kind words Kostas! Snugglebunnies for some reason thought I was talking about him "talking and not playing" which I wasn't so I apologise to him if I have offended him. I have asked a number of questions about why, what seem to be questionable outcomes, are deemed to be appropriate and no-one has even attempted to answer the questions. There has been a lot of comment about what peoples preferences are but no actual answers to my questions. My understanding of a good war games rule set is that if you apply tactics of the period covered you will do well without needing to read the small print. I believe this was the design philosophy of all WRG rule sets. RBS is this the design philosophy behind FOG2? It doesn't make sense for players to rely on inferior troops to delay/prevent enemy flanking maneuvers at critical points in a battle line or for warband lines to standoff watching each other because whoever attacks first will probably lose the battle. The ability of raw medium foot to pin Superior armoured lancers in open terrain, fragmented light troops standing for multiple turns against superior opponents, the absolute advantage of quantity over quality, the extended runs of bad luck that many experience etc. This is causing players to use "game" tactics that are not representative of actual tactics of the period. It is also evident by the choices of armies in the FDL as we are seeing the mass MF and cavalry armies starting to dominate. Having said all that I will cease to comment on the rules and will now retire to the FOG battlefield and adapt to the system. I look forward to meeting you all there!
Sorry if I came off as aggressive, that was not my intention. I don't think RBS will be irritated with if I say that the interaction of quality vs quantity is one of the issues being scrutinized. I would also enjoy a tournament with hard coded no tooltips no win-lose chance display, to add more uncertainty.

I still disagree with you on runs of bad luck, and really rarely see the stands of light troops you are talking about. I've also explained earlier in the thread to Alex why such situations might seem less common in Pike and Shot.

Cunningcairn
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by Cunningcairn » Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:14 pm

SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:42 pm
Cunningcairn wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:18 am
NikiforosFokas wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:35 am
Come on guys,
There is no need to be unpolite to each other.
I disagree with Martyn (aka Cunningcrain) but I know whatever he says he does because he loves the game and the community since FoG1 times.
Thanks for the kind words Kostas! Snugglebunnies for some reason thought I was talking about him "talking and not playing" which I wasn't so I apologise to him if I have offended him. I have asked a number of questions about why, what seem to be questionable outcomes, are deemed to be appropriate and no-one has even attempted to answer the questions. There has been a lot of comment about what peoples preferences are but no actual answers to my questions. My understanding of a good war games rule set is that if you apply tactics of the period covered you will do well without needing to read the small print. I believe this was the design philosophy of all WRG rule sets. RBS is this the design philosophy behind FOG2? It doesn't make sense for players to rely on inferior troops to delay/prevent enemy flanking maneuvers at critical points in a battle line or for warband lines to standoff watching each other because whoever attacks first will probably lose the battle. The ability of raw medium foot to pin Superior armoured lancers in open terrain, fragmented light troops standing for multiple turns against superior opponents, the absolute advantage of quantity over quality, the extended runs of bad luck that many experience etc. This is causing players to use "game" tactics that are not representative of actual tactics of the period. It is also evident by the choices of armies in the FDL as we are seeing the mass MF and cavalry armies starting to dominate. Having said all that I will cease to comment on the rules and will now retire to the FOG battlefield and adapt to the system. I look forward to meeting you all there!
Sorry if I came off as aggressive, that was not my intention. I don't think RBS will be irritated with if I say that the interaction of quality vs quantity is one of the issues being scrutinized. I would also enjoy a tournament with hard coded no tooltips no win-lose chance display, to add more uncertainty.

I still disagree with you on runs of bad luck, and really rarely see the stands of light troops you are talking about. I've also explained earlier in the thread to Alex why such situations might seem less common in Pike and Shot.
Thank you! No offence was taken :D I look forward to our next encounter in the game.

Cunningcairn
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by Cunningcairn » Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:35 am

I suppose I'm a sucker for punishment but still no answer to my questions.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22496
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by rbodleyscott » Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:23 pm

Cunningcairn wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:35 am
I suppose I'm a sucker for punishment but still no answer to my questions.
To answer one of your questions, which is fundamental to the others: Yes we are striving for realism. What constitutes realism is often debatable, and it is often impossible to achieve a consensus on which everyone will agree.

As Snugglebunnies said, serious development discussion is occurring on the beta board.

If you want to influence game development you would be better off joining the beta, and putting your case there, rather than attempting to cross-examine the developer.
In 7th Edition, DBM, FOG1 you are able to reasonably predict what will occur with the occasional shock result. Why has this changed in FOG2?
The answer is that it hasn't (except in so far as combat results are in fact significantly more predictable in FOG2 than in FOG1). You are just looking at those older rules through rose-tinted spectacles.

In fact the possibility of losing a battle of 7th edition on one single dice roll was what propelled me to develop DBM (with Phil Barker) as a replacement for 7th edition. And yet, even in DBM a single 6:1 dice roll could decide a battle.
Cunningcairn wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 3:12 pm
The current level of predictability/unpredictability fits our design goals. and we have no immediate plans to change it.
Can these design goals be shared with the FOG community?
The design goal is to have enough predictability to ensure that a skilled player will nearly always win against a less skilled player, but enough unpredictability to represent otherwise unmodellable events (such as the unit commander being killed) and to ensure that the generalship skills of risk management and use of reserves are properly rewarded.

We (and many of the players who have posted in the multiple threads discussing this subject) are happy that we have struck a good balance, which is more realistic than a higher degree of predictability would produce. Some players, such as yourself, disagree.

As I said before, this is an irreconcilable difference of opinion.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Cunningcairn
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by Cunningcairn » Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:49 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:23 pm
Cunningcairn wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:35 am
I suppose I'm a sucker for punishment but still no answer to my questions.
To answer one of your questions, which is fundamental to the others: Yes we are striving for realism. What constitutes realism is often debatable, and it is often impossible to achieve a consensus on which everyone will agree.

As Snugglebunnies said, serious development discussion is occurring on the beta board.

If you want to influence game development you would be better off joining the beta, and putting your case there, rather than attempting to cross-examine the developer.
In 7th Edition, DBM, FOG1 you are able to reasonably predict what will occur with the occasional shock result. Why has this changed in FOG2?
The answer is that it hasn't (except in so far as combat results are in fact significantly more predictable in FOG2 than in FOG1). You are just looking at those older rules through rose-tinted spectacles.

In fact the possibility of losing a battle of 7th edition on one single dice roll was what propelled me to develop DBM (with Phil Barker) as a replacement for 7th edition. And yet, even in DBM a single 6:1 dice roll could decide a battle.
Cunningcairn wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2019 3:12 pm
The current level of predictability/unpredictability fits our design goals. and we have no immediate plans to change it.
Can these design goals be shared with the FOG community?
The design goal is to have enough predictability to ensure that a skilled player will nearly always win against a less skilled player, but enough unpredictability to represent otherwise unmodellable events (such as the unit commander being killed) and to ensure that the generalship skills of risk management and use of reserves are properly rewarded.

We (and many of the players who have posted in the multiple threads discussing this subject) are happy that we have struck a good balance, which is more realistic than a higher degree of predictability would produce. Some players, such as yourself, disagree.

As I said before, this is an irreconcilable difference of opinion.
In my case the term "irreconcilable difference of opinion" does not apply. I have voiced my opinion on what I believe would improve the game and have tried to suggest alternative approaches. I do not intend to stop playing if the changes are not made. I also know it is impossible to please everyone in any situation. My comments were not intended as an attack on anyone and I respect others points of view. I am not looking at the old rules through rose tinted spectacles as I know there were many flaws. The point I was trying to make is that you a and your teams have always addressed the issues based on feedback from players for which I commend you. From your response I see that issues are being addressed in the beta board. I was not aware of this. I think the wargaming community has also changed since the purely TT days and the FOGII community is a mix of traditional wargamers and computer gamers and this is the main cause of differing opinions. I look forward to clashing with your warbands on the FOG battlefield :wink:

Zardoz02
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:37 am
Location: Melbourne, Oz

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by Zardoz02 » Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:40 pm

But that personal preference is often derived from a desire to play competitively. I found the same fundamental division in tabletop-land.
Possibly, competitive PBEM-focused rulesets (or those rulesets which get used in that way, whether the authors intended that outcome or not) need to just accept the design objectives that flow from that usage.

gamercb
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:53 pm

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by gamercb » Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:53 pm

I assume RNG is a Random number generator which relies on some formula to generate a random number which may not be as random as expected.

I must be a very unskilled player despite all the games I played as I frequently find myself getting into situations where my units are exposed. I look at the stats and it says I have a 70% chance of winning 25% chance of drawing and 5% chance of losing so I charge only to double drop when I lose badly.

I do not like the unpredictability of the evade and the removal of the option to order a unit to hold. I think Generals should be able to order a unit to hold which would slightly increase the chance of them not evading or order them to evade which would increase the likelyhood of them evading. That does not mean that they will always obey the order, only that they have an increase chance of doing so. I have lost armies when cavalry in an advantageous position, such as being uphill, have evaded when charged, leaving my flank exposed.

I would also like to understand why sometimes units pursuing suddenly decide to attack a unit they come across whilst pursuing why others ignore them.

NikiforosFokas
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:59 pm
Location: Greece

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by NikiforosFokas » Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:18 pm

gamercb wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:53 pm

I do not like the unpredictability of the evade and the removal of the option to order a unit to hold. I think Generals should be able to order a unit to hold which would slightly increase the chance of them not evading or order them to evade which would increase the likelyhood of them evading. That does not mean that they will always obey the order, only that they have an increase chance of doing so. I have lost armies when cavalry in an advantageous position, such as being uphill, have evaded when charged, leaving my flank exposed.

I agree 100% to this.
For Byzantium!!

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22496
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by rbodleyscott » Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:06 am

gamercb wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:53 pm
I would also like to understand why sometimes units pursuing suddenly decide to attack a unit they come across whilst pursuing why others ignore them.
They attack if they both estimate the combat as a good bet AND have enough movement points left to charge them. The latter condition is the usual reason why they don't charge when it seems they should. If they don't charge they turn to follow the routers.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

deve
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:32 am

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by deve » Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:16 pm

gamercb wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:53 pm

I do not like the unpredictability of the evade and the removal of the option to order a unit to hold. I think Generals should be able to order a unit to hold which would slightly increase the chance of them not evading or order them to evade which would increase the likelyhood of them evading. That does not mean that they will always obey the order, only that they have an increase chance of doing so. I have lost armies when cavalry in an advantageous position, such as being uphill, have evaded when charged, leaving my flank exposed.
Completely agree with this. Melee cav behaves like it has no battle-assignment from general whatsoever. You can not rely on it to protect flanks. I would love to see option that allows general to order melee cav to hold instead of evading (or at least decrease likelihood of evading). Not sure this option should exist on lights though since they already slow down cav well enough given their price and historical usage.

Cunningcairn
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by Cunningcairn » Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:55 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:06 am
gamercb wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:53 pm
I would also like to understand why sometimes units pursuing suddenly decide to attack a unit they come across whilst pursuing why others ignore them.
They attack if they both estimate the combat as a good bet AND have enough movement points left to charge them. The latter condition is the usual reason why they don't charge when it seems they should. If they don't charge they turn to follow the routers.
This decision making in the code needs refining as I have often experienced units chasing routers to make a 90 degree turn to rather attack opponents that give an advantage to the chasers than the obvious unmistakable target. The unit is in uncontrolled pursuit and that type of decision making was not possible and did not occur.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22496
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:01 am

Cunningcairn wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:55 am
rbodleyscott wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:06 am
gamercb wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:53 pm
I would also like to understand why sometimes units pursuing suddenly decide to attack a unit they come across whilst pursuing why others ignore them.
They attack if they both estimate the combat as a good bet AND have enough movement points left to charge them. The latter condition is the usual reason why they don't charge when it seems they should. If they don't charge they turn to follow the routers.
This decision making in the code needs refining as I have often experienced units chasing routers to make a 90 degree turn to rather attack opponents that give an advantage to the chasers than the obvious unmistakable target. The unit is in uncontrolled pursuit and that type of decision making was not possible and did not occur.
In fact they will never turn more than 45 degrees from their pursuit path. This may of course result in a 90 degree turn if following their pursuit path would have involved a 45 degree turn.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Cunningcairn
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by Cunningcairn » Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:06 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:01 am
Cunningcairn wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:55 am
rbodleyscott wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:06 am


They attack if they both estimate the combat as a good bet AND have enough movement points left to charge them. The latter condition is the usual reason why they don't charge when it seems they should. If they don't charge they turn to follow the routers.
This decision making in the code needs refining as I have often experienced units chasing routers to make a 90 degree turn to rather attack opponents that give an advantage to the chasers than the obvious unmistakable target. The unit is in uncontrolled pursuit and that type of decision making was not possible and did not occur.
In fact they will never turn more than 45 degrees from their pursuit path. This may of course result in a 90 degree turn if following their pursuit path would have involved a 45 degree turn.
They turned 90 degrees from the last direction of their pursuit (not initial direction) to attack another unit instead of the one directly to their front. No doubt as it happened more than once. I realise I should have taken a screenshot but I couldn't.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22496
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:26 am

Cunningcairn wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:06 am
rbodleyscott wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:01 am
Cunningcairn wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:55 am


This decision making in the code needs refining as I have often experienced units chasing routers to make a 90 degree turn to rather attack opponents that give an advantage to the chasers than the obvious unmistakable target. The unit is in uncontrolled pursuit and that type of decision making was not possible and did not occur.
In fact they will never turn more than 45 degrees from their pursuit path. This may of course result in a 90 degree turn if following their pursuit path would have involved a 45 degree turn.
They turned 90 degrees from the last direction of their pursuit (not initial direction) to attack another unit instead of the one directly to their front. No doubt as it happened more than once. I realise I should have taken a screenshot but I couldn't.
Yes, it can be 90 degrees from the last direction of their pursuit, as I said above. But they will only turn 45 degrees from what would have been the next direction of their pursuit.

So they are only in fact veering off the projected pursuit path by 45 degrees, even though that may mean a 90 degree turn from their previous facing.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Cunningcairn
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by Cunningcairn » Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:58 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:26 am
Cunningcairn wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:06 am
rbodleyscott wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:01 am


In fact they will never turn more than 45 degrees from their pursuit path. This may of course result in a 90 degree turn if following their pursuit path would have involved a 45 degree turn.
They turned 90 degrees from the last direction of their pursuit (not initial direction) to attack another unit instead of the one directly to their front. No doubt as it happened more than once. I realise I should have taken a screenshot but I couldn't.
Yes, it can be 90 degrees from the last direction of their pursuit, as I said above. But they will only turn 45 degrees from what would have been the next direction of their pursuit.

So they are only in fact veering off the projected pursuit path by 45 degrees, even though that may mean a 90 degree turn from their previous facing.
If you look at a projected path as progression through the squares, when leaving the last square they were heading to the bottom right corner of the next square when on entering that square they turned 90 degrees and initiated combat with a unit across from the bottom left corner of the square they were entering.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22496
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: I've struggled hard to like this game...

Post by rbodleyscott » Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:59 am

Cunningcairn wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:58 am
rbodleyscott wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:26 am
Cunningcairn wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:06 am


They turned 90 degrees from the last direction of their pursuit (not initial direction) to attack another unit instead of the one directly to their front. No doubt as it happened more than once. I realise I should have taken a screenshot but I couldn't.
Yes, it can be 90 degrees from the last direction of their pursuit, as I said above. But they will only turn 45 degrees from what would have been the next direction of their pursuit.

So they are only in fact veering off the projected pursuit path by 45 degrees, even though that may mean a 90 degree turn from their previous facing.
If you look at a projected path as progression through the squares, when leaving the last square they were heading to the bottom right corner of the next square when on entering that square they turned 90 degrees and initiated combat with a unit across from the bottom left corner of the square they were entering.
Yes, you don't have to convince me that they may turn 90 degrees, I have already said so myself twice.

But the issue is where they would have gone next if they had continued to pursue instead of charging the new unit. The angle between those directions will not be more than 45 degrees. As I have said, this does mean that units will sometimes change direction by 90 degrees, but it will be no more than 45 degrees from where they would have gone if they had continued to pursue.

I seem to be repeating myself, but I don't know how else to explain it.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”