Page 1 of 1

Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:33 am
by sIg3b
I was a bit surprised that the most important/most well-known battle of the period isn´t in the new add-on as either Epic or part of a Campaign?

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:17 pm
by rbodleyscott
We were limited on the number of Epic Battles we could include, and we were trying to show off as many of the new armies as possible. Tours/Poitiers did not make the cut.

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:06 am
by Dux Limitis
rbodleyscott wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:17 pm
We were limited on the number of Epic Battles we could include, and we were trying to show off as many of the new armies as possible. Tours/Poitiers did not make the cut.
Why did the game's new dlcs need to limited on the numbers of epic battles?Didn't more epic battles like in the based game and legions triumphant dlc aren't good?
I think the epic battle mode should add more most important and well known battles of the period,to let players take parts in it.Not just show off as many of the new armies as possible,because this can be well shown off in the custom battle mode.

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:13 pm
by sIg3b
I agree. If the number of Epic Battles is to be limited, then especially priority should be given to the most meaningful ones.

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:43 pm
by Hoplite1963
To be fair this is not so much a problem as an opportunity for scenario designers to use the editor to expand the number of what are lets face it really historical battles to fill in the gaps.

The scenario design process for FOG II is more complex than FOG I so this will take more time (although Paul59 has done that very detailed series of how to posts) but I am sure we will get there in the end. If you look at the number of scenarios that shipped with the original FOG I and its modules and compare that to the hundreds that are now available you will get an idea of where we are likely to end up in 3 to 4 years time.

Did the scenario for Tours for FOG I and once I retire will look at trying to rebuild it for FOG II along with all my other FOG I scenarios.

Take care
Ian

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:14 am
by stockwellpete
I have designed a multi-player version of Tours which is available now to download in-game.

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:16 am
by rbodleyscott
stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:14 am
I have designed a multi-player version of Tours which is available now to download in-game.
Thanks Pete

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:12 pm
by Hoplite1963
Yes nice one Pete, playing in over the net now.

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:46 pm
by stockwellpete
Hoplite1963 wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:12 pm
Yes nice one Pete, playing in over the net now.
How did you get on with it? It is very tough for the Arab army.

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:55 pm
by Hoplite1963
Hi Pete
Playing your scenario as the Franks and about to loose. In my scenario the flaking route between the Frankish rear area and the Arab camp was blocked off by impassable hexes. I had forgotten that this was not the case in your scenario and send a large Frankish force down it only to have the Arabs cut in behind me. The weakened Frankish main battle line is just about to collapse.

Think you have done a nice job with the battle.

Kind regards
Ian

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:20 am
by lascar
I am playing Hoplite1963 as the Arabs and also playing another opponent as the Franks. In both games the Franks are having a very hard time against the Arabs. At first blush it seems that the Franks position cannot be easily flanked. However, in actual practice the Arabs are doing so to great effect.

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:08 am
by stockwellpete
lascar wrote:
Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:20 am
I am playing Hoplite1963 as the Arabs and also playing another opponent as the Franks. In both games the Franks are having a very hard time against the Arabs. At first blush it seems that the Franks position cannot be easily flanked. However, in actual practice the Arabs are doing so to great effect.

Interesting. What are the Frankish cavalry doing? Protecting the left flank - or are they attacking the Arab camp?

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:08 am
by Athos1660
The Arabian horsemen may have attacked frontally the Frankish infantry as the Chronicle of 754 states that "The northern peoples remained as immobile as a wall, holding together like a glacier in the cold regions." But, in this case, why ? Because the Arabs could not flank their enemies or because they thought their horsemen were superior even when attacking frontally... ?

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:06 am
by stockwellpete
Athos1660 wrote:
Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:08 am
The Arabian horsemen may have attacked frontally the Frankish infantry as the Chronicle of 754 states that "The northern peoples remained as immobile as a wall, holding together like a glacier in the cold regions." But, in this case, why ? Because the Arabs could not flank their enemies or because they thought their horsemen were superior even when attacking frontally... ?
My understanding is that the Frankish position was protected on its flanks by thick woods, particularly on the left. They took up their position across the Roman road and the Arabs advanced up that same Roman road. In my scenario, the woods on the left should really be much thicker meaning the Frankish cavalry would have to go on a much wider detour to reach the Arab camp. I am not sure on which side the Franks are being outflanked in the games currently in progress, but I think it more likely that it will be on their left flank.

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:57 pm
by Athos1660
stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:06 am
My understanding is that the Frankish position was protected on its flanks by thick woods, particularly on the left. They took up their position across the Roman road and the Arabs advanced up that same Roman road.
That's a viable interpretation. And your map is very nice ! :-)

btw as the exact location is unknown, some Historians suggested Cenon-sur-Vienne (among other locations), near the Vienne river where the Roman road also passes (in blue). Another nice setup :
Image
stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:06 am
I am not sure on which side the Franks are being outflanked in the games currently in progress, but I think it more likely that it will be on their left flank.
I guess so, near the area where the Frankish cavalry starts.

Re: Why no Tours/Poitiers?

Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 1:48 am
by lascar
stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:08 am
lascar wrote:
Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:20 am
I am playing Hoplite1963 as the Arabs and also playing another opponent as the Franks. In both games the Franks are having a very hard time against the Arabs. At first blush it seems that the Franks position cannot be easily flanked. However, in actual practice the Arabs are doing so to great effect.

Interesting. What are the Frankish cavalry doing? Protecting the left flank - or are they attacking the Arab camp?
The Frankish cavalry are protecting the left flank, but the Arabs are able to infiltrate considerable cavalry and foot through the woods to compromise the Frankish cavalry attempts to block them.