Check the latest screenshots!

[Daniele]

Hi Everyone,

We got something special for you. Developers have gathered together a vast array of screenshots showing different situations you might find in Field of Glory: Empires. They range from in-game events, tactical battles, special buildings and many many more, and guess what? The developer will answer every question about them! Every question!

So don't be shy and take a look at the first group being posted below!

[TomBombadil711]

Really looking forward to this game. What will be the date I will be able to reproduce the battle situation of the last screenshot on my own computer?

[ringoblood]

I like what i see, very nice guys.

[devoncop]

Hi.

Having watched the 8 part Das Tactic You Tube series as Carthage doing Challenge 2 I am very interested in the intricate Trading mechanics.

1) Can you confirm if national or international trading by selling your own goods is more profitable....ie...as Rome would it be more profitable as a Roman province to sell horses to another Roman province of to Egypt for example (if in trade range) ?

2) Are trade goods available to sell on a provincial, regional or national basis ? In other words if I make silk factory in Alexaxandria do I need a trade port also in Alexandria, in the Region in which Alexandria exists or just in another region of Egypt if necessary in order that the silk can be available for sale to another nation ?


(I understand that such trades are organised automatically by the private merchants rather than directed by the player....which I like)

[loki100]

it depends ... which makes it more fun.

a) Lets say you have the good and trade it out - you get the money in, prob nicer if another nation pays this?
b) you trade with yourself (ie you own both regions), in theory this should be neutral but there is a mechanism that gives you a small net bonus ... very very useful for the bigger states
c) you buy from someone else - ok looks like a loss but there are a number of secondary issues that may offset this, its basically an ok outcome but with some variables
d) even nicer (and actually linked to c), the good is in the region already - you pay no trade cost

the basic concept is trade range - this comes off your traits, decisions you have taken and any specific buildings. Bigger this is, the greater the chance of getting the goodies you want in a given region. At the start a state like Carthage has a big advantage over some Gallic tribe in this respect, but this advantage can erode over time.

[devoncop]

As so often it seems with this game.....lots of nuances

Many thanks

[juanval]

I'd like to ask you the next question (I asked it in another thread but it wasn't answered):

I see that generals (like in real history) are an important factor to win the battle, but how they die In FoG:E?

I saw a video of DasTactic in which enemy defending from romans has a leader with a defense rating of 2 (2 dices more). This battle ends with a draw but the enemy leader dies (because he doesn't appear in the next combat). What is weird is that enemy army didn't lose any of their units

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tOdbNZwdWM

At minute 3:20 you can see the draw result

[Pocus]

It depends of the battle outcome, win, loss, draw, participating leaders may die.

[juanval]

It depends of the battle outcome, win, loss, draw, participating leaders may die.

I undestand that if an army is pursued, the fleeing general has more possibilities of being killed than the winning general, but, in the video battle I've post, the enemy general (Bertix of Senones) dies when his army has obtained a comfortable draw without suffering any unit loss. That's not very realistic.

Generals should have a chance of dying in case of defeats or pirric victories/draws.

[devoncop]

It depends of the battle outcome, win, loss, draw, participating leaders may die.

I undestand that if an army is pursued, the fleeing general has more possibilities of being killed than the winning general, but, in the video battle I've post, the enemy general (Bertix of Senones) dies when his army has obtained a comfortable draw without suffering any unit loss. That's not very realistic.

Generals should have a chance of dying in case of defeats or pirric victories/draws.

To be fair there have been cases of Generals dying without the battles having even started as a result of having been taken out by enemy skirmishers or patrolling cavalry whilst scouting the battlefield .

[Ancient One]

Looking at the minimap in some of those screenshots... I hope the Seleucids don't usually collapse that early, or the Antigonids survive that long (in Asia).

[devoncop]

Looking at the minimap in some of those screenshots... I hope the Seleucids don't usually collapse that early, or the Antigonids survive that long (in Asia).

Would you think that if you were PLAYING as the Antigonids ?

[Ancient One]

Looking at the minimap in some of those screenshots... I hope the Seleucids don't usually collapse that early, or the Antigonids survive that long (in Asia).

Would you think that if you were PLAYING as the Antigonids ?

Well I said usually, so when I'm not playing as them.

[devoncop]

Looking at the minimap in some of those screenshots... I hope the Seleucids don't usually collapse that early, or the Antigonids survive that long (in Asia).

Would you think that if you were PLAYING as the Antigonids ?

Well I said usually, so when I'm not playing as them.

I will mark that down as "a tactical retreat in good order"

[HeinzHarald]

I undestand that if an army is pursued, the fleeing general has more possibilities of being killed than the winning general, but, in the video battle I've post, the enemy general (Bertix of Senones) dies when his army has obtained a comfortable draw without suffering any unit loss. That's not very realistic.

Generals should have a chance of dying in case of defeats or pirric victories/draws.

Keep in mind though that taking hits to effectiveness and health basically means a whole bunch of men being injured or killed. Plus, unrealistic things happen in real life all the time. The question is if it's unrealistically common within the game, adjusted for abstraction.

[Pocus]

3 of the Diadochi, Seleucid, Antigonid and Lysimachid (yes I'm naming them as they will be named once their original founder is dead!) can collapse after too much 'abuse'. By order of resilience, the weakest is Lisy, then Anti, then Seuly Macedonia and Ptolemaic Egypt never collapse, they will have to be conquered.

Outcomes can be very variable. In one game you can have the Seleucid crumble under the assaults of Maurya and then Parthia, in others they will go on rampage and rule over Asia Minor while teaching the art of war to the previously cited nations. On average, I would say that the Seleucids tend to crumble in one century more or less, given that their empire is fragile and can be assaulted from many directions.