What do you hope to see added before Fog II ends?

[melm]

as a corollary to this it would be nice if you could order a cavalry unit to evade, or to back away from a combat it has been in for 1 or more melee turns (i think this was in FOG1 but removed for FOG2 for balance reasons or some such?)

That would be nice.
Cavalry is too easily pinned, nthey should be able to disengage when in zoc only from the front.

No version of fog ( computer or tabletop) allowed voluntary break offs ( maybe p&s tabletop did?). I agree that Cavalry is too easily pinned by mere infantry and would love to see it addressed somehow...

I feel the upcoming version 1.5.19 addressed it well.

[Latro]

That would be nice.
Cavalry is too easily pinned, nthey should be able to disengage when in zoc only from the front.

No version of fog ( computer or tabletop) allowed voluntary break offs ( maybe p&s tabletop did?). I agree that Cavalry is too easily pinned by mere infantry and would love to see it addressed somehow...

I feel the upcoming version 1.5.19 addressed it well.

Not the pinning issue. They can now (auto) disengaged when odds are unfavorable but are still easily pinned by another diagonally facing infantry unit.
That hasn't changed.

[Cunningcairn]

Good communication from the designers.

[melm]

No version of fog ( computer or tabletop) allowed voluntary break offs ( maybe p&s tabletop did?). I agree that Cavalry is too easily pinned by mere infantry and would love to see it addressed somehow...

I feel the upcoming version 1.5.19 addressed it well.

Not the pinning issue. They can now (auto) disengaged when odds are unfavorable but are still easily pinned by another diagonally facing infantry unit.
That hasn't changed.

But they can get disengaged one turn after that they changed their facing.

[rbodleyscott]

Good communication from the designers.

We are reading and taking note of all of the suggestions, and I have started a new thread about the break-off issue - I did not reply in this thread to avoid the discussion being divided between two threads.

[rbodleyscott]

I feel the upcoming version 1.5.19 addressed it well.

Not the pinning issue. They can now (auto) disengaged when odds are unfavorable but are still easily pinned by another diagonally facing infantry unit.
That hasn't changed.

But they can get disengaged one turn after that they changed their facing.

See https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewto ... 77&t=94491

Please could all further discussion about this particular issue be posted in that thread and not this one, so that the arguments for and against are all in the same place..

[Gaznak]

An option to hide predicted combat outcomes.

[GentlemanRanker]

Returning to the wish list theme, I would hope to see:

1) The option to add anarchy charges and refusal to charge home from the original FoG game; implemented as a customisable option for use between consenting adults, so as not to infuriate the competitive gamers.

2) All the Osprey Field of Glory Companion books developed as DLCs, especially ‘Blood and Gold’ and ‘Empires of the Dragon’. What a shame to let all that research go for naught.
[If I ever win big on the lottery, I will offer to Slitherine to defray the development costs of this.]

3) The continued development of Field of Glory Renaissance. As an historical gamer, I have learned to appreciate that the gameplay engine upon which Pike & Shot and Sengoku Jidai are implemented, offers less direct control, and no undo button. However, I would like to see FoGR added as a natural continuation of FoGII (or maybe even a future FoGIII); and I would like to see the upper boundary moved towards the end of the Eighteenth Century, to reflect some of the fantastic player generated content available in P&S.

How about it Dr Bodely Scott?

[rbodleyscott]

Who knows? The “road map” is filled for some time to come, but we do keep updating as we go.

[MarkShot]

Richard,

Pursuant to ...

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=94806

I would suggest another way of boosting SP difficulty (as an option). I would not blaspheme your system and suggest that unit stats be altered at higher levels.

Instead, I would suggest that the AI gets more purchase points than the human player, but the actual number of units upon which those may be spent, be limited. Thus, the AI would be fielding better units; not more units.

How do I imagine that this would change the game and campaigns? I think the player would have a greater chance to win via maneuver as opposed to defensive play. It is very hard to avoid being flanked with the current approach of increasing enemy units. (If you will, it is just an emergent property of the system which you have constructed.)

Now, of course, I know nothing of history ... maybe a little ... the best ancient armies fought and won while outnumbered. But then I don't know if the ploys of the great commanders are really possible upon this field. It is not possible to draw off the enemy far astray and away from the battle. It is not possible to position the night before and appear in their rear when they don't expect. Still I feel much is learned about the principles of ancient combat.

Thanks for your consideration, and entertaining my non-scholarly notions.

[rbodleyscott]

Not sure that would help. Defensive play isn't as effective as the echeloned attack (as espoused by Vegetius - quoted in the back of the manual). If the enemy units were all of higher quality, the echelon attack would not work, since it is intended to overwhelm weaker enemy at the point of impact and then roll up their line.

[melm]

Richard,

Pursuant to ...

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=94806

I would suggest another way of boosting SP difficulty (as an option). I would not blaspheme your system and suggest that unit stats be altered at higher levels.

Instead, I would suggest that the AI gets more purchase points than the human player, but the actual number of units upon which those may be spent, be limited. Thus, the AI would be fielding better units; not more units.

How do I imagine that this would change the game and campaigns? I think the player would have a greater chance to win via maneuver as opposed to defensive play. It is very hard to avoid being flanked with the current approach of increasing enemy units. (If you will, it is just an emergent property of the system which you have constructed.)

Now, of course, I know nothing of history ... maybe a little ... the best ancient armies fought and won while outnumbered. But then I don't know if the ploys of the great commanders are really possible upon this field. It is not possible to draw off the enemy far astray and away from the battle. It is not possible to position the night before and appear in their rear when they don't expect. Still I feel much is learned about the principles of ancient combat.

Thanks for your consideration, and entertaining my non-scholarly notions.

It's a nice idea but we know that FOG2 has number limit of good quality units, so in some cases, you can't buy more good quality unit with more purchase points. The difficulty may not be controlled linearly then.

[MarkShot]

Thanks, Richard. I will refer to the manual again. It has been a while. So many hobbies, so little time.

Personally, I never understand guys who lose their identities when they cease to work for a living.

[rbodleyscott]

Personally, I never understand guys who lose their identities when they cease to work for a living.

It depends on how much of their "identity" they had invested in their job.

[Bladeheart]

Two separate hopes, one noticeably less likely then the other.

1) That all the the various 'periods' have DLCs from the 'Biblical' to the end of the Middle Ages.

2) I enjoy FoG, but would like to see a DLC that changed the chess like nature of the game to one that placed greater restriction on command and control. Something, if I recall correctly, like the old Legionnaire Arena and it's predecessor. Certainly not everyone's taste and not necessarily something that one would want to implement for all games.

[MarkShot]

Personally, I never understand guys who lose their identities when they cease to work for a living.

It depends on how much of their "identity" they had invested in their job.

Richard,

I am glad after listening to your podcast that you were not too fixated on your identity of being an MD. It would be my retirement's loss if you did not make this great game. Thank you.

[Dux Limitis]

More units,new models,new flags.

[edb1815]

I would like to add to the suggestions to continue the DLC mirroring the table top FOG books. In particular the high middle ages - ("Storm of Arrows"), but we do need Biblical additions as well.

As far as unit variety for already released DLC I think we have some excellent mods (TT Mod. etc) that serve the purpose well. Further development IMO should be finishing out the timeline from the TT game. Then of course there is FOGR and lest we forget FOG Napoleonics! Time permitting of course.

[Cunningcairn]

I would really like to be able to make a multiplayer challenge with the army of my choice but with no opponent army specified. Whoever accepts the challenge can then make their own army choice. This was possible in FOG1. An improvement to the FOG1 feature would be for the challenger to be able to specify if the opponent's army could be chosen from one or more of the DLC's or be limited to a time period or a geographical location.

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks for all the suggestions guys. Keep them coming.