TheGrayMouser wrote: It begs the question how they will handle a FOG Ren game where unit shape frontage etc will be critical to make it feel, uhh, Ren-like. ( hopefully it will happen someday!)
How different would a FOG Renaissance game have to be though, TGM? I don't know very much about Renaissance warfare, and I appreciate the accurate portrayal of the Spanish tercio might present some problems, but how different would, say, the English Civil War be, from the portrayals of armies that we have now in "Storm of Arrows" such as the Swiss, German and Ordonnance armies? Surely the main difference would be that firearms and artillery would be much more deadly e.g. late medieval hand gunners average around 1.5% damage per shot, whereas arquebusiers might need to average 4 or 5%. But essentially you would have rows of pikemen, arquebusiers, groups of cavalry, dragoons and artillery in the same way that we do now for armies dated circa 1500AD, wouldn't you?
Well it would be really important to get tercios correct. Not only that but by mid to late 16th c most "units" would have been combined arms, a central block of pikes and wings of muskets/arquebusiers. Some would also have integral groups of halbediers or sword and buckler men. Somehow these would need to be integrated to behave as a unit in whole and not simply three (or more )seperate units that just happen to be next to eachother. Also the proportion of pike to shot would need to be accounted for not only in terms of firepower they can project, but also how much "anti cavalry" oomph they have as well. Then of course there are caracoling cavalry, lancers etc that need to be dealt with , regimental guns, salvo fire vs fire by file , bayonets at the end of the period
TheGrayMouser wrote:Well it would be really important to get tercios correct. Not only that but by mid to late 16th c most "units" would have been combined arms, a central block of pikes and wings of muskets/arquebusiers. Some would also have integral groups of halbediers or sword and buckler men. Somehow these would need to be integrated to behave as a unit in whole and not simply three (or more )seperate units that just happen to be next to eachother. Also the proportion of pike to shot would need to be accounted for not only in terms of firepower they can project, but also how much "anti cavalry" oomph they have as well. Then of course there are caracoling cavalry, lancers etc that need to be dealt with , regimental guns, salvo fire vs fire by file , bayonets at the end of the period
Yes, I agree about the tercios - perhaps severer penalties for isolated pike blocks (as discussed previously by mceochaidh and others)would encourage players to keep realistic formations. But groups of halberdiers and sword and buckler men might work as "mixed units" with the pikemen? The pike to shot ratio should be straightforward, as should the ability of firepower to "disrupt" a cavalry charge. The cavalry and guns also seem to me to be fairly straightforward.
So it just seems that the difficult bit will concern the foot soldiers - but it might be possible to solve these problems with single hex units rather than trying to use multi-hex units.
Wishlist for FOG 1.81.
Hotseat DAG battles not using PBEM multiplayer.
Ability to choose map for dag battle from maps with no units including custom maps, also ability to use scenario maps with no units including custom maps, also ability to use scenario maps and auto ignore/clear all units for the game so you can use dag armies. Same features for multiplayer games against humans.
Unity FOG is rubbish, main reasons blurry units pictures on the maps, also blurry text, also no scenario editor. Develop 1.81 not the unity version or develop both up to the same standard. Bugs are a problem in both versions though not a great deal.
Random maps are good for all game types (vs human, vs ai, vs hotseat) but make random maps optional, while allowing play on scenario and custom maps if the player wants that . Give random maps more choice, of size, arid or grass, also random terrain options with text boxes to input the % value of each terrain type at least the main types of clear, hills, trees, water (rivers, streams including positions of like across middle or down side etc, auto add crossings or have options) also could have options or randomize the remaining terrain types.
Ability to optionally use DAG chosen armies for both teams on a custom made map, could speed up and improve scenario development.
Reinforcements are standard in some other games, that would be a cool new feature for FOG.
Giving orders for certain AI units at scenario design time would also add something to this game, like units running up to take a bridgehead or flank the enemy. Allowing to set a detailed path for units to take in the opening turns, exact movement positions of multiple waypoints for a unit. Allowing units to be fixed in place also, either never move or awaken once enemy comes close or engages. I know you can set how aggressive individuel units are. This just touches the surface as to what is available in some other games.
I would like all expansions including the last ones to be available in FOG 1.81.
What ever happened to the Lost Scrolls expansion? You cannot play it. You cannot even buy it at matrixgames store/website, is there any way to buy it? I had wondered if it was the old digital army books for Field Of Glory that the old slitherine/matrixgames websites used to sell.
FOG (Field Of Glory) may be my favourite game ever made. I love the hotseat, multiplayer humans and scenario editor customization options.
I realize i am late to the party and probably no one will further develop this awesome game.
I do not know if adding objectives/victory point locations to the map would benefit FOG or not. I realize it is mainly a battle/skirmish game. I do like how currently the break points are calculated towards victory.
Awenloren, I agree with a lot on your wish list, but it is evident at this point that Slitherine has divested itself from FOG1 and will do little to nothing with regards to this great game, a shame really.
Not only that but by mid to late 16th c most "units" would have been combined arms, a central block of pikes and wings of muskets/arquebusiers. Some would also have integral groups of halbediers or sword and buckler men. Somehow these would need to be integrated to behave as a unit in whole and not simply three (or more )seperate units that just happen to be next to eachother. Also the proportion of pike to shot would need to be accounted for not only in terms of firepower they can project, but also how much "anti cavalry" oomph they have as well. Then of course there are caracoling cavalry, lancers etc that need to be dealt with , regimental guns, salvo fire vs fire by file , bayonets at the end of the period
