Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote: English people no longer familiarly call each other by surnames - that went out about 40+ years ago.

Lancier wrote:Ah my bad gents sorry, when your native language is not english (or different then the majority of the forum users) you may do mistakes with such specifics ^^

Don't worry Lancier, it's a cultural thing, not a language thing...Americans still regularly call each other by our last names.

76mm wrote:Don't worry Lancier, it's a cultural thing, not a language thing...Americans still regularly call each other by our last names.

Though probably not on a games forum, I suspect.

In the completed Multi player list, whether you have won or lost the game and a few stats around that, percentage won versus lost etc, probably not for everyone but I'd like to know.

Currently, one can set the difficulty (for single-player play), which affects enemy troop numbers and also troop quality on the highest and lowest levels (although it doesn't say this anywhere and really needs a mouseover tooltip). In the advanced game setup options, one can make further adjustments to troop numbers. However, one cannot adjust troop quality. This means that the human player and the AI either play at equal troop quality, or at TWO levels of difference, since the human player goes down a level and the AI goes up a level. I would like to see it possible to adjust each troop side's quality in advanced options. So if I want to drop down a level and keep the AI at normal, or play at normal with the AI at higher quality, I can do so.

I don't know if this has been requested before, but it would be great if we could request that our side always had the same color flags. Right now I'm playing about ten MP games, and whenever I open a game it takes me a few moments to figure out who is doing what/where/to whom.

Basically if I could have my flags as always Blue, it would be easier to orient myself. Obviously, every player could set this independently, so that if see my flag as Blue, my opponent my might see it as Red.

Not a big thing, but would be helpful.

I am in the same boat as 76mm (a fine opponent by the way!)

I think the easiest way is for the camera to default to behind the centre of the players starting line facing the enemy starting line. Once I have developed the camera round to this it normally clicks a distant memory in my addled brain into place as to what is going on!

the_iron_duke wrote:Currently, one can set the difficulty (for single-player play), which affects enemy troop numbers and also troop quality on the highest and lowest levels (although it doesn't say this anywhere and really needs a mouseover tooltip). In the advanced game setup options, one can make further adjustments to troop numbers. However, one cannot adjust troop quality. This means that the human player and the AI either play at equal troop quality, or at TWO levels of difference, since the human player goes down a level and the AI goes up a level. I would like to see it possible to adjust each troop side's quality in advanced options. So if I want to drop down a level and keep the AI at normal, or play at normal with the AI at higher quality, I can do so.

Fair enough, but to put the record straight, the AI unit quality goes up a quarter of a level and the player unit quality goes down a quarter of a level. So the overall difference is half a quality level, not 2 quality levels.

After what I saw earlier tonight I am wondering if the combat system needs a tweek or three.
Enemy unit of 200 Light Infantry, JLS in the open at the base of a hill charged by 220 superior Macedonian Cavalry with General, holds, I then charge 900 Macedonian Pikemen into the LI, they hold again and remain in good order. I then charge 230 more Macedonian Cavalry down hill into these LI and they hold in good order again.
So 200 Light Infantry in the open hold against 1350 Cav & Pikemen in one turn.
I suggested to my opponent that he rush out and buy a Lotto ticket.

Agree, a little ranking maybe for MPs would be great with some stats,ratios, total games etc. ^^

Duggers wrote:In the completed Multi player list, whether you have won or lost the game and a few stats around that, percentage won versus lost etc, probably not for everyone but I'd like to know.

Nice sig. thanks for the support

After having played several battles with this game...I'm thinking this the perfect game engine for the next era of "AGE OF RIFLES", another war game with a great battle editor and many devotees!

Suggestion...I would like to see a module to accompany this game of ancient naval warfare which would allow sea battles and land invasions.

Thanks Jomni.

jomni wrote:Nice sig. thanks for the support

Seems not possible i guess but there must be a way to convince Richard to make a Napoelonic game as the next title! lol... God, lots and lots playing HPS-JTS and waiting Histwar would move to Napoleonic Byzantine Game no doubt. ;>
Anyway still we have lots of excitement with current titles, great engine really, i agree.

m10bob wrote:After having played several battles with this game...I'm thinking this the perfect game engine for the next era of "AGE OF RIFLES", another war game with a great battle editor and many devotees!

Suggestion...I would like to see a module to accompany this game of ancient naval warfare which would allow sea battles and land invasions.

Hi Richard

1. It would be nice to be able to deploy anywhere across the map's baseline within the depth restrictions of the deployment zone. Currently you can waste 4 to 5 turns to get across the map to suitable terrain.
2. General allocation is random as I can end up with a huge army with 2 generals or a very small army with 5 generals. Is there no way to allow the player to decide on the number of generals within certain limits?

rgrds Martin

Tiny thing...when we get the emails it would be nice to get the name of the opponent in the email "random battle, agricultural" isn't that useful when monitoring to see of a particular opponent has flipped a turn in an "important" battle. helpful in tournies and such

klayeckles wrote:Tiny thing...when we get the emails it would be nice to get the name of the opponent in the email "random battle, agricultural" isn't that useful when monitoring to see of a particular opponent has flipped a turn in an "important" battle. helpful in tournies and such

Yup ditto on that and also knowing if you've won or lost a played game without opening it.

Cunningcairn wrote:Hi Richard

1. It would be nice to be able to deploy anywhere across the map's baseline within the depth restrictions of the deployment zone. Currently you can waste 4 to 5 turns to get across the map to suitable terrain.
2. General allocation is random as I can end up with a huge army with 2 generals or a very small army with 5 generals. Is there no way to allow the player to decide on the number of generals within certain limits?

rgrds Martin

Further to point 2 Ulysisgrunt and I have just started a 2000 point game (Rhoxolani vs Sarmatian) and have each been allocated 1 sub general. No CinC's. In my case my sub-general is a troop general so even of I huddled all the troops into a square around him some would still be out of his command control.

I don't know if anyone has suggested this but a way to toggle the UI and the melee/unit selection indicators might be nice for taking screenshots.

Agree.
I played some total war RTS games till now where most (or all!?) players spam some units(heavies mostly) so sides have unrealistic armies for the era (style) they are playing.
So people had to host games with some rules in those titles for OoBs like min blabla nos of artillery, max blabla nos of heavy inf, min blabla nos of lights etc.

Maybe we should have more strict ruled OoBs as default (increase numbers of default -mediums and lights- at army selection step?) for MPs so players have to play with all type of units? or soon we will have to live with Epic battles only as MP gamers? ^^
(I have a game where my opponent have max number of heavy inf + heavy cav!? almost all heavies...) I know terrain will matter but heavies are not effected well enough then with these terrain against medium & lights? or even if we play on agricultural is it right we face that many heavies?

Lysimachos wrote:The real problem is that medium foot armies already are outclassed by heavier host.

If you also convert in open terrain with no rough going the only map where they could have some better chances, then nobody will end using these kind of armies!!

Pixel wrote:I don't know if anyone has suggested this but a way to toggle the UI and the melee/unit selection indicators might be nice for taking screenshots.

You can do this already.

In /Documents/My Games/FieldOfGlory2 there is a file called User.txt

Add the line

DEBUGMODE 1

to this.

Then the U key will turn off the UI for taking screenshots.

KiwiWarlord wrote:After what I saw earlier tonight I am wondering if the combat system needs a tweek or three.
Enemy unit of 200 Light Infantry, JLS in the open at the base of a hill charged by 220 superior Macedonian Cavalry with General, holds, I then charge 900 Macedonian Pikemen into the LI, they hold again and remain in good order. I then charge 230 more Macedonian Cavalry down hill into these LI and they hold in good order again.
So 200 Light Infantry in the open hold against 1350 Cav & Pikemen in one turn.
I suggested to my opponent that he rush out and buy a Lotto ticket.

I agree but not getting any response from anyone. There are many inconsistencies.