FoG:Kingdoms - a petition to POCUS

[Yarev]

I'm really exited about the new upcoming, very anticipated strategy FoG:Kingdoms. I am sure it's going to be a great game, a must buy for me. There are 3 main requests from me regarding FoG:Kingdoms :

1 - PLEASE DO NOT implement upscaling/descaling of units when the battle gets imported to Field of Glory II: Medieval, it kills the immersion, it kills personal attachment to units ( at the same time an abbility to name experienced/battle hardened units would improve personal attachment and would make battles more interesting as one would keep those units in reserve), it is just dreadfull feature (other strategy games don't implement that) so please don't go this path again.

2 - Playable Sieges, this shouldn't be hard to implement, a graphic representation of a wall that gives defensive bonuses to units, it would add more depth to the game

3 - Evolving Generals What I mean is the stats of Generals (attack,deffense,movement) and personal traits should evolve in line with lost/won battles, type of victory/defeat (pyrrhic, decisive etc.), some random events. All generals should start with low/lowish/medium stats so its up to the player to "develope" a General through battles. It wolud again add depth to the game and at the same time wouldn't take a lot of work to get it implemented by devs.

[gfs26]

Completely agree !

I lost interest in FOG Empires for non playable sieges... i think every battle should be playable on FOG2 for the players who like do it

[mustardtiger5]

I think implementing siege battles would probably be difficult since it requires changes in FoG II itself, which is done by another development team with their own schedule and plans for features.

But the other two proposed suggestions I completely agree with! Naming units and getting a sense of progress with your armies and generals is something I very much would like to see in the new game

[Pocus]

1 is done to stay within the accepted limit of the FOG2 battlefield. I'm considering what it involves to allow unit renaming, but I don't know if it will make it. It should not be at the expense of a core feature in any case.

2 is in the hands of the FOG2 M Team but Richard (RBS), the author, said it was not possible at this time.

3 I disagree with the approach. Not about the fact a general can't improve or regress, but saying that they start mediocre and improve over time, this is often not how people progress in the art of war. Some are bad and will remain bad, some are genius even when very young.

[gfs26]

For the point (2) (siege battles) it would be better than nothing an open battle (maybe terrain could depend on the region besieged) with defender allowed some deployable obstacles (1 for each unit deployed could be an idea)... always better than the autoresolve system (i personally hate it, and it is the reason i don't consider playing FOG Empire anymore)... with the option of autoresolve (for the players that don't own FOG2 or don't want spend too much time in combat)

[Yarev]

1 is done to stay within the accepted limit of the FOG2 battlefield. I'm considering what it involves to allow unit renaming, but I don't know if it will make it. It should not be at the expense of a core feature in any case.

2 is in the hands of the FOG2 M Team but Richard (RBS), the author, said it was not possible at this time.

3 I disagree with the approach. Not about the fact a general can't improve or regress, but saying that they start mediocre and improve over time, this is often not how people progress in the art of war. Some are bad and will remain bad, some are genius even when very young.

thank you for the reply, I appreciate it
RE:
1- I understand it was neccessary to implement scaling/descaling in Empires, which was your first "child", but with Kingdoms you should optimize it to work with FoG:Medieval , not the other way round. I will buy the game either way as I am a huge fan of your work but it is a let down to see the same UNWANTED/UNREALISTIC feature back in (care to reconsider?)
2- not sure why it is such a big problem to make a graphic representation of a wall that gives defensive/range bonuses, at the same time ordering AI to stay in those places BUT I understand it's a different developer/designer (shame imo) so it is above your influence, fair enough
3- I'm not saying they should ALL start mediocre, some should be good from the start, I'm just proposing for the abilities to improve/regress rather than stay the same even if the guy lost 100 battles

[Pocus]

1. Meaning I should adapt the game so that it produces a number of units fit for FOG2M? Not too few to make tactical battles uninteresting, not too many to make them cramped? This would be a challenging task given all the moving parts of Kingdoms. How could I predict what the players will do? Also, why would I try to accommodate all possible battles that could be played in FOG2M whereas there is also a battle module in Kingdoms and it has been often said that you should not play all battles but only the ones with real interest (discounting also the fact that spending 800 hours in FOG2M just because you want to play ALL possible battles is not too reasonable for your health!)

3. It's not a bad idea per se, it's just that choices must be made in development to produce a game in a realistic time frame. Also in Kingdoms, some characters or generals can acquire traits in their lifetime, so you see, it's not completely static!