Sandbox Campaign suggestions

[GiveWarAchance]

I get mostly new irregular units cause most battles are a choice between a rearguard with irregulars or an unhealed remnant of my core army so I tend to choose the rearguard cause my core gets badly beat up every time and needs to refit before fighting again so it's cause of my campaign choices. Each round of combat with a legion costs my infantry like 43 losses typically and it goes on for awhile so I desperately need to refit. But I would like more core vs large enemy army type battles cause I like my Israeli army very much.

[GiveWarAchance]

It was hard to fight the Arabs cause I was only given 1 archer unit and a bunch of irregulars and a half dozen zealots in the back line. They had a lot of archers and irregulars so my units got shot up a fair bit on the approach.
The next battle has quite a nice campaign choice and I think it means I get to use my core army.

[GiveWarAchance]

sorry ya just ignore my rubbish. I get to use my core in slightly over half the battles. In rear guard actions I always choose the irregular force instead of my core cause my army is always reduced to tatters in every battle so it would be foolish to use it without a refit.It is not healthy for zealots to approach legions head on in the open but often I have no choice in order to get the battle under way cause the legions always wait out in a field and advance when under fire so heavy losses are inevitable but gradually the IDF grinds down the legions with multiple attacks, desperate manoeuvres and a lot of pecking from my slingers and archers.

[GiveWarAchance]

I think it would be nice to have a way of losing a battle in a campaign and yet still continue without a rematch of the lost battle. Like in Total War games, losing a battle is part of the journey to victory or defeat. Maybe there could be a rearguard battle after on defense whilst the player's army recovers the same way the enemy always does that when I win battles.

[rbodleyscott]

I think it would be nice to have a way of losing a battle in a campaign and yet still continue without a rematch of the lost battle. Like in Total War games, losing a battle is part of the journey to victory or defeat. Maybe there could be a rearguard battle after on defense whilst the player's army recovers the same way the enemy always does that when I win battles.

Assuming that you mean a "second chance" battle after a defeat, have you actually played out what you call a "rearguard battle"? If not, I think you may have got the wrong idea about it. It isn't a rearguard battle, it is a normal battle where the survivors of your army are reinforced by fresh units to fight the survivors of the enemy army. These reinforcements are drawn from the normal army list rather than the adjusted "rear echelon" army list. (Which means you have a higher chance of getting some fresh Zealots).

Your field army units may be a bit chewed up from the previous battle (although if they are severely chewed up they will usually be combined into stronger units), but so will the enemy's, and your army will be made up with fresh reinforcement units.

So points-wise, the armies will be "par" for the difficulty level.

[GiveWarAchance]

The rearguard battles I was offered were after I won field battles against the enemy, but I haven't had that after I lost a battle. I only lost one battle in this campaign and it was a pursue the enemy survivors with a small force type battle so I only had a about 6 ranged units and 2 infantry units and tried a Custer's last stand on a cluster of rough hills in the middle of the map but I got overrun after a lively fight. After that battle, the only option was to go back to the previous step and re-choose what to do so I chose to do a regular refit and continue the campaign option instead of the pursue option. I was thinking, after I lost the pursue battle, I think it would have been nice to continue the campaign despite having some of my units (and the Romans too) beat up from the pursue battle and I think they actually lost more casualties during the combat from being under fire on the approach and then a fairly hard fight to clear my units from the Custer-style cluster hilltop defense. Usually when a battle situation looks hopeless for me, I tend to rely on Custer tactics... which probably ensures futility.

Thank you for being attentive to player input.

[rbodleyscott]

The rearguard battles I was offered were after I won field battles against the enemy, but I haven't had that after I lost a battle. I only lost one battle in this campaign and it was a pursue the enemy survivors with a small force type battle so I only had a about 6 ranged units and 2 infantry units and tried a Custer's last stand on a cluster of rough hills in the middle of the map but I got overrun after a lively fight. After that battle, the only option was to go back to the previous step and re-choose what to do so I chose to do a regular refit and continue the campaign option instead of the pursue option. I was thinking, after I lost the pursue battle, I think it would have been nice to continue the campaign despite having some of my units (and the Romans too) beat up from the pursue battle and I think they actually lost more casualties during the combat from being under fire on the approach and then a fairly hard fight to clear my units from the Custer-style cluster hilltop defense. Usually when a battle situation looks hopeless for me, I tend to rely on Custer tactics... which probably ensures futility.

Thank you for being attentive to player input.

Ah, well if you lose a battle with your main field army, you will get the chance to fight another battle with the survivors plus reinforcements vs the enemy survivors.

I can look into the possibility of allowing the campaign to flow on after a lost pursuit (rearguard) battle, but there might be technical issues.

[GiveWarAchance]

Oh ya that's right. I remember being able to continue after losing a main battle in my previous campaign.
It's okay not adjusting it to continue after a failed pursuit. I have never won a pursue battle cause I am always too outnumbered in those.

The campaign is quite good now in its latest evolved state.

[matlegob]

On long campaign can we have a malus for the next battle when we loose our C in C? (something like a short range of command for the new one)

[miki]

I would love to have a "theater of operatons" checkbox in the sandox campaigns to avoid some killing-inmersion battles against enemies in the other side of the world (just because they share borders with your nation of choice)-

[rbodleyscott]

I would love to have a "theater of operatons" checkbox in the sandox campaigns to avoid some killing-inmersion battles against enemies in the other side of the world (just because they share borders with your nation of choice)-

That is a good suggestion.

[slithpile]

I'd like it if every second battle in the campaign were against mixed other historical enemies, rather than just your chosen "nemesis" enemy. I've only played a couple of campaigns so far but they were both mainly focused on the one enemy I chose at the start. Or better still make it a checkbox so players can choose between a focused campaign and a wider ranging one.

[rbodleyscott]

I'd like it if every second battle in the campaign were against mixed other historical enemies, rather than just your chosen "nemesis" enemy. I've only played a couple of campaigns so far but they were both mainly focused on the one enemy I chose at the start. Or better still make it a checkbox so players can choose between a focused campaign and a wider ranging one.

The sandbox campaigns already do contain battles against other geographically and date appropriate enemy nations - whether this happens is decided randomly, so you may not have seen them in the couple of campaigns you have played.

Some people do not like this feature, so in the next update we will be adding options to focus the campaign more tightly if desired.

[Lysimachos]

I'd like it if every second battle in the campaign were against mixed other historical enemies, rather than just your chosen "nemesis" enemy. I've only played a couple of campaigns so far but they were both mainly focused on the one enemy I chose at the start. Or better still make it a checkbox so players can choose between a focused campaign and a wider ranging one.

The sandbox campaigns already do contain battles against other geographically and date appropriate enemy nations - whether this happens is decided randomly, so you may not have seen them in the couple of campaigns you have played.

Some people do not like this feature, so in the next update we will be adding options to focus the campaign more tightly if desired.

Great add on

[slithpile]

in the next update we will be adding options to focus the campaign more tightly if desired.

Perfect! Looking forward to it.

[miki]

Units gain xp taking losses in combat iirc.

It's ok with combat units (HI, HC, MI) but not for skirmishers or missile units. Sometimes this kind of troops are very good dealing missile damage but they no gain a single point of xp for it.

I think this kind of troops could gain xp by expending missile rounds in addition to xp gained by physical combat. Sometimes they are decisive, and gain no single point of experience. Too bad. One xp point added for every missile round fired, for example, would be a nice way to obtain some xp for those kind units. They gone to battle to fire, after all. Just a thought.

Best regards

[rbodleyscott]

Units gain xp taking losses in combat iirc.

It's ok with combat units (HI, HC, MI) but not for skirmishers or missile units. Sometimes this kind of troops are very good dealing missile damage but they no gain a single point of xp for it.

I think this kind of troops could gain xp by expending missile rounds in addition to xp gained by physical combat. Sometimes they are decisive, and gain no single point of experience. Too bad. One xp point added for every missile round fired, for example, would be a nice way to obtain some xp for those kind units. They gone to battle to fire, after all. Just a thought.

Best regards

Good point.

[matlegob]

Can we have added the posibility of sending a flank march in somme scenario (like the AI can do it)

[rbodleyscott]

Can we have added the posibility of sending a flank march in somme scenario (like the AI can do it)

These have been added in FOG2: Medieval.

It may be a while before we have time to retrofit them to Ancients.

[miki]

Hi

Just to point that "provincian revolt" romans (219-200BC) armies (made almost entirely of hastati/princeps) are way more powerful than "standard" armies. I think it happens this way with all the republican roman armies.

Thank you