Fatigue System
Re: Fatigue System
In my opinion the fatigue is already sufficiently modeled by the decreasing performance resulting from the losses (and low ammo) that are unavoidable in extended combat even when unit is winning. As a result, when unit has done something that could be considered truly exhausting (not just being winded for a moment) their performance in-game will also be severely diminished by that time and fresh reserve units will have big advantage against them. When it comes to movement I think it's reasonable to presume that units are moving at sustainable pace outside of charging, pursuing and evading. Terrain effects on cohesion can also be thought as being partially caused by fatigue from moving in the bad terrain in heavy gear and inflexible formation.
I see little reason for additional fatigue effects as they would have to be very minor not to overdo it on top of the current "fatigue" and reducing the current effects to add pretty much the exact same effects would be pointless. Just because there isn't a specific counter or modifier for fatigue does not automatically mean that it's not modeled or that such modifier would automatically make the end result more realistic.
Impetuous charge could be a nice mechanic especially if it could also happen on the opponents turn. It would be fitting for some of the existing units as well.
I see little reason for additional fatigue effects as they would have to be very minor not to overdo it on top of the current "fatigue" and reducing the current effects to add pretty much the exact same effects would be pointless. Just because there isn't a specific counter or modifier for fatigue does not automatically mean that it's not modeled or that such modifier would automatically make the end result more realistic.
Impetuous charge could be a nice mechanic especially if it could also happen on the opponents turn. It would be fitting for some of the existing units as well.
-
- Corporal - Strongpoint
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:45 pm
Re: Fatigue System
Once again, the Roman maniple system was designed to deal with fatigue. This tactic made their armies able to take on much larger forces and just grind them down. The fact that this game takes that away from the Roman, yet has features like pike square is completely unhistorical. There is a reason warbands formed deep units and tried to punch through Roman legions. They knew they could not stand toe to toe with the superior tactics of the legions. Fatigue book keeping in a tabletop game is too much micromanaging to be fun, but when you can have a computer do it for you it's almost unacceptable. You can abstract all you want until your down to a game of checkers, but fatigue happened.
Re: Fatigue System
The Romans are rated mostly superior to simulate this.
-
- Major - Jagdpanther
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:46 am
Re: Fatigue System
Thanks Pete … I thought I would hear your voice re "anarchy charges"!
-
- Major - Jagdpanther
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:46 am
Re: Fatigue System
Perhaps because I come from a boardgame / miniatures background my personal feeling is that just because you can include myriads of factors in a PC game doesn't mean you should from a design point of view - although my gut feeling from reading forums and listening to pods such as (the excellent) '3 Moves Ahead' is that this is something of a minority point of view amongst PC wargamers.
For me the Romans have sufficient staying power without the need to add fatigue rules but that is just my preference (and at the risk of re-opening a horrible can of worms I'm not sure we really know how the Roman 'rank relief' system worked)
Ben
For me the Romans have sufficient staying power without the need to add fatigue rules but that is just my preference (and at the risk of re-opening a horrible can of worms I'm not sure we really know how the Roman 'rank relief' system worked)
Ben
Re: Fatigue System
Fatigue is cool and all, but if it makes things harder on the AI then please no.
-
- Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pm
Will the game add a fatigue system?
The fatigue depends on the units' quality,armor protection's degree,terrain,and battle times.Fatigue will recovery by turns,recover speed Is also depends on these.(similar to the morale system what already have)
Re: Will the game add a fatigue system?
cohesion surely includes fatigue?
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28015
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Will the game add a fatigue system?
I have moved the above two posts to this existing thread.
The above post concords with our design philosophy, which is to get the intended result with the minimum of complexity.
MVP7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:15 pm In my opinion fatigue is already sufficiently modelled by the decreasing performance resulting from losses (and low ammo) that are unavoidable in extended combat even when unit is winning. As a result, when a unit has done something that could be considered truly exhausting (not just being winded for a moment) their performance in-game will also be severely diminished by that time and fresh reserve units will have big advantage against them. When it comes to movement I think it's reasonable to presume that units are moving at sustainable pace outside of charging, pursuing and evading. Terrain effects on cohesion can also be thought as being partially caused by fatigue from moving in the bad terrain in heavy gear and inflexible formation.
I see little reason for additional fatigue effects as they would have to be very minor not to overdo it on top of the current "fatigue" and reducing the current effects to add pretty much the exact same effects would be pointless. Just because there isn't a specific counter or modifier for fatigue does not automatically mean that it's not modelled or that such modifier would automatically make the end result more realistic.
The above post concords with our design philosophy, which is to get the intended result with the minimum of complexity.
Richard Bodley Scott
Re: Fatigue System
Another element that lessens the effect of physical fatigue in battle is adrenaline. In dangerous situations the adrenal glands pump out this natural speed allowing men to endure much more than they normally could in less dangerous circumstances..
-
- Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pm
-
- Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:11 pm
Re: Will the game add a fatigue system?
I think,get the intended result with the minimum of complexity too much will lost some playability....Although it's irrelevant to the discussion topics but I'll say agian about the late roman infantry who have a small number of archers,it's relate to the harm of "get the intended result with the minimum of complexity".Make them can't do manual shooting will make them in a very passive position,especially when facing the enemies who have large numbers shooting units.Have you play the battle of Maranga(in the epic battle)?Or facing similar situation in the custom battles or campaign battles?Your comitatensis must sitting at there as targets,the enemy won't charge to your comitatensis,only shooting to your army ceaselessly,you have bow but It can only act in defensive Impact POA,so your army only can do is doing suicidally charging to the enemy or,sitting at there bucause of this design.They can't use bow to fought back and be slaughtered then....The Ammianus Marcellinus said the romans repelled the sassanids' attack with minimal losses at Maranga in his<Res Gestae>,but in game,you have to take heavily losses just because the archers in your comitatensis units can't do manual shooting.....rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:51 pm I have moved the above two posts to this existing thread.
MVP7 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:15 pm In my opinion fatigue is already sufficiently modelled by the decreasing performance resulting from losses (and low ammo) that are unavoidable in extended combat even when unit is winning. As a result, when a unit has done something that could be considered truly exhausting (not just being winded for a moment) their performance in-game will also be severely diminished by that time and fresh reserve units will have big advantage against them. When it comes to movement I think it's reasonable to presume that units are moving at sustainable pace outside of charging, pursuing and evading. Terrain effects on cohesion can also be thought as being partially caused by fatigue from moving in the bad terrain in heavy gear and inflexible formation.
I see little reason for additional fatigue effects as they would have to be very minor not to overdo it on top of the current "fatigue" and reducing the current effects to add pretty much the exact same effects would be pointless. Just because there isn't a specific counter or modifier for fatigue does not automatically mean that it's not modelled or that such modifier would automatically make the end result more realistic.
The above post concords with our design philosophy, which is to get the intended result with the minimum of complexity.
-
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:35 am
- Location: Australia
Re: Will the game add a fatigue system?
[quote=rbodleyscott post_id=760010 time=1544539903 user_id=867]
I have moved the above two posts to this existing thread.
[quote=MVP7 post_id=754222 time=1541628905 user_id=111212]
In my opinion fatigue is already sufficiently modelled by the decreasing performance resulting from losses (and low ammo) that are unavoidable in extended combat even when unit is winning. As a result, when a unit has done something that could be considered truly exhausting (not just being winded for a moment) their performance in-game will also be severely diminished by that time and fresh reserve units will have big advantage against them. When it comes to movement I think it's reasonable to presume that units are moving at sustainable pace outside of charging, pursuing and evading. Terrain effects on cohesion can also be thought as being partially caused by fatigue from moving in the bad terrain in heavy gear and inflexible formation.
I see little reason for additional fatigue effects as they would have to be very minor not to overdo it on top of the current "fatigue" and reducing the current effects to add pretty much the exact same effects would be pointless. Just because there isn't a specific counter or modifier for fatigue does not automatically mean that it's not modelled or that such modifier would automatically make the end result more realistic.[/quote]
The above post concords with our design philosophy, which is to get the intended result with the minimum of complexity.
[/quote]
+1 from me. Don't touch it. It will ruin an elegant game.
I have moved the above two posts to this existing thread.
[quote=MVP7 post_id=754222 time=1541628905 user_id=111212]
In my opinion fatigue is already sufficiently modelled by the decreasing performance resulting from losses (and low ammo) that are unavoidable in extended combat even when unit is winning. As a result, when a unit has done something that could be considered truly exhausting (not just being winded for a moment) their performance in-game will also be severely diminished by that time and fresh reserve units will have big advantage against them. When it comes to movement I think it's reasonable to presume that units are moving at sustainable pace outside of charging, pursuing and evading. Terrain effects on cohesion can also be thought as being partially caused by fatigue from moving in the bad terrain in heavy gear and inflexible formation.
I see little reason for additional fatigue effects as they would have to be very minor not to overdo it on top of the current "fatigue" and reducing the current effects to add pretty much the exact same effects would be pointless. Just because there isn't a specific counter or modifier for fatigue does not automatically mean that it's not modelled or that such modifier would automatically make the end result more realistic.[/quote]
The above post concords with our design philosophy, which is to get the intended result with the minimum of complexity.
[/quote]
+1 from me. Don't touch it. It will ruin an elegant game.
-
- Corporal - Strongpoint
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:45 pm
Re: Fatigue System
-1 from me. Without a realistic fatigue system, the game is just chess with pretty skins for me.
Re: Fatigue System
+.5 from me. In the abstract, everything else equal, a fatigue system would be nice-to-have. But everything else is not equal and the systems work so fine as they are, that I agree better not make any big changes.
The closer you are to perfection, the more likely change is for the worse, and FOG2 is pretty-damn close to perfection.
The closer you are to perfection, the more likely change is for the worse, and FOG2 is pretty-damn close to perfection.
Re: Fatigue System
Not a fan. I think unit quality already illustrates this well enough. Lower quality units disrupt from losing rounds much more easily while the superiors and elites tend to keep on trucking until the end. Plus it opens up all sorts of cans of worms of trying to guess just how fit ancient soldiers were. If you want to have things like exhaustion, hunger, supply, disease etc modelled play a operational game. FoGII standard battles assume a meeting of two fairly well-rested and enthusiastic forces at more-or-less the peak condition of their military culture for a battle potentially lasting an entire day. There was no shortage of historical battles where this was not the case (one force was tired, half-starved, disease ridden, demoralised etc while another arrived on the field ready to bring their A game) but it's far outside the scope or focus of this game to try and ham-fistedly model that.
Re: Fatigue System
The way I look at it is that the game units are quite abstract. For example, even though for example all infantry units look like they are in big square formation, it doesn't literally mean they fight in big square formation. There is a lot of abstraction and I like to imagine that when to such units clash, it's not just one big charge and everyone fighting for the next 5 turns or so. I imagine they are taking breaks, some parts of units are clashing while others are stopping for a bit, soldiers are switching places etc. Take a look at hastati/princeps - the game doesn't model those units separately, it's one big group, which means that it's in general higher level and doesn't represent how those groups of soldiers would manoeuvrer and switch places on lower level.
What I'm trying to say - just because you see a unit is in melee for 10 turns, it does not mean that all those soldiers are fighting non-stop for several hours.
Of course, I think it's valid to assume that soldiers would be tired after they were in action for a long time, but I think it's already represented very well in practice by the lowered number of soldiers in units that fight a lot.
As for the operational level affecting battles, I think this can be easily modelled by changing quality of troops (so when playing on the hardest difficulty, you could imagine enemy is well-rested while your troops were marching all night) and there is no need for additional system.
In general, good game design is simple design. More complex systems does not necessarily bring more complex gameplay (so often it is quite the other way around) and I don't see any real benefit of adding fatigue system here. I would rather see the game expanded in other directions (for example better representation of cavalry mobility on battlefield, but I don't have any specific ideas how to do it).
What I'm trying to say - just because you see a unit is in melee for 10 turns, it does not mean that all those soldiers are fighting non-stop for several hours.
Of course, I think it's valid to assume that soldiers would be tired after they were in action for a long time, but I think it's already represented very well in practice by the lowered number of soldiers in units that fight a lot.
As for the operational level affecting battles, I think this can be easily modelled by changing quality of troops (so when playing on the hardest difficulty, you could imagine enemy is well-rested while your troops were marching all night) and there is no need for additional system.
In general, good game design is simple design. More complex systems does not necessarily bring more complex gameplay (so often it is quite the other way around) and I don't see any real benefit of adding fatigue system here. I would rather see the game expanded in other directions (for example better representation of cavalry mobility on battlefield, but I don't have any specific ideas how to do it).