New units add suggestion

[matlegob]

I am working on a lot of new skins (principaly shields skins) on the base of the TT mod by Paul59.

It is almost ready and I will release it soon

[Dux Limitis]

No tarentine light horseman

Although Tarentine Light Horse had shields, their classification under the FOG system would be the same as the present light horse. FOG concentrates on getting the interactions between different contemporary troop types right, rather than on relatively unimportant equipment differences - especially when these tended to roll out to most nations within a few years of the initial innovation.

We are a small studio, and if we had to have different models for every variation in appearance from Spain to India, the game simply could not get made at all. Each new model takes at least 1 full day of the artist's time to create, plus some hours of the animator's time.

See viewtopic.php?f=492&t=79817 (5th post)

So we had to make compromises in limiting the number of different models.

In the TT Mod, Paul has done wonders with texture conversions (there are no new models), but the official game units have to be done to an even higher standard, hence we cannot simply roll out all these variant units by texture conversions.

....A small studio?Sorry for hear that,I think you should hire more people who like this to your studio,and then they will make this game better.This game is really potential I think,and a good game always have a strong team behind,that's my opinion.

[MikeC_81]

As an aside, someone has uploaded an outstanding lecture by a professor at University of Green Bay where experimental archaeological was used to reconstruct linen armour and test its efficacy. It confirms that it was very effective.

https://youtu.be/too2K3GJjiA

[76mm]

FOG concentrates on getting the interactions between different contemporary troop types right, rather than on relatively unimportant equipment differences...

Richard, in your view, to what extent would troops types need to be "non-contemporaneous" before the interactions between them start breaking down? Presumably all lists within a DLC could be considered contemporaneous, but what about between "adjacent" DLCs (say, Immortal Fire and Rise of Rome or Legions Triumphant and Age of Belisarius)?

[76mm]

As an aside, someone has uploaded an outstanding lecture by a professor at University of Green Bay where experimental archaeological was used to reconstruct linen armour and test its efficacy. It confirms that it was very effective.

Thank you, that was quite interesting!

[MVP7]

FOG concentrates on getting the interactions between different contemporary troop types right, rather than on relatively unimportant equipment differences...

Richard, in your view, to what extent would troops types need to be "non-contemporaneous" before the interactions between them start breaking down? Presumably all lists within a DLC could be considered contemporaneous, but what about between "adjacent" DLCs (say, Immortal Fire and Rise of Rome or Legions Triumphant and Age of Belisarius)?

Army lists from different eras are in balance gameplay-wise but not "realistically" as a bronze age army could fight against a similar sized late medieval army and still be an even match. Catapracts from 4th century BC in chain/scale armor and 15th century knights in full steel plate both count as 'fully armored' even though a 15th century unit in full chain might barely count as 'protected'.

[76mm]

Army lists from different eras are in balance gameplay-wise but not "realistically" as a bronze age army could fight against a similar sized late medieval army and still be an even match. Catapracts from 4th century BC in chain/scale armor and 15th century knights in full steel plate both count as 'fully armored' even though a 15th century unit in full chain might barely count as 'protected'.

Right, but at what point do those "realism" discrepancies become significant? I understand the difference between 4th Century BC and 15th Century, but what about 4th Century BC vs 1 AD or 500 AD?

In other words, If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the top cav in 4th Century BC will pretty much go toe-to-toe with the top cav in the 15th century (in the game), but what if you want to limit fights to more or less "like vs like" over a couple/several hundred years?

[MVP7]

Army lists from different eras are in balance gameplay-wise but not "realistically" as a bronze age army could fight against a similar sized late medieval army and still be an even match. Catapracts from 4th century BC in chain/scale armor and 15th century knights in full steel plate both count as 'fully armored' even though a 15th century unit in full chain might barely count as 'protected'.

Right, but at what point do those "realism" discrepancies become significant? I understand the difference between 4th Century BC and 15th Century, but what about 4th Century BC vs 1 AD or 500 AD?

In other words, If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the top cav in 4th Century BC will pretty much go toe-to-toe with the top cav in the 15th century (in the game), but what if you want to limit fights to more or less "like vs like" over a couple/several hundred years?

I'd estimate that going from 3rd century bc to about 10th century ad there's probably not that massive change in the capability of equipment and tactics. I'd imagine that the most serious leap happens between 11th and 15th centuries where the "top tier" armor will change from mail hauberk and nasal helmet to full plate that covers everything.

[edb1815]

Army lists from different eras are in balance gameplay-wise but not "realistically" as a bronze age army could fight against a similar sized late medieval army and still be an even match. Catapracts from 4th century BC in chain/scale armor and 15th century knights in full steel plate both count as 'fully armored' even though a 15th century unit in full chain might barely count as 'protected'.

Right, but at what point do those "realism" discrepancies become significant? I understand the difference between 4th Century BC and 15th Century, but what about 4th Century BC vs 1 AD or 500 AD?

In other words, If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the top cav in 4th Century BC will pretty much go toe-to-toe with the top cav in the 15th century (in the game), but what if you want to limit fights to more or less "like vs like" over a couple/several hundred years?

I'd estimate that going from 3rd century bc to about 10th century ad there's probably not that massive change in the capability of equipment and tactics. I'd imagine that the most serious leap happens between 11th and 15th centuries where the "top tier" armor will change from mail hauberk and nasal helmet to full plate that covers everything.

What about stirrups? At least in the west the popular time frame for their introduction was in the middle ages. That would be a big difference for early lancers vs. knights as well.

[MVP7]

Right, but at what point do those "realism" discrepancies become significant? I understand the difference between 4th Century BC and 15th Century, but what about 4th Century BC vs 1 AD or 500 AD?

In other words, If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the top cav in 4th Century BC will pretty much go toe-to-toe with the top cav in the 15th century (in the game), but what if you want to limit fights to more or less "like vs like" over a couple/several hundred years?

I'd estimate that going from 3rd century bc to about 10th century ad there's probably not that massive change in the capability of equipment and tactics. I'd imagine that the most serious leap happens between 11th and 15th centuries where the "top tier" armor will change from mail hauberk and nasal helmet to full plate that covers everything.

What about stirrups? At least in the west the popular time frame for their introduction was in the middle ages. That would be a big difference for early lancers vs. knights as well.

As far as I know a popular current view is that the importance of stirrups has been greatly overestimated by western historians in the last centuries. Before stirrups the saddles were often built so that you got to grip them quite well with your legs and even with stirrups you can't put the full force of the horse and the rider behind a lance thrust.

If you get stabbed in the chest by a lance the stirrups don't really make a massive difference as the thrust won't need the full force of the rider and/or the horse and neither would the stabber want to hold on to a lance that is being wedged firmly and deeply into the enemy body. In the possible following melee with swords the stirrups might be more significant but even then the better trained fighter would still most likely win. I think stirrups were a convenience more than a revolution.

[edb1815]

I'd estimate that going from 3rd century bc to about 10th century ad there's probably not that massive change in the capability of equipment and tactics. I'd imagine that the most serious leap happens between 11th and 15th centuries where the "top tier" armor will change from mail hauberk and nasal helmet to full plate that covers everything.

What about stirrups? At least in the west the popular time frame for their introduction was in the middle ages. That would be a big difference for early lancers vs. knights as well.

As far as I know a popular current view is that the importance of stirrups has been greatly overestimated by western historians in the last centuries. Before stirrups the saddles were often built so that you got to grip them quite well with your legs and even with stirrups you can't put the full force of the horse and the rider behind a lance thrust.

If you get stabbed in the chest by a lance the stirrups don't really make a massive difference as the thrust won't need the full force of the rider and/or the horse and neither would the stabber want to hold on to a lance that is being wedged firmly and deeply into the enemy body. In the possible following melee with swords the stirrups might be more significant but even then the better trained fighter would still most likely win. I think stirrups were a convenience more than a revolution.

Interesting. What about cavalry before those types of saddles. I am thinking Greeks or xystoforoi.

[MVP7]

What about stirrups? At least in the west the popular time frame for their introduction was in the middle ages. That would be a big difference for early lancers vs. knights as well.

As far as I know a popular current view is that the importance of stirrups has been greatly overestimated by western historians in the last centuries. Before stirrups the saddles were often built so that you got to grip them quite well with your legs and even with stirrups you can't put the full force of the horse and the rider behind a lance thrust.

If you get stabbed in the chest by a lance the stirrups don't really make a massive difference as the thrust won't need the full force of the rider and/or the horse and neither would the stabber want to hold on to a lance that is being wedged firmly and deeply into the enemy body. In the possible following melee with swords the stirrups might be more significant but even then the better trained fighter would still most likely win. I think stirrups were a convenience more than a revolution.

Interesting. What about cavalry before those types of saddles. I am thinking Greeks or xystoforoi.

I have not read enough of that early warfare to make even a proper educated guess but if all the rider could do was hold on to dear life when on horseback and would fall from a slightest disturbance, cavalry would not have been used in warfare. Having a sturdy saddle and stirrups is most likely a significant advantage over fighting on a horse bareback but then we are probably talking about almost a thousand year time difference in army lists.

[76mm]

I'd estimate that going from 3rd century bc to about 10th century ad there's probably not that massive change in the capability of equipment and tactics. I'd imagine that the most serious leap happens between 11th and 15th centuries where the "top tier" armor will change from mail hauberk and nasal helmet to full plate that covers everything.

Thanks, that's helpful.

[SnuggleBunnies]

New units should not be included just because a weapon existed. They should be included if they had a meaningful role in battles. The hand held crossbow may or may not have been used on any notable scale in the Roman army. Even if it was, the accounts of their use in battle is limited. Archaeological finds have not confirmed widespread use of such a weapon, while the spatha, plumbata, and spears are all well attested. As for Legions of the Third Century - sure, there was probably some sort of gradual transition between the earlier legions and the later ones depicted in the game. That transition is extremely hazy, and of course the dates for army list changes are often approximate. Sure, a cosmetic difference showing the gradual change of the army would be nice, but the graphics budget means that not everything can make the cut.

Field of Glory II's design philosophy is to offer players armies that are broadly based on what their cultures generally put into the field, not what pop culture depictions show. Looking at a later period - if you got your information on World War II from video games and movies, you would think that the Wehrmacht deployed thousands of Tiger Tanks and StG 44s, and that its infantry were all mounted on halftracks. Of course in reality, Tiger Tanks and StGs were produced in small numbers, and the German army relied heavily on horses and infantry marching on foot. Just because a weapon system existed, and caught hold of the imagination, or popular remembrance of a conflict, does not mean that it was ubiquitous. Now, we know for certain that Tigers and StGs and halftracks existed and were used, thanks to the 1940s being not that long ago. As for hand crossbows in the Roman Army, we don't know that they were used in any great numbers, or if these were actually what we would class as "light artillery" in game. The existence of a weapon alone does not justify altering army lists - well attested use is required. We don't really know how differently 3rd century infantry operated from its predecessors or successors. There isn't certainty about cataphract archers. "Maybe this badass type of unit existed" does not justify inclusion, at least not in the official game. Modding can add most of these things of course.

[TheGrayMouser]

As far as I know a popular current view is that the importance of stirrups has been greatly overestimated by western historians in the last centuries. Before stirrups the saddles were often built so that you got to grip them quite well with your legs and even with stirrups you can't put the full force of the horse and the rider behind a lance thrust.

If you get stabbed in the chest by a lance the stirrups don't really make a massive difference as the thrust won't need the full force of the rider and/or the horse and neither would the stabber want to hold on to a lance that is being wedged firmly and deeply into the enemy body. In the possible following melee with swords the stirrups might be more significant but even then the better trained fighter would still most likely win. I think stirrups were a convenience more than a revolution.

Interesting. What about cavalry before those types of saddles. I am thinking Greeks or xystoforoi.

I have not read enough of that early warfare to make even a proper educated guess but if all the rider could do was hold on to dear life when on horseback and would fall from a slightest disturbance, cavalry would not have been used in warfare. Having a sturdy saddle and stirrups is most likely a significant advantage over fighting on a horse bareback but then we are probably talking about almost a thousand year time difference in army lists.

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php


Fascinating article, Bottom line, shock combat with lance is possible with NO stirrups , NO high back saddle( even no saddle at all) it just take s a lot more skill and is more perilous.

[AlexDetrojan]

SnuggleBunnies makes a good point re: Tigers et al. This brings to mind a competitor company(Battlefield.com) that has a unique and workable solution to incorporating less than common units into their skirmish scenarios. All possible units are included but graded from common to rare in occurrence(depending on year and theater of operation) the ones that are more rare have a greater purchase price than the more common ones. this works out well, as if you pick only rare(consequently much more expensive)units you will be faced with lets say two King Tiger II tanks or one Elephant tank facing a whole battalion of Russian T-34/85's! Exciting no doubt, but very short lived. If applied to FOG II, you as a general are going to have to make rational decisions as to the composition of your army(even if you really,really want bow/lance Cataphracts) Possibly this system could be incorporated into the game...
Cheers
Alex

[rbodleyscott]

SnuggleBunnies makes a good point re: Tigers et al. This brings to mind a competitor company(Battlefield.com) that has a unique and workable solution to incorporating less than common units into their skirmish scenarios. All possible units are included but graded from common to rare in occurrence(depending on year and theater of operation) the ones that are more rare have a greater purchase price than the more common ones. this works out well, as if you pick only rare(consequently much more expensive)units you will be faced with lets say two King Tiger II tanks or one Elephant tank facing a whole battalion of Russian T-34/85's! Exciting no doubt, but very short lived. If applied to FOG II, you as a general are going to have to make rational decisions as to the composition of your army(even if you really,really want bow/lance Cataphracts) Possibly this system could be incorporated into the game...
Cheers
Alex

Indeed, this is a good way to handle "gimmick" weapons. We have already adopted this policy with regard to Scythed Chariots, which have been deliberately over-priced relative to their effectiveness.

[MVP7]

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php


Fascinating article, Bottom line, shock combat with lance is possible with NO stirrups , NO high back saddle( even no saddle at all) it just take s a lot more skill and is more perilous.

Very interesting article, thanks!

Another thing to consider is that in any re-enactments the lance will ideally bounce or break while in real warfare (especially when plate was no a part of knightly armor) it would be ideally sinking into the enemy. That could make couching risky since unless the lance breaks it could drag the rider down from the saddle.

[rhewett01]

Very interesting article, thanks!

Another thing to consider is that in any re-enactments the lance will ideally bounce or break while in real warfare (especially when plate was no a part of knightly armor) it would be ideally sinking into the enemy. That could make couching risky since unless the lance breaks it could drag the rider down from the saddle.

Good point. Stumbled across the following, from a much later period and against soft rather than armoured targets, but very much a thrust rather than a couched action with the lance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhkCCYnBrWE

[MVP7]

Very interesting article, thanks!

Another thing to consider is that in any re-enactments the lance will ideally bounce or break while in real warfare (especially when plate was no a part of knightly armor) it would be ideally sinking into the enemy. That could make couching risky since unless the lance breaks it could drag the rider down from the saddle.

Good point. Stumbled across the following, from a much later period and against soft rather than armoured targets, but very much a thrust rather than a couched action with the lance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhkCCYnBrWE

Good find! I was trying to find old footage just like this earlier but couldn't figure out proper search terms. In this you can see that even when the lance is couched, it's mainly done for added support while carrying it and the attack itself is more of a thrust. They are definitely not using full possible force but rather the necessary force and even then they sometimes have to drag the lance behind them to get it out of the target.

Armor would obviously change the needed forces but even then the goal of the thrust would probably not be driving the lance handle deep into the enemy.