Dissapointed

[Lysimaque]

Just bought it and few toughs

-Disparition of Campaign map,it was the feature that make me play so much to Pike and Shot. Why you just didnt improve it, put some logistic and building feature, this, this would be the main feature for me.

-No more anarchy, why? Some armies got a specifity and interest with this feature, now barbarian and civilized army play like one.

-Big lack of new thing, seriously , if you have Field of Glory 1 with 1 or 2 extensions, where is the interest of this new game? Graphism? Honestly, the 2D had a certain charisma that new 3D dont have, and still not possible to zoom strong. Campaigns, just a sucession of randomn battle with some events, nothing special like the old campaign. Gameplay? It is very difficult to see, i dont like the feeling, the lack of zone of ripost .


I see so much good review here, i wonder why, nothing here justify a number 2 for me.

[jomni]

New campaign system has its advantages and disadvantages. So though I miss the old map campaign, I also appreciate the new one.
Advantage - Easy to mod by users (Campaigns in P&S all revolve in same map. No user was actually able to make his own map because the process is so difficult), concentrate on doing what the engine does best (previous map campaign was functional but very rudimentary). No crazy chasing of remnants who refuse to give battle around the map. There are still choices in between battles, sometimes more important. Difficulty increases as you progress. In the previous map campaign, it gets easy after a major turning point.
Disadvantage - you lose the map. no feel of manoeuvre and strategic planning.

The change was announced in one of the preview posts.

[Huskie]

For point 1, Jomni already covers it but I'll add my own 2cents as well; I must add that I did not use the campaign feature in Pike & Shot and Sengoku. I liked it but I never brought myself to play them through because I got so hung over the attrition or constant splitting or re-joining of forces. I fell in love with FOG2's new campaign system because it felt more like a campaign, albeit simulated through text and events it really felt so much better. I really enjoy the choices between events and how you can modify the army via garrison. For the same reason, since I only ever played skirmish or scenarios in P & S and Sengoku this new campaign system was addicting for me since all I ever cared to do was the battles and not playing budget wars with the supply in every region on a campaign map that was presented in Pike & Shot and Sengoku. Again, I liked the map system in the previous titles but fact was I never played them.

For Point 3, FOG2 is a big improvement over FOG1. The main draw is especially the way battles play out. If you noticed skirmishes and light infantry feel a heck of a lot more better and maneuverable (they even have ammunition now). The morale mechanic is more robust because ranged units fire 2 shots instead of one to avoid having the fire and melee phases presented in Sengoku and Pike. Therefore, FOG2 is as fast-paced as 1 without sacrificing deep gameplay. Sure 2-D graphics were nice but these 3-D is a lot more clear and you can actually see Roman Cohorts throw the pilum vs. FOG1 you can't see that. In my opinion, FOG2 just plays and feels different for the better and feels extremely satisfying. I love how the tide of battles can turn too and with FOG2 there is a more comprehensive difficulty level and tons of features to keep you busy that weren't presented in the first game.

Just my 2 cents. Hope this helps.

[Huskie]

For Point 2 IIRC the devs mentioned that while many people liked it a lot of people also hated it, which is self explanatory. Some things were maybe changed to give a more consistent but also refreshing (the factions still play different obviously) experience across all the factions

[Igorputski]

It's remarkably good; how can you not like it? Colorful, challenging and inexpensive unlike so many other games.

[Alan Sharif]

I must confess, I am more than impressed with this game, so am not disappointed at all, but we are all different. I hope it grows on you over time.

[lapdog666]

too be honest i never played fog 1 (i watched it on youtube alot) but anarchy charges for some factions like gauls/germans sound like a good idea. there are plenty of other factions which do not need to have that feature and player can choose to play those factions if they dont want anarchy charges.
ofcourse anarchy factions could get some other bonuses to compensate for potential negative lack of control, or the feature could be a setting ON/OFF in the menu

[Adraeth]

Those things, anarchy charges and campaign map, pointed out were made clear just one or two months ago.

Indeed i did like anarcchy charges (but for DBM style irregular and impet.units, like "barbarians"), anyway i think FOG2 is an excellent product (i already have FOG1 with all modules)

[IainMcNeil]

I'm sure someone could mod back in Anarchy charges if they really wanted. Its the kind of thing a small hardcore really like but most people don't enjoy. The only issue with adding it in is the AI probably would be easier to manipulate as it wont take account of it properly.

[stockwellpete]

The thing about "anarchy" as well is that in FOG1 it happened prior to the melee whereas in FOG2 you can really argue that it happens after the melee with the pursuit rules. Troop types that tended to "anarchy charge" in FOG1 are pretty much the same troop types that pursue defeated enemy units for longer in FOG2. And these prolonged pursuits can sometimes have a significant effect on the outcome of a battle.

[IainMcNeil]

Yes your damned cavalry pursued in to the back of my Thracians in the wood in our tournament game Pete, which was a bit embarrassing!

[Nixoncc]

I love FoG with it´s 2D graphics but I also love the beautiful 3D in FoG 2, I think Byzantine just nailed it with the task of bringing a superb game into 2017, and for the price it´s so worth it to have both the original game and all the expansions and FoG 2, it´s a no brainer.

[AlbertoC]

Just speaking for myself here, but to be honest I've never heard of whole "units" charging on their own will prior to the start of a battle.

It'd be the commanders to attack without orders, if anything, but that wouldn't depend on the unit type but on the general in command of that unit.

If anything, the opposite would happen: it was common during the Dark Ages for opposite lines of shieldwalls to just stare at each other for hours while they were finding the guts to engage in battle. I can't imagine large groups of people just suddenly deciding to charge en masse without orders.

Continuing the charge is of course a different matter.

[Adraeth]

Indeed Alberto, and that is why in DBM tabletop rules you have to spend 1 command point (on a roll of a 6 sided die) to "hold impetuous units" just like, for istance, some horse or some warbands.
So, maybe, this might be done using unit near or far from the Commander, but, considering that a game has to be even balanced i might suggest to use it like an optional/advanced rule.
And now enough about FOG2 talking, for i am at work and i am dying to play it again

[Vargas78]

I think this version is better. There's some nice extra features like moving the general to another unit. And also troops seem to be a bit more likely to rally now if the general is nearby. Combat results also seem to be less prone to hitting incredible extreme results, which happened a bit too frequently in FOG1 for at times. i.e. your unit loses a melee and 66 men, the other unit loses no-one, despite your infantry being of an ok standard. In FOG 2 such an extreme results seems a bit more tempered, and more credible.

[stockwellpete]

Just speaking for myself here, but to be honest I've never heard of whole "units" charging on their own will prior to the start of a battle.

It'd be the commanders to attack without orders, if anything, but that wouldn't depend on the unit type but on the general in command of that unit.

If anything, the opposite would happen: it was common during the Dark Ages for opposite lines of shieldwalls to just stare at each other for hours while they were finding the guts to engage in battle. I can't imagine large groups of people just suddenly deciding to charge en masse without orders.

Continuing the charge is of course a different matter.

Well, I suppose the old "anarchy" rules could produce situations like the Saxon fyrd charging down Battle high street after the Norman cavalry that had broken off their attack, or the French knights running down the Genoese crossbowmen (who were in their army) to get at the English lines at Crecy.

[Bombax]

I think it's an absolutely cracking game!
Each to their own of course; any new game is likely to contain a mix of pluses and minuses for each of us.
Taken as a whole though, my first impression is that this will be the main focus of my computer gaming for quite some time to come.
Well done RBS and everyone involved in producing it
Many thanks,
Bombax.

[rbodleyscott]

I think it's an absolutely cracking game!
Each to their own of course; any new game is likely to contain a mix of pluses and minuses for each of us.
Taken as a whole though, my first impression is that this will be the main focus of my computer gaming for quite some time to come.
Well done RBS and everyone involved in producing it
Many thanks,
Bombax.

Thanks