Examples of What Could Be Made Better in FOG

PC/Mac : Digital version of the popular tabletop gaming system. Fight battles on your desktop in single and mutiplayer!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft

Post Reply
Old_Warrior
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:13 am

Examples of What Could Be Made Better in FOG

Post by Old_Warrior » Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:59 pm

Here is one example of what could be made right about FOG:

I attack a Hungarian Knight unit (Superior, Heavy Armor) in the rear with a Russian Tartar light cav unit (95% strength) and my unit Fragments.

Now I understand that the Knight unit is superior in combat ... but really ... hitting the rear of a Knight unit ... they would not be able to turn to fight as well as if the attack had come from the front.

And Fragmenting in the Impact round has always seemed a bit odd.

Here is another one:

Heavy infantry attacks Light infantry which has its back to water. No way for it to run. It does NOT disrupt at all. Fights for 3 turns after that. Finally is finished off.

These are just glaring examples of how the system could be corrected. The LI unit should be demolished, driven into the sea/lake by the infantry. The horse archers should not even be Disordered.

My feeling is that ANY unit that attacks another unit from the REAR should NOT suffer ANY unit cohesion loss. I can see why the defenders dont when its a LI or LCav unit. But to see a unit Fragment upon Impact and especially when its Light Cavalry just seems a bit off.

fogman
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:29 pm

Re: Examples of What Could Be Made Better in FOG

Post by fogman » Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:40 pm

Old_Warrior wrote:Here is one example of what could be made right about FOG:

I attack a Hungarian Knight unit (Superior, Heavy Armor) in the rear with a Russian Tartar light cav unit (95% strength) and my unit Fragments.

Now I understand that the Knight unit is superior in combat ... but really ... hitting the rear of a Knight unit ... they would not be able to turn to fight as well as if the attack had come from the front.

And Fragmenting in the Impact round has always seemed a bit odd.
Light units attacking heavy units do not gain any advantage related to positioning. It's too easy for them to run circles around heavier units, unrealistically so. Two wrongs don't make one right but it's a compromise. I don't play with light units anyways.

Old_Warrior wrote: Heavy infantry attacks Light infantry which has its back to water. No way for it to run. It does NOT disrupt at all. Fights for 3 turns after that. Finally is finished off.

These are just glaring examples of how the system could be corrected. The LI unit should be demolished, driven into the sea/lake by the infantry. The horse archers should not even be Disordered.

My feeling is that ANY unit that attacks another unit from the REAR should NOT suffer ANY unit cohesion loss. I can see why the defenders dont when its a LI or LCav unit. But to see a unit Fragment upon Impact and especially when its Light Cavalry just seems a bit off.
Is the light unit on clear or rough ground? is it a superior unit? what are the POA? any of this can influence the outcome. We already know that the dice routine can produce really extreme results. But as long as it affects both parties... Players just have to factor it into their moves. When randomness is involved, risk management becomes a vital skill. The game is far from perfect but since I'm still playing it after 7 years, it's the best money i've ever spent on entertainment! And I'm not convinced FOG2 will stop me from continuing...

fogman
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:29 pm

Re: Examples of What Could Be Made Better in FOG

Post by fogman » Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:43 pm


Old_Warrior
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:13 am

Re: Examples of What Could Be Made Better in FOG

Post by Old_Warrior » Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:45 pm

fogman wrote:
Old_Warrior wrote:Here is one example of what could be made right about FOG:

I attack a Hungarian Knight unit (Superior, Heavy Armor) in the rear with a Russian Tartar light cav unit (95% strength) and my unit Fragments.

Now I understand that the Knight unit is superior in combat ... but really ... hitting the rear of a Knight unit ... they would not be able to turn to fight as well as if the attack had come from the front.

And Fragmenting in the Impact round has always seemed a bit odd.
Light units attacking heavy units do not gain any advantage related to positioning. It's too easy for them to run circles around heavier units, unrealistically so. Two wrongs don't make one right but it's a compromise. I don't play with light units anyways.

Old_Warrior wrote: Heavy infantry attacks Light infantry which has its back to water. No way for it to run. It does NOT disrupt at all. Fights for 3 turns after that. Finally is finished off.

These are just glaring examples of how the system could be corrected. The LI unit should be demolished, driven into the sea/lake by the infantry. The horse archers should not even be Disordered.

My feeling is that ANY unit that attacks another unit from the REAR should NOT suffer ANY unit cohesion loss. I can see why the defenders dont when its a LI or LCav unit. But to see a unit Fragment upon Impact and especially when its Light Cavalry just seems a bit off.
Is the light unit on clear or rough ground? is it a superior unit? what are the POA? any of this can influence the outcome. We already know that the dice routine can produce really extreme results. But as long as it affects both parties... Players just have to factor it into their moves. When randomness is involved, risk management becomes a vital skill. The game is far from perfect but since I'm still playing it after 7 years, it's the best money i've ever spent on entertainment! And I'm not convinced FOG2 will stop me from continuing...
Yes, but light units can only attack IF they are facing the target. So running rings around them is not a valid argument. Just means the defender has to station forces so this doesnt happen.

The defending Knight unit was on open terrain. No hills.

Yes, I disagree that there should not be a bonus for light cavalry. Its not the same as light infantry. Heavy knights attacked from behind should be more vulnerable. Not the same as if hit by Knights.

Even a Tiger tank could be knocked out from the rear.

fogman
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:29 pm

Re: Examples of What Could Be Made Better in FOG

Post by fogman » Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:55 am

Disagree. Lights are supposed to represent skirmishing type troops whose combat doctrines are to harass but not to engage, unless the enemy line is collapsed. As it is, because there is no command and control, they are used in the game to infiltrate like commandos. Predominantly cavalry armies like the Parthians' would use their lights to weaken the enemy but the shock attack would come from cataphracts. There is no example of them getting behind and attacking from the rear. Lights are not the equivalent of mechanized units in an operational eastern front game.

Old_Warrior
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:13 am

Re: Examples of What Could Be Made Better in FOG

Post by Old_Warrior » Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:25 am

Problem with the games is that the map size limits cavalry armies. Just saying that NO unit should Fragment upon contact. That was my main point. Think we got mired in the details on this point. A unit attacking another in the rear should not Disorder either.

MikeMarchant
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:46 pm

Re: Examples of What Could Be Made Better in FOG

Post by MikeMarchant » Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:56 am

The randomness of the dice is the biggest weakness of this game for me. A much more sophisticated system needs to be employed.

I for one am tired of games where every melee and impact in a turn is lost (even when the losing side is at a significant advantage). I'm tired of one side constantly losing one or even two levels of cohesion, despite being in command radius, while the other side never drops cohesion, even without command radius. I'm tired of MF charging across flat open terrain to impact cataphracts to the front and fragmenting the cataphracts. Luck plays far too big a part in this game and it is no fun at all when all the skill in manoeuvring an army into a dominant position is wasted by the dice deciding the game.

I dislike it just as much when I win by the dice as when I lose.


Best Wishes

Mike

Micha63
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:56 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Examples of What Could Be Made Better in FOG

Post by Micha63 » Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:55 am

MikeMarchant wrote:The randomness of the dice is the biggest weakness of this game for me. A much more sophisticated system needs to be employed.

I for one am tired of games where every melee and impact in a turn is lost (even when the losing side is at a significant advantage). I'm tired of one side constantly losing one or even two levels of cohesion, despite being in command radius, while the other side never drops cohesion, even without command radius. I'm tired of MF charging across flat open terrain to impact cataphracts to the front and fragmenting the cataphracts. Luck plays far too big a part in this game and it is no fun at all when all the skill in manoeuvring an army into a dominant position is wasted by the dice deciding the game.

I dislike it just as much when I win by the dice as when I lose.


Best Wishes

Mike
Sorry, i"m not agree. For me the the randomness of the dice is the same as in real Battle. There are countless exemples in wars weaker figthers won against stronger ones. One scilled move can destroy every tactikal plan of his opponent.
In other way without the diceroll randommnes every attack of a stronger unit against a weaker one would bring the stronger one a victory and the game becomes boring very fast.
And in the end , the diceroll "problem" appears for both sides in a multiplayer game, so everyone has the same chance.
Just my personally standpoint.

By the way, we should"nt hope for any big improvements. Cathysos time is very limmited and i dont think slitherine will still sell a lot of copys of the game, you can see it on the low price. But this is normal for an old game like field of glory.
An i think slitherine will have its focus on selling FOG 2 what is ok, i would do the same.
In the end, like for all older games, only a small fanclub of players will remain and play this game for long years, you can count me in.
If slitherine keeps the game running for future windows versions we can be happy.

MikeMarchant
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:46 pm

Re: Examples of What Could Be Made Better in FOG

Post by MikeMarchant » Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:21 am

Micha wrote:
MikeMarchant wrote:The randomness of the dice is the biggest weakness of this game for me. A much more sophisticated system needs to be employed.

I for one am tired of games where every melee and impact in a turn is lost (even when the losing side is at a significant advantage). I'm tired of one side constantly losing one or even two levels of cohesion, despite being in command radius, while the other side never drops cohesion, even without command radius. I'm tired of MF charging across flat open terrain to impact cataphracts to the front and fragmenting the cataphracts. Luck plays far too big a part in this game and it is no fun at all when all the skill in manoeuvring an army into a dominant position is wasted by the dice deciding the game.

I dislike it just as much when I win by the dice as when I lose.


Best Wishes

Mike
Sorry, i"m not agree. For me the the randomness of the dice is the same as in real Battle. There are countless exemples in wars weaker figthers won against stronger ones. One scilled move can destroy every tactikal plan of his opponent.
In other way without the diceroll randommnes every attack of a stronger unit against a weaker one would bring the stronger one a victory and the game becomes boring very fast.
And in the end , the diceroll "problem" appears for both sides in a multiplayer game, so everyone has the same chance.
Just my personally standpoint.

By the way, we should"nt hope for any big improvements. Cathysos time is very limmited and i dont think slitherine will still sell a lot of copys of the game, you can see it on the low price. But this is normal for an old game like field of glory.
An i think slitherine will have its focus on selling FOG 2 what is ok, i would do the same.
In the end, like for all older games, only a small fanclub of players will remain and play this game for long years, you can count me in.
If slitherine keeps the game running for future windows versions we can be happy.
Of course there is a degree of randomness in real war, but the fact that randomness exists in the real world does not mean you should have a game where randomness is extreme. The game should be an approximate model of the real world. In the real world unlikely events do occur, but I can guarantee you that they do not occur with the same regularity as in FoG. I am not suggesting a strong unit should always overcome a weak unit, that's ridiculous, what I would like to see if a strong unit overcoming a weak unit about as often (near enough) as it would have done in the real world. Otherwise you might as well just toss a coin.

The fact that this randomness might affect both players (it often doesn't of course, but even if it does) is not the point. The question is whether those players want the result to be dictated by the relative strength and weaknesses of their play or dictated by luck. I would rather the former than the latter, and FoG leans too far to the latter. I have played far too many games where my opponent has lost due to bad luck, and there is no pleasure in that at all (even less so if they moan about all through the game), and I have lost too many games due to bad luck (I try not to moan about it, but sometimes that's hard), and there's no pleasure in that either.


Best Wishes

Mike

Micha63
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:56 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Examples of What Could Be Made Better in FOG

Post by Micha63 » Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:44 am

Ok, you are rigth in anyway, lets hope Cathyso will solve the problem 1 day. By the way, is the problem in fog unity same strong as in the old version ?

NikiforosFokas
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:59 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Examples of What Could Be Made Better in FOG

Post by NikiforosFokas » Tue Aug 15, 2017 4:35 pm

MikeMarchant wrote:
Micha wrote:
MikeMarchant wrote:The randomness of the dice is the biggest weakness of this game for me. A much more sophisticated system needs to be employed.

I for one am tired of games where every melee and impact in a turn is lost (even when the losing side is at a significant advantage). I'm tired of one side constantly losing one or even two levels of cohesion, despite being in command radius, while the other side never drops cohesion, even without command radius. I'm tired of MF charging across flat open terrain to impact cataphracts to the front and fragmenting the cataphracts. Luck plays far too big a part in this game and it is no fun at all when all the skill in manoeuvring an army into a dominant position is wasted by the dice deciding the game.

I dislike it just as much when I win by the dice as when I lose.


Best Wishes

Mike

Sorry, i"m not agree. For me the the randomness of the dice is the same as in real Battle. There are countless exemples in wars weaker figthers won against stronger ones. One scilled move can destroy every tactikal plan of his opponent.
In other way without the diceroll randommnes every attack of a stronger unit against a weaker one would bring the stronger one a victory and the game becomes boring very fast.
And in the end , the diceroll "problem" appears for both sides in a multiplayer game, so everyone has the same chance.
Just my personally standpoint.

By the way, we should"nt hope for any big improvements. Cathysos time is very limmited and i dont think slitherine will still sell a lot of copys of the game, you can see it on the low price. But this is normal for an old game like field of glory.
An i think slitherine will have its focus on selling FOG 2 what is ok, i would do the same.
In the end, like for all older games, only a small fanclub of players will remain and play this game for long years, you can count me in.
If slitherine keeps the game running for future windows versions we can be happy.
Of course there is a degree of randomness in real war, but the fact that randomness exists in the real world does not mean you should have a game where randomness is extreme. The game should be an approximate model of the real world. In the real world unlikely events do occur, but I can guarantee you that they do not occur with the same regularity as in FoG. I am not suggesting a strong unit should always overcome a weak unit, that's ridiculous, what I would like to see if a strong unit overcoming a weak unit about as often (near enough) as it would have done in the real world. Otherwise you might as well just toss a coin.

The fact that this randomness might affect both players (it often doesn't of course, but even if it does) is not the point. The question is whether those players want the result to be dictated by the relative strength and weaknesses of their play or dictated by luck. I would rather the former than the latter, and FoG leans too far to the latter. I have played far too many games where my opponent has lost due to bad luck, and there is no pleasure in that at all (even less so if they moan about all through the game), and I have lost too many games due to bad luck (I try not to moan about it, but sometimes that's hard), and there's no pleasure in that either.


Best Wishes

Mike
can not agree more :)
For Byzantium!!

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory Digital”