No no - Empires has a perfectly functioning auto-resolve system like Paradox-style grand-strategy games. If you don't want to play out tactical battles or just generally don't want to buy another game, FOGE works fine on its own.So, you have to own FOG2 in order to play FOGE?
Even the most reliable ancient historians describe battles with one-sided casualty counts. Late Medieval battles, which are sometimes well documented have similar results. For example, at Agincourt, we can identify the majority of English soldiers by name and we know that English casualties were low (we have their pay records).My thought here is that the casualty count is rigged to approximate what historians believe really happened, not what Caesar said happened. Obviously, his and other accounts are all we have so we will really never know.
After playing in the Digital League for three years I would have to disagree. You can peruse the forum and see one sided results in pvp battles on many occasions. (40% to 7% raw losses for example). However also the system awards victory at 40% unless it is an even battle then it is 60%. The system will then assign greater losses to the losing side whether playing against the AI or a player. I have played many FOG battles where a dramatic collapse of a flank ultimately decides the battle.The battle description shows perfectly the problems I have with FOG. The winning side in an ancient battle took 30% losses. That would an unusual thing, most pre-gunpowder battles were rather one-sided in losses. If you play any FOG battle and then read an account of the battle on Wikipedia you will find remarkable differences. FOG battles are duels of attrition while real ancient battles were decided by clever stratagems and the random incidents of battle.
Real battles are interesting and have dramatic moments. FOG battles are slug-fests. You may be able to maneuver your forces better than the AI and get a little bit more out of them but you can never win decisively.
Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 18 guests