User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:22 pm

Field of Glory: Empires Review

Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:02 pm

BLUF – Bottom Line Up Front: They nailed it. Slitherine-AGEOD’s new grand strategy game Field of Glory: Empires is here and I think it just set the standard on how...

http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/field-of-glory-empires/

CrazyOkie
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:08 pm

Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:22 pm

So, you have to own FOG2 in order to play FOGE?

User avatar
EICJoe
Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:50 pm

Re:

Thu Jul 11, 2019 4:24 pm

So, you have to own FOG2 in order to play FOGE?
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.

The integration is one of its selling points but it's probably only something existing FOG2 owners will appreciate, because if you're used to Paradox games, you're used to not having tactical control over battles anyway.
"Determining the appropriate level of influence in somebody else's war is never a simple matter."
- Special Circumstances

Editor-in-Chief
Wargamer.com
PocketTactics.com
StrategyGamer.com

DeRuyter66
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:18 pm

Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:17 pm

As I understand it FOGE has it's own simplified battle system in addition to an auto resolve function.

Interestingly there has been a lot of grumbling from the FOG2 players about not having the battle export function available in multi-player FOGE. As a practical matter I can see why it is not available though.

RogerCoop
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 2:13 pm

Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:21 pm

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.

User avatar
hmgs1@hotmail.com
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:00 am

Re: <t>Field of Glory: Empires Review</t>

Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:18 am

Or so far as we know. One thing to remember is that ancient historians wrote to influence, not to inform. Exageration was one key tool used. Thus at Pydna we have the losing side with 31,000 casualties to include 20,000 KIA, the winning side less than 100. Also, most casualties inflicted occurred when the loser broke and was pursued. Also in the FOGE battle, the AI stopped the contest with several turns left, though on the strategic map Pyrrhus is shown devastated.

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.

Colonel Bill

RogerCoop
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 2:13 pm

Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:31 pm

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.
Colonel Bill
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).

Which historians believe that ancient battles typically had high casualties on both sides? Let's avoid the mistake of Max Delbruck who believed that ancient battles were always won the larger army and ancient author who said otherwise was unreliable. We can't simply ignore every source.

In some ways games like Command & Colors or the DBx series are more realistic because they ignore casualties, just tracking morale instead.

User avatar
hmgs1@hotmail.com
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:00 am

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:48 am

I checked today with the director of the Ancients tournament here at Historicon because he does live and breathe this stuff to the point he is a reliable SME IMHO. His comment mirrors mine. Ancient battles were indeed very lopsided affairs, but not as lopsided as ancient writers record. So 31,000 v 80 something or Xerxes army drinking rivers dry, likely not.

Again ancient historians wrote to influence - and there is a legitimate term for this perspective, tho for the life of me I can't remember it - and not inform, so I think some caution is appropriate. JMTSW, but to me the game battle seems plausible but the count at Pydna does not.

Ciso, Colonel Bill

delastone
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:56 pm

Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:16 am

If you take Agincourt the number is french soldiers on the battlefield is not well known. It ranges between 12000 to 36000 . About 10000 Knights (1200 mounted) and an unknown exact number of infantry , crossbowmen and archers).
The casualty from the battle of Agincourt are not well known on the French side. It ranges from 1500 to ...11000 ... Just to show how precise history can be.

Even though with those numbers it will the victory wasn't decisive but mostly due to the fact the english went innovative. The Knights, heavy lads, were decimated by the english army composition of 80 percent of longbow.

What makes the battle memorable is that the english army was, indeed, small in comparaison with the french's. What had prevail was the innovation and application of a great counter strategy never seen before.

DeRuyter66
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:18 pm

Re:

Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:19 pm

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.
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.

Playing in the context of a strategic game such as Empire the system should then account for where often the lopsided casualties actually came from, the rout and pursuit after the battle was decided.

    

Return to “Wargamer Front Page Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 1 guest