Differences?

[DrJest]

I am looking forward to this game. What are the differences between this title and FoGII? Are there any new mechanics or rules that reflect this time period? Please tell me it is more than just graphics.

[SnuggleBunny]

There are new unit types, game modes, and some other features like field fortifications.

As to new unit types, Crossbowmen are far more prominent, and there are Knights and Longbowmen that have specific POA effects. Unit pricing has also been changed in light of the effectiveness of a Knightly charge.

[FluffyBunny]

Originally posted by SnuggleBunny:

There are new unit types, game modes, and some other features like field fortifications.

As to new unit types, Crossbowmen are far more prominent, and there are Knights and Longbowmen that have specific POA effects. Unit pricing has also been changed in light of the effectiveness of a Knightly charge.

Could you elaborate on those specific POA effects? So far I have assumed that those medieval battles could have been modelled just the same within the framework of FOG2. Or have new POA effects been added to the engine?

I still wonder why we need a whole new base game for medieval battles (particularly as early medieval battles have been added to FOG2 as a DLC).

[SnuggleBunny]

Originally posted by FluffyBunny:

Originally posted by SnuggleBunny:

There are new unit types, game modes, and some other features like field fortifications.

As to new unit types, Crossbowmen are far more prominent, and there are Knights and Longbowmen that have specific POA effects. Unit pricing has also been changed in light of the effectiveness of a Knightly charge.

Could you elaborate on those specific POA effects? So far I have assumed that those medieval battles could have been modelled just the same within the framework of FOG2. Or have new POA effects been added to the engine?

I still wonder why we need a whole new base game for medieval battles (particularly as early medieval battles have been added to FOG2 as a DLC).

I'm in the beta, but I won't give specific POA changes, as that could perhaps be subject to change and I don't want to mislead anyone. That being said, Knights are incredibly effective at Impact, and the more armored ones are also tanks in melee. As a result, the unit pricing system had to be changed, making certain units more affordable to make up for the power of knights. That, combined with a desire for a Medieval themed UI, sound, terrain sets, etc. etc. drove the devs' decision to make it a whole new game. I suspect another reason would be that many people are interested in Medieval and not Ancients, and this would allow them to step in without first buying Ancients and then a DLC.

[Zarkarion]

What SnuggleBunny says is correct.

Originally posted by FluffyBunny:

I still wonder why we need a whole new base game for medieval battles (particularly as early medieval battles have been added to FOG2 as a DLC).

An equally valid question would be why bring out the High Medieval period as a DLC for a primarily Ancients-themed game (Primary game period, UI, music etc.) when it could have a new Medieval-themed UI, music, terrain graphics etc.?

And as SnuggleBunny says, this way people who just want a Medieval game don't have to buy an Ancients game to get it.

[T-Duke76]

It would be very nice if the player had more actions/choices to take apart from move/melee /volley. This is a solid game with an elegant interface and good graphics but the gameplay mechanics are still about the same of Pike & Shots....

[SnuggleBunny]

Originally posted by T-Duke76:

It would be very nice if the player had more actions/choices to take apart from move/melee /volley. This is a solid game with an elegant interface and good graphics but the gameplay mechanics are still about the same of Pike & Shots....

Personally I'm completely happy with the system as it is, but out of curiosity, what would you suggest adding?

[T-Duke76]

Changing formations /splitting units / forming detachments/ hold position/pursue behaviour/ changing projectiles type etc etc there are so many,

Look at this old HPS series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUxbQVK1c20

You can do everything I wrote and many other stuff ...

[SnuggleBunny]

Originally posted by T-Duke76:

Changing formations /splitting units / forming detachments/ hold position/pursue behaviour/ changing projectiles type etc etc there are so many,

I'm familiar with the HPS games, though I didn't really enjoy them tbh. They took forever to play, waaay too much micro for me. I did rather enjoy the Great Battles of History games.

Changing formations: This sort of thing is below the direct representational level of the game. Units are assumed to form the appropriate formation, like forming a wedge to charge, a shieldwall in a defensive position, etc. etc. Personally I prefer this the way it is.

Splitting units: I think this would be too hard on the game's balance. Because combat is so heavily based on flanking, wouldn't everyone split units constantly to gain the edge?

Hold Position: The inability to set evade behavior is a deliberate design decision. Your pajama clad javelinmen are unlikely to stand against a charge of cataphracts no matter what you tell them about how useful it would be for the rest of the army.

Pursue Behavior: Again, this is a deliberate design decision, and pursuit is already substantially toned down from the previous games in the series. The whole point of pursuit behavior is that it's uncontrollable and unpredictable, and you have to take it into account when pondering committing a unit to the charge.

Projectile types: Why? Fire arrows against personnel mostly wasn't a thing. Beyond differentiating between arrows, bolts, firebombs, etc., what other differentiation would be necessary? It would hardly be the part of a commander to tell his archers to use the light arrows when the enemy was far and the heavier ones for close work - that goes without saying.

[T-Duke76]

I respect your points, obviously, but personally, I have to disagree. This a turn based wargame: micromanagment should not be a problem but on the contrary: more options, more decisions, more strategy imho.

[Grognerd]

Some cavalry units can opt to "dismount" prior to battle in FoG2:M, which I believe is a new feature.

[Athos1660]

Dismounting before battle is already in FoG II (Ancients).

I agree with Snugglebunnies and I am very happy with the list of actions currently available in game.

btw some actions haven't been mentioned yet, such as Move General (from a unit to another), activate a melee or another, undo and special moves (fall back, pass through, turn and shoot).

[Wenzel]

I think that Multiplayer is FoG2's biggest appeal, also judging by the official tournaments (and some private ones). Most experienced players understand that the game system offers a delicate competitive balance and that the game's mechanisms are quite "complete" for lack of a better word. Adding new mechanics runs the risk of ruining the balance and making things overly complicated without adding any new depth. In my personal opinion, FoG is already now close to the "over-individualized" side of things (compared to, e.g. the very elegant Commands & Colors: Ancients board game).

The appeal now mainly stems from the variety of army lists. And this is what Medieval delivers (apart from the new setting/aesthetics): New army lists/types. If you have an understanding of the game, you will find that medieval armies play quite differently from the ancient armies. There is no need for new core mechanics - the game is flexible enough to portray all kinds of settings. The new setting is represented by the new army lists within the existing frame work/core mechanics.

If you don't enjoy FoG2:Ancients, I can't see how you will enjoy FoG:Medieval (unless it's only about the historical setting). But then again if you don't see a good game in FoG:Ancients, you should probably look harder. ;)

[Wenzel]

Originally posted by Medicus:

I do not think this should be a reason for selling a similiar game full price. And if you argue that it is the same game just new army lists, then it should be a DLC.

If you don't think it's worth the price don't buy it (jack*** argument! :D). Of course lower prices are always welcome from a consumer's point of view, but I for one think that the price is fair for the product I get. If I compare how much I've paid for FoG2 (including the DLCs) and how many hours I've played and how much fun I had, it's one of the best games in my collection. And I know that I will still be playing FoG2 Ancients and Medieval in a year from now. (I'm also part of a discord community that hosts its own little tournament :) ).

Another argument is that It's a niche game, not a triple A title. So in order to keep it alive, I'm willing to pay the price. I hope the game will be successfull enough to warrant a late medieval DLC so that I can finally lead my beloved burgundian army into battle!

Also, I don't quite get your argument. I suppose that FoG2:M has about as much content as FoG2:A had at release. Why should it be cheaper? Just because the programers didn't have to program the whole thing from scratch? In what way does this influence the quality of the final product for the consumer?

So is FoG2:M the same as FoG2:A? No! It has medieval armies that play differently from ancient armies (yes, within the framework of the FoG ruleset), it has medieval campaigns/scenarios (someone had to research and create these), it has very nicely done medieval models, gorgeous illumination-inspired artwork, medieval music, and better organized and color-coded tooltips/combat previews. Not sure what everyone else was expecting, but I'm rather pleased with this. How much is it going to cost exactly? 4 pizzas?

[Athos1660]

@Medicus : it is a common (and rather old) practice to sell and buy at full price each object, book, game or movie tickets of a series. It is not because you buy a pair of trousers once that you will never buy another one at full price again. Your future pants won't be at "DLC price". And you buy each new game of say the Total War series at full price, even if (or, rather, because) the mechanics are identical. And you will buy at full price a new ticket to see each movie of say the Star Wars series, even if (or, rather, because) it is the same universe, characters, actors...

FoGII: Medieval is a great standalone with lots of new content/improvements that'll be worth every penny/euro/whatever.

Have fun with it :-)

[Wenzel]

Originally posted by Medicus:

The argument is that customers who paid already for the same game as u say dont pay full price again for slight changes that would be cheaper if it were a DLC.

It is not the same game. It is set in the Medieval period. The armies play differently, require new tactics. I understand that if you have no multiplayer experience with FoG, you might be lacking the experience to tell. No offense meant, it's just that from your previous posts in the FoG2:A forum and here - one of which was deleted? (stating that archers are OP vs. knights) - it's obvious that you have precious little experience with the game.

Those little combat capabilities of units don't look like much to someone who is not accustomed to the FoG ruleset, but they actually mean a lot. Armor/anti-armor is a bigger factor than it was in Ancients, there is on average a bigger share of cavalry, many more units now have offensive/defensive sensitive capabilities (lancers, def. spears), infantry and also lots of cavalry is unmanoeuverable (no free 45° turns), there are more "massed" (medium, not light) ranged combat units, knightly lancers are so strong that they can even break spears in frontal charges (but can be punished by good combined arms use of spears + crossbows), the quality of the ordinary infantry is on average lower than in Ancients (panic!), etc. etc. These are significant changes to the game's dynamics.

I get your points but I do not agree. Anyway, I wish the developers all the best with this game but hope this practice is not the future of the industry.

I'd be interested in your arguments/reasons why you don't agree.