Regarding Army Lists and New DLC Models

[Wyzilla]

Is there a reason some army lists seem to just be crippled for no reason? I'm looking through some such as the Burgundians after picking up the DLC, and you basically have nothing in the way of infantry to actually hold a line, meaning you get rolled in melee immediately. Even though by the 15th century the Infantry of the Burgundians was quite effective and famous. This has come in lists before, but at least things like the East Roman force in Sicily would be more hamstrung in unit options than others, but I'm scratching my head in arrows how some of the new lists are just well, bad.

The other thing I'm left wondering is there's plans to update the models for the 15th century down the line. The 14th century ones are nice although it would be good if there was more differentiation - 14th century Germany looked quite a bit different from the English or French styles. But for the 15th century lists, it feels almost like a joke with how they are for the most part just repurposed 14th century models, or even some from the 13th century. I'd hope that for a whole new DLC era that there'd be more to differentiate it from base game units all the way back in the 13th century.

[Lothar]

The problems of unit model are always exist in FoG 2 due to the budget problems of a small studio,so I just hope one day they make a lot of money or win the lottery to solve these problems.14th century's unit models aren't perfect though,all MAAs wear the same bascinets without any other type of helmets(And you have mentioned already,even in the middle of 15th century they're still using them in game),halberdiers wear the 15th century style Italian armours and celata helmets in 14th century(And with mid-late 15th century type Swiss/German halberds)etc.

[Wenzel]

Originally posted by Wyzilla:

Is there a reason some army lists seem to just be crippled for no reason? I'm looking through some such as the Burgundians after picking up the DLC, and you basically have nothing in the way of infantry to actually hold a line, meaning you get rolled in melee immediately. Even though by the 15th century the Infantry of the Burgundians was quite effective and famous. This has come in lists before, but at least things like the East Roman force in Sicily would be more hamstrung in unit options than others, but I'm scratching my head in arrows how some of the new lists are just well, bad.

I was also surprised to see that most of the 15th century is still missing from the DLC. This includes very popular conflicts such as the late Swiss Wars, the Hussite Wars, the Burgundian War/Charles the Bold and the Wars of the Roses. I suspect we will see another DLC that will finally feature some pikemen.

Regarding the Burgundian lists specifically: they do have access to plenty of dedicated (normal sized!) men at arms on foot and low country (offensive!!) spearmen! That's not exactly bad! The Burgundians can't complain! :D Other lists are far weaker when it comes to infantry. But to be fair you can dismount your mounted Men at Arms. Of course it's not without risk because dismounted MaA are tiny units but it does make perfect sense in some situations.

[Athos1660]

Originally posted by Mowgli:

I was also surprised to see that most of the 15th century is still missing from the DLC. This includes very popular conflicts such as the late Swiss Wars, the Hussite Wars, the Burgundian War/Charles the Bold and the Wars of the Roses. I suspect we will see another DLC that will finally feature some pikemen.

Indeed a DLC covering the Swiss Wars, the Hussite Wars, the Burgundian War and the Wars of the Roses is expected in the near future.

Moreover, the Store page of Storm of arrows says the DLC covers "from 1270 AD until just prior to the introduction of Swiss-style pike tactics and Hussite war wagons".

Storm of Arrows is about the Hundred Year War and the other conflicts that occured at the same time.

[Athos1660]

Originally posted by Wyzilla:

Is there a reason some army lists seem to just be crippled for no reason? I'm looking through some such as the Burgundians after picking up the DLC, and you basically have nothing in the way of infantry to actually hold a line, meaning you get rolled in melee immediately. Even though by the 15th century the Infantry of the Burgundians was quite effective and famous.

The Storm of Arrows DLC covers the Burgundian lists until 1449, that's why you 'only' have Low Countries 'Spearmen' (who are actually 20% Heavy Weapon and 80% Offensive Spearmen) and dismounted Men-at-Arms.

In the future DLC that'll cover 1450-1500 AD in Western Europe, we'll certainly get pikemen in the Burgundian lists, including Superior Swiss ones.

[Wyzilla]

Originally posted by Bill:

Originally posted by Mowgli:

I was also surprised to see that most of the 15th century is still missing from the DLC. This includes very popular conflicts such as the late Swiss Wars, the Hussite Wars, the Burgundian War/Charles the Bold and the Wars of the Roses. I suspect we will see another DLC that will finally feature some pikemen.

Indeed a DLC covering the Swiss Wars, the Hussite Wars, the Burgundian War and the Wars of the Roses is expected in the near future.

Moreover, the Store page of Storm of arrows says the DLC covers "from 1270 AD until just prior to the introduction of Swiss-style pike tactics and Hussite war wagons".

Storm of Arrows is about the Hundred Year War and the other conflicts that occured at the same time.

The Hundred Years War stretched well into the 15th century however, and the game basically doesn't have any 15th century models besides the Halberdiers which are outfitted more akin to Podesta of the 1450's or so. I dunno, just with the price tag of the DLC's, I'd hope there'd be more effort for historical accuracy in the appearance of things rather than recycling things and making the lists more fleshed out.

The game and DLC's looks like it has huge list variety, but when you actually focus in a lot of those lists are more akin to half baked auxiliaries justified on the idea that those are fringe elements of the campaigns focused on - even though those factions should actually be fully fleshed out and differ little from other kingdoms, dukedoms, etc as they had comprehensive armies. The Burgundians do have the ability to take a lot of dismounted men at arms... but so should the French and English and the Burgundians should have a full and comprehensive infantry complement. The army structure of Western feudal or merc lances should differ little and there's no need to make arbitrarily "unique" lists that gut core elements of an army, such as line infantry or ranged support.

[SnuggleBunny]

Originally posted by Wyzilla:

The Hundred Years War stretched well into the 15th century however, and the game basically doesn't have any 15th century models besides the Halberdiers which are outfitted more akin to Podesta of the 1450's or so. I dunno, just with the price tag of the DLC's, I'd hope there'd be more effort for historical accuracy in the appearance of things rather than recycling things and making the lists more fleshed out.

The models not being accurate down to the decade is not because of ignorance on the part of the developers, but because they have a graphics budget set by Slitherine. So they have to try to go for the most representative types. Obviously if they could, they'd love to show the gradual evolution from nasal helmets to great helms to bascinets to sallets etc.

The game and DLC's looks like it has huge list variety, but when you actually focus in a lot of those lists are more akin to half baked auxiliaries justified on the idea that those are fringe elements of the campaigns focused on - even though those factions should actually be fully fleshed out and differ little from other kingdoms, dukedoms, etc as they had comprehensive armies. The Burgundians do have the ability to take a lot of dismounted men at arms... but so should the French and English and the Burgundians should have a full and comprehensive infantry complement. The army structure of Western feudal or merc lances should differ little and there's no need to make arbitrarily "unique" lists that gut core elements of an army, such as line infantry or ranged support.

Lists are based on what armies fielded. That said, the Burgundians don't have a bad infantry component. As stated, things like pikemen etc. will show up further down the line.

[Lothar]

Originally posted by SnuggleBunny:

Originally posted by Wyzilla:

The Hundred Years War stretched well into the 15th century however, and the game basically doesn't have any 15th century models besides the Halberdiers which are outfitted more akin to Podesta of the 1450's or so. I dunno, just with the price tag of the DLC's, I'd hope there'd be more effort for historical accuracy in the appearance of things rather than recycling things and making the lists more fleshed out.

The models not being accurate down to the decade is not because of ignorance on the part of the developers, but because they have a graphics budget set by Slitherine. So they have to try to go for the most representative types. Obviously if they could, they'd love to show the gradual evolution from nasal helmets to great helms to bascinets to sallets etc.

Then the Slitherine guys are really screwed up,they should give the developers of the FoG more budgets,not only as the money milkers.As I noticed,some games under the Slitherine got sightly more budgets to make new models,textures,you name it.Like the Panzer Corps 2.

[Lothar]

Originally posted by Palaiologos:

Originally posted by Lothair:

Then the Slitherine guys are really screwed up,they should give the developers of the FoG more budgets,not only as the money milkers.As I noticed,some games under the Slitherine got sightly more budgets to make new models,textures,you name it.Like the Panzer Corps 2.

There are currently 35 people playing Medieval compared to almost 400 in Panzer Corp 2. It's hardly a surprise which one receives more funding.

That indeed makes me think if they split from the Slitherine,things might getting better,they'll have all incomes from they own games and can do what ever they want by using their own budget sets.It's not rare that small studios operating Independently nowadays.

[SnuggleBunny]

Originally posted by Lothair:

That indeed makes me think if they split from the Slitherine,things might getting better,they'll have all incomes from they own games and can do what ever they want by using their own budget sets.It's not rare that small studios operating Independently nowadays.

Neither you nor I know anything about Slitherine's finances, but keep in mind Byzantine Games doesn't have an in house 3d modeler. If they went independent, along with paying for their own modeler, they'd have to cover marketing etc.

It's a niche game, that comes with limitations - it hardly looks like the case of a greedy publisher screwing over an indie dev...

[Asterius]

I'm afraid it's a vicious cycle. Less fund results in fewer models. And fewer models attract fewer players. Fewer players result in less income. And then less income results in less fund.

[Lothar]

Originally posted by SnuggleBunny:

Originally posted by Lothair:

That indeed makes me think if they split from the Slitherine,things might getting better,they'll have all incomes from they own games and can do what ever they want by using their own budget sets.It's not rare that small studios operating Independently nowadays.

Neither you nor I know anything about Slitherine's finances, but keep in mind Byzantine Games doesn't have an in house 3d modeler. If they went independent, along with paying for their own modeler, they'd have to cover marketing etc.

It's a niche game, that comes with limitations - it hardly looks like the case of a greedy publisher screwing over an indie dev...

Presuming their finances aren't that bad,just the problem of budget distributions,or can't explain why some games under the Slitherine got obviously more budgets to do what ever I said.The publisher might took most of the incomes then re-distribute them to the studios(Try to see a Slitherine's employee,Patrick Ward's reply in this thread: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=464&t=106320&p=935640&hilit=money+men#p935640 ).

As you said,they have a budget set for the devs,that makes the devs of the game can't get full incomes from their own games to make use of them.Besides,I noticed a studio called the Kubat or Kube Games independent from the Slitherine after they published their first game called the Aggressors: Ancient Rome under the Slitherine.There must be something within that not so simple.