Field of Glory II: Empire Builders

@Rico - VENETIA, I choose you!

dw2ux.jpg

@Wellsonian - more battles into the unknown for me; Arians against Orthodox :2charge:
Lombard 570-649AD with Avar 558-631 AD allies
against . . . . (wait for it, I know this excites you) . . . Byzantine 600-649AD
 
I think I am on the verge of giving up on playing FOG II .... I seriously suck at this game at the moment ... also getting so frustrated with the dice/luck aspect of it... when you get such a run of losing every 50-50 encounter, virtually no effects from archery, losing leaders hand over fist at first contact... enemy not routing turn after turn, even when virtually surrounded and disrupted/disorganised... while your own fold on first enemy contact like wet toilet paper time after time.
I'm not terribly good at this game admitedly, but for f***'s sake... it's gets very disheartening.
 
@Rico - I understand your frustration. I've felt it too. I also suspect that Slitherine patches change game play and it's frustrating to suffer unexpected results after a patch update. It's like you have to relearn how the game plays.

Your gaming time is limited. You should play what you enjoy and enjoy what you play. I'm fine if you want to step away from this and recalibrate your efforts elswhere, just let us know.

I've really enjoyed your FOG2 campaigns and tournaments but am just as happy with your Combat Mission efforts as well.
Hakuna Matata, my friend. :2charge:
 
Badger73 said:
@Rico - I understand your frustration. I've felt it too. I also suspect that Slitherine patches change game play and it's frustrating to suffer unexpected results after a patch update. It's like you have to relearn how the game plays.

Your gaming time is limited. You should play what you enjoy and enjoy what you play. I'm fine if you want to step away from this and recalibrate your efforts elswhere, just let us know.

I've really enjoyed your FOG2 campaigns and tournaments but am just as happy with your Combat Mission efforts as well.
Hakuna Matata, my friend. :2charge:
Click to expand...

I’ll persist a little longer.

it just feels like sometimes the die roll algorithm has it for you game after game.

like opening skirmishes... battle after battle my opponents score disrupt hits on first arrow shots, while my guys pump away volley after volley and nothing happens.
Enemy guys will run up to mine and pow, first shot disrupts fine after time.
Me keeping my skirmishes startionary makes no difference.

stuff like that.
 
Sometimes you suffer burn-out... not a lot you can do about it.

Must admit I would love a new game to hit the market right now...
CM style but covering a different period, American civil war, English civil war, Napoleonic, anything but something new!
 
Rico said:
I’ll persist a little longer.

it just feels like sometimes the die roll algorithm has it for you game after game.

like opening skirmishes... battle after battle my opponents score disrupt hits on first arrow shots, while my guys pump away volley after volley and nothing happens.
Enemy guys will run up to mine and pow, first shot disrupts fine after time.
Me keeping my skirmishes startionary makes no difference.

stuff like that.
Click to expand...

I hear you......I feel the same thing. Just keep in mind the Negative Bias effect. Also, this is simulating a chaotic battle involving human beings. All this sort of stuff actually happens in real conflict, so I always try and take it from a historical sense when my 39% vs 6% infantry gets disrupted (or I disrupt an enemy when I only had a 1% chance to win the melee......um sorry @Badger73).. After all, armed conflict ain't chess, despite how much us gamers try and make it so. This attitude is how I have gotten over the horrendous spotting in CM :p
 
Wellsonian said:
I hear you......I feel the same thing. Just keep in mind the Negative Bias effect. Also, this is simulating a chaotic battle involving human beings. All this sort of stuff actually happens in real conflict, so I always try and take it from a historical sense when my 39% vs 6% infantry gets disrupted (or I disrupt an enemy when I only had a 1% chance to win the melee......um sorry @Badger73).. After all, armed conflict ain't chess, despite how much us gamers try and make it so. This attitude is how I have gotten over the horrendous spotting in CM :p
Click to expand...

I get the negative bias aspect ... but I was watching one ongoing cavalry melee in my current battles vs Nelson1812 ... for about 5-6 turns my unit was about 14% to 7 or 6% advantaged ... EVERY turn my unit took about double casualties than his, the relative percentage stayed mor eor less level and eventually my unit disrupted and next turn routed... what gives?

Normally this kind of stuff should even out ... at least the sucky spotting in CM affects everybody equally over the course of several battles.

Anyway -- enough grousing - - I'll keep on battling, might just turn out i just suck at this game.
 
Last edited:
Badger73 said:
The first battle of Dacia has concluded with @Badger73's Byzantines defeating @Wellsonian's Lombards; Byzantine 10% / Lombards 41% (+/- 31%).

Question for all ya'll: What's the thinking and consensus regarding the performance of dismounted cavalry lancers as spearmen in this game?
Click to expand...

I think there is a reason cavalrymen are cavalrymen. Dismounted Lancers (the optional ones, not the one you can pick off the list...those are great) just don't have the mass to hang in a fight. I can't figure out cav in this game anyway!
 
Wellsonian said:
I think there is a reason cavalrymen are cavalrymen. Dismounted Lancers (the optional ones, not the one you can pick off the list...those are great) just don't have the mass to hang in a fight. I can't figure out cav in this game anyway!
Click to expand...

I tend to agree about optional dismounted lancers. They are only half the size of a true foot unit and don't have the staying power in a head-to-head melee.
I think the secret to cavalry in this game is realizing is that they are brittle; maybe ferocious at first but less and less cohesive when stuck longer in melee's.
 
Badger73 said:
I tend to agree about optional dismounted lancers. They are only half the size of a true foot unit and don't have the staying power in a head-to-head melee.
I think the secret to cavalry in this game is realizing is that they are brittle; maybe ferocious at first but less and less cohesive when stuck longer in melee's.
Click to expand...

... not to mention often utterly unpredictable which direction they will pursue when a charge breaks through - nice when they continue and hit enemy on flank and carry on charge etc.
Not so nice when they chase fleeing broken initial opponent and then by doing so turn their backs on unbroken enemy units, especially cavalry, and then get slaughtered when hit from the rear next turn.

I’ve had one battle where 3 or 4 cavalry units pursued broken enemy off the map and NEVER returned at all.:mad:
 
IMHO cavalry has one purpose: to attack infantry already engaged in a melee from the flank or rear to disrupt them and keeping enemy cavalry from doing the same to you.
Works well against opponents with a heavy setup. Works bad against a light setup.
 
Badger73 said:
The first battle of VENETIA has concluded with @Badger73's Byzantines defeating @Wellsonian's Lombards; Byzantine 10% / Lombards 41% (+/- 31%).
The second battle is still in progress. Coming into the home stretch methinks.
Click to expand...

The second battle of VENETIA finished today. @Badger73's Lombards narrowly overcame @Wellsonian's Byzantines; Lombards 45% / Byzantines 60% (+/- 15%)
Color VENTIA Badger Blue. Let the campaign move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom