markshot

Hey, what if a ballista could jam a Roman bolt into the turret ring, and get a gun kill on a tank. Should it be added to CMFI? You can find anything on YouTube. Now I have to go looking for videos of ballista kills of tanks.

RTW2's engine suffers from a lack of mass and space. So, units often pass through each other like they exist in a quantum world. I think this is a real problem for the engine. Of course, FOG2 only one unit in one "action square", but for skirmishers which may pass through the ranks of heavier units. --- Sorry, John. You move it if you want. Would it help if we say the Romans invented the sabot round with a kinetic kill dart thrown by a ballista? Although I doubt if at any range even from the rear a ballista could have killed a tank.

The time period is very important to The Wests history. The concept of democracy and republics come from that period. (And you can also say that Cicero do a very good job laying down the principles of propaganda.) The idea of military service based on your stake in the society come from there. We would all be far safer if the rich went out to fight the wars for their own interests still. The idea of professional military comes from there. But it is not just war. Sewage removal. The discovery of concrete as a building material. The discovery of the arch as a construct. The discovery of vaults derived from arches. The discovery of the domes again from arches. It would not be to modern England and the 1800s of iron and steel that load under compression would be the only way to build. Iron and steel gave us tension and torsion. Also, many languages find Latin roots. Legal systems and customs. Rome and Greece might have began the industrial revolution as opposed to England. (But I think slave societies lack the motivation to focus on productivity.) Rome was milling grain by using hydro power and gears to turn grinding stones as was England right before they began to do much more with hydro power before coal and steam. The Greeks demonstrated the principles of a steam engine, but failed to do anything with it. That had converted combustion -> heat -> mechanical motion -> rotation ... Watt's steam engine would do that and later turbine engines that generated electricity and drove battle ships. --- In the ancient world, they called it a city if 40,000 lived there. Rome had a population of 1M with 8 story walk up buildings. Once again not to almost 2,000 years later and London would you see so many people.

Over a year ago, I ran some tests. Certain commands that include complex behaviors like assault can be quite variable as to ground covered.

FOG2 has tremendous amount of depth with terrain modeling. Missile modeling. Skill, armor, experience. Mobility, flanking. Skirmishers play a key role. There are two fantastic YouTube series by Mike Chung and Chris Webber which will get you up to speed on much of the mechanics. Now the mechanics is very different from CMx2 which is object physics based. FOG2 is rule based probability (dice rolls). But realism is not determined by choice of mechanism, but by the function computed. BTS has chosen their approach and it works fine, but definitely requires more hardware. FOG2 works with significantly less hardware. You want maybe 300HP out of your car, do you really care how the engine delivers that; just that it meets your expectations. So, FOG2 is very deep and hits much of ancient combat. Make sure to check out RougeJack's AI 3.0. It will give you a lot more game. The standard difficult method in FOG2 is not to buff, but just to bump up purchase points for the AI. It tends to mean you are outnumbered which is a real tough problem in linear combat when flanks don't have hard security such as a body of water or mountain passes. But you have option of a better AI which means challenge with less purchase points to balance your human skill. The trade off Jack's AI is that it runs slower as it computes more. But as it is a TBS game; not such a big deal. --- The whole export thing is that they are two independent games. It is clear Empires was never designed to be a TW challenger. It plays smoothest and best pace letting battles getting auto resolved. You can get detail on the battle from a simple won or lost; or you can see it animated blow by blow. Your choice.

I have quite a bit of Rome. I think oldest Caesar II running under DOSBOX. RTW1 has some great overhauls. Like RS3 and EB1. They add both to the campaign and the battles. But despite great modding work. Diplomacy is hosed in the 3 RTW1 EXE's and its close cousin MTW2 which had EB2. You cannot share a border and not be at war. RTW2 has one fantastic overhauls that I think won awards for 5 years straight; DEI. It adds much to the campaign: supply, social classes (as this pertains to unit recruiting), ethnicity; improved battle handling. And many official submods allowing you tailor DEI's difficulty and combat mechanics to your liking. Unlike the above this is actively being developed and well supported. AGEOD produced ALEA ACTA EST or more commonly known as AJE versus AGE (which is the game engine). There are around 5 expansions or stand alones. Now would be a good time to grab them at Slitherine. In totality, you will get about 25 scenarios/campaigns at the empire level of war with all having 2 factions to play and some 3 or 4. It is WEGO like CM with 1 month turns with some going from as short as 60 turns to 300 turns. This is more historical than most Rome titles. If you are familiar with AGE, then AJE uses simple supply and simple TOE versus say the US ACW titles. I purchased Empires and FOG2 as a bundle (25% discount). First, let me hit FOG2. I truly thought I was going to hate it. Why? I love CM's WEGO and dislike TBS combat with a passion. But it is the best TBS combat, I have ever seen. * It does not have to plod along. You can configure options to make it quite fast to play. Or you can plod through with tons of calculations and report with each sarissa thrust. * No matter how much you mod TW combat is always going to disappoint a CM player. This game is a serious study of the ancient world and combat. Even playing the fast route outcomes are clearly communicated and why. * The UI is one of the best I have seen in a game. I am qualified to say that. I was a software engineer. * There is a ton of vendor content and player content. There is even a player AI (as it is scripted) that IMHO is 50% harder than stock. Empires. Developed partially by Phillipe Thibaut the father PDS EU1 (he did the BG and was on the EU1 port team), and wholly developed by Phillipe Malacher. It is an AGEOD branded, but this is not the AGE engine. This is a game built upon Slitherine's Archon engine. The game is graphically appealing, but will not win awards when you compare CA's budget or PDS' budget. Let's talk about why it is special. * Much ancient flavor. So, you have historical constraints, but you can rewrite history. * There are a few ways to win. Most importantly THIS IS NOT A MAP PAINTER. I have won a Rome (epic win) by being the #3 faction in land and military. You must do some map painting, but over doing could destroy you and you need to do it wisely; like take whole provinces; not just regions. * Nations age. Advancing your society gets you closer to victory, but also puts into a harder balancing act. * So, the late game is a struggle to keep your state from collapse. It is quite novel. * The above mechanics subtly impact many years of WEGO turns (1 turn per year). This is not like TW where there is a single trigger point which turns the world against or a civil war; or EU4 where aggression creates coalitions against. This is a slowly building friction upon the empire. The faster your drive the more the friction. * Battles can be resolved automatically like in TW, but with a lot more considerations which a graphically very visible and very comprehensible. There is less sophistication than AJE, but it is much, much clearer. * Finally, if you own FOG2, battle can be exported and fought making it like TW. However, for me both games are better played separate than together. Also, the frontage and terrain constraints that are key Empires are easily circumvented in the exported FOG2 battles. EXPOIT --- Well I hope my run down of the ancient world was interesting. I don't have PDS' offerings. I don't think gamers should have to choose between buying a title or paying the mortgage or the rent. Thank you, Battlefront, for keeping the cost of games real.

Friends, I noticed some topic drift in my CMBS thread. The ancient world has some really good games. And I might say I grew up in the shadow of WWII, but Greece and Rome cast some very, very long shadows upon most us. (I had been a member {investor/staff; not beta} of AGEOD which had produced Alea Acta Est, a great series on the wars of Rome.} I saw Empires and FOG2 in the CMBS thread, and wanted to comment, but I thought Rome cannot be buried in the Eastern Front. John, I hope I am not committing a forum infraction. CMFI is a long way from competing for market share against the gladius and scutum. I will be back later. May you all be safe wherever you are.

You can just bring the maps over use them for QBs? I have the full CMBN, CMFI, CMRT, CMFB, and CMSF already. A few months ago I came out of the Roman empire. I got tired of all the melee, I wanted to kill without having blood all over me. Now, I am in my ACW period, but I am choking on the acrid smoke of black powder. I think I will be ready to come back after the holidays.

Greeting folks! You ever get side tracked. I mean like take the off ramp, and there is no over/under pass simply to get back on. Well, I have been to Rome and got the Punic wars done in 2, hustled some 9-Ball, been 200M down trying to evade DDs, nuke subs looking for that 50Hz harmonic at 40nmi, laid some rails, and currently in 1861 fighting the opening battles of the ACW ... But it is almost Christmas, and I was thinking to add to my collection. Some people believe it is exercise and eating a healthy diet. But the secret to a long life is having more titles in your collection than you can get to. You won't die before you played them all. This is why it is especially important to have games with random campaigns and scenario generators. Well, I have all the CMx2 titles, but CMBS? For you guys who know every WWII weapon from single shot crafted rifles to rapidly produced stamped steel MPs, what do you think of CMBS? Is it a big learning curve? Is the fun factor there? It looks like CMBN is the most loved title and CMBS is not so active. (from the Scenario Depot) Is CMBS patched up to the 4.02 engine as the other games except for CMRT (I think waiting for Rubble)? Does Battlefront do Christmas sales? Would this make a good self gift and hold off dementia for another 5 years? God bless and may you all be safe wherever that is. Thank you!

Besides the ancient world presenting its own science and technology of war; just as the US ACW or Europe's Napoleonic battles ... the ancient was full of conflict which very much impact who we are today. The Romans cast a very long shadow on the Western world: language, construction (concrete, arch, vaults, domes, roads), legal systems/trial, republic, civic obligation of military service, etc... (The founding fathers of the USA were all educated in the classics and it shows in the famous documents they left behind which would become the USA.) When George Washington declined to be the first American King, he had in mind the Roman tale of Cincinnatus who left his farm to serve and when it was done wanted nothing more than to go back to his farm. I am old. Finding a veteran of WII is not easy task. But so much of today can be explained by those 2 huge conflicts of the 1900s. So, whether just games or hardcore history ... the ancient world has much to offer. Our ancestors were not stupid or ignorant. They were simply expert at many skills which for us have no value. I want to know those who came before. For without them, I would not be.

Also, the RNG aspect of FOG2 is just enough for there to be seem exciting moments like when a Sherman gets a gun kill on a Tiger. Another unique thing about FOG2 is that success can actually be devastating. How so? Most times your unit with attack orders will win or lose it. If they lose it (usually over the course of X turns, they will rout) But maybe 1 of 10 times if they win it, they will pursue the enemy. This can actually be devastating, because it disrupts your line: * They put themselves in a situation where they can be flanked. * They put a hole in your line. So, usually pays to always have a reserve not just to plug holes when units rout, but to plug hows when units win. The game has many subtle little features like that (victory turning into disaster).

Well, as I stated, I hate TBS games, but I was a member and equity holder in AGEOD. So, when "Pocus" (Philippe Malacher) did a new game Empires ... of course, I was going to buy it. As I think you got a 25% off to get both Empires and FOG2, I took the bundle expecting to hate FOG2. But I fell in love with it. The main thing I don't like about TBS combat is the chess like plodding slowness. Depending on how, you configure the game, it is one of the fastest moving TBS games I have seen. But for spreadsheet grogs, you get get each line of calculation (10-20 lines) for every unit combat and the entire turn. So, it depends how you set up the game. WITP players will love it too. As for square board as opposed to hex board, no problem. Squares are actually more flexible. It allows diagonal facing, motion, and combat. So, for hex you have 6 facings, but for a square you actually have 8 facings. The board could have been drawn with octagons, but I don't think it would have enhanced presentation probably just complicated map design and rendering. The boxes give you something which TW sadly lacks ... real frontages and lines. Most TW melee RTW1, RTW2, STW2 ... rapidly devolves into US football fumble pile ons. Linear warfare tends to collapse. This is due to the very loose modeling of space and unit integrity. RTW1 is a great game especially modded: Roma Surrectum 3 or Europa Bababorum. RTW2 superb with Divide et Impera (DEI) is the best mod and it has won awards for years. Combat has been tweaked and improved, but remember much of TW combat is in the engine. So, modders can only do so much. Despite great mods, I left RTW1 because the diplomacy logic is totally hosed. There is no diplomacy. You are going to be at war with anyone you border. There is real diplomacy in RTW2. So, I would say RTW2/DEI is the best Roman antiquity for that series. You will find social classes, ethnicity, supply logistics, trade, complex building economy, seasons, military reforms, and AOR (area of recruiting). In 2013, RTW2 bombed, but CA did actually fix it by 2017. It is the better of the two Rome titles. I understand it quite good out of the box. My opinion is STW2 was CA's best out of the box game. They got back to basics. The game is beautiful and very tight as a work of art. But the reality is: Japan is kind of a narrow island and all the factions are relatively similar compared to RTW2. No elephants, nomadic horse armies, legions, phalanxes, or chariots in Japan. Rome wins on a big map with options and unit variability. Still for a sense of pre-gun powder warfare, it does not come close to FOG2. Think of FOG2 being CM, but without the quest for realism that frustrates playing fun. You can actually, export your Empire battles to FOG2 for fighting. Effectively, you got TW, but as separate games. But FOG2 has good campaigns and great battle fighting options ... also Empires has one of the most comprehensible/exciting battle resolvers. I just think the marriage of the two games is less than the sum of the parts. I prefer both as separate experiences.

I would assume it chosen after the player click fight after a side is picked.

A few more comments about FOG2. * If you haven't tried it, don't dismiss it as being TW with turns. TW has a few strategies and is hard to appreciate by people who take the battlefield seriously. This bears very little resemblance to TW. Example ... TW skirmishers have little do but rack up kills for low purchase price. In FOG2, skirmishers have many roles depending on how you want to use them. The game is truly deep ... so forget Rome1 or Rome2 (even modded) if you have played those. * CMx1 was a statistical engine (like tiles and units has properties that fed into a resolution engine). CMx2 is object modeling. Trees are trees and a single soldier has a model, and the round he fires gets its own life and behavior. FOG2 is neither. It is carefully crafted rules, behaviors, and RNG. So, it relies heavily on abstracted ideas. Yet, the point of software is to model something. How it actually achieves this is irrelevant if it captures the sense of reality. BFCs approach of game fidelity is achieved by code fidelity to me is not an axiom, and FOG2 shows this well. Besides being fun FOG2 shows what is generally true of computers; many solutions to the same problem. Ultimately, all computer programming reduces the world to math which may symbolically represent the world. So, I think FOG2 and CMx2 is a good example of how what is under the hood is irrelevant if the car drives well. * From a software point of view, there are strong reasons to go the FOG2 route. I have no doubt it achieves what it does with far less code than CMx2. Code is money. Also, with each line of code you add the chance of bugs and problems increase. So, all things being equal a smaller code base is more stable and less error prone. PS: We know what is under BFC's hood, because I believe Steve explained this to us. For FOG2, the code is not compiled, but scripted so you can actually read it. So, we know what is under FOG2's hood.

I didn't play the earlier games. I have mainly being playing the Rome vs. Macedonian war an experimenting. Watched the YouTube series by Mike Chung and Chris Webber; you will learn an incredible amount of mechanics and tactics. Check out this mod and see if it boosts AI challenge by about 4X. I am playing with stock AI at +2, but I think with this mode you could play 0. Rise of the AI 2.3; he is working a new improved release with better flanking. The stock AI tends to hit your line piece meal, this one hit is hard all at once. It also maneuvered more, but coordinated. http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=477&t=83272 You download it in game.

I admit to being a war criminal in the WWII games. I often do recon by fire. Show my a church tower on a hill, and maybe I am delusional, but I just see the glint off of an FO's binoculars! Next direct HE from a tank.

Just curious. Not of the games have them. They change stuff a lot. I remember non combatants in Ghost Recon who would come charging around corners at you and you really needed to be quickly to see whether they were holding a rifle. Perhaps for CM it would not matter, since the TACAI picks targets and not you.

What I learned from Panther Games is time it the 4th dimension of the battle space. Very well modeled in that game. Now, CMx1 enhanced the time importance of command and experience with delays. It does seem logical that a Soviet tank out of command is going to take a while to get rolling with the plan. Personally, I think we lost them because they do not fit at all with RTS play. RTS is immediate response to orders. (Panther isn't 1:1 RTS, but the way it works is that you order through subordinate commanders. So, many factors figure into your decisions. Like should I get a 2 Bde coordinated attack in 4 hours. Or would 2 Bde attack uncoordinated catch the enemy before he digs in.) That is another think I like about WEGO, the need to commit. It does feel like that game is missing something with all the realism with immediate orders. But the game already goes far beyond CMx1. I worry at some point, the game will be ultra-realistic and a complete pain to play. So rather than modeling everything, the developers need to determine what really changes the entire simulation and what is busy work. It is clear that CMx2 was not just incremental changes to CMx1. I once read something they wrote and they went from statistical modeling to object modeling. This meant that they started the new engine from scratch and the only thing that got carried over was experience they had. Rewriting any complex system from scratch is very tall order. In the world of commercial programming system maintenance (adding on or changing code) is much more common than new development. Why? Few managers every get fired for maintenance efforts, new development often fails and results in entire efforts being junked and people losing this jobs. So given when I know about complex systems, it took real guts for BFC to re-envision the product from scratch. We also say in software you never to do it right on your first attempt. I have no doubt, if they do a CMx3, it will reflect 20 years of combat modeling and much for clarity and focus than CMBO did when they started it. I looked at the old CMBB a few days ago. I have many fond memories, but I suspect my memories are better than the actual game play is compared to what we have now. I immediately noticed that the feeling of the battle field was so much enhanced by individual animated soldiers versus just the abstract squad.

I forgot to add well written and complete manual. Excellent YouTube training videos on the combat system by Mike Chung. Excellent YouTube training videos on fighting battle by Chris Weber. The designer Robert Scott Bodely (a retired Australian MD, I believe) is always in the forums and there to help. You can buy DLCs for time periods that interest you, but I find Slitherine to provide real value and reasonable prices. Also, we are in the sale season. Expect 3 before '21. You get discount price if you bundle with Empires. If you buy from Slitherine, no DRM just serial number. Steam has no workshop support, the game has in game mod downoads. Ancient combat is really a novel experience if all know is fire and maneuver. Rome casts a long shadow over us today: Our languages, sewer and aqueducts, the idea of professional military, the idea of citizen military, republic vs dictatorship, early battlefield tactics which still would work today, legal system, concrete, the arch, vault, domes, the alphabet, and many Greek ideas and Greece though defeated by Rome was considered the superior culture. Every educated Roman had Greek slave tutor for his children, and read/wrote Greek. Roman roads, bridges, and aqueducts are still in use today.

I am not talking RTW1 or RTW2 even with an award winning mod like DEI (Divide et Imperor) TW combat leaves much to be desired. I have been played FOG2 by Slitherine, I got it as a bundle with a grand strategy game, Empires, since a friend is the developer. (It is a very novel ancient grand strategy offering.) I expected to hate FOG2; I hate TBS combat. But it has the best TBS UI I have ever seen, and if you set it up correctly it flows very fast. (I am qualified to judge UIs and I have background in Software Engineering.) What I like about it so much is that it is a very rich experience with lots of info that grogs love. It considers unit types, morale, terrain (ground type, cover, elevation) and how it impacts different classes of units: light foot, medium foot, and and heavy foot. Not to mention cavalry, chariots, elephants, camels, ... Remember how much unit variation CMx1 had? Knowing how to use terrain and when to charge and when to hold is key. There are many ways to to play including leagues. Many mods: battles, campaigns, and units. Difficulty is not like in TW where units stats are changed. Instead when you up difficulty, the OPFOR gets more purchase points. You need to play a smarter and more mobile game. I did find an AI mod which in my testing was 4X more deadly than the standard AI. The AI is not hardcoded, but written in scripts. In can see why it is not incorporated directly in the game. You want noobs to be able to win. For some canned scenarios, it could put the player at a big disadvantage. You must study the terrain very carefully and plan. Timing is crucial. You might flank with cavalry. Feint and draw of some of the enemy off. You might use skirmishers to disorder their line. Or you might get skirmishers behind their lines. Usually heavy units like phalanxes and legions will not do a 180 to deal with skirmishers so that you can wear down the enemy from the rear. Victory is mainly based on routing the enemy in 30 minutes turns (24 turns); so conceptually you fight from Sun up to Sun down. No terrain objectives. You control terrain by standing on it as opposed to being able to place fire. It has been seriously historically researched. And it has an create a campaign mode with allies different missions and a core units for 5-15 battles. I can be longer if you lose battle as you can go back an redo them or call for reinforcements. The campaign is full of strategic decisions to make, but there is not map connection. You can fight real temporal and geographic opponents and allies or you can select fantasy match ups that would have never happened. I just thought I would mention it and it turned out to be this unexpected gem. PS: The game does interface with the Empires ancient strategy game. You choose to autoresolve or export and fight your battle like TW. However, it should be point out that TW has crappy in game resolution. Empires has a beautiful and exciting system that keeps the game fast. Also, as frontage of battles like alpine is 3 and farmland is 16 is not well conveyed to on export. This means your phalanxes would be disadvantaged in Empire, but export always gives enough flat ground to make those phalanxes deadly. I think you would need some in house rules also be prepared to play a 1 week strategy game for four months.

I mainly played CMBB/CMAK. I longed for the day I could play the huge scenarios. That I had a computer up to the task. I finally got the PC. And you know what? I found the number of units extremely tedious. CM like most games does not scale very well. (Because it doesn't have AI agents.) Panther Games which was originally introduced to the world by a BFC publishing agreement scales better than any game I know because of intelligent agents. You can play play with 10 units or a 1000. The work load does not not increase 100X, but maybe 3X. Because you will be giving orders to Bde. It is truly an amazing system for operational WWII play.

MikeyD, Yes and no. For the art of film making (I have taken a course on film making), many films are worth many viewing to study framing, lighting, character frame of reference, etc... They are impossible to fully appreciate in a single viewing. I will agree that scenario design is not just computer programming, but an art form, and as such may be better appreciated by multiple viewings. For me the scenario is a test; and I take as if it was RL; failure is failure. I may play again, but an initial failure means I failed to apply lessons I learned or failed to learn the right lessons. When I used to play chess, for beginners you are allowed take back moves. But real test of play is committing. What we have established is different players have different goals. These is no right or wrong way to play. You bought a game and you enjoy any way you chose. From CMx1, I developed a belief that all scenario can be won (not a decisive victory or surrender) on first play through since the designer has given you all the tools. But you provide strategy and tactics. I have become very comfortable with this way of playing. Losing is not a problem. If have 4 Shermans killed by an 88mm because I neither probed a road or look for dead ground, then I got what I deserve. As loss is fine for stupidity; I just don't like tricks. Like I remember one CMx1 scenario that somehow manage to embed an 88mm in a house. That was the only time I came across house that could kill a tank at 2000M. I didn't gain much from the experience. For me the fun is in studying the map, the forces, how the enemy might be set up, where can I move in safety ... its a scenario ... I tend not to be audacious, since I know the designer will punish "toujours l'audace" unlike RL. I only audacious towards scenario ends when I feel the enemy has been greatly weakened. In the last 10 minutes a fast tank push into the enemy rear can be the difference between a minor victory and surrender. Part of the fun of the game is trying judge how much opposition is still out there. You can still get punished and find an ATG deep in the rear. And you now have a draw out of a minor victory. All of this is exciting. Yes, I replayed the CMBO tutorial 20 times, but I had the full game already. Why? Because I flew flight sims. I had no concept of combined arms different aspect angles firing at tanks. Improved optics made a stug deadly at range. I was a total noob. So, I played over and over again learning the very basic leasons of ground combat. I do have the basic lessons down these days, but I am sure most of you would shred me to pieces in a pbem.

They stop immediately when they spot AFVs. But light fire that does not really raise the pulse up to 180 bpm, and these soldiers move along. At 181 bpm, they stop. So, Erwin, you need to ask what type of leader are you? Can you maintain a trot with a pulse of 110 with a few guys taking pots shots at you with Reichsmarks in the pot on the hood of the Kubelwagon to see who nails you?

My issue with changes is when scenarios get broken. (Especially, companies which break the in game tutorial by doing so.) I have been a beta tester. Definitely, I would play all betas quite a bit. But mainly looking for crashes or weird behavior. I certainly did not replay every scenario, and I certainly didn't rigorously compare scenario behavior of some of my favorites. In Software Engineering, we call this "regression testing". It means to go back and retest everything. But usually this is done with automatic test harness in automated runs generating data. Also, there are test suites of simple situations which are written just for such testing. Most game developers have neither the money or resources to do such. Even those like PDS which can charge $500 USD for a full title. Another problem with beta testing teams is that the general public; especially new customers play on noob settings. But your beta team are all your hardcore expert players. There are no noob setting testing of new releases.

I spent my career managing, design, and building systems. I know what engineering is like. In my early years, when I used to code, I allocated an extra day for final testing, but really it just wanted to watch my system run. I have been a beta and a guide writer. I have gotten to share my love of games. No, I just want to play. I am not opposed to doing a little work if it enhances game play, but I don't aspire to scenario designing or modding. Also, I think to do CM scenarios well you need some historical research, you either need a real historical context or a back story that fits into the real war.