Field of Glory II: Medieval

[Beowulf]

Is this one of those games where you just play individual battles and there is nothing connecting them together like a campaign system?

There is some rudimentary system to connect battles into a campaign.

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.pcgamer.com/field-of-glory-2-medieval/

FIELD OF GLORY 2: MEDIEVAL REVIEW
There's nothing new in Field of Glory 2's medieval line-up.

The cavalry is here, y'all! Actually, the cavalry has always been here. We started with the cavalry. This ain't no Ancients-era Field of Glory game. Gone are the blocks of legionaries and swarms of charging barbarians, replaced instead with ranks of spearmen and the thunderous charge of knights in enough armor to make a toaster blush. Field of Glory 2: Medieval delivers an authentic tabletop miniatures wargame experience, but just like a historical wargame whether you like that experience is going to be all about whether you like the rules.

This is a wargamer's wargame. There's no nice music. The graphics are barebones. The UI is pretty basic. You'll want to memorize hotkeys. This could have come out in 2010 and nobody would have blinked. What there is are 50+ hours of historical scenarios and campaigns. The famous battles give you a prearranged battlefield and let you pick a side, then customize it a bit. The historical campaigns give you good context on a fixed route while still letting you make flexible decisions about your army's composition and evolution.

Multiplayer is handled in the same asynchronous style as past Field of Glory games, which is disappointing and frustrating if you want to finish a match in one sitting. It's just functional enough if you can only sit down to play for 15 minutes at a time. Very unimpressive and underwhelming.

FOG 2: Medieval's battles focus on historical simulation over clever or puzzle-like tactics scenarios. It delivers that in spades, with the kind of battles a history buff salivates over. They're dynamic and unpredictable, forcing you into surprising scenarios when troops unexpectedly flee or the enemy makes a sudden surge. You use those rules to take a dizzying array of historical factions through the scenarios.

Randomly generated battles and campaigns are nice, simple, and pretty customizable—you can ask yourself questions like "what if the Mongols made it to France?" or "what if Sweden invaded England?" The custom campaigns don't have much strategic depth, but they do let you carry an army from one fight to the next. They're also excellent if you like the idea of connected scenarios you didn't personally plan: ambushes, rearguard actions, and the like aren't usually situations you put yourself in on purpose. Some of the longer ones will take you a couple of hours.

Battles take so long to play because they're a medieval meatgrinder. Troops lock each other into melee, only sometimes falling back or escaping from that melee due to morale breaking or combat results—neither of which are something you particularly have control over once the brawl begins. Your job is more often than not about choosing favorable positioning and matchups for your troops. You try to deploy your spearmen to tie down the enemy's knights, your light troops in difficult terrain, and your cavalry where they have a place to break through the enemy line.

It's satisfying to fight those battles well. Finding and exploiting the enemy's weak spots is the only thing that keeps fights from becoming a stalemate decided by random chance. If your tactics and strategy aren't up to snuff, however, the battlefield will feel extremely static as units lock into melee with each other and stay there for the rest of the fight. Once the enemy starts to waver and flee their side's morale can cascade fail, with a single fleeing unit prompting its neighbors to run, then their neighbors, and so on.

That's where the era's premier units really shine. Armored knights on horses are vicious and dangerous shock cavalry, shortly shattering lines of unarmored unmounted men into routs. Well-armored foot can stop them in their path, though, so you have to be careful where you commit your elite troops. Once the enemy starts to run, as is true of the medieval period, your knights are liable to chase them all the way to the edge of the battlefield—sometimes even beyond. It can result in hilarious unexpected situations and is generally a delight: controlling a crowd of violent, rowdy noblemen was the general's lot in the medieval period and FOG2: Medieval really, really gets that.

That aside, some of the game just doesn't feel properly medieval. The time period starts at 1040 and runs to 1270, stopping just short of the grandiose 14th century finale of armored knights, longbows, and mercenary crossbowmen. The ruleset's emphasis on flanking maneuvers over numerical advantage makes a lot of sense in the ancients period, but it feels silly when three units of elite infantry can't make a squad of enemy recruits flee in a single simultaneous assault.

Finally, the fights just tend to stick in one place for too long. It's most noticeable in a scenario like Hastings. The battlefield was supposedly a very dynamic place as one side or the other broke formation to pursue the routing enemy, only to be caught up in a counterattack. In Field of Glory 2's model, fleeing troops only rarely rally and come back to the fight, and you can't set up a fake retreat to lure the AI out of position.

Those shortcomings don't dull the thrill of victory, or the satisfaction of a clever plan playing out. The way battles hang on tense moments and unknown outcomes from chaotic melees is no less tense in Medieval than in previous Field of Glory games. There are a lot of ancients wargames on PC, and it's nice to see the medieval period finally get some turn-based love.

THE VERDICT
70

FIELD OF GLORY II: MEDIEVAL
Field of Glory 2: Medieval is the closest to a tabletop miniatures experience you'll get on PC.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Why these dumbfucks don't integrate this series with the empire one for a proper effort against the total war market share is beyond me. It really is damming for their management, fucking idiots.

 

[Beowulf]

Why these dumbfucks don't integrate this series with the empire one for a proper effort against the total war market share is beyond me. It really is damming for their management, fucking idiots.

Keep in mind that Empires were made by AGEOD, and FoG2 by some other dev company. Matrix/Slitherine is just their publisher.
However both games supposedly use the same engine, developed inhouse for Slitherine, so both teams should be more or less familiar with how it works.

 

[Agesilaus]

I am enjoying the Angevin Empire campaign so far. I play on the highest difficulty so it is a legitimate challenge to win any given battle; passed the first one after luring the AI into a narrow pass flanked by rough terrain and swamps, then smashed him with high-tier heavy foot on an incline backed by archers, and what little med foot I was allowed from the sides. Second battle (I chose the rearguard action) is easy, just hide in the corner until the time limit.

Riddle me this, though: why did this need to be a new game and not another expansion pack and graphics update for Field of Glory II? I don't see any major changes that would justify making them two separate titles. If the rules for medieval and ancient combat are so incompatible (I don't see why), then just make it so medieval armies can't fight with ancient armies. I don't like the fact that I have to load up two different titles to play what is actually just one game.

I'll make a few multiplayer battles and post the passwords here at some point, accept if you wish to be slaughtered by a superior general.

 

[PrettyDeadman]

How do you beat second level of the tutorials? I get that I should probably put my swamp warriors in the swamp, but what about knights, archers and defensive spearmen?

 

[Beowulf]

How do you beat second level of the tutorials? I get that I should probably put my swamp warriors in the swamp, but what about knights, archers and defensive spearmen?

Put your knights in the centre, perhaps with your best spearmen flanking them (but still in the open terrain - if they don't get disordered during the charge, they will hold in melee afterwards). Your infantry (including archers) should be in the swamps. Focus fire of your archers to drop cohesion of a single enemy unit, then charge it. Try to move your infantry so it will be able to get a flank charge (those drop cohesion level immediately).

 

[Beowulf]

Riddle me this, though: why did this need to be a new game and not another expansion pack and graphics update for Field of Glory II? I don't see any major changes that would justify making them two separate titles. If the rules for medieval and ancient combat are so incompatible (I don't see why), then just make it so medieval armies can't fight with ancient armies. I don't like the fact that I have to load up two different titles to play what is actually just one game.

I'd much prefer it to be a FoG2 DLC with new armies and a new time period as well.

 

[Jvegi]

Is the hotseat mode in these games good, or is it a subpar experience, like in most games?

I need a replacement for HoMM3 because my gf is not good enough.

 

[Catacombs]

I need a replacement for HoMM3 because my gf is not good enough.

Tell her to git gud.

 

[PrettyDeadman]

I am the 1% of Field of Glory II: Medieval:

 

[PrettyDeadman]

Is human opponent harder than AI on King Difficulty?

 

[Beowulf]

Is human opponent harder than AI on King Difficulty?

I'm down if you want to play a custom battle, preferably mirrored. Medium Forces? Medium to Large size battlefield?

 

[sser]

How's the gameplay compared to the ancient FoGII?

 

[Beowulf]

How's the gameplay compared to the ancient FoGII?

Well, the biggest changes is the fact that heavy cavalry can punch through infantry attacking it from the front. And battles have more cavalry than in most periods in Ancients.
But other than that it doesn't seem to be changed that much

 

[oscar]

Knights are like cataphracts on steroids. Much less scary expensive offensive infantry (legionaries, Greek/Macedonian/Successor pikes, elite warbands etc) with infantry definitely playing more of a 'hold the line' role. Light foot isn't available in as great numbers as some of the ancient lists so more emphasis on massed archers/crossbowmen. On the flip side crossbows and longbows have armour piercing traits which can chew knights (or even dismounted heavy infantry) up pretty bad if they don't get into action quickly. Some armies like the tribal Baltics function quite similarly to FoGII lists (lots of medium impact foot, light foot and noble medium cavalry).

I've enlisted myself in the tournament (and was assigned B Division ) so I'll be able to express more opinions after about the 'meta'.

 

[Galdred]

Riddle me this, though: why did this need to be a new game and not another expansion pack and graphics update for Field of Glory II? I don't see any major changes that would justify making them two separate titles. If the rules for medieval and ancient combat are so incompatible (I don't see why), then just make it so medieval armies can't fight with ancient armies. I don't like the fact that I have to load up two different titles to play what is actually just one game.

I'd much prefer it to be a FoG2 DLC with new armies and a new time period as well.

I don't know. In a way, I am content not to have medieval armies face ancient ones, because it is not really the battles I am interested in.

 

[Beowulf]

I am the 1% of Field of Glory II: Medieval:

Meanwhile:

 

[Beowulf]

So I went back to see how easy it is to get the King achievement.

And lo, behold. I'm the 1% now. Give me those

bros.

Secret Sun Tzu Guide to winning on King

The difficulty setting doesn't change enemy army composition in the tutorial, lol.
Now go win Hastings on hardest diff.

 

[PrettyDeadman]

Now go win Hastings on hardest diff.

I still need to win tutorial level 3 before starting doing campaigns.

 

[Jugashvili]

It's not bad. The presentation is essentially the same as in FoG II, with the somewhat sluggish combat resolution I don't particularly like. The selection of historical battles is OK, with some really good ones (I particularly enjoyed playing Kalka River as the Rus) and some snoozefests, especially the obligatory British Isles battles. One issue I find is that some of these battles have been done much better in free downloadable scenarios for Pike and Shot: Campaigns; for instance, the Bouvines scenario by Odenathus (RIP) correctly portrays the staggered deployment of the Imperial army, whereas in FoG II: Medieval the armies are perfectly lined up and it's a straight-up slog.

Still, doesn't fail to entertain and I'm looking forward to them adding more modules.

That aside, some of the game just doesn't feel properly medieval. The time period starts at 1040 and runs to 1270, stopping just short of the grandiose 14th century finale of armored knights, longbows, and mercenary crossbowmen.

Also, lol @ the pleb who wrote this review. "The High Middle Ages don't feel properly medieval! Only muh Hundred Years War is properly medieval!"

 

[Beowulf]

Apparently you will be able to play armies (or basically any that crosses the year 1000 threshold) from Wolves at the gates DLC in this title as well.

 

[JarlFrank]

Riddle me this, though: why did this need to be a new game and not another expansion pack and graphics update for Field of Glory II? I don't see any major changes that would justify making them two separate titles. If the rules for medieval and ancient combat are so incompatible (I don't see why), then just make it so medieval armies can't fight with ancient armies. I don't like the fact that I have to load up two different titles to play what is actually just one game.

I'd much prefer it to be a FoG2 DLC with new armies and a new time period as well.

Same, I'd much prefer it to be another DLC so I could do fun matchups like ancient Assyrians vs high medieval French knights.

 

[Beowulf]

Riddle me this, though: why did this need to be a new game and not another expansion pack and graphics update for Field of Glory II? I don't see any major changes that would justify making them two separate titles. If the rules for medieval and ancient combat are so incompatible (I don't see why), then just make it so medieval armies can't fight with ancient armies. I don't like the fact that I have to load up two different titles to play what is actually just one game.

I'd much prefer it to be a FoG2 DLC with new armies and a new time period as well.

Same, I'd much prefer it to be another DLC so I could do fun matchups like ancient Assyrians vs high medieval French knights.

Apparently you'll be able to do that even without owning any FoG2 DLC's. Players should ba able to play any of the Ancients vs Medieval matchups (but not Ancients vs Ancients except Viking DLC armies).

EDIT: found the thread on Slith forums

 

[JarlFrank]

Nice. I guess that means FoG2 is done DLC-wise and we won't see any more ancients content. New additions will now probably only go fowards in time, possibly up to Hussites.