FIELD OF GLORY: KINGDOMS!!

[razvedchiki]

a small price to pay when you get to command a full consular army with its 20.000 men on the battlefield.

 

[Harthwain]

The problem I have is paying twice to get the tactical and strategical layers, both of which should be the integral part of the same game. This makes me want to wait for a sale. I would be much more willing to pay a similar amount if it was all-in-one kind of deal.

The transition between the games doesn't feel smooth either. This is a shame, because I do enjoy how tactical battles work in Field of Glory and I like Medieval period the most, so I was hoping their new game (Field of Glory: Kingdoms) to finally be a proper "full experience", not something jury-rigged.

I am also sad that the strategical map still uses 3D models for units, instead of some sort of 2D icons.

Something like this, for example:

Spoiler

 

[Axioms]

The problem I have is paying twice to get the tactical and strategical layers, both of which should be the integral part of the same game. This makes me want to wait for a sale. I would be much more willing to pay a similar amount if it was all-in-one kind of deal.

The transition between the games doesn't feel smooth either. This is a shame, because I do enjoy how tactical battles work in Field of Glory and I like Medieval period the most, so I was hoping their new game (Field of Glory: Kingdoms) to finally be a proper "full experience", not something jury-rigged.

I am also sad that the strategical map still uses 3D models for units, instead of some sort of 2D icons.

Something like this, for example:

Spoiler

Well technically the game has a perfectly functional, and superior to Paradox, although most of that is TB vs RT, battle resolution system. The hack to let you play fights in FoG2 was a special thing for Slitherine fans who mostly all already had FoG2.

 

[Humanophage]

The problem I have is paying twice to get the tactical and strategical layers, both of which should be the integral part of the same game. This makes me want to wait for a sale. I would be much more willing to pay a similar amount if it was all-in-one kind of deal.

Why should it be an integral part? It's just a bonus, like exporting your saves from Victoria to HoI. Field of Glory: Empire is perfectly fine to play without the tactical integration, and is perhaps even better without it because it is more fair to the AI.

 

[Harthwain]

Why should it be an integral part?

Because it's considered a standard for the genre? Sure, you could autoresolve battles in Lords of the Realm series, but I always loved playing them out. Same goes for Total War series.

 

[Humanophage]

Why should it be an integral part?

Because it's considered a standard for the genre? Sure, you could autoresolve battles in Lords of the Realm series, but I always loved playing them out. Same goes for Total War series.

But it isn't like Total War, it's more like a turn-based Imperator: Rome. The focus is more on development than combat, although combat is fairly detailed. It's not a standard to have tactical battles in grand strategies.

 

[Harthwain]

But it isn't like Total War, it's more like a turn-based Imperator: Rome.

Except the "module" featuring tactical battles already exists and they are following the exact same scheme as they did before (tactical battles -> strategical campaign). In Imperator: Rome you won't find anything that'll give you tactical battles. Why? Because you're not supposed to have tactical battles there. This is true for all Paradox games. Field of Glory tries to eat cake and have it too. I could forgive them for Field of Glory II and Empires as it was their first time, but doing it for the second time means it's their business model at this point. There is no point in trying to justify that with excuses like "it's a grand strategy game", because Total War is also a grand strategy game.

 

[razvedchiki]

from the steam forums pocus describes some major gameplay points

'
Hi Markshot,

This is a subtle exercise of changes and additions/removals, while keeping the spirit of the precious game. The new period lends itself, "mechanically" to many new contents and some which are phased out.
In the details, but I can't divulge everything / too much until the active promotional campaign is rolling (you know how marketing works!), the anti-snowballing mechanisms of Empires are still there, but reworked in a significant manner in Kingdoms. Now you get Authority instead of Decadence. This is not a cosmetic renaming by far, because Authority comes from different sources than Decadence, and thus it alters completely the game paradigm (and your behavior as a player). For example in Empires you would gain Decadence as you conquered (unsophisticated) regions, while in Kingdoms you can seemingly conquer as much as you want, as there is no penalty in Authority in doing so. On the contrary, you'll lose authority only if you lose a region. So beware of the backlash somehow.
To prevent map-painting-made-easy though, depending on your type of government, you have a limit in size where you naturally gain Authority. Beyond this limit, you start losing some (you are overextended). The ‘catch 22’ issue here is that, in order to reach a higher government level (say from Petty Kingdom to Kingdom) you need to reach a certain size. Which is set beyond the level where you naturally gain Authority. So you’ll have to find workaround, like having some specific buildings (how do you like your concentric castle?), characters or a large enough Authority buffer, so to reach the next stepping stone.
And that's only one parameter. Most have changed. This is an example on Authority, but the most important parameters have been redefined likewise. Another example you have a clear difference between levies (spearmen) and Standing Army Units (a Knight for example). Not just a difference in stats but in how they are recruited, how they level up, what do they cost, and if you want to keep them around while at peace. This directly impact how you play and how you handle the game, as a player.
And yet, you’ll find yourself mostly at home, if you played Empires.
And so on and on ...

Now for brand new novelties, we get a simple character’s game (dynasties, but simple, we are not trying to emulate Crusader Kings), Religions and much more.

So stay tuned!

Edit: typos.

PS: Our units roster is basically the one of FOG2M made by Richard Bodley Scott !'


https://steamcommunity.com/app/1985050/discussions/0/3467235293755740960/

 

[razvedchiki]

info on developement

 

[Axioms]

Any modern grand strategy game needs characters somehow. Classical to medieval it was all about the interactions of the magnates with each other and then layered over some population mechanic. Of course 4x is more simplistic and "gamified" so you can ignore it there.

 

[Galdred]

The problem I have is paying twice to get the tactical and strategical layers, both of which should be the integral part of the same game. This makes me want to wait for a sale. I would be much more willing to pay a similar amount if it was all-in-one kind of deal.

That makes sense, however, they didn't require any of the FoG2 DLC for any unit you might field. ou would get all the units regardless of your DLC. This was pretty nice, especially from Slitherine which relies on DLC a lot. Y
So overall, I was pretty happy with their pricing for FOG2/FOGE.

 

[SunKing]

Have they managed to integrate the tactical battles into the strategy game? Or is it still a seperate thing you load a save into?

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Have they managed to integrate the tactical battles into the strategy game? Or is it still a seperate thing you load a save into?

Yes.

 

[Victor1234]

Have they managed to integrate the tactical battles into the strategy game? Or is it still a seperate thing you load a save into?

Yes.

Is that confirmed recently? The latest I read was that it's still strategy game with no tactical in Field of Glory: Kingdoms, but you can export battles to Fields of Glory 2: Medieval like with the previous set of games (Empires and FoG). On Steam that's still one of the biggest complaints.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1985050/discussions/0/3279194788778973891/

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Have they managed to integrate the tactical battles into the strategy game? Or is it still a seperate thing you load a save into?

Yes.

Is that confirmed recently? The latest I read was that it's still strategy game with no tactical in Field of Glory: Kingdoms, but you can export battles to Fields of Glory 2: Medieval like with the previous set of games (Empires and FoG). On Steam that's still one of the biggest complaints.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1985050/discussions/0/3279194788778973891/

I'm pretty certain that Kingdoms uses same system as FoG: Empires did with possibility to export battles to another game.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

https://www.slitherine.com/news/field-of-glory-kingdoms-battle-and-the-art-of-siege

Field of Glory Kingdoms: Battle and the art of siege​

Published on December 06, 2023
Battles in Field of Glory: Kingdoms display a wide variety, either due to their scale, ranging from skirmishes to full-scale engagements involving the main armies of several nations, or due to terrain and weather conditions, or because they can occur as pitched battles in open areas or as castle assaults (here, we use 'castle' to denote any permanent fortification, from a humble rustic fort to a mighty fortress with triple concentric walls!).

When you start the game, it's quite easy to be deceived by the apparent simplicity of combat... until you lose several battles without really understanding why. Indeed, the game simplifies your task by providing an approximate value of your units' effectiveness, but this number is inherently imperfect in capturing all the subtleties of combat.
There's also the combat module, which can be very roughly described as a checkerboard. Square spaces, neatly arranged units facing off. But in reality, this covers a range of mechanisms all working together to add subtlety and allow for different approaches. Let's delve into this more deeply!

The combat system is based on three pillars, which we call the rule of the triangle, because it's crucial to understand that your units need a good general (the first pillar: generals provide additional dice). They need to be rested and experienced (ideally, of course!), which allows them to mitigate bad dice rolls, which are simply excluded from combat (so your veterans are less subject to bad luck), this being the second pillar. Finally, the third pillar, the easiest to understand and often seen by beginners as the only existing one, is the raw strength of the unit. Let's not kid ourselves, equal skills being present, it's better to have knights than peasants... However, even this raw strength varies greatly with the terrain. Heavy units are disadvantaged in constrained terrains like forests and mountains, for example.

This rule of the triangle or the three pillars is fundamental to understanding, as it is the essence of combat in Kingdoms.
Add to this several other mechanisms like the ranged attacks of your archers, skirmish units, which even when they lose tire out your soldiers, pursuit units, those that block charges, etc. There's too much to say, in fact, but what can be retained is that combat in Kingdoms offers more than honorable subtlety, and it would be wrong to think of it as simplistic and uninteresting... That being said, if you want even more finesse and detail, at the expense of a much longer game time, then you can export your battles to Field of Glory Medieval from Richard Bodley Scott, and then retrieve the combat result in Kingdoms!

What about castle assaults?
They largely follow the same procedure as open field battles, but with various defensive bonuses, depending on whether a breach has been made in the fortification. Some units naturally have specialized bonuses or penalties in assault. But before the assault, you must have laid siege and weakened the defenders (or if you are patient, they might even surrender if they lack food).

The art of siege isn't learned in a day either, as it involves considering the abilities of the opposing generals, the capacity of units to conduct or defend against a siege (here archers have a clear advantage, but if you build siege units, you can more than compensate for this problem). Sieges can also be very long, especially if the opposing fortification has undergone several improvements, and this is a feature of Kingdoms compared to its predecessor Empires:
forts and castles are built in several modular stages, each providing different bonuses. With serious investment, it is possible to hold a stronghold for years.
This concludes our 4th developer diary, and we hope it has piqued your interest in testing military maneuvers in Kingdoms, knowing that this is just a small part of the game, and that we also have a lot of content available for those who like peaceful development... so stay tuned!

 

[Dwarvophile]

https://www.slitherine.com/news/field-of-glory-kingdoms-dynasties-and-characters

 

[flinar]

https://www.slitherine.com/news/field-of-glory-kingdoms-dynasties-and-characters

Reading through that entire post, I kept thinking, "this sounds too much like Crusader Kings." I'm glad they put that to rest in their last paragraph.

Our game is primarily a historical strategy game, which has adopted a dynasty system to complete the picture, and we neither pretend nor aim to make it a dynastic role-playing game.

I liked that Field of Glory Empires set itself apart from other games which look similar on the surface. Strategic dynasty management could be a good idea.

 

[janior]

from what I've seen in a preview it will have rather solid core mechanics and will lack any depth(just like empires) solid for a playthrough or two

 

[razvedchiki]

empires has depth, with its anti blob decadence mechanic and its economic-trade system.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Dynastic Role-Playing is the best part of Crusader Kings tho, and so much in the Medieval Age is about the Liege-Vassal relationships and such.

 

[Cnaiur]

Damn you, I thought it released. Wasn't it supposed to be out already by this time?

 

[Dwarvophile]

Dynastic Role-Playing is the best part of Crusader Kings tho, and so much in the Medieval Age is about the Liege-Vassal relationships and such.

I'd be happy already with something along the lines of Old World's family system. With on top of that the option to have army leaders perks transposed when you switch on Field of Glory II Medieval's tactical map (that wasn't in Field of Glory: Empires).

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

empires has depth, with its anti blob decadence mechanic and its economic-trade system.

Did the Economic Trade system even truly did anything? I never bothered to do anything other than trying to get more goods and increasing trade acumen.

Dynastic Role-Playing is the best part of Crusader Kings tho, and so much in the Medieval Age is about the Liege-Vassal relationships and such.

I'd be happy already with something along the lines of Old World's family system. With on top of that the option to have army leaders perks transposed when you switch on Field of Glory II Medieval's tactical map (that wasn't in Field of Glory: Empires).

Yeah that would be cool.
But honestly, I feel like Middle Ages requires character-based play, there's a lot of situations where character/family matter a lot more than countries and such. Its a pre-nationalism age, after all.

Antiquity would actually be pretty good for character-focused play. I always thought Imperator missed a massive chance when it went for nation rather than character-playing. I always wanted something like Crusader Kings, but instead the focus is on the Roman Oligarchy, the pit of vipers it was and its constant fighting for power and domination and how it all ends up leading to the rise of the Empire. Essentially Julius Caesar/Augustus simulator. Could portray the den of vipers that the Hellenic Diadochi-dominated world had become, too.

 

[Dwarvophile]

Yay, we get a preview ! & to see what DasTactic actually looks like (a bald friendly nerd, who would have thought...) :