Field of Glory: Empires + Fields of Glory II

[Jurand of Cracow]

Has anybody played Field of Glory: Empires + Fields of Glory II ? Any opinions?

[Lusitanio]

I saw a video review some days ago and it seems good. Would buy. 8/10.

[z3n]

I'm not sure about the newer one but I did see a lets play of Field of Glory Empires and it looked relatively entertaining. Didn't want to spend any money at the time though, so no purchase from me.

[Slaytaninc]

Someone said the diplomacy is bland and complained about the simplistic trade system. But I hate trade systems in most games so...

[Jurand of Cracow]

Someone said the diplomacy is bland and complained about the simplistic trade system. But I hate trade systems in most games so...

I think the main problem with historical deption of trade is that the players want to behave like Donald Trump - change trade flows with just a decision, make embargoes etc. Trade never worked like this, and in ancient times it was mostly independent from the political interference (even if some rulers and some ancient authors thought otherwise). So it should be more-or-less automatic. In this respect I think the Medieval 2 trade system is the most realistic around. The FoG:E seems to be also realistic (done mostly automatically) and a bit more advanced. The Warscape TW games is a kind of absurdity - automatic even with the furthest factions but cut down to null with the factions that don't want to trade with you.

[Slaytaninc]

Yeah I'm not a fan of micromanaging trade, and trade didn't need to be steered or agreed upon via treaty to happen. People tended to trade on their own if there was an imbalance of items they had vs. what they wanted. EU4 and Total War trade systems are designed for gamification not simulation.

[Jurand of Cracow]

A few good pieces on the FoG:E:
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/tb...3267247468391/
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...#post-25639411
Compared mostly to Imperator Rome. Obviously, the EBII is in another league as far as historicity is concerned.

[Cultist]

All of these Hearts of Iron clones seem like such a step back in time. I never understood why anyone would play them vs M2 or even R2 which have management but also battle strategy and you don't feel like throwing up when you watch the battles

[Slaytaninc]

There are people who still play Baldur's Gate, and they even got remasters a few years ago. Heck there are still people playing 80s CRPGs.

[Asdf]

I picked it up myself. It's fun, but that doesn't really tell you much. So here's an attempt at explaining the goods and bads (and some uglies).
- Big, in-depth manual. Not Dominions level of drowning the player in minutiae, but it does the job of introducing you to the mechanics (though I personally don't bother with manuals and just bang my head against the mechanics until I learn what works and what doesn't)
- While its companion title (Field of Glory II) has a positively massive (stretches from the end of the Neo-Assyrian Empire to the 11th century A.D., to the point that Rome alone has over a dozen army lists to account for shifts in equipment/tactics) and lovingly detailed roster (or at least as far as I can tell, I don't own it yet, $90 is a tall asking price), the roster in Empires is simplified. This is understandable, considering it's a different type of game.
- The game has ethnic recruitment, with AFAIK every single region producing a unique unit. Unfortunately, these units seem to lack unique models.
- The units and their models are, to my understanding, in line with the period (game-start is the Babylonian War with a Pyrrhic War mini-campaign), but I'm not without gripes.
1. Hastati and Principes are present (though due to what I'm guessing is engine limitations, they're named as Alae/Legion due to them technically being the same unit as the Marian and Imperial-Era Legions), but Triarii appear to be absent. Granted, this was from a quick check of their recruitable units at turn 1, so maybe you need a specific building to train them. Cataphracts aren't visibly recruitable at the start for Atropatene Media, but the manual confirms they're in the game.
2. Hellenic Heavy Infantry (which would line up to EBII's classical Hoplites, I suppose) and Phalanxes share the exact same model (i.e. a Hoplite with a Corinthian Helmet), a choice that becomes only more strange when your Hoplites are replaced by Thorakitai in the late-game. Unit-models are otherwise decent, though I haven't seen every one yet.
3. I get that it's a simplified roster but it bugs me that all elite phalanxes (which unlike the normal phalanx, actually look like Phalangites) for Hellenic civs are Silver Shields.
- Really good building system. IIRC there's hundreds of them in total, and it has an interesting rotation mechanic: in addition to buildings being dependent on previous buildings (so you can't expand farms without first having a farm, obviously) and overall development, you don't actually have access to every possible structure in every province at all times. A structure of each category (Agriculture, Health, Infrastructure, Military, Commerce, and Culture) is available, alongside a shuffle button. Along with the cap on buildings (slots are equal to the population, though certain buildings cost 0 slots), you wind up with an incentive to specialize provinces and make choices that matter (I really dislike how that phrasing is used in video games nowadays but it does actually apply here)
- People in the thread have already discussed trade, but yeah it's a good system. Manipulation is possible, as you can 'guide' resources to regions that need them by way of imports (easiest way to put is that if say marble is imported from one province in a corner of your empire to your capital, that resource can then be distributed to support industry in the surrounding regions due to its presence in the capital market). This is critical to a functioning empire, as some structures require specific resources to perform base functions (if it's outside import range then you have to pay top-dollar to keep things functioning), produce refined resources (ex. import lumber to a region that produces coal then import that to a region that produces weapons and so on and so forth), or provide handy bonuses.
- The Decadence/Culture system is simply excellent. Poorly managed, over-extended, or simply old empires will rot, decay, and collapse. There are ways to fight or slow the rot , but you have to balance it with the needs of your people (luxury structures and the like needed to keep the people loyal tend to produce the most decadence) or circumstance (should I really be refining my empire's education when nomad hordes are invading?). However, sometimes staving off the rot as long is possible is the wrong choice, as you can reinvigorate your empire if you handle the climax of decline (in the form of civil wars/usurpers/widespread revolts) properly. The Diadochi are especially vulnerable to this, and can be partitioned by their rivals or collapse entirely if they don't handle it well (I've seen the AI Diadochi make some excellent strategic moves and utterly moronic blunders, and I haven't been playing that long.)
- Syagrius' dominion in Gaul and the Sassanid Empire are in the game-files, despite the campaign ending decades before Ardashir and centuries before Syagrius.
- You won't see massive Germanireichs in Antiquity because existence is suffering for every Germanic nation in the game.
- Some of the nation flags are really good and some of the flags are plainly atrocious. I'll see if I can get a screencap of Persia's flag because it is just bad.
- Galatian invasion of the Balkans/Anatolia as well as the rise of the Arsacids is modelled, though a bit overly beefy on the later as you will regularly see the Parthians shatter the Seleucid Empire (assuming the Seleucids survive that long) without difficulty.
- Rome has a special variant of civil wars that I think unlock when it becomes an Empire, so you can see the game recreate (sorta) the year of the four emperors or other civil wars.
- Speaking of Persia, its default government type is theocracy. Why?
- Some nations have unique traits that significantly alter gameplay (ex. Seleucid Satrapal system) while others have few traits or rather plain ones. Most bizarrely, the Lysimachid Kingdom is not considered a Hellenistic Culture nation, despite having access to the Hellenistic unit and building roster. Seems like an unnecessary penalty to what is already the hardest Diadochi nation in the game.
- Ethnicities are alright, but could use some work (I'm preeeettttty certain ancient Anatolians weren't Semitic, and it feels a bit odd to have Arabs and North Africans be the same ethnic group)
- Seleucids are green on the map, which is absolutely disgusting. Thankfully, the game is very easily moddable and you just need to crack open a file in a spreadsheet program to change map colours.

Solid title and worth picking up if you need more to sate your hunger for the Hellenistic Era, though it's decidedly not a Total War title and not really for the same audience.

[Wulfburk]

Ive been playing it so far and have been loving it. Playing the battles in FOG 2 is also great.

My only gripe is that it needs more diplomacy options. Im playing as rhodes and i want to liberate athens from sparta, but i cant because the only option i have is to conquer athens for myself, or to abandon it and earn like 3000 decadence effectively ruining my game...
Basically, this needs a "give region" diplomacy option, as well as a "create client state", if one chooses to free a province...

But all in all i think this game is a great change of pace from paradox and the current total war games.

What it absolutely needs though, is a Europa Barbarorum conversion! Getting all the factions their endonym names, changing the map colour from arveni, aedui, carthage, seleucids, bactria, pontus, lusitanii and so on, and adding some of the best EB tracks to it. Playing FOG Empires really makes me wish M2TW could support 70+ factions... if EB2 had as many factions it would be absolutely epic, not that it isnt already.