General Query re expansions

[jmlima]

I've noted that the expansions add not only armies but also new features. Does that mean that buying an expansion is the only way to add those new features to the base game?

In example, Rise of Rome has the following:

Features

A comprehensive Digital Army Generator (D.A.G.) which allows you to design armies to a specific number of points and then take these armies in to single player against the AI or online in multiplayer. Making its first ever appearance on a Slitherine title, the D.A.G. is a powerful tool for any wargames addict !

New random battle generator using armies created in the army builder for single and multiplayer.

A new Line of Sight option. Games can be played with or without LOS. Hide battlegroups in terrain, behind hills or other troops. Beware of ambushes!

Baggage camps which appear in battle and can be looted for bonus points. Some armies are allowed to fortify their baggage.

Temporary fortifications such as palisades which can be defended.

5 New terrain types: broken ground, impassable terrain, open fields, plantations & steep hills.

So, unless I buy Rise of Rome I will not have access to any of that? Correct?

[IainMcNeil]

All of the features either get added to the base game or included if you have any expansion. E.g. Line of sight is included with any expansion but temporary fortifications are in the base game. It is only the content - armies & scenarios which are limited to the specific army pack. Basically if you get any army pack you'll be getting all the features and you only need to work out which one you want.

[milkweg]

Why leave out LoS from the base game though? That is a much desired feature so I think you left it out to "nudge" customers into buying an expansion pack or two. 

[IainMcNeil]

Of course we want people to buy the expansions! If they dont there is no money to fund the development of the core game for 2 years past initial release. I don't mean bug fixing - I mean completely new features. The only other option is to charge a subscription fee!

[Rosseau]

I have all the current expansions, and they are worth it. But it's going to take a bigger hook for me to buy the next one at $25. I simply don't need anymore army variations and themes for the game. Battlefield Academy has come further, in terms of bang for the buck. I don't know if I can invest more in FoG unless it comes with a must-have, expansion-only feature. Both great games, though!

[milkweg]

Well, I don't want to buy any expansions until I'm sure I like the base game first and I haven't bought the base game yet because you left out LoS. See the Catch 22 here? You want more business but your business decision prevents me from buying it so it has the adverse effect of what you want.

[Grim.Reaper]

ORIGINAL: milkweg

Well, I don't want to buy any expansions until I'm sure I like the base game first and I haven't bought the base game yet because you left out LoS. See the Catch 22 here? You want more business but your business decision prevents me from buying it so it has the adverse effect of what you want.

I also thought it was a little bad that such a basic feature for core gameplay such as FOW/LOS was left out of the base game and never patched in. I can understand expansions including additional units and such, but wished this basic feature was put in the main game to see how it works before I invest more into this series. At this point, I have also made the decision not to purchase anymore at this time.

[sabre1]

I will pick this up, just not immediately. I have all the expansions up to this one. I sure wish someone would come up with a campaign system. I just don't do enough PBEM stuff.

Although I will say I have a PBEM partner for BA. He stomps me on a regular basis.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Grim.Reaper

I also thought it was a little bad that such a basic feature for core gameplay such as FOW/LOS was left out of the base game and never patched in.

It really isn't a 'basic feature for core gameplay', or anything like. You need to remember that FoG is not an attempt at a high fidelity simulation of ancient warfare. It's a computerized version of a set of tabletop miniatures rules and, though those rules differ in some respects,both are decidely towards the 'beer and pretzel' end of things. FoG was designed to allow fast-play MP, with a significant number of games being played, and accessible to grog, semi-grog and even 'casual' wargamer alike.

I didn't notice the absence of FoW at all in the original release simply because the miniatures games I played all those years ago (long pre-FoG) didn't include it either; it isn't practical without unnecessary and, frankly, unwanted complication of the rules. LoS was rarely an issue either. Ian would have to tell you but I suspect these 'essential features' were left as the tabletop players they were familiar with felt no great need for them? Might be wrong, though.

Either way, it simply isn't a valid reason not to try the 'base' game IMHO.

[sabre1]

^+1

[blastpop]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: Grim.Reaper

I also thought it was a little bad that such a basic feature for core gameplay such as FOW/LOS was left out of the base game and never patched in.

It really isn't a 'basic feature for core gameplay', or anything like. You need to remember that FoG is not an attempt at a high fidelity simulation of ancient warfare. It's a computerized version of a set of tabletop miniatures rules and, though those rules differ in some respects,both are decidely towards the 'beer and pretzel' end of things. FoG was designed to allow fast-play MP, with a significant number of games being played, and accessible to grog, semi-grog and even 'casual' wargamer alike.

I didn't notice the absence of FoW at all in the original release simply because the miniatures games I played all those years ago (long pre-FoG) didn't include it either; it isn't practical without unnecessary and, frankly, unwanted complication of the rules. LoS was rarely an issue either. Ian would have to tell you but I suspect these 'essential features' were left as the tabletop players they were familiar with felt no great need for them? Might be wrong, though.

Either way, it simply isn't a valid reason not to try the 'base' game IMHO.

Hmmm, what is the impact for online games? Not having it would seem to preclude a player from participating in multi-player games or limited to those who do not have that expansion? Seems it would be mutually exclusive if a fairly basic rule differs from player to player?

[Grim.Reaper]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

Either way, it simply isn't a valid reason not to try the 'base' game IMHO.

I didn't state I would not buy and try the base game and in fact purchased a few months back. What I stated was I was unlikely to continue to invest in the future expansions. This is just my personal opinion. I understand the reasons you stated, but to me this is one of those rules that would be nice to have for all versions of the game, not just the expansions.

[IainMcNeil]

There are 2 types of multiplayer games - DAG and historical scenarios. DAG games require you to have the DAG (Digital Army Generator) to design an army that you take online in a randomly generated scenario against another player designed army. Historical scenarios have preset maps & forces. There are plenty of challenges available for both types of scenarios in MP. You can only accept challenges you have the right expansions for - in fact you cant see challenges you can't accept so its never an issue.

[milkweg]

Well, I'm back after some absence and you should know that I bought 'HPS Greek Wars' instead due to your decision to leave out features from the base game that could have easily been patched in.

[IainMcNeil]

No problem - hope you enjoy it.

[milkweg]

I will buy your game+1 expansion too if I ever see it on sale.