The Good News --AND-- The Bad News...

[VegasOZ]

The Good News is that it looks like a whole bunch of us went out and bought Brother Against Brother.

The BAD NEWS is...

When will the next batch of Battles be ready...???



LOL


Sorry, but it's a complusion... We need MORE BATTLES

[Gil R.]

I am assuming that by "battles" you mean Antietam, Gettysburg, Ball's Bluff, or some other engagement(s) not among our first five battles, rather than simply new scenarios to supplement the 25 in the original release. If the latter, I'll note that 1.04 officially releases our first new scenario. If it's the former, then it's far too early for any sort of statement regarding our next BAB release. However, I can repeat a few things I've said elsewhere:
* When we prepared the massive 1st Manassas map we did so from an even more massive map that also includes the whole 2nd Manassas area. And I already have the 2nd Manassas basic OOB info typed into a master file. Which means that the next battle we will be working on is 2nd Manassas, and given my personal (= non-WCS) schedule I expect that work to begin in late June or else July.
* While a full set of 2nd Manassas scenarios requires that different map area, the 1st Manassas map that we all have on our harddrives already does have some areas with Day 3 fighting (and some Day 2, too, I think), so at some point later this year WCS will release one or two 2nd Manassas scenarios that make use of this map.
* Anyone who wants to learn how to mod the game and beat me to it is welcome to do so! Modder's Guide is currently undergoing final edits, and should be released soon.

[VegasOZ]

I am referring to releases of Major Battles in the series. I forgot to mention I have my Credit Card warmed up and ready to go.

I assumed that Gettysburg, Antietam and et al would be additional content and for sale.The main issue being the inclusion of a new map(s).

Seeing as how the game was released with a "batch" of maps it would not be unreasonable to expect that future releases "might" include "two or more" maps. So, like say Gettysburg with a Brandy Station (minor map) thrown into the package. That sort of thing.

As for scenarios based on the now available maps I'm confident that the Modolifically Inclined are working their furtive little hands to the proverbial bone as we speak... LOL

[zakblood]

well it took me a few months to play both sides in all maps with a few different tactics tbh, and i'm still finding newer ways of getting around the AI still with different flanking approaches, and as i know they don't take 5 mins to make, the map for one, the OOB for another, then the research etc etc, without even thinking or mentioning the testing, i can't think of it before 6 months or more and that's with no more patcher's, fixes and other stuff being done either, then again that's only my opinion[;)]

[VegasOZ]

ORIGINAL: zakblood

well it took me a few months to play both sides in all maps with a few different tactics tbh, and i'm still finding newer ways of getting around the AI still with different flanking approaches, and as i know they don't take 5 mins to make, the map for one, the OOB for another, then the research etc etc, without even thinking or mentioning the testing, i can't think of it before 6 months or more and that's with no more patcher's, fixes and other stuff being done either, then again that's only my opinion[;)]

Six Months is not unreasonable. "Strike while the Iron is Hot", as the old saying goes. The faster that new DLC (for sale) can be produced the better for the product line.

By the way, as I'm pretty sure that BAB grew out of Forge of Freedom, I must therefore ask when the spin off from Crown of Glory will be coming. A Napoleonic BAB off of Crown of Glory would be a MUST HAVE in my view.

Waterloo with BAB mechanics would be an absolute MUST HAVE GAME...

[zakblood]

must agree would love a Napoleonic BAB wish same or a different engine and agree as it's been mentioned before more than a few times by many members, how long before or if it happens is in the lap of the gods, same as dlc, we all love them, but like life it's time, and time equals money, so i guess it all depends on if it's worth both the effort and time for the returns, then only the developers can really know that as well...

and 6 months was a guess, it could take 2 or 3 times that amount of time to research it and build a OOB alone, then maps but the engine could more than handle it imo, but would like to see a new engine in the long term as well, so fingers crossed[;)]

i know it's choice, but i rarely play RTC / RTS (real time combat games or real time Strategy) and prefer turn based for many reasons eg IGO/UGO.

i like supply options but not rule books as thick as my waist, i like OOB but also editors to make my own, i like more rules towards Beer & Pretzels Gaming and less towards Grognard class of hardness and most of all Balance...

https://wargamecenter.wordpress.com/wargaming-glossary/

terminology ^^ and word meanings.

[Ironclad]

ORIGINAL: VegasOZ
By the way, as I'm pretty sure that BAB grew out of Forge of Freedom, I must therefore ask when the spin off from Crown of Glory will be coming. A Napoleonic BAB off of Crown of Glory would be a MUST HAVE in my view.

Waterloo with BAB mechanics would be an absolute MUST HAVE GAME...

Can't see it happening as I suspect likely sales wouldn't make it commercially viable if one recalls the response to COG as compared to FOF. Plus we need the guys to concentrate on all those ACW battles for future BAB editions.[:)] I think they may have plans for Napoleonic naval tactical though.

Frankly COG tactical land battles never had the same appeal for me as FOF ones as they didn't have the wonderful sprites (not feasible for all the armies present in COG) and I can't recall the game being as detailed as the FOF battles.

[VegasOZ]

You are probably correct, Napoleon does not sell as well as ACW.


BTW, if anybody is watching, I would pay $100 too $150 USD for a World War II Destroyer versus UBoat simulation. The old Destroyer Command won't seem to run under Windows these days and I dearly love(d) the hunt for the Uboat.

[VegasOZ]

One suggestion or notion for future releases as regarding the time necessary to do a new addition or new game. I have NOT played all the maps yet, but I do suspect that the Maps, while brilliantly done and really masterful, are about 20 to 30 percent TOO BIG.

I would think that BAB could easily reduce the size of the maps by 20 to 30 percent and lose not a single thing as far as appeal goes. I suspect that the edges of most of the maps will see little or no use on average.

Thanks

[zakblood]

map can be used for other stuff like mods, but atm they are not used fully, but it's nice for once to be moaning about too big and not saying maps are too small, i've modded some start points myself and done some different entry points into battle while testing and found it totally different to use if you start from elsewhere eg

[zakblood]

2

[zakblood]

was in the process of messing about with files, maps and OOB when released, now it's gone onto back burner for other project have cropped up, but what you can do in half an hour messing can turn out and play very well, with only basic knowledge tbh

as the maps are already done, it give more choices of tactics and also gives for more total freedom with just a few tweaks to any battle, add in another day, alter the start point of the units, and you can march them from any point on the map and fight in a different place if you want to see how it would have panned out if some battle was fought maybe somewhere else, on better or worse ground

[Ironclad]

The time and effort put into producing such detailed maps are clearly one of the great strengths of BAB and I like an approach where they are larger than necessary for recreating a particular battle. The bigger the better as far as I'm concerned as it greatly adds to the options available for opposing commanders.

It widens the scope of an action and ensures the critical importance of concentrating, dispersing and positioning one's forces to take advantage of available thoroughfares and terrain including water features. Combining this with the opportunities that a large battle area provides for each side to conceal their units and search for the opposition. The 2 player version of Manassas is a good example of how a larger map can be beneficial. Looking ahead I can't wait to play some of the larger battles on suitably enhanced maps. Great stuff.

[Gil R.]

Addressing various points:

Yes, future battles will have to be paid for: scenarios to 1st Manassas, Wilson's Creek, Williamsburg and Mill Springs will always be free (as the one in 1.04 is), but whole new battles will be separate products. (I mention this only because there are some out there who may use the terms differently, and think that "free scenarios"="free battles.")

The time-related factors in producing a new BAB:
* Researching maps and OOB's take a lot of time, ESPECIALLY when new research is required. For Williamsburg I had to spend countless hours doing wholly new research because there is no available map that covers more than the core of the battlefield, and even those tend to be incomplete or questionable. So Gettysburg, on a battlefield that's roughly the same number of square miles as our Williamsburg map, would take far less time simply because there are outstanding maps out there, and everything is so well documented. Similarly, larger battles have drawn more interest from historians and therefore more OOB material is available. Much easier just to type in an OOB than to have to research it. Which happened quite a bit with this first batch of battles, since there is some uncertainty over where particular units were.
* Our artist has to draw each map, which depends on his workload for other projects. In general, from the moment he starts working on a map to the moment it is 100% finished, which includes a period of my checking through it, it's about a month.
* Each new scenario takes a lot of time, because one has to change the data files AND figure out where the units should go AND script the A.I. If I'm not doing anything else I can produce a rough draft of a new scenario for testing in a few days. But as battles become larger that will take more time.
* Testing scenarios until we're satisfied takes a few weeks.
* Even once the game is ready to send to Matrix it then takes several weeks for internal testing, manual work, preparing publicity materials, etc.
All of which is to say that it would be quite difficult to produce a new BAB in less than six months.

We'd love to do a Waterloo with this engine, but that would come at the expense of other projects. So it won't be right away, but is certainly possible. (Eric already even has that old COG code for units forming squares and cavalry screens, which he'd need to add. Though Ironclad makes a good point about those old COG:EE unit sprites, which are quite old by now.)

Ironclad is right that we plan a Napoleonic naval game, using the COG:EE naval engine. That will be the next non-BAB wargame that we release. (Not sure just when.)

VegasOZ, your comment about map sizes is interesting, because one of the big debates we had was just how much peripheral area to include in the maps. The winning philosophy -- not necessarily the better one, but the one that won out -- was that having all the extra space created more possibility for modders, and for PBEM maneuvering. Think of Williamsburg, for example: if only the area with the redoubts is in the map then every battle will be some variation of the Union attacking towards Fort Magruder. But with a larger area one can use other roads to approach the CSA position, creating more possibilities. But, of course, larger maps take more time, so there is a trade-off.

Zakblood, you've been modding? You're full of surprises!

[Pawsy]

<that having all the extra space created more possibility for modders, and for PBEM maneuvering.>

100% agreed, from one who uses the space

[Rosseau]

Did I miss the release of the scenario editor? Changing unit data is easy. But adding new units I have not attempted.

[Gil R.]

You've missed nothing. We'll be releasing the Modder's Guide in the next week or so, and that will tell you what you need to know. Zakblood has an advantage in this area because he was involved in testing BAB.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

You've missed nothing. We'll be releasing the Modder's Guide in the next week or so, and that will tell you what you need to know. Zakblood has an advantage in this area because he was involved in testing BAB.

[zakblood]

first mod is up and ready for testing, 2 player only mind you

tm.asp?m=3870140

only a minor edit and map direction change, total time on mod under 30 mins.