How about a May Update?
Moderators: Sertorius, Tim Coakley
- sol_invictus
- Posts: 1954
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Kentucky
RE: How about a May Update?
The last Tiller game I played was Normandy and that was all I could handle. I swore off of the system after that. I must say though, I am very tempted to grab Waterloo. I am absolutely craving some Napoleonics. I have been denied for far to long. When is Crown of Glory coming out again?[;)]
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
-
- Posts: 731
- Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 9:05 pm
RE: How about a May Update?
I had the need for Napoleonics as well...I bought HPS Eckmuhl. It came in this weekend and I spent some time on it.
The interface is absolutely archaic. Why do I have to use those little scrolling bars on the side to move within the map instead of just shifting my mouse or using the scroll key? Everything is driven by way too many mouse keyclicks. What I would give for some hotkeys.
Having said that, I like it right now. The AI is a bit better than I remember it, more aggressive. Sometimes too aggressive...I just watched the French trying approach my lines by wading through a huge swamp rather than use the roads. I doubt if that particular force is going to have much impact on that battle.
The system has changed such that skirmishers don't appear to be so dominant as in the BG system. But then I noticed today a cavalry charge into a mass of routed, disrupted Bavarians resulting in heavy losses by my cavalry...ummm. Regardless, the game seems a better Napoleonic simulation that the old BG series. I also like the shortened phase system which allows for quick PBEM's. When I have time, I am going to have try a PBEM with it. Then I will know if I really like it or not.
The series has made some progress over the last 10 years but not a lot. They were the only PC Napoleonics game in town. I think that is going to change which may not be good for HPS games but should be good for Napoleonics players.
The interface is absolutely archaic. Why do I have to use those little scrolling bars on the side to move within the map instead of just shifting my mouse or using the scroll key? Everything is driven by way too many mouse keyclicks. What I would give for some hotkeys.
Having said that, I like it right now. The AI is a bit better than I remember it, more aggressive. Sometimes too aggressive...I just watched the French trying approach my lines by wading through a huge swamp rather than use the roads. I doubt if that particular force is going to have much impact on that battle.
The system has changed such that skirmishers don't appear to be so dominant as in the BG system. But then I noticed today a cavalry charge into a mass of routed, disrupted Bavarians resulting in heavy losses by my cavalry...ummm. Regardless, the game seems a better Napoleonic simulation that the old BG series. I also like the shortened phase system which allows for quick PBEM's. When I have time, I am going to have try a PBEM with it. Then I will know if I really like it or not.
The series has made some progress over the last 10 years but not a lot. They were the only PC Napoleonics game in town. I think that is going to change which may not be good for HPS games but should be good for Napoleonics players.
RE: How about a May Update?
Thanks for the reply. It has been a long spell since playing Sid's game. Yes, Sid's game was hetic now that I recall. I don't like RTS either. At the time, I thought that was all that was available for the computer.
When I bought the game I had recently returned to gaming after a long hietas. I bought what I could find in the stores. Anything Napolenic looked good to me. I had no sources to direct me at that time. I was internet illiterate.
But now I have access to good sources thanks to everyone in these forums.
I haven't owned any of the other titles you mentioned so I could not relate. I will be adding newly produced titles but will be looking with a more discerning eye so that the games I purchase will better fit my likes.
I like accuracy historical/battle/maps - the games can be tactical as well as operational.
I will be popping in and out to see the progress and follow the posts. Thanks again.
When I bought the game I had recently returned to gaming after a long hietas. I bought what I could find in the stores. Anything Napolenic looked good to me. I had no sources to direct me at that time. I was internet illiterate.
But now I have access to good sources thanks to everyone in these forums.
I haven't owned any of the other titles you mentioned so I could not relate. I will be adding newly produced titles but will be looking with a more discerning eye so that the games I purchase will better fit my likes.
I like accuracy historical/battle/maps - the games can be tactical as well as operational.
I will be popping in and out to see the progress and follow the posts. Thanks again.
- Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
- Posts: 785
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:00 pm
RE: How about a May Update?
I bought HPS Wagram some time ago, and the AI is just awful, although misleading, the first turns it seems good (probably there were some scripted movements) but after a few turns the AI start to do so many stupid things as to ruin any feeling about the game.
RE: How about a May Update?
ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
I bought HPS Wagram some time ago, and the AI is just awful, although misleading, the first turns it seems good (probably there were some scripted movements) but after a few turns the AI start to do so many stupid things as to ruin any feeling about the game.
I had Eckmuhl and yes, you are right, but let's admit it. Any computer wargame or strategy game's AI is nothing more than a trainer of sorts. It's job is to get us to the point where we are ready to play against another human being. There are just too many different ways to play a wargame. The way that I look at it, any wargame that goes beyond that is a bonus. Its something extra.
If one thinks about it, there really isn't anything intelligent that comes with anything artificial. Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer. True intelligence belongs to the living. Anything else is just mimicry, in my opinion.
Vive l'Empereur!
- steveh11Matrix
- Posts: 943
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:54 am
- Contact:
RE: How about a May Update?
Interesting, how people fall naturally into two camps on this one. When playing on the computer, I'm almost entirely a "me vs the ai" person. If I play a game - any game, not just wargames - against a human I want it to be more social than competitive. PBEM or it's other MP analogues just turn into horrid nasty games in which anything goes as long as you win, or at least so has been my experience, limited as it's been. Quite aside from the fact that I play when *I* want to play, not at someone else's convenience!ORIGINAL: Le Tondu
ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
I bought HPS Wagram some time ago, and the AI is just awful, although misleading, the first turns it seems good (probably there were some scripted movements) but after a few turns the AI start to do so many stupid things as to ruin any feeling about the game.
I had Eckmuhl and yes, you are right, but let's admit it. Any computer wargame or strategy game's AI is nothing more than a trainer of sorts. It's job is to get us to the point where we are ready to play against another human being.
There are exceptions of course, but generally it's down to finding the right people - and the best way of doing that, it seems to me, is to actually meet them, have a beer, and so on. At which point, playing on the computer becomes a very minor thing!
Steve.
"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci
RE: How about a May Update?
steveh11Matrix,
Of course you are absolutely right.
MP can turn into something really nasty where it is abuse the rules kind of thing. Anything can have it's negative side, don't you think? This is why I am so firm on having some kind of pre-game discussion as to what type game one wants. Pre-game agreements are a must for me.
MP is a social thing and it is more, in my opinion. Its a chance to re-enact for some folks. With the HUGE Waterloo map for instance, one can play as the army commander and make different choices. Actually, its pretty fun....and that is the whole point, eh?
I say, if it isn't fun, why do it?
Of course you are absolutely right.
MP can turn into something really nasty where it is abuse the rules kind of thing. Anything can have it's negative side, don't you think? This is why I am so firm on having some kind of pre-game discussion as to what type game one wants. Pre-game agreements are a must for me.
MP is a social thing and it is more, in my opinion. Its a chance to re-enact for some folks. With the HUGE Waterloo map for instance, one can play as the army commander and make different choices. Actually, its pretty fun....and that is the whole point, eh?
I say, if it isn't fun, why do it?
Vive l'Empereur!
RE: How about a May Update?
HPS's Games are OK, but they have some horrible problems:
1. The AI SUCKS OUT LOUD! In an Eckmulh Campaign Game I played the French. I withdrew the Bavarian Division with no pressure from the Austrians, a day went by and still no Austrians. I sent a cavalry Brigade down to the Danube River and there watched the Austrian Army, still on their side of the river happily forming line, column, square, changing facing and moving everywhere except across the Bridge! As the Austrians, I crossed the river and killed every man of the Bavarian Division, ran into the next French force and killed every man in it, proceeded to the next French force and killed them off to a man. No challenge at all.
2. Cavalry recon is done by, what I call, "The Little Big Horn Method". It works like this: Cavalry regiment proceeds up the road and runs into an Infantry Regiment in the woods and is stopped by entering it's ZOC. The Infantry fires in the defensive fire phase and empties 100 saddles. Then in your opponent's turn he Offensively fires killing another 120 cavalrymen. In your move you can then move your battered and bleeding Cav Regiment back. "But wait" you say "you could deploy squadrons from the Regiment!" True, but then you lose the squadron to the last man (OK, a savings of 100 men). What should be a matter of a few pickets will lose you Custer's immediate command in 15 minutes. HPS has been repeately called on this problem and has, to date, refused to do anything about it.
Ironic because they already have a solution in the way infantry with skirmishers deployed in their Civil War games can "see" units two hexes out (they identify something is there, but not what). If they just allowed cavalry to do the same thing, the games would be alot better (especially the big games where you do move to contact).
3. There is nothing that prevents you moving your skirmishers as far away from it's parent unit as you want. This becomes particullarly bothersome in big games if your opponent decides to just flood the map trolling for supply units. If you play against a human make sure you establish some sort of agreed upon solution to this.
Enough of my rant,
DavidI
1. The AI SUCKS OUT LOUD! In an Eckmulh Campaign Game I played the French. I withdrew the Bavarian Division with no pressure from the Austrians, a day went by and still no Austrians. I sent a cavalry Brigade down to the Danube River and there watched the Austrian Army, still on their side of the river happily forming line, column, square, changing facing and moving everywhere except across the Bridge! As the Austrians, I crossed the river and killed every man of the Bavarian Division, ran into the next French force and killed every man in it, proceeded to the next French force and killed them off to a man. No challenge at all.
2. Cavalry recon is done by, what I call, "The Little Big Horn Method". It works like this: Cavalry regiment proceeds up the road and runs into an Infantry Regiment in the woods and is stopped by entering it's ZOC. The Infantry fires in the defensive fire phase and empties 100 saddles. Then in your opponent's turn he Offensively fires killing another 120 cavalrymen. In your move you can then move your battered and bleeding Cav Regiment back. "But wait" you say "you could deploy squadrons from the Regiment!" True, but then you lose the squadron to the last man (OK, a savings of 100 men). What should be a matter of a few pickets will lose you Custer's immediate command in 15 minutes. HPS has been repeately called on this problem and has, to date, refused to do anything about it.
Ironic because they already have a solution in the way infantry with skirmishers deployed in their Civil War games can "see" units two hexes out (they identify something is there, but not what). If they just allowed cavalry to do the same thing, the games would be alot better (especially the big games where you do move to contact).
3. There is nothing that prevents you moving your skirmishers as far away from it's parent unit as you want. This becomes particullarly bothersome in big games if your opponent decides to just flood the map trolling for supply units. If you play against a human make sure you establish some sort of agreed upon solution to this.
Enough of my rant,
DavidI
RE: How about a May Update?
DavidI,
1. Yeah, ok. I've seen nothing that says the AI has been improved at all. (Again, my personal preference is playing against another human being.) It could be argued that this game is intentionally set up for MP when you consider the gaming clubs like the Napoleonic Wargaming Club & The Blitz.
2. The elimination of the defensive fire problem that cavalry suffers while doing recon can easily be taken care of ---by simply turning defensive fire off before you start your game. It does show the weakness of turn based games however.
3. You said it buddy. Pre-game agreements are it. I really don't care what game one is playing. Getting to know your "opponent," setting up what type of game you want, and agreeing upon what the rules are is imperative. If you don't that, then you deserve what you get, IMHO. In that situation, players have nothing to whine or complain about.
We all know that HPS's Napoleonic games aren't perfect. (Whose is?) Discussion about them is only happening because one member here wanted to play a Napoleonic game while he was waiting for this wonderful game (BoN) to be released. It is what I've decided to do as well.
To be fair, John Tiller has shown a willingness to listen to his customers and to some make changes and improvements over the years. Granted, he is kind of slow about it, but no one can argue with that.
Anyways, Napoleonic wargaming needs support --in general. I am just grateful that I can participate.
1. Yeah, ok. I've seen nothing that says the AI has been improved at all. (Again, my personal preference is playing against another human being.) It could be argued that this game is intentionally set up for MP when you consider the gaming clubs like the Napoleonic Wargaming Club & The Blitz.
2. The elimination of the defensive fire problem that cavalry suffers while doing recon can easily be taken care of ---by simply turning defensive fire off before you start your game. It does show the weakness of turn based games however.
3. You said it buddy. Pre-game agreements are it. I really don't care what game one is playing. Getting to know your "opponent," setting up what type of game you want, and agreeing upon what the rules are is imperative. If you don't that, then you deserve what you get, IMHO. In that situation, players have nothing to whine or complain about.
We all know that HPS's Napoleonic games aren't perfect. (Whose is?) Discussion about them is only happening because one member here wanted to play a Napoleonic game while he was waiting for this wonderful game (BoN) to be released. It is what I've decided to do as well.
To be fair, John Tiller has shown a willingness to listen to his customers and to some make changes and improvements over the years. Granted, he is kind of slow about it, but no one can argue with that.
Anyways, Napoleonic wargaming needs support --in general. I am just grateful that I can participate.
Vive l'Empereur!
RE: How about a May Update?
One important word about pre-game agreements. The wording is important.
Example:
Do you want voluntary restrictions on skirmishers to go no further that 3 hexes from the Division, Brigade, Regiment, or parent Battalion. Makes for a BIG difference, I'd say.
Example:
Do you want voluntary restrictions on skirmishers to go no further that 3 hexes from the Division, Brigade, Regiment, or parent Battalion. Makes for a BIG difference, I'd say.
Vive l'Empereur!
RE: How about a May Update?
Le Tondu,
I am not a very good psychic, however, after BON is released I forsee playing a PBEM game with you.[;)]
DavidI
I am not a very good psychic, however, after BON is released I forsee playing a PBEM game with you.[;)]
DavidI
-
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:49 am
- Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
RE: How about a May Update?
I think we will all be in queues to battle each other [:D]
Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon Bonaparte
RE: How about a May Update?
Sabreman1966 & DavidI,
You said it. I would be honored to play this game with you guys.
I am really excited about it. I really am.
All we have to do is wait for it. Its kind-of like being an infantryman in square awaiting a charging enemy cavalry. Courage, coolness ,and resolve will see us through the experience.
[:)]
You said it. I would be honored to play this game with you guys.
I am really excited about it. I really am.
All we have to do is wait for it. Its kind-of like being an infantryman in square awaiting a charging enemy cavalry. Courage, coolness ,and resolve will see us through the experience.
[:)]
Vive l'Empereur!
RE: How about a May Update?
I would humbly put forth my application to play. Although I've never played Pbem and I would be limited to less turns completed in a week then maybe most of you would like. This due to job requirements.
-
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:49 am
- Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
RE: How about a May Update?
ORIGINAL: Zap
I would humbly put forth my application to play. Although I've never played Pbem and I would be limited to less turns completed in a week then maybe most of you would like. This due to job requirements.
I'll certainly give you a game [:)]
Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon Bonaparte
RE: How about a May Update?
Same here Zap. [:)]
I imagine that we'll be pretty busy for some time once this game is released.
Now, if we could only get them to toss us a bone or two.
Rick
[:)]
I imagine that we'll be pretty busy for some time once this game is released.
Now, if we could only get them to toss us a bone or two.
Rick
[:)]
Vive l'Empereur!
-
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:49 am
- Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
RE: How about a May Update?
ORIGINAL: Le Tondu
Now, if we could only get them to toss us a bone or two.
Yes, we definately need a few new screenshots to keep us drooling [;)]
Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon Bonaparte
-
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:32 pm
RE: How about a May Update?
You will get one!
Just got a new version from Frank Hunter and I will be checking it tonight...then to the testers and some new screen shots.
Tim
Just got a new version from Frank Hunter and I will be checking it tonight...then to the testers and some new screen shots.
Tim
Horse and Musket2---Matrix Games