RE: Future of this game (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Brother against Brother: The Drawing of the Sword



Message


kennonlightfoot -> RE: Future of this game (1/10/2016 2:08:53 PM)

I suspect the current release rules in BAB would easily handle McClellan's slow release of Corps for the attack. Probably handle it much better than HPS's release system which is very inflexible but the battle still plays relatively well under it. The most difficult things to over come in Antietam is the smartest move by the Union commander is to not attack until most of his releases have occurred. Second Bull Run will have the same problem. Only an idiot, i.e. Pope, would attack Jackson before most of his army arrived or leave the area of Henry House Hill once he knows Longstreet is on the field and flanking him. Placement of VP hexes can prevent the Union from hiding in the rear.

Forcing a player to attack when it is obvious attacking early is stupid (both the attacks on the Rebel left in Antietam and Second Bull Run) is much more difficult. But the addition of a Victory Hex that accumulated VP for time held would easily handle this problem.




shoelessbivouac -> RE: Future of this game (1/10/2016 7:42:41 PM)

quote:

Forcing a player to attack when it is obvious attacking early is stupid (both the attacks on the Rebel left in Antietam and Second Bull Run) is much more difficult. But the addition of a Victory Hex that accumulated VP for time held would easily handle this problem.

+1.

Of course, Hooker ("Fighting Joe") being the far more impetuous - but certainly not stupid - or, say, the increasingly impatient, and somewhat near-sighted, rushing headlong Sumner (II Corps) into only gawd-knows what, or even the exceedingly deliberate and methodical-to-a-fault Burnside, should probably work to require some kind of mandatory early morning Union assault - whether on Lee's left or right.

What is especially intriguing about an Antietam simulation is just how near-run a thing it was, given such command opposites as McClellan and Lee.

Given the near-run nature of the historic outcome of the battle, a "historical scenario" simulation will doubtless strive to account for command stupidity, stodginess, stubbornness, impetuousness, etc. - on both sides, while implementing necessary play balancing features (and constraints) essential to making it a challenging game for both sides. Or the ever resourceful, collective minds of BAB will come up with whatever works!

What-if scenarios could entertain,

1) Additional scouting to identify other possible creek crossings.
2) Reverse McClellan's right to left attack-in-echelon strategy - requiring Burnside to attack first with Hooker being released last.
2) Nix the Union 'gift', outlining SO #191, four days earlier - and permit Lee and McClellan more maneuvering space on a BAB map board of unprecedentedly magnificent proportions. (Although this would probably prove more playable as an operational level contest.)
3) A "Lee Holds Fast" September 18th battle to the death, randomizing possible overnight reinforcements, which could include elite elements of the Navy Seals and Confederate prototypes of Stealth bomber air support ....




BigDuke66 -> RE: Future of this game (1/27/2016 3:43:21 AM)

I still haven't bought it but the future for this game or better the series lays in the fact to get some things improved beyond that what other games provide regarding the engine, obviously the HPS/JTS games are THE competitor here.
FOW would be a point that I like to see expanded, we had a thread for it here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3857291
and I agree that it has to be improved.

Playing the HPS/JTS games I see that the lack of proper FOW takes depth out of a game, in these games for example the range from where I can differ between infantry & cavalry is much too big, the details on the unit are too precises like knowing that the unit has somewhere from 500-600 men instead of giving such numbers a wider range maybe even depending on the distance to that unit, also the spotting distance is often too big.
All these things just give to much certainty instead of the usual lack of information and with that an uncertainty that officers had to deal with and prepare for.

In case of FOW the approach is rather simple, less is more.
Of course easy talk but surely hard to implement.
What I want to point out is that BAB has some interesting points & concepts and if only some obstacles(like FOW) are pushed out of the way, I not only surely buy it but I would also see a bright future for the series, not only in the era of the CW but also in the Napoleonic era.
I hope Matrix realizes the potential that lies in this.




Deathdancer -> RE: Future of this game (2/18/2016 10:06:32 PM)

Any of you guys feel this game has the makings of an AOR replacement further down the line?

I am so close to buying this, but even with my loyalty coupon, it still seems a bit on the expensive side. But if I was buying in to a future AOR, that would be a different story.




BigDuke66 -> RE: Future of this game (2/19/2016 1:58:32 AM)

AOR?




Deathdancer -> RE: Future of this game (2/19/2016 9:28:33 AM)

Age of Rifles by Norm Kroger




zakblood -> RE: Future of this game (5/12/2016 6:54:30 AM)

still play it tbh, even after testing it do death, and saying that, i'm a WW2 fan tbh, so it's not my normal area either, but i've also loved Roman times as well for battles and my war game fixes, so not totally lost in a Civil war time either[;)]




richfed -> RE: Future of this game (6/30/2016 11:02:15 PM)

Is this game ever going to fulfill its promise of doing the entire war? I wish I had read this forum before laying out my $50. I like to support small developers who make historical strategy games - and I do - but years after its release, still nothing.

Very disappointed with my purchase, thus far.




Zap -> RE: Future of this game (7/1/2016 7:09:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: richfed

Is this game ever going to fulfill its promise of doing the entire war? I wish I had read this forum before laying out my $50. I like to support small developers who make historical strategy games - and I do - but years after its release, still nothing.

Very disappointed with my purchase, thus far.


I was hoping to see other battles. Since, I have been practicing selective buying for a while now, I just don't put out money unless I can be assured of a game with life in it. Look at their plans and where it is. No, word from anyone. This games lofty ideas may be dead. The choice of small battles without a quick offering of a major battle may have done this one in.




zakblood -> RE: Future of this game (7/1/2016 7:31:53 AM)

i can't say what i don't know or do for that matter, but one thing is for sure, it's not dead yet and they will have some more information to be shared as soon as it's ready to be released to the open public




kennonlightfoot -> RE: Future of this game (7/1/2016 4:04:21 PM)

As I have noticed on a post I made over on the ACWGC forum, there just aren't many people interested in a new game system. Based on the response there maybe ten or twenty which doesn't give game companies much incentive to do anything. I sometimes wonder if Matrix would be better off just selling upgrades to the game system and opening the game up to player developed scenarios. This would have to include a map editor and maybe web site support for player developed scenarios to be up/down loaded to/from. I just don't see how they will be able to keep developers working on future large battles and scenarios unless sales of the game are a lot higher than I suspect they are.

I think if I had access to ability to create both maps and scenarios, I could put together a group at the ACWGC capable of turning out scenarios even on battles as large as Gettysburg using just volunteers.




jack54 -> RE: Future of this game (7/3/2016 9:16:48 PM)

Well I for one am hopeful, maybe not confident. I am sure a bigger battle is coming and I hope once some players hop on board they may go back and check out the earlier version (the same way Decisive Campaigns 2 brought people to Decisive Campaigns 1.)

I don't know if we will see the entire war as advertised but I find BaB an enjoyable, innovative system and look forward to the next game.




Rosseau -> RE: Future of this game (7/12/2016 12:25:21 AM)

I'm still waiting for easier text modding options - unless I missed that already. Specifically, very hard to mod the second army, as the order of units change in spreadsheet, etc. At least that's what I remember.

No offense here, although it's hard to not be offensive when I say at $50 this game is the most disappointing buy I remember in recent memory. Again, based on price. Honestly, I can't believe a free scenario or two has not been thrown out there by the devs to keep this game going.

Need to go back to it, but just have not had the desire.




kennonlightfoot -> RE: Future of this game (7/13/2016 3:40:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rosseau

I'm still waiting for easier text modding options - unless I missed that already. Specifically, very hard to mod the second army, as the order of units change in spreadsheet, etc. At least that's what I remember.

No offense here, although it's hard to not be offensive when I say at $50 this game is the most disappointing buy I remember in recent memory. Again, based on price. Honestly, I can't believe a free scenario or two has not been thrown out there by the devs to keep this game going.

Need to go back to it, but just have not had the desire.


Unfortunately, they sequentially number their unit ID's. They probably have a program that does this automatically but for modders it is a problem. What I did to make a 2nd Manassas scenario was load their OOB into a spread sheet and then renumber everything with big gaps for adding units then added converted the OOB to match 2nd Manassas. This allowed me to easily insert regiments and brigades I over looked in the first pass.

It does make things a bit tedious if you have to change a unit's ID since once you have used the game editor that ID is inserted into the scenario and us must remove it before you can change it.




bazjak -> RE: Future of this game (7/15/2016 1:17:22 AM)

Future of the game might be brighter if it had a tutorial that showed us how to play it
I haven't touched it since I bought it as I can't this 64yo head around the so called tutorial that supposedly shows how too play it




barkhorn45 -> RE: Future of this game (7/17/2016 6:21:03 PM)

My problem has alway's been fow and the battlefield map.
The view is really cramped by the different display's.The mouseover show's a lot of detail
so the massive bottom left display cramp's your view,could'nt it be able to slide it down to show just the action button's?
It's like your looking through a letterbox opening,
Also it seem's the dev.are conspicuously absent.This game is dead and my money was wasted,could have spent it on a JJ federowick book!




bazjak -> RE: Future of this game (7/18/2016 9:28:02 PM)

Listen to us
I want to like but can't get my head around it
Listen to what is said developer's




rommel222 -> RE: Future of this game (7/20/2016 11:04:33 PM)

Greetings to All,
I am waiting for the next sale to purchase. I have owned all the HPS Civil War series (twice since I gave away my first set to a civil war re-enactor several years ago), the Napoleonic titles and Early American War titles. I enjoy the Tiller ACW games as a historical solo gamer but like the new BAB engine based on the youtube videos of play. I would love to see the BAB system applied to Napoleonic Wars, Revolutionary War and French and Indian War. There are numerous small battles that would allow reasonable unit density to explore tactics.




Rosseau -> RE: Future of this game (7/24/2016 6:56:41 PM)

Wishful thinking, I am guessing. The game was last updated 14 months ago. Same story of not enough sales to move forward, which is always a concern for/with indie devs.




gcbisset -> RE: Future of this game (12/18/2016 7:47:29 AM)

I'd like to buy it, but will wait until there is an editor, or at least a random map maker. I would pay for a seperate editor if you released it that way.




bazjak -> RE: Future of this game (12/19/2016 8:59:55 AM)

Dont bother posting anything about this game as the devs will never reply
As its xmas they might lol
Dont comment for them Zak let them respond for a change




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125