Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Other than that, though...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Brother against Brother: The Drawing of the Sword >> Other than that, though... Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Other than that, though... - 8/21/2017 12:21:55 AM   
DonCossack


Posts: 4
Joined: 8/21/2017
Status: offline
How is the game? I'm interested mainly in bugs, performance and historical accuracy/realism. Incidentally, I have the same questions in the boardgame world. There, it's amount of errata, rules clarity/thoroughness and historical accuracy/realism. All the same things, only the difficulty level of producing a computer game is about 10 times higher, so I'm willing to cut some slack on lots of stuff, except....bugs, performance (especially if the game is no longer being supported) and historical accuracy/realism. I'd love to play a good Wilson's Creek over a bad Gettysburg anyday.

Just so you know where I'm coming from.
Post #: 1
RE: Other than that, though... - 8/21/2017 4:35:49 AM   
zakblood


Posts: 19136
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: online
i'll let others reply, so it's not only me who replies to everything in here, so not to make others think i'm a fanboy, even if i'm an older 50 year tester / player

(my opinion is already known)

performance for an older game engine means it's tried and tested and works well, few out standing bugs left, i say few as some have 1 or 2 issues, but none i've managed to replicate with my hardware or software, so that's normal.

historical accuracy/realism there is atm nothing to match it.

especially if the game is no longer being supported if a bug is found and can be replicated, it will get fixed, but no developers don't live on the forum 24/7 and only post if and when needed.

Wilson's Creek, epic fight, i'm not a civil war player as such, as before this game, never really played the period, but since this, have tested and played more than a few (all the good ones).

edited and deleted a novel which i had wrote

< Message edited by zakblood -- 8/21/2017 4:38:06 AM >

(in reply to DonCossack)
Post #: 2
RE: Other than that, though... - 8/21/2017 5:59:33 AM   
zakblood


Posts: 19136
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: online
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/505/details/Brother.Against.Brother

info page ^^

including, manual and all maps

Get a look to the full manual!

- Battle of 1st Manassas Map and Order of Battle available! -


- Battle of Wilson's Creek Map and Order of Battle available! -


- Battle of Mill Springs Map and Order of Battle available! -


- Battle of Williamsburg Map and Order of Battle available! -

Scenario List


1st Battle of Bull Run/Battle of 1st Manassas, July 21, 1861
1st Manassas (9:20am Start)
1st Manassas (What if #1 - Sudley Springs Ford defended)
1st Manassas (What if #2 - Multi-pronged Union attack)
1st Manassas (Blackburn's Ford (small scenario))
1st Manassas (What if #3 - Blackburn's Ford (small scenario))
1st Manassas (2 Player only version)
1st Manassas (Mid-battle (12pm) scenario)
1st Manassas (Standard Scenario)

Battle of Wilson's Creek, August 10, 1861
Wilsons Creek (What if #1 - Single Union attack column)
Wilsons Creek (What if #2 - Sigel delayed)
Wilsons Creek (Mid-battle (7 am) scenario)
Wilsons Creek (Standard Scenario)

Battle of Mill Springs, January 19, 1862
Mill Springs (What if #1 - USA badly picketed)
Mill Springs (What if #2 - USA badly picketed (no rain))
Mill Springs (Mid-battle Scenario (Zollicoffer in peril))
Mill Springs (Standard Scenario)
Mill Springs (Standard Scenario (no rain))

Battle of Mill Springs, at Beech Grove Encampment
Mill Springs (Beech Grove) (What if #1 - Union attack) (Set on January 20, 1862)
Mill Springs (Beech Grove) (What if #2 - CSA attacks first)

Battle of Williamsburg, May 5, 1862
Williamsburg (What if #1 - Faster reinforcements)
Williamsburg (What if #2 - Improved defensive line)
Williamsburg (Hancock vs Early (small scenario))
Williamsburg (Hancock vs Early (STARTER SCENARIO))
Williamsburg (Standard Scenario)
Williamsburg (Standard Scenario) (no rain)

the no rain battles, have rain in them, just don't show the effects on screen, as some didn't like it, you still suffer with the same difficulties that rains gives you mind you.

(in reply to zakblood)
Post #: 3
RE: Other than that, though... - 8/21/2017 10:52:26 AM   
Yogi the Great


Posts: 1896
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
Maps are among the best around

Realism to depict historic civil war battles is the best around for these types of games

Graphics, sounds and glitz aren't among the best around but then again the game is the most important thing

If the game series were to be developed as originally planned it would be the best one out there and some upgrade improvements would be included. Sadly the small company developers have so far been unable or unwilling to do so I'm sure in part because of other obligations and projects. If they ever do get around to another installment I will be among the first in line to purchase it.

< Message edited by Yogi the Great -- 8/21/2017 10:53:30 AM >


_____________________________

Hooked Since AH Gettysburg

(in reply to zakblood)
Post #: 4
RE: Other than that, though... - 8/21/2017 11:48:06 AM   
zakblood


Posts: 19136
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: online
i myself would like a new engine, been looking at Ultimate General Civil War, but while it offers great eye candy, good counters and a very good engine, and as i have no idea of the history part, but it seems to be alright in the historic part, the only thing that puts me off is the design, as it's a RTS, which means to me, and yes i've played it, (as my friends have it) a utter load of garbage for the older slower type of player like me, while battles are meant to be fluid and happen in real time, it's too full on and fast for my liking and as of yet i've not got used to or enjoyed a single game of the type which is RTS either, yes battles are fast and fluid, but games imo should be more relaxed and offer a slower more detailed and easier pace of events, i want to build up forces, march them to a given area and what it all unfold and got to pot at a much slower pace.

Gary Grigsby's War Between the States does a good job of displaying the right level of detail and plays well, but as you don't see and watch the battles play out, same as Civ war 2 by Ageod, i can't really get the feeling of fighting i can from Brother against Brother.

yes maps are really well done, engine is usable but imo showing it's age, same as the editor, or lack of a better one, which most of us would have hopped for, the eye candy is well for no better words, old and basic and doesn't look too good over the passages of time on a more modern pc either and looks quite block'y on high end zooms, but putting all this aside, the battles + maps + love that's gone into it, with the design and depth and layout and overall feel of playing in the right time frame and date, does make you think you are the commander in the field at the time, or does to me anyway, which makes it for me, also the best simulator of battles for time and period done to date.

all it needs imo is a new engine

and not one that can't do more than a 64x64 box either, it has to do the level of detail of the maps now or better, not smaller.

it has to support a higher level of zoom, meaning a higher level of detail on the units.

a editor which is and can be used by anyone, even a halfwit like myself.

the same amount of maps and mission, i myself careless if it's the same battles even, or different ones, but some new ones would be nice, and no i don't care which ones either, as if the same battles been done a 1000 times, i'm sure these developers could do it better, no matter which battle or map were picked

(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 5
RE: Other than that, though... - 8/21/2017 12:05:49 PM   
Yogi the Great


Posts: 1896
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
I often hear many complaints about editors on quite a few different games so I know that is important for many and I understand that.

For a player like me however it is not important. I don't want to take the time nor do I have the talent to create mods and scenarios. When I buy a game I just want to play it and have it made playable by the developer. I'm happy to update when updates are issued and I'm happy to accept and/or buy DLC's of interest. Beyond that an editor does not affect my game choice and I personally never use them even if provided with the game.


(in reply to zakblood)
Post #: 6
RE: Other than that, though... - 8/21/2017 12:20:58 PM   
zakblood


Posts: 19136
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: online
i like to use the editor, as quite often i cheat and edit a given part of something and make it easier or harder to suit me, makes the game last longer, or sometimes when board just make a mod for myself to pass the time of day, did a few for this game, but gave up in the end as i found easier editors out there which were quicker and more simple to sue and just ended up playing it how it was, stock maps and games as such.

mods can make games last longer if a good group of modders take a given game and editor to heart and make it last well past it's bed time

(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 7
RE: Other than that, though... - 6/7/2018 5:19:47 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zakblood

i myself would like a new engine, been looking at Ultimate General Civil War, but while it offers great eye candy, good counters and a very good engine, and as i have no idea of the history part, but it seems to be alright in the historic part, the only thing that puts me off is the design, as it's a RTS, which means to me, and yes i've played it, (as my friends have it) a utter load of garbage for the older slower type of player like me, while battles are meant to be fluid and happen in real time, it's too full on and fast for my liking and as of yet i've not got used to or enjoyed a single game of the type which is RTS either, yes battles are fast and fluid, but games imo should be more relaxed and offer a slower more detailed and easier pace of events, i want to build up forces, march them to a given area and what it all unfold and got to pot at a much slower pace.

Gary Grigsby's War Between the States does a good job of displaying the right level of detail and plays well, but as you don't see and watch the battles play out, same as Civ war 2 by Ageod, i can't really get the feeling of fighting i can from Brother against Brother.

yes maps are really well done, engine is usable but imo showing it's age, same as the editor, or lack of a better one, which most of us would have hopped for, the eye candy is well for no better words, old and basic and doesn't look too good over the passages of time on a more modern pc either and looks quite block'y on high end zooms, but putting all this aside, the battles + maps + love that's gone into it, with the design and depth and layout and overall feel of playing in the right time frame and date, does make you think you are the commander in the field at the time, or does to me anyway, which makes it for me, also the best simulator of battles for time and period done to date.

all it needs imo is a new engine

and not one that can't do more than a 64x64 box either, it has to do the level of detail of the maps now or better, not smaller.

it has to support a higher level of zoom, meaning a higher level of detail on the units.

a editor which is and can be used by anyone, even a halfwit like myself.

the same amount of maps and mission, i myself careless if it's the same battles even, or different ones, but some new ones would be nice, and no i don't care which ones either, as if the same battles been done a 1000 times, i'm sure these developers could do it better, no matter which battle or map were picked


Old news, I am sure, but Ultimate General Civil War is very arcadey and its historical accuracy and modelling is non-existent. It is a fun game, but if what you want is a more realistic portrayal of American Civil War combat in 'realish' time, then Scourge of War and Take Command are the best available (specifically in the real time genre).

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to zakblood)
Post #: 8
RE: Other than that, though... - 6/7/2018 5:57:34 PM   
zakblood


Posts: 19136
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: online
yes never went for it myself, played it on a friends pc, and smiled, as it's a game, not a sim, and while short term it was fun, i couldn't see me playing it long time.

and for me, i like turn based, not real time, for more pure fun, without the need to have hands and eyes like rattle snakes

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Brother against Brother: The Drawing of the Sword >> Other than that, though... Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.142