Matrix Games Forums

Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patchNew Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge Update
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!!

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/22/2004 5:10:35 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline
Anxiously awaiting even just a word on it, David! Chomping at the bit to fix bayonets!


Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 31
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/23/2004 1:48:07 AM   
DBoutwell

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/14/2004
Status: offline
I'm curious to know to what degree of completion people would hypothetically prefer before I make the mod. available.....Would you rather that I make it available with scenarios and maps included (which would take more time) or without? Would you prefer naval and fortifications in a first release, or release a primarily "infantry battle" installment (earlier), with that other stuff included later?

Including forts is going to require a lot of graphics work, as will the naval. Plus, with the naval units, I'll have to beg for someone's help with the naval unit armor, and associated pentration values for naval ordinance. The Fort/Naval "factor" might cause issues with the artillery values, which had to be bumped up to cause them to "work" more accurately with infantry targets. It's all definitely a work in progress that will surely benefit from the scrutiny of others. But with adjustments, it will only get better, just like SPWAW did.

Regards,

David Boutwell

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 32
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/23/2004 2:00:49 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline
Hmmm, good question.

ASAP!!! Lol.

Can you PM me your email address?


Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 33
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/23/2004 6:36:48 AM   
DBoutwell

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/14/2004
Status: offline
Goblin, I'll send it to you, but your best bet is to PM me because of the problem with my email that I mentoined above.


Fidel, you mentioned that "This would be cool if it works." The good news is that it does work, and it is, I would imagine, as good as an SP1 beta. The graphics are definitely better, as are the sound files. I have a hell of a good time playing it. I think you will too.

Regards,

David Boutwell

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 34
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/23/2004 4:47:38 PM   
Fidel_Helms

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 3/9/2003
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBoutwell

I'm curious to know to what degree of completion people would hypothetically prefer before I make the mod. available.....Would you rather that I make it available with scenarios and maps included (which would take more time) or without? Would you prefer naval and fortifications in a first release, or release a primarily "infantry battle" installment (earlier), with that other stuff included later?


I'd say release it without scenarios and maps; people will pick up this ball and run with it, more than likely. As for the naval, why don't you start with a couple of icons in the initial release and go from there? Most of the naval units should be riverine ironclads. Union ironclads(monitors, to be more correct) were all pretty much the same make, AFAIK. Really no need for different icons. Confederate designs were more varied, but I'd rather have a generic icon and then edit the .SHP files than have no naval component at all. Ocean going ships would really have to be represented as off-board artillery to keep their use somewhat realistic. This is probably a bigger deal for me than most because I'd like to do up some scenarios that take place in North Carolina, many of which involved a naval component.

quote:


Including forts is going to require a lot of graphics work, as will the naval. Plus, with the naval units, I'll have to beg for someone's help with the naval unit armor, and associated pentration values for naval ordinance.


Penetration values? In all seriousness, it should probably be zero across the board. Neither side had any sort of perforating shot. Sometimes the Confederates didn't even have explosive shot and had to resort to using antiquated roundshot instead! If an ironclad had gotten into a direct confrontation with, say, one of the Union steam frigates like the USS Wabash or USS Minnesota, those ships could probably have sunk or disabled it by sheer volume of fire. This never happened, of course. I've got armament for those two ships listed as follows(source: Trotter, Ironclads and Columbiads):

42 9-inch rifled guns, four 100-pounder rifles, one 11-inch rifle, and one 150-pounder rifle.

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 35
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/23/2004 5:23:55 PM   
Fidel_Helms

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 3/9/2003
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBoutwell

Fidel, the current game engine only allows for only one infantry-type icon that shows troop numbers and "step loss", etc. per icon set. If you know something that I don't and something that overturns everything everyone else has told me, please let me know!



I'm no expert, but I don't see why you couldn't put a Zouave icon, for example, in an entirely separate OOB for another nation. It's not like you'll need them all for this expansion.

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 36
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/23/2004 5:35:17 PM   
Fidel_Helms

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 3/9/2003
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
BTW, David, you talk about working on "fortifications" and those needed a lot of graphics work? What exactly are you referring to? Most of the useful battlefield fortifications were earthworks and could be represented with terrain icons. If it's the masonry coastal forts that you're referring to, all of those which were attacked were reduced to rubble pretty quickly. No need to spend a lot of time making pretty graphics which depict them in pristine condition-they didn't stay that way long! Besides, I can't think of any land assaults(as opposed to sieges) against masonry fortifications. Generally the Union plastered them with naval gunfire until the Confederates surrendered due to grossly inferior artillery and/or lack of ammunition. At the other extreme, the Confederacy held Fort Sumter for years against heavy Union bombardment, but the conditions there did not permit any kind of land assault.

(in reply to Fidel_Helms)
Post #: 37
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/23/2004 11:55:00 PM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline
Roger that David, PMed you on it.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 38
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/24/2004 2:11:54 AM   
WestKent78

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 5/29/2004
Status: offline
I'd like to have this version available sooner rather than later, even if it is just infantry combat at present.
And if you ever get round to using other nations' OOB, might I suggest including the relevant British, Canadian, French, Spanish and Mexican forces with Austrians and Belgians for the "what-if" intervention scenarios. You can see I'm planning already!
I really appreciate the work you've put in and for one am really eager to see the end product.

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 39
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/24/2004 5:48:05 AM   
bob55


Posts: 29
Joined: 8/5/2003
From: Western Washington State
Status: offline
A Civil War version? It's a dream come true!! I'm eagerly awaiting the release!

(in reply to WestKent78)
Post #: 40
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/25/2004 9:11:57 AM   
DBoutwell

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/14/2004
Status: offline
Fidel, the Virginia basically ignored the shot and shell from the Zouave, Cumberland, Congress and shore batteries at Newport News during its attack on the Minnesota and the Cumberland at Hampton Roads. The only thing that kept the Virginia from a direct confrontation with the Minnesota was the fact that the Virginia, whose draft was over ten feet, would have had to run itself aground to do so. In his book "Bloody Crucible of Courage", Brent Nosworthy uses words like "the hapless Minnesota", the "defenseless Minnesota" and "the destruction of the Minnesoata would have to wait till the morrow", which implies an unavoidable outcome not in favor of the frigate. Any knowledge that I have of this subject is secondary, but Nosworthy's description of the battle of Hampton Roads doesn't seem to jive with your statement about the ability of those frigates to consistently destroy an ironclad. On the flip side, Fort Henry's 128 pdr. Columbiad did significant damage to the Union armored gunboats Essex and Carandolet. So, whether it is the penetration capability of the shot or the sheer size of the shot that does the damage, accurately modelling the interaction between the armor of ironclads, tin-clads, cotton-clads and wooden-clad gunboats, etc., and ordinance is more complex than I have the energy to tackle. If anyone would like to undertake a project of this nature, please sign up!

You could easily place the Zouve icons in the Russian or Japanese infantry icon file. The problem is, let's say that I create a scenario, buy a few bluecoat regiments, then decide that I want to jump over and buy myself a few Zouave regiments that I have created in another oob. The icons are still going to be bluecoats. The only way that you'd be able to use the Zouave icons is buy starting off with that other nation. But, then ALL of your infantry would be Zouaves, which just wouldn't be correct, unless you just wanted to do a small scenario depicting an action of a couple Zouave regiments. But, if you are going to embark on something like that, why not have butternut uniforms for the Rebs, which would be statistically more common, or all grey early war, or green sharpshooter uniforms. I just chose to stick with the one uniform, and dream of the day when infantry uniforms could be customized the way armor icons are now. But, hey, someone else can work on the Zouave thing in the future, right?

I actually totally removed all of the other flags from the nation menu except for US and Confederate. Any choice to be made is between which side is going to be player one and player two. I wanted to build a strictly Civil War game. If someone wants to embark on creating additional oobs for "what-ifs" in the future, more power to them, but I didn't want to open up the huge can of worms of researching the armies of Europe of the 1860's. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to do a SP:Mexican War mod. Or an SP:Zulu War mod. in the future, but again, as long as you have the infantry icon uniform limitation, trying to represent fifteen nations with confederate and union icons in one mod. would look kind of lame, in my opinion.

When I was referring to "fortifications", I was referring to icons for different types of gun emplacements, equivalents to the machine gun nests and gun emplacements in SPWAW, not complete forts. I'd also like to make a few blockhouses, which commonly protected bridges/crossings, etc. The gun emplacement would be used for scenarios such as Spotsylvania, Petersburg and the like.

Regards,

David Boutwell

(in reply to bob55)
Post #: 41
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/25/2004 11:14:59 AM   
sami heimola

 

Posts: 295
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: kouvola finland
Status: offline
Nice to see that many players here are interested in D. Boutwell's project (or whatever you call it). Hopefully Mr. Heath will notice this topic and give you his "helping hand"... Btw, will Matrix publish "my" SPCW files and this at same time sometimes in future? I have wondered why releasing "my" files seem to last forever... Maybe Matrix add/fix some "new"/old stuff into it???

Could anyone from Matrix tell us what's situation right now?

Sami

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 42
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/25/2004 4:59:02 PM   
Fidel_Helms

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 3/9/2003
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBoutwell

Fidel, the Virginia basically ignored the shot and shell from the Zouave, Cumberland, Congress and shore batteries at Newport News during its attack on the Minnesota and the Cumberland at Hampton Roads.


Not sure about the shore batteries, but those ships mounted a paltry number of guns as compared to the Minnesota.

quote:


The only thing that kept the Virginia from a direct confrontation with the Minnesota was the fact that the Virginia, whose draft was over ten feet, would have had to run itself aground to do so. In his book "Bloody Crucible of Courage", Brent Nosworthy uses words like "the hapless Minnesota", the "defenseless Minnesota" and "the destruction of the Minnesoata would have to wait till the morrow", which implies an unavoidable outcome not in favor of the frigate. Any knowledge that I have of this subject is secondary, but Nosworthy's description of the battle of Hampton Roads doesn't seem to jive with your statement about the ability of those frigates to consistently destroy an ironclad.


The important detail that you're forgetting here is that the Minnesota had run aground while attempting to aid the Cumberland. THAT is why she was "defenseless".

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 43
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/26/2004 9:12:27 PM   
DBoutwell

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/14/2004
Status: offline
"The important detail that you're forgetting here is that the Minnesota had run aground while attempting to aid the Cumberland. THAT is why she was "defenseless". "

Didn't forget it. Just didn't include it, as I instead noted that the Virginia would have had to run itself aground to approach the Minnesota (on the same shoal that the Minnesota was on, that is) as the shoal that had grounded the Minnesota was shallower than the Virginia's draft.

"Mr. Lincoln's Navy", by Donald L. Caney, lists the Congress as being a frigate with 50 guns. The Minnesota had 48, as you said. The Cumberland had 24 guns. The Congress ran aground trying to escape the Virginia after the Confederate vessel had rammed and sunk the Cumberland, but AFTER Congress had engaged the Virginia. Either the captain of the Congress totally lost it, or he realized that he didn't have the upper hand after the one or two exchanges between those two ships.

I'm nowhere close to being an "expert" on this subject. I haven't studied ironclads in over a decade. But the history of this battle doesn't bear out the idea that even the big frigates were a match for ironclads like the Virginia. Heck when the French and British came out with the first "floating batteries", the world powers new the age of the wooden fighting ship was up.

Perhaps I'll have to break out my old Ironclads game by Yaquinta and game that confrontation again, and see "what if".... I played that game, and its expansion, ragged "back in the day". I even built a historical, long map of parts of the Mississippi for that game. But that has been at least 15 years ago.

But we are just debating historical details with this.... I do think that, in some way, even the armor thickness of cotton bales will have to be looked at in some way, or else you'll just have boats steaming around impervious to shot landing troops or reducing shore batteries at will. That is where all of this relates to SPCW. Its either look at it now, or deal with people who don't think the game is modelled correctly in the future. Or not inclue it this go around and look at it later.

Maybe you'd be interested in work on the naval portion of SPCW in the future??

Regards,

David Boutwell

(in reply to Fidel_Helms)
Post #: 44
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/28/2004 5:19:21 AM   
Fidel_Helms

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 3/9/2003
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBoutwell

"Mr. Lincoln's Navy", by Donald L. Caney, lists the Congress as being a frigate with 50 guns. The Minnesota had 48, as you said. The Cumberland had 24 guns. The Congress ran aground trying to escape the Virginia after the Confederate vessel had rammed and sunk the Cumberland, but AFTER Congress had engaged the Virginia. Either the captain of the Congress totally lost it, or he realized that he didn't have the upper hand after the one or two exchanges between those two ships.


This was the first real ironclad engagement of the war. The Union naval commanders did not have a good, realistic grasp of the true strengths and weaknesses of the Virginia; they had a greatly exaggerated view of them. One of the most serious problems which dogged Confederate ironclads was their mechanical unreliability. The Union fleet could have just withdrawn from Hampton Roads; the Virginia had no ability to sail out of the estuary of the James River and menace Washington or any other Northern city. That a naval battle occurred at all was due precisely to Union commanders having an unrealistic view of the Virginia’s capabilities. However, I highly doubt that they would have sacrificed the entire fleet at Hampton Roads, and once the Virginia failed to sail out into open water to attack the North(as expected), its impotence would have been obvious. Other than attacking a Northern city, the only other thing for the Virginia to possibly do would have been to interfere with the Federal operations taking place in North Carolina later in the year, assuming that they still go forward. However, I’d rate the Virginia’s ability to operate off the treacherous North Carolina coast as even more dubious than her ability to operate against a Northern city.

Anyway, this is a bit academic, as one shouldn’t really be modelling ship-to-ship engagements in SP, on the whole. I could see some ironclad/gunboat engagements on rivers(like Hoke’s attack on Plymouth,NC in 1864), but certainly not any confrontations between Confederate ships and Union ocean going vessels.

< Message edited by Fidel_Helms -- 9/27/2004 10:20:04 PM >

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 45
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/28/2004 5:46:58 AM   
DBoutwell

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/14/2004
Status: offline
"Anyway, this is a bit academic, as one shouldn’t really be modelling ship-to-ship engagements in SP, on the whole. I could see some ironclad/gunboat engagements on rivers(like Hoke’s attack on Plymouth,NC in 1864), but certainly not any confrontations between Confederate ships and Union ocean going vessels."

I agree. I was more concerned about having the ability to do in SPCW the kind of things that you might normally be able to do in SPWAW. That creates the need for a design that enables one to be able to set up scenarios where shore batteries engage naval/riverine landings (Sabine Pass, for example). Heck, I'd love to just focus on an infantry game for the immediate future, but would that leave people asking where the naval component was?

Regards,

David Boutwell

(in reply to Fidel_Helms)
Post #: 46
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/29/2004 4:04:54 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
David, good to see you keeping the momentum! Although I´m not personally much interested in the Civil war period, I think pre-releasing your mod so that the "basic" infantry vs. infantry and maybe artillery can be played, would provide you with many "beta testers" helping you to get any possible problems sorted out sooner. Also the extra feedback most likely gets you an additional motivation boost to keep working on the CW mod until it´s finished!

I also imagine that other people might be encouraged to start on other 19th century war mods, after seeing how SPCW is going!

I´ve also a WW1 mod in mind and maybe I even start on that in 2005. We´ll see.

Good luck David and keep it going!

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 47
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 9/30/2004 3:44:20 PM   
FNG


Posts: 514
Joined: 1/3/2002
From: Devizes, UK
Status: offline
David,

If you need anyone to test what you have completed thus far, I'd be more than happy to help out.

_____________________________

FNG
Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 48
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 10/1/2004 10:49:21 PM   
MJR251

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/18/2004
Status: offline
As to Sabine Pass, I live a few miles north of it and have been there fishing, crabbing, and duck hunting many times. In fact, the Texas Point NWR is where I do most of my hunting. I've been to the site of Fort Griffin, the original fort (Fort Sabine), and have seen the remains of Fort Manhassett.

http://www.wtblock.com/wtblockjr/fort1.htm

If this battle is going to be done in SP, I guess that the landing barges can be left in and given a new icon. But then again, they would need some serious load capablities, as a division's worth (if I remember right) of infantry, with artillery, horses, mules, rations, etc. were loaded onto seven transports.

I'd like to pose a question about infantry and sharpshooters taking on gunboats. Read about the Rebel cottonclads' attack on Renshaw's blockade fleet during the recapture of Galveston. The battle of Calcasieu Pass in Louisiana is a better example. Two Union gunboats sitting in the pass were attacked by Spaight's 11th Infantry Battalion, supported by four light guns of Creuzbauer's battery brought over from Fort Manhassett. The infantry attacked over an open prairie while under fire from the gunboats, but Rebel musket fire which took its toll on the gunners and crew finally persuaded the Yankee boats to surrender. How can this be replicated in SP? If nothing is changed, then I suppose that high suppression levels can duplicate it, but if code changes can be made to allow infantry to kill crew members aboard a boat, it would be pretty cool.

Well Wednesday is D-Day for me..

Matt

< Message edited by MJR251 -- 10/1/2004 8:58:39 PM >

(in reply to FNG)
Post #: 49
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 10/1/2004 11:24:44 PM   
MJR251

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/18/2004
Status: offline
David -

Here are a few icons that were done years ago for the old project. The leftmost three were done by Bob Wallace, and I believe they were, from top to bottom, a tinclad, ironclad, and cottonclad. The other two are a transport that I never finished and a mortar boat. I drew the original mortar, then copied and pasted parts from Bob's ships, and copied and pasted the mortar on top of it. If you can use these, please feel free to.

Thanks,

Matt.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by MJR251 -- 10/1/2004 9:25:49 PM >

(in reply to MJR251)
Post #: 50
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 10/2/2004 6:10:48 AM   
DBoutwell

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/14/2004
Status: offline
Thanks, Harry. Well, if you don't care for American Civil War, you could always do English, right? The infantry and artillery can already be played, though I'm sure many improvements can and will be made.

FNG.....Goblin and Bernie have been establishing a site for SPCW at the Depot from which I hope to, in time, move this project to the next level, which will doubtless involve playtesting. I've never done anything like this before, so I'll be listening for the feedback of others. I intend to start posting some rather large screenshots of some of the building files, soon.

Thanks, Matt. Actually, I found those ships last year when you and Sami made the original SPCW group's archives available to me. Hopefully, I can make good use of some of them in the future.

I'm curious to know to what degree of completion the terrain files should be before I start asking for playtest volunteers. I have most of the terz4 shp files done. That leaves the other zoom levels to do on many of them. Others have all of their zooms done, and still others are brand new, and if you loaded them onto a map at any other zoom than z4, you'd get green hexes. The playtest experience would be more enjoyable, I would think, with all of the zooms done, but I'm up for opinions.

The most recent work I've done has been on the Ter50 file, which is the city shp file. For some reason, I was notable to change the files in the original, so I replaced it with the Ter85 user file, which allows for 99 custom shp files. I'm now up to around 50 new city shp files. Some of the most recent of those are the Gettysburg rail station and Gettysburg's Lutheran Seminary (the one from which Buford observed the early stages of the July 1st battle). The "McPherson's farm" barn, as well as the Trostle farm buildings and other Gettysburg area farm houses have already been done, so a good Gettysburg map is as good as done!

Regards,

David Boutwell

(in reply to MJR251)
Post #: 51
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 10/2/2004 9:25:20 AM   
MJR251

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/18/2004
Status: offline
Hi David -

I don't remember sending them before but an extra copy can't hurt

I'm really looking forward to this project. Recently I've become very interested in the battle and the old forts at Sabine Pass. Particularly intriguing is Fort Manhassett, which still stands to this day. It is located on an old man's land between the Texas Point and Sea Rim NWRs. What's even better is that he has no cattle on that land. It is actually five redoubts, one of which was actually a redan for sharpshooters, but the rest mounted 32-pounders. The man who designed it (as well as Fort Griffin and many of the defenses of Galveston), a Swiss engineer named Julius Kellersberg, was a genius, and had an eye for a defensible spot. The idea was to have concentrated fire coming at an enemy fleet from four different locations. Manhassett was situated between the Gulf to its front, a ditch, which no longer exists, called Redfish Bayou, to its right, Knight's Lake to its rear, and hellacious marsh everywhere around it. I hunt in those marshes, and I can imagine a Yankee landing force would have a hard time hiking through it, especially as the marsh was even more infested with alligators and cottonmouths than it is today. Ironically Manhassett never saw any direct action. When the war ended, its garrison simply pushed the cannon over into the trenches, buried them, and buried their powder and cannonballs. The link I posted in my previous post tells of the rediscovery of the fort by WT Block in the '70s. You can see the outline of the redoubts to this day. If you look out there, and don't know what you're looking for, it looks only like some tall grass out in the middle of a salt marsh/prairie. But that grass grows where the parapets once stood, so you can see the outline of the redoubts pretty clearly from the air. What's amazing is that those cannon and the shells and powder, as well as the bombproofs, are still buried out there, waiting for someone to dig them up and preserve them in a museum.

All that's to say that I'm really excited about seeing this stuff in action in SPCW. I tried to make a hypo scenario in CWG2 of a two-pronged Union assault on the Pass in 1864, with one landing at Griffin and the other at Manhassett, then linking up and heading inland to capture Beaumont. But Civil War Generals really does no justice to something like this. I'm also aching to do a scenario of the odd attack of Magruder's forces in the recapture of Galveston. That battle included an amphibious assault by the 21st Texas Infantry, who waded to the end of Kuhn's Wharf, where the 42nd Massachusetts had barricaded itself. Turns out the ladders the Rebels brought to scale the wharf were too short, so they waded back to the mainland suffering heavy casualties. It also featured a ferocious artillery duel between field guns (!) of Cook's 1st Artillery (which included the Davis Guards who would later become famous for thwarting the Union invasion at Sabine Pass) and Union gunboats. Magruder even used a cannon mounted on a railroad flatcar (read:tank) though not to much effect. The Rebs were losing until some small Confederate steamboats, protected with armor of cotton bales, cruised up to some heavy Union warships, captured one (the Harriet Lane), caused the Yankees to lose their nerve, and the commander, WB Renshaw, to scuttle his own flagship, whose crew accidentally blew it up, killing Renshaw and destroying the Yankee headquarters.

Strange battle, eh?

Well, David, best of luck and best wishes to you on this, it seems so much more promising now that the community seems so interested in contributing to your project.

If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. Might have to wait a few months, however but I have about a week before I leave for basic.

Take care,

Matt.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 52
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 10/3/2004 4:12:13 AM   
DBoutwell

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/14/2004
Status: offline
Matt,

Would you believe that I actually participated in the reenactment of the battle of Galveston twice? Remember that I was born and raised in Central Texas, and started reenacting when I was in about the 7th grade, and didn't quit until the early 90's.

I remember the first Galveston reenactment I did, we camped near the naval gun emplacement that is now underneath the hotel. At the time, it was in its original condition, and we were able to walk around inside of it.

That night, as the fog and sea mist rolled in, I sat on top of that thing and listened to a bagpiper play. That was one of the coolest experiences I have ever had.

I remember the artillery pieces opening up in downtown Galveston. After the sound of the gun going off died down, you could still hear glass, which had been shattered by the concussion, hitting the ground.

Jack King, who owns, or owned, La King's Confectionary on the Strand was my reenactment unit's commander.

Best Regards,

David Boutwell

(in reply to MJR251)
Post #: 53
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 10/3/2004 7:47:00 AM   
Fidel_Helms

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 3/9/2003
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBoutwell

Heck, I'd love to just focus on an infantry game for the immediate future, but would that leave people asking where the naval component was?



I probably wouldn't care if I weren't interested in doing scenarios about the battle of Plymouth, where the CSS Albemarle engaged land targets, the Federal assaults on Fort Fisher(near Wilmington), which involved heavy naval gunfire support, and just maybe something involving the North Carolina Navy.



< Message edited by Fidel_Helms -- 10/3/2004 12:47:22 AM >

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 54
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 10/3/2004 8:11:26 AM   
MJR251

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/18/2004
Status: offline
Hi David -

That's awesome. I didn't even know they held a reenactment for that battle, as busy and grown-up as the Strand is. What unit were you reenacting? Must have been one of the 1st Texas Heavy Artillery, right?

Thanks,

Matt.

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 55
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 12/18/2004 6:00:09 AM   
bob55


Posts: 29
Joined: 8/5/2003
From: Western Washington State
Status: offline
What's the latest on this? I'm about to re-install some of TalonSoft's Battleground series I want to game the Civil War so bad!

(in reply to MJR251)
Post #: 56
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 12/20/2004 5:54:58 PM   
Danny Boy


Posts: 78
Joined: 12/15/2004
From: Dorset, England
Status: offline
Guys,

the ACW doesn't feature that highly on Brit History syllabus at school....well it didn't in the 60's & 70's but even I'm excited, am I right in thinking that this is almost ready to play?

Cheers!

_____________________________

... "'Broadsword', stop shagging around and get on with the mission!"

(in reply to bob55)
Post #: 57
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 1/15/2005 6:49:22 PM   
DBoutwell

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/14/2004
Status: offline
Gentlemen,

I am glad to see that the anticipation for this mod. is still there! I'm sorry that I haven't recently checked in. My work (I teach six classes, and a remediation study hall, of high school Earth Science to 170 9th-graders) has had me snowed under over the course of the last semester, and visiting forums is a guarentee to get me off-task for the full evening. So, I've just stayed away. I have been working on the graphic changes for the mod. as often as I can, which is not near as often as I was able to in the summer. However, I've made steady progress, and have finished all of the z4 terrain files for all of the buildings, both single and multi-hex. I have changed the winter trees to get rid of the trees with snow on them. The only time I see anything like that in Virginia is when ice coats the trees, and that's on deciduous, not evergreens. To the best of my knowledge, during the war, if the weather is so bad that you have snow sitting on top of evergreens, you are going to be hunkered down in winter barracks, not campaigning, or even fighting a battle. Making this change in mindset allowed me to change all of the winter trees to either pine or deciduous with no leaves. This looks much better when building a map for fall and early spring battles with no snow on the ground.

As far as the building changes, all of the buldings are now Civil War period architecture. Most of the graphics are modeled on pictures of actual buildings of the period. All of the industrial buildings have been modified to look like Civil War period industry. The multi-hex residneces have been changed to farmsteads, complete with barns and outbuildings (including hog pens, chicken houses corn cribs, and the like). May of the barns are modeled on barns like the McPherson and Trostle barns.

I am now ready to begin recruiting experienced graphics people to work on the other zoom levels for all of the changed ter files, as I want to finish the graphics changes before I start recruiting playtesters. At least, that is my plan, although I could be convinced to do otherwise, but not easily. I want the playtesting to be associated with the visual experience. Switching zoom levels would suck if, while you were playing, you go from a z4 Civil War house to other levels and see the train wrecks that are some of the original buildings!

Please be patient, and know that this game WILL happen. I've spent several years working many hours a week on this, and I won't stop until it is done. And when it is, although, it won't be perfect because I've gotten no help on any of the code stuff, it will be a very fun game to play. Be aware, however, that the game will initially have to be played either against yourself, hot seat or PBEM, as the ai is not set up to correctly model Civil War combat.

Best regards, and I look forward to hearing from all of you!

David Boutwell

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 58
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 1/15/2005 6:56:44 PM   
DBoutwell

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 3/14/2004
Status: offline
Danny Boy,

As soon as the other zoom levels are done, and any changes that can be made based on play testing are made, a basic version of this game should be available. But, I have no experience with the timeline of a play testing situation, especially with something like this, which is basically a new game.

I would not hold my breath until it comes out, but if you were to bet against it, you will definitely lose, guarenteed. Heck I played the game all the time this summer. But I did it knowing that it is a work in progress. Being a perfectionist, I wouldn't make it available until I knew that all of those who simply were looking for something to criticize, had less ammunition.

Regards,

David Boutwell

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 59
RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! - 1/17/2005 3:31:57 PM   
FNG


Posts: 514
Joined: 1/3/2002
From: Devizes, UK
Status: offline
Thanks for the update David. My graphical skills are unfortunately lacking, but I wish you all the best with your continued labour.

_____________________________

FNG
Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.

(in reply to DBoutwell)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> RE: Mr. Heath, where are you??!! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
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

0.129