Suggestions pour Histwar 2/ Suggestions for Histwar 2

[von_Clausewitz]

SOW is exactly like histwar in concept.
In SOW you command a whole army like histwar. You can give orders to corps/division/ brigade and regimental levels.
Without taking manual control orders only get executed when the messenger travels the distance from the army commander to said corps with messengers going from the corps commander to division commanders and down the chaine of command. You can allow the AI to manage all units like in histwar.
The games are very similar, histwar is better in my opinion, has more potential.
Just because we ask for some changes does not mean we want to dumb it down.
I agree that we all want to promote the game and make it worthwhile for JMM to  keep improving it.
If game sales do not pick up JMM might decide that is not worth him spending all his free time on it. I understand that. I want sales to pick up and thay is what I believe the thing needed to do that.

VC

[Darsh]

J'ai mis-à-jour mon premier post avec la synthèse des suggestion sur Histwar 2

I have update my first post with the summary of suggestions for Histwar 2

[[NBC]Friant]

From another post:

Would it be possible to make locations on the maps that when captured could have a watered down morale effect of losing lops?
These could become strategic objectives?

[Darsh]

Je voudrais préciser cet ajout de suggestion que j'ai fait dans ma synthèse:

-   Dans ce rapport on devrait aussi pouvoir accès à des options de « management » sous la forme de barre paramétrable qui correspondent  à des ordres du général sur la gestion des corps/divisions/brigades comme définir le niveau d’initiative (agressif/neutre/passif), les renforts qu’il peut demander (aucun/faible/moyen/important), la retraite ( 0%, 10% , 20%, 30% etc.  de perte),  la formation de ses unités (ordre profond/choix de l’IA/ligne mince) etc. Ces ordres sont transmis en cliquant sur une icône représentant un courrier avec une petite flèche et suivent le cheminement normal de transmission.

Je pense que Histwar 2 devrait renchérir la panoplie d'ordre et de différencier les ordres "tactiques" des ordres de "management"

- Les ordres tactiques sont les ordres actuels de déplacement sur le champs de bataille à l'aide de flèche 
-Les ordres de management, embryonnaire dans Hw1, sont à développer. 

L'idée est qu'on enrichit le temps de jeu en permettant aux joueurs d'affiner le comportement de ses unités et de pouvoir prendre la main sur l'IA. Le joueur prendra presque autant de temps à déplacer ses corps/divisions/brigades qu'a lire les rapports de ses corps/divisions/brigades pour avoir une meilleur connaissance de la situation et à affiner le comportement de ses hommes.
L'ajout des autres indicateurs visuel (moral, munition) permettront d'établir une hiérarchie des priorités. Ainsi un corps disposant d'une supériorité numérique engagé avec un fort moral aura besoin de moins de management, qu'un corps affaibli avec un moral en berne. Ainsi on va pouvoir se focaliser sur la lecture de rapport et le management des corps/divisions/brigades les plus en difficultés.
Les rapports doivent être à la fois très détaillés sur la situation du corps/division/brigades (moral, munitions, pertes etc.), sur ses alliés et ses ennemis proches et même temps très clairs et synthétiques pour que la lecture d'un rapport de doit pas dépasser 10/20 secondes afin qu'on puisse réagir ou non rapidement par l'envoi d'un ordre de management.
L'affichage d'un rapport devrait apparaître dans une petite fenêtre dans un style de courrier au milieu de l'écran quand on clique sur l'icône rapport d'un corps/division/brigade dans notre barre des tâches.
Les ordres de management vont s'afficher sur une autre page en cliquant sur une icône en forme de bicorne par exemple en bas à droite de ce  rapport.

[mitra]

I know the game you are talking of, again it is not good making comparisons, SOW is real time/individual order/strategy game.
Histwar is a Napoleon Tactical/strategic/corps based/authentic battle building game/offering the tools to anyone who wants to build any battle of the Napoleonic era (greatly overlooked in my view). You can play as Nap himself, delivering your orders via messenger etc, etc... This game is not about controlling individual units, the ai is supposed to do that acting on your Doctrine.
I cannot see how you can incorporate any of what happens with SOW into this, the whole game revolves around the cohesion of the corps, once you disable the ai for a single unit it can and sometimes does affect the whole balance of what the ai is trying to do with the corps.

Friant I disagree, like told by Clausewitz SOW is not like you described all the points you described as assets of HW are present in SOW; it is similar to HW but with more importance to 3d view respect the 2d and permit to play as a member the full chain of command from brigade to army commander. In my opinion HW must detach himself more from the 2d map and gives more prominence to 3d view and the graphics improvements foreseen will help (also a binocular effect for the commander with the view blocked on him will help greatly). Also delete the shadows of units not seen directly from the 3d map will be necessary, they create only confusion about what you see really, leaving the shadows only in the 2d view.
 Will be necessary not permit anymore the immediate orders to regiments which reduce the importance of corps orders (and of course implement as foreseen the division\brigade orders).

In multi a true corps commander role must be implemented: (I speak in case of maximum realism) 1 player must command only 1 corps and must have the FOW of his personage (this will mean also raise the max number of players in multi), the CIC must have the FOW of CIC like in single, the others corps if not taken by human must remains to AI like in single. The order delay for corps commander must be that of CC not that of CIC like now.

[gazfun]

I agree mitra, that to have 4 players per side for every battle where the true FOG of war applies for each level, but there also has to be the players there as well.
With a large battles this can take a little longer time to play as the speed may have to be reduced a little, so everyone can keep up.  I have played with other software  for years in the past where people are keen to have fun playing in a multi battle, but there definatley has to be a game server available to attract the people, wherever everyone can congregate in one lobby room.  This bring people together, where everyone knows they can get a game, when they get sick of playing solo, this has kept players internationally for years, and with the dedication that JMM puts into making the game right, it will certainly go a lot further than other producers who have limited the patches to just 2 or 3.

Although playing solo has a certain appeal, against the AI, and there are a lot of people who are afraid to commit, time or cannot always be availbale when the battle resumes. and that will go for for any game no matter how good it is.

Player commitment can be a problem, but there are ways to sort out the men from the boys, so to speak   

[[NBC]Friant]

If game sales do not pick up JMM might decide that is not worth him spending all his free time on it. I understand that. I want sales to pick up and thay is what I believe the thing needed to do that.

Well I think for JMM this is a labour of love, if it was JUST about sales histwar may have disappeared long ago?
To a certain degree yes, you can compare histwar with SOW, but my view of what histwar is trying to achieve is that you are the CiC, individual orders should be kept to an absolute minimum, you give the orders to the corps and the AI carries them out according to your Doctrine, the regimental AI will adopt the necessary formation depending on the situation it is in, so the need for individual orders should be limited. The game is trying to introduce some comparisons to what the real life generals faced, the corp was introduced by the French to be a small all arms army that could attack/defend itself accordingly.

Mitra/Gazfun, we have got several people to buy this game and one of their main complaints was that there was not enough to do, so four players per side with ONE corp each would not be a good way to attract people to the game (imo).
The biggest pool of players we had in our GaW5 campaign was 6, and i will agree it made for an interesting battle, we were all on vc and orders were given using the F9 orders tab. There are 3 of us who play regular at the moment and is always a 2v1 set up, again we are all in vc and orders are given to each other via the F9 tab.

As for having a meeting place for people to get/arrange games, what is wrong with the HWML concept?

The biggest problem will trying to please all of the people all of the time, although this can be dealt with by have the option to play the game as you wish.

Once a few more screenshots and short videos of Histwar 2 start to hit the forums, this is what will sell the game, and if the graphics are as good as some of the screens that are already on view, then i think we will be too busy watching the grandeur to give in depth individual orders.
Anyway i await with great anticipation for more developments in histwar 2, don't forget there are still some updates for histwar 1 to come!

[mitra]

I agree mitra, that to have 4 players per side for every battle where the true FOG of war applies for each level, but there also has to be the players there as well.
With a large battles this can take a little longer time to play as the speed may have to be reduced a little, so everyone can keep up.  I have played with other software  for years in the past where people are keen to have fun playing in a multi battle, but there definatley has to be a game server available to attract the people, wherever everyone can congregate in one lobby room.  This bring people together, where everyone knows they can get a game, when they get sick of playing solo, this has kept players internationally for years, and with the dedication that JMM puts into making the game right, it will certainly go a lot further than other producers who have limited the patches to just 2 or 3.

Although playing solo has a certain appeal, against the AI, and there are a lot of people who are afraid to commit, time or cannot always be availbale when the battle resumes. and that will go for for any game no matter how good it is.

Player commitment can be a problem, but there are ways to sort out the men from the boys, so to speak

Wargames will never attract mass of peoples it is a fact, a dedicated server will be only a additional expenses for JMM but at the end we will have only a little number of people anyway; it is not the server it is the game which make the difference, and wargames have not appeal for the bigger part of people. NTW has little in common with a true napo battle but it is a mass consume game and attracts mass people which has little interest in a true napo battle and wants film effects.

[[NBC]Friant]

Spot on Mitra, I will do all I can to promote this game in the Napoleonic communities. Hence my battle reports in our Campaign etc, etc.
I think we have something amazing to look forward to, I think how this game sells will depend on the graphics, and then hopefully people will see what this masterpiece has to offer in terms of game play, this game has a lot more to offer than just looks! 

[Gunner24]

Will be necessary not permit anymore the immediate orders to regiments which reduce the importance of corps orders (and of course implement as foreseen the division\brigade orders).

Some people want MORE of this, not less, but I'd prefer HW to disable individual orders completely.  But then we have the problem of scouting and garrisons ???????,,,,how do we do that with no individual orders allowed ?.

In multi a true corps commander role must be implemented: (I speak in case of maximum realism) 1 player must command only 1 corps and must have the FOW of his personage (this will mean also raise the max number of players in multi), the CIC must have the FOW of CIC like in single, the others corps if not taken by human must remains to AI like in single. The order delay for corps commander must be that of CC not that of CIC like now.

I don't think could work.  There are not enough people interested in MP and I don't want to play a MP game with most of my army under AI control - it will be too much like a solo game.

HW is a good solo game, and a good MP game, no need to make them the same, they should be different.

[[NBC]Friant]

Some people want MORE of this, not less, but I'd prefer HW to disable individual orders completely.  But then we have the problem of scouting and garrisons ???????,,,,how do we do that with no individual orders allowed ?.

An individual order limit, not a rule but something that could be hard coded?
A choice 5,10,15 individual orders allowed, a ticked option in options menu?
This would give you enough flexibility to do what you want and still keep the cohesion of the corps for the AI to control, as it should be.

Anything happening with the capturing of lops, ie, no capturing of lops with a single unit?

[mitra]

Individual orders to regiments\brigades\division can be permitted, what I meant was that these orders must be subjected to same delay of corps orders.

Graphics are good at first impact but anyway the comparison will be done always with NTW. People will try the demo before purchase Histwar because it is not low price, because of course before pay they want know. And what they will see, is a gameplay system which is not the classical click and go but a more complex system. I lost many months trying to make adv for Real Warfare 2 NC on TW center and other sites and this is a game more similar to TW that HW, only a little more complex respect TW standard, the results have been:

1 - TWC moderator almost ban me because I'm displaying the "enemy"
2 -  People told the graphics is not the same of TW level (you can see my videos of game for see the graphic of game)
3 -  People told is too difficult
4 - People told the that AI must not take decisions or react
5 - People want lobbies always full at every hours otherwise they leave the multi immediatly.
6 -  People wants strategic campaign (RWNC has one but is different in style)

Never , never, never enter in the same field of TW or be presented as a TW alternative.

[mitra]

For make my point read this: http://gwu.academia.edu/MarkMullen/Papers/1047340/Realism_vs._Reelism_The_Scourging_of_Total_War ; it speak of SOW but the same concepts was valid also for HW

[Théodoricus]

HW is a good solo game, and a good MP game, no need to make them the same, they should be different.

I agree with this.
MP players and solo players don't have always the same demands on how to play HistWar.

Theo

[Théodoricus]

HistWar-2 et Editeur d'OdBs / HistWar-2 and OoBs Editor

Je continue sur l'évolution d'HistWar-2 mais pour l'Editeur d'OdBs.

1 - Serait-il possible que, dans les champs de Nom d'Unité, Division, Brigade et Commandant, on puisse positionner le curseur pour effectuer les modifications ou les corrections, sans avoir souvent à tout effacer et tout retaper ?
2 - Serait-il également possible de pouvoir utiliser dans ces champs certains caractères comme le tréma, le point ou l'accent circonflexe ?
3 - Serait-il possible de fixer le nombre de bataillons ou d'escadrons à 1, et le nombre d'unités qu'on veut ?
4 – Si vous en avez le temps, pourriez-vous ajouter certaines unités manquantes ?
J'ai constaté par exemple qu'en 1812, il manque le régiment Joseph Napoléon ou le 2e Rgt de Hussards prussiens (Grande Armée).

Peut-être que JMM avait déjà noté les deux premiers points que j'avais demandés dans un ancien fil de discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still on the evolution of HistWar-2 but for OoBs Editor.

1 - Could it be possible that, in the fields of the Unit, Division, Brigade and Commander Name, we can move the cursor to make changes or corrections without often  having to delete and retype everything?
2 - Could it be also possible to use in these fields some characters like the diaeresis, the point or the circumflex?
3 - Could it be possible to set the number of battalions or squadrons to only 1, and the number of units we want?
4 - If you have time, could you add some missing units?
I found for example in 1812, it lacks the Joseph Napoleon Regiment or 2nd Rgt Prussian Hussars (Grande Armée).

Maybe JMM had already noted the first two items that I requested in an old thread.

Théo