The other Games :-)

[JMM]

Hello everybody...

Short questions...

You often play with Combat Mission, Breakaway Austerlitz/Waterloo, or Medieval Total War...

Could you say me their main attractions  
Do you think these games have some defaults  
What do you want to find with HW   which don't exist with these others games  

THX for your answers...
JMM

[Link]

Bonsoir JMM,

Do you think these games have some defaults  

Defaults? You do mean defects or shortcomings, right?  

Defaults means "défauts" in French I believe.  :wink:

As for your questions I'll be back as soon as I thought it thru.

P.S. I don't mean to mark your words. I'm just concerned that everyone may not understand what you mean.

/Lars L.

[JMM]

THX Lars...

Maybe the con of these games.. Is it better than default ou shortcomings? Maybe the 'bad' concept?

Sorry for my error :wink:

JMM

[Bil]

JMM,

I play Combat Mission (CM) all the time, and was involved in the development of all 3 games as a BETA tester and graphics contributer.

I think the 3D aspect of the game increases the realism quotient tremendously, not just visually, but a lot of the simulation aspects can only be done in 3D, ie. fall of shot, LOS, etc.  It was a leap ahead in wargame design IMO.

That being said I do have some issues with CM (that i would love to see implemented in your game), here are the main ones:

1.  Micro-management.  I have been fighting against this since the first release of the game... but they like having control over every single vehicle and squad on the map.  It can take a very long time to play a scenario because of this.

I would rather see this type of game have a good command and control system like Highway to the Reich (http://www.highwaytothereich.com), which does C2 very well (and yes I'm involved in the development of that game too  :wink:

2.  Turn based.  I would rather the game be real-time, or continuous time.  I think this adds to the realism and immersion.  This also adds to the time required to play out a scenario.

3.  A lot of abstraction.  Many of the features, like artillery, air support, etc. is very abstracted and not realistic in implementation.  I would rather a realistic application of as much of the period covered as possible.

4.  What you see is not what you get.  The 3D models do not block LOS to each other (you can see and shoot through destroyed tanks for example).  The 3D terrain is only a representation of the data used by the computer AI.  Often you can shoot through buildings of other obstacles that should be a hindrance to LOS and fire.  I would love to see that be tightened up, so you can peek around a building, treeline, etc. without setting yourself up.

But overall I think this series of games in particular (I can't speak for the others you mentioned) is outstanding and I have been playing the series for over 4 years now, since the first game's early BETA days.

Hope that helps.

Regards, Bil

[Link]

No problem JMM, I think they understand by now.  

I have only played Brakeaways games simply due to that fact that it's the only one of those stated above that are Napoleonic.

Here is the pros and cons:

Pros
-Easy to learn but difficult to master (Very strong AI for beginners).
-Historical accurate uniforms and OoB etc.
-Realistic combat system with morale, formations etc
-Easy to overview.
-Occupy able  houses.
-Good sound with voice commands.
-In all fun to play.

Cons
-Not all Napoleons battles just one battle per game.
-No map or OoB editor.
-No linked battles.
-Out of date graphics.
-Rather poor animations.
-Low soldier ratio (1 Soldier represents 40-50 men).
-No effects like breaking walls or ruined houses.
-No adjustable vertical camera view.
-No adjustable tactical doctrines.  
-The different AI levels are more like a handicap system rather than different intelligent levels.
 
If Histwar can eliminate all those cons and keep the pros stated above then we have the ultimate Napoleonic game on a tactical level.  

As for the strategic level I would like options to keep it simple or have the details automatic.

/Lars L.

[ivanmoe]

This is kinda scary, but I agree with virtually all the points made by Link and Bil about the games in question.  8O

I'd like to add an observation about their current state, though. Both are, IMO, pretty much at the end of their tether from a technological standpoint. Which is to say, that there's not a heck a lot more that can be done with those engines.

I look forward to games like yours, JMM, and Madminutegames title, "Take Command 1861." Wargaming/Simulations need a shot in the arm, and these two could well do the trick.

Ivanmoe

[Le Tondu]

I owned Breakaway's Waterloo and I ended up throwing it away.  You had to be everywhere and unhistorical things always happened because you couldn't see them happening at the other end of the battlefield.  I also threw it away because of things like entire battalions of Prussian Landwher having the ability to into skirmish order.  It was just a click-fest for sure.  Things happened too fast.

I had the original Total War (Warlord Edition) and it too seemed like a click-fest.  I no longer have it as well.

I play COMBAT MISSION all of the time too and CM's  we-go style of play is the BEST part of it that I like.  The scenario and Quick Battle generators are like manna from heaven.  It is cool to purchase units for a Quick Battle.

Traditional turn-base and "real-time"  styles are just two extremes.  Something like we-go or symultaneous movement is a terrific compromise.

By the way, I would prefer turn-based if I had to choose from just the two.  I believe that we are intelligent enough to know that there is more than just those two choices.

In my opinion, the best way to do things is to allow "real-time" (an oxymoron)   with the ability to set turns if the player wants it to be that way.  Straight "real-time" for those that want it AND a choice to set variable turns for those that like that.  An example would be the choice to have the turns set at every 15, 30, 45, or 60 minutes of gameplay.  Naturally, both players would have to agree on turns or not before they start.

JMM, I am thinking of you and how much work you might have to do.  I believe that having a choice shouldn't be too much work and it would make both camps happy at the same time.

[ivanmoe]

Le Tondu's comments about the difficulty managing battles in "Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle" are well taken. Players, such as myself, who are fans of Waterloo & Austerlitz get overwhelmed as well, no matter how accomplished we become at handling the interface.

The closest we've come to overcoming this problem is by going multiplayer, with two to six players. This really wasn't possible with Waterloo,before, but works quite well with the newer game, playing either with two teams, or with EVERYONE against the AI as a team.

We have a lot of fun with the game, and IMHO, they're easily the best COMPUTER games in existance for folks interested in Napoleonic warfare.

As to turns...

I can't set down in front of a turn-based, computer wargame and think to myself anything other than "what a waste." We have this marvelous contraption that offers us all the stuff that we longed for in boardgames, stuff like fog-of-war, an omniscient game-master, and THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, freedom from hexes and turns!

If I'm not mistaken, JMM's concept doesn't really call for micro-management of units in its real-time environment, but, rather, for careful planning and macro-decision making during the actual fracus, and for that I'm elated.

Ivanmoe

[JMM]

If I'm not mistaken, JMM's concept doesn't really call for micro-management of units in its real-time environment, but, rather, for careful planning and macro-decision making during the actual fracus  

Right..
Five tactical orders:
* deployment, diversion, defense, march and link to another corps..
Onky Three regimental orders:
*move, assault against an unit, or link (support) to another unit...

I don't believe a gamer can manage a lot of units in Real Time.. and it's the mean concept of this game : many AI levels to help the user.. (and I hope this task works fine

Hovewer, the gamer can manage the unit organization  (line, column (division or peleton), square or column of march) but AI does that too..

In the new engine, you can create your doctrine to define the behaviour of each kind of regiment.. and to choose the main target of the artllery unit (infantry or cavalry or cannon (THX to Link, because I haven't do the difference between Cav and Inf)) So, the colonel looks at his doctrine and uses your 'a priori' order... :wink:

For example ->

For a Light Infantry : Use the Column and Halt if the opponent is stronger than your unit, and if his organization is the Column...
For a Heavy Cavalry.. Use the Line and Charge! if....

JMM

PS : the new engine works either 6 or 9 compagnies...(to follow the historical doctrines..)

[Link]

Le Tondu's comments about the difficulty managing battles in "Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle" are well taken. Players, such as myself, who are fans of Waterloo & Austerlitz get overwhelmed as well, no matter how accomplished we become at handling the interface.

The closest we've come to overcoming this problem is by going multiplayer, with two to six players. This really wasn't possible with Waterloo,before, but works quite well with the newer game, playing either with two teams, or with EVERYONE against the AI as a team.

Don't forget the "friendly AI in Austerlitz that soon will find it's way into Waterloo. This "friendly" AI is a great help for the gamer regarding this micro management issue. It's not perfect though. You still have to micro manage things.

We have a lot of fun with the game, and IMHO, they're easily the best COMPUTER games in existance for folks interested in Napoleonic warfare..

I agree. And it's better than LGAA but I have high hopes and believes that "Les Grognards" will take the place on the top when it's released.    

I also agree with Ivanmoe regarding the turns...

For the tactical level I prefer real-time 'coz it's more realistic and gives you the feeling of the heat of battle. Plus turn-based games on this level takes forever to play.

I remember Talonsofts Battlground series. They was the best Napoleonic games at that time and I enjoyed them very much but one full battle could take weeks to play. Now I can't go back to that type of game anymore.

For strategic level I would prefer a turn-based system though.

/Lars L.

[james l henry]

I play the BAG games mainly against the AI

Pros

Fun and absorbing
Real time
good multiplayer opportunities
can manually move and target artillery

Cons

AI behaves in non Napoleonic way (eg swarms all over the battlefield)
Orders are instantaneous - which makes it seems that the CiC has radio contact with all his subordinates
and following from this you do not need to formulate a grand plan for the battle
full batallions can deploy into skirmish formation rather than just the approriate company
also cavalry cannot pursue and destroy routed units
nor deploy into skirmish formation
nor do carbiniers have sidearmas to fire atinfantry in square
also cavalry cannot break down into squadrons for independent action
units rout too readily
infantry never runs out of ammo
enemy units rally behind your lines or near victory point locations

the time delay for orders built into JMMs system is preferable

I dont mean this to be negative to BAG - I still play these games with pleasure

[Le Tondu]

Napoleonic battles weren't as fast acting as Breakaway's Waterloo, etc...  

I guess that a "real-time" game that has something like real time  in it would be fine.  I'm talking about a game where one minute of every day time equalled one minute of game time (or something close to it.)

[Cuirassier]

Dear JMM,

I have been a lurker in your forums for quite a while. I have played the Talonsoft series of the Napoleonic wargames, BreakAway’s  Waterloo and the Total War series of games. I was one of the modders for the Napoleonic Total War (based on the Medieval Total War game.)

Napoleonic Wargaming is my hobby and passion. So it is with great interest that I follow any and all of the Napoleonic games that are coming out.

My takes on the Napoleonic games that I have played so far:

*Talonsoft’s hex based anachronisms: I don’t even want to talk about this. This is the 21st century and we don’t have to stick to those cruel hexes.

*BreakAway’s Waterloo and Austerlitz:

PROS

*Simulates the chain of command on a Napoleonic battlefield nicely. You can attach and detach battalions to/from a brigade, order a divisional commander to rally routed troops, order a corps commander to collect the corps reserve artillery at a given location etc.
* All of the Napoleonic tactical formations could be used (line, column, skirmish, square, mixed order etc)
*Very detailed OOB. Many battles with amazingly accurate OOBs could be created that lends nicely to the game flavour.


CONS

*2D battlefield. Takes away the realism.
*Downright unpleasant sprite graphics and animation. To be fair to Breakaway, perhaps they were labouring under the restrictions of the dated Sid Meier’s engine.
*Melee combats were resolved instantaneously. A regiment of cavalry charging another would either repulse the adversary instantly or would self be repulsed immediately. No animations for the “hack and thrust” of the edged weapon combat. This is a big no-no for me.
*Rallying algorithms for routed units are a scandal in Waterloo. Routed units would rally right under your nose with a “legendary” leader close by who would be helping the process.
*Cavalry combat was not satisfactorily modelled. There was no option to combine regiments into brigades and brigades into divisions and divisions into corps during a cavalry charge. It was not at all unusual for the French to fling forth corps size cavalry charges. As we all know eight regiments charging under 8 separate colonels is not the same as 2 divisions charging under a Murat or Kellerman!

*Napoleonic Total War mod for the Medieval Total War:

PROS

*3D battlefield. Does wonders for realism.
*Excellent sprite graphics and animation. Good 3D terrain.
*Melee combats were a delight to watch. Each individual trooper could be seen fighting with an adversary from the opposing regiment. Animations for the “hack and thrust” of the edged weapon combat was pretty good.
*Rallying algorithms for routed units are eminently believable. Routed units would run away, normally behind your own lines, at a great distance from the line of battle.

CONS

*Very difficult to simulate the chain of command on a Napoleonic battlefield. It was basically a battalion vs battalion (for infantry) or a regiment vs regiment (for cavalry) combat. The concept of higher command structures like brigades, divisions and corps does not exist.
* We tried like hell to get the square formation for the infantry but could not succeed. This was one of the reasons why I left the mod. Other Napoleonic tactical formations could be used (line, column and skirmish)
*Can not assign names to individual regiments. Takes away the historical flavour of the game.


Will post more!

Best Regards,
Cuirassier

[JMM]

Dear all...

A lot of very deep comments... Thank!
I believe Les Grognards offers many features you wish.

Hovewer, I am no sure all will be in this game!
(just an example: it's not possible to choose the compagnies to deploy into skirmish formation... the colonel only  deploies two coys per regiment)... but in your doctrine, you can define the distance for fighting... (and it's possible to change it in the game)

Hovewer, in this Wargame, you are the Commander in Chief, (or sometimes a Marshall).. so you have to manage the army.. not the regiments.

I think it's difficult to compare this game with other ones... it's different... and I hope the concepts are right.

Moral, rout and rally are the most important things of the Napoleonic battles.. I spent a lot of time about these topics. I believe behaviours of units are fine..

ASAP, I'll sum up your great posts... and I'll talk about the difference between your 'Pros-List' and the features of Les Grognards.

Again THX... nice work! I like your remarks.
JMM

[conscript]

What is all this nonsense with 3D graphics and nice images? The more important thing is a real system that plays properly. Make sure the units do what we told them to do, and go where we told them to go, take cover if we told them so, and don't run into silly situations. - allowing for all the order delays and chaos of the battlefield.
I like the WEGO system of turns, but I'm ready to try real time as long as it doesn't degenerate into a competition of who click faster.
JMM I think your game has great potential, just keep it real, and keep it simple.
Best regards