HPS and Matrix differences question

[leftydad]

What is the difference between the Civil War Matrix/Talonsoft games and the Civil War HPS games. For example, how do the Gettysburg games differ, or are they the same?

[mllange]

I have the same question. For example, if I purchase the HPS Gettysburg title, is it the same game that comes in the Matrix bundle?

[rhondabrwn]

While the Matrix and HPS Civil War games are fairly similar in appearance, the HPS Campaign series represents a continued development of the game engine. They are definitely NOT the same game.

Appearance: The Talonsoft/Matrix version has superior graphics. The games have very well done handpainted maps and the 3D units are more in scale with the terrain (though harder to see). HPS gets lots of criticism about it's graphics. It is a mystery why they don't improve things. There are mods out there for the HPS games though that improve things considerably. I got used to it and don't mind it actually as the game play on the HPS games makes up for the units being out of scale. Like I said, some people scream bloody murder over the graphics. BTW... screen shots on the HPS site really do not do justice to the games.

Rules / game engine: HPS continues to add optional rules and improvements to the game engine. These have been incremental rather than revolutionary changes, but over time have added a lot to the games. Latest improvements include artillery capture and spiking, cavalry skirmisher option, artillery ammunition by cannon rather than a centralized supply pool, points for leader casualties, flanking fire effects, unit density modifiers... and a lot more. The latest revisions to Gettysburg and Chicamauga eliminated the CD check when running the game (a very welcome change that will probably be entended to the entire line as more patches come out. Patches are available for download from the HPS website and ALL new features and improvements are carried over to the entire series (no orphan games).

HPS Maps / Scenarios / Campaign Games: The "Campaign" series includes (naturally) a campaign game that allows you to fight multiple battles in a non-linear campaign in which the results of each battle determine the next battle scenario (losses to units are carried forward to the next game with a 10% reinforcement). The maps are HUGE and the operational/tactical options limitless. The regular game includes a very large selection of scenarios which includes variable setups and "what if" options. More scenarios can be downloaded but I can't imagine anyone exploring all of the options included in the game. In Gettysburg Campaign mode you can fight from the Chancellorsville area all the way up to Harrisburg, PA. Most of the battles I've fought in a full cmapaign haven't been anywhere near Gettysburg as there are so many options. If you want to fight at Gettysburg you can choose a campaign that is focused on Gettysburg or can just play a scenario. Even the scenarios have a map that extends well beyond the traditional Gettysburg area that allows much more discretion over how you bring your units onto the field. Units actually start at Taneytown, for example, instead of just popping onto the field near the Round Tops. I'm playing a scenario right now that postulates the entire Confederate army entrenched on Seminary Ridge and waiting for the Union army to arrive and assault. The scenario further stipulates that due to a confusion of orders most of the Union Corps are approaching on a single road with only a Cavalry Division, I Corps, Provost Guard, and Artillery Reserve coming on via Baltimore Pike. Quite a different situation... I am coping with the massive traffic jams and trying to get my Union corps sorted out and moved onto alternative roads to get into some kind of line of battle.

I'm an enthusiastic backer of the HPS Campaign Series. I still like the Matrix version for offering great value and superior appearance, but I usually play my HPS Campaign games pretty exclusively.

Hope this helps sort things out.

[berto]

Good summary, Rhonda.

Off the top of my head, I would also add:

• In BGS, losses are in units of 25, while in HPS losses are by individual men (e.g., 25 men killed vs. 7 men killed).
• In BGS, losses are reported in a dialog box that you have to click to close. In HPS, losses are reported as floater on-screen text that vanishes after a couple of seconds. In general, the HPS games flow faster and more nicely.
• My guess is that in HPS, being second generation, the maps and OOBs are more accurate.

Graphics are a matter of taste, definitely. I never liked the "hand-painted" 3D look. In BGS, the 3D units are better (because more to scale). In HPS, the 3D terrain is better (especially if you use some of the alternate, modded graphics sets available on the Web). Overall, among all the games, I like the look of BGS Chickamauga's 3D the best. (BGS Chickamauga 3D graphics are not "hand-painted", rather use a graphics tile set.) I prefer HPS' 2D graphics, but both are gorgeous. (I mostly play 2D.) My opinion.

The BGS games are much better value (more gaming for your money).

Finally, the HPS games are a living, well-supported gaming platform with a real future. The BGS games are near legacy and, with the exception of the very occasional mod, basically on life support.

Both BGS and HPS are worthwhile, but I much prefer the latter.

[mllange]

Thank-you both. I also received similar information in a post I made at another board:

All in all, very helpful, thanks again!