Any Idea...........

[1NWCG]

A shortcoming of Penninsula, is not too many short or small battles per say, and the campaign is just the overall battle itself, but a plus is a HUGE map for maneuver and use.

[Ashantai]

The big map is good because it allows movement. The greatest failing of the BG games is they never gave enough width for moving around the enemy.

But the lack of short battles hurts, bad.

[oldspec4]

I actually fired up BG Antietam yesterday w/ latest patch and the 32 bit update (while waiting for the Matrix version). I haven't played game for 5-6 years but didn't have too much trouble getting back into it. Also may get Shiloh and Bull Run back on my hard drive but have seriously been considering HPS' Vicksburg. I'm always interested in a new and fresh battle area.

[Ashantai]

The most annoying thing about the HPS games is that you can't add your own maps and OOBs...which is one thing that the BG series excelled at.

[1NWCG]

Actually if you sink enough time into it, you can custom edit OOB's on certain HPS Versions and the ability to add maps is there, but it takes time and a few formats, and some useful programs.  But the OOB's are easier to do.

[Ashantai]

You mean copy and paste the contents of one file into the original? While keeping the name the same?

[Luciano B]

...news???

One of the most interesting and valuable features of the old BG games is that they are completely liable to modification (editable oob's, addition of new maps, creation of new add-on battles) ...I hope that also the new version of the games will retain that feature.

[Ashantai]

The bad thing about the BG games is that the map files were easy enough, but the BMP were not!

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

As to why HPS has the graphics they do? It's a design decision by Tiller to emphasize playability and visibility of units.

Hi Rhonda. Not at all. IIRC on Talonsoft's fall it denied John Tiller access to his Battleground graphics by way of copyright. Hence HPS's 2d graphics are subsequently far superior (larger) than the Battleground games and the 3d graphics are unfortunately totally different.

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn in November

And three months later....

I think we would like to hear what the delay has been? Cleaning them up and converting to 32 bit for a reissue shouldn't have been this big a deal. If we're going to be treated to new features or improved AI, it would be nice to hear about it.

This silence is maddening.... should I just go and reinstall all my old versions and wait till 2007 for the Matrix reissue?

Or are you negotiating with HPS to offer down loadable versions of their Civil War line instead? Recognizing the similarities between the older Talonsoft versions and the more updated HPS line? Or maybe an update of the BG series games that haven't been redone by HPS to utilize the latest code from the HPS campaign series?

I'm beginning to suspect that something is going on here other than a straight reissue of a classic series.

Well, you can put that conspiracy theory completely away Rhonda! The word on that is a big "no" [:D]

I personally think its great that like me, you've collected both series but IMO seeing that the HPS Civil War series is the only series that offers non-phased play, on-map results and the huge scenario spread, there's no reason for me to go back and re-purchase Battleground all over again. The HPS series is very alive and well beyond the Talonsoft days.

That Matrix saw an opportunity to pick up the rights to an old library is great in that it offered them a tactical approach to the ACW. But truly, one has to question who the intended market of this product will be? Let's see what Matrix has to say in its PR when released. We'd be looking for phrases such as "newly featured 2007 engine" and "new improved AI" I suppose.

Adam.

[btlgrd]

ORIGINAL: David Heath

Hi Guys

Not in danger... I am trully waiting on one person to handle some items and we be good to go. 

Then light a fire under the guy......it's been over a month!

[rhondabrwn]

I can help!

Ssscrrrratch.....

Sound of match striking....

[David Heath]

Hi Guys
 
We are not doing a lot of engine changes but improving the maps and OOB.  We are making the game play more like it should.  Once the games are out we will look at more core game changes.

[YohanTM2]

Thanks David but I sure hope the PBEM is improved as it really did not work well and that is the only way i will play it.

[Luciano B]

ORIGINAL: David Heath

Hi Guys

We are not doing a lot of engine changes but improving the maps and OOB. We are making the game play more like it should. Once the games are out we will look at more core game changes.

Thanks a lot David, great news indeed.

...can you tell us something more on what's going with the first release? ....or maybe it is something top-secret...

Thanks again for your efforts to give a new life to these wonderful games.

[1NWCG]

ORIGINAL: Yohan

Thanks David but I sure hope the PBEM is improved as it really did not work well and that is the only way i will play it.

What was the issue you had??

[1NWCG]

Thankd David!  Great News!

[berto]

David Heath said:
 

We are not doing a lot of engine changes but improving the maps and OOB.

 
That's great news.  I applied the recommended unit and terrain graphics mods to HPS Vicksburg, and they increased my enjoyment of that game immensely.  I would think that raising the graphics of the Battleground Series to the BGS Chickamauga level should be relatively quick and easy (compared to adding new features and/or fixing underlying game engine problems).

[rhondabrwn]

* BUMP *

Time for another status update?

[Ashantai]

As far as I can see, at the moment, the two big things separating the TS and HPS games is not graphics, sound or music, but the engine and the campaign.

Those two things are what makes HPS at the moment, much better. Personally, I change the HPS games to play by phase rather than turn against the PC, but that is impractical against e-mail opponents, in my view.

If Matrix brought in a single man loss scale and added a campaign section, they'd win purely on the grounds of the graphics and multimedia. That's all I can say.

If they don't, then HPS will win because it simply is more advanced.

[Rich Walker]

Many complain about how HPS locked the OOBs, etc... I submit to you that one reason BG games failed to produce more titles and upgrade the engine is because of the "valuable features" mentioned below.

HPS has continued to grow it's ACW library because it locked it OOBs and Maps. New engine upgrades are constantly being evaluated and implemented.

And several new titles are under developement.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that Matrix will be taking note of the BG experience and I for one will be surprised if the "new" releases will allow the same OOB freedom now experienced wth the old BG games.

How about it Matrix? Will the new releases allow for buyers to change key components?

Rich

ORIGINAL: Luciano B

...news???

One of the most interesting and valuable features of the old BG games is that they are completely liable to modification (editable oob's, addition of new maps, creation of new add-on battles) ...I hope that also the new version of the games will retain that feature.