Plans for the Horse and Musket Series

[lancerunolfsson]

I passed on War Machine because I just did not get that it was a major improvement on the original H&M (+ the neon palete used for the teraine realy blew, way hard). I bought Prussias Glory mostly because at least it looked better from a graphics standpoint after Magnus changed the color palete from the one used in war machine. I might buy Warriors of Russia because at least there will be three diferent armies. But I am not getting from what is being said that any of these upcomming releases are going to be big improvements game wise. The big need all the way from old horse and musket has been for the AI to do somthing close to rational handeling of its units. The only way this has been adressed is by making the armies start closer in all the scenarios so that the AI has less time to mess things up for itself (assuming that was a concious decision.) Any way I'll look forward to WOR. But I'm not seeing any pressing reason to buy the re-releases. Any way thanks for continuing to work on the series but I think you would be better off just going with a new engine if that is what it is going to take to get the AI to work. Otherwise it seems sort of like you're treading water!! Is it realy worth all the work to make "improvements" that are so incremental that most players are not even going to notice them?
BTW if you don't do anything else add a button to turn off the freaking animations, the way the flags whip back and forth so darn fast nearly gives me a seizure.

[anvl]

Dit,, sheesh,, but you are just repeating what Lance and i are talking of,, the inability of the AI to be able to form line and maneuver troops,, and the human player to form columns and move them without their stoping\coming apart (group move) at the first obstical,, contour line, or another unit,, and as well,, with the editor,,and Magnus graphics,, you can create any Swedish game you chose,, lol, another good addition to the new release...

that is the only real problem with the original release of this series...

anvil

[DeadInThrench]

lance....

I had suggested that... the Russian battles game... be expanded to include 'everything else' in the European battles other than what was included in PWM, PG and a British battles game (which deserves it's own game). In other words, the battles with the Swedes but also the WAS battles between the Austrians and Saxons, Bavarians and French. Looking at this last one more closely..... seems like these armies spent most of their time marching back and forth and so... should also include the WAS Italian campaigns between the French, Austrians, Spaniards, Sardinians, etc. With this would have the armies from like 9 or 10 countries and IMO that would be a selling point.

But.... this was ANOTHER idea of mine that they were not interested in <g>.

Seems like their business strategy as to what games are released and the subject for each, is very open ended. This might work... at least to an extent... if the games at least played out better. IMO don't need a new engine just need a new or vastly improved AI engine... and so far it looks like they do not have the resource to get at something like this any time soon. The thing is... unless they do this... and the games play out much better as games... they will not appeal to the mainstream players who have at least some interest in this era, and will only be selling them to grognards who want the new army artwork.

As far as the pallette used in PWM.... I hated the pallette used with HnM... but there was an original pallete that could be used as well as a user developed pallette (which is the one I use) but, I found the PWM pallette to be quite fine so... maybe just a matter of taste here and thus... the one thing they could do... is offer multiple pallettes with each player using the one they prefer.

DiT

[DeadInThrench]

anvl.... sheesh... I cannot very well repeat what Lance was saying being that my post went in before his and.... I was really talking about the AI facing the units so they were wide open to flank attacks while you... and not denying your concerns... were talking more about deploying and group move.

The idea of that post of mine was..... hopefully the 71-4 number would get the point across on how bad the AI really is.

I get the impression that an attempt was made to upgrade the AI from what was included in HnM but.... with all the work that was necessary for the new interface, only got so far and then... time was up and they had to release. Really surprised that this got by the playtesters and... looking at the playtesting credits for PWM.... GUESS WHO is listed as a playtester!

So.... this whole thing.... is YOUR fault <g>.

DiT

P.S. Please don't get bent out of shape on this... just 'bustin em' on ya <g>.

[Sumter]

I have been following the discussion with interest and have a couple of questions.&nbsp; Will the enhanced terrain include more varied fortification possibilities?&nbsp; Will it include more national armies.&nbsp; I have created decent U.S. forces (blue faced buff, blue faced white), George Washington's Virginia Regiment (blue faced red), and British (Red faced buff, red faced white, and red faced yellow) by modding the Bavarian regiments.&nbsp; (Why do these modifications create files so much larger than the original?)&nbsp; Yet, I would suggest that the editor represents the game's PG's greatest virtue and remain convinced of its utility for doing battles from almost any period between 1640 and 1850 with some modifications -- particularly in the armies offered.
&nbsp;
I will almost certainly purchase the new version of PG to gain the enhancements in the editor&nbsp;-- if they are sufficient to warrant the purchase.&nbsp; Future purchases of games in the series are unlikely unless they are compatible with the new PG that you plan to release and contain really significant improvements.
&nbsp;
Thanks,
Sumter

[anvl]

Dit..

"So.... this whole thing.... is YOUR fault <g>."

Lol,, no problem,, there were three beta testers,, and it may very well have been me that brought up that we needed what we called "group move" for the human player,,and for the AI to be able to form and maneuver lines.. Alas we spent three months trying to get this to work,,than ran out of time...

however i believe this is the key problem,,and what you are speaking of will be addressed if this is made to work. If this is fixed,, then possibly forces can start farther apart,,maneuver into position,,etc,,

As we worked on this,, you could see the AI become "more intelligent".. but then,, get bogged down in what you call "dithering",, and alas,, Go Dumb on movement....

this dithering is in fact the AI attempting to form lines. It cannot do this,, and just continues to try,, then loses focus on any sort of tactical response to whatever we do,, especially with these units...

So thats why my posts on this... It appears that the first release will in fact have pretty minor improvements,, They just want to get it out,,and test the waters for sales.. so that means most likely not many changes in game play..

I can see the advantages to this, so I hope that instead of all these very cool changes we all have posted,, they will fix,,or make a major attempt at fixing this one and truly only real problem with the release.

I feel if this is done,, the game will be relativly problem free and be the game as it was designed,,

then,, Lol,, we can tear it apart and rant and rave for THEM,,to create our own personal version of the game in future releases...

anvil

[lancerunolfsson]

I will almost certainly purchase the new version of PG to gain the enhancements in the editor

Actually the editor in the original HnM worked pretty good by comparision. I gave up on doing a scenrio for PG when I saw I had to contruct my units one figure at a time. I mean like that is really coll for some one that cares a lot about how many drummers they have represented in the unit sprite. But way to tedious for me. Just give me some generic units and maybe a choice as to head gear and fcing colors and I'm good.

Dead,
Yes you came after my post, the deal is that he probably remebered that I have been going on about this line forming deal for years. I realy suspect that the problem lies in trying to make the AI more inteligent than it needs to be. I wrote a long post last year on the concpt of semi scripting brigade formations for the AI. In other words colections of battalions by default are treated by the AI as a single entity, formed in line all the time with a local reserve. With a subroutine to feed in reserve batalions in a fairly rote way. Granted this would create its own series of player exploits but it could not be worse than watching 10 battalions of guys milling about disrupting themselves while they get surounded and blown to pieces;^)

[DeadInThrench]

anvl....

When you mentioned group move.... there is that function in GBCE.... and when you do it all your units attack and IMO something like this is not needed in HnM.

But.... and I believe now this is where you were coming from..... for the COMPUTER... yeah, no doubt a group move would be significant... keeping it from attacking here and there and leaving itself open to all sorts of flank attacks. So, yeah, for the computer when it is attacking.... this would significant.

Possibly a better approach... particularly when the computer is attacking... is to identify a line of hexes that it is going to attack along and ALSO keep a contiguous line to avoid flanking attacks. This should also be done by the computer when defending but... in this case just maintaining it and minor adjustments to the starting line is all that is necessary. Right now, the computer gets all confused and is facing units this way and that leaving itself wide open.

One thing in simulations like this... and I mentioned this before.... you can have what would be a straight line on a real battlefied but... because of the hex grid... it comes off as irregular with points where units can get attacked from the flank... just because of the hex grid. I suggested previously that units not be allowed to make flank attacks if the hex they move into can be attacked by another enemy unit but.... this is a minor concern now compared to the AI problems.

DiT

[DeadInThrench]

lance... if I follow up directly on what you are saying.... I would just end up repeating what you are saying <g>.

So... let me just say that... with HnM... I played the Bill Sherman Monongahela scenario out many times... and then when I got PWM I developed my program that converts HnM scenarios to PWM and did that on Monongahela and played that out on PWM and... big difference.

In HnM... as long as I could get my British units deployed (in other words, didn't fail activation for both leaders on both of the first two turns)... the computer.... didn't stand much of a chance.... made frontal assult with the Indians and Canadians and that would not work.

But... with PWM... the computer made a significant attempt at outflanking... and at first... this proved much more successful.... and I actually lost one battle to the computer. But, after a couple of tries... realized that the computer was denuding it's center... dithering what few units it had there back and forth... and a counter attack on my part straight up the center... and the computer forces would fall apart.

This proved even more severe in the Lake George scenario.... where the computer completely denuded it's center (and the outflanks did not do much good) and when I counter attacked there... nobody at home and thus flanked both of the computer's flanks.

Bottom line here.... IMO... the computer has got to identify a line of hexes that is defends from or advances into... and if attacking, moving units into that line while keeping itself protected from flank attacks... not leaving sections of it's line open to counter attack, etc. This should probably be done at the corps level.... the subordinate leaders on the battlefield... with matching up between corps done as best possible. In identifying this line... the FACING for proper defense must be identified and units moving into the line need to have the proper facing... and if attacking... not attacking until you can move units into ALL the hexes in the line that are attack hexes.

But.... can we expect anything along these lines any time soon? IMO, it is what PWM and the other games need the most right now.

DiT

[anvl]

group move here was a way for human players to organize their single battalions into brigades or larger formations.. particularly column of march in order to get away from static linear games,,and actually maneuver formations into line,, protect flanks, create reserves etc,,, but it doesn't work.. when a group crosses a contour line,, a road, passes thru another unit, some units halt,,and all units behind it halt,, and some continue on,,

so the only option is to micromanage each and every battalion which, for me, takes away from the feel of the game,, and puts it into a "single unit clickfest" type of game. For this era, i would rather be a brigade commander, a wing commander or a C&C, tell smaller formations where to go,, and have them do it. If this is fixed,, then for me all the old scenarios become a completely new game,, even with no changes...

and again,, the dithering,,or milling about of ai units was due to an attempt to enable the ai to do basically the same as above.. then the ai as well could form larger formations, form a reserve, protect\attack a flank,, etc,, and as we tested this,, you could see that the ai had the ability to do this,, but then alas,, just got bogged down trying to form a few units into line here,, and a few more units over there ,, but none were able to actually do it...


and,, hehe i know enough about my work that when a customer tells me "all ya got to do is",, well i better double my price,,and duck my head,, for the Sh*t is going to be deep!!! So i will not just say to the design\programming crew,, hehe " all ya gots to do is" solve these problems and the game will be great,, but i may wish it...

Dit,, i think that in this game, if you have an open flank,, ie the last unit in line is not on a river, terrain feature or whatever,, this is open for a flank attack,, but if the last unit in line is at a rt angle to the line,, ie facing any of the other two or three hex faces (not 180 degrees) then the flank is protected... as in real life. so i do not think what you are saying is actually a problem.. a unit doesn't fire or melee just straigt ahead,, but i believe the two faces connecting as well..

and don't forget, many of us on this forum have been involved with these games for a few years,, even if it was at the "other place".. and this is a new forum here.. so much of what you speak of has been debated,,, etc,, quite a bit... I think thats what Lance is talkig about...

anvil

[anvl]

Dit,,

as far as scenario's go, and the Monongahela scenario you mention above,, I suspect that has to do with scenario design more than anything.

Dave understands the editor,,and this game like no one else,,and I do not think you will see this when you play his scenarios.. the dithering yes, but not leaving the center open..

His scenarios are really good,, and as the games progressed,, his scenarios got better!! awesomly so.. I have not seen anybody create as challenging of games\scenarios than him.. I couldn't do it.. alas.. Itr seems simple with victory points,, and the commands you can give the ai,, but.. simple is as simple is..

so i suggest you play one of Dave's scenarios from H&M many times.. than bring that to the other game,, and compare...

anvil

[DeadInThrench]

anvil... sheesh.... in this thread I posted that I had beaten the PWM Mollwitz Austrians (a released NOT player developed scenario) 71-4 and... you are telling me I need to play the scenarios more????

Sure, Bill Sherman's scenarios were developed for HnM not PWM... but the reason for posting what I posted was a matter of a detailed description of the DIFFERENCE between the HnM and PWM AI.... and why it had digressed... with design sugggestions for improvement... and hopefully enough information that... SOMEONE... can take what is there now in PWM and make it work MUCH better with the upcoming or some future release.

I am back playing the HnM 7YW scenarios now... in HnM. The interface isn't as nice but at least the AI doesn't turn it's units sideways leaving them wide open for flank attacks.

Why don't you see if you can beat the PWM Mollwitz Austirans 71-4? For me, if Schwerin hadn't failed his activation like three turns in a row... would have been worse.

DiT

[anvl]

hmmm,,

well it isnt a competetion,, it isnt how much you post,,nor whether you post first or not... [8|],,,

Lol,, sorry but i do not think i will play Mollwitz 75 times,, [>:].. It wasn't one of my favorite scenarios.. perhaps you should have played each of the scenarios once,, insead of hehe.. beating Mollwitz 71 times.. but there must have been a reason you did that?

It would be really funny if all your verbage here was based on one old H&M game and playing Mollwitz 75 times...is it? I have seen nothing here from you about any other games...

anvil

[DeadInThrench]

Maybe if you had read my original post on this closer... the 71-4 margin.... wasn't me beating the PWM Mollwitz Austrians 71 times and losing 4 times... but..... I think this was the 2nd time I played the scenario in PWM and..... at the end it I had 96% of my army left and the Austrian's had 29%. So, the math on this is 100-29 is 71 and 100-96 is 4... and THAT is where the 71-4 margin comes from.

So... now you have a challange.. to see if you can beat the PWM Mollwitz Austrians by this big a margin.

DiT

[anvl]

Dit,, sorry for misrreading your post,, and no thanks on the challenge..However,, when the game is released.. I would really enjoy playing you a pbem game..

anvil

[DeadInThrench]

Well, I maybe got a bit too hot under the collar so for that I apologize.

But, as far as playing out a game PBEM once a new PWM is released... I am really in the same boat as Inaki and others that stated that they would not be purchasing a new copy of PWM until the game play was increased significantly. So, if Tim puts out a demo on the new version I will probably take a look but not purchase except as stated above.

I stated that I felt my posts were being ignored and would thus not be posting anymore... but then there was the matter of Tim, Dave and Mike probably having been caught up in the Matrix/Boku negotiations.... or at least waiting for the deal to be finalized... and thus possibly would have more time now to look at possibilities, and Dave responded to my post so out of respect I felt inclined to respond.

However... for those that haven't noticed yet... I have a tendancy to have an opinion of things <g>.... and to state things as I see them... sometimes with detailed possible solutions. But, doesn't do any good to harangue on anyone and there is no doubt that I am not always right.

So, Tim, Dave and Mike gotta do what they gotta do and... time for me to back off and let them do that. Might do something with the PWM Guilford Courthouse scenario that I started but... other than that... will take a look at any demo when it comes out.

DiT

[anvl]

Well,, its not appropriate to ask someone not to post on a msg board,, so i will continue to participate. Lol,, I do recognize i have been a bit sarcastic twards you,, and will drop that for sure.. I am sorry you got upset at my suggestions of places on line to find free info online,, I meant that for others as well as you,, so where appropriate i will continue.. Please don't take offense quite so quickly.. nothing is meant bad by me.

As for the game,, I will purchase it no matter what.. I have played every release since the first,,and am anxious to see "Whats new?",, I know that within the framework of business all involved will do their very best to make this a better game,, Not to mention Magnus' new Graphics!!

anvil

[lancerunolfsson]

[DeadInThrench]

anvil.... it's not inappropriate to suggest that two people not respond to each n' other's posts.... this is a GOOD idea if arguments are starting to develop... to avoid degrading what is being posted... and better for two people to agree to this rather than Tim or one of the admins having to edict this.

DiT

[anvl]

Well,, actually if you give it a minutes thought,, i think you will see why its inappropriate. This is a public forum,, moderated. It is not wrong to argue or debate, or discuss. You are welcome to do that to me,I will never get angry at that, that is sorta the reason for a "forum"(argue,debate,discuss,learn,think). I will keep out the sarcasm,, no problem,, now all you need to do is just not get angry when someone,, ie me,,doesn't agree with what you say.. learn from it,,show me where i am wrong..think about it,or ignore it,whatever..But.. anger is not appropriate..

Lol,, BTW,, i have never been angry at anything you have ever said or written.. i take it with good humor,and i must admit,, the occasional moment when what you have written has made me think,,

So come on,, man, loosen up,, relax,, enjoy,,and speak your mind... and likewise enjoy the input given you by others..

anvil