Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century

[amrcg]

In the Horse&Musket (18th century wargame by Shrapnel Games) forum I have been debating whether "Black Powder Wars: BON" could also be used to model 18th century armies/battles, since from my point of view Napoleonic warfare presents little more than tactical developments when we compare it with 18th century warfare (battlefield technology was roughly the same). In fact Napoleonic warfare also spans armies that were - by the beginning of that period - still modelled after 18th century patterns (I am lucky enough to have a 1799 edition of the portuguese drilling manual manual firstly issued by the Count of Lippe in 1763, so 18th century tactics were still the norm for the portuguese army during the "War of the Oranges" - Wellington reformed portuguese drilling in 1809).
If this is the case for "BPW:BON", then it would be a serious rival to H&M, even more because the latter is based on a series of separate campaigns modelled and incompatible game engines.
What's your opinion about these issues?

Cheers,
Antonio

[Le Tondu]

God bless the dreamers and the modders for they shall inherit lots of fun.
[8D]

It will be interesting to see how the tactical AI of the game works. How it moves the units, that is.

Patiently waiting.........[:)]

[lancerunolfsson]

Most of the big diferences between 18thc and Nap warfare are operational leveles of scale.The functions that look editable through the screen shots sugest that any scenario that features all muzzel loading smooth bores should be doable. I'm pretty interested in seeing this game. What I am seeing is a lot more encouraging than what happened with HnM2.

[Tim Coakley]

The engine was designed with Nappy period in mind, but I am sure things can be modded/fudged to cover earlier periods.

I have no background in the earlier 18th C wars, so I can not give a definate answer.

Some example MIGHT be:
1) restricting the allowable formations
2) reducing leathality and or weapon ranges
3) Reducing command ranges

Tim

[amrcg]

ORIGINAL: Double Shot Design
Some example MIGHT be:
1) restricting the allowable formations
2) reducing leathality and or weapon ranges
3) Reducing command ranges
Tim

That's precisely what I had in mind.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

The H&M2 editor, in principle, allows any kind of unit to be edited, in the first time I even thought of ancient battles to be designed, as you could eliminate the fire modifier of units to 0. However, graphics are not easily edited, and overall, the random system built into the battle engine is so extreme as to make all the tweaking in the unit statistics meaningless. I really hope that will not happen to BoN

[Magnus]

I think HnM2 is a GREAT! game, so it will be interesting to see how this game compares up to HnM2. Also I think HnM2 has better graphics than this game.

[Magnus]

The graphics isn't any more difficult to edit than the original HnM. Surely HnM2 uses many frames of animation which makes it all tedious to edit. But for modding much time is needed anyway.

[rich]

The period c.1700-c.1850 should certainly be feasible, although some tactical modifications might be desirable. Before 1700 it would be necessary to make alterations to reflect pre-bayonet muskets and pikes (although perhaps the engine is flexible enough to cover this). After 1850, it would probably still be possible to cover the Crimean War, 1859 and perhaps even the ACW and 1870, provided rifle ranges & fire factors could be modified and additional weaponry (eg. breechloaders, repeating rifles, mitrailleuse) were incorporated. However, I suspect this period (c.1861-1905, or ACW to the Russo-Jap War) would most likely be covered in a subsequent Doubleshot title with various weaponry and formation modifications.

[Magnus]

Lance what did happen to HnM2 that you aren't happy about?

[lancerunolfsson]

Lance what did happen to HnM2 that you aren't happy about?

1] A lot more effort was put in to the graphics than needed. I hate looking at animation while I am trying to play a game so I do not want to pay for them. The units in HnM1 were adequate the maps not quite so good. In HnM2 all graphics, map and units actually look worse than HnM1 after much effort put in. And there is no 2d view so that I don't have to look at them if I don't want to.

2] When finally released I saw many complaints of PBEM problems. Best I can tell no patch was ever released fixing those problems.

So after really looking forward to the game for years By looking at the demo I see a game that looks bad and plays bad. I could find no reason to buy it.

What I was hoping for was HnM1 with better AI and PBEM play. I would have been happy with some relatively minor improvements in HnM1.Delivered at an earlier date.

Granted some Guys like the way the HnM2 game looks and plays so it is good that their tastes are catered to. So far from the screen shots BPW BON at least looks a lot more like I want a game to look. The menus shown suggest a very robust editor. Of course how it plays remains to be seen.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

Lance
Patch was actuallt released, however PBEM is still disappointing because of the game system. As random is so high, the only attack with a good percentage of success is a flank attack, and as you have a great flexibility to move individual units (far greater than in reality) you end up looking for enemy flanks of every enemy unit, without any regard for battlelines, the end result is that after some turns the battle has no recognisible battlelines, and this is made worst by the fact that you can rally routed units behind enemy lines. As it is the only game for the period, I played it as much as i could, and designed several scenarios, but I finally gave up, I hope BoN take that place

[lancerunolfsson]

you have a great flexibility to move individual units (far greater than in reality)

This is true of most games. In table top games I partialy solve this problem by making a disrutpion of the unit possible if the unit is changing facing.

[Magnus]

They don't look worse, the units are far more detailed than HnM1's and the overall graphics are by far much better, just look at the full screen interface compared to HnM's windows based one. A 2D view isn't even needed since you can get such a great overview over the total battle by just zooming out and the units are easily recognizable at that given size.

I love the animations, finally someone dares to take the game a step further.

[amrcg]

ORIGINAL: karoliner72

They don't look worse, the units are far more detailed than HnM1's and the overall graphics are by far much better, just look at the full screen interface compared to HnM's windows based one. A 2D view isn't even needed since you can get such a great overview over the total battle by just zooming out and the units are easily recognizable at that given size.

I love the animations, finally someone dares to take the game a step further.

The fact that H&M2 is not incremental turns to be frustrating. I prefer a game that lets me fight any campaign of the period without having to "mod". Besides, animations and graphics are not an top priority requirement for most wargamers. I was impressed with the BPW/BON unit symbols. They look very similar to those used in books describing the battles of the period.

Cheers,
Antonio

[Magnus]

Yes too bad BPW doesn't have miniature view too

[Magnus]

I like HnM2's turn system, it all makes up for a much more interesting game and models 18th century warfare really good, the communication problems that occured.

[lancerunolfsson]

finally someone dares to take the game a step further.

For me though several steps in directions I do not care for.

[Sumter]

For all its shortcomings (lack of variety in artillery, inability of cavalry to charge in light woods, inability of cavalry to defensive fire or charge when attacked by infantry, limited terrain features, limited AI, etc), HNM 1 has the virtue of providing a reasonably effective scenario editor for a gamer interested in 18th and and very early 19th century warfare. I was really disappointed with HNM 2. I too had hoped for an improved version of HNM 1. Unfortunately, the game has too many bells and whistles that distract from play and is of such limited scope as to rob it of much interest for me. While the terrain possibilities in the editor are improved -- the limited number of armies is a real disappointment. I understand the existing armies can be modified, but I do not have the programs on my computer to do so. I am eagerly awaiting BPW in hopes that the shortcomings of HNM 1 will be remedied.

[Magnus]

Funny is that when I read the HnM forum over at Shrapnelgames people wanted much more regiments for HnM2, now when they got that they're complaining about it? I don't think HnM2 was meant to be just a rehash of HnM1 with exactly the same armies and battles.