That's not true.
The HPS games can be played either single phase, or multi-phase. If multi-phased, then the HPS games play exactly the same as BG games. If you want to play like BG games, be sure to check "Manual Defensive Fire" in the options window.
BTW, I'm a little less certain about the Nappy sequence, but the ACW will play exactly as TS. But both Nappy and ACW can be played in multi-phases.
John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
I told that the BG serie has the "best ensamble of accuracy, playability, "atmosphere", beautiful graphics and other media contents", it doesn't mean that HPS are inaccurate, I wrote that the BG serie together with historical accuracy (obviously also HPS are higly accurate and deeply researched) has also wonderful media contents (music etc.) and wonderful graphics ...and let me say that these last matters aren't irrilevant in a game. As more recent games, the HPS titles introduced some interesting improvements, but those alone don't make a better game than the old Battlegrounds. Obviously it's my personal opinion.
About the different goals, I mean that HPS are campaign-oriented, so the player is able to play a whole campaign, notwistanding that a single battle may be less interesting to play than the same battle played in the Battleground style ...graphics, again, and "atmosphere".
With "atmosphere" (I don't know if this expression is correct in English...) I mean the immersiveness of a game; it depends upont different factors, like fascinating graphics and music and other "immaterial" factors that form the artistic part of a game and the way those things work togehter with the technical aspect of a game ...it isn't easy to explain with my badly shattered English... however it is something that when I play with the HPS games seem to lack and that the BG games have in great measure.
P.S. I got all BG titles and almost all of the HPS ACW and Naploeonic titles. I enjoyed both series, but the old Battlegrounds are still my favourite games.
About the different goals, I mean that HPS are campaign-oriented, so the player is able to play a whole campaign, notwistanding that a single battle may be less interesting to play than the same battle played in the Battleground style ...graphics, again, and "atmosphere".
With "atmosphere" (I don't know if this expression is correct in English...) I mean the immersiveness of a game; it depends upont different factors, like fascinating graphics and music and other "immaterial" factors that form the artistic part of a game and the way those things work togehter with the technical aspect of a game ...it isn't easy to explain with my badly shattered English... however it is something that when I play with the HPS games seem to lack and that the BG games have in great measure.
P.S. I got all BG titles and almost all of the HPS ACW and Naploeonic titles. I enjoyed both series, but the old Battlegrounds are still my favourite games.
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
I respect your Opinion and know you put alot of work into modding.
I suppose my main intererst lies in the engine improvements. There I think HPS rules!!
I play in 2D, I don't listen to the music often, and I certainly never cared for the video clips that the BG games offered.
All I cared about is improving the engine so that ACW warfare is better represented. IMHO, John Tiller and HPS has done that to a great extent.
I suppose my main intererst lies in the engine improvements. There I think HPS rules!!
I play in 2D, I don't listen to the music often, and I certainly never cared for the video clips that the BG games offered.
All I cared about is improving the engine so that ACW warfare is better represented. IMHO, John Tiller and HPS has done that to a great extent.
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
It's a shame that the engine improvements couldn't be ported over to the BG series, or perhaps they can be. One can never tell.
If you could help make HPS ACW games better, though we can't go back to painted maps, how else would we improve them?
If you could help make HPS ACW games better, though we can't go back to painted maps, how else would we improve them?
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
HPS' less than stellar 3D maps I can live with; it's the 3D unit graphics I can't stand. How hard would it be for HPS to create a one-set-fits-all set of decent (as in not toy-like, better scaled) 3D unit graphics? Hand-painted maps are one thing, but 3D unit graphics are another, and easily recreated, or reapplied.
Other improvements:
For Commander Control, more options: Move To, Forced March To, Reconnoiter, Tactical Reserve, Strategic Reserve, ..., also the ability to backtrack in the sequence.
Better AI: improved path finding (as in, yes, it's more direct from point A to point B moving over that mountain as the crow flies, but it's faster being a little roundabout and taking that road over there), more intelligent maneuver (especially in response to flanking attacks and encirclements), less predictability, ...
Other improvements:
For Commander Control, more options: Move To, Forced March To, Reconnoiter, Tactical Reserve, Strategic Reserve, ..., also the ability to backtrack in the sequence.
Better AI: improved path finding (as in, yes, it's more direct from point A to point B moving over that mountain as the crow flies, but it's faster being a little roundabout and taking that road over there), more intelligent maneuver (especially in response to flanking attacks and encirclements), less predictability, ...
Campaign Series Legion https://cslegion.com/
Campaign Series Lead Coder https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... hp?f=10167
Panzer Campaigns, Panzer Battles Lead Coder https://wargameds.com
Campaign Series Lead Coder https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... hp?f=10167
Panzer Campaigns, Panzer Battles Lead Coder https://wargameds.com
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
The AI's artillery suicide assaults are always fun....
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
Talonsoft BG maps are painted and as such beautiful. But I don't understand why they can't make better graphics in HPS, after all the Talonsoft CS (now Matrix Games: John Tiller's Campaign Series) has much better not painted 3D graphics.
Another problem/desirable improvement for the HPS games is hex size. With modern screen resolutions (1280 x 1024, 1600 x 1200,...) hexes and units are too small for me. I much prefer the three 3D zooms of BG. This is also why I can't play HPS 2D: the hexes are just too small, it's like watching a boardgame from a 3 meter height.
Some of the HPS maps are atrocious, just vast plains with very little detail. Luckily NRC (and based on screenshots, Campaign Waterloo) maps are better.
The Campaign game is an improvement, but it requires commitment from the player(s). Not to talk about the "megacampaign", where all the campaign is played as a 100s of turns long gigantic battle.
The HPS AI is even worse than the BG one, IMHO. In addition, the majority of scenarios seem to be designed for PBEM; many of them are huge: no more NIR 14: Never too late (Utitsa fight in Borodino). I haven't HPS Jena yet, but I recognized every playtester in the credits, along with the designer, as members of the Napoleonic Wargaming Club. What I mean is that the HPS titles, even more than BG, are geared towards PBEM only, and specifically, towards an established community of PBEM gamers.
The game manuals are also worse, IMHO. With BG games you could calculate all the combat factors and probabilities quite easily, this I can't in HPS.
Finally, I have the definite feeling that HPS Napoleonics are a "poor brother" of their excellent Panzer Campaigns series. They saved in scenario design (some designers are very good and dedicated, but essentially just wargamers, not professionals), graphics, music (I put the old BG music in my HPS folders), documentation, but most of all, I have the feeling John Tiller really has "abandoned" the napoleonic project and just implements some minor engine changes and corrects bugs. No AI improvements, no big engine improvements.
Now that I have bashed HPS too much, they also have good qualities:
- there is just one phase for each player instead of the three of the BG series (your movement, opponent defensive, your offensive and vice versa). This saves a lot of file swapping in PBEM games
- many scenarios, many maps, a complete scenario editor, scenario specific PDT files; maps are locked though (but modders have released all kind of games none-the-less, so there is a workaround).
- graphic mods available on internet
- support: you can raise not only bugs but also game issues to the designers and chance is they are considered and evaluated (but no major engine changes though). For each game there are many updated even after years. In addition manuals and help files are updated too.
- The close relationship between HPS and the PBEM gaming community (especially the www.wargame.ch board = NWC) helps to better the games.
- much new research - I think both NRC and Campaign Waterloo are more up-to-date regarding maps or orders of battle than NIR or BGW respectively.
- easier to find PBEM players, given the availability of games and the one phase per turn file swapping - but I hope a new interest for BG PBEM comes with the Matrix release.
Another problem/desirable improvement for the HPS games is hex size. With modern screen resolutions (1280 x 1024, 1600 x 1200,...) hexes and units are too small for me. I much prefer the three 3D zooms of BG. This is also why I can't play HPS 2D: the hexes are just too small, it's like watching a boardgame from a 3 meter height.
Some of the HPS maps are atrocious, just vast plains with very little detail. Luckily NRC (and based on screenshots, Campaign Waterloo) maps are better.
The Campaign game is an improvement, but it requires commitment from the player(s). Not to talk about the "megacampaign", where all the campaign is played as a 100s of turns long gigantic battle.
The HPS AI is even worse than the BG one, IMHO. In addition, the majority of scenarios seem to be designed for PBEM; many of them are huge: no more NIR 14: Never too late (Utitsa fight in Borodino). I haven't HPS Jena yet, but I recognized every playtester in the credits, along with the designer, as members of the Napoleonic Wargaming Club. What I mean is that the HPS titles, even more than BG, are geared towards PBEM only, and specifically, towards an established community of PBEM gamers.
The game manuals are also worse, IMHO. With BG games you could calculate all the combat factors and probabilities quite easily, this I can't in HPS.
Finally, I have the definite feeling that HPS Napoleonics are a "poor brother" of their excellent Panzer Campaigns series. They saved in scenario design (some designers are very good and dedicated, but essentially just wargamers, not professionals), graphics, music (I put the old BG music in my HPS folders), documentation, but most of all, I have the feeling John Tiller really has "abandoned" the napoleonic project and just implements some minor engine changes and corrects bugs. No AI improvements, no big engine improvements.
Now that I have bashed HPS too much, they also have good qualities:
- there is just one phase for each player instead of the three of the BG series (your movement, opponent defensive, your offensive and vice versa). This saves a lot of file swapping in PBEM games
- many scenarios, many maps, a complete scenario editor, scenario specific PDT files; maps are locked though (but modders have released all kind of games none-the-less, so there is a workaround).
- graphic mods available on internet
- support: you can raise not only bugs but also game issues to the designers and chance is they are considered and evaluated (but no major engine changes though). For each game there are many updated even after years. In addition manuals and help files are updated too.
- The close relationship between HPS and the PBEM gaming community (especially the www.wargame.ch board = NWC) helps to better the games.
- much new research - I think both NRC and Campaign Waterloo are more up-to-date regarding maps or orders of battle than NIR or BGW respectively.
- easier to find PBEM players, given the availability of games and the one phase per turn file swapping - but I hope a new interest for BG PBEM comes with the Matrix release.
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
Other HPS disadvantages:
- using "Automatic Defensive Fire" (necessary if you want to only play once per turn in PBEM games), AI takes care of defensive fire - well at least an Optional Rule permits to not waste ammunition on skirmishers.
- even when playing Manual Defensive Fire, there is no Cavalry Countercharge phase.
Other HPS advantages:
- it is more "realistic", with the 1 man losses, supply rules, and many little engine enhancements over BG
- many Optional Rules to choose from, to make it more flexible and adjustable to one's own tastes
- with the right combination of Optional Rules, a more realistic and less gamey play: no more Blitzkriegs and rapid elimination of entire units with ZOC kills and such
- using "Automatic Defensive Fire" (necessary if you want to only play once per turn in PBEM games), AI takes care of defensive fire - well at least an Optional Rule permits to not waste ammunition on skirmishers.
- even when playing Manual Defensive Fire, there is no Cavalry Countercharge phase.
Other HPS advantages:
- it is more "realistic", with the 1 man losses, supply rules, and many little engine enhancements over BG
- many Optional Rules to choose from, to make it more flexible and adjustable to one's own tastes
- with the right combination of Optional Rules, a more realistic and less gamey play: no more Blitzkriegs and rapid elimination of entire units with ZOC kills and such
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
Actually the BG and HPS A/I uses the same logic. In fact, there have been some improvements to the logic. The problem is size, scale and duration. There are two kinds of A/I used in HPS games, only one for BG.
1) Scripting (BG and HPS). The designer attempts to give units way points with attack or defend orders. Move from point A to point B at a certain time and attack or defend.
This is the best method of a challenging game.
Problems: Only good for the attacking side and for relatively small battles or preset positions.
2) Dynamic A/I (HPS only). A/I developes it's own plan. The designer tell the A/I to fight offensively or defensively.
Problem: The scenario must be limited in scale and size. Attackers are a better challenge.
Overall, HPS games tend to use much larger maps and incorporate meeting engagements. With these type of scenarios, any A/I will be nearly useless.
BUT, many recent scenarios are speically designed for the A/I. Campaign Atlanta, and Campaign Chickamauga have several "A/I Challenge" games.
Overall, HPS is a far better engine. True the 3D maps are not as pretty. Though I like the music, but I don't use it. 2D maps are as good, or better IMHO. MUCH MUCH MUCH more variety. MANY MANY more scenarios per title.
Example: Campaign Chickamauga vs BG Chickamauga. HPS CC includes Perryville, Nashville, Frankfort, Franklin, Stones River, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, and more. BG Chick only has Stones River and Chickamauga.
Both are good games, but HPS is much different. And IMHO, only the 3D maps are better in BG games.
1) Scripting (BG and HPS). The designer attempts to give units way points with attack or defend orders. Move from point A to point B at a certain time and attack or defend.
This is the best method of a challenging game.
Problems: Only good for the attacking side and for relatively small battles or preset positions.
2) Dynamic A/I (HPS only). A/I developes it's own plan. The designer tell the A/I to fight offensively or defensively.
Problem: The scenario must be limited in scale and size. Attackers are a better challenge.
Overall, HPS games tend to use much larger maps and incorporate meeting engagements. With these type of scenarios, any A/I will be nearly useless.
BUT, many recent scenarios are speically designed for the A/I. Campaign Atlanta, and Campaign Chickamauga have several "A/I Challenge" games.
Overall, HPS is a far better engine. True the 3D maps are not as pretty. Though I like the music, but I don't use it. 2D maps are as good, or better IMHO. MUCH MUCH MUCH more variety. MANY MANY more scenarios per title.
Example: Campaign Chickamauga vs BG Chickamauga. HPS CC includes Perryville, Nashville, Frankfort, Franklin, Stones River, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, and more. BG Chick only has Stones River and Chickamauga.
Both are good games, but HPS is much different. And IMHO, only the 3D maps are better in BG games.
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
I am near completion of a more accurate battlefield map for HPS Gettysburg. What I cannot seem to locate is where the data is that places the stone walls on the map. Some of the walls are in dire need of changing or deletion to conform to the actual field. Please, if anyone knows where to direct me in the files so I change the placement of the stone walls, I would be grateful beyond measure. [:D]
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
Err...you do know that you can't edit the map files and use them in the Civil War games, right?
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
As my post indicates, I have modified/changed the map file....except for the placement of the walls, that, I cannot find. The map runs just fine with all my changes- so yes you can change/mod the map file. I have done it over and over. I just need to know where the wall placement data is. Perhaps it is hardcoded in some way.
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
I agree on HPS needing digital downloads. They would probably see at least a 20% jump in sales. I have bought one of their games Squad Battles: Vietnam. Good but not great. Graphics leave something to be desired. They should look at hiring a new 3d graphic artist to do a face lift to their graphics. I also have felt that their website could use a more professional polish to it. Compare it to the Matrix website and you will see the difference quickly. People make decisions on buying from web based businesses by how polished their websites are. Cheap , junky website equals cheap junky product in their minds.
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
ORIGINAL: gwack
I am near completion of a more accurate battlefield map for HPS Gettysburg. What I cannot seem to locate is where the data is that places the stone walls on the map. Some of the walls are in dire need of changing or deletion to conform to the actual field. Please, if anyone knows where to direct me in the files so I change the placement of the stone walls, I would be grateful beyond measure. [:D]
Examples: Imagine 19 hexsides going from left to right diagonally
A) North and Northeast per hex
(
#88
##88
##88
##88
##8
!
or
B) North only per hex
(
!((
!!((
!!((
!!((
!!(
!
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
For me the most important improvement by HPS was the introduction of on screen combat results. Constantly shifting my focus from the screen to the combat results box gave me a terrific headache.
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
RE:A/I
If you are buy'n Any HPS or BG to play solo "YOUR WASTE'N YOUR MONEY"
The A/I is so bad it is not funny.
The A/I Can barely handle getting troop from point A to B. When the A/I actually gets troops in a position to block
you. It will do something totally stupid like turn afew units about face to you. Or put Arty in its front line limbered w/no support.
The only reason to buy BG or any HPS game is to play via - PBEM
IF you plan on play'n Vs A/I ---YOUR WASTE"N YOUR MONEY
AP514
P. S. I have all the old BG SERIES (All 9) and afew of HPS Campaigns
If you are buy'n Any HPS or BG to play solo "YOUR WASTE'N YOUR MONEY"
The A/I is so bad it is not funny.
The A/I Can barely handle getting troop from point A to B. When the A/I actually gets troops in a position to block
you. It will do something totally stupid like turn afew units about face to you. Or put Arty in its front line limbered w/no support.
The only reason to buy BG or any HPS game is to play via - PBEM
IF you plan on play'n Vs A/I ---YOUR WASTE"N YOUR MONEY
AP514
P. S. I have all the old BG SERIES (All 9) and afew of HPS Campaigns
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
If you are buy'n Any HPS or BG to play solo "YOUR WASTE'N YOUR MONEY"
Maybe not. If you view these titles less as competitive games and more as simulations and tools for historical exploration, either of
--Hot Seat play, where you the solitaire player alternate taking both sides, each with FOW, and where you play by your own set of "house rules" (e.g., forget your knowledge of the historical battle, try to pretend you don't know the other side's plans and disposition, etc.).
--Commander Control play (again probably solitaire), where both sides are equally handicapped by the same, inept AI "assistant". (There is a great article somewhere--here at the Matrix Forum?--where the poster argues in favor of using Commander Control all the time, exclusively, because in Real Life even the best of 'em were occasionally fumbling and inept. Where is that link?)
might satisfy you.
Years ago, before the PC era, when these games were strictly tabletop affairs, I was by far mainly a solitaire player. I enjoyed myself then. As a solitaire player now, the enjoyment is far better.
(To you guys who swear by head-to-head competition and PBEM, and occasionally swear at those who think otherwise: To each his own. PC wargaming is a pretty big tent and has room for all comers.)
Campaign Series Legion https://cslegion.com/
Campaign Series Lead Coder https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... hp?f=10167
Panzer Campaigns, Panzer Battles Lead Coder https://wargameds.com
Campaign Series Lead Coder https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... hp?f=10167
Panzer Campaigns, Panzer Battles Lead Coder https://wargameds.com
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
Someone asked if the HPS and BG games were compatable. No
But here is an example of some of the Civil War series optional rule differences. Talonsoft/Matrix on top, HPS on the bottom.
But here is an example of some of the Civil War series optional rule differences. Talonsoft/Matrix on top, HPS on the bottom.
- Attachments
-
- HPS.jpg (60.33 KiB) Viewed 327 times
-
Panama Red
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:06 pm
RE: John Tiller's ACW and Nappy games at HPS
For HPS to offer Download games, it would mean that HPS could no longer force you to use their CD in the PC to play their games versus Matrix which does not require the CD to be in the PC to run their games.