Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century

[Sumter]

I suppose some people did ask for more regiments -- I was never one of those people. On the few occasions that I voiced an opinion, I urged creation of a game that would be more realistic (engineer units that could construct bridges and abatis, a greater range of fortification possibilities and artillery capable of indirect fire -- siege warfare was a vital element of 18th century conflict, and more realistic terrain etc). I never cared a whit about having specific regiments depicted. As I said, HNM 1 is a decent game for anyone interested in 18th century warfare. I will happily continue to play it until something better comes along. I hope BPW will be that game. The stand-alone-narrow approach of HNM 2 does not meet my interests. I am pleased for those gamers who find that it serves their purposes.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: 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.

There is disruption for changing facing, as for any other movement, and as anything in the game is very much random dependant, the problem is that you can reface Bns individually, or redeploy them in column, march them along an enemy flank and redeploy in line, all in one turn.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: karoliner72

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.

Have you played PBEM? you are not rewarded at all in trying to maintain battlelines, and pretty fast the battlefiels is a mess of units with no resemblence of any order, any formation, not to mention the ability to rally units behind enemy lines, so they can take the enemy from the rear. There are other issues, like cavalry severely underrated, or column formations too flexible, that in all makes the game, played against a human opponent at least, nothing close to modelling 18Th century warfare

[lancerunolfsson]

or redeploy them in column, march them along an enemy flank and redeploy in line, all in one turn.

Sounds like move rates set too high. Though in linear warfare games a formation change should usually consume all or most of a units turn. A change from march collum to line by a simple left or right face should actually go pretty quick. I am wondering though Inaki how it can be that maintaining a line is not a good policy in the game? In any game any period maintaining a coherent line should put you at an advantage against a player that does not. Unless the unit density is very low. Even in modern warfare with conventional oponenents you want to have some sort of line even if parts of it are covered only by fields of fire. To be able to come up with a game were a line is no help is indictivie of unusual talent in design;^)

[Magnus]

I don't see any problem in maintaining battle lines in HnM2, no problem at all. You can foir yourself decide how long or how many hexes they can march, no trouble changing stats at all.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

or redeploy them in column, march them along an enemy flank and redeploy in line, all in one turn.

Sounds like move rates set too high. Though in linear warfare games a formation change should usually consume all or most of a units turn. A change from march collum to line by a simple left or right face should actually go pretty quick. I am wondering though Inaki how it can be that maintaining a line is not a good policy in the game? In any game any period maintaining a coherent line should put you at an advantage against a player that does not. Unless the unit density is very low. Even in modern warfare with conventional oponenents you want to have some sort of line even if parts of it are covered only by fields of fire. To be able to come up with a game were a line is no help is indictivie of unusual talent in design;^)

Basically, as random is so high, flank attack is the only option for a succesful attack garanteed, as the outfflanked unit doesn´t return fire. regardless of the unit rate of movement (that can be edited) the relation between line and column movement cost remain the same, very favourable to column, so that your best option in PBEM is to keep only a tenous line, just to cover your units in column behind that line, ready to jump on the oportunity to outflank any enemy Bn deployed in line. In all, very unrealistic. The problem is that basically the game tried to cover 2 levels, tactical and operational, and it makes it worst by the fact that you can send your coulmns in several directions with far greater flexibility than in reality. I made some scenarios in which units could not form in column, for instance I made an scenario for the battle of Leuthen in which the outflanking manouver by the Prussians was already done and the units deployed in line, however even then the battlefield quickly degenerates into a mess because units rout in all directions, including towards the enemy and behind enemy lines, and then you can rally them, to attack the advancing Prussians from behind, or still better, to capture their generals, or even Frederick himself!
As it is now, H6M2 needs badly
1) A new routine for routing units
2) Command range blocked by enemy units
3) Random lowered (preferible editable)
4) A better group movement
5) A different, more restricted and realistic, column movement
6) A different battle system for cavalry charging infantry (right now a suicide for cavalry units)
7) A fix for the skirmish units (contrary to logic, units deployed in skirmish suffer more losses under fire, but are tougher against charges, specially cavalry charges)
8) Right now moral, disruption and losses under fire follow separated calculations, for instance, the same Bn could suffer devastating losses and no moral hit, or no losses and a big hit in moral. They should logically be related.
I have complaied about the above in the Shrapnel Games forum several times, however apparently they are sticking to the game system, while going into some more graphics enhancement, so I am afraid I will not buy the second game in the serie

[lancerunolfsson]

units rout in all directions, including towards the enemy and behind enemy lines,

Yes this is bad game design. Routing units should always have to move toward the freindly map edge. And no closer than X number to hostiles failing this should either not move or be destroyed.

1) A new routine for routing units
Yes
2) Command range blocked by enemy units
I have seen this problem in many games so maybe there is a programing dificulty. But it should be as you say
3) Random lowered (preferible editable)
If what you are saying is that the curve of possible combat results should be flatter. You are probably right. Most computer games sadly allow for too many improbable results.
4) A better group movement
I have seen no computer game that has good group movement except along roads I am sure there is a programing problem here. I am sure as well that this is one of the reasons AI behavior is so poor
5) A different, more restricted and realistic, column movement
NOt sure of the exact problem
6) A different battle system for cavalry charging infantry (right now a suicide for cavalry units)
Cavalry Chrages in to the front of undisrupted close order infantry should be suicidal;^)
7) A fix for the skirmish units (contrary to logic, units deployed in skirmish suffer more losses under fire, but are tougher against charges, specially cavalry charges)
Yes cavalry should usualy vaporize skirmishers

You definatelyt Make HnM2 sound worse than I thought

[lancerunolfsson]

Darn I finaly looked at the Screenshots for Prussias Glory. And they Look pretty darn cool. The demo I downloaded for the first HnM2 looked horrible Especialy the Map everything was very Neon looking. Maybe the Graphics were changed later. Prussias Glory looks a lot more earthy and subdued than what I saw before I really like it.
Maybe they fixed some of the other problems we have been talking about.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson



2) Command range blocked by enemy units
I have seen this problem in many games so maybe there is a programing dificulty. But it should be as you say
3) Random lowered (preferible editable)
If what you are saying is that the curve of possible combat results should be flatter. You are probably right. Most computer games sadly allow for too many improbable results.
5) A different, more restricted and realistic, column movement
NOt sure of the exact problem
6) A different battle system for cavalry charging infantry (right now a suicide for cavalry units)
Cavalry Chrages in to the front of undisrupted close order infantry should be suicidal;^)

2) That was implemented in a game called Great Ancient Battles, so it should not be that difficult
3) a Gauss bell would be fine, making extreme results less likely.
5) Well, in 18th century Bns marched in column one after another, carefully keeping distance, so that they could redeployed in a battleline, in H&M2 you don´t need to care about that, you can send your Bns in any direction, and redeploy them very easily. Yopu can also redeploy them from line to column and move them on the battlefield, to sum up, they are in fact more akin to the company columns of Napoleonic armies than to the march columns of the mid 18th century.
6) Of course, the problem here is that cavalry has no chance against heavily disruopted and low morale infantry. That could be edited to some point, but the system itself would better be fixed, to give you an idea, cavalry charging infantry is fired not once, but twice by infantry before closing in melee, the result is that normally they rout before closing, or that they get a maximum disruption that prevent them charging at all.

[Magnus]

Cavalry do have a chance against disrupted low morale infantry, do you usually charge from the front all the time? Well do try to charge them in the flank and you'll see results against low morale infantry.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

In fact, I only charge in the flank, that is my point, no matter how disrupted or demoralized is the Inf Bn, a frontal cavalry charge is suicidal, and it shouldn´t be

[lancerunolfsson]

If hit in flank or rear even infantry in good order and morale should be toast most of the time.

[Magnus]

Prussia's Glory do look very nice I must say.

[anvl]

Sheesh,, i misspelled my log in name,,, oh well,, anvl will work.

Howdy guys,, i recognize many of you from H&M forums.. must be the smell of blackpowder huh?

I see as well the many of the same debates are already starting up .. I noticed a pretty long thread on cav charges vs infantry.. sound familier? That debate will never be solved,, alas too many just want to decimate, unhistorically, infantry with any kind of cav charge..

As for the debates concerning H&M2,, I have found that if two people who enjoy the SYW,its tactics etc,,and try to emulate them in play that H&M2 does a pretty good job of representing the era.. Most computer games,,no,,games in general, have their rules\mechanics problems,, so to take advantage of them only takes playing a few times,,and look out,, no longer does the game model reality.. Sorry,Iñaki Harrizabalagatar,, but i think that is your problem,, You should try understanding the tactics of the time,,play them against a like opponent,,and see what happens then..

It will be interesting to see how this game handles the era of Black Powder.. If it is to be Napoleonic it must have tactics to cover columns of attack, columns en mass, etc as was done,, and sure as i am writing here,, someone will do a mod for the SYW,,and just watch them use these tactics against Frederick,,and the forthcoming rhetoric!!

As far as the graphics\game engine goes,, well,, without a good playing game,, the graphics won't carry it.. oth,, we do have our high powered computers for a reason,,,Graphics anyone? I find it interesting that someone with a background in miniatures complains about graphics taking away from a game... Dont we do Miniatures instead of boardgames for the graphics enhancements? I've spent a lot of time painting my miniatures,designing terrain,setting up tables,sand and otherwise for the "graphics enhancenents",,and would feel shortchanged if this wasn't a focuse of computer gaming.. Great graphics does not in anyway compete with the game engine,,it does just that,,enhances it..As our computers get more and more powerful,, the two should go hand in hand for our enjoyment...

For my own preferences,, i would rather see a game created to cover the whole of our era,,the era of Blackpowder,, instead of specifically for Napoleonic,,. If it were done this way, then modders could have a field day creating uniforms for so many subperiods,,and the game engine should work for the whole 300 years.. if it is done with a focus on Napoleonic, then the tendency to mod other periods would tend to be less successful in my opinion,,but time will tell. Age of Rifles was the last really successful attempt at this,,and that was a great lil game,,but as i said above,, to really make this work,, the scenario must be designed to show the tactics of the time,,or two players must agree to play within the tactics of the time,,

anyway enough for now,,

anvil

[amrcg]

ORIGINAL: anvl
It will be interesting to see how this game handles the era of Black Powder.. If it is to be Napoleonic it must have tactics to cover columns of attack, columns en mass, etc as was done,, and sure as i am writing here,, someone will do a mod for the SYW,,and just watch them use these tactics against Frederick,,and the forthcoming rhetoric!!

As far as I understand it, from the description of BPW/NB, and some answers in this forum, it will be possible to limit the formations that certain unit types can use (just like in H&M2). This is required to simulate the begining of the Napoleonic period, including the wars of the French Revolution, War of the Oranges, etc. So, cheating by playing SYW with irrealistic/later Napoleonic tactics will not be an issue, I think.

Concerning graphics, personally I have always preferred tactical simulation. Sometimes I played miniature rules, but using paper counters instead of miniatures. I admit that good graphics - though not essential - can add to the feeling. I remember for example how I enjoyed the Fields Of Glory real-time napoleonic wargame in terms of the battlefield animation. Anyway, if the graphics implementation will consume development resources that would otherwise be used to improve the simulation, please give me bad graphics instead.

Cheers,
Antonio

[lancerunolfsson]

please give me bad graphics instead.

Well there is a diference between Bad and adequate graphics;^) I find the 2d graphics in the Talonsoft Battle Ground and campign series really really adequate. OTH I find the HPS 3 d (isometric?) graphics really unpleasant to look at. I felt the same way about the first HnM2 release but Prussias glory actually looks really good. I have to agree that is sounds weird for a miniature player to think that graphics detract form a game. But am in concurence with the sentiment that I fear that graphics can take away from available development resources eg money. And I have a ton of miniatures but they are "adequate" as aposed to spectacular;^)

[anvl]

[/quote]
As far as I understand it, from the description of BPW/NB, and some answers in this forum, it will be possible to limit the formations that certain unit types can use (just like in H&M2). This is required to simulate the begining of the Napoleonic period, including the wars of the French Revolution, War of the Oranges, etc. So, cheating by playing SYW with irrealistic/later Napoleonic tactics will not be an issue, I think.

[/quote]

hope this works,,it is my first attempt at "quoting". anyway that is a good solution. The point is that gamers can always play a game and figure out its shortcomings,,then play to these and call the game unhistorical,or a badly designed game. We just don't know how much of these problems are due to poor\too expensive programming or actually limited by our computers of the moment,, If this is the case, than, other than to make constructive criticisms, it is best to play with those who understand the tactics and strategies of the subperiod, and stick to these. But we are all human and this is tough to do.

their is and prolly will be the two groups of gamers,,concerning graphics,,those with a strong boardgame background and those who come from a miniatures background,,recognising the overlap btw.. And we all have certainly seen those games that go for the glitz and sacrefice mechanics\engine,, but those are not even worth considering by me for any reason. I come from a strong miniatures background, and believe that the one doesn't take away from the other,,and for economics, a combination of the two creats the best avenue for economics.So this is a personal choice,,and surly not a critique of the quality of a game. My examples of this are Age of Rifles,, still a great game from the time when Dos was at its peak,,and Rome-Total War. The former is my favorite all time game,,it covers my main periods of interest, the graphics were superbe for its time, and the gaming engine allowed such diversity of period, and easily modable by those interested. RTW is close, but it is the wrong period of interest for me,,altho i play it quite a bit. The mechanics and graphics make my point. But RTW is just the next step, not the ultimate,, their are still many tactical problems,,very similer to those found in H&M2. But the overall plabability and "feel" is really superb.The nappy mod for MTW illustrates my point,,that a game can be modded, but if it is created specefically for an era,,or subperiod,it is best played that way,,even if the mod is really good,,

So my wish is for a game for our era,,the era of blackpowder,,approx 300 years that is easily modable so we gamers can creat our own subperiods for all to play and enjoy..oh,,and with great graphics

Lance,, I too have many miniatures,,from simple to superb paint jobs,,and hope to find a game that i can get involved in the graphics end.. and leave my paints behind..

anvil

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: anvl

As for the debates concerning H&M2,, I have found that if two people who enjoy the SYW,its tactics etc,,and try to emulate them in play that H&M2 does a pretty good job of representing the era.. Most computer games,,no,,games in general, have their rules\mechanics problems,, so to take advantage of them only takes playing a few times,,and look out,, no longer does the game model reality.. Sorry,Iñaki Harrizabalagatar,, but i think that is your problem,, You should try understanding the tactics of the time,,play them against a like opponent,,and see what happens then..

I think you are partially right, all games have their rules/mechanics problems, but some more than others, and I am afraid H&M2 is one having too many. As for your suggestion, I already tried it, playing with house rules, so that the game doesn´t look so weird in relation to historical tactics. Unfortunately, the high random in every aspect of game calculations ruins so much of the fun that I am no longer playing H&M2.

[lancerunolfsson]

So my wish is for a game for our era,,the era of blackpowder,,approx 300 years that is easily modable so we gamers can creat our own subperiods for all to play and enjoy..oh,,and with great graphics

That of course is ideal:^)

Age of rifles is a very nice game one thing I really like about is the Unit graphics editor. though unfortunately it does not work correctly all the time it is very anoying that my 1870 Russians disply as haveing bare feet!! Though I selected white pants tucked into boots. Other than that a few of the terraine features are pretty funky looking. And not enough zoom levels but it still stacks up nicely vs some more recent efforts.

I too have many miniatures,,from simple to superb paint jobs,,and hope to find a game that i can get involved in the graphics end.. and leave my paints behind..

I do have to admit I don't paint as much as I did in years past. But I find miniature, Board and computer games all have their own place. Miniatures and board games are much better for Face to Face play. But computer games have the advantage of being easier to play and do no take up as much room. One of the big advantages of board and miniatures though is that they are very easey to change if some rule is not working well. I am fortunate in having face to face oponents. But can remember many times when there was no one to play with and I really could have used computer games at those times. Even an AI is more fun than solitaire play for me;^)

[anvl]

Lance,, it sounds like you still play AOR? I have been looking into it and am thinking of trying it under winxp... and see what happens.

I am not quite so lucky,, in that way, I live in the mountains and am just too far away from my good gaming parters of the past, so a good miniatures game is a real treat for me. and i agree,, a poor AI nearly always beats a good solitare game,,:)


Iñaki Harrizabalagatar,,

I remember your topics on the random factor,,tried to duplicate it, and was never able to so don't know what to say,, I did play your scenarios,, still have them btw... sorry you were unhappy with the game ( H&M2). Such is life,, for me it is still a good game.

anvil