I picked up the HPS French and Indian War game recently and... interesting to compare this game to HnM2.
Before going further.... seems apparent that the designers that went from HnM to HnM2, were quite aware of HPS FIW (and their other games in their Early American Battles series). The new AI in HnM2 (compared to HnM) for one thing... is almost exactly what is in there for HPS FIW.
Also, before going further... what I want to say here is that, for games of this period, IMO the big advantage that the HnM series has.... is better differentation between line and light infantry units. In this era... line infantry was king but... only if you used it correctly. This was mainly on the European battlefields because in North America there were a lot more... woods. Still, in the NA battles... the challange is in using line infantry appropriately in difficult terrain... and for me... that is an interesting challange.
In the HPS games.... you pretty much got line infantry running around like light infantry and vice versa, and that is the advantage that HnM2 has. Other than that, IMO the HPS FIW game does a pretty good job of giving an accurate portrayal of the period... and a significant strength (compared to HnM2) is it can handle company sized units (and smaller) and the scenarios in HPS FIW.... give the feel of being much more accurate historically than the player developed FIW scenarios for HnM.
One idea... if the new designers of HnM... follow up on what was started with using different scales in HnM2... and make some improvements in how stacking is handled (in HPS FIW all units in a hex can fire... and stacking is handled by total number of men in a hex rather than by just allowing two units as in HnM. IMO, stacking should be handled by total number of men... but only half of these can fire... but this would mean up to half the stacking limit... could be considered TOP units in HnM2... whereas... right now you can only have one TOP unit).... well, what I would suggest... is maybe Matrix could work out a deal with HPS (Matrix is pretty good at things like this)... to pick up the HPS scenarios converted to HnM3 (?) and... have a combined release with HPS on the FIW, ARW and W1812. This is something that would not only appeal to the fans of HnM... but also to those fans of the HPS EAB series.
Whatever... I got various comments on comparing these two games and will make them in replys to this post. If others want to make comments of their own or make comments on my comments... please do so!
DiT
HnM2 vs HPS FIW
Moderators: Tim Coakley, Sertorius
-
DeadInThrench
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: NE Pennsylvania, USA
-
Panama Red
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:06 pm
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
DiT:
There are actually some scenarios made for PWM that are company level. There was also a writeup explaining how to do it:
Company Level Scenario[/b]
Guide for making battalion-level scenarios as exemplified by the "Assault on Krzeczhorz" scenario.
The following gives you some suggested stats to use when making small-scale scenarios for Dragoon. The scale is assumed to be:
1 hex = 37.5 yards
1 turn = 5 minutes
2 guns per battery
150 men per infantry unit (75 per Light Infantry unit)
Game Parameters: 1-3 men per hit
The following unit stats are offered in the format: FireMod-AssaultMod-MCMod-DisrMod-MoveAllowance
Prussia
Line Inf 675-500-(-1)-(-2)-8
Fusilier 550-400-(-1)-(-2)-8
Grenadier 875-575-(-1)-(-2)-8
Artillery 300-X-X-X-10
Austria
Line Inf 375-375-(-1)-(-1)-8
Grenadier 575-500-(-1)-(-1)-8
Light Inf 1000-100-(-1)-NA-7
Artillery 500-X-X-X-10
Firing Ranges
Musket (Eff-Long) 3-6
Prussian 6 pdr (Short-Eff-Long) 5-11-21
Prussian 12 pdr 5-16-27
Austrian 6 pdr 8-13-24
Austrian 12 pdr 8-19-32
Notes: For a scenario at this scale, a Prussian line battalion should consist of 5 units, a Prussian grenadier battalion 4 units. An Austrian line battalion should consist of 6 units. You might want to adjust these numbers to accommodate the ground scale. For example, up until after Kolin the Austrians used a 4-rank line, as opposed to the Prussians 3. You’ll probably want to double up some Austrian units where necessary. (I did this to the Prussian regiment of Schultze in the “Assault on K“ scenario, giving each battalion 3 units instead of 5.)
There are not any specific rules regarding battalion guns. Therefore, you can either experiment by creating these units (4 x 3 pdr guns per Prussian regiment) and try to keep up with infantry advances, or you can merely add the battalion guns to a unit in the center of the regimental line. See the Munchow regiment in the “Assault on K” scenario.
Command Leaders should command a battalion each. Corps Leaders should command a regiment of (usually) 2 battalions. The Overall Leader should be the Brigade Leader, such as our old friend Generalmajor Hulsen.
An area ripe for experimentation is the Leader stats. I prefer to use my Command Leaders to move and, especially, rally the troops. I give them low Command Ratings, low Radius (to ensure that the player must keep his battalions together) and a decent number of Rally Points. Corps Leaders’ primary function is to issue Subordinate Points to their Command Leaders. I give them low Command Ratings and low Rally Points and enough Sub Points to give the Command Leaders a good chance of activation, without making them automatic. I also like to make sure the player has choices to make with his Sub Points, so I usually make them odd numbers. I use Overall Leaders in the same way as Corps Leaders: High Sub Points, low Rally Points, Variable Command Rating (depending on the individual being modeled).
Feel free to experiment with different combinations of Rally, Command and Sub Points, as well as Initiative and Command Radius.
Finally, you will see that I made the map nice and big. This is so you can easily add more units to the scenario as the spirit moves you. Some Austrian line infantry or even some Prussian cavalry (Hulsen’s command included a regiment of dragoons, after all) could easily fit on the map and make for a pretty nice battle.
There are actually some scenarios made for PWM that are company level. There was also a writeup explaining how to do it:
Company Level Scenario[/b]
Guide for making battalion-level scenarios as exemplified by the "Assault on Krzeczhorz" scenario.
The following gives you some suggested stats to use when making small-scale scenarios for Dragoon. The scale is assumed to be:
1 hex = 37.5 yards
1 turn = 5 minutes
2 guns per battery
150 men per infantry unit (75 per Light Infantry unit)
Game Parameters: 1-3 men per hit
The following unit stats are offered in the format: FireMod-AssaultMod-MCMod-DisrMod-MoveAllowance
Prussia
Line Inf 675-500-(-1)-(-2)-8
Fusilier 550-400-(-1)-(-2)-8
Grenadier 875-575-(-1)-(-2)-8
Artillery 300-X-X-X-10
Austria
Line Inf 375-375-(-1)-(-1)-8
Grenadier 575-500-(-1)-(-1)-8
Light Inf 1000-100-(-1)-NA-7
Artillery 500-X-X-X-10
Firing Ranges
Musket (Eff-Long) 3-6
Prussian 6 pdr (Short-Eff-Long) 5-11-21
Prussian 12 pdr 5-16-27
Austrian 6 pdr 8-13-24
Austrian 12 pdr 8-19-32
Notes: For a scenario at this scale, a Prussian line battalion should consist of 5 units, a Prussian grenadier battalion 4 units. An Austrian line battalion should consist of 6 units. You might want to adjust these numbers to accommodate the ground scale. For example, up until after Kolin the Austrians used a 4-rank line, as opposed to the Prussians 3. You’ll probably want to double up some Austrian units where necessary. (I did this to the Prussian regiment of Schultze in the “Assault on K“ scenario, giving each battalion 3 units instead of 5.)
There are not any specific rules regarding battalion guns. Therefore, you can either experiment by creating these units (4 x 3 pdr guns per Prussian regiment) and try to keep up with infantry advances, or you can merely add the battalion guns to a unit in the center of the regimental line. See the Munchow regiment in the “Assault on K” scenario.
Command Leaders should command a battalion each. Corps Leaders should command a regiment of (usually) 2 battalions. The Overall Leader should be the Brigade Leader, such as our old friend Generalmajor Hulsen.
An area ripe for experimentation is the Leader stats. I prefer to use my Command Leaders to move and, especially, rally the troops. I give them low Command Ratings, low Radius (to ensure that the player must keep his battalions together) and a decent number of Rally Points. Corps Leaders’ primary function is to issue Subordinate Points to their Command Leaders. I give them low Command Ratings and low Rally Points and enough Sub Points to give the Command Leaders a good chance of activation, without making them automatic. I also like to make sure the player has choices to make with his Sub Points, so I usually make them odd numbers. I use Overall Leaders in the same way as Corps Leaders: High Sub Points, low Rally Points, Variable Command Rating (depending on the individual being modeled).
Feel free to experiment with different combinations of Rally, Command and Sub Points, as well as Initiative and Command Radius.
Finally, you will see that I made the map nice and big. This is so you can easily add more units to the scenario as the spirit moves you. Some Austrian line infantry or even some Prussian cavalry (Hulsen’s command included a regiment of dragoons, after all) could easily fit on the map and make for a pretty nice battle.
-
DeadInThrench
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: NE Pennsylvania, USA
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
Hmmm.... 37.5 yards per hex. Because the base scale was 150.. and half of that, 75, was sometimes used, and half of that... is 37.5. But, 1/4th of 15 minutes comes out to a bit less than 4 minutes and he wanted to use 5 minutes and so... had to increase the movement allowance of all the units, and then had to set the damage inflicted by the weapons as well.
Uh.... if my suggestion of one parameter... SCALE.... with 1 in scale equaling 10 yards, 1 minute, and 50 men.... were implemented... then he could have used a scale of 3 here... meaning 30 yards per hex, 3 minute turns, and 150 men per unit. Given each Prussian battalion had 5 companies... then this all works out very nicely.... and you don't have to change the unit movement allowances... and the game should work out the weapon damage by range as well as any damage per fire modifiers and things like disruption taken while in an enemy ZOC.
Also, even in battalion sized scenarios there is considerable difference. In PWM Mollwitz, the Prussian battalions are at 580, with the Austrians at 560, but at Prague, we have 780 for the former and 800 for the later. So, if my suggestion of a single parameter of SCALE were implemented.... would use a scale of 12 for Mollwitz... and 16 for Prague... and everything works out quite nicely.
Hmmmm... if you implemented SCALE like I have suggested... you could always have additional parameters for TIME and STACKING LIMITS. When you set the SCALE, these would be set to the default as I have stated above but.. for a scenario designer that had a problem with 16 minute turns for his Prague scenario... well, he could force that to 15 minute turns and the game would take that into account re casualties, etc, etc.
More hmmmm... the stacking of 50 men per 10 yards is quite convenient given the size of a Prussian company at 150 men (which just means use a scale of 3). But, for the British, and their two line line infantry.... would mean a stacking of 33 and a third men per hex per unit of scale and, would mean a scale of 3 would allow for 100 man British companies and, if HPS FIW is accurate.... looks like 100 men per company was the standard for British line companies so... again... works out quite nicely.
Looks like the Prussians and the British BOTH used 50 men per line per company... it's just that the Prussians had 3 lines and the British, just two.
DiT
Uh.... if my suggestion of one parameter... SCALE.... with 1 in scale equaling 10 yards, 1 minute, and 50 men.... were implemented... then he could have used a scale of 3 here... meaning 30 yards per hex, 3 minute turns, and 150 men per unit. Given each Prussian battalion had 5 companies... then this all works out very nicely.... and you don't have to change the unit movement allowances... and the game should work out the weapon damage by range as well as any damage per fire modifiers and things like disruption taken while in an enemy ZOC.
Also, even in battalion sized scenarios there is considerable difference. In PWM Mollwitz, the Prussian battalions are at 580, with the Austrians at 560, but at Prague, we have 780 for the former and 800 for the later. So, if my suggestion of a single parameter of SCALE were implemented.... would use a scale of 12 for Mollwitz... and 16 for Prague... and everything works out quite nicely.
Hmmmm... if you implemented SCALE like I have suggested... you could always have additional parameters for TIME and STACKING LIMITS. When you set the SCALE, these would be set to the default as I have stated above but.. for a scenario designer that had a problem with 16 minute turns for his Prague scenario... well, he could force that to 15 minute turns and the game would take that into account re casualties, etc, etc.
More hmmmm... the stacking of 50 men per 10 yards is quite convenient given the size of a Prussian company at 150 men (which just means use a scale of 3). But, for the British, and their two line line infantry.... would mean a stacking of 33 and a third men per hex per unit of scale and, would mean a scale of 3 would allow for 100 man British companies and, if HPS FIW is accurate.... looks like 100 men per company was the standard for British line companies so... again... works out quite nicely.
Looks like the Prussians and the British BOTH used 50 men per line per company... it's just that the Prussians had 3 lines and the British, just two.
DiT
-
DeadInThrench
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: NE Pennsylvania, USA
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
In playing HPS FIW war some more... one thing where it seems to be better... is in the quality ratings of their units. HnM, has GREEN, TRAINED, VETERAN, and ELITE... while HPS FIW... has 6 levels of unit quality.
IMO... a better scale in HnM... would be GREEN (3), TRAINED (4), EXPERIENCED (5), VETERAN (6), ELITE (7) and GUARD (8). With this scheme... VETERAN and ELITE... would remain as they are... but GREEN and TRAINED would move down one notch... with EXPERIENCED taking over the slot that TRAINED was in.
As things stand now... I don't feel the GREEN rating does justice to exactly how poor quality the American milita was. There was one thing they were good at... running! And that was about it.
The GUARD rating... would be a rating that would only be used in rare cases like... Napoleon's Old Guard and possibly some similar units here and there.
As things stand now... the ratings in use seem a bit compressed... with the main need being something in between TRAINED and VETERAN (e.g. EXPERIENCED).
Whatever,
DiT
IMO... a better scale in HnM... would be GREEN (3), TRAINED (4), EXPERIENCED (5), VETERAN (6), ELITE (7) and GUARD (8). With this scheme... VETERAN and ELITE... would remain as they are... but GREEN and TRAINED would move down one notch... with EXPERIENCED taking over the slot that TRAINED was in.
As things stand now... I don't feel the GREEN rating does justice to exactly how poor quality the American milita was. There was one thing they were good at... running! And that was about it.
The GUARD rating... would be a rating that would only be used in rare cases like... Napoleon's Old Guard and possibly some similar units here and there.
As things stand now... the ratings in use seem a bit compressed... with the main need being something in between TRAINED and VETERAN (e.g. EXPERIENCED).
Whatever,
DiT
-
DeadInThrench
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: NE Pennsylvania, USA
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
I just picked up the HPS C1776 and W1812 games and.... some more comments.
I brought up the Cowpens scenario and... seems to be about right re a company level game. But, I then brought up Guildford Courthouse and..... might just be better off at the battalion level... you don't really need all those American militia at the company level. I then.. brought up Brandywine and, gee wiz, over 150 company sized British units about to jump on Washington's unprotected right flank.
On this one.... I guess if you want massive sized company level action... well, then this is about right. But otherwise, no doubt in my mind that a battalion level scenario here, might just be more appropriate.
The bottom line on this comment.... the advantage of a mult-scale game along the lines I have suggested... with HnM2 having leaned in that direction but more work needed to make it work.
Next comment... the HPS games.... allow stacking by total number of men and all units in a hex can fire and can change formation or facing, even if in an enemy ZOC.
As I have mentioned previously... IMO... stacking should be by total number of men, with different stacking limits for 4-line line infantry (early Austirans), 3-line line infantry (Prussians, etc), 2-line line infantry (British), light infantry, artillery, maybe line infantry in column... etc... and then HALF of those should be allowed to be 'top' units and be able to fire, melee, etc.
A lot of times this would not really come into play but..... would be better to have a more reasonable system for those times when it would come into play... you could (if the game allowed it) have two (or more) top units in a hex. The HPS Monongahela scenario, for one, has the Indians in 'War Party' (roughly squad level.... 10-20 men per unit) formations and HnM2, as it stands now... could not handle this.
As far as the HnM2 restrictions on units in enemy ZOCs, I can see not allowing units to change formation but.... IMO should at least be able to change their facing. I can't imangine a unit backing up just so they can change their facing. Would change their facing right where they were, taking fire no doubt but... then it would be done.
Comments?
DiT
P.S. One thing on the HPS games, their maps seems to be really well done... seem to be a lot bigger than the HnM2 maps. By comparison, the HnM2 maps, seem to be kinda compressed.
I brought up the Cowpens scenario and... seems to be about right re a company level game. But, I then brought up Guildford Courthouse and..... might just be better off at the battalion level... you don't really need all those American militia at the company level. I then.. brought up Brandywine and, gee wiz, over 150 company sized British units about to jump on Washington's unprotected right flank.
On this one.... I guess if you want massive sized company level action... well, then this is about right. But otherwise, no doubt in my mind that a battalion level scenario here, might just be more appropriate.
The bottom line on this comment.... the advantage of a mult-scale game along the lines I have suggested... with HnM2 having leaned in that direction but more work needed to make it work.
Next comment... the HPS games.... allow stacking by total number of men and all units in a hex can fire and can change formation or facing, even if in an enemy ZOC.
As I have mentioned previously... IMO... stacking should be by total number of men, with different stacking limits for 4-line line infantry (early Austirans), 3-line line infantry (Prussians, etc), 2-line line infantry (British), light infantry, artillery, maybe line infantry in column... etc... and then HALF of those should be allowed to be 'top' units and be able to fire, melee, etc.
A lot of times this would not really come into play but..... would be better to have a more reasonable system for those times when it would come into play... you could (if the game allowed it) have two (or more) top units in a hex. The HPS Monongahela scenario, for one, has the Indians in 'War Party' (roughly squad level.... 10-20 men per unit) formations and HnM2, as it stands now... could not handle this.
As far as the HnM2 restrictions on units in enemy ZOCs, I can see not allowing units to change formation but.... IMO should at least be able to change their facing. I can't imangine a unit backing up just so they can change their facing. Would change their facing right where they were, taking fire no doubt but... then it would be done.
Comments?
DiT
P.S. One thing on the HPS games, their maps seems to be really well done... seem to be a lot bigger than the HnM2 maps. By comparison, the HnM2 maps, seem to be kinda compressed.
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
We have smaller hexes than what the HPS games have, I think with the new hex size the battles will be larger in size too.
/Magnus
-
DeadInThrench
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: NE Pennsylvania, USA
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
I don't think this is a matter of hex size... but the total number of hexes... on a battlefield. The HPS games.... have more area around the battlefield in general giving a better feel of things at the larger level.
One thing... the HPS figurines... almost look minutte compared to HnM... and I think their problem was... not completely filling up the hexes with their figurines. They leave more space at the edges of the hexes and the figurines.... end up being a lot smaller.
I hope the new HnM is not trying to get it's figurines to look like what is in HPS.... which would be step backward IMO.
DiT
One thing... the HPS figurines... almost look minutte compared to HnM... and I think their problem was... not completely filling up the hexes with their figurines. They leave more space at the edges of the hexes and the figurines.... end up being a lot smaller.
I hope the new HnM is not trying to get it's figurines to look like what is in HPS.... which would be step backward IMO.
DiT
-
DeadInThrench
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: NE Pennsylvania, USA
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
Hmmm... every time I hear about this larger hex size (and assuming that the figurines are gonna remain the same size... which seems apparent with the talk of having more figurines per hex)... it kinda scares me... to the tune of 'Is what we are looking at here gonna be 'Bye bye HnM'?'.
Anyone that has played HnM, PWM or PG... can envision what they are looking at now... and everything is the same except... the figurines are now only half as tall, half as wide, and thus you only have 1/4th the detail in each figurine as you have now (you maybe have twice as many in a hex but just 1/4th the detail per figurine that is there now).
Higher resolution would bring in more detail but.... that would give just as much of an improvement with the hex size and figurines as they are now.
With HnM2 somewhat of a graphical albatross to start with... and with all the improvements possible to the game system, AI, scenarios, etc.... almost unbelievable that you are going in this direction with the larger hex size.
To be frank, kinda reminds me of some of the IDIOT things I was privy to back when I worked in corporate America.
DiT
P.S. Yeah, am hoping things don't turn out as they are looking right now.
Anyone that has played HnM, PWM or PG... can envision what they are looking at now... and everything is the same except... the figurines are now only half as tall, half as wide, and thus you only have 1/4th the detail in each figurine as you have now (you maybe have twice as many in a hex but just 1/4th the detail per figurine that is there now).
Higher resolution would bring in more detail but.... that would give just as much of an improvement with the hex size and figurines as they are now.
With HnM2 somewhat of a graphical albatross to start with... and with all the improvements possible to the game system, AI, scenarios, etc.... almost unbelievable that you are going in this direction with the larger hex size.
To be frank, kinda reminds me of some of the IDIOT things I was privy to back when I worked in corporate America.
DiT
P.S. Yeah, am hoping things don't turn out as they are looking right now.
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
There won't be more figures per hex, we will still use max 8 units on one hex. The units will keep the same small size, but the terrain, trees, buildings, fortifications etc will be increased in size for a more natural scale. Well whatever I can do within the given hex size of course.
Of course this is not set yet, I can easily instead increase the size of the units, thus showing more detail on their uniforms. We haven't decided this yet. What would you guys prefer? Larger graphics overall? Keeping the same scale as now, larger units than buildings, or try for a more natural scale and instead increase the size of trees, buildings etc?
Of course this is not set yet, I can easily instead increase the size of the units, thus showing more detail on their uniforms. We haven't decided this yet. What would you guys prefer? Larger graphics overall? Keeping the same scale as now, larger units than buildings, or try for a more natural scale and instead increase the size of trees, buildings etc?
/Magnus
-
Panama Red
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:06 pm
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
Please keep the same size units, that way when you increase the size of the trees and buildings, they will still look "in scale" versus the larger troops "overwhelming" the new trees and buildings if the troops grow larger too. After all, this game is trying to be realistic and the "scale" of the graphics is part of the game too.
-
DeadInThrench
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: NE Pennsylvania, USA
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
If the units keep the 'same small size'... then they will only have half the height and half the width and 1/4th the number of pixels per figurine.. and only take up 1/4th as much space in each hex as they do now... looking at them at the same hex by hex view that a given player is using now.
I don't think we really want this... instead.... if you are gonna increase the size of the squares... then you really need to increase the size of the figurines as well.... in other words, twice the height and twice the width.... and this would mean.... at the same hex by hex view that a given player is looking at now..... their relative size would be the same as it is now, it's just that when you zoom in.... you would have the greater detail, 4 times as much in fact, as you do now.
But.... Magnus... if you went this way.... then you would have to do ALL the figurine artwork over at twice the height and twice the width.... and 4 times the number of pixels, and that to me sounds like a lot of work.
As far as the other terrain... buildings, trees.... again, the problem isn't that the figurines are too big... the problem is that.... all the terrain and other stuff... is TOO SMALL. Thus, if you went to a bigger hex size.... you would want to MORE than double the height and width of the terrain (trees, buildings, etc).... maybe in fact quadruple the height and width (which would mean a 16x increase in the pixels per tree, building, etc).
If you stayed at the same hex size you have now.... then the figurines should remain the same size.... but the other terrain artwork should be increased in size... hard to say how much... maybe 50% to twice the size that they are now and..... when units are in these terrains they should be intermingled with it. If this means part of the line of a line infantry unit doesn't get displayed when they are in a hex with a building... well, IMO that is accurate re the situation that existed during this era and the modifiers I have proposed for these situations.
If on the other hand.... you doubled the height and width of the hexes and left the unit art the same size it is now.... thus decreasing the number of pixels per figurine by 75%... given the same hex by hex view that a player is looking at now... well, sounds a lot like the way the HPS games look now and.... IMO... right now a major strength that HnM2 has now over the HPS games.... is the much more impressive unit artwork... and if you go in this direction... IMO... a giant step backward.
DiT
I don't think we really want this... instead.... if you are gonna increase the size of the squares... then you really need to increase the size of the figurines as well.... in other words, twice the height and twice the width.... and this would mean.... at the same hex by hex view that a given player is looking at now..... their relative size would be the same as it is now, it's just that when you zoom in.... you would have the greater detail, 4 times as much in fact, as you do now.
But.... Magnus... if you went this way.... then you would have to do ALL the figurine artwork over at twice the height and twice the width.... and 4 times the number of pixels, and that to me sounds like a lot of work.
As far as the other terrain... buildings, trees.... again, the problem isn't that the figurines are too big... the problem is that.... all the terrain and other stuff... is TOO SMALL. Thus, if you went to a bigger hex size.... you would want to MORE than double the height and width of the terrain (trees, buildings, etc).... maybe in fact quadruple the height and width (which would mean a 16x increase in the pixels per tree, building, etc).
If you stayed at the same hex size you have now.... then the figurines should remain the same size.... but the other terrain artwork should be increased in size... hard to say how much... maybe 50% to twice the size that they are now and..... when units are in these terrains they should be intermingled with it. If this means part of the line of a line infantry unit doesn't get displayed when they are in a hex with a building... well, IMO that is accurate re the situation that existed during this era and the modifiers I have proposed for these situations.
If on the other hand.... you doubled the height and width of the hexes and left the unit art the same size it is now.... thus decreasing the number of pixels per figurine by 75%... given the same hex by hex view that a player is looking at now... well, sounds a lot like the way the HPS games look now and.... IMO... right now a major strength that HnM2 has now over the HPS games.... is the much more impressive unit artwork... and if you go in this direction... IMO... a giant step backward.
DiT
-
DeadInThrench
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: NE Pennsylvania, USA
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
Hmmm.... if you look at the HPS games.... what you see is that the unit art and the art of the terrain.... are the right proportion.... but BOTH are too small re the size of the hexes. A typical unit only takes up about half the width of a square and in practice the units look real small and much smaller (and much less of an impact graphically speaking) than in HnM.
On the other hand.... if you look at HnM.... you see the unit art is the right size re the hexes but.... the OTHER art... trees, buildings, is TOO SMALL in comparison to the units and hexes.
But then if you look at GBCE (Great Battles Collector's Edition) you see unit art about the same size as in HnM... but terrain art that is much bigger than in HnM and, the right proportion re the unit art and hex size.
The only thing that is needed in HnM is getting the OTHER art up to size re the size of the hexes and the size of the units.
On the other hand... if you make the squares twice as high and twice as wide (overall 4 times bigger)... well, let me not get into that again.
DiT
P.S. In playing the HPS games... and don't get me wrong they are good games otherwise... I cannot really tell at a glance which unit is which looking at the unit graphics. For starters the unit art is much smaller than in HnM... and also they crunch everything up in the same hex... but in any case was never a problem with this in HnM... nor in GBCE for that matter... which otherwise had better (well, bigger and better) terrain than HnM has.
On the other hand.... if you look at HnM.... you see the unit art is the right size re the hexes but.... the OTHER art... trees, buildings, is TOO SMALL in comparison to the units and hexes.
But then if you look at GBCE (Great Battles Collector's Edition) you see unit art about the same size as in HnM... but terrain art that is much bigger than in HnM and, the right proportion re the unit art and hex size.
The only thing that is needed in HnM is getting the OTHER art up to size re the size of the hexes and the size of the units.
On the other hand... if you make the squares twice as high and twice as wide (overall 4 times bigger)... well, let me not get into that again.
DiT
P.S. In playing the HPS games... and don't get me wrong they are good games otherwise... I cannot really tell at a glance which unit is which looking at the unit graphics. For starters the unit art is much smaller than in HnM... and also they crunch everything up in the same hex... but in any case was never a problem with this in HnM... nor in GBCE for that matter... which otherwise had better (well, bigger and better) terrain than HnM has.
-
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
- Posts: 785
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:00 pm
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
I don´t mind so much the size of graphics, what I want is easy to identify graphics, both for units and terrain, as you know it is very hard to impossible to tell the terrain in which a unit is placed, and for units sometimes you get confused by similar uniforms.ORIGINAL: Magnus
There won't be more figures per hex, we will still use max 8 units on one hex. The units will keep the same small size, but the terrain, trees, buildings, fortifications etc will be increased in size for a more natural scale. Well whatever I can do within the given hex size of course.
Of course this is not set yet, I can easily instead increase the size of the units, thus showing more detail on their uniforms. We haven't decided this yet. What would you guys prefer? Larger graphics overall? Keeping the same scale as now, larger units than buildings, or try for a more natural scale and instead increase the size of trees, buildings etc?
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
Actually Inaki that was my intention with larger hexes. There are both positive and negative aspects of this, first if I would increase the size of units, which is no problem for me since they are 3D models, I just render them larger to bitmap. They would still obscure the terrain, buildings etc like they do now. The positive side of this would be the increased detail on the units, zoomed in they would not look so pixelated.
On the other hand the increase in just buildings, well terrain overall would allow for more detailed terrain which would be easier for the player to look at and look better. Also the buildings and trees would be more in scale with the units which I think would look great, though the units would still be so small as they are now, which maybe isn't a problem.
One problem for me as an artist is the boundaries I have to keep for the art within this game. For example I would be able to make much larger buildings and terrain overall if the buildings and trees could "spill" over onto adjacent hexes, now I have to keep all graphics within the boundaries of a hex. Thus I can't make trees really tall nor buildings.
But I think overall the game will look much better, since now I can add small details such as fences, paths etc with the new hex scale. That was my only intention to increase the detail. But since I have only started on the terrain so far I will ask Tim and render two examples of a unit then we'll see we we're going to stick with current size of increase size
On the other hand the increase in just buildings, well terrain overall would allow for more detailed terrain which would be easier for the player to look at and look better. Also the buildings and trees would be more in scale with the units which I think would look great, though the units would still be so small as they are now, which maybe isn't a problem.
One problem for me as an artist is the boundaries I have to keep for the art within this game. For example I would be able to make much larger buildings and terrain overall if the buildings and trees could "spill" over onto adjacent hexes, now I have to keep all graphics within the boundaries of a hex. Thus I can't make trees really tall nor buildings.
But I think overall the game will look much better, since now I can add small details such as fences, paths etc with the new hex scale. That was my only intention to increase the detail. But since I have only started on the terrain so far I will ask Tim and render two examples of a unit then we'll see we we're going to stick with current size of increase size
/Magnus
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
Actually another idea I had, if I would keep the same size of the units now and release the terrain with larger buildings, trees. Then maybe the next forthcoming games we could instead increase the number of men per hex to say 16 instead of 8. This would allow for more special units in the batallions such as fifers, sergeants, trumpeteers for cavalry etc. Not sure if Mike would allow this though code wise. I'm still thinking a lot whether to go with larger units or keep the size.
I think what I will do is that tonight I will render one unit in two size, one original size and one twice the size and post here.
I think what I will do is that tonight I will render one unit in two size, one original size and one twice the size and post here.
/Magnus
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
Inaki one solution to the "uniform" problem which I think they had in the real 18th century too by the way Is to have every regimental flag, that way you would be able to distinguish them
Is to have every regimental flag, that way you would be able to distinguish them /Magnus
-
Panama Red
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:06 pm
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
Magnus:
I really like your suggestion of keeping the same size troops and upping the number of troops in the unit in the future to fit the new hexes. This is what several mod makers have accomplished over in the HPS Napoleonic games and it gives a much better impression of the large linear battles of that era. What the mod makers did in the HPS games (the HPS hexes are close to what you want to enlarge hexes to in HnM3) was REDUCE the size of the troops so they could have lines of 12 troops (6 per line) stretching hex side to hex side versus the original 4 single line HPS troops.
After seeing all these different mods for various HPS games, I think HnM2 has a very good balance of scale for the troops (especially when you enlarge the hexes for the larger trees and buildings to bring them up to scale). The only reason that the HPS troops look sharper even though they have a lot less detail and are smaller figures is because the HPS games support the higher resolution of 1280x1024 versus the HnM2's 1024x768.
I really like your suggestion of keeping the same size troops and upping the number of troops in the unit in the future to fit the new hexes. This is what several mod makers have accomplished over in the HPS Napoleonic games and it gives a much better impression of the large linear battles of that era. What the mod makers did in the HPS games (the HPS hexes are close to what you want to enlarge hexes to in HnM3) was REDUCE the size of the troops so they could have lines of 12 troops (6 per line) stretching hex side to hex side versus the original 4 single line HPS troops.
After seeing all these different mods for various HPS games, I think HnM2 has a very good balance of scale for the troops (especially when you enlarge the hexes for the larger trees and buildings to bring them up to scale). The only reason that the HPS troops look sharper even though they have a lot less detail and are smaller figures is because the HPS games support the higher resolution of 1280x1024 versus the HnM2's 1024x768.
-
DeadInThrench
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: NE Pennsylvania, USA
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
Magnus.... if you can't make the terrain art spill over into the hexes above... then that is the problem here re the terrain being too small.... and I don't believe you can make it bigger until the game engine is upgraded to allow that.
IMO.... what you are trying to do is to eliminate this problem other ways... increasing the size of the hexes and thus making the unit art much smaller (in practice) than it is now... and IMO this won't work.... without compromising some of the best aspects that you have in HnM as it stands now.
There is a difference between saying the unit size will be the same... and saying the unit ART size will be the same. You really mean the latter and if the unit art stays the same size and the squares become twice as high and twice as wide (in other words, one square with this would take up the same amount of pixels as 4 squares now take up), then in practice... the size of the units.... would be decreased by 50% in height and 75% in total pixels used (Is this clear? I seem to have a problem getting this point across.) and... IMO you don't want that.
One point Inaki made was he sometimes had a problem distunguishing one unit from another and.... this would be much worse if the number of pixels used by each figurine (in practice.... same hex by hex area as now) would be decreased by 75% (yeah, the size of the flags would be decreased by 75% as well).
Also... if you increase the square size and render the unit art to the same size.... you are not going to get any greater detail unless you go over all the unit art and touch it up so that the greater detail is in there. In other words... just rendering it to a larger size would just make it look like it does now at higher zooms. You can't have greater detail unless you put that detail in there.
IMO.... what SHOULD be done here... is the game engine should be upgraded to allow you to do terrain artwork that overflows into the hexes above... just like the unit art does... and THEN you could put in terrain (trees, buildings, etc) that is much more pleasing and functional (e.g. bigger and intermixes with the unit art... when appropriate) than is there now.
Then.... after you make the terrain art bigger.... if you want... at some point you could go to the bigger squares... twice the height and twice the width... and render EVERYTHING to this larger size.. and then go in and touch up everything to give you the greater level of detail that you wanted. This would be a big job but... all the artwork would use up 4x the number of pixels it does now and so..... you could have a LOT more detail at the lower zooms than you have now (assuming you put it in there) and... that would be a plus.. maybe a big plus.
But, IMO, until you get the code upgrade to allow the terrain art to overflow into the squares above... you are better off just concentrating on the Russian, Swedish and whatever unit artwork that Tim will need for any future HnM releases.
DiT
IMO.... what you are trying to do is to eliminate this problem other ways... increasing the size of the hexes and thus making the unit art much smaller (in practice) than it is now... and IMO this won't work.... without compromising some of the best aspects that you have in HnM as it stands now.
There is a difference between saying the unit size will be the same... and saying the unit ART size will be the same. You really mean the latter and if the unit art stays the same size and the squares become twice as high and twice as wide (in other words, one square with this would take up the same amount of pixels as 4 squares now take up), then in practice... the size of the units.... would be decreased by 50% in height and 75% in total pixels used (Is this clear? I seem to have a problem getting this point across.) and... IMO you don't want that.
One point Inaki made was he sometimes had a problem distunguishing one unit from another and.... this would be much worse if the number of pixels used by each figurine (in practice.... same hex by hex area as now) would be decreased by 75% (yeah, the size of the flags would be decreased by 75% as well).
Also... if you increase the square size and render the unit art to the same size.... you are not going to get any greater detail unless you go over all the unit art and touch it up so that the greater detail is in there. In other words... just rendering it to a larger size would just make it look like it does now at higher zooms. You can't have greater detail unless you put that detail in there.
IMO.... what SHOULD be done here... is the game engine should be upgraded to allow you to do terrain artwork that overflows into the hexes above... just like the unit art does... and THEN you could put in terrain (trees, buildings, etc) that is much more pleasing and functional (e.g. bigger and intermixes with the unit art... when appropriate) than is there now.
Then.... after you make the terrain art bigger.... if you want... at some point you could go to the bigger squares... twice the height and twice the width... and render EVERYTHING to this larger size.. and then go in and touch up everything to give you the greater level of detail that you wanted. This would be a big job but... all the artwork would use up 4x the number of pixels it does now and so..... you could have a LOT more detail at the lower zooms than you have now (assuming you put it in there) and... that would be a plus.. maybe a big plus.
But, IMO, until you get the code upgrade to allow the terrain art to overflow into the squares above... you are better off just concentrating on the Russian, Swedish and whatever unit artwork that Tim will need for any future HnM releases.
DiT
-
DeadInThrench
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: NE Pennsylvania, USA
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
Panama Red.... I really get the impression that your feel is that HnM would be better off with unit artwork that is along the lines of the HPS games as far as size and, if so, then you and I disagree on this.
I was able to bring up HnM, GPCE and HPS FIW all at the same time and, using the taskbar, go from one to the other easily for a comparison.
And one of the first things that hits you, is GBCE.... uses WIDER hexes which makes it look like you are looking at the battlefield from a more horizontal angle compared to the other two games and... IMO... this is a plus for GBCE (in HnM and HPS FIW it is more a tops down look... some angle but not as good as in GBCE).
(Oh, one thing NONE of these games attempt... is tapering off the field as you increase the distance.... higher on the display... and probably because the rendering would be too difficult... but I would bet using DirectX that this could now be done and... would potentially give a much better 3D feel).
Next... looking at HnM... the terrain is not big enough particularly in comparisson to GBCE but.... a positive for HnM... the unit art is really well done. Very colorful, and more varied than in either of the other two games.
Then if you look at HPS FIW.. be comparison... the unit art... just seems ragged. Hard to say what it is but... I believe the figurine art in the other two games is bigger and thus there is greater detail in these games. Also, with HPS showing every unit that is in a hex... crunching em up as best it can... this tends to make the situation worse. HnM, allows two units in a hex but only displays one... GBCE... simply does NOT ALLOW stacking so it has no problems in that regard.
Now... not to say there aren't other things in the HPS games where HPS is better.... the larger maps... for a starter HPS is better than both of the other two games... and having the 'board wargame' style higher zooms... is real nice because you can see the battle situation at a high level... at a glance.
But... when it comes to the unit art... IMO the HPS games are backward by comparrison to both HnM and GBCE. The advantage GBCE has over HnM... is the better terrain art.. but HnM has the more colorful unit art.
In short... IMO... the only thing HnM needs is the better terrain art... and this can't be done until the game engine is upgraded to support overflow into the hexes above and until this is done... IMO nothing really Magnus can do to make the terrain artwork bigger.
DiT
P.S. Magnus... you might consider lookin at wider hexes as in GBCE... that would give a better angle looking at the battlefield... and the possibility of tapering things off as you receed in distance. Enhancements along these lines... might be difficult to do but.... would be reall pluses if you can make them happen.
I was able to bring up HnM, GPCE and HPS FIW all at the same time and, using the taskbar, go from one to the other easily for a comparison.
And one of the first things that hits you, is GBCE.... uses WIDER hexes which makes it look like you are looking at the battlefield from a more horizontal angle compared to the other two games and... IMO... this is a plus for GBCE (in HnM and HPS FIW it is more a tops down look... some angle but not as good as in GBCE).
(Oh, one thing NONE of these games attempt... is tapering off the field as you increase the distance.... higher on the display... and probably because the rendering would be too difficult... but I would bet using DirectX that this could now be done and... would potentially give a much better 3D feel).
Next... looking at HnM... the terrain is not big enough particularly in comparisson to GBCE but.... a positive for HnM... the unit art is really well done. Very colorful, and more varied than in either of the other two games.
Then if you look at HPS FIW.. be comparison... the unit art... just seems ragged. Hard to say what it is but... I believe the figurine art in the other two games is bigger and thus there is greater detail in these games. Also, with HPS showing every unit that is in a hex... crunching em up as best it can... this tends to make the situation worse. HnM, allows two units in a hex but only displays one... GBCE... simply does NOT ALLOW stacking so it has no problems in that regard.
Now... not to say there aren't other things in the HPS games where HPS is better.... the larger maps... for a starter HPS is better than both of the other two games... and having the 'board wargame' style higher zooms... is real nice because you can see the battle situation at a high level... at a glance.
But... when it comes to the unit art... IMO the HPS games are backward by comparrison to both HnM and GBCE. The advantage GBCE has over HnM... is the better terrain art.. but HnM has the more colorful unit art.
In short... IMO... the only thing HnM needs is the better terrain art... and this can't be done until the game engine is upgraded to support overflow into the hexes above and until this is done... IMO nothing really Magnus can do to make the terrain artwork bigger.
DiT
P.S. Magnus... you might consider lookin at wider hexes as in GBCE... that would give a better angle looking at the battlefield... and the possibility of tapering things off as you receed in distance. Enhancements along these lines... might be difficult to do but.... would be reall pluses if you can make them happen.
-
Panama Red
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:06 pm
RE: HnM2 vs HPS FIW
DiT:
When you actually compare the size of Magnus' HnM2 Infantry figurine and a average HPS Napoleonic Infantry figurine in their respective HnM2 ".tga" and HPS ".bmp", they are each approxamately 35 pixels high (but the HnM2 figurine is slightly wider and more realistic due to all the details that Magnus has painted into his HnM2 figurines). Thus main difference between the HPS and HnM2 figurines is that the HPS 1280x1024 looks "sharper" than the HnM2 1024x768 even though the HnM2 figurines have more detail.
You have to also remember that the trouble in comparing the HPS figurines versus the HnM2 figurines is that the HPS games only allows you to zoom into a fixed distance where the HnM2 games allows you to zoom in closer and thus with a lower resolution in the HnM2 games, the HnM2 figurines look more pixelated than the HPS figurines.
This is why I have said that enlarging the HnM3 hexes to the zoomed HPS size would work perfectly well with the current HnM2 figurines and proposed larger trees and buildings if Tim increases the HnM3 resolution to 1280x1024.
When you actually compare the size of Magnus' HnM2 Infantry figurine and a average HPS Napoleonic Infantry figurine in their respective HnM2 ".tga" and HPS ".bmp", they are each approxamately 35 pixels high (but the HnM2 figurine is slightly wider and more realistic due to all the details that Magnus has painted into his HnM2 figurines). Thus main difference between the HPS and HnM2 figurines is that the HPS 1280x1024 looks "sharper" than the HnM2 1024x768 even though the HnM2 figurines have more detail.
You have to also remember that the trouble in comparing the HPS figurines versus the HnM2 figurines is that the HPS games only allows you to zoom into a fixed distance where the HnM2 games allows you to zoom in closer and thus with a lower resolution in the HnM2 games, the HnM2 figurines look more pixelated than the HPS figurines.
This is why I have said that enlarging the HnM3 hexes to the zoomed HPS size would work perfectly well with the current HnM2 figurines and proposed larger trees and buildings if Tim increases the HnM3 resolution to 1280x1024.