Brother against Brother

[sterckxe]

Hi,

Not to rain on your parade, but isn't a pc wargame called Brother Against Brother which is *NOT* a pc adaptation of the rather popular ACW tabletop ruleset of the same name a tad confusing ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[JudgeDredd]

Don't know about that Eddy as I'm unaware of the board game - but a new ACW title - at regiment level - from one of my favourite companies? What could possibly go wrong!?

Can't wait. [&o]

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
Don't know about that Eddy as I'm unaware of the board game

Not to go on a rant, but one of the things which is wrong with wargaming these days is that most gamers in one of the 3 genres (pc, tabletop, board) haven’t got a clue, not even an inkling of what’s happening over the hedge, no make that 20 feet concrete wall, in the realm of their fellow wargamers.

Brother against Brother is not a boardgame, it’s a very, very popular tabletop ruleset to be played with miniatures.

To give you the most striking example of why I think there’s a solid wall between the sub-genres of wargaming : mention Battlefront in here and *everyone* on this forum will immediately know I’m talking about the pc wargame company which made Combat Mission etc. But if I were to mention the Battlefront company on a miniature forum *everyone* would nod as well, as it’s one of the biggest miniature manufacturers around and producers of the immensely popular Flames of War WWII system.

That’s right, there are 2 *identically named* companies in the wargame world, both are major players, and most wargamers are totally unaware of this.

The reason I think this is bonkers is because all sub-genres could use a healthy dose of cross-pollination : it’s taken decades for tabletop wargamers to realize that there’s something to be said for using hexes to quickly regulate movement and combat instead of mucking about with tape measurers and now Callistra terrain and Hotz mats are making a killing selling that stuff to tabletop gamers. Conversely, half the pc wargamers released these days are concept-wise a throwback to boardgame designs of the seventies whereas they should take a good look at modern concepts like cards, constant player interaction and emphasis on command & control.

End of rant.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[JudgeDredd]

Eddy - I've yet to meet anyone who rants as succinctly as you and with such finesse!

But I'm still excited about it [;)]

[Gil R.]

Our original title was going to be "Sid Meier's 1st Bull Run/Wilson's Creek/Mill Springs/Williamsburg," but we feared it might cause confusion.

With the title "Brother against Brother," though, I doubt there'll be much confusion, for the simple reason that, as you note, different types of wargamers are oblivious to what the others are playing.

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
Eddy - I've yet to meet anyone who rants as succinctly as you and with such finesse!

It get lots of practice

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
But I'm still excited about it [;)]

Me too, and just to practice some more : WE WANT SCREENSHOTS !

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Gil R.]

Screenshots are still a few weeks away. Just use your imaginations!

[berto]

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

Conversely, half the pc wargamers released these days are concept-wise a throwback to boardgame designs of the seventies whereas they should take a good look at modern concepts like cards, constant player interaction and emphasis on command & control.

If BAB:DS incorporates those elements, if the game reflects the randomness and confusion of battle in all its aspects--I'm interested. If not, I'm not.

God-like omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and total control--I hate that in war games, especially tactical ones.

[tevans6220]

Hey Eddy

There's also an ACW boardgame called Brother against Brother made by Fresno Games. It's a strategic wargame covering the whole war the same as VG's Civil War and Decision Games WBTS. Just thought you'd like to know.

Small Correction: Not Fresno Games but Fresno Gaming Association or FGA.

[Gil R.]

If BAB:DS incorporates those elements, if the game reflects the randomness and confusion of battle in all its aspects--I'm interested. If not, I'm not.

God-like omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and total control--I hate that in war games, especially tactical ones.

Berto,
Our c&c rules are certainly intended to put such limitations on the player, and are inspired in part by the fact that so many battles hinged on the inabilities of commanders to do anything but piecemeal assaults, and the difficulties in communicating during battle. I'll discuss our c&c system in the near future, once we're done making changes to it.

[wodin]

I liked the look of the battles (screenshots of an AAR) of FoF...hope they don't loose their character if they look totally different.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

If BAB:DS incorporates those elements, if the game reflects the randomness and confusion of battle in all its aspects--I'm interested. If not, I'm not.

God-like omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and total control--I hate that in war games, especially tactical ones.

Berto,
Our c&c rules are certainly intended to put such limitations on the player, and are inspired in part by the fact that so many battles hinged on the inabilities of commanders to do anything but piecemeal assaults, and the difficulties in communicating during battle. I'll discuss our c&c system in the near future, once we're done making changes to it.

That's great to hear. I love the HPS ACW games, but the chess-like near-total control in them aggravates. Looking forward to see what you do in this regard.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I liked the look of the battles (screenshots of an AAR) of FoF...hope they don't loose their character if they look totally different.

The maps will look quite different, being drawn on top of actual topographical maps of the site, but we're reusing the unit sprites. (Those are few months of work, and look pretty darn good, so no need to redo them. Same goes for firing effects.)

[Krec]

hmm,  this is starting to sound really tasty.  maybe like a civil war generals 2 updated.  sounds really good.  turn base of course.   i need to get to work so i can buy more games from you guys.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Krec

hmm,  this is starting to sound really tasty.  maybe like a civil war generals 2 updated.  sounds really good.  turn base of course.   i need to get to work so i can buy more games from you guys.

Yes. Get to work!

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Our c&c rules are certainly intended to put such limitations on the player, and are inspired in part by the fact that so many battles hinged on the inabilities of commanders to do anything but piecemeal assaults, and the difficulties in communicating during battle. I'll discuss our c&c system in the near future, once we're done making changes to it.

Will the game also incorporate things like:

• variable movement rates; occasional; reflecting not just c&c issues, but unexpected events (e.g., bad or non-existent maps, getting lost, mud and other unusually bad terrain, wagon breakdowns, traffic jams, stubborn mules blocking the roadway!, etc.)
• friendly fire (not at all a rare occurrence in ACW battles)
• fire, especially long-range artillery fire, sometimes straying away from intended targets
• random walks; very infrequent; reflecting subordinate commanders having a mind of their own (think Sickles at Gettysburg), misinterpreting orders (think Wood at Chickamauga), etc.
• routing units effectively melting away (think entire Union regiments at Shiloh)

And other stuff.

Sh*t happens in battle. A realistic portrayal would show that.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: berto

Will the game also incorporate things like:

• variable movement rates; occasional; reflecting not just c&c issues, but unexpected events (e.g., bad or non-existent maps, getting lost, mud and other unusually bad terrain, wagon breakdowns, traffic jams, stubborn mules blocking the roadway!, etc.)
  
  Some of that, terrain in particular. We'll also have artillery having a chance of getting stuck in mud. Some of what you describe would count as "chrome," and we plan to add bits and pieces of that to BAB over time, putting new stuff in each release and then retrofitting it to the earlier releases via patch. So something like wagon breakdowns, for example, might not make it into the original release, but may well be added later.
• friendly fire (not at all a rare occurrence in ACW battles)
  
  We've discussed this and have ideas for how to implement it, but again it's chrome. So we're unlikely to add it pre-release.
• fire, especially long-range artillery fire, sometimes straying away from intended targets
  
  If you mean artillery hitting units in other hexes then no, we don't have that. If you mean artillery missing then that's abstractly in there as bad "dice rolls."
• random walks; very infrequent; reflecting subordinate commanders having a mind of their own (think Sickles at Gettysburg), misinterpreting orders (think Wood at Chickamauga), etc.
  
  Not the way you describe it.
• routing units effectively melting away (think entire Union regiments at Shiloh)
  
  If you mean completely disappearing from the map, then no. If I remember correctly, routed units head to safe spots well away from the fighting (such as woods) and have a chance to reform. I don't remember that about Shiloh, though admittedly I haven't been reading about that battle lately. I do recall reading about an Indian regiment or brigade at Pea Ridge whose men were so stunned when fired upon by artillery that they turned and ran, and I believe some ended up back in Oklahoma.

And other stuff.

Sh*t happens in battle. A realistic portrayal would show that.

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: berto

Will the game also incorporate things like:

• variable movement rates; occasional; reflecting not just c&c issues, but unexpected events (e.g., bad or non-existent maps, getting lost, mud and other unusually bad terrain, wagon breakdowns, traffic jams, stubborn mules blocking the roadway!, etc.)

Some of that, terrain in particular. We'll also have artillery having a chance of getting stuck in mud. Some of what you describe would count as "chrome," and we plan to add bits and pieces of that to BAB over time, putting new stuff in each release and then retrofitting it to the earlier releases via patch. So something like wagon breakdowns, for example, might not make it into the original release, but may well be added later.

I mean (occasionally) randomly variable movement rates. Of course, units will move faster on roads, slower through woods, etc. I'd just like to see a dash of unpredictability in movement rates, beyond any c&c implementation.

So, for example, on occasion, instead of a column predictably always moving (say) 12 hexes down a road, sometimes that is reduced to (say) 9 hexes--and not due to c&c issues but other issues as described.

Or movement through woods sometimes taking longer than expected (randomly slower movement rates). You often read of commanders taking wrong turns, encountering unexpected thickets or gullies, getting lost, etc.

[*] fire, especially long-range artillery fire, sometimes straying away from intended targets

If you mean artillery hitting units in other hexes then no, we don't have that. If you mean artillery missing then that's abstractly in there as bad "dice rolls."

I mean straying from the intended target hex and hitting units in other hexes, or straying to empty hexes and therefore having no practical effect.

Some of this is "chrome" in the sense that it's infrequent to rare, chrome also in the sense that games traditionally don't represent this sort of unpredictability. (War games have unpredictable combat results, of course, and perhaps also routing, recovery, weather, sometimes c&c--but often that's about it.) But it's this sort of "chrome" that gives life to the game as a truly accurate historical simulation. And for me at least, adds to the fun factor, not to mention the replayability.

Battle, like life, is full of surprises. The Army of the Cumberland spontaneously, without orders storming (and taking!) Missionary Ridge. Stuff like that was not all that atypical.

Competitive gamers and PBEMers would loathe this randomness, so maybe you could make these optional rules.

I won't fault you if you fail to model absolutely every aspect of historical reality down to the slightest and rarest of detail. Please just go more in that direction than your typical, traditional war game. The less predictable and deterministic like chess, the better.

[Gil R.]

I think that movement rates aren't random, though I didn't program anything so I could be wrong. But what matters is how many movement points a unit gets, and that's influenced by a whole number of factors. So it won't always take the same amount of time to move across the same terrain.

No, artillery doesn't hit adjacent units. My guess is that this would involve some time-intensive programming. We certainly won't have this for the original release, but we'd definitely consider it and your other ideas. WCS does have a pretty good track record of implementing suggestions from the "Wish List" threads that we start. But we can't start adding more minor features now, as that would delay release. The game right now has more than enough interesting details and rules to satisfy most customers, so it's more important to finish programming than it is to expand it.

I won't start a "Wish List" thread until the game is out, of course, but feel free to ask such questions, since if an idea strikes us as a must-have we might still add it.

[berto]

I'll be on the lookout for the Wish List. But in the meantime, if you implement a well thought out, comprehensive, plausible c&c system--good enough for starters, that's half the realism battle right there.