Matrix Games Forums

What happened to the game being designed by, the guy who did American Civil war(Frank Hunter, I think)? I know he was under contract w/ someplace else and his game, which was pretty far along, had to be scratched(due to contract stauts, weak), but where did he go and is he creating this game or a game like it for that publishing company?
That game looked great. Napolenic wars just deals w/ the fighting, not the recruitment of armies and politics, as the game F. Hunter was creating?

Thanks,
Steve

Legal issues. Apparantly Frank could not do a 'strategic nappy game for anyone but a certain comapny, wich did not cooperate with him.

We will never see Frank do a strategic Napoleon game, but he makes excellent games still, see the Adanac site.

Marc

Originally posted by Marc Hameleers
Legal issues. Apparantly Frank could not do a 'strategic nappy game for anyone but a certain comapny, wich did not cooperate with him.

We will never see Frank do a strategic Napoleon game, but he makes excellent games still, see the Adanac site.

Marc

In my opinion, its OK to say who the villians were. Talonsoft is the company that I remember to be who did this. Or at least it was the company called Talonsoft after they were bought out by a larger company that doesn't seem to care much about our hobby.

Originally posted by Le Tondu


In my opinion, its OK to say who the villians were. Talonsoft is the company that I remember to be who did this. Or at least it was the company called Talonsoft after they were bought out by a larger company that doesn't seem to care much about our hobby.

Yep! at the time Talonsoft were still intent on milking the Battleground series for every penny they could crew out of the Napoleonic fans and realised that if someone came up with a Napoleonic game in the same league as Franks ACW one it would kill the Battleground series dead.

Unfortunately they didn't anticipate John tiller walking and joining HPS. When that happened they just pulled the plug on the entire Battleground system anyway.

Unfortunately, the Battleground series is hopelessly flawed, in that a squad of skirmishers numbering no more than 25 men could stop an infantry advance of some 2,000 men in open ground. Because of that feature maneuver was easily stifled, and units would be subjected to vicious cannon fire.
What the game (or any game, for that matter) needs is an overrun or repulse feature.
Struggle of Natrions by AH had one whereby a unit that was at least 6 times the size of the non-phasing unit could repulse the smaller unit until the end of it's movement phase.

The Battleground series games have been eclipsed by the Campaign Series of games (Eckmuhl Campaign and Napoleon's Russian Campaign and soon the Wagram Campaign) The battleground series may have some life due to the hard work of the NIR Project, but it's days are limited, IMHO.

In the Battleground series casualties were handed out in clumps of 25. It is now more realistic.

Also, IIRC, the Campaign series does not allow what you've described in terms of skirmishers. Skirmishers now get swept out of the way like they did historically. Also, when they fire on a formed unit, the formed unit will take casualties but NOT be stopped.

I just thought that you all would like to know.

Originally posted by Le Tondu
The Battleground series games have been eclipsed by the Campaign Series of games (Eckmuhl Campaign and Napoleon's Russian Campaign and soon the Wagram Campaign) The battleground series may have some life due to the hard work of the NIR Project, but it's days are limited, IMHO.

Unfortunately, JT has not been listening to the vast majority of Napoleonic wargamers who want a game that accurately reflects Napoleonic Warfare. So! the Campaign Series basically recreates most of the flaws of the original Battleground system with a few gimmicky extra's such as a simultaneous combat resolution option that nobody can really use because of the poor targeting priorities used by the AI and the ability to kill men in units of 1 or 2 instead of 25 man blocks.

In the end the problems with skirmishers, cavalry, melee resolution and movement rates still remain unchanged from the BG series.

Its only since the Campaign games failed to sell that JT has begun asking what he needs to do to make them more marketable. Thats the first time he's taken any interest in the ten years I've been playing his games.

At present the only way to get a half decent game out of either series is to employ an independent moderator to control the movement of the units.

Originally posted by Didz


Unfortunately, JT has not been listening to the vast majority of Napoleonic wargamers who want a game that accurately reflects Napoleonic Warfare. So! the Campaign Series basically recreates most of the flaws of the original Battleground system with a few gimmicky extra's such as a simultaneous combat resolution option that nobody can really use because of the poor targeting priorities used by the AI and the ability to kill men in units of 1 or 2 instead of 25 man blocks.

Didz,
How long has it been since you've played one? By your remarks, it appears to be quite a while.

I don't know where you have been but as a member of the NWC who still plays these games (since BGW came out), I have to say that I haven't seen anyone who doesn't use the automatic defensive fire rule. OK, you're the first. It hardly is something that "nobody can use" because many do --daily.

Not been selling? I didn't know that John Tiller published his sales figures. but the awards that he has been getting sure look pretty nice.

Poor targetting ability? I cannot agree there either.

I believe that you have something backwards. Casualties handed in clumps of 25 was a failure of the Battleground series and the current way where a more realistic and variable amount of casualties to be handed out (even if it is 1 or 2) --isn't a failure. Yes, you had that backwards.

John Tiller is currently observing a poll of gamers preferences for the Campaign Series. It isn't because of anything to do with sales. He IS interested in what we his cutomers have to say --IF IT IS SAID NICELY. Maybe you had a bad cay when you made your suggestions to him.

If you game with this series, I suggest that you use the below link and make your voice heard while you still have time to:

http://www.wargamesims.net/nap/1stpoll.html

(BTW, you will have to enter a valid email address and a full name for it to count.)

Now, I have to say that this isn't the first time John Tiller has responded to his player's desires. Currently there are 13 optional rules that he has added BECAUSE OF his cutomer's desires. More are on the way. I don't know of any game where rules are made optional for people to pick and chose from. That is evidence of responsiveness right there.

But needless to say, EVERYONE has their preferences and opinions and I can respect that. You don't like it. That is fine with me.

I know that the Campaign Series isn't perfect. (What computer game is?) John Tiller admits that the engine is dated and has desires to upgrade it. Lately he has spent more time with his WWII games because they are where the money has been for him. (He does have a family to feed, you know.) The simple truth is that the Campaign Series is at the very least continuing to get better.

I support just about ALL Napoleonic game developers and I encourage everyone to do the same. (Its my hobby.) As an example of what I don't like, Sid Meier's waterloo and austerlitz is something that I won't touch with a ten foot pole. That is MY perference and my right. I respect those that disagree with me on that company's products and I won't try to stop anyone from buying them.

What I don't respect is your uninformed caustic condemnations of the Campaign Series. As the Series stands now, they are simply unfair and misleading to everyone who reads them. I believe that you are looking at things from only one perspective Didz. A perspective of prejudice and intolerance.

OK, you can make unfair and caustic remarks about me now. I'm ready.

Originally posted by Le Tondu

How long has it been since you've played one? By your remarks, it appears to be quite a while.

Depends what you mean by played. I must have bought BG Waterloo over ten years ago soon after it was released and I have purchased every one of the BG series since except a couple of the more recent ACW games.

In that time I have never once completed a satisfactory PBEM game despite numerous attempts with various sets of house rules etc.

I don't know where you have been but as a member of the NWC who still plays these games (since BGW came out), I have to say that I haven't seen anyone who doesn't use the automatic defensive fire rule. OK, you're the first. It hardly is something that "nobody can use" because many do --daily.

I am aware that most of the NWC membership are happy with The new game as indeed most were happy with the BG series. Indeed it is the NWC membership that over the years have perfected the methods used to exploit the game flaws. And Mr Tiller has made sure that the key players in the NWC have been recruited to help market and support his new venture.

However, I am also a member of other forums and the feedback from these groups is far less positive.

John Tiller is currently observing a poll of gamers preferences for the Campaign Series. It isn't because of anything to do with sales. He IS interested in what we his cutomers have to say --IF IT IS SAID NICELY. Maybe you had a bad cay when you made your suggestions to him.

I am pleased that Mr Tiller is finally making an effort to listen but for me its far too little too late. I have been in direct corresondence with him on several occassions over the last ten years seeking to encourage him to resolve some of the issues in the BG series. He has always been more than polite and admitted openly the flaws in his design but has always blamed the ongoing problems on the intransigence of Talonsoft who he said refused to sanction changes to a successful game system.

Thus when he left to join HPS I expected so see most if not all of the improvements he had promised over the years incorporated into his new design. I bought 1776 in some anticipation only to find yet another BG clone with only one or two minor changes.

Then Eckmuhl came along and still the same formula persisted. At that point I gave up and have pinned my hopes on other designers.

Yes! I agree he has posted a poll and yes I have responded. But in truth John Tiller knows full well whats wrong with his game he doesn't need to be told.

What the poll is really asking is 'What is the minimum I have to do to shut you lot up?" And I am sure he will implement the few changes that come top of the list. But many of the problems don't even appear on it.

As for being prejusticed and intolerant, Well perhaps I am. I've been waiting too long for someone to produce a decent Napoleonic Game and I am afraid I have no faith in Mr Tiller coming up with the goods.