First Impressions

[Duck Doc]

Congratulations. Very impressive tactical simulation of the ACW. All the elements important to such a simulation I would have thought about have been implemented and a bunch I wouldn't. The maps are fantastic. Must have been a huge amount of work. Wow!

Maybe I missed it but I would like a detailed explanation of how the combat modifiers are used on the results screen. Where is it?

The rain noise has got to go unless you want to punish the player (if it ain't rainin' it ain't trainin').

Would it be possible to change the NATO symbol graphic for a commander to a star rather than a cavalry designation? It would make it a lot easier to scan the battle field to know where they are. Lost Hancock on my first battle. Bummer!

Also possible to align the artillery fire graphic to its actual direction of fire?

When I cycle through victory hexes I can't seem to distinguish them easily. Are they outlined?

When I hit the ESC key I can't seem to then click on a unit to select it. What am I doing wrong?

You have said the artillery chooses the load used. Can we be notified about the load used?

Sometimes a unit has two stances highlighted, eg. both line and line + skirmishers. Why?

The fire combat arrow head is difficult for me to see.

600+ man regiments in a 75 yard hex. How was this determined (not trying at all to ignite any debate here but just curious)?

Lovin' it. Thanks,

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Dale H

......

When I cycle through victory hexes I can't seem to distinguish them easily. Are they outlined?

Eric posted this mod to help make Victory Hexes stand out more:

fb.asp?m=3843630

Thanks
Rick

[FroBodine]

All of Dale's comments are great suggestions for improving the game. My three biggies out of his list are:

- yes, please give us a detailed explanation of all the modifiers on the combat firefight results screen

- the directional arrows showing who is shooting at who is nearly impossible to see where the arrow is. I didn't even think there was an arrowhead until someone else wrote about it. I know you are adding a zoom feature during combat, but still, at the zoomed out distance the arrowheads need to be WAY more visible

- ditch the obnoxious rain noise, or at least let us turn it off separately

[ericbabe]

Thanks for the kind words.

I don't have a detailed explanation of all the combat modifiers -- I had hoped most of them would be self-explanatory. [:)] I can answer any particular questions now, and maybe we can put together something in the fullness of time if enough people are interested in those details.

A start chit for commanders is a good idea; I have put this on my list. Put the ideas for the graphical tweaks on the wish list and we'll see what we have time for.

The artillery load is abstracted into the damage calculations, but maybe we could add some chrome to the combat report.

Skirmishers are independent of formation, so you can have skirmishers while you are in line or skirmishers while in column.

Regiments in their 75 yard hexes fight most efficiently when they are at a strength of 350 (I'm going from memory here...) or less; any strength in the regiment higher than this contributes to attacks at significant penalty (-50%, again going from memory). We got most of our figures like this from sources like the 1862 Officer's pocket manual, Hardees Infantry Tactics, or the 1863 Union Infantry Tactics, but I can't remember where exactly this figure comes from offhand. If I remember right, the period estimate was a frontage of 100 yards for 400 men. Since regiments typically held 1-2 companies in reserve, and considering that some of the strength represents staff positions like wagoners, surgeons, and musicians, an effective frontage of 350 over 75 yards seems like a pretty good estimate based on the historical number. So in the game, if you've got the room available, it's definitely a good idea to split your big regiments into two sections once they arrive at the fight. Two sections of 300 men fight much more efficiently than one regiment of 600. Also note in the rules that it's easier to damage regiments that are bigger than 350 strength; I think there is a 5% casualty bonus for attacking big regiments.


I'm not sure why you're having a hard time clicking on units after hitting ESC. Is this only at certain levels of zoom or does this happen all the time?

[spelk]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
A start chit for commanders is a good idea; I have put this on my list. Put the ideas for the graphical tweaks on the wish list and we'll see what we have time for.

I looked at the Hex Counters graphic in the games Gfx directory, and it already has a chit with a star and its 6 way rotation on that image. I wonder if the chit selecting code is picking the cavalry chit and mask, rather than the Commanders one? This would negate the need for Echelon shape colouring on the chits (that only happens on Sprites).

Using the chit mode extensively it really does need a visual way to pick out the Commanders easily. And from what I've seen in the graphic file, the Star chit is already in there (unless I've got it wrong).

[Duck Doc]

I am good with the combat modifiers as only relative value deductions. I get the gist but I thought there might be an explanation of what exactly was going on.

When I next play I will fiddle with the ESC key to see what happens at various zoom levels.

I hope bigger battles done in the future will be broken down into chunks for play. Can't imagine getting my head around three days of Gettysburg at this level.

My understanding from a lot of reading is that artillery used canister from even up to 1000 yards and in whenever they had clear LOS. In this way it was a devastatingly effective weapon but mainly as a defensive weapon. It had more nuisance value using shot and shell. I was surprised how far out the canister balls wold go.

Fantastic job! Kind of the ACW game of my dreams. Being dreaming about something like this for decades. That something has arrived. Almost didn't pull the trigger fearing it would fall short but it has not. Thanks again,

[Michael T]

Please make the command range overlay easier to see. Something akin to how it works in HPS/Tiller titles would be good. The current set up is just to faint.

Brigade Colours for the Nato style units would also help. EDIT Strangely the Brigade Colors work on my DEsktop but not my Laptop, weird. But not a problem, my bad.

[ericbabe]

It's been a few years since I have played the Tiller games. Do you have a screenshot showing their command range overlay?

[FroBodine]

If I recall correctly, Tiller games darkens all squares outside command range, and there is a very obvious distinction between the lighter hexes inside command range, and the darkened hexes outside command range.

[Michael T]

Yes JT games do as jglazier says. I can't help with a screenie as I removed all JT games from my HD a while back.

The only things in those games I would consider helpful for BAB would be the highlight feature as described (its very obvious what units/hexes get highlighted) as currently most of BAB's highlighters are too faint. And a replay feature would be nice, with the use of Function keys to either speed it up or slow it down. Tiller uses F5 to slow, F6 the speed up, F7 back to default speed.

[Duck Doc]

I only get to play a bit on the week ends so, here's...

More impressions and stuff:

Like the patch a bunch. Thanks for the command stars and the better firefight arrowhead display. Scrolls and moves a lot better. ESC works just fine.

My apologies: the fire fight results display is self-explanatory. I get it now.

The OOB or unit roster display is fine but it does not allow unit highlighting or selection outside the window. Would it be possible to have the unit in question highlighted (& selected on the map) when selected in the roster ala FCRS? Can't change scale or move map when in the roster. Present way would be fine for smaller battles but would be a nightmare in larger ones.

In the tutorial scenario had a Reb infantry regiment go toe-to-toe against 2 Union artillery batteries at 75-150 yds turn after turn with the Union high command sitting close by. I would submit this would not likely happen in real life. Either the infantry would be shredded by canister and break and flee or else it would charge one of the batteries or if the batteries realized there was no infantry support they would limber up asap and head for the hills. Standing toe-to-toe and slugging it out doesn't make sense either way. (Now don't ask why the Union commander would be so inept as to leave his batteries high and dry.)

Still love and continue to be impressed by the game. The maps are lovely.

[Ironclad]

deleted post

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Dale H
The OOB or unit roster display is fine but it does not allow unit highlighting or selection outside the window. Would it be possible to have the unit in question highlighted (& selected on the map) when selected in the roster ala FCRS? Can't change scale or move map when in the roster. Present way would be fine for smaller battles but would be a nightmare in larger ones.

In the tutorial scenario had a Reb infantry regiment go toe-to-toe against 2 Union artillery batteries at 75-150 yds turn after turn with the Union high command sitting close by. I would submit this would not likely happen in real life. Either the infantry would be shredded by canister and break and flee or else it would charge one of the batteries or if the batteries realized there was no infantry support they would limber up asap and head for the hills. Standing toe-to-toe and slugging it out doesn't make sense either way. (Now don't ask why the Union commander would be so inept as to leave his batteries high and dry.)

Thanks for the kind words.

The question of whether to leave the game active while the OOB screen was open or not was a big one during beta testing. We had testers with strong opinions on both sides of the issue. In the end we had slightly more who thought it should be disabled, and we went with that. But frankly I'm one of those who liked having the game enabled while the OOB was open -- I'd play my whole turn that way! -- so I sympathize. Maybe this could be a game option if enough other people want it.

Are you talking about whether the AI should have parked its infantry so close to the Union guns, or are you saying the casualty rates/morale losses should have been higher? Remember the AI functions under the same sorts of C&C problems that the player has, and sometimes the AI puts its infantry close to the artillery, tries to switch them to advance in order to close and charge, and then fails to switch brigade orders too. AI units also misinterpret orders, fails division activation checks, and so forth. The AI does have a priority to close to range 1 and try to charge when it's using inferior weapons, but it can't always do this for one reason or another.

As to whether casualty/morale losses should be higher at that range against artillery, possibly you're right. I tweaked down the artillery casualties at close and mid-ranges because there were a lot of testers who thought they were a-historically high, but I've long wondered whether we tweaked them a little too low. If the guns just had bad rolls and did little damage, I think that's OK. There was a lot that could go wrong with even artillery firing canister at infantry at close ranges -- the local curvature of the ground sometimes provided cover for infantry against such attacks, or sometimes a gun would jam or become mired in a position from which it couldn't fire. These are the kinds of "local conditions" that the attack roll is supposed to simulate.

Also recall that this scenario you are describing takes place in the rain. I could not find good data on the effects of rain on canister artillery fire. Period accounts describe how canister shot would bounce off dry ground, but how on rainy ground the shot would sink into the wet dirt and so was less effective. I don't really have a good sense of how less-effective canister was in the rain though, and our modifiers for artillery in the rain beyond 75 yards are pretty significant -- like 50% I think. If you know of anything that would let me build a mathematical model for this, please let me know the sources since I'd love to be able to have something I can cite for this rule.

[Duck Doc]

I would really support and urge making the unit roster more organic and functional by allowing highlighting and selecting units when also selected in the OOB display. Or at least make it an option. I am really surprised that beta testers did not like this ability. In larger scenarios I would have to keep a pencil and paper nearby in order to keep track when it not be necessary if I could keep track of the unit on the map and in the OOB at the same time.

I don't have any data to support my contentions about artillery and infantry. Sorry. I have done a lot of ACW history reading and my impressions are mainly anecdotal. I did try to locate some books about tactics a few years (they are few and far between and not well written) ago and did get a few which I have since given away. I have done enough reading to make me surprised seeing a fully capable infantry regiment managed by the AI stand 75 yards from an artillery battery and just slug it out. At that range if the infantry did volley probably most of the men and horses in the battery would be dead or incapacitated. I do know infantry loved to charge isolated batteries to capture the guns when they could. I suppose it is asking too much of the AI to take this into account. What I was really surprised to learn in my reading is how deadly canister is and at what ranges it was employed. IIRC it was used up to a thousand yards with clear line of sight. This amazed me. Artillery was mainly a defensive weapon employing canister in that role. Shot and shell did a lot to break up troop concentrations and certainly lowered moral by its use but it they were not the killer loads canister was. I don't want to pick any fights here and all and I don't know it all. I am way over the line making these observations because I am no expert. I do feel confident enough however that 40 years of reading about the ACW has taught me a thing or two.

[FroBodine]

I second Dale's concerns about OOB not beng as fluid and useful as it could be. We keep going back to how Flashpoint Campaigns does their OOB, but it is simply the best and most elegant and user friendly design I have ever seen. Select a unit in the OOB, it gets highlighted and selected on the map, and you can give it a command. Select a unit on the map, and it highlights in the OOB, so you can see where it is in the hierarchy.

This is how EVERY game should implement this, because it works and allows the most functionality no matter where you are.

[jack54]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

It's been a few years since I have played the Tiller games. Do you have a screenshot showing their command range overlay?

This is the command overlay from Tiller's Soviet Afghan War; the Civil War stuff is similar... hope it helps

[Duck Doc]

I think Tiller's UI has much to recommend it. I thing BaB nails is its simulation of the the tactical aspects of ACW warfare in ways Tiller's never did but the UI as some issues.

I don't use the 3D sprites at all. They are confusing, jumbled and cluttered. I use the 2D NATO counters. What I would like to see on each counter on the map is the unit's size (regiment, battalion, etc) and its posture (line, column, + skirmishers) and the direction they are facing. I would like to be able to highlight all units in an organization when the commander is selected. I would like their range and the march limit each turn highlighted on demand. This is the minimum. Tiller did great in all these aspects.

I like the echelon color idea but it doesn't come off well. I would like the colors on the units to match the colors in the OOB. This is a great idea but it has not worked out in the present implementation.

Basically I would like to have the information I need on the map at a glance. This helps a lot in making decisions. I love the inclusion of the terrain and unit info in the hex displayed on the right.

I don't like to compare game engines for obvious reasons. Each game deserves to be evaluated on its own merits. It is easy to criticize. However I would truly have died and gone to heaven if I could have the BaB game engine in the Tiller UI. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

This game is so close.

Carry on...

[Michael T]

I don't use the 3D sprites at all. They are confusing, jumbled and cluttered. I use the 2D NATO counters. What I would like to see on each counter on the map is the unit's size (regiment, battalion, etc) and its posture (line, column, + skirmishers) and the direction they are facing. I would like to be able to highlight all units in an organization when the commander is selected. I would like their range and the march limit each turn highlighted on demand. This is the minimum. Tiller did great in all these aspects.

+1

[Rosseau]

With Tiller's games, you have to keep going up to the highlight menu option to select and de-select these options, which I really hated. If there are hotkeys for these options in JT or BvB that would make all the difference. Maybe I missed them?

[76mm]

With Tiller's games, you have to keep going up to the highlight menu option to select and de-select these options, which I really hated. If there are hotkeys for these options in JT or BvB that would make all the difference. Maybe I missed them?

You can use a third party hotkey program like Autohotkey for the Tiller games, it works great.