Matrix Games Forums

Appologies to Lewis Carol. I just had some comments on the game I thought I would post. I like the game very much and enjoy it greatly.

In regard to flank and rear attacks, I know they affect a unit's morale indirectly through them suffering more casualties than they otherwise would, at least on average, but do they affect unit morale in and of themselves? From my playing it seems they don't and I am thinking their swhould be some automatic morale effect for being hit in the flank or rear.

As to archers engaged in hand-to-hand combat, shouldn't they only be allowed to shoot at the enemy that has them by the short hairs? The routine for archer targeting otherwise seems well done.

In some battles it seems that enemy untis that are pushed back don't always go back where you might expect, but sometimes go forward. Is this because they were plotted to move forward or because the push-back routine is perhaps overly simplistic?

Likewise, sometimes routing enemy untis route don't route away from my troops, rather route towards what seem to be objectives that may be behind my troops. Very odd.

It seems ot me that the game does a great job in capturing the dynamics of an anceint battle. I like the way cavalry and infantry have been differentiated, especially in terms of their resiliance in prolonged combats.

The various cards are a good foundation for a magic system, if you ever do a fantasy version (wink wink hint hint).

Thanks for game!

ORIGINAL: A_Turtle
Appologies to Lewis Carol. I just had some comments on the game I thought I would post. I like the game very much and enjoy it greatly.

Thanks for the feedback!

ORIGINAL: A_Turtle
In regard to flank and rear attacks, I know they affect a unit's morale indirectly through them suffering more casualties than they otherwise would, at least on average, but do they affect unit morale in and of themselves? From my playing it seems they don't and I am thinking their swhould be some automatic morale effect for being hit in the flank or rear.

No, rear and flank attacks do not change enemy morale; however, as you stated, more loss in life will likely result in morale loss -- you will have a morale roll per step loss. So, in most cases, a rear or flank attack will result in some morale loss.

ORIGINAL: A_Turtle
As to archers engaged in hand-to-hand combat, shouldn't they only be allowed to shoot at the enemy that has them by the short hairs? The routine for archer targeting otherwise seems well done.

The intent for archers is that they can continue firing even when being attack. But, almost always, they will lose melee combat and be pushed back -- making them unable to fire.

ORIGINAL: A_Turtle
In some battles it seems that enemy untis that are pushed back don't always go back where you might expect, but sometimes go forward. Is this because they were plotted to move forward or because the push-back routine is perhaps overly simplistic?

lol. Actually, the pushback routine often seems too complex! When being attacked, you will be pushed back opposite your facing except when you are rear attacked -- in which case you will move forward. When deciding where to be pushed back, your unit will go to the spot on the map that has the most friendly units -- or causes the least amount of damange to you. For example, pushing back through friendly units results in a morale loss for you and a morale loss for the friendly unit. Pushback through an enemy unit results in 400 deaths for you. (Exception is elephants who rampage when pushed back -- resulting in damage and morale loss all over the place!)

ORIGINAL: A_Turtle
Likewise, sometimes routing enemy untis route don't route away from my troops, rather route towards what seem to be objectives that may be behind my troops. Very odd.

Routing units move to the space on the map in their next turn that is the least "threatened" -- i.e., has the least amount of enemy units around. It isn't intended to be the perfect "smart" move since routed units are running away. But, it usually ends with them running to the side of the map.

ORIGINAL: A_Turtle
It seems ot me that the game does a great job in capturing the dynamics of an anceint battle. I like the way cavalry and infantry have been differentiated, especially in terms of their resiliance in prolonged combats.

We have worked hard to balance the levels and the AI so that it plays like an ancient battle. We have started work on the next game in the series, and we are tuning the AI to play better in formations that would be better suited for the era we are building the game around.

ORIGINAL: A_Turtle
The various cards are a good foundation for a magic system, if you ever do a fantasy version (wink wink hint hint).

Nudge heard. We know that fantasy is one of the top miniatures game type. I think we are going to stick with historical battles for the next game or two. Fantasy would be a lot of fun!

ORIGINAL: A_Turtle
Thanks for game!

You are welcome. Thanks for the feedback. We are always looking for ways to improve your experience, so let us know!

Deride

ORIGINAL: A_Turtle

As to archers engaged in hand-to-hand combat, shouldn't they only be allowed to shoot at the enemy that has them by the short hairs? The routine for archer targeting otherwise seems well done.

Play a Fire Arrow card on a elite archer unit, they will win in a melee. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Deride

Nudge heard. We know that fantasy is one of the top miniatures game type. I think we are going to stick with historical battles for the next game or two. Fantasy would be a lot of fun!

I'll get in early with a request then ! Please make it as mod-able as possible ? While a generic fantasy game might be fun (I'm assuming your budget doesn't stretch to a Middle Earth licence ! [;)]) games based around particular fantasy settings are more so, and fan mods are a much easier way to do that.

I'd have a bash at a Conan mod I think; I played in a weekly Hyborian campaign while at college. It's a particularly good choice for "real" miniatures (and presumably their virtual transfer into TS) as most troop types can be directly equated to real-world ancient or medieval equivalents, which helps balancing (you could use adjusted WRG lists, although I seem to recall somebody found a Hyborian Age ruleset at some stage) a lot as well as getting suitable models.

in which case you will move forward. When deciding where to be pushed back, your unit will go to the spot on the map that has the most friendly units -- or causes the least amount of damange to you.

unfortunatly " the least amount of damange to you" doesn't made sense, specialy with elephant. each time elephant are pushed in macedonien line.

The first rules set in the land of Crom and Conan that I saw was from the mid 70's. That particular milieue (sp?) would be a fantastic source of material for a series of games or a mod-able game set, but there are IP licensing issues of course.

I wonder how tweakable the current engine is? Have to do some digging there. I can only hope we may get there from here, but I have wanted something like that for years now. I just hope a group of talented people can pull it off and make some money while doing it sometime in the near future.

becarfull to elephant there are tank!

completly creasy. most of indian elephant have spear and bow.

melee report

indian attack with mounted spear +1
indian elephant attack +2
indian troops are veteran +1
macedonien have medium armour -1
indian elephant attack +1 <- again a bonus for elephant

macedonien attack with Spear +1
indian elephant are defending -1
macedonien are veteran +1
indian have median armoor -1

and don't try to use bow again elephant, no way with a -3


somewhere I don't understand howto be in attack and in defence ?

I would like to know whow have win at Hydapse.
also what are those indian cavalry in ambush at the left indian flank?
never read something about this ambush

i'm realy become upset.

[:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@]

melee report

indian elephant are charging +4
indian attack with mounted spear +2
indian mounted unit charge vs spear -4
indian troops are veteran +1
macedonien have medium armour -1
macedonien are defending

macedonien attack with Spear +1
indian elephant are defending -1
macedonien are veteran +1
indian have median armoor -1

so when an indian elephant charge it's also receive a bonus for defending.

is this game have been tested????

well... yes it has been tested. I was one of the beta testers. From your post I can't figure out what the problem is. It looks like an attack by an Indian elephant, macedonian unit defending , followed by an attack of the macedonian unit on the elephant.

It is possible for 2 units to attack each other in a single phase. The unit with highest initiative attacks first, the other unit defends. After that the unit with lower initiative can attack (if it wasn't pushed back) and the higher initiative unit will be defending. Is this what you describe?

It looks like an attack by an Indian elephant, macedonian unit defending , followed by an attack of the macedonian unit on the elephant.

it was not 2 melees, only one and the macedonien had a defend order.

anyway that doesn't explain why the elephant receive a bonus for defence when they attack.

sorry but as a tester it's not normal you didn't see that.

two other point.
the ai cheat and it cheat a lot of [:-]
first the AI give the order after the human and in function of human order.
second the dice are always better for the AI. this last point is specialy true again the indian anbush.

that not honest

[:-][:-][:-][:-][:-][:-][:-]

just finish Hydapse with a macedonien flag victory.
this kind of victory have nothing to do with a military victory.
without the objective rule all my infantry will have been destroy by the elephant tank with no hope to escape as they was completly surrender.
It was only a race, a stupid race.

Normaly Hydapse must be the most interresting battle but unfortunatly not with tin.[:(][:(][:(][:(][:(][:(][:(][:(][:(][:(]

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

two other point.
the ai cheat and it cheat a lot of [:-]
first the AI give the order after the human and in function of human order.
second the dice are always better for the AI. this last point is specialy true again the indian anbush.

that not honest

2gaulle,

I'm sorry you are taking such issue with TS-ATG. You really are alone in your animosity. Sure there are some quirks that make this video game something playable as much as a simulation of reallity. We tried our best to play test everything. Our playtesters have got to be some of the most scrutinizing and knowledgable people I've ever known; even more scrutinizing than yourself.

Koios Works cares very much about satisfying each customer. We do take your feedback very seriously as we want to make sure that we are constantly improving. Without your type of feedback, we would definitely keep thinking we are doing the right thing.

You obviously feel like the AI is cheating (it's not, it's predicting your moves based on a list of best moves you might make). Maybe you can rephrase what you are seeing in the form of questions rather than a hysterical tirade. What is it that the AI is doing that seems like cheating?

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

anyway that doesn't explain why the elephant receive a bonus for defence when they attack.

sorry but as a tester it's not normal you didn't see that.

It's not something I (or anyone) noticed when testing... I'm sorry if that doesn't meet your standards but you can't spot everything, and the beta team wasn't huge.

That said... is this really a problem ? Firstly an extra "-1" among that lot is unlikely to affect things too much. Secondly (maybe mbelew can fill in here) why are you so sure it wasn't meant be there ? A "defence" bonus for infantry would normally be associated with particular positions or formations well suited to that purpose. For elephants, their major "defence" factors are being big, scary and noisy.. all of which are just as applicable on attack or defence. Their additional potency in attack is represented by the large charge bonus.

I have seen no evidence of the AI cheating, or of bias in "dice" rolls.

Finally, Im genuinely surprised that, if you really as upset/disappointed/dismayed with TSA as you say, that you even made it to Hydaspes ? It takes a lot of hours to get that far, and unless you are on a sort of one man crusade to demonstrate the incompetence of the testers, why would you log the hours if you weren't enjoying the game ?

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

two other point.
the ai cheat and it cheat a lot of [:-]
first the AI give the order after the human and in function of human order.
second the dice are always better for the AI. this last point is specialy true again the indian anbush.

that not honest

[:-][:-][:-][:-][:-][:-][:-]

I was a beta tester and I never felt the AI was getting better dice results, as for the AI givng order after the player, that is not true. I advocated for that in playtesting because in fact the AI is too easily fouled by a competent human player.

Finally, Im genuinely surprised that, if you really as upset/disappointed/dismayed with TSA as you say, that you even made it to Hydaspes ? It takes a lot of hours to get that far, and unless you are on a sort of one man crusade to demonstrate the incompetence of the testers, why would you log the hours if you weren't enjoying the game ?

because I do my job....

Honestly Hertston,Iñaki Harrizabalagatar or Murky71 had you play Hydapse, had you able to win, not with a "race to the flag" but had you able to defead the indian.

perhaps the AI didn't cheat and perhaps there are only a big problem with this indian army a bug bonus somewhere.

find an other mistake.

the double hand sword unit are like the bowmen they had no protection so they must receive a -1 for no armour

because I do my job....

just wondering what your job is, in real life...

ORIGINAL: Murky71

because I do my job....

just wondering what your job is, in real life...

did you play Hydapse?