Any info on Battles of Napoleon??

[diesel7013]

Just wanted to know what the current status is on BON - I sure am looking forward to getting at this one!!

[Pippin]

Not sure myself. But I am glad to see a new change of developers switching into Napoleon based themes now. This WWII is being currently over-killed.

[ravinhood]

This WWII is being currently over-killed.

Amen to that. Now, when is World in Flames coming out? heh

[Tim Coakley]

Always to to see the game discussed in this community.

Battles of Napoleon is still moving forward. Progress is slower than I want (always the case with the designer). The artist is updating the terrain this week to give a better feel and then I will get some screenshots up at www.doubleshotesign.com

More to come soon,
Tim Coakley
Double Shot Design

[DavidI]

Hurray for Double Shot and Matrix[:D]! It is about time someone did a real Napoleonic Tactical Game. An update of the old SSI BON would have bee fine by me but this looks even better. I am about to puke on HPS's series, unchanged and unimproved over years and years (virtually the same as Napoleon in Russia from way back when). Real Time Simulations suck out loud, I want a good wargame not a click fest! BON is to be WEGO thank goodness, absolutely the best way to handle this level of combat. I can see cavalry charges going forward, infantry checking to go into square, some failing, some succeeding, an enemy cavalry unit counter charging, all unfolding on the screen during the action sequence. Makes my heart beat faster.
OK Doubleshot, get to work! I want to see this game on my computer by July latest![8|]
DavidI

[Tim Coakley]

David,
I answered some of your questions over at the Double Shot board.

I appreciate the support.

Tim

[ravinhood]

WEGO system???? BON wasn't a WEGO system. What's the deal??? Dang I just knew if Dave Landrey wasn't involved it wouldn't be a remake. WEGO! (frowns).

[DavidI]

Ravinhood,
WEGO means "you plot, I plot, action phase". During the action phase the computer similtainiously moves the units you and your foe plotted, fires the units you and your foe plotted, determines morale issues, checks for forming square, counter charges cavalry,etc. Matrix Game's "Uncommon Valor" and "War in the Pacific" and Battlefront's "Combat Mission" are excellent examples. It really can work and makes for an excellent E-mail game, especially if the action phase is handled as it is in Battlefront's Games. In those games it works like this:
I plot turn 1 and I send to you
You plot turn 1 and send to me
I watch the action phase and send to you
You watch the action phase and then plot turn 2 and send to me
I plot turn 2 and send to you
You watch the action phase and send to me
I watch the action phase and plot turn 3 and send to you.
etc.
This is a very simple security system that prevents the plotter from plotting then watching the action phase then deciding he doesn't like the result and replotting until he gets the action phase results he's happier with.

DavidI

[DavidI]

Well re-reading Doubleshot's website, maybe it isn't a pure WEGO, [:o]but sounds like something similar.
DavidI

[Tim Coakley]

It is a WEGO system. The phases are:

Administration (this is handled by the computer and may disappear in the final release and be incorporated automatically before Side 1 Ops)

Side 1 Ops (this is action plotting for #1)
transfer file in PBEM
Side 2 Playback (previous turn)

Side 2 Ops

Action (resolves the plotted actions)
transfer file in PBEM
Side 1 Playback

End Phase (prepares for next turn, may be incorporated automatically with Side 1 playback)

[Tim Coakley]

I tried to contact Dave Landrey (and Norm Koger of Age of Rifles) when I started the project but no response. I only had a design document at the time.

The old SSI game is how I became interested in Napoleonics.

WEGO- I would like to hear your opinions on this vs turn based.

After playing games like Combat Mission, I find it vastly superior. The next evolution is Pausable Continuous Time such as Highway to the Reich.

I think the concern with WEGO is in the lack of control by the player...the AI must make some decisions. The drawback of turn based is that the player can take advantage of the lack of an enemy response during a given time period.

Good discussion.

Tim Coakley
Double Shot Design

[DavidI]

Tim,
WEGO is definately the way to go. In a standard turn based game (Like HPS's) you know that an enemy unit is not going to react to your move, this gives you a knowlege unavailable in the real world. Some gamers will not like the fact that the AI controls some of the events in the game, but then they have the HPS titles to play. WEGO should allow for a fluidity and dynamism simply missing in a strick turn based game. You are definately on the right track. I have no doubt that some traditional board gamers turned computer gamers will critize you for this, but keep in mind the critisizm that BFC came under when the Grogs just wanted Squad Leader translated onto a computer screen (no 3d, no WEGO, etc). If BFC had knuckled under they would have ended up with a slightly different SteelPanthers instead of the best squad/tank level wargame on the market (no disrespect Matrix). Today's computers allow you to do so much more than just transfering a board game to the screen, use them.
So get to work, I want my copy by July![;)]
DavidI

[ravinhood]

The problems I find with WEGO games, is it makes one play more of a "guessing" game of strategy & tactics, instead of actually putting the strategy & tactics fully into the control of the gamer. What if CHESS were in a wego format? Or Checkers or Monopoly, etc. etc.

WEGO has a place within the gaming community of course. The Combat Mission series is fun and one of the best when you want to play a "guessing" game of strategy and tactics. But, I can't see it as being a true to strategy game of direct control over the simulation. Fog of War is plenty enough to add to the "guessing" game of board type wargames. And as I recall in the origional "Battles of Napolean" units did form square and charge during the combat phase of the game without player intervention. Of course during the turn the player could put his units into square formation, but, they did react to cavalry charges on their own sometimes during the combat phase.

I personally don't understand all this want for change to more of the realisms of war instead of sticking to what board wargames were in the first place. Strategy & Tactics!, there was no Fog of War or WEGO system to them, as far as the ones that I played. I see too many that want "blood n guts" type games, and all of this is just eye candy and adds little to the reality of strategy and tactics. Make some pretty pictures, waste resources on them when one could put more time an resources into making a tight simulation of a game without all the bells and whistles.

I could have just as easily enjoyed, probably moreso, the Combat Mission series if it had been pure turn based and I could have moved the icons around on my own their movement limits each turn (like Steel Panthers). I also would have been more satisfied by having more control over who, when, where they fired, instead of the AI taking over and deciding for the individual units themselves during the 60 seconds of battle. I don't know how many times I setup fire tactics and the computer AI changed them every turn. It was too much guessing and more watching the AI play the game instead of letting me play the game.

I like the Steel Panthers series better "because" it gives me the "option" to use the AI as a partner during combat and doesn't "force" me to use it. I can turn some, none, or all the companies over to AI control on each and every turn. The "OPTION" to do this was the best featue about it.

As a gamer "I" want to play, I don't want to watch the computer AI play my side.

[sol_invictus]

Well both/all systems have their problems, but when it's all said and done, I think WEGO is superior; if the AI can handle it. I think the "guessing" game is and should be a large part of strategy.

[ravinhood]

I think the "guessing" game is and should be a large part of strategy.

And that's why the Germans lost the war, they were "guessing" that the WA were going to attack at Pas de Calais, instead of listening to Rommel who was a superior "strategist" and beef up the defenses at Normandy and also even after the invasion releasing the 15th panzer division. Guessing cost them the war at that point. Strategy & Tactics is just that, guessing is just that as well.

When I order my units to do something or go somewhere, that's where I want them to go and attempt to do. I don't want them shooting at some unit half way across the board (like in Combat Mission) that is not even near the objective hex/square. I want to setup suppressive fire, cross fires and such so I can move a squad up the middle or a flank and in CM, I get screwed because the AI does stupid things like shooting at a retreating unit. Tanks firing needlessly on an infantry unit when there is clearly an armored enemy unit with MG's within range to put out of commission which I direct it to fire against and it fires maybe once and then turns on a silly infantry unit.

Fog of War gives plenty for the guessing game, the rest should be pure strategy & tactics. Morale values are fine, a unit should break and rout, but, it should always obey my orders first and foremost (Adolph Hitlerlike) heh

[DavidI]

Ravenhood,
Point taken, however in this particular period and scale I think units will be a lot less likely to be in a situation that causes them to perform other than what you plot them to do. Although I hope my infantry battalion advancing in line when it sees an enemy cavalry charging it will attempt to form square, or at least suck in it's skirmishers and face the cavalry with a volley.

Speaking of skirmishers I hope the new BON will treat them the same way that the old game did. I thought it was brilliant, worked correctly and prevented the unrealistic use of independent skirmisher sub-units. It also reduced map clutter.

I also hope that cavalry can scout without the HPS "recon by Little Big Horn" method. In those games cavalry can only spot units in woods or behind ridges by moving next to them, being stopped dead in their tracks by the ZOC and then being just dead as the enemy infantry pours both defensive and offensive fire into them. Instead of being an affair of a couple of vendettes it became an affair of a couple of hundred dead troopers. Allowing cavalry to "see" two hexes out, or to allow the Cavalry to rebound back 1 hex with minimum movement point loss would solve that problem. This is an issue that HPS has refused to address in both their Napoleonic and Civil War Games, much to their detriment.
DavidI

[diesel7013]

Why I don't mind WEGO

Remember the old Kampfgruppe for SSI??

You gave your units orders and depending upon being under command control, they would execute those orders in some time frame...

You then watched an execution phase where you go to see your units carry out thier orders. If it works on the C64 - I'm sure Matrix can make it work as well...

Matrix - the new SSI

[Tim Coakley]

David,
two good points you bring up:
1) Skirmishers: They are handled in two ways in the game. The first is that a unit can be set to the "Skirmish" fire and melee control settings. They will fire at 1/2 strength and receive casualties at 50%. The unit will also withdraw if meleed...simulating the delaying action. The scenario designer can also set the number of allowable sub-units per unit, and the strength. So a line unit could have one sub unit and a light have as many as companies in its organization. These sub-units act just like regular units and can be set to skirmish.

2) Cavalry screens and recon: The sub-unit function works here too...so the player can send a cav squadron to recon. The unit may find enemy and be stopped by its presense. The player can then order the retreat the next turn (no ZOC kill because it is WEGO, not turn based).

Tim

[Tim Coakley]

Ravidhood,
you make a great point that is the center of the WEGO vs IGOUGO system. It is a matter of how much control should a player have. I do favor giving a lot of control to the player (we are not trained 18-19th century generals afterall) but a turn based system can cause unrealistic results as well.

Imagine I use good tactics such as using a screening force to cover the enemy and then launch a flank attack. I get into position but it is now the enemy's turn. He turns all his units to face the attack. If effect he is reacting instantly to my attack as opposed to having to get word from his troops and then execute a reaction. In a WEGO game, I would be on the enemy's flank and then launching my attack as he TRIES to turn and face the attack.

It is a more realistic simulation of the military decision cycle.

You make a great point about the AI reacting inappropriately...this is the killer of a WEGO system. Time will tell how well the agme works in this regard. I would offer, however, that the same issue is involved in turn based games that give control of the non-phasing player's units to the AI.

Keep it up...
Tim

[DavidI]

Tim,
Thank you for your excellent answers. It looks like you and your team have really thought this out.
Now, back to your work bench!
DavidI