Next TS game - Robert E Lee maybe next?

[bhaktamichael]

I am enjoying both of your TS games very much - I have read on an interview that Robert E Lee was the potential focus in the future amongst others - the Civil War could so use this great format and great AI. ANy idea when your great team will offer as that masterpiece?

Michael

P.S> Thank you for your work and ongoing support and also , and mainly, your ability to put a great AI out for the solo playing crowd in wargaming.

[Hertston]

The Civil War would certainly be my top choice for the next in the series. It would seem smart too; I think TS has gone as far with ancients as it can, and about the only other period as popular as ACW would be Napoleonics - but assuming Matrix are still Koios' publishers they have plenty of Napoleonic stuff coming up already. The only ACW game seems to be the one based on the GGWaW engine, which would hardly compete with a TS:ASW.

[offbase]

This system would be a perfect medium for the Crusades. Who has ever seen the battle of Hattin modeled in a wargame??? Or The Lionheart's march along the coast, attacked by Saleh-al-Din while in column of march, yet winning??? Lots of nice possibilities, and ripe for marketing after the success of a still-running flick on the Crusades.

[ravinhood]

I highly agree, Napoleanics is far from being the only thing that would work with this system. It's merely one of them, but, the medieval times, dark ages, even the American Revolutionary war, and plenty plenty of more ancient periods to work with like the Greek civil wars, Battle of Troy, lord knows there's a plethora of things they can make from this game besides crummy ole same ole napoleanic garbage.

[CamelCity]

I'd love to see a TS game based on the wars of ancient China. Just my $.02...

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: CamelCity

I'd love to see a TS game based on the wars of ancient China. Just my $.02...

Yeah a "Romance of the 3 Kingdoms" conversion would be great.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I highly agree, Napoleanics is far from being the only thing that would work with this system.

Who was saying that is was? The whole point of the thread was that an ACW game might be the best choice next, not a Napoleonic one.

The reality check here is that the game has to sell. Much as I enjoy them, I doubt (judged by the relative levels of forum traffic, anyway) that TS sells as well as many Matrix releases (WitP, Decisive Battles, HttR etc). Alex obviously did well enough to justify Caesar, and I suspect Caesar is the more popular of the two, but IMHO some of the ideas here, while excellent, wouldn't sell anywhere near as well as a Civil War or Napoleonics game. Medieval might, maybe. That could be done without changing the system much, whereas both ACW and Nappy would require a change of scale IMHO. You would need many more unit elements to get anything other than a very abstract game - maybe 50-100 or so a side, certainly if any major battles were included (rather than the common dodge of isolating parts of them).

[e_barkmann]

You would need many more unit elements to get anything other than a very abstract game - maybe 50-100 or so a side, certainly if any major battles were included (rather than the common dodge of isolating parts of them).

I think the current unit numbers are one of the reasons I am really enjoying TSJC - having 20-24 units to control presents me with a manageable, enjoyable game that I can play within an evening. Anything much more than that and it would turn into a 'monster scenario' game that I wouldn't consider playing.

Cheers Chris

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

I think the current unit numbers are one of the reasons I am really enjoying TSJC - having 20-24 units to control presents me with a manageable, enjoyable game that I can play within an evening. Anything much more than that and it would turn into a 'monster scenario' game that I wouldn't consider playing.

It depends on the overall game design. If you took TS as-is and just trebled the units on each side (with bigger maps to suit) you may well be right, but introduce a degree of "delegation" to sub-ordinates and even large ACW/Napoleonic battles remain quite manageable. You just order (when you choose) say, three element brigades instead of a battalion sized element.

You have a lot of possibilities, then. Subordinates could be either AI or human, which would really perk up multiplay - doesn't Gettysburg with a human player as each Corps Commander sound fun ? [:)] Most importantly, though, you can have a real bash at playing those large battles with something resembling historical tactics , although there's no reason you couldn't have smaller scenarios (like the defence of McPherson's Ridge on the first day, for example) if you wanted. Ideally, a scenario designer would be included to facilitate that.

[wodin]

ACW is prob more a war that Americans would buyinto. Napoleonic has a more wroldwide appeal I'd imagine.

[Hertston]

You might be surprised. There seem to be as many Brits as Americans on the Take Command:1861 boards - and the game hasn't even been published here! The ACW has always been a popular period in the UK; in my miniatures days there was almost as much interest as there was in Napoleonics and ancients. We have active re-enactment groups, too.

I think the nature of the war extends interest beyond national boundaries. Its very hard to think of any other conflict that mixed tragedy, idealism and heroism in quite the same way, and add in excellent suitability for wargaming and you have a very universal appeal.

[e_barkmann]

It depends on the overall game design. If you took TS as-is and just trebled the units on each side (with bigger maps to suit) you may well be right, but introduce a degree of "delegation" to sub-ordinates and even large ACW/Napoleonic battles remain quite manageable. You just order (when you choose) say, three element brigades instead of a battalion sized element.

This is how games like HTTR function and in many ways makes the them manageable.

I think this would be going against the spirit of the TS series - ie it is depicted as a tabletop game where you are in control of each unit. However I agree with you in that to get some of the larger battles happening I can't see how else you would do this, and the AI demonstrated so far is quite capable. Perhaps adding in some basic tasks to an AI group , eg attack here, probe there, defend this hill, will allow for some educated guesses from the AI.

There will be those who oppose any kind of delegated AI management, however.

Cheers Chris

[ravinhood]

Its very hard to think of any other conflict that mixed tragedy, idealism and heroism in quite the same way, and add in excellent suitability for wargaming and you have a very universal appeal.

Oh, I'd much rather see a War of Independence 1776 type game even over ACW. That's where us Americans whipped the British all the way back to London. hehe I'd think it combined with the war of 1812 would make a great package deal. Then we can have that bloodly battle at New Orleans.

In reality though, there's already enough Napoleonic and ACW games already out there, that's why I'm hoping they stay in the ancient period and perhaps into the medieval period and some ancient Chinese warfare.

Just this last year ancient games have really been coming into view. Spartan, Gates of Troy, (cough) Rome Total War, Tin Soldiers Caesar. Though still, there's no board game like game to computer of any of these type games. How I wish for a Caesar at Alesia board game to computer version of that battle. Maybe SSG will pickup on it some day.

Still wayyyy to many WWII titles being produced of the same bloody theaters with a different name on the game. Same with ACW and Napoleonics. Rather tired of those theaters and battles.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood



Still wayyyy to many WWII titles being produced of the same bloody theaters with a different name on the game. Same with ACW and Napoleonics. Rather tired of those theaters and battles.

True enough on WW2, but where are these ACW titles? Other than the HPS games (basically one game with some very expensive scenario packs) and the (excellent) Take Command 1861: Bull Run, what else recent is there?

I guess it depends on where the devs want to go - the "Tin Soldiers" has always suggested to me it should look at the full range covered by the miniatures hobby, not just ancients. Samurai Japan would sell better than Ancient China I think, as would a medieval game based on the crusades or not. If they stuck with ancients I'd love to see a "Battles of the Bible", a subject I hadn't even thought about until reading Herzog and Gichon's superb book of that name. I seem to recall someone from Koios saying they had thought of it too, but decided (quite rightly IMHO) that there was no way it would sell.

[bhaktamichael]

The reason I started the thread was this quote from the president of the game's company - full interview link is on topic on this forum:

"So is the Ancient World a time period that Koios is sticking with, or could we possibly see a title based on the Napoleonic Wars or the American Civil War sometime in the future?

Depending on how successful Caesar is, we plan on moving into leaders such as Napoleon, Robert E. Lee and Gunderian. We are certainly not “ancients only.” "

Thanks for all the comments - I do hope they pursue ACW and Lee.

[siRkid]

I for one woud love to se a fantasy game. It you be great if they teamed up with the Warhammer people.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Kid

I for one woud love to se a fantasy game. It you be great if they teamed up with the Warhammer people.

[X(]Now that would be fantastic, Tryanids...Chaos Marines...Mech's...they could do a whole series and still have more work to do[8D]. Of course, that's just 40000, the Warhammer Dark Omen series would be even better[&o].

[Zap]

Yes a Amercan Cival War game. gooooooood.

[ravinhood]

LOL well we do seem to have a lot of different preferences here, maybe they will make something for everyone eventually.

What I'd like to see is a grand scale campaign game simular to RTW and then use the minatures for all the battles. With ALLLLLL those different units and types from RTW in the game, but, with TS's AI, which is better since 1.1 as I get deeper into the games civil war.

I'd rather see provinces though for movement and control rather than individual tiles like RTW tried to do. It turned into a horrible system for the AI to work with, while it did rather well when it was provinces like Shogun and MTW.

This Tin Soldiers series is the best of the rest as far as my vote goes. It's such a welcome relief from same ole same ole WWII titles. I put it right up there with Spartan/Gates of Troy for fun an entertainment value.

Hope KOIOS can pull it off someday and make a more grand scale strategic/tactical game on a larger scale than Caesar even. That would be the ultimate of ultimates for me. (Still looking for that random scenario generator out of them. heh)

Now, as far as Civil Wargames, going back to the mid 80's to present, from SSI's Gettysburg, Antietam, Shilo, Chickamauga, No Greater Glory, then to SSG's 3 or 4 volume series in the early 90's, up to Sid Meiers Gettysburg/Antietam, and all of HPS's Civil War titles, and Civil War Generals I & II, Age of Rifles, Blue Smoke/Grey Skies, that grand scale ACW (think they are doing a 2nd or 3rd edition of this now, North & South (funniest one of them all to play) yeah I'd say I have enough Civil War type titles.

Napoleanic games? Back to the 80's again with Battles of Napoleon, then came Waterloo for the Amiga, then there was the first real time action game, can't recall the name right off, was really the first minatureized type battle of the battle of Waterloo though (Oh now I remember "Field of Glory", then once again SSG did at least one Napoleonic volume game I have it somewhere. lol and of course Matrixgames and HPS have both done significant service on the Napoleonics series, Talonsofts Waterloo and 3 others in that series, real time Austerlitz/Waterloo, then recently Imperial Glory, soon Crown for Glory, Empire in Arms. So, yeah I'd say I have enough Napoleonic games as well and enough coming.

But, Ancients titles, except for Centurion Defender of Rome and Carthage long ago made in the early 90's, there really was nothing else out there until recently with KOIOS and (cough) RTW and Spartan/Gates of Troy which I think is the best of their series, Legion and Chariots of War I didn't care for. Same for Medieval type games. I just fell feet over heels for MTW when I got it, for a straight month I played nothing else. Best title Creative Assembly did as far as I'm concerned.

I hope they stay in the Ancients or at least move up gradually to the ACW/Napoleonics type versions. I always had an interest in minatures warfare type games, but, I couldn't paint worth crap, so lost interest in the whole thing. I still like to watch others play out large battles on huge tables though. It's really the only thing that will pull me away most often from counters and hexes.

[pomakli]

Hello everybody!

I want to repeat a name for three times....

Hannibal-Hannibal-Hannibal

Best regards!

Pomakli