Any Idea...........

[captskillet]

on when we may see this one.....as an old Civil War board gamer from way back (Terrible swift sword, etc.) and Civil War generals I & II am really looking forward to this one!!!

[rhondabrwn]

I'm hoping for next month (seems like they did say "this summer") and August would fill the bill.

I'm an old "Terrible Swift Sword" fan too! This series will always have a place on my computer!

[John 3rd]

I loved Battlegound:  Gettysburg the most.  Problem is, I wish there was more space on the map to allow room to manuever...
 

[AndyfromVA1]

I understand all of the games are going to be sold in one package. If the games are updated so that the unit graphics are larger (not everyone has a 21 inch monitor) and the price is reasonable, I'd consider the purchase. Otherwise, I'd prefer to spend my money on the HPS Civil War games.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I loved Battlegound: Gettysburg the most. Problem is, I wish there was more space on the map to allow room to manuever...

You should probably try HPS Gettysburg Campaign. HUGE map in the campaign version. You can literally spend the first 30 turns moving to contact. Imagine the Gettsyburg map extending all the way down to Pipe Creek and beginning with the I Corps encamped at Emmitsburg.

I hate the HPS graphics, but found a mod to convert their map and unit graphics to something much more akin to the Battleground series. I've also got their Campaign Shiloh which allows you to start with Belmont and proceed through a variety of alternative developments.

That said... there is No doubt that I will buy the entire Battleground series reissues. The graphics are fabulous and the battle scenarios have excellent play value. The huge map options provided in the HPS releases are great, but the more limited scale of the BG series is more playable. The benefit of getting multiple games for one price is also very attractive even though I already own the entire series (patched to 32 bit).

[Vyshka]

www.nws-online.net has HPS Gettysburg on sale for 29.99 right now. How does he manage to price it so much lower than HPS themselves? I just put in an order for Gettysburg, Shiloh, Stalingrad, and Waterloo. I figure it is time to give HPS a try and see what Tiller has been up to.

One of the things that has held me back has been the fact that the graphics has taken a step back from when his titles were sold through Talonsoft. I wonder what he could do if he had Matrix doing the art for him.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Vyshka

www.nws-online.net has HPS Gettysburg on sale for 29.99 right now. How does he manage to price it so much lower than HPS themselves?

They beat the matrix store for CoG as well. How they do it? They negotiate discount prices, charge low margins, and try to provide as little additional service and support as they can get away with.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: Vyshka

www.nws-online.net has HPS Gettysburg on sale for 29.99 right now. How does he manage to price it so much lower than HPS themselves? I just put in an order for Gettysburg, Shiloh, Stalingrad, and Waterloo. I figure it is time to give HPS a try and see what Tiller has been up to.

One of the things that has held me back has been the fact that the graphics has taken a step back from when his titles were sold through Talonsoft. I wonder what he could do if he had Matrix doing the art for him.

Yep, I started buying all of my HPS titles from NWS.

In regard to the graphics, I found several sites with mods for the HPS games that change both the terrain and the units into something very close to the Talonsoft BG graphics. Try this one:

HPS Graphics Mods

I used the Campaign Gettysburg mods successfully. Campaign Shiloh doesn't seem to be well supported - the mods worked but the town hexes turned purple for somereason so I went back to standard HPS. I love the new look of Gettysburg though.

As to why HPS has the graphics they do? It's a design decision by Tiller to emphasize playability and visibility of units. Many of their customers play exclusively in 2D mode so the graphics aren't an issue. Others complain about eyestrain from the Talonsoft style graphics (which are more in scale with the terrain, but admittedly hard to see sometimes). Right here on the Matrix Battleground forums we have more than one person complaining about the tiny graphics and wanting them to be bigger.

Different strokes.....

Anyway, I'm sure you'll love the campaign games. I've got HPS Gettysburg, Shiloh, and Waterloo. I've got this massive campaign game going on in Waterloo which is shaping up dramatically different than the historical one. I put two French corps on the road to Mons and they have gone undiscovered as they flank the Anglo-Allied forces. The size of the campaign maps in these games is incredible. You literally can take 30 turns before you get positioned for battle. Cavalry becomes essential for scouting purposes and to protect your flanks. There is never a "board edge" for protection. Warning: the AI is hopeless for campaign scenarios though so you need a PBEM partner (or else develop a great split personality to play yourself.

BTW... I really don't PBEM, but I'd be willing to start with Campaign Gettysburg.... e-mail me if you are interested.

[Vyshka]

Question about the Campaigns: I was reading a person's AAR over on SZO for a Gettysburg Campaign, and in their first battle Fitz Lee apparently died, but he was there again in their 3rd battle. Is that possible in the game, or did they perhaps misunderstand and he was only wounded earlier? That would be a bummer if they could ressurect [sic?] themselves for later battles, and it should be something that Tiller could fix.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: Vyshka

Question about the Campaigns: I was reading a person's AAR over on SZO for a Gettysburg Campaign, and in their first battle Fitz Lee apparently died, but he was there again in their 3rd battle. Is that possible in the game, or did they perhaps misunderstand and he was only wounded earlier? That would be a bummer if they could ressurect [sic?] themselves for later battles, and it should be something that Tiller could fix.

A good question! The rules are clear that if a unit is destroyed, it is gone for good, but if it survives then it is reinforced by 10% for the next game in the campaign. Thus, the incentive to preserve your cavalry units, for example. Now as to major commanders... I don't know (I'll have to kill someone off and then watch for their reincarnation). However, there is no distinction in the game for KIA vs WIA so it would be reasonable to expect at least some of the lost officers to reappear after their wounds heal. Whether ALL would reappear or if the game mechanics would randomly KIA some of them, I have no idea. I would hope that there would be a chance of recovery though. I tend to lose a lot of officers because I keep them on the front lines with their brigades except when rallying routed units. Divisional officers I keep back about 3 hexes (and mounted)so they do take some casualties. Corps and Army commanders I keep way back and I don't tend to lose those guys. I also always play with the optional rule for counting officer loses for victory points.

I should add on fighting "campaign" games that there are options to just fight the Battle of Gettysburg, but with variable starting positions and arrival times and being played on a huge map. You can also start the Gettysburg Campaign with the initial cavalry skirmish followed by an opportunity for various strategic decisions by both players that can actually insure that you never get close to Gettysburg. Fighting such a campaign is really, really LONG! I've decided that I prefer to fight at Gettysburg with the variable options and the huge map. Both of the campaigns that I've played this way have resulted in I and XI Corps getting decimated with the battle lines forming at right angles to the historical ones. The CSA eventually outruns it's supply wagons and their assault stalls before a crushing blow can be delivered. It's all fascinating doing PBEM with myself (to insure complete Fog of War), but really cries out for a human opponent. There is only so much delusional rationalizations that one can make to pretend not to notice a flanking force [:D] I send out cavalry and when they make contact, then I allow myself to react to the threat during "my turn". It all comes from a lifetime of solitaire play and analysis.

I really get immersed in these grand tactical games... I never get the same feeling from games like BIN, BII, or even TOAW III even though I enjoy them.

[General]

I too would buy the reissued Battleground Series package. 

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I've got this massive campaign game going on in Waterloo which is shaping up dramatically different than the historical one. I put two French corps on the road to Mons and they have gone undiscovered as they flank the Anglo-Allied forces. The size of the campaign maps in these games is incredible.

I hope your oppenent is not reading this thread...

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: Yohan

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I've got this massive campaign game going on in Waterloo which is shaping up dramatically different than the historical one. I put two French corps on the road to Mons and they have gone undiscovered as they flank the Anglo-Allied forces. The size of the campaign maps in these games is incredible.

I hope your oppenent is not reading this thread...

Actually, I'm playing this PBEM with myself, allowing a couple of days between moves to "forget" deployment details and I also have several Gettysburg campaigns going the same way. I play by personal "house rules" in which I do not react until scouts have made contact. I randomly choose the Campaign options at the beginning of the game. In this one, the Brits got the "shift eastward to facilitate a linkup with the Prussians" while Napoleon drew the "advance through Mons" option. I just played it out from there. Wellington's forces have made contact with other French elements and are converging on those French forces and cavalry are moving towards the Mons force. I anticipate contact between French and British scouts on the next turn. Then it gets really interesting...

As I said above though. I've never felt the need for a live opponent like I have with these HPS games. Knowing the history of the actual battle isn't going to help much with these huge maps. BG Gettysburg is predictable... you know who is arriving, when, and where. The game is mostly a matter of tacical battlefield management. The HPS campaign mode adds a strategic (or at least Grand Tactical) element to the tactical battlefield operations. Both approaches have value. BG can be played out fairly quickly while an HPS campaign mode game is akin to the WiTP experience... a lot of moves to get through the campaign. HPS does include a huge variety of scenarios, but I haven't touched those, been too wrapped up in campaign mode since I got the games.

To give you an idea of the time frame, I started the Gettysburg campaign back during Spring Break and the Waterloo campaign has been ongoing since May. Neither are anywhere close to completion! I suspect it will be Christmas break by the time they conclude.

[1NWCG]

http://www.brettschulte.net/ACWCGDC/rolfhallGraphics.htm
 
This website has the missing Set C regimental graphics for HPS ACW games.  I was able to get a MOD to work with Shiloh terrain, I'll find out which one it is when I get home.
 
All in all good games.  If you wish to spruce up HPS Nappy games, I took one of the ground MODS for ACW and applied it to Waterloo and it looks much better.  Sadly the houses did not convert as the small villages disappeared.  I may call in some folks to see if they can MOD it.

[General]

One of the things that has always impressed me with the Battleground series is the detail of the map. I've never been to Gettysburg, is the map close to what the terrain really is?

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: General

One of the things that has always impressed me with the Battleground series is the detail of the map. I've never been to Gettysburg, is the map close to what the terrain really is?

I've been to the battlefield about six times now and I would have to say that the BG map is reasonably accurate. It's a far cry beyond the old AH Gettysburg hexes [:D] It does seem like Big and Little Round Tops aren't as imposing as they are in real life (a limitation of the terrain levels in the game). This is true on the HPS map too.

I don't see that as a problem though. The maps are fine.

It would be interesting to take the game to the battlefield on a laptop and do a comparison as you walked the battlefield though.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: 1NWCG

http://www.brettschulte.net/ACWCGDC/rolfhallGraphics.htm

This website has the missing Set C regimental graphics for HPS ACW games. I was able to get a MOD to work with Shiloh terrain, I'll find out which one it is when I get home.

All in all good games. If you wish to spruce up HPS Nappy games, I took one of the ground MODS for ACW and applied it to Waterloo and it looks much better. Sadly the houses did not convert as the small villages disappeared. I may call in some folks to see if they can MOD it.

Thanks for the tips.

I'll be looking forward to your advice regarding which MOD worked with Shiloh terrain. As I think I've mentioned, the problem I was getting with trying to MOD Shiloh was that all of the towns turned purple. Everything else worked OK though, but I went back to standard.

[1NWCG]

ORIGINAL: General

One of the things that has always impressed me with the Battleground series is the detail of the map. I've never been to Gettysburg, is the map close to what the terrain really is?

Albeit for modern changes it does a good job. [:)] The proximity of a few things are rather close than in real life, but the time it takes for troops to cover distance is about right, especially in HPS.

[1NWCG]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

ORIGINAL: General

One of the things that has always impressed me with the Battleground series is the detail of the map. I've never been to Gettysburg, is the map close to what the terrain really is?

I've been to the battlefield about six times now and I would have to say that the BG map is reasonably accurate. It's a far cry beyond the old AH Gettysburg hexes [:D] It does seem like Big and Little Round Tops aren't as imposing as they are in real life (a limitation of the terrain levels in the game). This is true on the HPS map too.

I don't see that as a problem though. The maps are fine.

It would be interesting to take the game to the battlefield on a laptop and do a comparison as you walked the battlefield though.

I like the Round Tops in BG, but HPS does a better job of general ground and distnace coverage, especially on their large campaign map.

[1NWCG]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

ORIGINAL: 1NWCG

http://www.brettschulte.net/ACWCGDC/rolfhallGraphics.htm

This website has the missing Set C regimental graphics for HPS ACW games. I was able to get a MOD to work with Shiloh terrain, I'll find out which one it is when I get home.

All in all good games. If you wish to spruce up HPS Nappy games, I took one of the ground MODS for ACW and applied it to Waterloo and it looks much better. Sadly the houses did not convert as the small villages disappeared. I may call in some folks to see if they can MOD it.

Thanks for the tips.

I'll be looking forward to your advice regarding which MOD worked with Shiloh terrain. As I think I've mentioned, the problem I was getting with trying to MOD Shiloh was that all of the towns turned purple. Everything else worked OK though, but I went back to standard.

Will do, placed a notice for myslef in my email Inbox. [:)]