Remember the DOS Battlefront Games?

[AndyfromVA1]

Does the new Battlefront system make extensive use of the AI like the old Battlefront system (the DOS games) did?

I thought the old system was great. It completely eliminated the micromanaging and counter pushing that's so prevalent in turn based wargames.

However, after looking at these threads, I'm getting the feeling the new game is just a more tactical version of the Decisive Battles system.

Anyone have any information about this?

[Rob Gjessing]

I loved the original Battlefront games - what was part of that release?  Was it Saipan, Bastogne, Crete and Stalingrad?  That series of games - which I actually played on the C64 not DOS had me and my brother hooked on the PC for hours, days, months and years.. 

[raydude]

According to the "Designer's Notes part 2" thread you have to move every individual counter now. Its certainly too late to change that, but, given that the old Battlefront had such an innovative system for command and control, why didn't that get ported to the new battlefront? We certainly have more computing cycles for the AI today than in the 1980's. I'm just saying, the old system in the new engine would have been refreshingly new again.

[RedMike]

Yeah, I played Battlefront series on the C64 too.

Carriers at War and Europe Ablaze came first though, great games!!

Then came the Mac, which was big step forward even if it was B&W.

My gentoo linux machine blows them all away though...heh heh heh.

RedMike...out

[Rob Gjessing]

I think I have a C64 EMU with the old battlefront on a CD somewhere... should drag it out.. 

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Rob Gjessing

I think I have a C64 EMU with the old battlefront on a CD somewhere... should drag it out.. 

The original Battlefront on C64 was the second computer wargame I ever bought. (the first was Knights of the Desert).

I remember thinking that with Battlefront, I wouldn't have to buy another computer game, since I could build all the battle I wanted. I remember creating a battle around Novorossik (I think it was anyway). And the battle for Monte Casino - I remember WarPaint, and editing map hexes pixel at a time on the C64. It was great.

I went on to buy SSG's Civil war battles, their Russian capaign game, their original Ardennes game (TAO I i guess it was), before they released it for free. Looking up at my book shelf, I still see their Rommel (one of the BattleFront series) as well as TAO I. (those two were bought for PC.


Rick

[Szilard]

Yep; disappointment here also that SSG hasn't gone the old Battlefront route.

Pushing counters around is a chore & I have no idea who I'm supposed to be when I'm doing it. The old BF system, sketchy as it was, was fun & felt real.

But I guess there are plenty of people out there who actually like pushing little counters around & who actually like the board game paradigm, rather than seeing it as annoying & clunky.

[Canuck_jp]

I like pushing counters around. If I wanted someone to move my forces for me then I'd just play HTTR or COTA.

[stevel40831]

ORIGINAL: Canuck35

I like pushing counters around. If I wanted someone to move my forces for me then I'd just play HTTR or COTA.

I agree 100%. If they had gone with the old system I would not have bought the game. I have not tried COTA but I do have HTTR. At least with HTTR the units seem to have a good idea what they're supposed to be doing and perform reasonably well. In the old Battlefront game the units sometimes had minds of their own and did things that didn't make any sense. Although some people would chalk this up to "disorganization" or the use of "initiative" by the on-the-spot commander, I found it very frustrating and lost interest in what seemed to be a game with great potential.

Steve

[raydude]

ORIGINAL: Canuck35

I like pushing counters around. If I wanted someone to move my forces for me then I'd just play HTTR or COTA.

Again, lets put this in perspective. Of all the wargames in the matrix stable that are currently out, only 2 are WEGO. Of all the wargames ever released in the history of mankind, you can count the number of WEGO games on two hands.

I'm glad you have a plethora of choices. I just wish I had the same.

[rich12545]

I played all the old Battlefront games and all the scenarios from Run 5 and loved the system.  Played them over and over again.  Yes, they got poor reviews but there was one major reviewer who seemed prejudiced against ssg.  Can't remember his name.  Anyway, I can't see any resemblance here except the name.

I'm getting close to buying the new toaw and saw this forum.  Am wondering if this would be better.  They seem pretty similar but I wonder if anyone has any idea of the differences (other than the obvious like time frames etc).  Thanks in advance.

[sapper_astro]

I dunno why the SSG boys couldn't have gotten together with Panther and recreated the old battlefront system from the top down.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy counter pushing as much as the next man, but Battlefront is battlefront to me I guess.

Still, the votes out. I will see what emerges and base my opinion on that before saying too much.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: rich12545
  They seem pretty similar but I wonder if anyone has any idea of the differences

Battlefront has a much better user interface.

Battlefront's counters use 'steps' whereas TAOW counts the number of men.

[rich12545]

Thank you but too late.  I bought toaw a few days ago.  I always had a soft spot for ssg because I spent so many hours playing and immensely enjoying their ww2, cw and warlords games in the old days, but all in all I felt toaw would be the better game for me.

[JSS]

ORIGINAL: rich12545

Thank you but too late.  I bought toaw a few days ago.  I always had a soft spot for ssg because I spent so many hours playing and immensely enjoying their ww2, cw and warlords games in the old days, but all in all I felt toaw would be the better game for me.

Hopefully there is room in your budget for another[:D] TOAW3 is a great game, hope you're enjoying it. Would highly recommend both BII & BF to you also if you like operational games.

[rich12545]

I do like operational games but, really, one is enough.  Next I'm looking at Harpoon3.  [:'(]

[JSS]

ORIGINAL: rich12545

I do like operational games but, really, one is enough.  Next I'm looking at Harpoon3.  [:'(]

Too bad. Should've picked BII. Its much better than TOAW3.

[rich12545]

You know, as I mentioned, I always liked SSG.  Always thought they were a fine company and made great games.  So I waited several days for someone from the company to come on and explain the differences and maybe why he thought his game was better.  Nobody came.  So I bought toaw.

I played toaw since it came out although I kinda got away from it a couple years ago and always thought it was a fine game.  Now it's better.  Covers the entire century plus some.  Has tons of scenarios already available.  And I still don't see why bf is better.  And I'm pleasantly surprised to see a better Harpoon.  This is another one I played since it came out (through the 2002 version) and kind of got away from it a couple years ago.  Very nice that MG is sponsoring updates to two of my favorite games.  But, still, I probably would have bought bf instead if Gregor or someone had come on to explain why it's better.  But he didn't.  What I thought, tell you the truth, is that there was likely a reason he didn't.

[hank]

ORIGINAL: rich12545

Thank you but too late.  I bought toaw a few days ago.  I always had a soft spot for ssg because I spent so many hours playing and immensely enjoying their ww2, cw and warlords games in the old days, but all in all I felt toaw would be the better game for me.

I too bought toaw a couple of weeks ago. I'm in the workshop at szo right now.

But, I'll be saving up for another wargame and possibly by the time the cookie jar is full, BF will be out and then it will be decision time.

hank

[JSS]

ORIGINAL: rich12545

You know, as I mentioned, I always liked SSG.  Always thought they were a fine company and made great games.  So I waited several days for someone from the company to come on and explain the differences and maybe why he thought his game was better.  Nobody came.  So I bought toaw.

I played toaw since it came out although I kinda got away from it a couple years ago and always thought it was a fine game.  Now it's better.  Covers the entire century plus some.  Has tons of scenarios already available.  And I still don't see why bf is better.  And I'm pleasantly surprised to see a better Harpoon.  This is another one I played since it came out (through the 2002 version) and kind of got away from it a couple years ago.  Very nice that MG is sponsoring updates to two of my favorite games.  But, still, I probably would have bought bf instead if Gregor or someone had come on to explain why it's better.  But he didn't.  What I thought, tell you the truth, is that there was likely a reason he didn't.

Have sent a note to Gregor to address this for you. First though, I think its unfair to compare a game that has not gone gold yet to a new release from the same publisher. I've posted that TOAW3 is on my short list of best/favorite games (its #5). BII is #1!!! BF is not on the list as its not complete yet (hasn't gone gold). It will rock. Will it be better than TOAW3? Yeah, I think so (personal opinion of a beta tester).

Buying TOAW3 is good thing [:)] Buying BII is an even better thing [:D] lt's not going anywhere and I highly recommend it!!! I really encourage operational wargame fans to buy both!!!!!!!! There shouldn't be a TOAW is the only wargame crowd (yet I have long gotten that vibe [:(] ). BII should be on every TOAW player's computer too (and vice versa)!!!

BII vs. TOAW3... I recommend both!!! TOAW set the bar for operational games. Only DBWWII series (BII is far & away the best of the series) has met the challenge to raise the bar. It did!!! Of course it is a WWII focused game. Its probably better than TOAW thru Middle East 56. More modern conflicts I don't think you can use it for... Overall pluses of BII (quality of scenarios, do scenarios tend to match historical results, do minimal stupid things happen, less number of bugs, etc...) make it my favorite. Available scenarios for BII are many and they tend to be better than those availabe for TOAW.

Combat engines are very different. I perfer BII (by far) but TOAW does somethings better. Movement is better in TOAW (unit movement, time phased is an area TOAW handles much better than BII). Supply, unit quality, disorganization, and fatigue are areas that BII handles better. Actual combat is even (TOAW has huge fog of war factor, BII gives you perfect idea of possibilities and then random results). I don't like the combat phases of TOAW... good idea, handled much better in TOAW3, still needs improvement. Truncated turns and "evaporated units" are the worst parts of TOAW. BII does a great job of limited intelligence... until units come into contact (then its total knowledge). Worst part of BII.

As mentioned by Joe above I think the BII interface is much better than TOAW.

Hope this helps (after the fact[:@])[;)]

JSS