new scenarios

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

new scenarios

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> John Tiller's Battleground Series >> new scenarios

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

new scenarios - 1/31/2006 8:06:10 PM

Caranorn

Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline

I'm currently working on a tactical level board game about the ACW. This will include some battles not yet covered by the BG system. So if Matrix is interested let me know as I could help create scenarios for those battles for BG.

Right now my plans are for Pea Ridge/Elkhorn Tavern (a BG fan scenario exists but is largely incorrect), Fort Donelson (possibly also a Fort Henry mini scenario) and Pittsburg landing/Shiloh (obviously already exits, but could do optional scenarios with units and leaders from Pea Ridge and Donnelson that did not make it to Shiloh). I plan at least one more (essentially a quad) but haven't chosen a specific battle yet.

_____________________________

Marc aka Caran... ministerialis

Post #: 1

RE: new scenarios - 2/1/2006 7:56:09 AM

rhondabrwn

Posts: 2570
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caranorn

I'm currently working on a tactical level board game about the ACW. This will include some battles not yet covered by the BG system. So if Matrix is interested let me know as I could help create scenarios for those battles for BG.

Right now my plans are for Pea Ridge/Elkhorn Tavern (a BG fan scenario exists but is largely incorrect), Fort Donelson (possibly also a Fort Henry mini scenario) and Pittsburg landing/Shiloh (obviously already exits, but could do optional scenarios with units and leaders from Pea Ridge and Donnelson that did not make it to Shiloh). I plan at least one more (essentially a quad) but haven't chosen a specific battle yet.

Have you played HPS Campaign Shiloh? I played the campaign which included variable scenarios for Belmont, Ft Henry, and Ft Donelson during my march to a decisive Union defeat at Pittsburg Landing. These HPS campaign games include a huge number of scenario options.

Now if the Matrix version of BG could incorporate some of this along with the existing superb graphics in the Talonsoft games.....

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics :(

(in reply to Caranorn)

Post #: 2

RE: new scenarios - 2/1/2006 2:28:34 PM

Caranorn

Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline

Well I never touched the HPS games (usually I don't mind bad graphics in wargames, but in this case it meant a reduction in graphic quality from BG to the campaigns... so I never made that move). But I did check the HPS website yesterday to see how far they'd gotten. I'm still not convinced (and don't understand why they did not try to improve graphics, it's not that hard to do). I'd much prefer if Matrix was able to improve BG a bit until the next generation of games get published (preferably by Matrix:-).

P.S.: Since my last post I have concluded that Fort Henry is obviously not a scenario for either my board game or BG, at least not a historic one (the size of the Fort Henry OR section made me believe more had happened then I recalled from the standard history books, last night I read through those OR's and determined I couldn't get anything out of it (on land there were just a few skirmishes)). I expect the 4th battle for my board game will be one in Kentucky (originally I had thought Wilson's Creek but that's too early for my liking), alternatively something in the Indian Territories but I'll have to read up on that campaign first.

_____________________________

Marc aka Caran... ministerialis

(in reply to rhondabrwn)

Post #: 3

RE: new scenarios - 2/5/2006 11:39:06 PM

rhondabrwn

Posts: 2570
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline

I was initially put off by the graphics in the screen shots for the HPS games. However, you do get used to it quickly, their graphics are easier to see (though out of scale with the scenery) but that is part of Tiller's philosophy. Kinda like the way SPI's Redmond Simonsen insisted on functionality over appearance in SPI games.

However, once I finally decided to buy Campaign Gettysburg, I was instantly hooked. As I mentioned, Campaign Shiloh lets you fight the whole campaign starting with the Battle of Belmont and then moving through Forts Henry and Donelson and depending upon your success or failure as the Union, non-historical battles in Kentucky and Tennessee. Troop losses are cumulative from battle to battle (kill off a unit and it is gone forever, surviving units get a 10% replacement between battles). Each side is given options after each battle which then determines where the next battle is going to be played out. The games have hundreds of scenarios (and you can download thousands of alternatives if you like) so no two campaigns will ever be exactly the same.

If I was doing a board game, I would utilize something similar (though simpler) to provide linked scenarios with variable orders of battle. Are you considering some sort of step reduction system for your units? Each unit could have 10 possible levels and then you could generate orders of battle for each new scenario based upon the level of victory or defeat in the prior one with unit strengths set accordingly.

I really would recommend you trying at least one of the HPS Civil War "Campaign" series. I kick myself for not getting them sooner. I'm still eagerly anticipating the Matrix reissue, of course, but mostly for the better graphics (and hopes for an improved AI). I'm hooked on the massive campaigns that really let you change history and the MAPS are HUGE. Campaign Game AI is impossible though... too many variables... too many units... too large a map. I have to play myself PBEM (which actually works very well with Fog of War).

If you do get Shiloh or Gettysburg, I'd love to try PBEM with you.

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics :(

(in reply to Caranorn)

Post #: 4

RE: new scenarios - 2/6/2006 2:45:39 PM

Caranorn

Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline

As I said, usally I don't care too much about graphics myself (though the past few years I learned to make professional looking (I'd call it professional but as I haven't tried to sell any...) game graphics (counters and maps)), what I really disliked was the reduction of quality between BG and the HPS campaign games.

And yes I'm greatly interested in those games after all due to the campaign possibilities. I expect I will get one of those games someday but it's not too high on my priorities list (only last week I found MadMinutes' Take Command games (RTS for the 1st Bull Run (and 2nd Bull Run in the making), usually I don't like RTS games, but judging by the demo this one seems to work, so I'll save my money to buy their 2nd Bull Run game once it comes out (april iirc))).

And yes, my board game will have steps (it's derived from the older versions of the GBACW system (which was almost certainly the design basis for BG), so every combat unit step will represent 50 men or a single gun...). I haven't planned any actual campaign, just a mass of scenarios to represent various options.

PBEM with the HPS campaign series should be fun (I know PBEM with BG can be great (I only ever did that with the napoleonic games though), at times it's pretty slow but it's certainly far better then the ai).

_____________________________

Marc aka Caran... ministerialis

(in reply to rhondabrwn)

Post #: 5

RE: new scenarios - 2/17/2006 7:56:05 AM

dudalb_slith

Posts: 168
Joined: 6/20/2002
Status: offline

BTW Campaign Ozark from HPS includes Pea Ridge/Elkhorn tavern.
I really hope they do Atlanta or the Shenandoah Valley next.

(in reply to Caranorn)

Post #: 6