Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

HPS vs. Battleground series

 
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 >> HPS vs. Battleground series Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 2:59:52 AM   
General

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
I got Vicksburg in the mail today and felt like a kid in a candy store. Until I started playing it. Maybe I have to get used to it or I have played the Battleground series too much. I have to admit, I'm dissapointed. The graphics don't seem right, in the battleground series they are much more crisp and fit the hex's better. I don't have control of who shoots at who. The battleground series scenary is much better. Much more defined than the HPS scenary.
The whole thing just feels "cheesier" than the Battleground series.
Post #: 1
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 3:41:28 AM   
rhondabrwn


Posts: 2570
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline
Yep, the HPS graphics are not to my liking either, though you will find some players commenting that they are easier to see than the old Battleground series. Personally, I like my units to seem somewhat in scale with the scenery and terrain features. I mostly play HPS Campaign Gettysburg and have installed graphics mods that give it more of the BG series appearance. Campaign Shiloh also has a mod, but I have a problem with towns displaying incorrectly that I have been unable to resolve. There is another thread where the links to the graphics mods are displayed. I don't know if the Campaign Gettysburg mod could be used with Vicksburg, you'd have to experiment.

You do get used to the graphics after awhile and they ARE a lot easier to see for those of us who require reading glasses

In terms of gameplay, it is a bit of a shock to go from having detailed phase by phase control over your units (as in BG) to the more accelerated HPS style with automated opportunity and defensive fire going on. Having gotten back into the old BG system to play the Wilderness beta, I am really becoming aware of how significant the differences are. At this point, I'm really, really looking forward to getting back into the BG series once Matrix releases their package.

The big thing that the HPS series has going for it is the Campaign feature and the huge maps. If something similar could be added to the BG games, I'd be thrilled. The Wilderness beta with it's huge map is a good start in that direction. I see lots of potential there.

Bottom line is that I'll be playing both series.

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

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

(in reply to General)
Post #: 2
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 4:29:16 AM   
General

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
Good to hear your opinion Rhonda. You seem to be the barometer for these games to me. I'm a history nut (especially the Civil War) and the battleground series to me gives that feeling. The scenary is so detailed that you feel like you know the battlefied and what the commanders were up against. HPS graphics don't give me that feel. It feels like blue blobs, grey blobs and green background. If I didn't know better I would say the battleground series was after the HPS series. I was really expecting a lot better since it was released after.
No control over your units shooting?? That really seems odd to me after playing the Battleground series.





(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 3
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 5:10:14 AM   
General

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
The sound effects are hoakie compared to Battleground also.

(in reply to General)
Post #: 4
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 5:14:36 AM   
Panama Red

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 9/14/2005
Status: offline
General:
If you want to play your HPS games in "Phases" like the old Talonsoft games, you must "check" the "Manual Defensive Fire" box in the "Optional Rules" section.

As for the graphics, the HPS and Talonsoft use the same type 2D map file, it is the 3D map that is different.  It took a long time to make the old Talonsoft 3D type maps, but under the new 3D type maps, they could be created quickly and thus large areas for campaigns were created for the HPS series versus the old Talonsoft series of games.

As for the troops, their are several mods out there that can reduce the HPS troop size back to the old Talonsoft troop size. At the same locations you will also find mods that "spice up" the 3D map look too.

(in reply to General)
Post #: 5
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 5:37:47 AM   
rhondabrwn


Posts: 2570
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline
I guess I'd better post the link to the graphics mods:

ACW Graphics Mods for HPS

Give these a try.

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

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

(in reply to Panama Red)
Post #: 6
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 5:40:19 AM   
rhondabrwn


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama Red

General:
If you want to play your HPS games in "Phases" like the old Talonsoft games, you must "check" the "Manual Defensive Fire" box in the "Optional Rules" section.

As for the graphics, the HPS and Talonsoft use the same type 2D map file, it is the 3D map that is different. It took a long time to make the old Talonsoft 3D type maps, but under the new 3D type maps, they could be created quickly and thus large areas for campaigns were created for the HPS series versus the old Talonsoft series of games.

As for the troops, their are several mods out there that can reduce the HPS troop size back to the old Talonsoft troop size. At the same locations you will also find mods that "spice up" the 3D map look too.


Thanks... I missed that.

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

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

(in reply to Panama Red)
Post #: 7
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 5:45:03 AM   
rhondabrwn


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: General

Good to hear your opinion Rhonda. You seem to be the barometer for these games to me. I'm a history nut (especially the Civil War) and the battleground series to me gives that feeling. The scenary is so detailed that you feel like you know the battlefied and what the commanders were up against. HPS graphics don't give me that feel. It feels like blue blobs, grey blobs and green background. If I didn't know better I would say the battleground series was after the HPS series. I was really expecting a lot better since it was released after.
No control over your units shooting?? That really seems odd to me after playing the Battleground series.



The automated defensive fire question was answered above.

The official reason for the larger unit size was that Talonsoft kept the rights to the original graphics when Tiller left the company, although I don't understand why HPS couldn't have reduplicated the scale.

Others have disputed this, but I KNOW I read an interview posted somewhere in which Tiller indicated that the larger size units was a deliberate design decision to make them easier to see and was a case of "game play" over "game realism". Can anyone confirm this?

And then there is the question of the day-Glo "unit brigade colors" - an option that I absolutely can't stand, personally!

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

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

(in reply to General)
Post #: 8
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 6:05:47 AM   
Panama Red

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 9/14/2005
Status: offline
Rhondabrwn:
"The official reason for the larger unit size was that Talonsoft kept the rights to the original graphics when Tiller left the company, although I don't understand why HPS couldn't have reduplicated the scale." I have also read that this also applies to the 3D map too.

(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 9
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 6:21:21 AM   
Adam Parker


Posts: 1848
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: General
No control over your units shooting?? That really seems odd to me after playing the Battleground series.


Who said this? There is full control except for defensive fire.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama Red
As for the graphics, the HPS and Talonsoft use the same type 2D map file...

No they don't. HPS Civil War Battles 2d files are totally different. Better imo.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama Red
I have also read that this also applies to the 3D map too.


Correct. Talonsoft kept the copyright to the tile graphics AFAIK.


Also remember that the HPS series fully changes the routines and rules for morale, leadership and battlefield rout. HUGE differences that make the game completely different from Battleground, more realistic and unpredicatable.

Lastly, AFAIK there will be no changes to the AI or engine in the Battleground re-release other than making it XP compatible.

Adam.

(in reply to General)
Post #: 10
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 6:44:48 AM   
rhondabrwn


Posts: 2570
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline
You know, we don't have a huge amount of posting going on here, but when we do... the responses pop in so fast that I sense that a lot of people are eagerly awaiting this release.

I know that I check this forum every time I get online, and it looks like the rest of you are just as diligent!

Matrix take note... having only a few threads active does not indicate any lack of interest in these releases.

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

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

(in reply to Adam Parker)
Post #: 11
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 6:56:32 AM   
rhondabrwn


Posts: 2570
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline
Adam made a good point about HPS changing the role of leaders. Oneof those is the option to count leader casualties for victory points which is a great idea, requiring you to evaluate your risk in putting leaders in the front line for melee vs the chance of losing them. I know it makes me play more realistically.

Back to the automated defensive fire in HPS games though. In BG you can fire each unit at a single enemy unit. In the HPS games you can literally run a gauntlet with every unit in range blasting away at you... and then doing it again for the next unit you move. I guess that is realistic, but it sure is a lot of firing going on. I'm not being judgmental, just pointing out another difference that has occurred to me. Of course, the individual casualties vs the 25/50/75/100 man losses of BG allow this kind of defensive fire without getting unrealistically bloody.

It all points out that comparisons between the two series is deceptive. HPS is not BG under a new title, there are huge differences, despite their common DNA.

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

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

(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 12
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 7:43:42 AM   
Adam Parker


Posts: 1848
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline
I think the best thing is Rhonda, you're a true Grognard at both series and that's what gaming is all about - enjoyment!

Btw I agree with you, there is a huge difference in feel once having played Battleground for so long. I remember getting my first Panzer Campaign game and immediately turning auto defensive fire off instead going back to phased play! I just couldn't grasp it! It really was manic

But someone convinced me to give it another go a month or so later and now I can't go back. The flow of having no phases and seeing the rout mechanism in the ACW games just grabs me.

I do wish that the AI's in both series were better though. In Battleground I found it too easy to win on the attack and defending vs the AI was a nil affair. With HPS, the AI truly doesn't know how to maneuver with artillery and in fact I've seen it scout with it

But that's not as bad at the Napoleonic series. There the AI hardly deploys its arty, something I just can't explain.

The best HPS AI at this operational scale imo, is its American Wars Series - 1776, FIW, 1812 etc. If you haven't tried it, pick up 1776 if you can and patch it with the latest upgrade which will give you the full current engine. Man, that series is crazy. You'll find yourself routing at the same time as the enemy at different points of the battlefield! Hugely fun stuff. I find the scenarios for French Indian Wars created more for human-human play which is a shame. That title is both unique and massively historical.

Here's hoping you get your Matrix meal soon!
Adam.

(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 13
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/7/2007 5:24:35 PM   
Panama Red

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 9/14/2005
Status: offline
If you use "Commander Control" when you play the HPS or Talonsoft games against the AI, you will find that the game is far more equal since you only have a limited amount of contol over your units (just like a real commander did back in this time frame). Not only that, but your troops will make the same mistakes as the AI since the AI is moving both sides. The following is an article that I copied about Commander Control several years ago and as a result, this is how I play against the AI to make things far more realistic:

Commander Control is the best kept secret of the Battleground series. The following document is an attempt to consolidate the most important information from all the posts regarding the subject in the form of a user’s manual.
 
1. BEHAVIOUR OF TROOPS ON THE REAL BATTLEFIELD
 
The battlefield of the early 19th Century was very different from that of today. Artillery was king of the field, soldiers were massed together in tight formations, and the use of cavalry was reaching its height.
 
At the same time, the idea of battlefield psychology was beginning to be seriously studied by students of warfare.
 
The rigid formations of the day were used in part to give the individual soldier a feeling of strength, and of belonging to a protective unit. The soldier was expected to act as an automaton. Years of training had taught him to obey his commanding officer without question, and to automatically perform a set series of tasks upon the order. In the heat of battle, however, the natural instinct to flee overcame even the best trained soldiers. This urge could surface at any time, depending upon the soldier's level of training and his temperament.
 
At first, the soldier would tend to slow down if advancing, and nervousness would make his loading and firing slower and less effective. As his friends were wounded and killed around him, he might seek some excuse to move to the rear of the formation. Eventually, his instinct might take over completely, and he would run.
 
As these instinctive actions took over the individuals in a formation, a kind of mass reaction would occur, so that the instinct to flee would spread throughout the formation. At this point, the entire formation would break and run.
 
2. DRAWBACKS OF TALONSOFT'S BATTLEGROUND SYSTEM
 
The Battleground system, while being a good simulation of the tactical aspects of combat in the 19th Century, falls down in a number of key areas:
 
The AI is very poor compared to other historical simulations, and while it models the tactics of the Napoleonic Wars/American Civil War quite well, it fails in adequately challenging the player.
 
The game takes a long time to play. There are over 200 units per side in the larger scenarios, all of them requiring individual attention from the player up to three times per turn. With games of 44 turns per day, and of 1 to 3 days in length, the games can take weeks to finish.
 
The game system allows the player too much control over small sized (eg: battalion sized) units, allowing these units to react strategically to battlefield conditions when in reality, such units would have only a very localized concept of conditions. This ability of the player to over-control small units also affects the built-in fatigue effects, allowing a player to advance with units which would in reality have reached their limits of endurance.
 
The morale of a unit is also modifiable by the player: units which have routed tend to lose their routed status too quickly, and as 'Disordered' troops, can be turned around and used effectively by the player long before their historical counterparts could have returned to a responsive state.
 
Because the player is able to over-control small-sized units, they can be forced to fight at higher fatigue levels than the AI controlled units - leading to higher casualties taken by these highly stressed units. When two human opponents play, the resulting casualties can be staggering, and far greater than those suffered in any historical battle.
 
3. ADVANTAGES OF COMMANDER CONTROL OVER THE 'NORMAL' SYSTEM OF PLAY
 
When using the Commander Control option, the AI works better. This is because it is working as both your opponent, and also your lower level commanders. The player is still able to direct the placement of his/her troops in a similar way to that of a real commander, but the AI controls all lower level tactical decisions on both sides, forcing the human player's units to move and fight as their historical counterparts did. This negates the ability of the human player to 'think around' the AI's method of moving and fighting, and evens out the odds.
 
The use of the AI to manage the tactical decisions (what enemy unit to fire at, which hex to advance into, whether to melee, etc.), makes the game much more realistic in terms of the simulation, and also allows the player to complete a game in a much shorter period of time.
 
The morale of units is much more difficult for the player to overcome. Routed units tend to stay where they are after having routed, and disordered status means what it says - the units cannot usually be ordered to move until their fatigue/health has been improved.
 
Similarly to the above, the fatigue levels have a much greater effect on play. The AI is forced to pull back units which are highly fatigued, and these units will not obey orders to move towards the enemy until they have recovered.
 
Because the AI must withdraw units which have taken a lot of casualties/fatigue points, these units are no longer subjected to fire, which would normally cause these units greater casualties than an equal, but fresh unit. This makes the games far less bloody, and casualty numbers tend to be close to their historical levels.
 
4. WHAT COMMAND LEVELS TO USE
 
The command levels used by the player affect two things; the length of time spent in playing the game, and the difficulty level of the game.
 
The game can be played in a very short time (maybe 4-5 hours for BGW) by selecting only the Army commander (Lee in BGG, or Ney in BGW). This level of command ensures that you will have the most difficulty in beating the AI opponent. The drawbacks are that you will have the least control over your units, and will only have control over your corps commanders. The game, when played at this level, does not (in my view) present a good simulation. Attacks are too large in scale, involving an entire corps, where in reality, part of the corps would be held back as a reserve.
 
When Corps level command is chosen (all except divisional and brigade leaders), the simulation is at its best - 8 hours gaming time for BGW, this level allows orders to be given to divisional commanders, and therefore attacks are on the divisional level. This amount of control makes for an exciting game against the AI, because the army at this level is about as flexible as its historical counterpart.
 
When Divisional level is chosen (all leaders except the brigade commanders), the system works well, and the player has more control over his/her units, allowing command of individual brigades. This works as well as the above command level, but gives a little more control to the player, meaning that the AI is slightly weaker. This level of control takes about 10-12 hours to play, when playing BGW.
 
The last level of control is Brigade (with all leaders chosen). This level allows almost as much control as the 'normal' game, although the player's units will change formation and fire under AI control. This works well as an introduction to CC, for someone who needs to ease him/herself into the system, and who is wary about the loss of control inherent in the use of CC. BGW will take over 12 hours to complete at this level, and the computer will be relatively easy to beat.
 
5. STRATEGY AND TACTICS IN COMMANDER CONTROL
 
Although Commander Control does not allow tactical control of individual units, there are some important grand tactical and strategic tips which may help the player who is new to Commander Control.
 
It is very important to keep a reserve. When playing the 'normal' game, it is often the case that the player can win by overwhelming the enemy, by using all available troops in a single, all encompassing attack. The troops will be fatigued, and some will rout, but in general they will still obey orders. When using CC however, if you use this tactic, you will find that both your army, and your opponent's army will become useless. You may have gained a VP hex, but you will not be able to do anything for the remainder of the day. As the French in BGW, this can be fatal, since in the afternoon, the fresh Prussian re-enforcements will simply roll over you. At best you will suffer a minor defeat. The importance of keeping a reserve cannot be over-stressed. When attacking a VP hex with a division, the units involved in the attack will become fatigued. Before they rout, re-enforce them with a fresh division from your reserve. This fresh force will soon make short work of the defenders, and you can withdraw your original attack division before they become unmanageable, and also screen them from enemy fire - which would have a far greater effect on them than it will on their fresh replacements.
 
Units in the game can really only be expected to carry out one all-out assault per day. After this they will become too fatigued to be of offensive value, and if used in an offensive, will start to disobey orders and take casualties at an alarming rate
 
It must be remembered that cavalry are very fragile, and should be used sparingly. It is especially easy to lose control of cavalry units when using CC. Make sure that you only order cavalry to attack enemy units which are unsupported by other units nearby, unless the loss of your cavalry is worth the tactical gain.
 
Artillery is the most irritating thing about CC. They never seem to attack the target you set for them. They tend to be best when used in a supporting role, or against enemy cavalry. Artillery cannot be used effectively to put fire down upon a specific hex - for some reason it just doesn't work that way. This is realistic however, since artillery was rarely used as a massive bombardment on a single position - it was needed much more as a support for defense and attack over the entire field.
 
6. AI ORDER INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
 
It is important for you as the player to have a basic knowledge of what the different commands mean, in order to use them to your best advantage. Talonsoft's rule book gives a good overview, and I have added a few observations.
 
Attack (extreme): This order will cause units to attack in a more concentrated formation with maximum stacking in each hex. Units will not fall back until all units are not in good order. Use this to order your troops to take and hold an enemy position.
 
Attack: This order causes a unit to attack a specific objective. Units will fall back after taking a medium level of casualties. Use this order when 'softening up' an objective hex in preparation for a final assault with fresh troops. Your first wave can then be pulled back, and will be useful later in the day.
 
No Order: This orders a unit not to move. It can fire at will. This order enables units to recover fatigue as fast as possible.
 
Defend: Units will move so as to defend the specified objective. They will retreat if pressed, retaining reasonably good order. This order can be used to defend a non-essential position.
 
Defend (extreme): This order will cause units not to fall back until all units are no longer in good order. Use this order to hold a VP hex at all costs.
 
Try not to change orders on an organization which has just achieved an objective. If you take an objective hex using an 'attack (extreme)' order, it is best to leave the order on the organization until the enemy are well away from the hex. The reason is, if you change the order to 'defend (extreme)' the organization will re-organize the position of its subordinate units, and may leave the objective hex open to enemy counter-attacks.
 
7. EFFECTS OF FATIGUE, QUALITY AND HEALTH ON ORDER IMPLEMENTATION
 
If a unit has a high fatigue value, it is more likely to become disrupted, or to rout, than a unit with low fatigue. A unit of low quality is more likely to become disordered/rout than one of high quality. Health seems to be the amount of non-disordered/routed units in a particular organization, expressed as a percentage of the organization’s total strength. The fatigue level, and quality of a unit/organization both seem to have an effect upon its ability to follow orders. An organization with good health (80-100%) and few casualties will perform well on the battlefield, following your orders to the letter, sending out skirmishers to cover its flanks. An organization with medium health (60-80%) can usually be relied on to obey, but should not be used to defend/attack an essential VP hex unless absolutely necessary. It will no longer send out skirmishers, and subordinate units will tend to act more irrationally - routing towards the enemy, refusing to attack/move, etc. A unit with low health (0-60%) should not be relied upon to perform any tasks other than filling out the line in a non-essential area. These troops will resist any attempt to move them, and will rout at the first sight of the enemy.
 
As the battle wears on, units become more and more fatigued. As this happens, the units tend to obey orders less and less, until all units are basically spent. They will tend to stay in the same position, and ignore orders to attack or defend.
 
8. COMMAND CONTROL'S SIMILARITY TO REAL COMMAND
 
To appreciate Commander Control, and its similarity to real command, the player must be willing to accept the following maxims:
 
1. A commander's plan for battle is rarely brought to fruition.
 
2. The troops rarely understand the commander's plan.
 
3. The lack of understanding often results in the stupidest battlefield maneuvers.
 
4. Battleground AI simulates these communication difficulties very well.
 
5. It is your job as commander to respond to these problems, overcome them, and win the game.
 
If you accept these points, you are well on your way to accepting the basic idea of commander control - that it isn't how well you plan the battle, or even how cleverly your men maneuver and fire during the battle. The essential thing that makes a good commander great is his/her ability to respond to changing events, and turn them to his/her advantage.
 
9. THE USE OF IMAGINATION WHEN USING COMMANDER CONTROL
 
Commander Control can be extremely frustrating. As in a real battle, your subordinates will often disobey your orders, or they will obey your orders, but using the stupidest maneuvers. Sometimes whole divisions will rout just at the moment of victory, and other times, units will simply refuse to move onto an empty (but enemy-controlled) VP hex. These occurrences are all a part of Commander Control (and a part of real life). These 'AI problems' can actually enhance the simulation, adding 'real battlefield' restrictions on an otherwise omniscient player.
 
There is a way of dealing with your frustration when faced with a plan gone wrong, which can actually enhance your enjoyment of the game: Use your imagination - rather than cursing that artillery unit when it unlimbers in a valley with a restricted line of sight, instead of on the hill you ordered it to deploy on - ask yourself why. There could be a number of reasons - the horses might not be able to pull the guns up the steep incline to reach the crest, the road the artillery drove up might be surrounded by thick hedges, with only a small field accessible nearby, or the cavalry might simply have misunderstood your order. The use of the player's imagination is essential for enjoyment of the game, and it adds a whole new dimension to the gaming experience. You'll find there's a logical explanation for everything if you look hard enough.
 
10. COMMANDER CONTROL BY E-MAIL
 
There is a way to play using Commander Control and E-Mail. Simply choose Commander Control for both sides, play your turn, then save the game when your opponent's leader dialog appears. Then send the game file - saved as a .btl file (not .bte) if I remember correctly - to your opponent via e-mail. He then puts it in the correct directory, and repeats the process.
 
There is even a way to play using the fog of war option:
 
First, select Commander Control for yourself, and Automatic with FOW for your opponent. Play as normal until you reach the Cavalry Charge phase. Switch from 'run' to 'pause' in the AI Action dialog box, then 'step' through the remaining cavalry charges. At the start of the melee phase, before any melees have been resolved, change the AI menu so that your opponent is also playing with 'Commander Control'. You will then have to input the leaders he/she will control. Then you can watch the melee phase. When the next phase begins, and the opponent's order dialog appears, you will change your side to 'Automatic With FOW' in the AI menu. Then save the game. The game file is now ready to be sent to your opponent. Your opponent then plays through his/her turn until the cavalry charge phase, and then he/she repeats the above procedure.
 
The Fog of War option is not perfect, but apart from the Cavalry Charge phase, it will be in effect. It is important not to run through the entire game turn, so you might want to left click on the phase box at the beginning of each phase, so that you don't run through the Cavalry and Melee phases. If you change the AI dialog after the start of the next game turn the game will crash. Also, if you change it halfway through the melee phase, it will run through the phase from the beginning (which is frustrating, since you could get a totally different result from your melees). Also, when the opponent receives the file and loads it, he/she may have to alter the AI menu so that his/her opponent is 'Automatic with FOW' - When I tested the procedure, this is what I had to do, but it should work as described above.
 
The record battle option can be used, but to allow your opponent to see it, you must also send him/her the .btr file along with the .btl file.


(in reply to Adam Parker)
Post #: 14
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/8/2007 3:50:22 AM   
oldspec4

 

Posts: 746
Joined: 11/1/2004
Status: offline
Panama Red- Great explanation of the Commander Control function.  I have used in the BG series years ago and am now also using for HPS Vicksburg.

(in reply to Panama Red)
Post #: 15
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/8/2007 10:19:29 PM   
Hertston


Posts: 3564
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Cornwall, UK
Status: offline
The HPS games are superior IMHO, for reasons already given, particularly the campaign structure, size of maps and subsequent variety, and the defensive auto-fire. Like Adam, I'm a total convert to that now; it just makes the game flow so much better without any significant penalty. While the Battleground 3D graphics are better (the HPS 2D are better) I use/used them so rarely with either it's not an issue for me. Mercifully by using photos the Civil War unit and general portraits are pretty good (compared with an un-modded Squad Battles, say, yrchhh....)

I'll probably buy the re-releases simply because of Antietam and Chickamauga, but I can't see me playing BG Gettysburg again (HPS Shiloh is on the shopping list and Madminute have the Bull Run market cornered).

< Message edited by Hertston -- 1/8/2007 10:31:38 PM >

(in reply to oldspec4)
Post #: 16
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/9/2007 3:01:14 AM   
General

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
Thanks Panama Red. I'll have to try that the next time I play a new scenerio. I always wondered why the A/I acted that way at times. Especially the artillery units.

I keep trying to play HPS Vicksburg and I don't get anything from it. I haven't got past 5 turns before it's time to do something else. The best part of the whole thing is to see how they rated my hometown unit (45th Illinois). B rating, they must have been good. They were the first to raise the US flag at the Vicksburg courthouse.


Question? When does the US gunboats fire at the the rebs? I took them boats all the way up the river and they got nailed, but I never saw them fire once?

(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 17
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/11/2007 2:58:17 AM   
berto


Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline
Panama Red, thanks for the Commander Control article (reprint).  It's convinced me to give CC a try, first on my new copy of HPS Vicksburg, then later on all the old BG titles.  (I have a Windows ME PIII-450 system devoted just to playing classic old Talonsoft and Matrix game titles.)

Weak computer AI was my biggest complaint about the BG series.  CC addresses that complaint.

Now if only HPS would spiff up the unit and terrain 3D graphics to equal the splendid BG Chickamauga graphics.  I'd be one very happy grognard!

BTW, can anyone confirm if any of the unit graphics add-ons at the ACW Campaign Games Design Center work with HPS Vicksburg?

(in reply to General)
Post #: 18
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/11/2007 3:31:54 AM   
Panama Red

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 9/14/2005
Status: offline
Berto:
If you are talking about the mod where they reduce the size of the HPS troops back to the old Talonsoft size, yes they work.

What you need to do is use the JoneSoft Generic Mod Enabler and you never have to worry about messing anything up if you forgot to back up your original files.

Glad you like the CC article. After I read that article the first time, I have never played any other way against the HPS/Talonsoft AI. 

_____________________________


(in reply to berto)
Post #: 19
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/11/2007 3:45:09 AM   
berto


Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline
But aren't there several sets of unit-resizing add-ons? Which of, for example, Rolf Hall's unit graphics add-ons--Set A, Set B, Set C, and/or Set D--work with HPS Vicksburg?

Can you recommend a unit-resizing add-on that works best with HPS Vicksburg?

(in reply to Panama Red)
Post #: 20
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/12/2007 4:39:13 AM   
berto


Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline
Panama Red, thanks so much for the HPS unit & map graphics add-ons you sent (via private email)!  They make a world of difference!  I can now enjoy playing HPS Vicksburg in 3D mode, while before the default HPS 3D graphics were too cheesy to bear.  The units are now sized to a very appealing and appropriate scale.  Strangely, the (much-improved) 3D graphics terrrain reminds me of the Talonsoft Campaign Series (Rising Sun et al) graphics.  Is this no coincidence?

Hmm, with these new graphics improvements, I'm considering purchasing all the other titles in the HPS Civil War series...

(in reply to berto)
Post #: 21
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/16/2007 5:13:12 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline
OK folks it is dumb question time - (because even smarta$$es like me have dumb questions).

What is HPS - was it another game publisher (that is now defunct)?? or an additional line of games?? or what??? 


(in reply to berto)
Post #: 22
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/16/2007 5:30:22 AM   
Adam Parker


Posts: 1848
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranger-75

OK folks it is dumb question time - (because even smarta$$es like me have dumb questions).

What is HPS - was it another game publisher


HPS simulations is indeed another game development house and can be found at www.hpssims.com

Started by a couple of guys in the days of DOS with some then pretty innovative WW2 small unit titles like Tigers on the Prowl, Panthers on the Shadows.

Dr John Tiller the programmer for Talonsoft become one of HPS's developers after the fall of Talonsoft. John runs his own software development business.

HPS's relevance in this forum is that since the days of Talonsoft's Battleground series, John Tiller took his programming work on the American Civil War, Napoleonics and has developed new game engines for these old series.

Accordingly, John's work for HPS now covers series in; ACW, Nap, Revolutionary Era, WW2 and Modern Era (btn level), ww2 and Modern Era (Squad level), Naval and Air.

As a side note, I was lucky to get involved with them a few years ago and have tested, contibuted art and written manauls touching just about all. As a collector and player of PC war games my library started with SSI and Talonsoft. Then moved to predominately HPS and Matrix releases. I have some Shrapnel titles, Ageod and assorted other bits n' pieces. My war gaming hobby started in 1976 with Avalon Hill. Ah see what a good question does for reminiscing

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 23
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/19/2007 9:12:46 AM   
1NWCG


Posts: 238
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
Atle Jensen's 3d Ground MODS for the HPS Napoleonics Series is worth looking into.  They edit the ground and the buildings to somewhat better styles.

http://www.xtreme-gamer.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=851

http://www.xtreme-gamer.com/forums/downloads.php?do=cat&id=93

Also both series have their advantages.  For Napoleonics, my primary system, HPS has a far better engine, but right now MODS are not possible past the 1.01 patch, and all their good advances are in patch 1.09 and 1.10 for Eckmuhl. So Battleground allows the use/creation of MODS and there actually are files that run off of NIR (Napoleon in Russia 7) out there for many battles including Austerlitz, 1813 German Campaigns, 1814 France, Spain, and even a Waterloo Campaign. Some are better details than others.  Their part of the old NIR Project. For variety of many battles Talonsoft comes in handy due to existing ones. But the engine quality of HPS is tops, and will be even better once they unlock their maps.  That is the reason why you cannot MOD past 1.01. They locked the code so any MODS made past 1.01 cannot load in the game engine.

Give 'em both a try and if interested in Napoleonics, send me a message or follow the links in my signature.

IMHO the ACW and EAW series are wonderful as well, I have a special interest in the EAW series from HPS as it is a easy system to master and well balanced. The ACW offers a great wide variety of campaigns. HPS has wonderful huge maps as well. But again Battleground has the legacy of old MODS people have made, specifically from the ACWCO Cartography Group.

_____________________________

Wargame Clubs - http://www.wargame.ch

The Blitz - http://www.theblitz.org/

Two of the Internet's Oldest Wargaming Collectives

(in reply to Adam Parker)
Post #: 24
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/20/2007 12:08:07 AM   
ezjax


Posts: 75
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline
??








< Message edited by ezjax -- 6/7/2007 6:37:56 PM >

(in reply to 1NWCG)
Post #: 25
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/20/2007 1:35:56 AM   
1NWCG


Posts: 238
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
Graphics MODS are definatly out there for HPS, too bad they locked the map though for MOD games.

_____________________________

Wargame Clubs - http://www.wargame.ch

The Blitz - http://www.theblitz.org/

Two of the Internet's Oldest Wargaming Collectives

(in reply to ezjax)
Post #: 26
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/20/2007 1:37:36 AM   
1NWCG


Posts: 238
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
Nice ground MODS you made BTW.

_____________________________

Wargame Clubs - http://www.wargame.ch

The Blitz - http://www.theblitz.org/

Two of the Internet's Oldest Wargaming Collectives

(in reply to 1NWCG)
Post #: 27
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/20/2007 11:27:29 PM   
Hertston


Posts: 3564
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Cornwall, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:  ezjax
HPS G-Mods are out there, just got 2 look 4 them.


It would be so much easier if you could just post a link.  Not all of us have infinite time to spare.



(in reply to 1NWCG)
Post #: 28
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/21/2007 12:29:54 AM   
Panama Red

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 9/14/2005
Status: offline
Hertston:
Unfortunately, ezjax has not finished his mod yet (he said only 65% on another forum), so it will still be awhile before we see the finished product.

(in reply to Hertston)
Post #: 29
RE: HPS vs. Battleground series - 1/21/2007 4:39:28 AM   
ezjax


Posts: 75
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline
??

< Message edited by ezjax -- 6/7/2007 6:38:36 PM >

(in reply to Panama Red)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> John Tiller's Battleground Series >> HPS vs. Battleground series Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703