Leopejo
Posts: 20
Joined: 11/5/2007 Status: offline
|
Talonsoft BG maps are painted and as such beautiful. But I don't understand why they can't make better graphics in HPS, after all the Talonsoft CS (now Matrix Games: John Tiller's Campaign Series) has much better not painted 3D graphics. Another problem/desirable improvement for the HPS games is hex size. With modern screen resolutions (1280 x 1024, 1600 x 1200,...) hexes and units are too small for me. I much prefer the three 3D zooms of BG. This is also why I can't play HPS 2D: the hexes are just too small, it's like watching a boardgame from a 3 meter height. Some of the HPS maps are atrocious, just vast plains with very little detail. Luckily NRC (and based on screenshots, Campaign Waterloo) maps are better. The Campaign game is an improvement, but it requires commitment from the player(s). Not to talk about the "megacampaign", where all the campaign is played as a 100s of turns long gigantic battle. The HPS AI is even worse than the BG one, IMHO. In addition, the majority of scenarios seem to be designed for PBEM; many of them are huge: no more NIR 14: Never too late (Utitsa fight in Borodino). I haven't HPS Jena yet, but I recognized every playtester in the credits, along with the designer, as members of the Napoleonic Wargaming Club. What I mean is that the HPS titles, even more than BG, are geared towards PBEM only, and specifically, towards an established community of PBEM gamers. The game manuals are also worse, IMHO. With BG games you could calculate all the combat factors and probabilities quite easily, this I can't in HPS. Finally, I have the definite feeling that HPS Napoleonics are a "poor brother" of their excellent Panzer Campaigns series. They saved in scenario design (some designers are very good and dedicated, but essentially just wargamers, not professionals), graphics, music (I put the old BG music in my HPS folders), documentation, but most of all, I have the feeling John Tiller really has "abandoned" the napoleonic project and just implements some minor engine changes and corrects bugs. No AI improvements, no big engine improvements. Now that I have bashed HPS too much, they also have good qualities: - there is just one phase for each player instead of the three of the BG series (your movement, opponent defensive, your offensive and vice versa). This saves a lot of file swapping in PBEM games - many scenarios, many maps, a complete scenario editor, scenario specific PDT files; maps are locked though (but modders have released all kind of games none-the-less, so there is a workaround). - graphic mods available on internet - support: you can raise not only bugs but also game issues to the designers and chance is they are considered and evaluated (but no major engine changes though). For each game there are many updated even after years. In addition manuals and help files are updated too. - The close relationship between HPS and the PBEM gaming community (especially the www.wargame.ch board = NWC) helps to better the games. - much new research - I think both NRC and Campaign Waterloo are more up-to-date regarding maps or orders of battle than NIR or BGW respectively. - easier to find PBEM players, given the availability of games and the one phase per turn file swapping - but I hope a new interest for BG PBEM comes with the Matrix release.
|