Why Bother? (Full Version)

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



Message

madgamer2 -> Why Bother? (9/2/2007 2:50:06 AM)

I gather from many of the posts on this forum that there are still many gamers out there that are awaiting the release of the Battleground series.
I think it must be gamers who do not own the games already. I have them all but 2 and they run fine on my XP Pro AND x2 system. It does not appear to me to be worth the money even if the price is cheep because it appears that they will not even try to fix the ONE basic fault in all the games in the series.
Back when the series first came out the AI was barely as good as it got then. The AI in most of the new games that are coming out now have a much better AI. So I have been told that there will be no change in the AI when they are released by Matrix.
Is there some reason for this? I find it hard to believe that they would at least not try to improve it at least. For those who
do not have the series it still makes some sense because the 2 player games can be great fun. I still might buy it so as to have them all in one package and there were 2 I did not buy. but it is still a big let down (SIGH)

Madgamer



berto -> RE: Why Bother? (9/2/2007 6:52:02 AM)

I have all of the games except for Waterloo, which I somehow lost a few years back.

Still, I will purchase the Matrix Games reissue, because I am delighted to see these classic titles come back to life, and because I want to encourage Matrix to develop them further.

We agree that improving the AI should be a high, if not the highest, priority.



Zap -> RE: Why Bother? (9/2/2007 9:16:04 AM)

I know of another besides berto who owns the games but wanted to get the series from Matrix. For the same reason you mentioned that is "to have them in a single package". The ease of use is a major reason those who own them already may take the plunge.
For myself, i fit into the category of never having owned(until recently I bought Gettysburg) them and for that reason I'm interested. But being a solitaire player, having a decent AI would be important to me.
Note: I did try the Gettysburg game but I just did not have the desire to immerse(at this point in my life) myself into the time you need to play the game as though it was secound nature to me. It seems I'm playing games that I can move into fairly simply.

Now, if the Matrix edition AI is not improved, will that stop me from buying? I'm not sure, since for most of my purchases I look at the communities feedback to help me gauge my choices. I take a lot of time to deliberate over a purchase.I like this period, so I want something that will give me some challenge. So that means a good AI.



acwbuff63 -> RE: Why Bother? (9/2/2007 8:00:33 PM)

Limitations of A/I,

Until a super smart A/I is developed, I simply don't believe it is possible to develop an A/I that can defeat a human in a large meeting engagement scenario.

On the other hand, it is possible to script an A/I that can be a challenge for smaller attack scenarios. The A/I can be scripted to attack, but defense is much more difficult.

Also, a slightly altered A/I can be developed to give the A/I an advantgage.

But large and complex scenarios will never be developed that can provide a challenge to competent humans. The money is not available.

Again, I fail to understand why some of you solitare players refuse to try PBEM?? Time is not an issue. So why? If you say time IS an issue, explain why. Please!

Finding players is simple. So that can't be the reason.

P.S. If you want to try scns with the A/I in mind, Both HPS Atlanta and Chickamauga has 5-6 scenarios each, specifically designed for the A/I. All scns have A/I capabilities, but these are specially made for A/I play.

BTW, hve you ever tried BG Waterloo's "Ney's Charge?" I found it a difficult win against the A/I.



General -> RE: Why Bother? (9/4/2007 2:04:46 AM)

Could you please explain what PBEM Is? I've always played against the A/I. Maybe more of us would play if we knew about it. Thanks for any info.



Zap -> RE: Why Bother? (9/4/2007 3:43:42 AM)

Its an old habit or preference and habits/ prefences are hard to change. I'm sure solitaire players could give you a list of reasons. But I'll leave my answer to that.

Who knows, maybe someday PBEM?



Zap -> RE: Why Bother? (9/4/2007 3:46:45 AM)

Its playing a game with someone on line. You send your turns via Email. Some look at it as, an answer to those games that present no challenge due to a poor AI.



madgamer2 -> RE: Why Bother? (9/4/2007 4:43:12 AM)

Please forgive an old fart but it is in the long ago bad okd days of computer game called Play By E Mail (PBEM)

Madgamer



madgamer2 -> RE: Why Bother? (9/4/2007 4:55:51 AM)

you very well may be right but there are many games that are "meeting engagements" that have good to passable AI. Indeed there was a great game released by a one man company many years ago that was based on WW 2 navel warfare called "Action Stations" that had a great AI. But it is my love for the Battleground series that perhaps made me hope that the worst fault in the series could have been improved at least. Maybe I should look on the bright side and be happy I can get the 2 games that I missed and all the games in the same package.

Madgamer



acwbuff63 -> RE: Why Bother? (9/4/2007 6:33:54 AM)

General,

I'm glad you asked about PBEM (Play by email). For the BG games and HPS ACW series, it is truly the best way to play a competitive game. I highly encourage you to visit the acwgc.org website for finding players. ACWGC stands for American Civil War Game Club. It's a promotion club. You gain points that equate to rank promotions.

Please visit their website.

http://www.wargame.ch/wc/acw/

I encourage all players that have not used PBEM to learn about it. It's very simple. Some people play may different games at the same time.

And if the ACWGC doesn't suit you, there are others.

I would be glad to help.




acwbuff63 -> RE: Why Bother? (9/4/2007 6:50:25 AM)

General,

BTW, there should be a section in the user manual of either the BG or HPS that describes PBEM in more detail.



Madgamer,

Actually, I was only meaning to describe the A/I for BG and HPS, not other games.



JoMc67 -> RE: Why Bother? (9/4/2007 6:57:46 AM)

Ok guys,
           I know what BG stands for ( Battleground Series ) but what does HPS stand for.
                   Joe



leescott -> PBEM (9/4/2007 7:12:47 AM)

This may sound silly but you can also play solo against yourself using PBEM. While this is not as challenging as against someone you don’t know it is better than against AI. Just start up a bunch of PBEM scenarios, play your turn on one side and then come back maybe after 2 weeks later and play the other side.

For example, I have HPS Waterloo and have about 50 PBEM games running this way, and believe me I can not remember the moves I made while playing the other side. It is also a good way to test out tactics you may use against someone else. Anyway just a thought.



acwbuff63 -> RE: Why Bother? (9/4/2007 9:57:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JoMc67

Ok guys,
           I know what BG stands for ( Battleground Series ) but what does HPS stand for.
                   Joe


OK, Short history lesson.

BG games were once published by Talonsoft. John Tiller was the programmer for the series. John Tiller left Talonsoft and joined another company called HPS simulations. There he developed and is continuing to develop wargames. Two of his new series, the ACW and Napoleonic series are very similar to the BG series. But different in many ways. With the exception of 3D maps, I think they are much better and continue to be upgraded. Also, many new battles have been introduced by new scenario designers.

I suggest a visit to their website for a look.

www.hpssims.com





General -> RE: Why Bother? (9/4/2007 10:25:46 PM)

Thanks for the info. I'll check out the website.




ibeam81 -> RE: Why Bother? (9/12/2007 7:30:32 PM)

I'll buy the Battleground bundles for 2 reasons:

1) Although I own the originals, it will be convenient to have each of the Battleground series consolidated on a single CD.

2) Support Matrix and more importantly show that there is a demand for some upgrades to the Battleground series.

I understand that buying these doesn't guarantee any future upgrades, but not doing so virtually condemns the Battleground series to the dustbin of PC gaming history. For the price I'll take a chance. YMMV.



1NWCG -> RE: Why Bother? (10/5/2007 5:11:59 PM)

PBEM is the best way to play the Battleground and HPS series.  Sometimes I think the A/I in HPS is dumber than that in Battleground. For Napoleonics players, click the links in my signature.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Why Bother? (10/5/2007 5:54:05 PM)

As a side note, the reissued Battleground titles also work fine on Vista, which the old versions unfortunately do not.



1925frank -> RE: Why Bother? (10/5/2007 8:13:51 PM)

Thanks for the links.

Regarding PBEM play, until July 2007, I never considered playing PBEM because I'm so inept with computers.  Someone was, however, patient enough to show me the steps.  I didn't even know how to zip a file, and I didn't know the distinction between a file and a folder, so if you've already got those things mastered, you're several steps ahead of where I was.  I think the primary hesitancy is the need to learn a new computer skill.  My opponents don't gloat when whipping me.  Just the opposite, they offer sound advice.  Since I played the Battleground Series only against the AI, I lost interest because it wasn't a competitive opponent, and I could only wonder how the game would play head-to-head, and I still wonder.  The nuts and bolts of a great game were there.  It just needed to be more challenging.

My PBEM experience is limited to Campaign Series.  With all the phases in the Battleground Series, I'm wondering how well it would play by PBEM.  It seems like it'd be too cumbersome.  Any comments?



acwbuff63 -> RE: Why Bother? (10/6/2007 5:20:43 AM)

Congrats on your new PBEM experience.  It truly is the best way to play, either BG or HPS.



John 3rd -> RE: Why Bother? (10/6/2007 5:56:34 PM)

I cannot wait for these games to come out!  I live off of War in the Pacific but will devote time to a renewed Battleground Series the MOMENT--if it EVER happens--it is released...

PBEM people BEWARE!  I'll be looking for some sad McClellanesqe goat for old Bobby Lee----uhhhh I mean John R.----to take care of!



1NWCG -> RE: Why Bother? (10/8/2007 5:17:53 AM)

All phases PBEM isn't too bad. You just find an opponent that you both send files at the same rate and take into account real life issues. Turn around is usually the longest on a movement phase.

But essentially, player 1 does movements, sends it to player 2 for defensive and then player 1 gets it for the other 2-3 phases (ACW or Napoleonic) then it goes to player 2 for their movement. Not too bad as people may make it seem.

Also PBEM is not hard to teach, as 1925frank pointed out basically the major parts of it.



1925frank -> RE: Why Bother? (10/8/2007 5:59:23 AM)

In the event I buy the Battleground Series (both Civil War and Napoleonics), I'd like to give PBEM a test drive.

There's discussion of this on other threads, but skirmishers are played differently in the Napoleonic games than in the Civil War games (and, within the Civil War games, I think they may even be nonexistent until the Chickamauga game, if I can remember ten years back).  I thought the Napoleonic version lent itself to abuse, at least against the AI.   I'd send my skirmishers against enemey aritllery in swarms and surround the artillery.  The other threads show there are pro and cons to both systems.  Against the AI, I preferred the Chickamauga version, but in head-to-head, a human player would probably eliminate the potential for abuses.  Movement without disruption in the Napoleonic games was also more difficult.  Consequently, I woud think reconaissance, anticipation, and planning ahead seemed to play a far more significant role in the Napoleonic games.   For those people who haven't played them, they are similar, but there are differences.  Cavalry in the Napoleonic games can play a far more prominent role and is far more diversified.  I'm sure there are others out there who are far more familiar with the games than I am, so if I've got this wrong, feel free to correct me. 



Rhetor -> RE: Why Bother? (10/8/2007 10:39:58 AM)

Actually, skirmishers in the way they work in Napoleonic BGs have a very unhistorical side-effect. Namely, a 25-men strong, disorganized skirmisher unit can stop cold a 2000-strong infantry stack. How on Earth do they do that?

Playing Battlegrounds requires a lot of house rules, in order to make them more real.

I have proposed here some tweaks to the way skirmishers work in Napoleonic BGs. However, I am pretty sure that these changes would not be implemented.



1925frank -> RE: Why Bother? (10/8/2007 3:26:38 PM)

Other than making the games compatible with contemporary computers, my understanding is Matrix is not going to modify the games.

If it's not too much trouble, could you state the tweaks you've proposed.  I'd be interested.  Also, what kind of house rules have you found work best?

Does anyone know if the games will have game editors so we could put together small scenarios?



Adraeth -> RE: Why Bother? (10/8/2007 3:52:47 PM)

I think it is good to refresh those real masterpieces of a neglected period... for too much wargaming for pc has seen WW2 conflicts, the Tillers' Battleground series is a piece of history for napoleonic period..

glad to see those games!!



1925frank -> RE: Why Bother? (10/8/2007 6:58:59 PM)

I played the Battleground Series, but I'm not really in a position to compare it with other games.

Despite its age, do ya'll (I'm from Texas -- that's "you" in the plural) think it's one of the better ones?

I've played Crown of Glory on the stategic level but not on the tactical lever.  I always do the quick battles. 



Adraeth -> RE: Why Bother? (10/8/2007 7:21:54 PM)

In my opinion the tactical battles of Crown of Glory are sometimes too easy, anyway tillers' games are at a grand tactical level so a comparison is difficult to be made.

Anyway i think it is a good idea to have old games revival to learn or discuss about them, for istance, here in italy was impossible to find them and now i will be able to have them "via" Matrix.



Rhetor -> RE: Why Bother? (10/8/2007 11:52:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
If it's not too much trouble, could you state the tweaks you've proposed. I'd be interested. Also, what kind of house rules have you found work best?



Quick list. Bear in mind, that some of these are applicable only to Napoleonic BGs:

1. Artillery should get 1 fatigue point for each salvo fired
2. Artillery batteries should have limited ammo, resupplied from wagons
3. Ammo levels should be set, not left to pure chance. EG. 9 volleys max for each infantry unit.
4. Skirmishers should not be able to stop the movement of formed infantry.
5. Skirmishers should either work as a screen of formed, or as a detached company. There are way too many small skirmisher companies for the player to control.
6. Routed units should have absolutely no chance for winning in melee.

As far as house rules are concerned, these were mostly connected with skirmishers - that a light company should stay near its parent battalion, save when garrisoning buildings, and that a skirmisher unit cannot be left in enemy zone of control in open terrain - unless this hex is also in zone of control of a friendly formed battalion.

EDIT: yet another house rule regarding artillery - the artillery ammo levels should be keep way lower than in the original scenarios, in order to prevent a situation, when a battery unlimbered in a favourable spot keeps firing in both offensive and defensive fire phase, which is totally unhistorical. For the same reasons, this house rule included an option, that artillery could fire in defensive fire phase only when in cannister range, ie. about 6 hexes.
This house rule was proposed on the site on which the "Battlefield Eylau Project" first appeared. That was many years ago, and this excellent site has long dissappeared...


Look through my posts in this subforum. There might have been more suggestions, and definitely I have given detailed explanations to all of my suggestions. Time has passed since I first got interested in the Matrix release of Battlegrounds.

Can't wait to see some new maps.



1NWCG -> RE: Why Bother? (10/9/2007 2:13:39 AM)

Crown of Glory was nice, but had issues and I play with it occasionally but not often.

But yes house rules are needed for BG Napoleonic's where the skirmishers are unwieldy sometimes.  Often as cited already only so many hexes away from parent units. Cannot surround and force a ZOC kill. Cannot go into the rear of enemy forces, stuff like that. Basic principles need to be followed and understood by both sides when taking up a game. Pretty much all of the Clubs have rules and guides for people to follow.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375