Improvements in the game system? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Horse and Musket: Volume I, Frederick the Great



Message

Iñaki Harrizabalagatar -> Improvements in the game system? (6/17/2009 6:57:42 PM)

Hi
I played H&M 2, and I would like to know if there is any improvement in the game system since H&M 2, there is not a single word about that so I am afraid the game only had a graphic upgrade.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/17/2009 7:02:07 PM)

Did you read the preview here? The Game Features section is probably the one of most interest to you:

http://www.wargamer.com/article/2708/horse-&-musket-volume-i-preview



Iñaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/17/2009 7:48:21 PM)

What about PBEM and the leaders activation system?



Zaratoughda -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/17/2009 8:35:52 PM)

Inaki...

I have the original FTG, HnM, and PWM... and have been watching this one closely and... in PWM I was able to beat the computer Austrians in Mollwitz.... 71 to 4 (at the end my force was at 96% and the computer was at 29%) and, IMO, when Mike Cooney put in the new interface (which is great IMO) in PWM they also got at the AI trying to improve it but..... never finished the job and now you got troops marching back and forth for no apparent reason, facing away from the pending attack (in Mollwitz I hit the Austrian left first and so the rest of the Austrian army turned to face that, leaving them wide open to flank attacks), and overall was a big step backwards from the rather pedestrian but otherwise functional HnM AI.

And so, with this AI.... I see the game as being unplayable against the computer and, as you alude to, the leader activation system makes PBEM difficult at best.

And thus I expect I am gonna take a pass at this new offerring, despite the fact that Magnus does great artwork and I think at the high level Matrix has made a good call with FTG as a Vol 1, probably British battles as a Vol 2, and probably an ARW topic as a Vol 3, not to mention a reasonable price for the offerring.

But, IMO, for this series to fly Matrix has got to do something about the AI (and PBEM system) and the thing is AI programming is something that graphics programmers are typically not very good at.

So, whatever.

Zaratoughda

P.S. Great job on your TOAW FPW scenario.... though I will say having a 1 hex force supply radius combined with no rail repair makes the supply situation... a challange for sure!



Tim Coakley -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/17/2009 10:35:42 PM)

Zaratoughda,
"DeadinTrench", good to see you join the discussion of the new game. You had some great input before.

The AI in any game can be beaten handily...I think it takes some self-discipline and thought to play the game in the mindset of a 18th century general. This is not a knock on your playing style...I love to occassionally trash the computer in some games myself.

These kinds of lopside victories can even happen against a human opponant. After I bought my first HPS Napoleonic game, I found an e-mail player. He proceeded to hide his army deep in the woods and send only individual cavalry units to take all the objectives nowhere nere the main battle area. He even waited till the last turn to capture the objectives. A victory to him, but certainly not very sporting.

I encourage you to give the reborn series a shot...this new Volume I is the start point for further development that will include the AI.

Regards,
Tim



Tim Coakley -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/17/2009 10:37:49 PM)

Inaki,
the game is basically the same engine you are familiar with. Besides the graphics overhaul and the combination of two games into one, some of the biggest changes are in the fully moddable editor, and in some behind the scenes changes that will allow for further development.

I do want to add a "one phase" play option for the future. This is just the new start point for development.

Tim



Sertorius1 -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/18/2009 12:34:55 PM)

Hello Zaratoughda,

I came on the HnM forum here right at the time you left. Like you, I had a number of justified complaints to put it mildly, about the old Prussian War Machine that I was vocal on primarily on the old Shrapnel bulletin board. I also posted my complaints here as well when I got curious to see if anyone had developed a patch for it and ran across this HnM forum. When I discovered that a remake was in the works a year ago I requested to be a part of it so to try to see if some of these concerns could be addressed. You know the old expression about being in the tent or standing outside it. For the most part they were and I can state that this new version is a 100% improvement over the clunker I bought three or whenever it was years ago. One of the things I like is in the scenario editor there is a property sheet where the values that pertain to things like MPs, fire factors, shock effect, etc can be reset if a person isn't happy with the default settings. I'm also happy to see that all around defense (one of my major complaints) is a formation that can be employed in places like towns and even more importantly, redoubts where it is really needed.

As for the PO, I agree with Tim on this. I personally think that the PO really only works well in positions that are confine and/or one where there aren't a host of options when it comes to course of action. Unlike the Chess computer Deep Blue, where everything can be reduced to a mathematical equation, these computer war games are more complexed in their own way that require human input for I don't believe that a computer can ever fully grasp a situation. I also don't discount the effect of time when it comes to the PO of any of these games including TOAW. The longer they run, the more variables for the PO to try to deal with solely with math. I think the best the PO can do is with the short to maybe medium length scenarios. To state the obvious, computers can't think. This is why Tim will always have job security. ;)

Seeing how you have the old versions of HnM you could try this if you haven't already. Go in the editor and change the combat values for the leaders to nines in all categories while leaving those of the side you wish to play as is. I can assure you that things will get real interesting.

I have this question for you. When you refer to PBEM, do you mean opening up the save file and reseting the objective track(s) for the PO as a means of giving it command guidance like you can in TOAW?

To sum up, while I wouldn't buy the old PWM with what I know today, this one I would.

[Edited for clarification]



Zaratoughda -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/18/2009 5:05:27 PM)

Hmmm... PBEM is Play By EMail..... two player game with the save file sent by email between each turn.

Also.... the AI in HnM isn't really a PO like in TOAW. There are objectives for each side but the commands and units on a side are not given separate objectives like in TOAW.

If you had beaten the AI 71 to 4 like I had then you wouldn't be interested in getting the game either (until the AI is drastically improved). Of course, all playtesters and the like in a game are part of the team and not as objective as they might otherwise be.

To be honest the other thing I see lacking in HnM2.... is the lack of historical options and the like. For instance..... in Lobositz neither side really knew what forces the other side had. So, should be options for each player as to what their force composition is. In Mollwitz, the Austrian commander had other forces in the area, in garrisons and the like, that he didn't realize he needed to fight the Prussians until it was too late... and the game should allow the Austrians to bring in these forces (at a cost of VPs). Otherwise, the Austrians don't really stand a chance (well, there should also be a Frederick idiocy rule to balance things there).

SSI did a game a long time ago called Sons of Liberty... and a Saratoga scenario... and historically there was the situation between Gates and Arnold and Morgan, and the game gives the American commander the option as to Gates' involvement. This simulates the historical situation where the British really didn't know what to expect from the Americans.

The game also has great AI that will kick your butt if it gets a chance.

Of course the game has just EGA graphics and must be played in a window like DosBox.

A classic example of the graphics of games since then improving significantly but the quality of the games otherwise, digressing significantly.

Zaratoughda



Erik Rutins -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/18/2009 5:35:56 PM)

Zaratoughda,

See the post just above yours. While I respect your right to share your opinions and experiences with previous releases, have you played this one yet or are you speaking to those older versions?

Regards,

- Erik



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/18/2009 7:21:38 PM)




Bought and downloaded the game last night. Started playing scenario 1.

The Good

1] In the previous iteration with a computer well above specs the scenarios took so freaking long to load I kept thinking my computer had locked up. This problem is gone.

2] The GUI is much improved with a few exceptions

3] The animations no longer whip the flags so fast that going in to a epileptic seizure seems like a distinct possibility.

4] The theme for the in game graphics is no longer a neon hell.

5] The PDF manual is set up to print a single page to 8.5x11.

The Bad

1] The AI pretty much as before seems to just sit on its ass and die. I'm kind of thinking that the only thing i do to balance the equation is to march half of my army up into a corner and not use it.This might be correctable with careful construction of scenarios. Heads up guys, as I have said for every iteration of this game you really need a path scripting layer for the AI. The Global AI just simply does not work. I may be using the wrong terms but I think you know what i mean. I have written about this in great detail in the past.

2]The game is still a lot of WORK to play. E.g. having to go through and click many multiple times on units to remove disruptions etc.

3] In animations Fast mode a turn goes a bit quicker than waiting for Godot. There still needs to be an ANIMATIONS OFF button.

Summed Up
This will be a fine game to play while watching TV. It is head and shoulders over Tiller offerings. In all regards except GUI. And there only from the respect that in Tiller games it is very easy to toggle on and off important on board information. There may be Hot keys For HnM2 that adress this issue. I have not found them yet because i have to scroll through a pdf manual to find them. Having to deselect a unit before moving the next if you want to avoid moving multiple units is a pain. selecting a new unit should do just that. Moving multiple units should be accomplished through selecting units while holding down control key or some such. Good point here though, when moving multiple units they do seem to maintain their relative orientation to each other. Though I am not sure as the only times I did it was by accident.

WHY TO BUY

1] The developers really love this game and system. Though they may have limited time to work on it. I suspect work on it they will. So if you want support you will probably get it over time.

2] I was able to come up with more in the good column than the bad column.

3] Excellent coverage of ways to play, Solo, Hot Seat, LAN, Internet, PBEM. Though in the case of PBEM as always with this series the many multiple phases kind of kill PBEM as a realistic proposition for all but the most patient.

Caveat to Buying; We need to buy games like this if we want games like this or even close to this. Support the developers and publishers, But bitch about it endlessly.


quote:

A victory to him, but certainly not very sporting.


Tim,
A huge part of playing games is to win against an opponent that at least seems to be attempting to win as well. I do recognize a mindset that I refer to as "Wargame As Theater." (WAT)Best I can figure these players are approaching the game from more of a Fantasy Role Play angle. Nothing wrong with that, everyone gets their own rush their own way;^) I'm just not going to get my rush with a WAT Player most of the time.








Zaratoughda -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/18/2009 7:47:18 PM)

Erik...

I checked the notes for this release and did not see any mention of the AI being fixed or improved. Also, the post after yours.... seems to validate my conclusion that the AI had not been improved (and, it will be a big job to improve the AI).

Otherwise, my comments are on previous releases but if something has changed since then it is easy for anyone having the new version to point that out.

So far, this hasn't happenned to my recollection.

Zaratoughda

P.S. No, I am not going to pay money, despite the reasonable price, for a game that has the same AI I have already in PWM, regardless of improvements otherwise.



Tim Coakley -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/18/2009 7:50:23 PM)

Zaratoughda,
your point has been made...you will not buy the game. Message received. It is your opinion and I do value the input.

Regards,
Tim



sol_invictus -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/18/2009 8:08:22 PM)

Lance, you can use the D key to remove Disruption instead of the Menu. Also at the end of the Phase the game will automaticly attempt to remove Disruption if a unit has unused Movement Points.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/18/2009 8:38:35 PM)

Thanks Arinvald
It is logical and a big help. Is there a way to toggle on numbers to show Morale and disruption levels on the map? Are there any other Hotkeys? I did not see a list in the manual.



sol_invictus -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/18/2009 9:19:30 PM)

Yes you can display Morale and Disruption on the Units. It is in the Toggle Reports Button on the bottom right of the UI. The Arrow Button. I can't think of any other hotkeys at the moment because the D key is the only one I use. I think ther are a few more though.



Sertorius1 -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/18/2009 9:36:59 PM)

quote:

Hmmm... PBEM is Play By EMail..... two player game with the save file sent by email between each turn.


Greetings again, Zaratoughda,

I know what the acronym PBEM stands for. I thought you were talking about a variation involving the use of PBEM as a means to exercise some control over the PO from the beginning of a scenario. A friend of mine uses a method involving the PBEM where he is able to adjust the operational conduct of the opposing force while allowing the PO to exercise tactical control in TOAW. In short, he's like me who doesn't like to move a couple hundred units, but wishes to be able to correct the PO when it starts doing stupid stuff. Because I've gotten lazy as I have grown older I prefer to use the computer to move units instead of physically moving them while still being able to exercise oversight when needed. If it weren't for this I probably would still be dealing with paper and pasteboard games.

quote:


If you had beaten the AI 71 to 4 like I had then you wouldn't be interested in getting the game either (until the AI is drastically improved). Of course, all playtesters and the like in a game are part of the team and not as objective as they might otherwise be.


I understand the thrust of your argument. Where I disagree is that I would buy the game knowing what I know about it. The previous version that you and I own I wouldn't due to numerous problems, one the worst was that it was unstable. When it comes to AI for any of these games how effective it is depends on a number of factors such as the amount of time the scenario require, the topography and how complex it is in terms of what is required to achieve victory. For me, I like to use various methods to keep the AI/PO on track in scenarios where the above is hard to realize.

I'll add this as well. Keep in mind that like you I also got burned with the original PWM, so I don't believe my objectivity is duly compromised with this one. My involvement economically speaking has allowed me to break even, so to speak, and that doesn't approach the amount of time I invested in this project. If I thought it was garbage I wouldn't be writing this. I've always like this game series and its potential going back to the original Dragoon. That was the first computer game I learned how to play.

The other things you write of are things I believe can be addressed through upgrade patches and are good ideas that should be given serious consideration. Incidentally, there is one engagement scenario that does deal with a hypothetical situation in the Leuthen scenarios in Frederick the Great.

I'm not familiar with the SSI game you reference, so I can't comment, other than to say it sounds interesting.




lancerunolfsson -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/18/2009 11:08:56 PM)

Thanks Arinvald
Don't know how I missed that. Just Lazy I guess.



sullafelix -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/19/2009 1:21:26 AM)

The SSI tactical game and the whole series " Battles of Napoleon " etc. were hard,but just like any other computer game you could figure out the way around the AI and totally stomp the enemy.

I view playing against the AI as this. I play them against the AI as closely as I can to what would be an actual for what of a better term performance of a General at the date of the battle. Just like Tim in boardgames and in computer games I have been burned by opponets playing very looses with the rules. Such as capturing Moscow in a Russian front game with a flak counter etc.

To me all wargames are simulations of the time period and not " games " to be poured over to look for rule loopholes. Just as you can make " house rules " for boardgames you can do this with computer games. If I feel that a victory hex is worth to much or simply not something that the generals of the time would have worried about I discount those points.

To me at times against the computer I want to play stupid. No one in their right mind would expect to win as Lee on the 3rd day of Gettysburg given the same troops and constraints he was under. But I play it anyway to see what outcomes are possible.

From my seat HM is a great game that has had tons of testing and love poured into it by some people. I've read so much history and there are so many examples of subordinates being buffoons on any given day and for me this game simulates it very well. Just when I think I have old Fred where I want him some ancient senile general I'm stuck with refuses to move for 2 turns. 



leftydad -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/19/2009 2:54:01 AM)

What does FTG, HnM, and PWM mean???



Sertorius1 -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/19/2009 4:21:54 AM)

Lefty,

HnM- Horse and Musket. PWM- The Prussian War Machine.  Both of these were the predecessors with to this recent release with the former predating the latter.

FTG stands for Frederick the Great. This one.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/19/2009 5:25:52 AM)


quote:

I have been burned by opponets playing very looses with the rules. Such as capturing Moscow in a Russian front game with a flak counter etc.


You have not been "burned" unless opponent has cheated. You have been beaten fairly under the rules of the game;^) That is not to say that the game might not suck. Except for reloading moves or re-scripting files there is no way to Cheat in a computer game. Granted most computer games are very poorly constructed from Both simulation and game stand points.

Little understood fact NO GAME IS A COMPLETE SIMULATION (or even probably good). Solution: understand that it is a game and not a simulation on most levels.

Other important fact generally the more complex a game becomes the less valid it is as a simulation. As the complexity puts player on many levels of control not pertinent to the level of command being represented(rarely does regiment commander sight individual AT guns). Also as complexity increases more poorly thought out rules will appear that will be exploited by GOOD players. It is not hard for me to find opponents that are much better than I at exploiting much of the complex construction of a game like for instance Operational Art Of War. Solution Human opponent: find opponents with similar skill level to myself (lesser becomes boring after the first couple of games). I am not a GOOD player, I am a good player sometimes when I am in the ZONE with a particular game. Solution AI: As you state self limiting is a good way.

Huge problem with computer games. When they are broken you are stuck waiting for the developer to fix them. Most of the time this never happens. But they have the advantage of both players stuck playing the same game with rules enforced by the computer.

Board and miniatures games have the problem that the player who is most assertive about ambiguous rules interpretation has a serious advantage. Solution: tell them to screw themselves;^)(eg be more assertive).



V22 Osprey -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/19/2009 6:12:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tim Coakley
These kinds of lopside victories can even happen against a human opponant. After I bought my first HPS Napoleonic game, I found an e-mail player. He proceeded to hide his army deep in the woods and send only individual cavalry units to take all the objectives nowhere nere the main battle area. He even waited till the last turn to capture the objectives. A victory to him, but certainly not very sporting.



Its war.

This is how the Americans won the revolutionary war.They knew not to go toe-to-toe with British regulars in an open field.Sounds like this is what your opponent did to win.He figured he probably couldnt beat you in a full on fight but instead use cunning tactics to take the VPs and win.




Tim Coakley -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/19/2009 1:02:46 PM)

Valid points about How to win...but certainly not playing with the spirit of the period. When I play a game, I want to immerse myself in the period to get a feel for the tactics of the day, the problems facing the commanders, and to have fun. All three aspects are improtant. I have learned to pick my opponents more carefully.

I am a member of one of the clubs that plays HPS games (and hopefully will play HnM V1)...and I stick with players that have a similar style.

Tim



Tim Coakley -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/19/2009 1:06:05 PM)

I thought some more about this and my issue...it is not that he used cunning tactics, but he used gamey tactics.

Cunning would have been masking a portion of his force behind a hill and falling on my flank. Sending lone small units to sit next to far off objective hexes (also a bad scenario design) and then have them come in like SAS commandos on the last turn via some kind of satelite uplink is gamey.

I credit him the win...but would never play him again by choice. Did face him in a tournament with much stricted play rules and earned a very close marginal victory. Got spanked in the next round!



sullafelix -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/19/2009 5:33:13 PM)

Not to monopolize the thread but I do want to answer. When I meant a simulation I meant that unlike Chess or backgammon a wargame is simulating a specific battle or campaign in a specific time period. So when 10 pieces of Flak and 1000 soldiers can capture a city of 2 million it is not even remotely possible. I do agree that many of these problems are game design flaws. But to me it is exactly what Tim said gamey tactics. I wouldn't do anything in a wargame that I didn't believe possible for that moment in time.

Back to the game. Musket and Pike and Eighteenth century warfare and Napoleonics to a point are very defined and linear types of warfare. Do not expect to fight WW2 or even the Franco-Prussian War with Horse and Musket Volume I. But if you are interested in the period or want to learn about it than this game is for you. It is priced quite low for the amount of new work done to the engine.

As far as AI playing if you are not content with it at all than may I suggest playing solitaire against yourself. The system and it's use of command control makes solitaire playing much easier because of the fog of war that envelops even your own army. Now if I just spoke heresy about playing solitaire please bear with me. I just picked up a new russian Front boardgame whose price is almost twice this games. There has never been any backlash whatsoever in boardgames to put a solitaire suitability level on a boardgame so why not on a computer game?

I will admit that my preferred computer games are ones that I can tell a subordinate what to do and then watch how things play out. For my minutae kick I go more for boardgames. So my view of playing against the AI is skewed from that angle.



Zaratoughda -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/19/2009 5:37:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

The SSI tactical game and the whole series " Battles of Napoleon " etc. were hard,but just like any other computer game you could figure out the way around the AI and totally stomp the enemy.

I view playing against the AI as this. I play them against the AI as closely as I can to what would be an actual for what of a better term performance of a General at the date of the battle. Just like Tim in boardgames and in computer games I have been burned by opponets playing very looses with the rules. Such as capturing Moscow in a Russian front game with a flak counter etc.

To me all wargames are simulations of the time period and not " games " to be poured over to look for rule loopholes. Just as you can make " house rules " for boardgames you can do this with computer games. If I feel that a victory hex is worth to much or simply not something that the generals of the time would have worried about I discount those points.

To me at times against the computer I want to play stupid. No one in their right mind would expect to win as Lee on the 3rd day of Gettysburg given the same troops and constraints he was under. But I play it anyway to see what outcomes are possible.

From my seat HM is a great game that has had tons of testing and love poured into it by some people. I've read so much history and there are so many examples of subordinates being buffoons on any given day and for me this game simulates it very well. Just when I think I have old Fred where I want him some ancient senile general I'm stuck with refuses to move for 2 turns. 


Chuck Kroegel's series of games for SSI included Sons Of Liberty, Battles of Napoleon, and the four ACW games.

Yes, any AI can ultimately be outsmarted but, I have seen in these games where it appears the AI isn't doing anything and then all at once it will hit you like a ton of bricks. In other words, it determines how much force it needs to attack, waits until it gets that force and then attacks in no uncertain terms. This is as opposed to games like the HPS series that attack with units one by one.... a 'piecemeal' attack that is just suicide.

So, more than anything else it is a matter of whether the AI is acting totally stupid or not. Also, in the SSI series, like in a lot of games, you can raise the level of the computer opponent if you feel the AI is not enough of a challange.

As far as HnM2 is concerned, it is real easy for anyone to try Mollwitz as the Prussians and see what happens. A really straight forward battle. Just march your forces across the field and drive the Austrians from it. With me, when my right flank hit first, the entire Austrian center turned to face that direction leaving themselves wide open to flank attacks and thus, the 71 to 4 annilation. With the original HnM (or was it the FTG game) the AI was not that stupid.... so like I said the AI devolved in HnM2.

Again, this is really easy for anyone to test for themselves and, as I understand it the AI has not been changed for this new release.

Zaratoughda



V22 Osprey -> RE: Improvements in the game system? (6/19/2009 11:18:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tim Coakley

I thought some more about this and my issue...it is not that he used cunning tactics, but he used gamey tactics.

Cunning would have been masking a portion of his force behind a hill and falling on my flank. Sending lone small units to sit next to far off objective hexes (also a bad scenario design) and then have them come in like SAS commandos on the last turn via some kind of satelite uplink is gamey.

I credit him the win...but would never play him again by choice. Did face him in a tournament with much stricted play rules and earned a very close marginal victory. Got spanked in the next round!


Ok, now I see what you are saying, that is pretty gamey.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.660156