Battle Ground ACW Engine (Full Version)

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



Message

lancerunolfsson -> Battle Ground ACW Engine (10/10/2005 1:42:21 AM)

Battle Ground ACW Engine

I have only a few of problems with the ACW Engine and they may not even be engine problems. I assume the 32 Bit patch is already in place.

1] Cavalry seems way to effective in mounted attack for the period.

2] I think that the Column formation in the ACW game is really supposed to be a Marching column. This formation should be really ineffective for charging. Maybe there should be an attack column.

3] This is comparatively trivial but in absence of creating a complicated supply system make it possible to turn arty ammo rule off.


Here are some Games using the ACW engine I would buy in a Heart beat. in no particular order. I would buy any of these way before buying any ACW Titles.

Franco Prussian War

Austro Prussian War

Russo Japanese War

Crimean War

Franco Austrian War

Mexican American War.

Maximillian's Mexican Adventure

1871 Russo Turkish War (low on list mostly sieges)

South American Wars of Liberation.


Then actually I would buy the Napoleonic wars ported to this engine if attack collums and Squares were added. I'm guessing every thing else needed to napoleonize the engine lies in Unit stats rather than anything else.










Balthazar Gerards -> RE: Battle Ground ACW Engine (10/10/2005 6:25:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson


Here are some Games using the ACW engine I would buy in a Heart beat. in no particular order. I would buy any of these way before buying any ACW Titles.

Franco Prussian War

Austro Prussian War

Russo Japanese War

Crimean War

Franco Austrian War

Mexican American War.

Maximillian's Mexican Adventure

1871 Russo Turkish War (low on list mostly sieges)

South American Wars of Liberation.


Absolutely a great idea: 1850-1900 is a very interesting era. Frank Hunter (Goa) was planning 'Imperial ambition' (Europa in the above mentioned era), but that's after GoA . . . .



rich -> RE: Battle Ground ACW Engine (10/10/2005 6:34:49 PM)

The Nappy engine would be far better for the Crimean War and the 1859 War, perhaps also for 1866 and 1870 as well (with a modified pdt of course) due to the continued use of obsolete cavalry charges in European conflicts up to 1870. ACW style cavalry - effectively mounted infantry - really wouldn't reflect how cavalry was actually used tactically in the 1870 war. However, it would certainly be useful to carry over the ACW style cavalry into the Nappy engine to represent dragoons as an additional cavalry type.

Also the Nappy engine allows detachable skirmishers, which works better than the ACW method of representing skirmishers, especially at the edge of woods where for instance it's necessary to move a unit up to the edge of the woods to see several hexes beyond.

I've actually created scenarios for the Crimean War (posted at the NIR Project site several years ago), but they could probably do with some revisions.

However, the Russo-Japanese war and also the Boer War could be recreated using the ACW engine.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Battle Ground ACW Engine (10/10/2005 11:37:05 PM)

Yeah Rich there is a lot of stuff to like about the Napoleonic Engine. But for me it is just killed dead for PBEM by the double file swap per turn. Actually the Cavalry works just great in the ACW engine for mounted charges which is sort of one of the draw backs to the ACW engine (for ACW at least). But the Napoleonic engine gets cavalry wrong too. Pretty much after the adoption of the socket bayonet ca1690-1700 cavalry has three missions fight other cavalry (no problems there with either engine), Vaporize Infantry that is either already broken or disordered by artillery or infantry (oddly the Napoleonic engine does not do this any better than the ACW engine.), Charge infantry in the flank or rear (no real problems either engine on this other than the cavalry probably being less effective than it should be). There is a fourth mission charge formed infantry to the front get blown out of the saddle 50 paces from the line by infantry that does not break when they see the cavalry because they are pretty confident that their Bayonets will see off any trooper that makes it to the line (neither engine really gives a feel for the fact that cavalry charging formed infantry to the front should be 80% of the time simply suicidal). Neither of the engines consistently reflects the fact that a mounted charge should simply vaporize Broken troops or skirmishers.
I think that the coding to prevent cavalry from dismounting in 1866, 1870 is probably a lot easier to pull off than the coding that would be required to fix the PBEM problems with the Napoleonic engine. In fact you don't even have to prevent them from dismounting all you have to do is make their fire power stats so bad that there is no purpose to dismounting.I would go so far as to say That it would be better to use the ACW engine as the base line to reconstitute the Napoleonic games. The individual skirmishers in the Napoleonic games are cool but in the end analysis very unrealistic for the command level that is represented and for the way they are used for recon and as roving commandos. The principle purpose of Skirmishers in the Napoleonic wars was to shoot down the other guys skirmishers to keep them back from taking pot shots at your line thus triggering a premature volley from same!



Hertston -> RE: Battle Ground ACW Engine (10/11/2005 12:22:41 AM)

I have problems with considering any developments of the Battleground engine as the idea seems to assume nothing has happened in the meantime. The trouble is, it has... John Tiller has been developing it and improving it for some considerable time. I wouldn't deny the HPS games still have problems (the AI still isn't that good, and the 3D graphics are far worse than BG), but as I have said, annoyingly frequently no doubt, they ARE much better AND more fun. Developing BG is to me, as if evolution turned its back on homo sapiens and said "now, what can we do with those Neanderthals?". [;)]

I think re-releasing the BG games with a few tweaks here and there, at a sensible price, is a great move, especially for those who have never played them. As far as development goes, though, I can't really see they have a future.



rich -> RE: Battle Ground ACW Engine (10/11/2005 2:13:21 AM)

Poor AI and sub-standard graphics aren't really important - at least not to some folk. It's more important to get game engine fixes (eg. captured artillery "magically" disappearing and no proper artillery ammo system) and new features such as pioneers & weather.

I agree the HPS games have made tons of improvements, but the single phase mode has faulty ADF (at least in the ACW series) while the Nappy games have lost cavalry counter charges and having to square form in a player's own turn is awkward and doesn't really work very well.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Battle Ground ACW Engine (10/11/2005 2:38:56 AM)

quote:

The trouble is, it has... John Tiller has been developing it and improving it for some considerable time.

It's just too bad that he has not made any progress;^) Kidding aside though everybody has a diferent idea of what makes a good game. To me BG is head and shoulders over any HPS title in all areas except Nap for PBEM and only for PBEM. So everyone is going to lobby for what they want. Saying that HPS renders BG obsolete is like saying Base ball renders foot ball obsolete or vice verse. It may for you but it does not for me.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.435547