Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (Full Version)

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



Message

amrcg -> Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/19/2005 1:58:12 PM)

In the Horse&Musket (18th century wargame by Shrapnel Games) forum I have been debating whether "Black Powder Wars: BON" could also be used to model 18th century armies/battles, since from my point of view Napoleonic warfare presents little more than tactical developments when we compare it with 18th century warfare (battlefield technology was roughly the same). In fact Napoleonic warfare also spans armies that were - by the beginning of that period - still modelled after 18th century patterns (I am lucky enough to have a 1799 edition of the portuguese drilling manual manual firstly issued by the Count of Lippe in 1763, so 18th century tactics were still the norm for the portuguese army during the "War of the Oranges" - Wellington reformed portuguese drilling in 1809).
If this is the case for "BPW:BON", then it would be a serious rival to H&M, even more because the latter is based on a series of separate campaigns modelled and incompatible game engines.
What's your opinion about these issues?

Cheers,
Antonio



Le Tondu -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/19/2005 4:47:50 PM)

God bless the dreamers and the modders for they shall inherit lots of fun.
[8D]

It will be interesting to see how the tactical AI of the game works. How it moves the units, that is.

Patiently waiting.........[:)]



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/20/2005 9:54:24 AM)

Most of the big diferences between 18thc and Nap warfare are operational leveles of scale.The functions that look editable through the screen shots sugest that any scenario that features all muzzel loading smooth bores should be doable. I'm pretty interested in seeing this game. What I am seeing is a lot more encouraging than what happened with HnM2.



Tim Coakley -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/20/2005 6:21:12 PM)

The engine was designed with Nappy period in mind, but I am sure things can be modded/fudged to cover earlier periods.

I have no background in the earlier 18th C wars, so I can not give a definate answer.

Some example MIGHT be:
1) restricting the allowable formations
2) reducing leathality and or weapon ranges
3) Reducing command ranges

Tim



amrcg -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/20/2005 9:39:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Double Shot Design
Some example MIGHT be:
1) restricting the allowable formations
2) reducing leathality and or weapon ranges
3) Reducing command ranges
Tim

That's precisely what I had in mind.




Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/20/2005 9:50:55 PM)

The H&M2 editor, in principle, allows any kind of unit to be edited, in the first time I even thought of ancient battles to be designed, as you could eliminate the fire modifier of units to 0. However, graphics are not easily edited, and overall, the random system built into the battle engine is so extreme as to make all the tweaking in the unit statistics meaningless. I really hope that will not happen to BoN



Magnus -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/22/2005 7:15:03 PM)

I think HnM2 is a GREAT! game, so it will be interesting to see how this game compares up to HnM2. Also I think HnM2 has better graphics than this game.



Magnus -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/22/2005 7:17:04 PM)

The graphics isn't any more difficult to edit than the original HnM. Surely HnM2 uses many frames of animation which makes it all tedious to edit. But for modding much time is needed anyway.



rich -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/22/2005 9:03:48 PM)

The period c.1700-c.1850 should certainly be feasible, although some tactical modifications might be desirable. Before 1700 it would be necessary to make alterations to reflect pre-bayonet muskets and pikes (although perhaps the engine is flexible enough to cover this). After 1850, it would probably still be possible to cover the Crimean War, 1859 and perhaps even the ACW and 1870, provided rifle ranges & fire factors could be modified and additional weaponry (eg. breechloaders, repeating rifles, mitrailleuse) were incorporated. However, I suspect this period (c.1861-1905, or ACW to the Russo-Jap War) would most likely be covered in a subsequent Doubleshot title with various weaponry and formation modifications.



Magnus -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/23/2005 1:47:58 AM)

Lance what did happen to HnM2 that you aren't happy about?



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/23/2005 3:46:34 AM)

quote:

Lance what did happen to HnM2 that you aren't happy about?

1] A lot more effort was put in to the graphics than needed. I hate looking at animation while I am trying to play a game so I do not want to pay for them. The units in HnM1 were adequate the maps not quite so good. In HnM2 all graphics, map and units actually look worse than HnM1 after much effort put in. And there is no 2d view so that I don't have to look at them if I don't want to.

2] When finally released I saw many complaints of PBEM problems. Best I can tell no patch was ever released fixing those problems.

So after really looking forward to the game for years By looking at the demo I see a game that looks bad and plays bad. I could find no reason to buy it.

What I was hoping for was HnM1 with better AI and PBEM play. I would have been happy with some relatively minor improvements in HnM1.Delivered at an earlier date.

Granted some Guys like the way the HnM2 game looks and plays so it is good that their tastes are catered to. So far from the screen shots BPW BON at least looks a lot more like I want a game to look. The menus shown suggest a very robust editor. Of course how it plays remains to be seen.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/23/2005 11:29:34 AM)

Lance
Patch was actuallt released, however PBEM is still disappointing because of the game system. As random is so high, the only attack with a good percentage of success is a flank attack, and as you have a great flexibility to move individual units (far greater than in reality) you end up looking for enemy flanks of every enemy unit, without any regard for battlelines, the end result is that after some turns the battle has no recognisible battlelines, and this is made worst by the fact that you can rally routed units behind enemy lines. As it is the only game for the period, I played it as much as i could, and designed several scenarios, but I finally gave up, I hope BoN take that place



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/23/2005 12:36:35 PM)

quote:

you have a great flexibility to move individual units (far greater than in reality)

This is true of most games. In table top games I partialy solve this problem by making a disrutpion of the unit possible if the unit is changing facing.



Magnus -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/23/2005 5:56:03 PM)

They don't look worse, the units are far more detailed than HnM1's and the overall graphics are by far much better, just look at the full screen interface compared to HnM's windows based one. A 2D view isn't even needed since you can get such a great overview over the total battle by just zooming out and the units are easily recognizable at that given size.

I love the animations, finally someone dares to take the game a step further.



amrcg -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/24/2005 1:09:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: karoliner72

They don't look worse, the units are far more detailed than HnM1's and the overall graphics are by far much better, just look at the full screen interface compared to HnM's windows based one. A 2D view isn't even needed since you can get such a great overview over the total battle by just zooming out and the units are easily recognizable at that given size.

I love the animations, finally someone dares to take the game a step further.

The fact that H&M2 is not incremental turns to be frustrating. I prefer a game that lets me fight any campaign of the period without having to "mod". Besides, animations and graphics are not an top priority requirement for most wargamers. I was impressed with the BPW/BON unit symbols. They look very similar to those used in books describing the battles of the period.

Cheers,
Antonio



Magnus -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/24/2005 9:53:41 AM)

Yes too bad BPW doesn't have miniature view too



Magnus -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/24/2005 9:54:27 AM)

I like HnM2's turn system, it all makes up for a much more interesting game and models 18th century warfare really good, the communication problems that occured.



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/24/2005 10:15:40 AM)

quote:

finally someone dares to take the game a step further.

For me though several steps in directions I do not care for.



Sumter -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/24/2005 5:13:24 PM)

For all its shortcomings (lack of variety in artillery, inability of cavalry to charge in light woods, inability of cavalry to defensive fire or charge when attacked by infantry, limited terrain features, limited AI, etc), HNM 1 has the virtue of providing a reasonably effective scenario editor for a gamer interested in 18th and and very early 19th century warfare. I was really disappointed with HNM 2. I too had hoped for an improved version of HNM 1. Unfortunately, the game has too many bells and whistles that distract from play and is of such limited scope as to rob it of much interest for me. While the terrain possibilities in the editor are improved -- the limited number of armies is a real disappointment. I understand the existing armies can be modified, but I do not have the programs on my computer to do so. I am eagerly awaiting BPW in hopes that the shortcomings of HNM 1 will be remedied.



Magnus -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/24/2005 5:54:04 PM)

Funny is that when I read the HnM forum over at Shrapnelgames people wanted much more regiments for HnM2, now when they got that they're complaining about it? I don't think HnM2 was meant to be just a rehash of HnM1 with exactly the same armies and battles.



Sumter -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/24/2005 8:17:41 PM)

I suppose some people did ask for more regiments -- I was never one of those people. On the few occasions that I voiced an opinion, I urged creation of a game that would be more realistic (engineer units that could construct bridges and abatis, a greater range of fortification possibilities and artillery capable of indirect fire -- siege warfare was a vital element of 18th century conflict, and more realistic terrain etc). I never cared a whit about having specific regiments depicted. As I said, HNM 1 is a decent game for anyone interested in 18th century warfare. I will happily continue to play it until something better comes along. I hope BPW will be that game. The stand-alone-narrow approach of HNM 2 does not meet my interests. I am pleased for those gamers who find that it serves their purposes.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/24/2005 9:06:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

quote:

you have a great flexibility to move individual units (far greater than in reality)

This is true of most games. In table top games I partialy solve this problem by making a disrutpion of the unit possible if the unit is changing facing.

There is disruption for changing facing, as for any other movement, and as anything in the game is very much random dependant, the problem is that you can reface Bns individually, or redeploy them in column, march them along an enemy flank and redeploy in line, all in one turn.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/24/2005 9:12:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: karoliner72

I like HnM2's turn system, it all makes up for a much more interesting game and models 18th century warfare really good, the communication problems that occured.

Have you played PBEM? you are not rewarded at all in trying to maintain battlelines, and pretty fast the battlefiels is a mess of units with no resemblence of any order, any formation, not to mention the ability to rally units behind enemy lines, so they can take the enemy from the rear. There are other issues, like cavalry severely underrated, or column formations too flexible, that in all makes the game, played against a human opponent at least, nothing close to modelling 18Th century warfare



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/24/2005 10:37:06 PM)

quote:

or redeploy them in column, march them along an enemy flank and redeploy in line, all in one turn.


Sounds like move rates set too high. Though in linear warfare games a formation change should usually consume all or most of a units turn. A change from march collum to line by a simple left or right face should actually go pretty quick. I am wondering though Inaki how it can be that maintaining a line is not a good policy in the game? In any game any period maintaining a coherent line should put you at an advantage against a player that does not. Unless the unit density is very low. Even in modern warfare with conventional oponenents you want to have some sort of line even if parts of it are covered only by fields of fire. To be able to come up with a game were a line is no help is indictivie of unusual talent in design;^)



Magnus -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/25/2005 1:15:57 AM)

I don't see any problem in maintaining battle lines in HnM2, no problem at all. You can foir yourself decide how long or how many hexes they can march, no trouble changing stats at all.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/25/2005 9:45:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

quote:

or redeploy them in column, march them along an enemy flank and redeploy in line, all in one turn.


Sounds like move rates set too high. Though in linear warfare games a formation change should usually consume all or most of a units turn. A change from march collum to line by a simple left or right face should actually go pretty quick. I am wondering though Inaki how it can be that maintaining a line is not a good policy in the game? In any game any period maintaining a coherent line should put you at an advantage against a player that does not. Unless the unit density is very low. Even in modern warfare with conventional oponenents you want to have some sort of line even if parts of it are covered only by fields of fire. To be able to come up with a game were a line is no help is indictivie of unusual talent in design;^)

Basically, as random is so high, flank attack is the only option for a succesful attack garanteed, as the outfflanked unit doesnīt return fire. regardless of the unit rate of movement (that can be edited) the relation between line and column movement cost remain the same, very favourable to column, so that your best option in PBEM is to keep only a tenous line, just to cover your units in column behind that line, ready to jump on the oportunity to outflank any enemy Bn deployed in line. In all, very unrealistic. The problem is that basically the game tried to cover 2 levels, tactical and operational, and it makes it worst by the fact that you can send your coulmns in several directions with far greater flexibility than in reality. I made some scenarios in which units could not form in column, for instance I made an scenario for the battle of Leuthen in which the outflanking manouver by the Prussians was already done and the units deployed in line, however even then the battlefield quickly degenerates into a mess because units rout in all directions, including towards the enemy and behind enemy lines, and then you can rally them, to attack the advancing Prussians from behind, or still better, to capture their generals, or even Frederick himself!
As it is now, H6M2 needs badly
1) A new routine for routing units
2) Command range blocked by enemy units
3) Random lowered (preferible editable)
4) A better group movement
5) A different, more restricted and realistic, column movement
6) A different battle system for cavalry charging infantry (right now a suicide for cavalry units)
7) A fix for the skirmish units (contrary to logic, units deployed in skirmish suffer more losses under fire, but are tougher against charges, specially cavalry charges)
8) Right now moral, disruption and losses under fire follow separated calculations, for instance, the same Bn could suffer devastating losses and no moral hit, or no losses and a big hit in moral. They should logically be related.
I have complaied about the above in the Shrapnel Games forum several times, however apparently they are sticking to the game system, while going into some more graphics enhancement, so I am afraid I will not buy the second game in the serie



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/26/2005 12:20:22 AM)

quote:

units rout in all directions, including towards the enemy and behind enemy lines,

Yes this is bad game design. Routing units should always have to move toward the freindly map edge. And no closer than X number to hostiles failing this should either not move or be destroyed.

1) A new routine for routing units
Yes
2) Command range blocked by enemy units
I have seen this problem in many games so maybe there is a programing dificulty. But it should be as you say
3) Random lowered (preferible editable)
If what you are saying is that the curve of possible combat results should be flatter. You are probably right. Most computer games sadly allow for too many improbable results.
4) A better group movement
I have seen no computer game that has good group movement except along roads I am sure there is a programing problem here. I am sure as well that this is one of the reasons AI behavior is so poor
5) A different, more restricted and realistic, column movement
NOt sure of the exact problem
6) A different battle system for cavalry charging infantry (right now a suicide for cavalry units)
Cavalry Chrages in to the front of undisrupted close order infantry should be suicidal;^)
7) A fix for the skirmish units (contrary to logic, units deployed in skirmish suffer more losses under fire, but are tougher against charges, specially cavalry charges)
Yes cavalry should usualy vaporize skirmishers

You definatelyt Make HnM2 sound worse than I thought



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/26/2005 1:59:35 AM)

Darn I finaly looked at the Screenshots for Prussias Glory. And they Look pretty darn cool. The demo I downloaded for the first HnM2 looked horrible Especialy the Map everything was very Neon looking. Maybe the Graphics were changed later. Prussias Glory looks a lot more earthy and subdued than what I saw before I really like it.
Maybe they fixed some of the other problems we have been talking about.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/26/2005 7:53:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson



2) Command range blocked by enemy units
I have seen this problem in many games so maybe there is a programing dificulty. But it should be as you say
3) Random lowered (preferible editable)
If what you are saying is that the curve of possible combat results should be flatter. You are probably right. Most computer games sadly allow for too many improbable results.
5) A different, more restricted and realistic, column movement
NOt sure of the exact problem
6) A different battle system for cavalry charging infantry (right now a suicide for cavalry units)
Cavalry Chrages in to the front of undisrupted close order infantry should be suicidal;^)


2) That was implemented in a game called Great Ancient Battles, so it should not be that difficult
3) a Gauss bell would be fine, making extreme results less likely.
5) Well, in 18th century Bns marched in column one after another, carefully keeping distance, so that they could redeployed in a battleline, in H&M2 you donīt need to care about that, you can send your Bns in any direction, and redeploy them very easily. Yopu can also redeploy them from line to column and move them on the battlefield, to sum up, they are in fact more akin to the company columns of Napoleonic armies than to the march columns of the mid 18th century.
6) Of course, the problem here is that cavalry has no chance against heavily disruopted and low morale infantry. That could be edited to some point, but the system itself would better be fixed, to give you an idea, cavalry charging infantry is fired not once, but twice by infantry before closing in melee, the result is that normally they rout before closing, or that they get a maximum disruption that prevent them charging at all.



Magnus -> RE: Early Napoleonic Armies: 18th century (10/26/2005 9:16:28 PM)

Cavalry do have a chance against disrupted low morale infantry, do you usually charge from the front all the time? Well do try to charge them in the flank and you'll see results against low morale infantry.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.578125