BG vs HPS

Abatis

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
335
Reaction score
0
Location
Ithaca, NY
Country
llUnited States
Guys, I'd like to know any of your opinions on this.

I have all the TS BG Civil War and Napoleanic games. I have not played them in an age -easily 5 years. Anyway, I'm interested in getting into some HTH 19th century warfare again.(I have been, and still am, consumed by WWII fever -but ACW was my first and longest running interest -my Grandparents got me a Union kepi after visting Gettysburg when I was 4, and the draw/interest just stuck.)

I have had the 32 bit file mod's to all of the games installed back in the day, so I'm familiar with the improvments and could be up and running shortly after a few game installs with a little help in pointing me to the most up to date/common versions for me to DL.

OK, that brings me to this: is this Club dominated(I mean that in a good way, or at least neutrally) by the HPS games, or does anyone still play the old Battleground ones?

What makes you prefer one system over the other? I'd be willing to spend some money, but am doing some recce here first. I've been aware of HPS for years, but haven't ever made the jump.

So who plays what? And why?
 

CyberRanger

GameSquad Staff
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
1,985
Reaction score
6
Location
NC, USA
Country
llUnited States
I have both series but now only play HPS. One of the biggest differences between the two is simply scale. BG is battle specific. Each map is only large enough for the set battle it depicts. HPS is campaign oriented. Some of the maps are huge. For example, I'm playing a campaign of Gettysburg where the map is 323x366. By comparision, the map in BG Getty is around 100x100 (or close to it, going from memory).

The next biggest change is how the turns can be run. In HPS, you can move, fire, and melee each unit at will. So, you can move a unit, fire at the enemy, melee with that same unit, then move the next unit. That makes for a much different game! Some people don't like that change (they feel it creates un-historical actions) but I find it makes the games more interesting.

As far as this board, you will have much better results asking for HPS opponents although we do support BG.
 

rahamy

HPS Games Forum Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
2,531
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia, USA
Hi Brian,

Like Brent, I only play the HPS games now. In fact I sold all my BG games a couple of years ago because I never used them any more. With 6 ACW, 4 Nap & 3 EAW titles out - the HPS games more than meet my needs.

In addition to the items Brent listed there's been many engine enhancements since the BG days. For example weak ZOC's. No more mas ZOC eliminations dominating the game. Sure, it still can be done, but not nearly as easily. Some other items are: On-map results (rather than having to acknowledge the dialog box after every shot), Density Fire modifier, Full melee defensive fire, boats (for land units, not just river boats), Supply sources, supply points, brigade colors, Command radius shading, adjustable defensive fire ranges for infantry and artillery, etc. And that's all not to mention the campaign aspect with losses carrying over and consequences for the decisions you make.

So, for me, there's just no doubt that the HPS titles are the way to go.

Regards,
Rich
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
273
Reaction score
0
Location
Deep South, PL
Country
llPoland
I prefer HPS series, mostly because I like it's engine - non-phased turns. You can plan and execute fine actions, game is more interesting. Game with phased turns, like in old Battleground games, is too schematical...
Also campaign aspect in HPS games is very interesting - you are making strategic decisions and fighting linked battles with losses carry over between them.
From time to time I play Battleground games too - a year without battle of Antietam is a lost year :)
 

Jim Cobb

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
705
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Like everybody else so far, I do HPS. My main attraction is the realization that the ACW was more than 6 battles (G'burg, Bull Run, Shiloh, Antietam, Chickamuaga and I forget the other). The Penninsula campaign Had to be done; fighting did occur in the trans-Missisippi (Campaign Ozark) and Shilo was not the only battle in the West (Franklin and Corinth). Remember, you're not getting just one battle; you're getting a whole campaign at regiment level.
 

Abatis

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
335
Reaction score
0
Location
Ithaca, NY
Country
llUnited States
Thanks for your input guys. Guess I'm going to have to get one and check it out. I'll look here for a game when my order comes in.
 
Top