New John Tiller Napoleonic Wargame Out - Bonaparte's Peninsular War

[Sgt_Rock]

http://johntillersoftware/NapoleonicBattles/BonaparteWar.html

Just released yesterday - Bonaparte's War - from John Tiller Software.

This should make the British happy for now! Until another Waterloo game comes out! :laugh:

Long overdue and long awaited this is the first of two games to deal with the Peninsular War from 1808-1814.

Rich White (The Renaissance Scenario Designer) and Andrew Bamford did the Scenario Design. Originally started by one of the original members of the Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC) back in 1999-2000, this project was dropped and then picked up and finally finished by Rich and Andrew. Good show guys!

Read the website blurb to find out what this first game covers. It is much more than just Part 1 and Part 2. It is not exactly chronological and the first game deals mainly with the battles in and near Portugal.

Some comments/critiques:

1. There is no scenario list, something that I was prompted to add for my past three titles. Surely after all of the time they had to work on the game this could easily have been included. I sent Rich Hamilton a request that it get added to a future update.

2. Mounted and Dismounted fire for French Dragoons*. Sure it was Rich White's intent to allow them to fire dismounted but they also will be able to fire while mounted as well while other cavalry will not. That is unless John has added in code that disables mounted fire. Make sure you keep supply wagons handy for them. Units that are Out of Ammo suffer a morale drop. We don't want those French Dragoons (read: the only heavy cav for the most part for the French army) to be at a morale disadvantage. * see the Designer Notes to get a better idea of which units can fire dismounted and under which set of scenarios

3. Guns in sections for the 10 mins. variant scenarios. Ugh. While this sounds nice in fact the roads will be piled up with a lot of gun sections similar to issues in the ACW series. I like the idea of having howitzer sections but not each and every caliber represented. And most of the batteries were standard anyway.

4. Movement System - if Rich is using the "standard" 15 min system of NRC and Waterloo then look for the same blitz issues you have with those two titles. And really there is no such thing as a standard system as once the titles started departing from the Talonsoft format it was pretty much how each designer viewed the movement problem. Glad that Rich has the 10 min. format represented but he does not list any data on the values for movement. A movement chart similar to what I put in my last 3 JTS titles would be nice to share with the public.

5. Infantry stacking reduction - infantry stacking is reduced in the game. See the Designer Notes - Rich White section for more info. Sorry but I prefer to stack my guns with infantry for protection. Its historical. The guns would be deployed at the corner of the squares.

I have not installed the game so I am not able to comment on the rest of the title but Rich W. shared with me some ideas on how he and Andrew designed the game. Despite the above comments, Rich and Andrew seem to have done a good job on this one!

I look forward to installing the game and trying it out as soon as I can get my HQ reestablished.

 

[Marshal Lannes]

Well, it's got the Battle of Talavera; which is great - Here's hoping that it has more extensive scenarios, longer than 18 turns. The Lines of the Torres Vedras Campaign based on the Jump map, looks pretty impressive, and will no doubt take up many months of game time. It's a gaming historical first, as I cannot think of any game treatment of this, even in magazine format...........I like the trees and yellowy - green terrain in outer 3D view. :thumup:
Another title to add to my wants list, which is as long as Bill Gates monthly bank statement.

View attachment 47804

Battle of Talavera.

 

[bowcat]

Any idea what the "AI Enhancments" are ?

 

[Sgt_Rock]

Good question for JTS Support Bowcat as I dont have access to my pc to check out the game.

 

[Masséna]

Any idea what the "AI Enhancments" are ?

Yes, I've tried the first scenario of Portugal Campaign 1810, side French. Ney's Corps at Almeida and river Coa. It's too early to have a complete impression, but I didn't notice impressive changes in IA. In general, the game is good. I've appreciated the possibility to dismount dragoons. But I've noted the soldiers in 3D are really to small... expecially when skirmishers are detached and they are in woods or orchards it's difficult to see them. A work to do may be to re-scale the units in 3D (bigger scale). But I'm not an artist...:shy:

Masséna

 

[Sgt_Rock]

There are plenty of art mods that will come out that will rescale the graphics. Do you use the bases option?

 

[Masséna]

There are plenty of art mods that will come out that will rescale the graphics. Do you use the bases option?

Yes, I use that option. I hope they will come out ... For instance, a mod like the Philippe Mod for Leipzig. But in Leipzig, of course historically, only French... no Spanish and no Anglo-Portuguese...!!! The graphic Mods for Waterloo (I don't have Waterloo, but I've downloaded the mods to have a look) are good, but no Spanish and Portuguese, only French and British.
But I can wait!

 

[Philippe_at_bay]

I've been taking a look at Peninsular War in order to get a sense of just how much work would have to be done to do the needful.

The first thing that hit me was that Bill Peters has gotten us really spoiled. The first time I glanced at the scenario list I was left feeling a bit confused and not sure of what I was looking at. A second, closer look left me rolling my (over-strained) eyes.

As it stands now, it is very difficult to understand what the current scenario list is trying to tell you.

Three things need to be done to Peninsular War's scenario list.

1. The scenarios need to be sorted in some kind of chronological order.

2. It should be immediately obvious when looking at the title of a scenario whether it is historical or not. It's not fair to the people who are playing the game and looking for a scenario to make them read through the short (not always so short!) description to figure out if what they're reading is a what if or not. An abbreviation like (Hist) should always appear in the title, and the first word of every description should either be (Historical) or (What-if). It's not nice to force the uninitiated to read between the lines.

3. It should always be immediately obvious when looking at a scenario title whether it that scenario is solo or head-to-head. Many of the scenarios are marked as solo scenarios, but the rest of the time you're left guessing. The designer (or whoever writes the descriptions) should make sure that it always gets spelled out: a normal user cannot possibly know what is going on inside the designer's head. This information needs to be in the title as well as the description.

This is more a matter of basic editing than anything else. It's also a matter of common courtesy: if I shell out forty bucks I deserve to know what I'm looking at.


In all fairness there is a list in the program notes of the unit types and the corresponding 2D and 3D images. But I don't think anyone thought through what that list is actually supposed to be used for. I realize that one of the game's problems is that there are a lot of individual oob files, but you really need a couple of oob scenarios to make sure that everything is in the right place, at least in theory. I really wish Bill could come out of semi-retirement to crank out a few of those oob scenarios (without which modding a game like this can become a nightmare).

 

[Andrew Bamford]

Philippe, I did the oob work on this game and should be able to create what you are after to go with the first update. Just so that we're on the same wavelength, is what you are after something like the Icons Review scenarios that come with the Bautzen game?

Scenario lists/descriptions would fall into Rich White's side of things, he having done the vast majority of the work there.

 

[Masséna]

I agree with Philippe. Me too I'm a bit confused regarding the OOB and the graphic images. According to me may be helpful a "scenario" , present for instance in Leipzig or Campaign 1814, which in a blank map all units of all nations are shown with their commanders like a parade. For a better understanding regarding the correspondance of a unit with the 3D icons (the figurines on the map) and the file units.bmp in the info folder; ...and leaders too....In general, I' m satisfied because the long-awaited first game about Peninsular War has finally come out! Yes, a little patch is needed, but anyway congratulations and thank you for the work.

 

[Andrew Bamford]

Other than the leader faces, I think that the listing in the game notes does actually provide the information that you want, but I do take the point that it would be easier to follow if laid out in a scenario that could be opened and viewed. As I say, I will create such a scenario in time for the first patch of the game.

In the meantime, the format for the written listing provided in the game notes is:
[unit] [location of image in Units.bmp] [location of 3d icon in relevant file]

What I mean by "in relevant file" is that if an infantry unit it will have this slot in 3dUnits100C, if cavalry in 3dUnits100B, if artillery in 3dUnits100A, and so forth. Note that French and Spanish dragoons have the same numerical slot in both the infantry and cavalry files, to enable dismounting, although the game currently only uses this function for the French.

I would stress that although we tried to cover as many units as possible, it was necessary in some cases to use a single image for a variety of units or unit types that wore a similar uniform - for example, each regular Spanish unit had a slightly different combination of facings, but all we could do was have one image for each distinctive facing colour, so that "Early war Line infantry with Purple facings" covers regiments Rey, Reina, Principe, Soria, and Princessa.

For the leaders, there are a selection of generic faces for each nation at the top of the file, and then faces of specific named individuals. I can create a full listing if people would find this helpful.

 

[Masséna]

Yes Andrew, we are waiting for the patch. The most importang thing is the "Parade" scenario to view all units on a flat and empty "battlefield"!!!
Thank you very much for your answer.

 

[Philippe_at_bay]

Thanks for getting back on this, Andrew.

I have to run out so this message is going to have to be shorter than I would like.

To save you time, the only scenario file I really need is the one Bill calls "Icon Review by 3D#", but the Leader Image scenario from Leipzig would be nice.

I need that file to make sure that all of the units are in the right places and match up with their corresponding images.

I also need that file to correct misalignments in the unit bases. Unfortunately this always needs to be done sprite by sprite for all of the different formations, and what happens is that I end up going back to the 3D image to adjust a particular unit image up, down, left, or right one or two pixels one way or the other. It's maddening work because you never know when something will sit wrong: a unit in line facing up might sit perfectly on its base, but the same unit in column facing to the left can be way off.

Finally, I need that file to make the unit-specific 3D flags. Because the unit sprites never sit exactly where they're supposed to, each set of flags for each horizontal line on the 3D unit images needs to be adjusted to its unit formation by formation and facing by facing.

What I've just described is a mind-numbing number of checks and adjustments, and only a modder would be crazy enough to do it.

The other thing I need is a list of which leader images occupy which image slots on the leader image file. There was a pdf with the names that went with each image in the three Leipzig-related games that I found enormously helpful, but I don't really expect you to put something like that together. There is a leader image scenario in Leipzig, which is the other way to go. There won't be as many portrait images to pull off the internet as for the Leipzig games, but there should be enough. At the end of the day, though, I just need the list of what names go with what image slots. Leader images are the thing that gets mis-coded the most in the oob files, so you can't usually rely on individual scenarios to figure out what portrait should have been used with which name.

There's a lot behind many of the issues I've touched on that would be better not to discuss in a public forum.

 

[Masséna]

Hi all, a graphic mod for Bonaparte's Peninsular War is out:

http://hist-sdc.blogspot.it/2014/12/sdcs-bonapartes-peninsular-war-mod-now.html

downloaded, tried it and it's good because the figurines are clear enough. The author has worked well and he's changed a bit the look of the soldiers and the background colour (terrain): more contrast, more visibility.

I'm working on an OOB: I'd like to rewrite 1810 campaign oob, expecially regarding the distribution and the commanders of French artillery. I have many sources. Can I do this work? I don't want to offend someone. If I have the permission, I'llo go on. Of course any suggestion/criticism or collaboration is welcome, it isn't easy, a sort of rebus...

Best regards

Masséna

 

[trauth116]

Hi all, a graphic mod for Bonaparte's Peninsular War is out:

http://hist-sdc.blogspot.it/2014/12/sdcs-bonapartes-peninsular-war-mod-now.html

downloaded, tried it and it's good because the figurines are clear enough. The author has worked well and he's changed a bit the look of the soldiers and the background colour (terrain): more contrast, more visibility.

I'm working on an OOB: I'd like to rewrite 1810 campaign oob, expecially regarding the distribution and the commanders of French artillery. I have many sources. Can I do this work? I don't want to offend someone. If I have the permission, I'llo go on. Of course any suggestion/criticism or collaboration is welcome, it isn't easy, a sort of rebus...

Best regards

Masséna

Technically, none of the soldiers were changed at all (trust me) ... but the backgrounds that the soldiers appear on were (different file all together). But anyways, I appreciate the kind words.

I wouldn't have replied though it if were only for that, but rather your query.... yes, you can change the OOB files, however I sort of get the impression that you are asking about for inclusion in the title (replace your OOB with the one in the game) - if that is the case, you'd want to get in touch with support at johntillersoftware dot com - Because changing around the OOB would impact any scenario using it, I don't think that the company would want to take on that sort of work, but on the other hand there is no harm in asking.

At the same time, you certainly are able to edit the OOB files, and even the scenarios and campaigns to your liking. The one thing that I would advise though is if you do decide to go this route to backup all of your original files plus also rename your new files to something like alt_your_new_oob.oob and alt_scenario_name.scn ( and pdt if needed, ).

 

[Masséna]

Hi, yes, I agree with you. The soldiers are unchanged, but the different background colours make them more visible. Regarding the OOB, sure I don't want the my new one will be "officially" included in the game. Only to have a more precise OOB. French almost finished; Anglo-Portuguese are already ok in the original one; I'll see for Spanish. Anyway, my OOB is named 1810 Campaign revised, then isn't necessary a back up. So I'll envoy it as soon it'lle be completed.

Thank you

Masséna

 

[trauth116]

Hi Massena,

You know that is exactly what I was trying to do (that and try to get the text to be just that more readable especially for the Spanish). I would be happy to add your revised OOB to the SDC site, just send me over an email when you are ready steve at hist-sdc dot com and I will get it added to the site. Feel free to add some text as to what you changed.

 

[Andrew Bamford]

I'm working on an OOB: I'd like to rewrite 1810 campaign oob, expecially regarding the distribution and the commanders of French artillery. I have many sources. Can I do this work? I don't want to offend someone. If I have the permission, I'llo go on. Of course any suggestion/criticism or collaboration is welcome, it isn't easy, a sort of rebus...

Best regards

Masséna

If you are happy to share your research, I will gladly incorporate it into the stock oob files as well. From memory, the best listing I could find for the French artillery for that campaign had company commanders' names only, and corps-level rather than divisional level assignments: if you are able to provide more details, I can include them in time for the first patch. I am always happy to be corrected if I have made an error, or if more detail can be added. One thing that I would say, though, is that using a fixed campaign oob to cover actions over the course of several months cannot take account of changing organisation during the course of that campaign, so there may have been some compromises there; the file was created over a year ago, so forgive me if I'm a little hazy on the details now.

 

[trauth116]

If you are happy to share your research, I will gladly incorporate it into the stock oob files as well. From memory, the best listing I could find for the French artillery for that campaign had company commanders' names only, and corps-level rather than divisional level assignments: if you are able to provide more details, I can include them in time for the first patch. I am always happy to be corrected if I have made an error, or if more detail can be added. One thing that I would say, though, is that using a fixed campaign oob to cover actions over the course of several months cannot take account of changing organisation during the course of that campaign, so there may have been some compromises there; the file was created over a year ago, so forgive me if I'm a little hazy on the details now.

Or even better .... what Andrew said - plus he is 100% right about the way an OOB file is used in the game; which is not as flexible as real life was, particularly when actions forced adjustments in OOB structures within the context of a campaign (or campaign).

 

[Masséna]

Yes, of course an OOB for a campaign is a compromise. Yesterday I've sent to Andrew my proposition for the "reorganisation" of French campaign artillery. I'll send to Trauth116 today. Sure, it's only a proposition, all discussion will be the welcome. I like this kind of research, in particular if "in team". Anyway, I don't want, doing this, to be critic about Andrew's work, which is really super!

Masséna