Poll - 1813 - One Game or Two?

[Sgt_Rock]

If you had your choice would you prefer to see:

1. 1813 done in one title even if it means that development time is cut short and the historical element is weaker than if two titles had been done.

2. 1813 done in two games: Winter/Spring Campaign for one title (Campaign Bautzen?) and the Fall Campaign for the other (Campaign Leipzig).

3. Doesn't matter to me - I would buy it in either format. I just want to be sure that the game has good content either way.

Note: we did 1809 in two titles. The concern over 1813 is that the economy may not hold for two titles on 1813. This campaign has more content by far. If we do the campaign in one title just know that there would not be alot of what-if situations and that some of the scenarios would have to be hurried through the process.

Some might say: why not do 1807 in two titles - after all two books cover the campaign by some authors. I think that the objection would be that 1813 involves something like 30+ Major and medium sized actions whereas 1807 only had about 10 of that size.

 

[Philippe_at_bay]

Two titles, without question.

It's almost like two different wars, and the strategic concerns are very different. Napoleon is a juggernaut on the offensive in Campaign Bautzen sweeping from west to east, but he's got a relatively green army and he's short on cavalry. He wins many victories but can't exploit success. Too many of his veterans never left Russia, and his enemies are learning.

He's still nominally on the offensive for most of Campaign Leipzig, and his army has gotten rid of many of its opening night jitters. But it's a war on many fronts, he can't be everywhere at once, and the enemy advances where he doesn't attack. He's surrounded by a snarling ring of enemies, and the noose keeps getting drawn tighter and tighter...

If you try to tie the two halves together, you've got the unenviable task of coming up with a convincing set of rules for the Armistice.

You'll need two sets of orders of battle for the French anyway, with different morale values even when the units are the same. And there are far too many major battles to cover for just once game. There may even be too many for Campaign Leipzig.

 

[cuco]

I also think two titles are the best option without no doubt.

I totally agree with the facts exposed in the previous post. As for the economy issues, I hope that economy will be fixed by the time these games could see the light. In my case, if I could pre-order both games right now, I will do it without hesitation !!

 

[wlh]

I agree that it should be two titles rather than one.

 

[Xaver]

The problem with 2 titles is that wait 2 releases not 1, i prefer only 1 title BUT with all include with a high price sorry but if HPS dont start to use a download system isnt funny buy the game and 3 moths later buy another because after... 2-3 releases i pay another game only in sending costs.

 

[Marshal Lannes]

Greetings Fellow Napoleonists -I consider myself to be fairly new to HPS games, having accidentally come across their website 2 years ago; although that said I did obsess about Napoleonics about a ddecade ago. I remember fondly a game by Avalon Hill which had a brilliant map of the leipzig campaign area and from using that and having read extensively on the subject. I think that a single game would be too limited in scope to deal with the numbers and nuances of the 1813 Campaign. Scripting for the 4 major battles , 2 medium and a few smaller others would be too limiting. I understand that these games are better played head to head but a more concentrated effort at getting the campaign structure to at least make positioning moves correctly would in my view be a nightmare if it was just one game. Ap:smoke:art from that, I am going to have to be a bit of a buttkisser and say that if it is done as two games- I am willing to pay twice if not just for the reason that I am glad that HPS exists to give us such cool games and so kind of deserves to make the extra dosh. Jamming stuff in is not a good idea. TWO---Please ! and a chocolate biscuit served by nubile female... Merraaaaaw !

 

[mojocincinnati]

2 Games: Lutzen/Bautzen and Dresden/ Leipzig.
J Kester

 

[Nikel]

Bill Peters commented some time ago in the NWC that a napoleonic game was upcoming, any news on this? :yummy:


1813 is of course one of possibilities, so another question, finally one or two games?

Looking at the timeline and battles two games would be a bit asymmetric, would it not?


Essentially the battles were:

Lützen 2 may

Bautzen 20-21 may


Armistice of Pleischwitz 4 June-20 July-16 August


Großbeeren 23 august

Katzbach 26 august

Dresden 26-27 august

Kulm 29-30 august


Dennewitz 6 september

Göhrde 16 september

Leipzig 16-19 september

Hanau 30-31 october


So where is the cut? For this reason probably Nafziger divided 1813 campaign in 3 books, Bautzen, Dresden and Leipzig :crosseye:

 

[Sgt_Rock]

Spring and Fall would be the dividing line. I would add in the Russo-Swedish War of 1808-09 to the Spring Campaign game. That would be the bonus to help fill out the title. BUT the Spring game would also have plenty of action from the main theater and also would include a campaign that would allow the French to rescue their besieged garrisons.

Similar to Eckmuhl and Wagram. You would have a preliminary period in the Spring game where small actions between the advancing Russians and liberated Prussians would attack retreating French formations and then you would have the events of the early days of Napoleon reinforcing the army with Soult's wing. Battles such as Lutzen early on and then a Bautzen or something similar later or several actions added in. Considering the scale of the campaign and what I could include if it was two titles I think that going with that format is best. Wagram and Eckmuhl showed us that we can have two titles per "war" and it allows the Scenario Designer to pour more time into the production and give the gamer a better product.

 

[Nikel]

Thanks for the detailed answer, but you did not comment on the first question


allow the French to rescue their besieged garrisons?

That reminds me of a 1813 spring campaign NCP AAR, the french fortresses highlighted with blue circles






On the Vistula line, Danzig (very strong under general Rapp), Thorn, Modlin and Zamosc

On the Oder, Stettin, Kustrin and Glogau

Elbe line, Magdeburg and Thorgau (saxons)


If I may ask, what garrisons could be rescued in the game? :crosseye:


Yes, everybody that posted in this thread agreed in 2 games for more detail, but after looking to the dates of the battles I was curious about the dividing line because there were more content in the second part


A side show in 1813 was the end of one of the russo-persian wars, battle of Lenkoran, but who had heard of it? Cannot find it in Digby Smith's Data Book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War_(1804–1813)

 

[Sgt_Rock]

Actually I would not be able to give you a firm answer. Our feeling is that two games is the way to go. It would all depend on whether the customer reaction FOR THE MOST PART (not one or two or even ten emails but a TON of customer email in reaction to releasing ONE of the games and telling folks we plan on doing the second later) would say "We feel ripped off and will not buy the first title" or something like that. I really do not see it going that way so I would say openly that two games is the way we would LIKE to go. Not only does it make sense but it is a better fit. It also helps with recoup our artwork that we would have to spend on the 1813-14 games (1814 being its own game but I would add in a special add-in item to make it more robust just like I would do that with the Bautzen game). Putting out three titles that use the same artwork is a much more sound business move too. Putting out two just doesn't justify the expense of something like 280+ icons! (figure that Joe Amoral can do about 7 of them a day max)

So that is the best I can tell you. Our plans are to do two if in fact we do the 1813 campaign. And a 1814 game would be a must to help recoup the expense of the artwork. Add in a couple of "freebies" that I would add in to the mix and the gamer would have more scenarios to play than they can shake a stick at.

If we DID go with one game I would just bundle Lutzen and Bautzen into the Fall game and NOT do a Spring campaign file. Just too much to ask me to do for ONE title. And I think that is why the polls I have been doing came out the way they did. Most folks realize that given the funding for TWO projects I will do up a smashing job rather than a half-baked one on ONE title. So we shall see how it all goes eventually.

Ooops forgot - if I do a second title for 1813 then I would add in one monster campaign file that would link the Spring campaign to the Fall campaign provided both sides agreed to a ceasefire. Otherwise the war would go on ...

 

[Nikel]

Thanks for all the comments, they are more than welcomed! :clown:


But you managed to confuse me, now I am not so sure that the Vol.1 of 1813 is the upcoming game :crosseye:


Hmmm, I think that I have lost a bet