suggestions/wishes

[augustus]

Does anyone from HPS frequent these boards? I have a couple of ideas that could be easily added to the series in a patch that I think should be considered.

 

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

Rich Hamilton stops by fairly often so post away.

 

[rahamy]

Almost daily.

 

[augustus]

So far I only have Campaign 1776, and while I didn't like the company size unit scale at first (thought it should be on a battalion/partial regiment level, though some battles are too small even for that) I'm getting used to it. For the most part, there are just a few interface tweaks I'd like to see, and one gameplay option.

1. Map views. I know in the Ancient Wars series it's possible to flip the map so you see the battle from north to south as opposed to south->north. It would be handy to be able to do not only this, but to be able to view the map from the east or west as well. Since I play mostly on the 3D maps with these games, that would be very helpful in seeing the land formation.

2. I think it was in Tiller's Campaign Series that he had "echelon movement" where all units of a group would move as one, not with one unit following another but all moving in the same directions as the unit you have selected. For example, in the EAW games it would allow you to select one unit of a regiment, and then move the entire regiment at once, instead of one unit at a time.

3. There were other interface related things I thought of, but can't remember them now. But the gameplay addition is what I suppose I'll call "Hex-fire." I doubt very much that soldiers in this era were told "See that huge mass of enemy troops? On my signal, fire on the 3rd company..." There should be an option to either have the computer decide what unit is fired on, or that damage done to a hex should be spread out among the different units there, depending on size of the defending units, size of the firing units, etc. The only exception would be artillery, which can be distinguished from other units.

I do have a question about HPS games and the Battleground games regarding the AI. I don't expect the AI to be much of a challenge, but i noticed that in the Battleground series the AI at least moves troops around and shoots at you, while the HPS games from the 18th-19th century, the AI barely does anything. Why is that?

 

[augustus]

Oh yeah, one more thing, though this is more of an opinion than anything else: I think that artillery that only changes its direction facing, without otherwise moving, should be able to fire in that player's offensive fire phase.

 

[rahamy]

So far I only have Campaign 1776, and while I didn't like the company size unit scale at first (thought it should be on a battalion/partial regiment level, though some battles are too small even for that) I'm getting used to it. For the most part, there are just a few interface tweaks I'd like to see, and one gameplay option.

It does take a bit to get used to after you have played the other engines, but I do enjoy it myself.

1. Map views. I know in the Ancient Wars series it's possible to flip the map so you see the battle from north to south as opposed to south->north. It would be handy to be able to do not only this, but to be able to view the map from the east or west as well. Since I play mostly on the 3D maps with these games, that would be very helpful in seeing the land formation.

A pretty big undertaking really...not only would it require programming, but it would also involve significant amounts of artwork...can't honestly say I see it happening, sorry.

2. I think it was in Tiller's Campaign Series that he had "echelon movement" where all units of a group would move as one, not with one unit following another but all moving in the same directions as the unit you have selected. For example, in the EAW games it would allow you to select one unit of a regiment, and then move the entire regiment at once, instead of one unit at a time.

Possible, but various factors like terrain would slow some units and not others...so the entire command would be slowed. Might be possible to include as an optional rule. I'm assuming you mean this for when the unit is deployed in Line formation on the battlefield and the entire force would move forward as one?

3. There were other interface related things I thought of, but can't remember them now. But the gameplay addition is what I suppose I'll call "Hex-fire." I doubt very much that soldiers in this era were told "See that huge mass of enemy troops? On my signal, fire on the 3rd company..." There should be an option to either have the computer decide what unit is fired on, or that damage done to a hex should be spread out among the different units there, depending on size of the defending units, size of the firing units, etc. The only exception would be artillery, which can be distinguished from other units.

Also possible, though don't know how likely it will be for anything to get implemented with no new title on the short list for release...changes like this are usually tied to a release and then rolled out to the older titles - and the last round of updates put in a lot of changes to the series.

I do have a question about HPS games and the Battleground games regarding the AI. I don't expect the AI to be much of a challenge, but i noticed that in the Battleground series the AI at least moves troops around and shoots at you, while the HPS games from the 18th-19th century, the AI barely does anything. Why is that?

Send me a specific scenario to look at...could simply be a "flag" issue in the header which tells the AI what to do. Scripting yields a better result, but is very time consuming and also redundant, so not great for replay, so many scenarios will use the generic AI orders instead.

 

[rahamy]

Oh yeah, one more thing, though this is more of an opinion than anything else: I think that artillery that only changes its direction facing, without otherwise moving, should be able to fire in that player's offensive fire phase.

Not within the scope of a 5 minute turn...artillery of this period was not highly mobile.

 

[augustus]

Can't seem to get quotes to work in this reply...

1. As for different views for the 3D map, I actually had thought that would be the easiest thing to do. Though I don't know how your maps are put together.

2. Echelon movement--it's true that all units in a formation may not be able to make all the movements you want, in which case in my mind you'd hear the "Windows 'ping'" or whatever, and a notice will appear in the status bar at the bottom of the screen saying "All units in formation cannot make requested move." Actually, this would be a nice feature to have with column movement as well, because unless the column is on a road there is a tendency for companies to get seperated, and I'd rather have the computer tell me this is about to happen, before it happens.

3. This is actually my favorite idea, though I know that like you said, updates are usually tied to a release. It's too bad I didn't get into this series before you released MAW. But it always struck me as odd, with the BG series and these HPS titles, that you can choose which unit to shoot at when facing a mass of enemy troops.

That's a good point abut the artillery thing... I think I was thinking of the ACW games.

 

[skrantsky]

The suggestion about varying the map views is a very good one. As I play almost entirely against the Ai or solitaire this would add a wonderful new dimension to the games. Also, as I play against the Ai so frequently, over the years I have alot of experience with both the HPS AI and the Talonsoft AI. The primary difference between the two is the care that is (was) taken in scenario script writing. The Talonsoft scenarios not only almost always HAVE an AI script, but they have multiple scripts that are written with care and deliberation. This is why the Talonsoft AI seems better than the HPS AI. AI script writing is very easy to do and I recommend you try it yourself. The EAW scenarios are really fun to write scripts for and you can write three or four per scenario so that every time you play you never quite know what to expect. Also, I use a cup of chits to really make my games interesting when playing against the AI. Before each of my turns I blindly draw from a cup of ten chits. Seven of the chits are green and three are red. If I draw a green chit I take my turn normally. If I draw a red chit I forfeit my move and offensive fire phases. I always get my defensive fire but I never quite know when I'll lose my movement phase and offensive fire. This forces me to play much more conservatively......It works great....

 

[rahamy]

I would agree more of the TS scenarios had scripts, but in all fairness each HPS game has about 5 times as many scenarios, maps, etc. - not to mention campaigns. I think we would have heard many calls of "milking it" if we would have split the AWI up into say 4 games & included less scenarios with each in order to do more scripting. Hard to say...

 

[skrantsky]

Fair enough......But I do "wish/suggest" that those that design scenarios and write scripts actually watch what the AI does with the script before including it in the game package. Many times I've found that making very minor alterations to stock AI scripts makes a HUGE difference in how the AI performs....isn't this a function of playtesting?

 

[rahamy]

I wasn't on board for 1776, and of the 400+ scenarios in the remaining three games of the series its hard to comment on specifics. I do remember though for at least 1812 we chose to use the general "flags" for the AI rather than issuing specific scripts.

If some unexpected time presents itself I'll see if I can go back and do some scripting for the older games...time is something I have a hard time coming by these days though.

 

[skrantsky]

My beefs are primarily with the ACW games. I'd like to email you privately if possible.

 

[rahamy]

Support at hpssims.com

 

[Jose Luis]

I propose that the units can form a "square" as follows:

Set the menu option in the command menu when stacked four units (companies) formed in line faced on all four sides.

What do you think?

 

[rahamy]

The square wasn't a common formation used on the North American continent really, as cavalry wasn't a large player in most of the wars fought. Can you provide examples of where units did form square in the time periods covered by these 4 games?

 

[AlAmos]

As Rich said, battalion squares weren't common, but the armies did know the drill on how to use them.

Cavalry was present at some of the larger battles during the AWI, but unfortunately the game isn't designed to allow players to use it in its charge function. I wish cavarly was given charge capabilities. After a few charges players would learn if the historical usage was appropriate or not.

For multiple company squares, you can still do that, and while you don't get any melee bonus you do negate the melee in the rear/flank bonus your opponent would get. They still can fire on the rear/flank of some of the companies in the hex, so the 'square' does have its appropriate penalty to fire. BTW, the square could be used by a battalion or detachment that found itself surrounded on three or four sides by the enemy.

Individual companies drilled to form square, and did in the War of 1812 during battle, and it was in the drill book for the Mexican American War. I would like to see this ability given to infantry in these two titles, especially, although it would be useful in the other two titles as well, particularly in the smaller scenarios with small detachments fighting Indians, or defending small forts.

al

 

[Xaver]

Well, i think that AlAmos refers to squares of "dead", last stand situations where troops try to defend more than their frontal 180º, other situation si the defend of constructions or forts, in the old "age of rifles" you can give the order of take a defensive position, strong in melee, average in fire and very usefull when you want stop enemy using terrain, at least fortifications have an use in the game not as in MAW where yo need many troops to defend them because even in a big building units have flanks!!!.

 

[trauth116]

I am not advocating for this one way or the other. I did see that they were drilling in square formation as late as the early portion of the Civil War as well (came across a photo of it the other day in fact).

 

[AlAmos]

No Xaver, not really, but at times it can become a dead man's square.

Basically, it is a very useful tool to help isolated units get back to friendly lines, etc.