AOE: Why is everyone applauding a C&C/Warcraft clone?
Steve Mathers
I dont get it. Whay all the fuss about a game that is basically
just C&c with different graphics? When I first booted up the demo I
thought -- cool, the hittites...historical background..ooh-aah, nice
graphics...this could be good. Then what hapens? I find myself playing
yet another clone game plopped out of the grist-mill like so much spam.
The 'historical' justification for the scenarios turns out to be
laughable. 'your spys must leave behind their bronze-age technology so
you will have to build up from scratch' What kind of crap is that?
Sigh. When is somebody going to take a risk and design something original
and unique (and good)?
Stef.
--
-------------------------------------------------
st...@bf.rmit.edu.au
-------------------------------------------------
Icky
Steve Mathers wrote in message <61q6vk$39v$1...@aggedor.rmit.edu.au>...
>I dont get it. Whay all the fuss about a game that is basically
>just C&c with different graphics? When I first booted up the demo I
>thought -- cool, the hittites...historical background..ooh-aah, nice
>graphics...this could be good. Then what hapens? I find myself playing
>yet another clone game plopped out of the grist-mill like so much spam.
>The 'historical' justification for the scenarios turns out to be
>laughable. 'your spys must leave behind their bronze-age technology so
>you will have to build up from scratch' What kind of crap is that?
>
>Sigh. When is somebody going to take a risk and design something original
>and unique (and good)?
>
>Stef.
They have. Seven Kingdoms: Coming Soon.
Ick
Gregg Charlton
Sens wrote:
>
> Some compared AOE to Civ (in their wet dreams). You can do better by
> trying the next product from Sid himself, Sid Meyer's Gettysburg, from
> Firaxis. It is a real-time wargame, using both texture-mapped units
> and bitmaps for scenery. I think it has 5-6 levels of zoom, and 4
> compass-point viewing angles. Multiplayable, using DirectPlay (IPX
> for LAN, TCP/IP for Internet, Serial, Modem). Go to www.firaxis.com
> and check out the specs.
That's the game I'm awaiting. Overall, the ability to issue orders to
individual regiments or entire brigades, true terrain effects, scheduled
(and, hence, limited) reinforcements, morale effects, leadership,
varying styles of AI (direct, indirect, flexible etc.) give Gettysburg
the potential to be one of the more innovative releases of 1997. I'd
also love to try TA but I just don't have the necessary hardware.
--
Gregg Charlton
Darkhosis
Don't rush out and buy Sid Meier's Gettysburg. I haven't been overly
impressed myself. Might want to wait for more reviews to see if Civil
War General 2 beats it out.
Darkhosis
Critical Bill
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997 07:06:56 GMT, jkf...@unix.tamu.edu (Darkhosis)
wrote:
>Don't rush out and buy Sid Meier's Gettysburg. I haven't been overly
>impressed myself. Might want to wait for more reviews to see if Civil
>War General 2 beats it out.
I agree 100%. Maybe I'm missing something, but the game was entirely
underwhelming and I was left wondering what Sid was thinking.
It's like an old Civil War movie that you very limited control over.
And the pace makes Myst look like an action game. :>
-
Exclusive Nippolena Interview!! http://www.pathcom.com/~kenl/interview.htm
BattleCruiser 3000 AD FAQ! http://www.pathcom.com/~kenl/bc3kfaq.htm
"Game Junkets: Gift or Graft" http://www.gamepen.com/therapy/industrial/bill.html
Mark Asher
jkf...@unix.tamu.edu (Darkhosis) wrote:
snip
>
>Don't rush out and buy Sid Meier's Gettysburg. I haven't been overly
>impressed myself. Might want to wait for more reviews to see if Civil
>War General 2 beats it out.
Yes, not everything Sid touches is golden. Magic: the Gathering was
underwhelming, despite what the mags said. A wait and see attitude is
usually a good idea.
Mark Asher
Vorlin
Sens <se...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<622hjd$j...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> Gregg Charlton <gregg.a....@lmco.com> wrote:
>
--> Snipped a very nice and detailed game review <--
Nice review, thanks. When I first saw the title of this game I was worried
it was -just- Gettysburg (hard to see that one turning out other than it
did) but the way you described it sounds more like a must-buy game for me,
I'll have to keep my eye on it.
Cmdr Krud
SNIP.......... (excellent review)
> I would certainly suggest this game to any wargamer. It is more
> complex than your average C&C clone, so I don't think it will rival
> the DR's and TA's in terms of popularity, but it easily wins out over
> any computer wargame you care name, real-time or turn-based.
>
> Afterthoughts: In a way, this game reminds me of the old SSI Civil
> War games (Antietam, Gettysburg) I played on my 286 AT clone. Of
> course, the SSI games were just each single battles (with minor
> variants), and units were rectangular bars being drawn on a 320x200x4
> CGA screen. It feels the same. May be all Civil War games feel the
> same? I don't know. The US Civ War isn't my forte, and up until SMG,
> I haven't played many computer Civ War games. I tried SMG because it
> is real-time (you can pause to give orders, just in case I didn't
> mention that) and not your uninspired turn-based rehash from some
> boardgame. With minor changes, I can see this engine refitted for the
> Napoleonic era.
Thanks for the excellent review! I was going to pick up AOE today but now
I'm having second thoughts. I may get this one instead. It sounds like a
nice change of pace from the RTS games that have come out this fall.
-Krud
radiospace
a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens):
> There are also various bugle calls, although I
>haven't gotten around to use them yet.
>
Cool. Does the bugle come with the game, or do you have to buy it
separately?
Patrick
_____________________________________________________________________
"Rest assured that my decisions always have in mind the ultimate good.
I shall now ask you some test questions, as a security measure."
_____________________________________________________________________
*Disclaimer*: These are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect
those of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Ian Firth
Sens wrote:
> The game has beautiful graphics for a wargame. The 3-D texture-mapped
> units allow for different view angles.
The game is beautiful, but those troops are 2D sprites.
The map is 3D, but the rest isn't.
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Diversions Software - Game Development - http://www.divsoft.com
Home of Prairie Dog Hunt PRO '97 - DS Sporting Clays
Cmdr Krud
radiospace <radio...@earthlink.net*remove*> wrote in article
<34455332...@news.earthlink.net>...
> a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
> se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens):
>
> > There are also various bugle calls, although I
> >haven't gotten around to use them yet.
> >
>
> Cool. Does the bugle come with the game, or do you have to buy it
> separately?
>
Boy, that must be one big box!
-Krud
Paul Roberts
> > a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
> > se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens):
> >
> > > There are also various bugle calls, although I
> > >haven't gotten around to use them yet.
> >
> > Cool. Does the bugle come with the game, or do you have to buy it
> > separately?
>
> Boy, that must be one big box!
> -Krud
>
Actually, the game comes with two bugles, one for the North and one for the
South. The Northern bugle is heavier and more accurate, reflecting a
significant industrial advantage, but the Southern bugle does have a
*lovely* drawl.
--Paul Roberts
Brian Reynolds
Thanks for your cogent review. I'll try to respond to some of your
questions where appropriate. For the things where I just have to go
"hmmmm" I'll pass them on to the rest of the design team.
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
(More embedded below...)
Sens wrote:
>
> Gregg Charlton <gregg.a....@lmco.com> wrote:
>
[Various intermittent snippage]
> I'm playing the campaign game on the Confed side (lvl 3 difficulty,
> prudent, flexible) and the game is TOUGH. And for the first time ever
> for a computer wargame, I'm happy to say that it is tough to win
> because it is a good game with a decent AI.
Comment: the 3rd level of AI (Doubleday/Longstreet) is what we call
the "fair" level, where you play by exactly the same rules as the
computer. At the highest level, your men are slightly more "brittle",
and will break more quickly under fire (though they take the same
number of casualties). At lower levels the computer-controlled men
are slightly more brittle.
>Skirmish will take hits to morale when moving (why?).
Movement in skirmish is a "disorganizing" influence (which is why
they didn't just move in skirmish all the time). Disorganization is
a large part of what is being simulated in the morale bar.
>There are also various bugle calls, although I
> haven't gotten around to use them yet.
I should clarify the purpose of these-- as you play the game, you may
hear bugle calls from time to time. These are the orders the -enemy-
player is giving to his troops, and represent a bit of free intelligence
to you (by contrast, when you give orders to your own troops, you hear
the officer shouting the order). The "bugle calls" menu lets you hear
the standard bugle calls so that you can try to identify the ones you're
hearing the enemy give. Sorry if this wasn't clear.
> 1) No waypoints. This isn't as major a problem as with other games,
> as most of the SMG battles start with your units mostly in position,
> and you don't get to run around a whole lot in SMG battles. Still,
> waypoints would be nice for flanking manuevers and for bringing
> reinforcements to the front with just a one-time plot rather than
> separate plots.
Yes. Kind of falls into the "nice things we didn't get around to"
category, though partially it helps to spice up team games (cooperation
becomes more necessary).
> 2) Roads are useless. Because of problem #1, you don't have the
> luxury of plotting move paths along a winding road, but just a
> straight line to wherever you're going.
If you put your brigade in Road Column, they will attempt to follow
roads, trails, and pikes, along their path. You'll usually want to get
them lined up on the road first if possible, since they won't vastly
detour out of their path to get onto a road, but will tend to stay on
them once they're on. Not a perfect solution, I admit, and we'll keep
working on it for the next game at least, but perhaps better than you
thought on first glance.
> 3) Calvary looks just like infantry. The only thing that tells them
> apart is their unit name. I only found that I had calvary in the
> first campaign battle as the Union when I took casualties (calvary is
> 2X points in casualty). Up to that time, I was using them as line
> infantry.
Couple items here:
* First is that cavalry looked and fought quite like infantry at this
period.
* Second is that in Sid Meier's Gettysburg, the flags on cavalry
regiments are actually different from infantry flags (those little
streamers).
* Third is they of course look quite different when you actually mount
them up, which you can do by clicking the Column button for a regiment
(won't be visible unless the commander is nearby) or Attaching them to
the brigade and clicking the "Maneuver" or "Road" button for the brigade
commander.
> 4) No way to turn off the trees/houses.
Try the "Small trees and houses" preference. We've also had a couple
requests for a "No trees and houses" option, which we're considering
adding in a patch.
> 5) The disappear/reappearing terrain when you're moving the map. I
> can get used to the disorientation, but it takes a split second for
> the map to reset every time you scroll it, and all those split seconds
> add to more slowdown. I finally choose a higher zoom-out setting than
> I would like so that I can cut down on the scrolling (I'm playing in
> 800x600x64K on in 17" monitor).
Yes, the other major complaint cropping up. We're definitely putting in
a "no disappearing terrain" preference in a patch, for those with higher
performance machines. For lower end machines, there is also the
preference for simply disabling the scrolling (combine this with the
preference that makes right-clicks center the man, and use left-drag to
move your units around).
> 6) In corollary with #5, map rotates take about a second to complete,
> plus the disappear/reappear thing, it takes about 2 seconds. For a
> 180-degree rotate, you hit the key 4 times, and the map would rotate
> once, pause, twice, pause, third time, pause, and fourth time. It's
> way too slow.
The "2" key does a 180 degree rotate all at once, and more quickly, I
believe.
> 7) When move plotting a brigade, regiments always want to switch
> places in the formation when the new plot facing is 45 degrees or more
> removed from their original facing, e.g. the left-most regiment wants
> to switch places with its righthand neighbor. This makes for
> considerably longer maneuvering, which is always bad when you're doing
> it under fire.
The formula we settled on is to redeploy the regiments in the way which
causes the -least total distance- to be travelled. This sometimes
apparently gives an individual regiment a "bad deal". On the other hand,
when you're actually under infantry fire, regimental-level commands are
often best anyway.
> 8) Artillery are drawn too large. They obscure adjacent infantry
> units.
Hmmmm.
> 9) As it stands, the game still requires a considerable number of
> pauses to give commands and make adjustments, so for multiplay (i.e.
> nonstop play) to be workable, the player's command capacity is limited
> to one brigade, or perhaps two brigs at best, which means that you
> can't really play a full battle with just one other opponent (well,
> you can, but your troops won't behave too well). With a number of
> technical improvements (waypoints, map scrolling/rotating, terrain
> minimizing, more keyboard shortcuts, etc), the command capacity can be
> enlarged. Of course, you can always set game speed slower than the
> default, but that will stretch the time required for a multiplay
> session to probably 150-200%.
I think you'll find this to be more a matter of experience (I can
remember back when I had to pause the game to give orders). Also, when
you're playing multiplayer everyone has the same pressure you have (you
don't have the feeling of the computer always being able to exactly
adjust all its troops).
> Bugs:
>
> 1) The game sometimes won't unpause, and I have to do an Alt-Tab to
> another app and an Alt-Tab back to get the game to start running
> again.
Hmmmm. We'll look at that
> against in a computer game (chess excluding). After assessing the
> size of the Union forces (the casualties screen will show the total
> number of troops on each side at end of the battle), it seemed like
> the computer was pretty substantially favored in terms of force ratios
> (it had slightly less than mine, but more arty, and of course better
> cover).
Actually, the -Union- side may be slightly favored in this scenario, but
not the -computer-; if you switched sides you'd get the same advantages.
When you reach this scenario in the campaign game, the Confederates have
been winning all day and are now trying to stretch their victory to a
major accomplishment (taking cemetery hill), which is of course a
difficult one. The advantage is in the context of the campaign.
> One complaint I have for battle #4 (Battle for Culp's Hill)
> is that you don't have time to rearrange your defenses in any major
> way before the Union forces attack your position. The default layout
> has the weakest brigade facing the strongest Union attacks, and they
> just can't hold up. Anyway, I'll probably figure it out.
This is of course intended as a "feature"--force you to make hasty
preparations for an attack.
If anyone has any further questions, I'd be glad to answer them here, or
on our website (http://www.firaxis.com).
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
(co-designer, Sid Meier's Gettysburg)
Gregg Charlton
First off I must say that your review of SMG was one of the best I've
read in quite some time. With the possible exception of GDR, your review
was much better than those offered by the online and print magazines.
Sens wrote:
<snip, excellent description of game>
> Problems:
>
> 1) No waypoints. This isn't as major a problem as with other games,
> as most of the SMG battles start with your units mostly in position,
> and you don't get to run around a whole lot in SMG battles. Still,
> waypoints would be nice for flanking manuevers and for bringing
> reinforcements to the front with just a one-time plot rather than
> separate plots.
If you bring in reinforcements by clicking on just the final
destination, will they follow a reasonably intelligent route?
>
> 2) Roads are useless. Because of problem #1, you don't have the
> luxury of plotting move paths along a winding road, but just a
> straight line to wherever you're going.
I thought I saw a screen shot that showed an icon for road movement.
Doesn't that force a given regt/brigade to stay on the road?
>
> 3) Calvary looks just like infantry. The only thing that tells them
> apart is their unit name. I only found that I had calvary in the
> first campaign battle as the Union when I took casualties (calvary is
> 2X points in casualty). Up to that time, I was using them as line
> infantry.
Cavalry *was* just like infantry during the ACW. The large number of
trees in the U.S. precluded Napoleonic-style cavalry charges. Wasn't
there some way to order the cavalry to mount up? Tradionally cavalry was
treated as modern mechanized infantry, i.e., they used their enhanced
mobility to flank the enemy, dismount, and entrench. When mounted,
cavalry was also effectively used to scout out the enemy positions.
>
< snip, points 4 and 5 >
>
> 6) In corollary with #5, map rotates take about a second to complete,
> plus the disappear/reappear thing, it takes about 2 seconds. For a
> 180-degree rotate, you hit the key 4 times, and the map would rotate
> once, pause, twice, pause, third time, pause, and fourth time. It's
> way too slow.
Can you lower the resolution to speed things up?
>
> 7) When move plotting a brigade, regiments always want to switch
> places in the formation when the new plot facing is 45 degrees or more
> removed from their original facing, e.g. the left-most regiment wants
> to switch places with its righthand neighbor. This makes for
> considerably longer maneuvering, which is always bad when you're doing
> it under fire.
The shift in left-right order may be modeled after the way regiments
historically moved when pivoting. I'm not sure as my military history is
a bit rusty.
>
> 8) Artillery are drawn too large. They obscure adjacent infantry
> units.
From the screen shots I've seen, it *does* look like the arty was scaled
a bit better in the Talonsoft ACW games.
< more snippage>
>
> Here's an example of play. This play is when I won a decisive victory
> after about 4-5 tries.
It's refreshing that it took you several tries to gain a victory. I've
found the AI to be so bad in the Talonsoft ACW games that I was able to
achieve decisive victories in my first try.
<snip, description of epic battle>
>
> I would certainly suggest this game to any wargamer. It is more
> complex than your average C&C clone, so I don't think it will rival
> the DR's and TA's in terms of popularity, but it easily wins out over
> any computer wargame you care name, real-time or turn-based.
You've sold me. I'll probably buy it today.
>
> Afterthoughts: In a way, this game reminds me of the old SSI Civil
> War games (Antietam, Gettysburg) I played on my 286 AT clone. Of
> course, the SSI games were just each single battles (with minor
> variants), and units were rectangular bars being drawn on a 320x200x4
> CGA screen. It feels the same. May be all Civil War games feel the
> same? I don't know. The US Civ War isn't my forte, and up until SMG,
> I haven't played many computer Civ War games. I tried SMG because it
> is real-time (you can pause to give orders, just in case I didn't
> mention that) and not your uninspired turn-based rehash from some
> boardgame. With minor changes, I can see this engine refitted for the
> Napoleonic era.
I'm sure the RT aspect gives the gamer a real feel for the ebb and flow
of an actual battle rather than settling for artifical I-go-you-go
system of the other wargames avaiable. Also, it might be a good thing
that units get out of control sometimes as no real commander has the
absolute control over his units as is modeled in the current generation
turn-based games.
--
Gregg Charlton
Brian Reynolds
Sens wrote:
> This means that the troops have to go that far (4-5 times
> the length of a normal column) to form up the column, because the
> column can move, and being under arty fire all that time. Also,
> mounted movement isn't perceptibly faster than normal road-column
> movement (for other troops), and you can't charge with it.
If you imagine infantry moving in battle line as speed "1", then
infantry moving in column is speed "2" and cavalry moving in column is
speed "3". Columns moving along a road or pike get a 50% bonus (so speed
"3" for infantry or "4.5" for cavalry).
Skirmishers move at speed 1.5 (and I agree this is an excellent and
historical use for dismounted cavalry).
One thing to keep in mind is that you don't have to completely "form up"
your column before you can start moving it-- just drag your unit where
you want it to go, then click the Column button (or Maneuver or Road for
a brigade).
I personally find mounted cavalry excellent for emergency reserves (can
redeploy quickly) and for penetration of the enemy rear for harassment
purposes.
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Brian Reynolds
Hi James,
Thanks for your feedback, and before you give up let me mention a
feature or two you may not be aware of--
Go to your preferences and select "more units in scenarios". Also, play
on one of the highest difficulty levels, which further increases
scenario size. If you'd tried "Pickett's Charge" or "The Peach Orchard"
thinking they'd be big, and then were disappointed, try them again with
those settings and be pleasantly surprised. Once you max out your size
settings, Pickett's Charge is REALLY Pickett's Charge, with all the
units that actually participated available. You'll probably find that a
significant improvement.
The full versions of scenarios tend to include inactive troops in other
parts of the line (the "other corps" you mentioned) that prevent
unrealistic flanking maneuvers. These were removed from the lower
difficulty level versions of scenarios, because newer players often
found them baffling.
The full versions also have more variants and "surprises", units showing
up in unexpected places, etc. (see also the "Random Scenario"
generator).
Also, since it sounds like you're a BIG SCENARIO fan (like me, actually,
and I actually made most of the large ones), you'll want to try some of
the huge scenarios: "The Second Day: Echelon Attack!" (Longstreet and AP
Hill against the III, V, and II corps). Also "The First Day" which
coversthe whole first day meeting engagement (Hill and Ewell against I,
XI, XII Corps).These were really intended for multiplayer team games,
since they're so HUGE, but you can play them single player.
I think once you play some of the really big ones you'll see why we
think they're pretty much the limit for this scale--at a regimental
level game with only about a 5-1 speedup of realtime, even a full day
scenario is quite an undertaking.
One of our goals in creating Gettysburg is to give you the "feel of
really being there". In the Civil War books we've read, the really
gripping part of a battle so often takes place at the regiment and
brigade level (the charge of the 20th Maine on Little Round Top, etc),
we thought we'd be leaving out the best part if we abstracted to a
purely corps/division level. I think a corps/division level game on this
topic would be more of a "Lee's Invasion of Pennsylvania" game, since 9
times out of 10 the battle wouldn't be fought at Gettysburg. We thought
the most fun to be had was in a tactical level game with the chance to
fight for all of those famous historic landmarks.
You may also enjoy trying a Random scenario w/ the size set to "Major
Battle".
I'd be glad to answer any other questions you have -- Thanks for
playing!
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
James Dusek wrote:
>
> DharmaZ wrote:
> > Great game and good support and feedback out of the gate!
> > I'm telling ebryone about this one at work - it's a real keeper.
>
> Right now, I disagree, and it may go back.
>
> SMG has a great concept, and a great combat engine, but fails
> to execute.
>
> Good Things.
>
> The combat engine is really good. There are alot of good options
> and it is really easy to controll. One can get into the game and start
> ordering troops around with minimal reading of the manual. The interface
> is extreamly well done, as is the presentation of the units and
> battlefield.
>
> Things that need improvement. ( i.e. Bad things.)
>
> As a protrayal of the battle of Gettysburg this game fails. This is
> based on my perception of the combat engine. While it is good, for some
> reason they do not attempt to portray any large scale battles, say
> battles of over 4 union corps or 2 confederate corps. ( A confederate
> corp was about the size of 2-3 union corps.) I do not know of the
> combat engine cannot handle this, or if it was based on some other
> decision.
>
> This means you fight the battle of Gettysburg a slice at a time.
> And this slice is extreamly small. While they do a good jod of linking
> the slices, it fails to portray the epic struggle that Gettysburg was.
> I wanted the game to start you off at 7:30 AM july 1, and have it run
> until 7:00 PM July 3. I wanted to fight the whole battle, get the
> reenforcements, place them in line, charge them, ect. As it stands, you
> do not have this luxury. You cannot decide to try and totally flank the
> union left, ect. Your forced to follow their scenario paths, which
> follow your progress.
>
> This game should have been Sid Meier's Civil War. A collection
> of small scale engagements. The breaking up of the big battle really
> ruined it for me. By doing this I am able to do things that were
> impossible in the real battle. In one of the scenarios I was able to
> pull off a wide flanking manuver which the computer didn't respond to,
> and in history would have been stopped by another corp. You are also
> able to leave your flanks open once all enemy troops are seen, and there
> is 0 chance of another unit showing up.
>
> This game would have been an ALL TIME CLASSIC, if it gave you
> the ability to controll the battle from day one. Instead, your playing
> a bunch of linked scenarios that breakup the vastness that Gettyburg
> was.
>
> James Dusek
Brian Reynolds
Hi Sens,
More comments below--
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Sens wrote:
>
> Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM> wrote:
>
[ Intermittent snippage ]
>
> >If you put your brigade in Road Column, they will attempt to follow
> >roads, trails, and pikes, along their path. You'll usually want to get
> >them lined up on the road first if possible, since they won't vastly
>
> Thanks for the clarify on this. How far can a unit be from a road and
> still take advantage of the road move bonus (i.e. what is the "range"
> of the road)?
I think approximately the size of a basic terrain "polygon" cell. You
can get an idea of this by starting a scenario, pausing it immediately
before a minute passes, then pressing "Shift-M" to turn on the scenario
builder annotations, then click around the map and notice where the
numbers appear. That's about the size of a cell.
> I find the size depiction of mounted cav (and also of limbered arty)
> to be a functional problem and not just an aesthetic problem. A
> mounted cav column takes the length of about 4 infantry road columns
> and is unwieldy to use.
An artifact of some of our scaling choices, I suppose.
> Yes, I did do that. I would also like an option to turn off the
> terrain labels as well as the victory spot labels. At the least, make
> them so that they are in the background, and not superimposed over
> unit graphics moving through it.
I think the "Text" setting (Shift-T) can turn all the text off.
> Re: Size of arty -- I mean limbered arty. The problem manifests most
> when the battery is routing back and forth through other units. The
> large depicted size of the limbered arty makes selection of the other
> units difficult.
Oops. Sounds like "horses" is the main problem then. By the way, if you
click and don't get the unit you wanted, the TAB key cycles through
nearby units.
> I disagree here. While I know that my command efficiency will improve
> with experience with the controls, I doubt if that improvement will
> enable a 2X to 3X increase in command capacity, which I see at present
> time as 1 or 2 brigades in non-pause playing. And the fact that other
> players will face the same problems I have (i.e. it balances out)
> doesn't obscure the fact that the limitation is still there.
Hmmmm. I'll be interested to know if you still feel this way after some
significant play. I now feel comfortable with about a Union corps (say,
the full version of the Peach Orchard scenario), but you may
legitimately disagree. I'd be interested to hear your suggestions if so.
> In this respect, I would ask for at least some improvements in
> shortcut keys. One that I have in mind is the use of the greater-
> lesser sign keys for the wheel command, as it is probably the most
> used command in the game.
There are hotkeys for wheel-- the HOME and PGUP (7 and 9) keys on the
numeric keypad will wheel your brigade (or regiment) left and right.
Pretty much everything has a hotkey, actually, except for actually
setting precise unit destinations on the map.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
Charles Tyson
Brian,
Thanks for visiting and reading our comments. I have a few comments based
on my first day of playing:
1. I set various game preferences (e.g. maximize speed, don't autoscroll)
but when I restart the game the preferences have reset to the original
defaults. Is this intentional, or am I missing some "save my preferences"
command?
2. On the drill field tutorial, I can't find a way to turn off that big
text box of advice. Once you've read it, it takes up way too much space.
3. It's hard to judge distances on the screen, so I'm purely guessing when
to deploy from column into line as I approach a visible enemy. Could you
place a number in the zoom control or status bar indicating the width in
yards of the area shown on the screen?
Charles Tyson
For email replies, delete all "X"s from my address
est...@pobox.com
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:35:37 -0400, Brian Reynolds
<brey...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM> wrote:
>Thanks for your cogent review. I'll try to respond to some of your
>questions where appropriate. For the things where I just have to go
>"hmmmm" I'll pass them on to the rest of the design team.
>
>Brian Reynolds
>FIRAXIS Games
>(More embedded below...)
I love this game. I wanted to thank you for being in this newsgroup
and replying to this excellent review. I'm always very impressed when
you guys venture out into these open forums.
Thanks
Steve
James Dusek
Ian Firth
Charles Tyson wrote:
> 2. On the drill field tutorial, I can't find a way to turn off that big
> text box of advice. Once you've read it, it takes up way too much space.
Once you've read it, you should be done with the tutorial, and onto
playing the game !
The tutorial for moving troops only takes about a minute to master.
John Allen
James Dusek <du...@cadsun.corp.mot.com> wrote:
I have to agree with these comments by James Dusek. I find the game to
be a piecemeal representation of Gettysburg. I too was hoping to be
able to fight the entire battle and to have various actions on one
part of the battle affect another. When I say affect I mean not in an
abstract way(done before another scenario generates) but in front of
me...
There is a Brigade size shareware campaign created for Rifles where
this is done. You start the battle and go the full 72 hours so you can
see why the peach orchard became important or why it took so long to
get Cemetery Hill etc.
Also I would like to see more information on the brigades at the end
of each engagement. Losses...morale...etc...
I have never seen a leader killed..I have played over 20 times on
Doubleday and flexible. A couple of times when I screwed up the mouse
button I have seen a leader wounded when he rode into the enemy's
lines...
I also would have liked to see more from the random battle
generator...More of a campaign aspect to the battles so that each
scenario would have an affect on the next one.
Obviously I am really disappointed with this game even with the
beautiful graphics and good AI. Maybe it was a case of rising
expectations, but as far as a feel for the battle I think SMG falls
short...
The argument that CC didn't do the entire Normandy campaign is off
point. Close Combat modeled small units, squads actually who's own
life and death struggles were only an infitesmial part of the whole
campaign which lasted 3 months. This is a brigade size game which ran
only 3 days. The tactical engagements it purports to portray actually
had an affect on the entire course of the battle. Brigades getting
destroyed do affect the out come of the battle. Being able to outflank
the union on day2 in the middle of the line because the corps that
would normally be there IS a serious omission. And not being able
where to tell your brigades to get in line, or when to rest, or how to
dispose..
Anyway...my 2 cents
John
John Allen
Brian Reynolds
Hi Sens--
Sens wrote:
>
> Does use of the Shift-M, which also exposes positions of the enemy
> troops, allowed in multiplayer? It would seem to be cheating, but
> then, I don't like the way that you have absolutely zero intel when
> you start a battle. There've been plays where I arrayed my defenses
> in one direction, only to find the enemy is coming from the opposite
> direction (into my rear).
None of the cheats are allowed in multiplayer, although I believe
-after- a multiplayer game you can "return to scenario" and then be able
to do certain things.
Intelligence & fog-of-war issues are, of course, intended as part of the
game. In the campaign scenarios, the intro sequence w/ the generals is
intended to give you basic information about where enemy troops will be
coming from, etc. Your "commander" units are also intended to double as
scouts and have a long sight range if you put them up on hills, etc. If
you have cavalry available they have pretty good sight range too (tough
look if you're playing the Confederates on the First Day, of course, and
that's historical). Part of the fun is supposed to be figuring out where
the enemy is and what he's up to. Lots of opportunity for ambush & stuff
in multiplayer games.
> On the Union campaign where I started (mixed scenario selection), the
> force deployment is sometimes very strange in relation to where the
> victory locations are. In scenarios where I'm ostensibly the
> defender, the initial deploy has my forces far from the objectives,
> and when I get there, the computer has already captured the location
> and has put up its defenses. Could this be a problem with the random
> game generator?
When you've got "mixed" selected it means (you may already be aware)
that each scenario has a 50% chance of being "researched" positions, 50%
chance of being set up by the random generator. Part of the reason for
the random generator of course, is variety and replayability, so we
allow the situation to deviate in some ways from the historical
positions. We figured most players would start with the historical
positions and progress to the more random ones once they'd exhausted
those. If you want to keep everything entirely consistent, select
"historical".
> Well, I would, except that I'm having a difficult time making headway
> through the campaign. I'm on the Confed campaign #4 battle and the
> Union #3 battle. I suppose I should take a loss and go onto the next
> one, but the you-must-win-every-battle-before-advancing gaming
> mentality has been pounded into me from all of the other games, so now
> it's a habit. It does sound like I'd have ample room for improvement.
Hmmm. If you only play the positions where your side has won every
engagement up to that point, you're missing some of the best parts of
the game. The actual "historical" path at Gettysburg ran about right
down the "middle" of the campaign tree, with the Confederates of course
losing the final decisive engagement. The middle of the tree has so many
of the most exciting situations (Peach Orchard, Devils Den, Round Top)
which you won't see on the fringe ends of the tree. That's also
partially why we made some of those fringe scenarios -harder- for the
side trying to maintain momentum: for game purposes to bring them back
to the middle of the tree, and for historical purposes since final
destruction of an enemy army proved an ever-elusive goal in the Civil
War.
Also, you don't have to win ever engagement to win (even decisively) the
campaign. The scenarios progress in importance as they go along in kind
of a 1-2-4-8-16-32 fashion in terms of their importance to the overall
campaign victory, so some of the earlier scenarios are kind of
"jockeying for position" where what is really going to count is how you
-use- the positions you gain (or don't gain) in that jockeying.
The decisive campaign victory for each side is the destruction of the
enemy army, and believe me it isn't easy to get the Army of the Potomac
or the Army of Northern Virginia to sit still while you cut it off and
destroy it. It's fun to try to "go for the big win", but I think of
having the "perfect game" more as a goal for later and winning the
campaign one way or another as a better immediate goal.
Historically the Union was crushed at Barlow's Knoll, eked it out at
Little Round Top, and was pretty roughly dealt with in the Peach
Orchard, but was able to win a "Tactical Victory".
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Brian Reynolds
John Allen wrote:
>
> I have to agree with these comments by James Dusek. I find the game to
> be a piecemeal representation of Gettysburg. I too was hoping to be
> able to fight the entire battle and to have various actions on one
> part of the battle affect another. When I say affect I mean not in an
> abstract way(done before another scenario generates) but in front of
> me...
Sorry you're disappointed; we may simply disagree on where the "fun"
lies in a battle game like this. We think the focus on the "hot" parts
of the battle, in a way that gives the player maximum freedom at the
level he is playing (e.g. brigade/division commander) really gives you
the feel of being there.
Gettysburg, by design, is not intended to be about "being Robert E. Lee"
and commanding the whole ANV. Again, I think the proper game on -that-
scale would be a game about the whole campaign in Pennsylvania-- a very
different game. The idea is more one of Lee has brought you to
Gettysburg, you're one of his mid-senior generals, and its up to YOU to
take those hills. A different focus than you may have been expecting,
but we think a fun one.
I should mention that one of the original prototypes of this game WAS
the corps/divisional game you've described. We found the
regiment/brigade engagements to be much more fun and less set-piece,
once you make the assumption that it's all going to occur at Gettysburg.
Similarly, commanding the WHOLE army at a regimental level for the whole
three days felt too tedious & too much work for the occasional moments
of excitement.
We're trying to make you feel like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain trying to
hold the flank at Little Round Top, knowing the safety of the rest of
the army depends on him (even though he didn't personally choose that
fight). The benefit of this focus is being nearer to the men who
actually fought the war--the game feels closer to "being there" in
scale, less abstract.
Of course its not a choice everyone has to agree with; I just wanted to
explain our reasons from making it.
A couple of specifics about points you bring up below--
> Also I would like to see more information on the brigades at the end
> of each engagement. Losses...morale...etc...
The Order of Battle screen has this information available in graph form
for each unit. Casualties, morale, unit size, and casualties inflicted
are all indicated.
Exact #'s are only given for the whole engagement (not by unit), but you
can infer a lot of the by/unit #'s by this formula:
The "casualties inflicted" by each unit is shown as a set of "notches"
along the bottom of the OB listing. Each tall "notch" represents 40
casualties (e.g. one dead "man" on the screen). All of the other graph
elements (width of unit indicating size, width of grey area indicating
casualties taken) are in scale here, so the same length as a notch
represents 40 men. The darker part of the bar indicates how close the
unit was to routing (the more dark, the more stress).
> I have never seen a leader killed..I have played over 20 times on
> Doubleday and flexible. A couple of times when I screwed up the mouse
> button I have seen a leader wounded when he rode into the enemy's
> lines...
It depends on how you use your leaders. One way leaders can be very
effective is in leading charges (keeping him near the charging unit, not
necessarily directly in front), or in rallying troops w/ the "hold"
command right at the front of a defensive line. If you use your leaders
in this way, you'll notice significant combat successes and morale
boosts, but you will start seeing them wounded, captured, etc. If you
keep them safely behind the lines, they'll tend to live but you won't
have felt that leadership benefit as strongly.
We do find that having an important leader wounded, or managing to wound
an enemy leader, can really be a make-or-break event in an engagement.
> I also would have liked to see more from the random battle
> generator...More of a campaign aspect to the battles so that each
> scenario would have an affect on the next one.
A fine suggestion which I will pass along. Note that you can go to the
options screen and select "Randomized" scenarios, then play the
fight-the-battle campaign, in which case scenarios will be related but
more random than the historical versions, though I realize this is not
precisely what you were suggesting.
> Obviously I am really disappointed with this game even with the
> beautiful graphics and good AI. Maybe it was a case of rising
> expectations, but as far as a feel for the battle I think SMG falls
> short...
Again, sorry to disappoint you; I hope the scale we've chosen will grow
on you, but maybe not. Thanks for your comments!
Robert Mayer/ Editor, CG Online
Brian:
We played a scenario at the office on Friday over the network
(Little Round Top). It was a blast! I didn't know quite what to expect
from this game, but I took one of the copies home to fiddle with, and
it seems more and more like a gem. And great shot of you on the cover
of the tactics book!
bob
Brian Reynolds
Yes, they even airbrushed out my glasses :-)
If you like that, check out the "About Gettysburg" option on the Game
menu. It's a hoot.
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Brian Reynolds
John Allen wrote:
<snip>
> My questions are these: Would you explain exactly what affect each
> scenario has on the campaign as a whole? Does a defeat at Macpherson's
> Ridge on Day 1 mean that you get to try to take it again int he
> afternoon. If Daniel's brigade is hurt in one scenario does that
> carryover? Or if a leader is wounded or killed will that carryover?And
> if so do they rest and recuperate at night?
Most of the campaign scenarios involve the attempt to take or hold some
key position, and the progress of the campaign is based on whether that
position was taken or held. For example, if the Confederates take
McPherson's Hill in the early morning, we let them try for Seminary
Ridge in the late morning, and then potentially Cemetery Hill in the
afternoon. If they lose McPherson's Hill, the next major event is the
arrival of Rodes division on the Union flank, so we go to the Wills
Woods scenario, and thence to the arrival of Early's division (either
Barlow's Knoll or Benner's Hill, depending).
So we're kind of following the "hot point" around the battlefield. Each
victory moves you forward for a better chance at victory. Assuming the
Confederates have a great first day and actually capture and hold Culp's
Hill or Cemetery Hill on the First Day, they may end up being able to
assume the defensive on part of the second day, as the Union tries to
drive them back to secure its line. If they have continued success, they
can try to cut the Union retreat & trap its army.
Since we're "following the hotspot" you won't usually see the same part
of the battlefield twice in a campaign (so if you don't take McPherson
Hill in the first scenario, the focus moves to another flank which may
or may not force the enemy to withdraw from McPherson Hill or enable an
assault on it, but you probably won't fight that second McPherson Hill
engagement).
So there actually aren't that many situations in which a brigade that
fought in one engagement will actually show up to fight again later in
the campaign (since the Confederates in a sense attacked on the left the
first day, the right the second day, and in the center the third day).
When this does happen, the brigade does fight at reduced strength,
although rested & reorganized overnight, and may have a new commander
assigned.
>
> One last point and request... I would really like to see the time
> element removed...Maybe as a preference. It was important to be sure
> that objectives be taken quickly but certainly not as decisive as
> this game makes it. It becomes problem solving when it is depicted in
> this fashion as opposed to the art of the operational.
Several ways to accomplish this--
* I think you'd like the "First Day" scenario, which goes all day long,
has a "corps level" feel, etc.
* You can "return to scenario" after finishing one.
* The scenario (SCN) files can actually be edited to change their
starting and ending times.
> The thing that seems lacking in this game and most scenario type games
> is consequence. Mistakes or triumphs should mean something in the
> overall picture. Not the abstract picture but the the gamers picture.
> Big losses in the morning mean big problems in the afternoon. Slow
> manouvering at 1PM mean no time left at 8:00 PM...
There definitely are some consequences-- big confederate victories the
first day give them a chance to seize Cemetery Hill the first day before
the Union reinforcements arrive, which changes the course of the rest of
the battle. If the Confederates take Little Round Top on the Second Day
they render the Cemetery Ridge position rather untenable and the Union
also as to worry about getting cut off from Washington.
The scenarios as they proceed have kind of a 1-2-4-8-16-32 relationship
in value, so the early meeting engagements have less overall effect on
the campaign result, and the final engagement is the most decisive. All
of the scenarios have definite consequences though, in shaping the
nature of that decisive engagement.
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Brian Reynolds
Sens wrote:
>
> Comment on the UI: Apart from the peek-a-boo plotting problems with
> the trees/houses, my other problem is with discerning a regiment's
> strength. My first tendency is to deal with all units as homogenous,
> which is obviously not wise because of the wide range in unit
> strengths and morale. I can now deal with difference in morale fairly
> fast, because morale are more or less homogenous within a brigade, but
> unit strength is a more persistent problem.
Yes, I used to have this problem too. What I do is use the "Flags show
relative strength" option in the preferences (instead of "Flags show
morale"). What this does is actually multiply the size by the morale
level to generate the flag size, so the flag now actually represents the
overall -effectiveness- (Size x Morale) of the unit. That way, you kind
of know the guys with droopy flags probably shouldn't be charging, and
the guys with big fat flags are probably going to last a while. I find
that's a lot more intuitive to me.
The flags only have about 4 levels, as you say, but I find it gives me
pretty good information in terms of a visual "spot check", since of
course the full information is always available from the morale bar.
(You also get to where you can kind of tell from a unit's excellent
position that its going to have a good morale bar).
> Since speed of gathering info about your forces is pretty important
> for a RT game, my suggestion for a more efficient method would be to
> use a fly-by status indicator based on cursor position. You already
> have it for highlighting a unit's flag when the cursor is on the unit.
> I'd like to see this expanded to highlight all of the men in that
> unit, plus two color bars to show the unit's size and morale. That
> way, I can tell at a glance of the units' strength w/o having to hunt
> for their flags and clicking on each one.
That sounds like a fine idea.
>
> In tandem to this, I would like a way to manually switch the position
> of two regiments in a formation, much like what the computer is doing.
> The reason for doing this is to position the strongest regiment at the
> most important spot, and to do this at the brigade level rather than
> having to do it at the regiment level (which takes longer).
Yes, this was definitely on our wish-list. Nobody ever came up with a
simple enough interface for doing it though, and the game is already so
complex.
So, are you practicing up for multiplayer? :-)
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games [*=] [><]
JLBriggs
>The problem I have with recon is that, of the battles I've played
>(mostly with infantry & arty), I'm not equipped to do recon. I don't
>relish sending out infantry columns on the flanks as part of the
>general advance. Inf in skirmish lines to flank isn't doable, since
>they take morale hits if they move. Inf in battle lines are too slow.
>And while commanders are useful as scouts as you say, sending
>commanders out to scout doesn't sound quite kosher to me. Also a
>factor is the limited time duration for the scenario.
>
>
These are interesting observations. I find that skirmishers are useful for
scouting, even though they do take stress from moving. As ong as they are
pulled out of danger quickly, they'll recover pretty quickly. The commander,
though, is the best scout of all, like Brian says.>
>Of course you are right, but the very notion that I have to lose some
>battles to get to the goodies just doesn't go down well with my
>armchair general's inflated ego. Oh, well, I suppose I can dispense a
>few inconsequential freebies to the starving [Yanks|Rebs] so I can
>teach them a proper lesson where it counts the most. Ah, my
>generosity knows no limit.
Yes, indeed you are generous. Note though that you can always play individual
scenarios as much as you like..... You also may wanna turn up the difficulty
for the campaign, or try a different AI personality. Are really beating them
all the time....? :-)
>
>Since speed of gathering info about your forces is pretty important
>for a RT game, my suggestion for a more efficient method would be to
>use a fly-by status indicator based on cursor position. You already
>have it for highlighting a unit's flag when the cursor is on the unit.
>I'd like to see this expanded to highlight all of the men in that
>unit, plus two color bars to show the unit's size and morale. That
>way, I can tell at a glance of the units' strength w/o having to hunt
>for their flags and clicking on each one.
hmmmm we'll have to talk about this proposal... not bad...
Jeff Briggs, Co-designer
Firaxis games
John Allen
Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM> wrote:
>Sorry you're disappointed; we may simply disagree on where the "fun"
>lies in a battle game like this. We think the focus on the "hot" parts
>of the battle, in a way that gives the player maximum freedom at the
>level he is playing (e.g. brigade/division commander) really gives you
>the feel of being there.
>
>Gettysburg, by design, is not intended to be about "being Robert E. Lee"
>and commanding the whole ANV. Again, I think the proper game on -that-
>scale would be a game about the whole campaign in Pennsylvania-- a very
>different game. The idea is more one of Lee has brought you to
>Gettysburg, you're one of his mid-senior generals, and its up to YOU to
>take those hills. A different focus than you may have been expecting,
>but we think a fun one.
>
>I should mention that one of the original prototypes of this game WAS
>the corps/divisional game you've described. We found the
>regiment/brigade engagements to be much more fun and less set-piece,
>once you make the assumption that it's all going to occur at Gettysburg.
>Similarly, commanding the WHOLE army at a regimental level for the whole
>three days felt too tedious & too much work for the occasional moments
>of excitement.
>
Yes I agree. I understand the design decision. It is really an
impossible position for you. To balance gameplay with historical
accuracy(not that your campaign is not accurate). I mean by accuracy
the kind of command detail,gamers like myself would want. I actually
don't find it tedious to move brigade by brigade,regiment by
regiment(I'm doing with Rifles and its fun to go through the night
reforming and deciding where to put your brigades)
To me the important consideration in civil war battles was the
interior line movement of the defender as oppossed to the exterior
line movent of the attacker. It is a majour decision to make in that
first and second night. If Lee had followed Longstreet's plan the
consequence of trying to move those brigades back for example would
have been disastrous.
Your game obviously has decided not to focus on this aspect..I imagine
the more I play the nore I will understand the fun aspects of your
game. After getting over my initial diappointment which is more about
what I wanted than about what you promised.
>We're trying to make you feel like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain trying to
>hold the flank at Little Round Top, knowing the safety of the rest of
>the army depends on him (even though he didn't personally choose that
>fight). The benefit of this focus is being nearer to the men who
>actually fought the war--the game feels closer to "being there" in
>scale, less abstract.
>
>Of course its not a choice everyone has to agree with; I just wanted to
>explain our reasons from making it.
And I thankyou for it. Your timely and intelligent replies in this
forum will make a lot of us give your game a lot more time than we
otherwise might have.
>A couple of specifics about points you bring up below--
>
>> Also I would like to see more information on the brigades at the end
>> of each engagement. Losses...morale...etc...
>
>The Order of Battle screen has this information available in graph form
>for each unit. Casualties, morale, unit size, and casualties inflicted
>are all indicated.
>
>Exact #'s are only given for the whole engagement (not by unit), but you
>can infer a lot of the by/unit #'s by this formula:
>
>The "casualties inflicted" by each unit is shown as a set of "notches"
>along the bottom of the OB listing. Each tall "notch" represents 40
>casualties (e.g. one dead "man" on the screen). All of the other graph
>elements (width of unit indicating size, width of grey area indicating
>casualties taken) are in scale here, so the same length as a notch
>represents 40 men. The darker part of the bar indicates how close the
>unit was to routing (the more dark, the more stress).
Thankyou. This really helps.
I am a bit of a Walter Mitty when it comes to wargames. I like to
personify the abstract men and units...so I would like to see some
sort of ongoing campaign record on how these men are doing throughout
the three days...
My questions are these: Would you explain exactly what affect each
scenario has on the campaign as a whole? Does a defeat at Macpherson's
Ridge on Day 1 mean that you get to try to take it again int he
afternoon. If Daniel's brigade is hurt in one scenario does that
carryover? Or if a leader is wounded or killed will that carryover?And
if so do they rest and recuperate at night?
One last point and request... I would really like to see the time
element removed...Maybe as a preference. It was important to be sure
that objectives be taken quickly but certainly not as decisive as
this game makes it. It becomes problem solving when it is depicted in
this fashion as opposed to the art of the operational.
I'd like to see the time element be used as a carryover. For example
if you it takes 30 minutes etc to take Macpherson's Ridge then that
leaves less time at the end of the day to take Cemetary Ridge or God
help out the confederacy Seminary Ridge. So what I mean is that ithere
is what, a 12 hour battle day and each scenario on that day(randomized
or not) eats up that clock. So that the linkage is even more apparent.
The thing that seems lacking in this game and most scenario type games
is consequence. Mistakes or triumphs should mean something in the
overall picture. Not the abstract picture but the the gamers picture.
Big losses in the morning mean big problems in the afternoon. Slow
manouvering at 1PM mean no time left at 8:00 PM...
Whenever I read the history of this battle I always think of what it
must have been like at 5 P.M that first day, for the conferderate
soldier looking up at Cemetary Ridge or Culp's Hill after staggering
through an entire day of either fighting or marching...Not able to
even fathom that they actually want me, ME to go up that...Now...
I think I would have just laid down and died.
Thankyou for your patience and the obvious thought and love that went
into this game.
John
(Sorry to all for the double posting...Insane newreader went off its
prozac)
John
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 00:51:50 GMT, se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens) wrote:
>The trade-off of a RT (popular shorthand for continuous-time) game as
>versus a turn-based game is obvious. The player's command capacity is
>time-constrained, and thus more limited. In return, he gets better
>multiplay options, something turnbased games do poorly in. And we all
>know that PBEM has been around for a very long time, and it isn't that
>popular a choice even among "real" wargamers.
Sens,
A minor point, but Leadeaters currently lists over 2000 PBEM
wargamers as members. For many of the people I know PBEM is their
preferred way of playing a human opponent. I don't know what you
would consider to be a popular choice, but I guarantee you there is a
large opponent pool for anyone who wants to play wargames via PBEM.
Also, both World at War series and the BG series are being
played multi-player via PBEM.
Again, just a minor point. :-)
John aka austinvc
ar...@ix.netcom.com
Br
>Sens wrote:
>>
>
>> Since speed of gathering info about your forces is pretty important
>> for a RT game, my suggestion for a more efficient method would be to
>> use a fly-by status indicator based on cursor position. You already
>> have it for highlighting a unit's flag when the cursor is on the unit.
>> I'd like to see this expanded to highlight all of the men in that
>> unit, plus two color bars to show the unit's size and morale. That
>> way, I can tell at a glance of the units' strength w/o having to hunt
>> for their flags and clicking on each one.
>
I once read a quote from General Longstreet stating that pointing his
finger at a regiment and seeing its moral and strength levels appear
in the sky above them really helped in numerous battles.
(smile)
Mark Asher
"Cmdr Krud" <au...@NOSPAMprimenet.com> wrote:
>Commanders seem to make excellent scouts. The computer uses them and I have
>yet to catch one. I also think flanking skirmishers make good scouts since
>they are somewhat flexible even though they take a moral hit.
A moral hit? What do they do, leave in the middle of battle to visit
Miss Kitty's Saloon and House of Ill Repute? <g>
I've been waiting for a game like this.
Mark Asher
Cmdr Krud
Sens wrote in message <3449406b....@netnews.att.net>...
>Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM> wrote:
>
>>game. In the campaign scenarios, the intro sequence w/ the generals is
>>intended to give you basic information about where enemy troops will be
>>coming from, etc. Your "commander" units are also intended to double as
>>scouts and have a long sight range if you put them up on hills, etc. If
>>you have cavalry available they have pretty good sight range too (tough
>
>than what I'm doing now.
>
>The problem I have with recon is that, of the battles I've played
>(mostly with infantry & arty), I'm not equipped to do recon. I don't
>relish sending out infantry columns on the flanks as part of the
>general advance. Inf in skirmish lines to flank isn't doable, since
>they take morale hits if they move. Inf in battle lines are too slow.
>And while commanders are useful as scouts as you say, sending
>commanders out to scout doesn't sound quite kosher to me. Also a
>factor is the limited time duration for the scenario.
Commanders seem to make excellent scouts. The computer uses them and I have
yet to catch one. I also think flanking skirmishers make good scouts since
they are somewhat flexible even though they take a moral hit.
-Krud
Grifman
Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM> wrote:
(snip)
>Most of the campaign scenarios involve the attempt to take or hold some
>key position, and the progress of the campaign is based on whether that
>position was taken or held. For example, if the Confederates take
>McPherson's Hill in the early morning, we let them try for Seminary
>Ridge in the late morning, and then potentially Cemetery Hill in the
>afternoon. If they lose McPherson's Hill, the next major event is the
>arrival of Rodes division on the Union flank, so we go to the Wills
>Woods scenario, and thence to the arrival of Early's division (either
>Barlow's Knoll or Benner's Hill, depending).
>So we're kind of following the "hot point" around the battlefield. Each
>victory moves you forward for a better chance at victory. Assuming the
>Confederates have a great first day and actually capture and hold Culp's
>Hill or Cemetery Hill on the First Day, they may end up being able to
>assume the defensive on part of the second day, as the Union tries to
>drive them back to secure its line. If they have continued success, they
>can try to cut the Union retreat & trap its army.
(snip)
Sorry for asking this question if it is in the game docmentation
anywhere (I don't have the game yet until my new computer arrives),
but is there information anywhere that shows what I might call the
"scenario" or "battle" tree, what battles fall when whenever such and
such a result occurs. It would be interesting to go back through the
campaign after playing through once and trying to take a different
path by winning or losing a particular scenario. If this info is not
in the game materials, can we get it somewhere? Thanks.
Grifman
JLBriggs
>Sorry for asking this question if it is in the game docmentation
>anywhere (I don't have the game yet until my new computer arrives),
>but is there information anywhere that shows what I might call the
>"scenario" or "battle" tree, what battles fall when whenever such and
>such a result occurs. It would be interesting to go back through the
>campaign after playing through once and trying to take a different
>path by winning or losing a particular scenario. If this info is not
>in the game materials, can we get it somewhere? Thanks.
The strategy guide, I believe will have a big chart showing the tree.
Jeff Briggs
Firaxis
Grifman
jlbr...@aol.com (JLBriggs) wrote:
>Jeff Briggs
>Firaxis
Sorry, but no thanks. Haven't seen one worth the paper it was printed
on (much less my hard earned cash!) since the one for Master of Orion.
Well, I guess I will just have to wait for some fine soul to put
together the FAQ.
Later,
Grifman
Cmdr Krud
Mark Asher wrote in message <344a1d80....@news.primary.net>...
>"Cmdr Krud" <au...@NOSPAMprimenet.com> wrote:
>
>>Commanders seem to make excellent scouts. The computer uses them and I
have
>>yet to catch one. I also think flanking skirmishers make good scouts
since
>>they are somewhat flexible even though they take a moral hit.
>
>Miss Kitty's Saloon and House of Ill Repute? <g>
>
>I've been waiting for a game like this.
>
>Mark Asher
Heh, heh. Morals and morale are closely related :) There was a tavern in
one scenario that I think I lost a regiment or two in.
-Krud
Ramon Miro
JLBriggs wrote:
> >Does range affect arty fire?
>
> Definitely.... the closer the guns to the target the more devastating
> the
> effect. Also, Rifled guns are more effective at long range than
> napoleons and
> napoleons are more effective at close range.
>
Theez Na-PO-leuns aw gud faw shawt ranges.... Theez hea rawfles awe gud
faw lon-range wawk. ;-)
Bunboy
It is really nice of you to take such an active interest in helping people
with Gettysburg. I rewatched the old TNT movie and then played the game
last night and am having a ball.
--
Bunboy
The people who can smile have found someone else to blame.
Ichabod Kagass
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 20:44:32 GMT, se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens) wrote:
>Does range affect arty fire? What's the damage modifier for
>enfilading fire as versus a frontal shot? How much are the single &
>double entrench worth in terms of lessening damage? While I'm asking,
>is it better to be in a house, or be in higher terrain?
Let me add to the list here: What exactly are the icons that appear on
the right side of the status bar? I know there are icons for unsighted
units and blocked units; are there others? If I'm not mistaken, none
of these are displayed in the manual.
-Ichabod Kagass
*** ***
*** No .sig for me, thank you. ***
*** ***
Gregory M. Stelmack
On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 11:05:51 -0400, Brian Reynolds
<brey...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM> wrote:
>Also, you don't have to win ever engagement to win (even decisively) the
>campaign. The scenarios progress in importance as they go along in kind
>of a 1-2-4-8-16-32 fashion in terms of their importance to the overall
>campaign victory, so some of the earlier scenarios are kind of
>"jockeying for position" where what is really going to count is how you
>-use- the positions you gain (or don't gain) in that jockeying.
>
>The decisive campaign victory for each side is the destruction of the
>enemy army, and believe me it isn't easy to get the Army of the Potomac
>or the Army of Northern Virginia to sit still while you cut it off and
>destroy it. It's fun to try to "go for the big win", but I think of
>having the "perfect game" more as a goal for later and winning the
>campaign one way or another as a better immediate goal.
>
>Historically the Union was crushed at Barlow's Knoll, eked it out at
>Little Round Top, and was pretty roughly dealt with in the Peach
>Orchard, but was able to win a "Tactical Victory".
As a gameplayer, I'd like to know a little more about how overall
victory is decided. In the full battle I just played at Longstreet
difficulty as the Union, the rebels had 2 marginal victories, I had 2
marginal victories, one tactical (? - 2 flags) victory, and 2 decisive
victories. The rebels 2 marginal victories occurred in the second
battle (Barlow's Knoll? Northeast part of the fight. Should have
written all this down) and in the final Pickett's Charge (they grabbed
the angle right near the end by breaking the right end of my line as I
was mopping up the right end of theirs, which would have been
interesting had the fight continued -- guess I should have activated
some of those inactive units). I won the absolute casualty count all
the way through (sometimes significantly) and rarely had extra units
activated; the 2 scenarios they won were strictly based on taking
objectives as time was running out, extending the fight but not enough
for me to move reserves in. I felt like I had kicked their butts all
through this thing, with a couple of minor tactical losses, but the
Rebels won a Tactical Victory (+750) for the entire fight.
So how does the final victory tally get calculated? By your binary
progression (1-2-4-8-16-32), that last battle is the only won that
matters (because 1+2+4+8+16 = 31), so how do the earlier fights affect
the last battle? Should I play more of a random mix to have the later
fights affected by my earlier performance? The manual seemed to
indicate that ahistorical results in the historical scenarios can lead
to some different variants, but winning the Peach Orchard decisively
didn't seem to have a major impact on Pickett's Charge.
I had a great time fighting out the battle, I just couldn't figure out
the final outcome.
Greg Stelmack Red Storm Entertainment
Software Engineer 2000 Aerial Center, Suite 110
Phone: (919) 460-1776 Fax: (919) 468-3305 Morrisville, NC 27560
greg.s...@redstorm.com http://www.redstorm.com
Yes, we're hiring. Check the web page for open positions.
radiospace
a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens):
>Ramon Miro <rm...@MARVBITMETOOerols.com> wrote:
>
>>Theez Na-PO-leuns aw gud faw shawt ranges.... Theez hea rawfles awe gud
>>faw lon-range wawk. ;-)
>
>Hey, do some Southerners really talk like that? I'm curious...
>
>Sens (an import who has never been to the south end)
Only at Civil War re-enactments. Otherwise it's simply "theez heah
shote reebs iz maty fan...pass me anotha beah."
Patrick
_____________________________________________________________________
"Rest assured that my decisions always have in mind the ultimate good.
I shall now ask you some test questions, as a security measure."
_____________________________________________________________________
*Disclaimer*: These are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect
those of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Brian Reynolds
>
> Only if I can get the cavalry brigades. :) I want to be the one
> Stuart fellow that does all the rear-area infiltrations and charges.
> (Is he even in this battle?)
Yes, he's in a number of the climactic 3rd day scenarios, including a
rare variant of Pickett's Charge.
> Question: I noted that all of the scenario setups are in text form,
> and fully documented. Other than modifying them, can I make new
> scenarios by just making new text files and somehow inserting it into
> the menu list?
Yes. In fact, you can easily insert new ones in the list by giving the
file a higher "GettyXX.SCN" number. I think we left off at about 24, so
if you pick up at 25 (or 35 or 45) the menu will automatically find
them.
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Brian Reynolds
> Does range affect arty fire?
Yes, it gradually attenuates. Note also the major discontinuity once you
reach canister range. Also, Rifles are doubled at long range, Napoleons
are doubled at canister range.
> What's the damage modifier for
> enfilading fire as versus a frontal shot?
As much as x2 depending on the angle.
> How much are the single &
> double entrench worth in terms of lessening damage?
I think 12.5% and 25% fire effect decrease.
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Brian Reynolds
Ichabod Kagass wrote:
> Let me add to the list here: What exactly are the icons that appear on
> the right side of the status bar? I know there are icons for unsighted
> units and blocked units; are there others? If I'm not mistaken, none
> of these are displayed in the manual.
There's one for "routed", one for "not spotted by enemy", and one for
"melee combat" (e.g. charging or being charged).
The first two situations are pretty self-explanatory. Melee combat means
the rewards and penalties of combat are more intense, and regiments are
more likely to break and run (one will drive the other away).
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Chris Cummings
Sens wrote in message <62feeo$d...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Suggestion: When units are jumbled up, it is pretty much impossible
>to select units by their flags. The Tab key isn't useful, since the
>nearest unit may not be in the same brigade, or may not be the one I
>want to select. What I have in mind is a status window for both
>showing status and selection for a brigade and its regiments.
>Elaboration:
>
>I would like to have a window showing the status of all regiments in a
>brigade. Each regiment in the brigade would have a number dynamically
>assigned to it as shown in the window. To select a brigade, I would
>press a number key (as is done now). The status window would then get
>focus for, say, 2 seconds. If I press another number (1-6) during
>that time, then one of the regiments in that brigade would be selected
>and the screen will center on that unit. If I want to select another
>brig w/o waiting for the 2-sec focus delay to expire, I can press Esc.
>
>To juxtapose unit positions in a formation, I would press, for
>example: 1-2-X-3 (select brigade, select reg #2, exchange key, select
>reg #3). So it would take 4 keystrokes to enable a position switch,
>and since the keys are close together and can be done with one hand,
>one can realistically effect the command in about one second
>real-time. Scanning through brigades would be 1-Esc-2-Esc-3, etc.,
>which can also be done with one hand.
Busy hands -- not especially intuitive. I suggest an alternative based on
my newsreader model. Somewhere (perhaps on the left edge), let us see an
*optional* quickie of our order of battle, but in a collapsed form, a la the
subject headers in a newsgroup, or perhaps the trains in Railroad Tycoon,
consisting of flags.
If I left-click on a flag, that unit is selected, and the screen centers on
the unit. If I right-click on a flag, the unit (brigade, corp) expands to
show or collapses its component flags. If I click directly on a regiment on
the tactical screen, that brigade flag automatically expands to show the
other regiments. And of course, the flags would show their normal statuses
(stati?), i.e. droopy, waving, attached, etc. The brigade commander's flags
might show his competance. Keyboard equivalents could be up- and down-arrow
(to position 'cursor'), which don't seem to be used for anything else, and
Enter (select unit) and Shift-Enter (expand/contract).
This would also give us a somewhat customized, strategic view of our
situation from the tactical window, solve the juxtaposed flag problem, help
us find detached (or fleeing) units, give us an alternative to
organization-by-name (where's the 4th North Carolina?), and might supply
some additional info, such as our running or relative score.
Chris Cummings, Seattle
Bit...@oz.net
Cmdr Krud
Ramon Miro <rm...@MARVBITMETOOerols.com> wrote in article
<344ABC72...@MARVBITMETOOerols.com>...
> JLBriggs wrote:
>
> > >Does range affect arty fire?
> >
> > the
> > effect. Also, Rifled guns are more effective at long range than
> > napoleons and
> > napoleons are more effective at close range.
> >
>
> faw lon-range wawk. ;-)
Well, hoot my nanny and harmony my grits! You must be from the saouth,
son..... (and hush my puppies, too)
-Lt. General Archibald Krud, 357th Maryland Skirmishers.
Scott Scurlock
Brian Reynolds wrote:
Snip
> Thanks for your feedback, and before you give up let me mention a
> feature or two you may not be aware of--
>
> Go to your preferences and select "more units in scenarios". Also,
> play
> on one of the highest difficulty levels, which further increases
> scenario size. If you'd tried "Pickett's Charge" or "The Peach
> Orchard"
> thinking they'd be big, and then were disappointed, try them again
> with
> those settings and be pleasantly surprised. Once you max out your size
>
> settings, Pickett's Charge is REALLY Pickett's Charge, with all the
> units that actually participated available. You'll probably find that
> a
> significant improvement.
Brian,
Does this mean if you have "More Units in Scenario's" turned off, that
you won't get all the brigades that were actually involved in that part
of the battle? If so, is it a big difference that detracts from the
game?
>
>
> The full versions of scenarios tend to include inactive troops in
> other
> parts of the line (the "other corps" you mentioned) that prevent
> unrealistic flanking maneuvers. These were removed from the lower
> difficulty level versions of scenarios, because newer players often
> found them baffling.
When you say "full version", is that synonymous with "difficulty level"?
If I'm playing at level 3 Prudent/flexible will the inactive enemy Corps
appear to prevent unrealistic flanking?
This may be an unanswerable question but, in your opinion, which
personality if any , (Indirect/Aggressive Flexible/Aggressive
Flexible/Prudent etc..) puts up the better fight? That is which is the
most unpredictable/clever?
Is there a possibility of adding a random Personality generator, so that
you don't know what kind of commander you'll be facing?
Finally, which battle in your opinion would be best for a 2 player co-op
game? We can't play against each other because neither of wants to play
the Federals! Damn Yankees ;-)
Thanks for your time.
Scott
Neil Fradkin
> I don't think much
> of its strategic deploy (it never tries to outflank you at the brigade
> level, only with individual regiments),
While playing McPhearson's hill as the Yanks (on longstreet level), the
computer AI flanked me with an entire brigade at a critical moment and
won the day. I had just rolled two regiments up on his left flank (the
open field to the union right of the hill). My skirmishers hold the
woods, and a regiment of calvary was harassing the enemy arty keeping
them limbered. It looked like I was about to take the day. Suddenly a
reb brigade began advancing double quick in column on my right flank. I
had to pull back my 2 flankers and send up some skirmishers to try to
delay the enemy advance. They were too quick. My 2 flankers were caught
trying to fall back, charged and routed. My regiment of skirmishers got
caught in the rout. During the last five minutes of the scenario I swung
down and flanked the enemy's center brigade completly routed it, but
that fresh brigade to my right rolled over my entire right and cented
and took the hill! (ugh!)
the
rebs
losing
brigade
|
| \
v \ <- the reb's flanking brigade
=== / \
----/
^ ^
| +--,my 2 flanking regiments.
|
+-my line on right side of hill (woods off page to left)
Raymond Schroder
I tend to agree with Chris Cummings comments... some type of expandable
order of battle tree linked to an icon displayed in the corner of the
screen would be great. The key stroke method recommended by Sens would
work, however keystrokes alone aren't very intuitive... anyway both types
(mouse & hot keys) should be used.
Ray
--
Support the anti-Spam Amendment
Join at http://www.cauce.org/
Ray Schroder
Email: rcschroder (at) worldnet.att.net
Sens <se...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<62g32a$s...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Chris Cummings" <BitW...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Busy hands -- not especially intuitive. I suggest an alternative based
on
> >my newsreader model. Somewhere (perhaps on the left edge), let us see
an
> >*optional* quickie of our order of battle, but in a collapsed form, a la
the
> ...
> >If I left-click on a flag, that unit is selected, and the screen centers
on
> >the unit. If I right-click on a flag, the unit (brigade, corp) expands
to
> >show or collapses its component flags. If I click directly on a
regiment on
> ...
> >might show his competance. Keyboard equivalents could be up- and
down-arrow
> >(to position 'cursor'), which don't seem to be used for anything else,
and
> >Enter (select unit) and Shift-Enter (expand/contract).
>
> What you're describing is the hierachical tree convention used by
> Windows for things like the Windows Explorer. If it was so intuitive
> and convenient, MS wouldn't be dropping it in favor of the browser
> metaphor.
>
> Frankly, how "intuitive" a scheme is depends on the person and can't
> be argued, although I'm not sure how selecting a regiment by pressing
> a number shown on a menu is counter-intuitive? Speaking of busy
> hands, then, how many keystrokes will it take you to select a regiment
> strictly by the keyboard (remember, the point is to offload the work
> of the mouse hand to the keyboard hand)? I can select a regiment from
> any brigade by two keystrokes--one for the brigade, one for the
> regiment. By your method, you'd need to press the arrow keys to
> position the highlight bar to the desired brigade, press Shift-Enter
> to expand it, use arrow keys to move to the desired regiment, press
> Enter to select it. Hmm, may be you have a different definition for
> "busy hands" than I do.
>
> One thing we have in common, at least, is that we both agree that some
> sort of a roster window is needed to select units from.
>
Neil Fradkin
> Commanders seem to make excellent scouts. The computer uses them and I have
> yet to catch one.
I don't think you can catch them.
In one of the tutorials, an enemy commander was scouting around my
flank, I sent skirmishers to drive him off, and he we forced to run way
behind my lines to the flank. My troops were very close at some points
but they never opened fire (dang!). Later, he must have rallied his
troops because a couple of routed enemy regiments then ran to him,
through my lines!!! I don't think they were fired upon at all by my
troops. This is bad. It seems routed units do not take damage (so you
cant run down retreating troops). (!?)
Neil Fradkin
> Of course you are right, but the very notion that I have to lose some
> battles to get to the goodies just doesn't go down well with my
> armchair general's inflated ego. Oh, well, I suppose I can dispense a
> few inconsequential freebies to the starving [Yanks|Rebs] so I can
> teach them a proper lesson where it counts the most. Ah, my
> generosity knows no limit.
What I do is start right away playing on the harest level, that way I'm
sure to lose while still learning the game, and I don't have to feel too
bad about it ;)
James Dusek
Sens wrote:
> The reason that SMG doesn't portray the whole shebang in one shot is
> the same reason that CC doesn't do the whole Normandy landing in one
> shot: It is a tactical-level game. How many Gettysburg real-time
> computer wargames do you know that lets you control units at the
> regiment level, and also lets you play the entire battle at once?
There isn't any other Real-Time Gettsburg games that I know of.
> From the player's standpoint alone, commanding 3-4 corps in SMG would
> be a nightmare undertaking, just like playing CC2 and trying to
> command entire divisions. You'd have to pause every second to give
> orders to individual regiments, changing their facings, etc etc, just
> like you would for CC2 (oops, that's right, CC2 won't even let you
> pause to give orders). Then, for it to be realistic, you'd have to
> have supply moves, communications (I don't think they have radios in
> those days), and whatever else. And you can pretty much forget
> multiplayer, unless you have ten thousand hands or have a few hundred
> players lined up for the battle. In short, it is not workable,
> because the game design precludes it.
Wrongo. unless your extreamly anal-retentive you do not have to
give orders to every regiment. Hell, I very rarely change the facing
of any units. This would make it better for multiplayer, and not worse.
MY friends and I were itching to get this to do just that, play the
entire battle of Gettysburg over the lan multiplayer. We now can't do
that.
> Learn to recognize the difference between the scope of portrayal of a
> game, and how well it implements that portrayal. The two are
> different things.
Learn to read what I wrote. I said the game failed to portray
the epic struggle that was Gettysburg. This is true. I said at this
level this was was better at portraying smaller battles. This is
true.
James Dusek
Chris Cummings
Sens wrote in message <62g32a$s...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>"Chris Cummings" <BitW...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Busy hands -- not especially intuitive. I suggest an alternative based on
>>my newsreader model. Somewhere (perhaps on the left edge), let us see an
>>*optional* quickie of our order of battle, but in a collapsed form, a la
the
>
>What you're describing is the hierachical tree convention used by
>Windows for things like the Windows Explorer. If it was so intuitive
>and convenient, MS wouldn't be dropping it in favor of the browser
>metaphor.
I take it you haven't seen IE 4.0. The hierarchical tree is back -- in
spades!
>Frankly, how "intuitive" a scheme is depends on the person and can't
>be argued, although I'm not sure how selecting a regiment by pressing
>a number shown on a menu is counter-intuitive? Speaking of busy
>hands, then, how many keystrokes will it take you to select a regiment
>strictly by the keyboard (remember, the point is to offload the work
>of the mouse hand to the keyboard hand)? I can select a regiment from
>any brigade by two keystrokes--one for the brigade, one for the
>regiment. By your method, you'd need to press the arrow keys to
>position the highlight bar to the desired brigade, press Shift-Enter
>to expand it, use arrow keys to move to the desired regiment, press
>Enter to select it. Hmm, may be you have a different definition for
>"busy hands" than I do.
Chill, Sens. I'd probably set it up with the mouse, but even so, once set
up it's there, requiring a single click for any unit in the brigade, or just
an Enter if you want the same unit. Having your command hierarchy
**visually** displayed so that it can be **visually** selected is a LOT more
intuitive than remembering numbers. (Lessee, did I detach regiment #3 of
brigade #2, or was it the other way around?) Further, it would provide
**real-time**, **organized** status info without having to fire off a
report.
>One thing we have in common, at least, is that we both agree that some
>sort of a roster window is needed to select units from.
Right on. Tab doesn't hack it.
Chris
Bit...@oz.net
David Pipes
Riboflavin wrote:
>
> Cmdr Krud wrote in message
> <01bcdd68$da1863a0$0296...@primenet.primenet.com>...
> >>
> >> Sens (an import who has never been to the south end)
> >
> >and you'll get a good laugh.
> >
> >-Krud (...and I am a southerner too, so don't flame me <g> y'all).
>
> ya'll dun son mah like a damnyankee ta me.
> And of course, it's the "War of Northern Aggression," not the civil war. And
> put peanuts in your coke^H^H^H^H RC cola, too.
>
> But seriously, while there are a number of people with a deep drawl, it's
> not like there's no one south of DC who speaks without one. Hollywood,
> however, is generally unable to grasp this fact.
>
> --
> Kevin Allegood ri...@mindspring.com
> Lotus Notes and Windows NT System Administrator
> "I'm not wearing any pants, film at 11."
I certainly can't believe the prevalence of Rebel sympathies
in the hinterlands of this fine, united country, especially
so long after the issue was clearly decided. Even here in
Baltimore citizens become agitated if one acknowledges
picnicking on Federal Hill "to celebrate". Oh well, at least
there are still some stable individuals in Boston and perhaps
even Providence...Although the use of the term "Southern" New
England is surely suggestive...
--
----------------------------------------
David Pipes, Esq.
Remove P from return address to reply.
----------------------------------------
Brian Reynolds
Scott Scurlock wrote:
> Does this mean if you have "More Units in Scenario's" turned off, that
> you won't get all the brigades that were actually involved in that part
> of the battle? If so, is it a big difference that detracts from the
> game?
It does mean you'll sometimes get a "more simplified" version of the
scenario, which is mostly just a matter of focus (you're focusing on a
smaller part of the overall engagement, maybe with 2 victory sites
instead of 3, etc).
We don't think its a big detractor from play; more our way of letting
the player control how much he wants to "bite off". We default it to the
smaller to give beginners simpler scenarios.
At the highest levels, you're more likely to see things like "frozen"
reserves, division commanders, etc, which are "complexifiying" factors.
>
> >
> >
> > The full versions of scenarios tend to include inactive troops in
> > other
> > parts of the line (the "other corps" you mentioned) that prevent
> > unrealistic flanking maneuvers. These were removed from the lower
> > difficulty level versions of scenarios, because newer players often
> > found them baffling.
>
> When you say "full version", is that synonymous with "difficulty level"?
By "full version" I mean the one at the highest two difficulties with
the "more units in scenarios" turned on.
>
> If I'm playing at level 3 Prudent/flexible will the inactive enemy Corps
> appear to prevent unrealistic flanking?
If you either play at level 4 or play at level 3 w/ "more units" turned
on, you'll tend to see a lot more of the inactive units on the flank
that prevent unrealistic movements.
>
> This may be an unanswerable question but, in your opinion, which
> personality if any , (Indirect/Aggressive Flexible/Aggressive
> Flexible/Prudent etc..) puts up the better fight? That is which is the
> most unpredictable/clever?
It's kind of situational, since "unpredictable" isn't uniformly
synonymous with "the best fight". I can tell you that Aggressive/Direct
can be pretty darn hair-raising, especially at the higher levels!
>
> Is there a possibility of adding a random Personality generator, so that
> you don't know what kind of commander you'll be facing?
Ooh, that's a cool idea!
>
> Finally, which battle in your opinion would be best for a 2 player co-op
> game? We can't play against each other because neither of wants to play
> the Federals! Damn Yankees ;-)
Turning Point: Little Round Top is one of my favorites for two players
on a side (it makes a superb 2-on-2 team game)
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Brian Reynolds
The victory conditions do seem to be an area of some confusion. Here's
my explanation--
First, there's a distinction between winning a scenario Tactically
(having the highest Casualties + VP score) and winning it Positionally
(holding the largest VP site at the end of the engagement and therefore
retaining possession of the battlefield).
Think of the former (the tactical score) as your personal generalship
rating-- how efficient you are at carrying out your assignments, and
therefore how high your reputation is (and thus for instance what your
reputation is likely to be after the war).
Think of the latter (the positional situation) as the overall strategic
effect of your actions. Sometimes you can fight very efficiently but
cannot take control of the key site that allows your side to gain larger
results. Or maybe you take horrendous casualties (and ruin your personal
reputation), but since you held the key position your side goes on to
victory, even if you aren't personally remembered as a great hero.
It is possible to win a marginal (or higher) victory but still go down
the "lose" scenario path. The idea is that a really important position
(say, Little Round Top) has the potentially to significantly affect the
whole strategic situation in a way far beyond what 2-3000 casualties
would.
In earlier prototypes of the game, we didn't have the two kinds of
scoring--just based the whole path on the tactical score (casualties +
VP sites), but the campaign results just felt so -wrong- sometimes (e.g.
held Little Round Top, but "lost on points" and therefore the Union army
is trapped or flees in disarray!?) The dual scoring seemed like a good
way to get the right campaign result without completely sacrificing the
casualty score from the game, and while also creating some interesting
"my career" versus "the good of the army" tension.
The Peach Orchard scenario, which you mention, has the special property
of having 3 different paths (win, lose, tie) instead of two on the
scenario tree. I gather that at the end of that scenario you held either
Weikert Hill or the Peach Orchard, but did not hold both, since it is
the one-and-one situation which leads to Picketts Charge (if you'd held
both as the Union, you'd have been given a chance to try flank Lee's
army and go for a decisive campaign victory).
Yes, the 1-2-4-8-16-32 system makes the last scenario pretty decisive,
and that's by design-- we don't ever want you to feel like you have
nothing left at risk, or that you've lost and should give up before "the
fat lady sings". And we think we have a pretty good historical basis for
feeling this way too.
The scenarios you play along the way during the campaign do have an
important effect-- determining the overall position you gain for your
army, and therefore the type of decisive conflict you'll bring on, and
what's at stake (are you trying to eke out a marginal campaign win, or
hoping to capture the enemy army and win the war outright?)
I should also mention the 1-2-4-8-16-32 isn't entirely literal-- there
are two situations (one for each side) where a win means a decisive
victory and a loss means a marginal victory.
Pickett's Charge is one of the "middle results" strategically, and it
sounds as if up to that point you'd had pretty much the historical
sequence of battles and results (won McPhersons, won Wills Woods, lost
Barlows Knoll, held Little Round Top, middle result on Peach Orchard).
That's what the Union did historically and had you held the ridge you'd
have won the Tactical Victory they did historically.
I do find Pickett's Charge problematic in one way score wise, since the
interesting Tactical Victory vs. Tactical Victory aspect was imagining
more decisive results in the scenario, which is usually what happens
(typically one side smashes the other, and 3 out or 4 times its the
Union smashing the Confederacy). Realistically a "marginal" victory by
one side or the other in this scenario should yield only a marginal
campaign victory; it's just kind of a special case that didn't get
implemented.
Hope this explanation helps some,
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Carlos
Gotta disagree big time. First the usual credential setting so I can be
taken seriously - I have been playing board and miniature wargames since
the early 1960s. I have been associated with gamers and a game
development company for a long time. However, I take a different view
of things than many gamers. I have longed for the day when I could
approach a battle more or less as the commander on the spot - not
controlling all the variables; fog of war, uncertainty of enemy location
and my own reinforcements. The more dominant feeling in the wargame
arena is that people want to know all details and manipulate them all.
Hmm, I am wandering a little here.
Back to the topic of "vignettes" vs. one big battle...from my readings
of the battle of Gettysburg, the depiction of the combat is of
sub-battles that occurred over the course of three days. No one person
controlled the set up and actions of the thousands of people there. For
example, even Lee was affected by the circumstance of when and where his
corps and divisions showed up and had difficulty exerting control over
events. I think it is entirely in keeping with the nature of the battle
that you will only be able to see/participate in one portion of it at a
time.
Also, I see nothing inappropriate with the lack of recon at different
points. Hey, those guys that fought through it were probably even more
confused and unaware than you are in this simulation. I would love it
if the program would randomize the apparent size/strength of the enemy
units until you were close enough to really determine the degree of
threat they represent. Use your skirmishers to check out woods on your
flanks - cope with the resources that you have.
This is a breakthrough game that has a feel and an execution different
from any that have come before. Maybe that is the cause of the
disagreement - people are expecting the old "tell me every combat
modifier" sort of simulation.
Carlos
James Dusek wrote:
>
(lots of good stuff cut out...ending with)
> This game would have been an ALL TIME CLASSIC, if it gave you
> the ability to controll the battle from day one. Instead, your playing
> a bunch of linked scenarios that breakup the vastness that Gettyburg
> was.
>
> James Dusek
radiospace
a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens):
>Suggestion: I would like an option to narrow/widen the spacing
>between regiments when deploying brigade formations. The default
>spacing most of the time is too wide, especially when I want units to
>close rank for concentrated fire (I even have units overlap
>sometimes). Also, it has the same frontage per regiment whether a
>unit has 100 men or 400 men. Much of my deploy time is spent
>adjusting regiment positions to get the units closer together.
I'd like to second that excellent suggestion.
Cmdr Krud
> Ramon Miro <rm...@MARVBITMETOOerols.com> wrote:
>
> >Theez Na-PO-leuns aw gud faw shawt ranges.... Theez hea rawfles awe gud
> >faw lon-range wawk. ;-)
>
Brian Reynolds
Sens wrote:
>
> Cool. So how many hundred regiments can I put into a scenario before
> the game crashes? Just checking the parameters.
As I call, each side can have up to 200 -units-, where a unit is either
a regiment, a commander, or an artillery battery. So one brigade is
usually 4-7 units (a commander and 3-6 regiments). So for instance 20
artillery batteries and 33-36 brigades (!) on each side. You probably
can't get the whole OB on the map, but you can get quite a bit.
Even w/ the Stonewall Jackson scenario, I think I was a fair way off
from that limit.
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Ramon Miro
Cmdr Krud wrote:
> Well, hoot my nanny and harmony my grits! You must be from the
> saouth,
> son..... (and hush my puppies, too)
>
> -Lt. General Archibald Krud, 357th Maryland Skirmishers.
Indeed Sirrah, I am. From the DEEP south, to be precise. Ma
compliments to ya, Sirrah, and to the fan gen-men an ledies at Fah-axis.
May ah recommend to y'all in cybah-land that ya fowem the road column
an go per-chiss dis heah game at the dubble quick? It is of the fa-nest
quality and highly au-thentic.
Now where in carnation did I put them Binoc... -er- field glasses?
;-)
------------------------------
Screenshot of an early SMG Beta version:
_________________________________
| 0____ ...... ____0 |
| [\/ \/] |
| /\ /\ |
|/- \- -/ -\ |
|_________________________________ |
radiospace
a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
I had an enemy officer running around behind my lines last night as
well. Kind of annoying.
John Heydt
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:11:40 -0400, Brian Reynolds
<brey...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM> wrote:
#> Does range affect arty fire?
#
#Yes, it gradually attenuates. Note also the major discontinuity once
you
#reach canister range. Also, Rifles are doubled at long range,
Napoleons
#are doubled at canister range.
Brian - What is canister range? What is long range? From what I can
gather each box on the map is about 25 yards as a unit will advance
without an enemy in front of them for about 8 boxes. (200 yards)
In thinking about the lack of hard combat factors in this game I
really don't mind this because real commanders would know how many
men they had as well as their morale state and training but certainly
wouldn't be aware that the units combat factor was "37" or that the
units defensive strength was doubled ("74") in the woods.
However, there should be some mention made of the size of the boxes on
the map, the effective range of arty and rifles etc. as some players
of this game will not be "grognards" with ready access to this
information.
BTW, I'm not surprised at your presence here as I recall your many
posts regarding Civ II on this board.
John
Cmdr Krud
David Pipes <rob...@home.com> wrote in article
<344BF512...@home.com>...
>
> I certainly can't believe the prevalence of Rebel sympathies
> in the hinterlands of this fine, united country, especially
> so long after the issue was clearly decided. Even here in
> Baltimore citizens become agitated if one acknowledges
> picnicking on Federal Hill "to celebrate". Oh well, at least
> there are still some stable individuals in Boston and perhaps
> even Providence...Although the use of the term "Southern" New
> England is surely suggestive...
Are you kidding? Have you been to the other side of the bay? Baltimore is
fine but go to the eastern shore (you know, "downey ocean" <g>) or go to
western Maryland and it's another world. And then there's West Virginia
where most people don't believe that the South actually lost the war.
-Krud
Brian Reynolds
> Brian - What is canister range? What is long range? From what I can
> gather each box on the map is about 25 yards as a unit will advance
> without an enemy in front of them for about 8 boxes. (200 yards)
I don't have the historical "yards" information, but I can tell you what
canister range works out to in the game.
"Effective Rifle Range" is the range at which the enemy tends to want to
line up and shoot at you. When you give your men the "advance" command,
it is the range at which they stop and actually shoot.
"Maximum Rifle Range" is about 1.5 times effective range, where you can
still fire the infantry rifles but with attenuated effect.
Canister Range for Napoleons is about 2.0 times effective range.
Canister Range for Rifles is about 1.5 times effective range.
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Neil Fradkin
> It does mean you'll sometimes get a "more simplified" version of the
> scenario, which is mostly just a matter of focus (you're focusing on a
> smaller part of the overall engagement, maybe with 2 victory sites
> instead of 3, etc).
In noticed that at lower skill levels you get much fewer units. Are
there any order of battle differences between the third and fourth
levels (i.e. Longstreet and Lee levels)?
-snip-
> It's kind of situational, since "unpredictable" isn't uniformly
> synonymous with "the best fight". I can tell you that Aggressive/Direct
> can be pretty darn hair-raising, especially at the higher levels!
This I can attest to. Those rebs got some balls charging my entrenched
uphill positions in the woods. Of course since there were two or three
ranks of them, it worked (hold and volley fire drove back the first two
waves).
>
> >
> > Is there a possibility of adding a random Personality generator, so that
> > you don't know what kind of commander you'll be facing?
>
> Ooh, that's a cool idea!
That's the first thing I though when I fired up the game. I was looking
all over for that random personality button! Question, do the individual
commanders have their own personalities. I would rather not choose a
enemy personality, but let the personality be that of the actual
commander I'm up against. This way the player can realistically try to
out think that commander (after all, if I'm a union general, I probally
went to west point and fought in the mexican war with him, so I have
some idea how he fights, eh? ;)
> > Finally, which battle in your opinion would be best for a 2 player co-op
> > game? We can't play against each other because neither of wants to play
> > the Federals! Damn Yankees ;-)
>
> Turning Point: Little Round Top is one of my favorites for two players
> on a side (it makes a superb 2-on-2 team game)
I'll take on you rebs (especially if I can have Brian on my team :)
One question about netplay (haven't tried it yet). Can you pause and
order like you can in single play? I still need to pause, and drag a
line 2-4 times in order to give the correct orders. If I had to give
orders in realtime, I'd get slaughtered every time as my guys ran around
senselessly in front of enemy fire because of mis-clicks. (If there were
a way to give orders, but have you troops not execute them until you hit
one final "ok" button, it might be possible to order in realtime).
Cmdr Krud
Neil Fradkin <nfra...@secant.com> wrote in article
<344BA7...@secant.com>...
> > Commanders seem to make excellent scouts. The computer uses them and I
have
> > yet to catch one.
>
> I don't think you can catch them.
>
> In one of the tutorials, an enemy commander was scouting around my
> flank, I sent skirmishers to drive him off, and he we forced to run way
> behind my lines to the flank. My troops were very close at some points
> but they never opened fire (dang!). Later, he must have rallied his
> troops because a couple of routed enemy regiments then ran to him,
> through my lines!!! I don't think they were fired upon at all by my
> troops. This is bad. It seems routed units do not take damage (so you
> cant run down retreating troops). (!?)
That makes sense because your troops would be turning to face the enemy
regiments so they wouldn't be firing. Plus the routed regiments would be
in a state of panick so they would be moving fairly quickly. Where's a
bayonet when you need one? :)
-Krud
radiospace
a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
Not. West Virgina, along with most of the hillbillies in Kentucky,
Tennessee, and North Carolina were Unionists. West Virginia only
*exists* because those hillbillies seceded from the state of Virgina
when the state of Virginia seceded from the US. (And they kicked
Robert E Lee's ass in 1862, if I'm not mistaken, when he tried to
"reunify" the state.) If it weren't for all those hicks I'd say the
North would have been in some real serious trouble, what with Rebs
holding Pittsburg, Cincinnati, and God-knows-what-else.
David Pipes
Cmdr Krud wrote:
>
> David Pipes <rob...@home.com> wrote in article
> <344BF512...@home.com>...
> >
> > I certainly can't believe the prevalence of Rebel sympathies
> > in the hinterlands of this fine, united country, especially
> > so long after the issue was clearly decided. Even here in
> > Baltimore citizens become agitated if one acknowledges
> > picnicking on Federal Hill "to celebrate". Oh well, at least
> > there are still some stable individuals in Boston and perhaps
> > even Providence...Although the use of the term "Southern" New
> > England is surely suggestive...
>
> Are you kidding? Have you been to the other side of the bay? Baltimore is
> fine but go to the eastern shore (you know, "downey ocean" <g>) or go to
> western Maryland and it's another world. And then there's West Virginia
> where most people don't believe that the South actually lost the war.
>
> -Krud
As I noted, there are a deplorable number of Northernly-challenged
individuals in this state, many of them "down the ocean", which the
initiated will recognize in its quaint "downey oh-shun" pronunciation
popular in this region. Western Maryland, well, until you reach
Frederick it might almost be Pennsylvania, a most satisfying state
of affairs. Almost as if people remember the depredations of the
Confederates as they blundered North to Destiny...
:-)
--
----------------------------------------
David Pipes
Brian Reynolds
> In noticed that at lower skill levels you get much fewer units. Are
> there any order of battle differences between the third and fourth
> levels (i.e. Longstreet and Lee levels)?
Yes. There's a vast difference if you're playing with "fewer units in
scenarios". If you're playing "more units in scenarios", they tend to be
fairly close but even then you're likely to see more division
commanders, reserves, things of that nature. Lee w/ "more units" is the
biggest it comes.
> One question about netplay (haven't tried it yet). Can you pause and
> order like you can in single play? I still need to pause, and drag a
> line 2-4 times in order to give the correct orders. If I had to give
> orders in realtime, I'd get slaughtered every time as my guys ran around
> senselessly in front of enemy fire because of mis-clicks. (If there were
> a way to give orders, but have you troops not execute them until you hit
> one final "ok" button, it might be possible to order in realtime).
In multiplayer you're still allowed to pause (in case you have to get up
to go to the bathroom) but as soon as you give an order or hit a key the
game resumes. We found it too unfair to other participants to allow
pausing for orders. Any player can speed up or slow down the game with
the +/- keys; so the slowest you can play is the "slow" speed.
Keep in mind that now you're up against a human player who has the same
weaknesses you do (can't micromanage every single unit all the time the
way the computer does). We find it to be really cool and not a
clickfest.
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Neil Fradkin
> > In noticed that at lower skill levels you get much fewer units. Are
> > there any order of battle differences between the third and fourth
> > levels (i.e. Longstreet and Lee levels)?
>
> Yes. There's a vast difference if you're playing with "fewer units in
> scenarios". If you're playing "more units in scenarios", they tend to be
> fairly close but even then you're likely to see more division
> commanders, reserves, things of that nature. Lee w/ "more units" is the
> biggest it comes.
So, there are scenarios where Lee w/ "more units" is different from
"Longstreet" w/ more units?
I would like to play with every possible unit, but at this points I'll
pass on making my units more brittle ;) (I started a new campaign and
got decisive victories at the hill and the woods now, but I then got
steamrollered at the knoll, doh!)
James Dusek
Carlos wrote:
> Back to the topic of "vignettes" vs. one big battle...from my readings
> of the battle of Gettysburg, the depiction of the combat is of
> sub-battles that occurred over the course of three days. No one person
> controlled the set up and actions of the thousands of people there. For
> example, even Lee was affected by the circumstance of when and where his
> corps and divisions showed up and had difficulty exerting control over
> events. I think it is entirely in keeping with the nature of the battle
> that you will only be able to see/participate in one portion of it at a
> time.
While the sub battles are growing on me, I still standby my
orgional statement, eventhough it seems to be extra-crispy by now. :)
Anyway, the point is you are basically trapped going down the
same Road Lee and Mead went down, with some variance depending on the
outcome of previous battles.
My main point it, if you had controll from Day 1, you can try
your own tactics. Longstreet wanted to try and flank the Union army,
instead Lee launched Picket's charge. Great what-ifs are lost, you
cannot try the flanking manuver.
Also, the game takes great historical liberty with Picket's charge.
There is NO way Picket's charge was ever going to be a success.
Someone said they lost when Picket took the VP location in the last few
seconds of the game. That's all fine and good but unless the south took
the Round Tops the day before, there was no way in hell Picket was
holding on for more than 10 minutes if he forced the union line. His
forces were so trashed, three old ladies with brooms could have
counter-attacked and swept his forces off the ridge. All the North would
have done is counter-attacked his flanks with "fresh" troops, and
totally destroyed him. Any southren help was still very far away, and
had to cross the open field under fire from Union Cannon. So if they
Sounth can't take the Roundtops on Day 2, Picket's charge on Day 3
should be an automatic failure.
> This is a breakthrough game that has a feel and an execution different
> from any that have come before. Maybe that is the cause of the
> disagreement - people are expecting the old "tell me every combat
> modifier" sort of simulation.
It's a great combat system, I think cannon are alittle underpowered. I
had a Reb brigadde charge a battery of 6 Napoleans
and not only did they live to tell the tale, but the forced the battery
to retreat.
James Dusek
Brian Reynolds
> So, there are scenarios where Lee w/ "more units" is different from
> "Longstreet" w/ more units?
Yes, but usually it's in the subtleties--more division commanders and
things like that. Occasionally an extra reserve brigade.
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Brian Reynolds
Sounds like you're ready for the multiplayer big time!
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Sens wrote:
>
> I'm looking for playing tips. To start off, here are mine:
>
> 1) Use the 'Hold' button. Before I used this, units would just up
> and take off with paltry morale loss, and leave the whole line
> hanging. And you know about the domino effect once you get a gap in
> the line and the computer units start going perpendicular to yours...
>
> 2) Use the 'Hold' button when you charge. Say you are charging a
> position, wait until your men stops in front of the position, then
> quickly hit change 'Charge' to 'Hold'. It's still effectively melee
> combat, but now the only way the unit will lose is if it is completely
> routed. I've won every charge encounter using this.
>
> 3) Stack your arty right on the front line, which a foot regiment
> slightly in front of it. The AI will always aim for the guarding
> regiment, and your cannons will be at cannister range.
>
> 4) Use column marching for most of all your moves. Enemy arty does
> fairly minimal damage (including height & enfilade, but excluding
> range). The only thing you must avoid is infantry fire while in
> columns, because the unit will quickly take 2+ boxes in morale hits
> and will likely retreat. Be careful while marching in columns and
> then reforming into lines, when you are near the front line. What
> happens is that the column will extend half its length forward of the
> marked spot before it starts to wheel into line formation, so even if
> the marked spot is out of infantry rifle range, the column can still
> be hit because of the forward extension.
>
> 4a) Corollary to #4: When you march a column up to the front line,
> and reform it into line formation to charge the enemy, let the unit
> completely reform before the charge. If not, the unit is still
> considered to be in column formation, and will immediately take a big
> hit in morale and will automatically retreat when reaching the enemy.
Brian Reynolds
Sens wrote:
>
> Re: Captured units -- At the end of the Confed battle #5 (Baltimore's
> Pike), I had a regiment charged 3 batteries of Union guns. It
> captured 2 of them and drove the 3rd away. When I checked on the
> regiment again, I noticed it was much smaller (from 450+ men to 300
> men). I also noticed that it will not moved from the captured
> batteries, even though I plotted for it to move. Also, the captured
> batteries do not fire, even though they are the same as the other
> batteries I have in appearances.
>
> Questions: Can only arty be captured? Is the capturing unit stuck on
> guard duty and be effectively lost for the battle? Can I use or move
> the captured pieces?
Several questions, several answers--
* Any unit may raise the white flag and "surrender" if it is
sufficiently surrounded & beleaguered. Only artillery can be "captured"
in the sense that you actually get to turn the guns around and use them
immediately against the enemy.
* The regiment capturing a battery leaves some of its own men to man the
new battery (the enemy troops ran off, of course). These are subtracted
from the capturing unit, but do not count as "casualties". The rest of
the regiment is in no way tied to the battery and should have no problem
moving.
* The battery itself is immobile for the duration of the battle (the
horses all ran off), but it can be fired from its current position. Keep
in mind that it's in a position set up by the enemy designed to fire in
the -other- direction, so it may not have a clear shot at anything.
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Chris Cummings
Sens wrote in message <62gnjk$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>"Chris Cummings" <BitW...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Chucked worldnet for an ISDN ISP a month ago, and making setup changes and
even installing IE 4.0 a couple weeks ago didn't change the existing
registry stuff MS's newsreader uses so the return address above is wrong.
I'm at Bit...@oz.net. Sorry for any confusion. I think it's fixed.
>The problem that I have with a hierarchical menu is that it can
>potentially take more (screen) space, and it's not efficient in terms
>of the amount of hand movement/keystrokes.
I agree about the screen space. It doesn't have to be very big, and the
'zoom' helps somewhat. My main defense is that I said to make it
*optional*. I also like leaning back away from the keyboard and using just
a mouse for everything. Having to Shift or Ctrl keyboard commands,
especially in a solitaire strategy game, I find annoying.
> Hierarchical menus are bad
>because it involves management for more than one level, which is
>cumbersome when speed is of the essence.
It's an alternative and a trade-off and alternatve tradeoffs aren't
inherantly bad. It's usually GOOD to be able to see information in more
than one way -- thus the 'reports' for instance. I just want some of that
information to be *optionally* seen on the main battle screen. I find
hunting down flags to identify units and their commanders via text at the
bottom of the screen a tedious nuisance. Because of the inability to set
'way points', I've had brigades intermingle, and you can't tell from the
flags who's who. Now, from a location, I click on a unit to find out who
they are -- I want the alternative of knowing who they are and finding their
location.
Perhaps I'm not with the program. Maybe the chaos and confusion of command
is just too realistic for me here -- the fog of war so to speak. I just
think I would be able to make better decisions -- and enjoy the game more --
if I had the occasional use of a tool to help me concentrate on the strategy
of the situation rather than maintaining control of the interface.
> As a basis, how many
>real-time game (strategy, action, whatever) do you know of that uses a
>hierarchical menu structure on a regular basis?
How many other games do you know that allow you to command troops at the
regimental and brigade levels at the same time? The hierarchy is part of
the game -- I'm not attempting to impose it because of a fetish for
collapsable trees.
I played my first computer game in 1969 (on a Burroughs) and am a longtime
and great fan of Sid's and Brian's stuff. Gettysburg is also somewhat of a
passion: I *loved* Shelby Foote's "Stars in Their Courses" and have seen Ted
Turner's classic (from which I suspect some cut scenes are borrowed) at
least a half dozen times. This combo of Sid, Brian and Gettysburg, along
with 'realtime', almost seemed too good to be true, so perhaps my
expectations are (too) stratospheric.
One of the factors of a 'great' strategy game IMO is the ability to play
most of it in your mind rather than on the screen. Games such as Empire
proved that virtuoso graphics are not required to remain absorbed in an
all-nighter. One thing that IS required is intuitive and straight-forward
control, the ability to implement decisions in an undistracting manner.
I've only played four battles, so maybe I just need more practice, so I'll
keep at it. I can't tell you how much I want this *dream* game to succeed.
Chris Cummings
Bit...@oz.net
Cmdr Krud
radiospace <radio...@earthlink.net*remove*> wrote in article
<344d1742...@news.earthlink.net>...
> a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
> "Cmdr Krud" <au...@NOSPAMprimenet.com>:
>
is
> >fine but go to the eastern shore (you know, "downey ocean" <g>) or go to
> >western Maryland and it's another world. And then there's West Virginia
> >where most people don't believe that the South actually lost the war.
> >
> >-Krud
>
> Tennessee, and North Carolina were Unionists. West Virginia only
> *exists* because those hillbillies seceded from the state of Virgina
> when the state of Virginia seceded from the US. (And they kicked
> Robert E Lee's ass in 1862, if I'm not mistaken, when he tried to
> "reunify" the state.) If it weren't for all those hicks I'd say the
> North would have been in some real serious trouble, what with Rebs
> holding Pittsburg, Cincinnati, and God-knows-what-else.
Really? Very interesting, I never knew that. I wasn't speaking from
historical facts but from present day experiences :) Anyway, I stand
corrected.
-Krud
radiospace
a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
>
> It's a great combat system, I think cannon are alittle underpowered. I
>had a Reb brigadde charge a battery of 6 Napoleans
>and not only did they live to tell the tale, but the forced the battery
>to retreat.
Seems to me a brigade (even of Rebs <g>) should have no trouble
forcing a battery of 6 guns to retreat. I think, myself, that the
guns are able to limber and unlimber too quickly, allowing them to
fight essentially skirmishing delaying actions against the enemy.
Neil Fradkin
> My main point it, if you had controll from Day 1, you can try
> your own tactics. Longstreet wanted to try and flank the Union army,
> instead Lee launched Picket's charge. Great what-ifs are lost, you
> cannot try the flanking manuver.
Check out the scenarios, you can try longstreets flanking manuver.
>
> Also, the game takes great historical liberty with Picket's charge.
> There is NO way Picket's charge was ever going to be a success.
I disagree. If the preceeding arty. barrage had had it's desired
effect, Picket's charge might have worked.
> Someone said they lost when Picket took the VP location in the last few
> seconds of the game. That's all fine and good but unless the south took
> the Round Tops the day before, there was no way in hell Picket was
> holding on for more than 10 minutes if he forced the union line. His
> forces were so trashed, three old ladies with brooms could have
> counter-attacked and swept his forces off the ridge. All the North would
> have done is counter-attacked his flanks with "fresh" troops, and
> totally destroyed him. Any southren help was still very far away, and
> had to cross the open field under fire from Union Cannon. So if they
> Sounth can't take the Roundtops on Day 2, Picket's charge on Day 3
> should be an automatic failure.
Those union cannon escaped a huge artillery barrage rather unharmed. If
they had been unlucky, instead of incredibly lucks as they historically
were, the charge would not have been devistated by as much cannon fire
as it approached. The south actually broke through the union line (and
was counter charged by reserves). If those forces hadn't been brought
down below half strength by cannon, who knows what might have happened.
A huge charge is always a huge gamble, and it could have easily gone
either way.
>
> It's a great combat system, I think cannon are alittle underpowered. I
> had a Reb brigadde charge a battery of 6 Napoleans
> and not only did they live to tell the tale, but the forced the battery
> to retreat.
That's realistic. 6 cannon firing canister are likely to get off only
one shot against a charge, sure each canister will kill a dozen men and
punch huge holes in the charging line, but there will still be 100 men
(at the very least) in parts of the line untouched by those six guns.
The gun crews are easily overwhelemed by infantry. You're actually very
very lucky that the guns weren't captured. Now if you had a small
reserve infantry unit defending those guns, you'd have sent them
running.
>
> James Dusek
John
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:22:53 +0100, simon appleton
<simon.a...@economics.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >OK, so what if I captured it with cavalry? Can I hitch the horses
>> >from the guarding troops and make the pieces mobile then? :)
>> >
>> >Just kidding. Thanks for the response.
>>
>> Ugh, I remember this thread from Age of Rifles last year.
>>
>> (And Norm did it, if I'm not mistaken...)
>>
>Sort of - in AOR, captured enemy guns can be pushed (one hex per turn).
>You can also decline to salvage them. Great features, IMO. I'm not sure
>it is much more than chrome: captured enemy guns are seldom decisive,
>but it really feels great to be able to take the enemy's guns and turn
>them around. I would be annoyed if every time you capture guns, you lose
>men and are stuck with a battery in a useless position (eg wrong side of
>the hill). I have been greatly impressed by Brian Reynolds' engagement
>with this board. Maybe they could consider letting captured guns move
>one hex if they produce a patch? Regardless, I can't wait for Gettysburg
>to appear in the UK stores. AOR is a great game, but perhaps its main
>limitation are those imposed by its turn-based approach (eg its seems
>best to be the player who moves second).
IIRC the suggestion was to allow the guns to be hitched to and pulled
by cavalry horses, albeit at a reduced rate of speed. This was not
implemented.
Currently AoR allows the capturing player to either destroy the guns
or assign a "prize crew" to them. However, the capturing player is
*always* given this choice. I think there should be a pretty good
chance that the guns are destroyed by the original crew before they
can be captured. If they are captured intact, then allow the
capturing player the choice. Is this the case in SMG?
Also, I don't think AoR's biggest limitation was being turn-based.
(Small aside - AoR's biggest problem was that well over half the
scenarii were poorly designed, IMHO) In AoR you can do the entire
Gettysburg battle, something that would probably be tough with the SMG
system in anything greater than 2:1 time compression. It all depends
on the scale of the game. There will always be a place for turn-based
wargames. Now, if the wargame designers would just go with
simultaneous execution instead of IgoUgo...However, I digress.
Back to the topic: I'm not a big fan of RT games, but I just purchased
SMG because of the great praise in the posts in this newsgroup and
*especially* the support shown by Firaxis. The first patch is ALREADY
out at OGR, I just downloaded it. This game is great, no question.
End of ramble. :-)
John aka austinvc
Cmdr Krud
Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM> wrote in article
<344F5B2D...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM>...
> > Seems to me a brigade (even of Rebs <g>) should have no trouble
> > forcing a battery of 6 guns to retreat. I think, myself, that the
> > guns are able to limber and unlimber too quickly, allowing them to
> > fight essentially skirmishing delaying actions against the enemy.
>
> limber a battery quite quickly (more quickly than we have them doing
> so). This of course assumes that nothing went wrong in the heat of
> combat.
>
> Brian Reynolds
> FIRAXIS Games
If I saw a regiment of pissed off rebels coming towards my guns I think I
would be able to limber very quickly ;)
-Krud
ReluctantMessiah
In article <344f9f41...@snews.zippo.com>,
Ichabod Kagass <ich...@super.zippo.comREMOVE.TO.EMAIL> wrote:
>
>I agree here. It seems to easy to approach arty. Also, I would love a
>better onscreen gauge of firing ranges, particularly for arty, but for
>infantry as well. At least a scale legend would be helpful.
>
>I can't wait for those sub battles!
Me neither! No wonder the Union was able to successfully blockade the
South, they had subs.
I think a good way to handle displaying ranges would be a toggle that
works like the line of sight toggle currently does, where you could
turn on and off a highlight of those areas in range for a particular unit.
-jc
--
-----
Note: email to my account is automatically deleted because of all
the spam I receive. All spammers must die.
radiospace
a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
>> >I can't wait for those sub battles!
>>
>> Me neither! No wonder the Union was able to successfully blockade the
>> South, they had subs.
>
> Actually, wasn't it the south that had subs (well, a sub).
Yes, they did! Pretty wacky.
Brian Reynolds
> If you hit the column button then the line button a regiment will move
> towards a destination as a column then switch to line formation when they
> get there. It's much faster than doing it manually.
And if you see enemy troops ahead and want them to switch to line
formation -immediately-, just click the line button a second time and
they'll form up before proceeding.
Brian Reynolds
FIRAXIS Games
Bruce Friedman
Brian Reynolds wrote in message
<344FF6A8...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM>...
Or hit the halt button and they will stop moving forward & form line.
Don't you ever STOP reading & replying to posts Brian? <g>
Seriously, great support; it's what decided me on buying the game without a
demo even though I didn't care for the graphics as shown in the screenshots.
It's impossible to make things foolproof
because fools are so ingenious.
Grifman
Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM> wrote:
>The "pushing the guns" idea is a good one, and we'll look into it.
>Brian Reynolds
>FIRAXIS Games
>simon appleton wrote:
>>
>> radiospace wrote:
>> >
>> > a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
>> > se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens):
>> >
>> > >Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>* The battery itself is immobile for the duration of the battle (the
>> > >>horses all ran off), but it can be fired from its current position. Keep
>> > >>in mind that it's in a position set up by the enemy designed to fire in
>> > >>the -other- direction, so it may not have a clear shot at anything.
>> > >
>> > >OK, so what if I captured it with cavalry? Can I hitch the horses
>> > >from the guarding troops and make the pieces mobile then? :)
>> > >
>> > >Just kidding. Thanks for the response.
>> >
>> > Ugh, I remember this thread from Age of Rifles last year.
>> >
>> > (And Norm did it, if I'm not mistaken...)
>> >
>> Sort of - in AOR, captured enemy guns can be pushed (one hex per turn).
>> You can also decline to salvage them. Great features, IMO. I'm not sure
>> it is much more than chrome: captured enemy guns are seldom decisive,
>> but it really feels great to be able to take the enemy's guns and turn
>> them around. I would be annoyed if every time you capture guns, you lose
>> men and are stuck with a battery in a useless position (eg wrong side of
>> the hill). I have been greatly impressed by Brian Reynolds' engagement
>> with this board. Maybe they could consider letting captured guns move
>> one hex if they produce a patch? Regardless, I can't wait for Gettysburg
>> to appear in the UK stores. AOR is a great game, but perhaps its main
>> limitation are those imposed by its turn-based approach (eg its seems
>> best to be the player who moves second).
I like a choice like in AOR as to whether I want to detach men for the
guns. If I am advancing rapidly, the last thing I want is to lose
some men to man some guns that I don't need . . . Thanks.
Grifman
James Dusek
Ichabod Kagass wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 13:28:07 -0500, James Dusek
> <du...@cadsun.corp.mot.com> wrote:
> > While the sub battles are growing on me, I still standby my
> >orgional statement, eventhough it seems to be extra-crispy by now.
Sub-battles. meaning smaller snippets of the larger battle.
Actually, the south used the submarine first.
James Dusek
Ichabod Kagass
> While the sub battles are growing on me, I still standby my
>orgional statement, eventhough it seems to be extra-crispy by now.
Sub battles? Cool. I haven't gotten that far into the campaign yet.
>That's all fine and good but unless the south took
>the Round Tops the day before, there was no way in hell Picket was
>holding on for more than 10 minutes if he forced the union line. His
>forces were so trashed, three old ladies with brooms could have
>counter-attacked and swept his forces off the ridge.
I believe this was a popular Union tactic.
> It's a great combat system, I think cannon are alittle underpowered. I
>had a Reb brigadde charge a battery of 6 Napoleans
>and not only did they live to tell the tale, but the forced the battery
>to retreat.
I agree here. It seems to easy to approach arty. Also, I would love a
better onscreen gauge of firing ranges, particularly for arty, but for
infantry as well. At least a scale legend would be helpful.
I can't wait for those sub battles!
-Ichabod Kagass
*** ***
*** No .sig for me, thank you. ***
*** ***
Brian Reynolds
Brian Reynolds
radiospace
a bottle washed ashore containing the following desperate message from
se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens):
>Brian Reynolds <brey...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM> wrote:
>
>>* The battery itself is immobile for the duration of the battle (the
>>horses all ran off), but it can be fired from its current position. Keep
>>in mind that it's in a position set up by the enemy designed to fire in
>>the -other- direction, so it may not have a clear shot at anything.
>
>OK, so what if I captured it with cavalry? Can I hitch the horses
>from the guarding troops and make the pieces mobile then? :)
>
>Just kidding. Thanks for the response.
Ugh, I remember this thread from Age of Rifles last year.
(And Norm did it, if I'm not mistaken...)
Patrick
Neil Fradkin
Cmdr Krud
Sens <se...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<62m3ol$h...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> I'm looking for playing tips. To start off, here are mine:
Stay out of the city. I thought it would provide good cover but I had a
hell of a time keeping my formations in the city streets during a
multiplayer game. My opponent set up a battle line right at the edge of
the city so I was trapped.
If you hit the column button then the line button a regiment will move
towards a destination as a column then switch to line formation when they
get there. It's much faster than doing it manually.
Send a Commander behind enemy lines to wait and rally your routed troops
after a failed assault.
Play some Bluegrass music in the background during a game :)
-Krud
Bruce Friedman
jel wrote in message <3453f7d9...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:07:48 -0400, Brian Reynolds
><brey...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM> said something kinda like:
>
>>The benefit of this focus is being nearer to the men who
>>actually fought the war--the game feels closer to "being there" in
>>scale, less abstract.
>>
>
>Brian,
>
>I haven't had a chance to pick up SMG yet, but based upon what I hear
>about the game I think Shara's "Killer Angels" should be highly
>recommended reading for anyone playing the game. I think the game
>would feel a lot different for anyone who reads (experiences may be a
>better word) that truly great novel. Would have been a good pack-in
>for the game <g>.
>
snip <comments on 'Killer Angels'>
Another fine book for getting the feel of what it was like is 'Soldiering,
The Civil War Diary of Rice C. Bull', edited by K. Jack Baur. This is
autobiographical, rather than a work of fiction. Bull was an enlisted man in
the 123rd New York and ended the war as a sergeant. His account of
Chancellorsville, where he was wounded, is particularly good in expressing
how a battle feels to the rank & file.
WLambrukos
> Actually, wasn't it the south that had subs (well, a sub).
>
>
Wasn't it the "Hunley"?
Bill
jel
On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:07:48 -0400, Brian Reynolds
<brey...@firaxis.com-HOLDTHESPAM> said something kinda like:
>We're trying to make you feel like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain trying to
>hold the flank at Little Round Top, knowing the safety of the rest of
>the army depends on him (even though he didn't personally choose that
>fight). The benefit of this focus is being nearer to the men who
>actually fought the war--the game feels closer to "being there" in
>scale, less abstract.
>
Brian,
I haven't had a chance to pick up SMG yet, but based upon what I hear
about the game I think Shara's "Killer Angels" should be highly
recommended reading for anyone playing the game. I think the game
would feel a lot different for anyone who reads (experiences may be a
better word) that truly great novel. Would have been a good pack-in
for the game <g>.
For any of you who haven't read "Killer Angels", I guarantee that you
will read it at least twice. I remember finishing the book while
waiting for a plane in Dallas; I closed it and just sat in silence for
a few minutes.
fwiw,
jeff lackey