Battleground games: comments?
Steve Batten
I was looking at a few of the Battleground games in a shop recently.
Has anyone got any comments on them? Are they any good?
Thanks in advance,
Steve Batten.
William Van Fleet
Gorgeous graphics. Lavish attention to historical detail. The dumbest
AI going. The only real challenge to any of them (and I have all of the
Civil War titles plus Waterloo) is how quickly you can destroy every single
enemy unit.
--
Regards,
Bill
From ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggety beasties
And things that go bump in the night, Good Lord, deliver us!
~Cornish Prayer
Steve Batten wrote in message <67ftpt$2b8$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>...
FLAUDIO
> The dumbest
>AI going.
Quite correct! I have a couple of the games. Being an oldtime Panzer
Leader/Panzerblitz fan I loved Battleground Ardennes. I thought the BGA really
shinned when played via e-mail or modem.
Merry Christmas,
Mike
Chive
In article <67g2pj$l...@snews2.zippo.com>, you say...
> Gorgeous graphics. Lavish attention to historical detail. The dumbest
> AI going. The only real challenge to any of them (and I have all of the
> Civil War titles plus Waterloo) is how quickly you can destroy every single
> enemy unit.
I will agree about the dumb AI. But it's not an issue for me. I own 7 of
the Battleground series of games and I don't think I've spent more than
an hour total playing the computer AI.
The Battleground games are excellent for PBEM. The PBEM system is very
sound and bug-free. I especially enjoy the Napoleonic games with the
complex interactions between cavalry, infantry, artillery and
skirmishers.
Kevin L Sparrow
>I was looking at a few of the Battleground games in a shop recently.
>Has anyone got any comments on them? Are they any good?
>
>Thanks in advance,
> Steve Batten.
I own BG Bulge and Waterloo and they are both good simulations of the
respective battles, only thing lacking with bulge was a campaign
element though-you just had set battles. The graphics are neat (you
have an option of either a 3d perspective or 2d), OOBS are correct
and the interface is quite nice. The only thing which destroys these
otherwise good games is the AI which is abysmal. They layout is the
same for all their BG games.
To enjoy the games you need to PBEM them, but I stilll think that is a
cop out for the programmers not to spend time to produce a good AI
these days- in some cases.
Why dont you try East Front instead? This game is a move forward for
Talonsoft, which incorporates the same game engine (more or less) but
much more refined and also has a campaign element (albiet random and
not historically related ) if you like that kind of thing. The AI has
improved, but not as great as I had hoped or was hyped , and it has a
great scenario/map/OOB editor which is the best I have seen in a game.
Kevin
Gregg Charlton
Steve Batten wrote:
>
> I was looking at a few of the Battleground games in a shop recently.
> Has anyone got any comments on them? Are they any good?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Steve Batten.
They're not worth the money. The AI is wretched and the game system is
tedious when playing anything but the smallest engagements. SSI's Age of
Rifles is a better turn-based alternative and Sid Meier's Gettysburg! is
an even better real-time option. Gettysburg even features a solid AI.
Lastly, Talonsoft doesn't understand interface design so all the
Battleground games feature a clunky, Windows 3.1 bastardization.
--
Gregg Charlton
Gregg Charlton
Unfortunately, one shouldn't have to pay $50 for a computer game in
which the only credible opponent is found via e-mail.
--
Gregg Charlton
Turenne001
Gregg wrote:>
> I will agree about the dumb AI.
And I'll second that. To me, one of the main reasons for playing computer
games is the convenience of having an opponent at my beck and call. If I had
all the time in the world I'd go back to my miniatrues, for which the
Battleground games are only a substitute. Unfortunately, as observed, the AI is
really poor. In attack its worthless, while on defense its marginal.
However, IMO, this is the norm for computer wargames. Witness the Steel
Panthers series. Terrible attack AI, ok on defense.
I haven't played the Battles of Alexander or Hannibal games. Anyone know what
the AI is like in these games? And while you're at it, how does the AI do in
Sid Meir's Gettysburg! Thanks.
Ken Portner
Chive
In article <349EBC...@lmco.com>, gregg.a....@lmco.com says...
> Chive wrote:
> Unfortunately, one shouldn't have to pay $50 for a computer game in
> which the only credible opponent is found via e-mail.
One doesn't have to pay $50 for a computer game in which the only
credible opponent is found via e-mail. One can simply not buy the game.
I'd be the first to tell you not to buy any of the Battleground games if
you are looking for challenging solo play.
I've been computer wargaming for years and I've yet to see a large
complex turn-based wargame that sported a truely decent AI.
I'll admit that the AI in some of the newer realtime games seems decent.
But the computer has a huge leg up in such a game because it can be
everywhere at once while the player can't.
Since I fully intend to play any turn-based wargame PBEM I'm more focused
on issues of game balance and design.
Scott cor
>Unfortunately, one shouldn't have to pay $50 for a computer game in
>which the only credible opponent is found via e-mail.
>
>
Many of the older Battleground games are available now for 20 to 30 dollars.
And you can not name a turnbased wargame yet that has an AI as challenging or
interesting as a human opponent. As for a "credible opponent" thats pretty
much subjective. Some games offer an AI where the computer player gets many
more units or some similar attempt to balance gameplay, but that is a poor
substitute. TACOPS is about as good an AI as I can remember. To be fair to
the HPS games, I haven't spent any time with them.
For anyone with a strong interest in civil war or napoleonic games, the
battleground games are about as good a choice as is currently available.
Jeff Vitous
Turenne001 wrote in message
<19971222203...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
I can't speak for SMG (I really, REALLY despise RTS games, although Sid's
name may be enough to get this one on my hard drive for a look-see when the
prices drop to about $20)
The Great Battles series is a case of excellent game design compensating in
part for the problems inherent in creating a decent AI. Challenging
tactical situations can be made more difficult (or easier) by adjusting the
rout level of the combating armies. Note this means that as difficulty
increases, your skill must improve -- you have to accomplish the same
objectives more efficiently, rather than the AI getting arbitrary
advantages. I've played Hannibal more than Alexander, and in Hannibal, the
AI is better either as the Roman (there isn't much flexibility involved in
wielding a legion, so the AI can handle the limited options available), or
as Carthage as long as it plays defensively. When it plays Carthage and
tries to be offensive, you as the Romans can go on a feeding frenzy. In
most scenarios, chances are the AI can put up a good fight on either side.
In Alex, several scenarios seem to be designed for the player to take one
side only (usually Alex). The AI is given a much greater force, causing
the player to carefully consider his actions. Both approaches work as well
as any I've seen, and I've been playing computer wargames since the early
80's.
cath...@erols.com
Gregg Charlton <gregg.a....@lmco.com> wrote:
>--
>Gregg Charlton
Okay, Gregg,....
I hear your criticisms about BG series. But what makes AOR better?
Is it just because you can micromanage in greater detail? That's not
necessarily better. I like the BG series, but the truth is I agree
with you. I enjoy the mapping, 3-D terrains, and reasonable attention
paid to historical accuracy(regimental uniforms, deployment, etc.)
I've heard that AOR does a better job of detailing rules of
engagement, but is somewhat severely detailed requiring in depth
micromanagement and is lacking in graphics.
Now a true grognard might roll his eyes and grumble something like
"What do you want? Rules is all there is!" But I beg to differ. If
there is ANYTHING that a pc war game ought to better it's graphics. I
think it's legitimate of me to be interested in them. After all, which
kind of minature would you prefer: That nice 12cm fancy Eng. made
pewter model, or those plastic ones at 15.00/100 pcs. you started out
with when you were a kid?
One more thing, I'm really interested in Napoleonic war lately and I
don't see any alternatives. I would welcome any interested replies.
Thanx,
Cath...@erols.com
Winky
Agreed about the Battleground AI being dumb. I lost my interest in
Waterloo very quickly. Woild have picked up Napoleon in Russia and
Prelude to Waterloo but the AI scared me away.
Alexander seemed to have a decent AI, but it crawled along on my P90 and
I didn't really spend that much time with it. Don't know about
Hannibal.
Sid Meier's Gettysburg is great. Probably the best wargame for the
year. It has 4 difficulty settings. The first is fairly easy to beat,
the others seem quite competent - I haven't seen the computer do
anything strange and stupid yet. The game doesn't appear to cheat at
the higher settings (i.e. skew numbers and luck). Overall, definitely
worth looking into. Get the demo at the Firaxis Homepage and check it
out for yourself. Hope they do a Napoleonic game based on this
engine. Also has a decent manual and tactics book.
Winky
> I haven't played the Battles of Alexander or Hannibal games. Anyone know what
> the AI is like in these games? And while you're at it, how does the AI do in
> Sid Meir's Gettysburg! Thanks.
>
> Ken Portner
Redwing009
I have to agree with the general evaluation of the TALONSOFT series: the AI is
terrible. Also, IMO the interface is extremely tedious (too many phases). It
essentially is a computer series which plays a lot like a board game series. It
really seems to me that the BG series is outmoded and is rapidly being passed
up by other game systems. Sid Meiers' Gettysburg is fantastic. The AI is good
and game play is very realistic (don't let the bad press about RTS fool anyone
- this is a very solid real time system).
For me, AGE of Rifles is a pretty good system. The games are relatively fast
(no long winded phases ala BG series), the AI isn't particularly bad, and the
number and variety of scenarios keeps it interesting and fresh. Graphics aren't
top-notch and the sound (still can't get any sound on my system) isn't great,
but overall it is more intertaining than the BG series for me. Ironically, this
game seems to be a better Napoleonic system than the super-games TALONSOFT has
put out. I have a number of Napoleonic scenarios which play very well indeed.
The oportunity fire system which occurrs during your movement pahse ( the
opponent engages in opportunity fire when you move) adds a tactical element
which greatly enhances tactics.
I'd be very interested in the opinions of those who have EAST FRONT and SPIII.
How do these two games compare? EAST FRONT for me is a potentially good system
which unfortunately IMO was not completely thought out and has a number of
inherent
design flaws. How does SPIII stack up? I'm guessing that it may be a pretty
good game. How is the AI? Any improvement over SPi and SPII?
Gregg Charlton
cath...@erols.com wrote:
> Okay, Gregg,....
> I hear your criticisms about BG series. But what makes AOR better?
AoR does not divide each turn into multiple phases. Also, for the larger
battles like Gettysburg, AoR uses brigade rather regiment sized units.
Both differences greatly expedite play. The graphics in AoR aren't as
good and the AI is only marginally superior so AOR isn't a substantial
winner over the BG series. Sid Meier's Gettysburg, OTOH, has beautiful
graphics and a really challenging AI (no cheating and an ability to
exploit weaknesses in the human's lines).
> Is it just because you can micromanage in greater detail? That's not
> necessarily better. I like the BG series, but the truth is I agree
> with you. I enjoy the mapping, 3-D terrains, and reasonable attention
> paid to historical accuracy(regimental uniforms, deployment, etc.)
> I've heard that AOR does a better job of detailing rules of
> engagement, but is somewhat severely detailed requiring in depth
> micromanagement and is lacking in graphics.
> Now a true grognard might roll his eyes and grumble something like
> "What do you want? Rules is all there is!" But I beg to differ. If
> there is ANYTHING that a pc war game ought to better it's graphics. I
> think it's legitimate of me to be interested in them. After all, which
> kind of minature would you prefer: That nice 12cm fancy Eng. made
> pewter model, or those plastic ones at 15.00/100 pcs. you started out
> with when you were a kid?
Agreed. Great rules without good graphics and decent AI translate into a
good boardgame ported to the PC. If that's all there is, I'll just buy
the boardgame instead. To me, any of the BG titles would've made great
boardgames.
--
Gregg Charlton
Jeff Vitous
Turenne001 wrote in message
<19971222203...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Gregg wrote:>
>
>> I will agree about the dumb AI.
>
>And I'll second that. To me, one of the main reasons for playing computer
>games is the convenience of having an opponent at my beck and call. If I
had
>Battleground games are only a substitute. Unfortunately, as observed, the
AI is
>really poor. In attack its worthless, while on defense its marginal.
>
>However, IMO, this is the norm for computer wargames. Witness the Steel
>Panthers series. Terrible attack AI, ok on defense.
>
what
>the AI is like in these games? And while you're at it, how does the AI do
in
>Sid Meir's Gettysburg! Thanks.
A Gailey
Redwing009 wrote:
<snip>
> opponent engages in opportunity fire when you move) adds a tactical element
> which greatly enhances tactics.
>
(Left that in cos in SP3, the opponent gets more Op fire, plus there
seems no easy way to determine the exact amount as in SP1 and 2 - so its
not a case of move and lose 2 trucks - that tiger is out of op fire any
more - rats!!).
> I'd be very interested in the opinions of those who have EAST FRONT and SPIII.
> How do these two games compare? EAST FRONT for me is a potentially good system
> which unfortunately IMO was not completely thought out and has a number of
> inherent
> design flaws. How does SPIII stack up? I'm guessing that it may be a pretty
> good game. How is the AI? Any improvement over SPi and SPII?
Acyually, I had no intention of buying it after the demo - but SSI
kindly sent me a free copy - either as a thank you for bieng on the SP2
beta or a big hint ot do an editor (done...).
It grows on you - at first you think its just SP2 done again, but a few
subtelties help out..
1) When seen by te enemy you slow down - less MP - this helps the AI as
it does not move so fast, so can return fire better.
2) If fired at, you also slow down - ditto for the AI.
3) Orders system - no more move everything at will - use orders to set
an objective for a formation, subsequent moves towards this cost no
orders - moves off of this path cost orders. HQs have limited orders -
resting lets them build them up - orders also used to call arty air etc.
Subordinates without radio must be in physical contact to get new orders
- eg 'werere going to that a place' - even if co hq has to move up and
physically colocate with subordinate for it to get the msg - and radio
equipped subs are not 100% in contact either.
4) They have added modes - defend or move basically - in defence
movement isnt allowed (unless orders spent) - butif left alone will 'dig
in'.
5) Infantry more resilient - still not tough enough IMHO (me ex-grunt!)
6) Artillery - now quite effective - kills too many tanks, as old style
track hits convert to total kills... Drop 81mm mortars om M1s, you will
trash some (eventually..).
East Front -seen the pix, looks pretty - still not out in the Uk - or at
least in Scotland. Read the reviews - even when patched seems more beer
and pretzels than a real wargame. But have tried talonsoft's gettysburg
(SMGs one dumps all over this turkey), Waterloo - thankfully someone
elses - not bought myself - gettysburg with different counters, same AI
- and I have Age of Sail. Oh Dear me. They all look pretty though - but
then did a wee game called 'fields of Glory' - good if it was a screen
saver, but no use as a game!.
SP3 - Worth a punt.
Sid's gettysburg - get it! - please a napoleonics version instead of
some colonial conflict - real charging cavalry!!..
EF - maybe when in the bargain bin - Virgin is offering 3 talonsoft
titles for the price of 1 - even then I am not buying!!..
Cheers
Andy
(Author mobhack, Kobhack)
All opinions(or other drivel) are mine..
http://freespace.virgin.net/a.gailey
If you want SP stuff
--
>> Nospam : Please remove Caps from address when replying <<
Redwing009
SMG is terrific. The SMG game engine will make a wonderful Napoleonic game. All
SMG fans should lobby Firaxis for a Naploeonic game. None of the TALONSOFT
Napoleonic games
would come anywhere near the level of simulation that the SMG system would
give. I also am getting real tired of a lot of the hand wringing that many
gamers have concerning poor AIs. Many gamers seem to be of the opinion that a
poor AI is acceptable. This is not the case! TALONSOFT does terrible AI's, but
Firaxis has done a remarkable job with Gettysburg. SSG's Ardennes Offensive
is pretty darn good for an operational level game. Close Combat 2 is not bad
either. It can be done right!
FLAUDIO
>Unfortunately, one shouldn't have to pay $50 for a computer game in which the
only credible opponent is found via e-mail.>
Perhaps you are right. But I have yet to find ANY wargame where the AI was
really that good. Even SSG's Ardennes Offensive whose designers went to great
lengths to make the AI as tough as possible is still not very good. Granted
it's the best AI I've come across. However, I've still spanked the computer so
hard in the campaign game that it didn't have any units left to move!
But in fairness to the computer AI, most of the human opponents I've played
weren't much better than the computer. I liked Talonsoft's BGArdennes and if
you can get it for less than $50 bucks go for it. Hell, I might even play you!
Happy Holidays,
Mike
TJ
>>I can't speak for SMG (I really, REALLY despise RTS games, although Sid's
>>name may be enough to get this one on my hard drive for a look-see when the
>>prices drop to about $20)
>
>games, but this one is a must have. Hated CC and CC2, but Sid's
>Gettysburg is FUN, and lots of it. A great game.
I must agree. I never liked CC or CC2 either. Didn't care for C&C or
any clones in that category. Harpoon was easy to play in RT because
of the nature of Naval combat.
SMG is a great game. Although I must caution you it could be
hazardous to your health. Even the demo has great replay value. I
picked up both. Playing the Union is really tough, your troops seem
to want to "skeddadle" when ever the going gets tough. If you've ever
played miniatures and you like the Civil War era then you will love
this game.
Hopefully there will be a Napoleonic version of the game, or maybe
even an Ancients version.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
TJ
red...@worldnet.att.net
UIN: 1889495
Remove: NO SPAM
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Pipes
Yeah, I just hope they don't make us buy two games again to get both
sides. I thought they came in one box, but the salesguy showed me the
*other* box. So I bought the Union and Confederate ones, both. I'm
still playing the Union one, haven't cracked the other. But if it's
as good as the first one, it's a keeper.
It's funny, though, I haven't seen any other complaints about this.
Maybe I was the only one smart enough to buy *both* sides! Hah!
Happy Holidays, everyone. Oh, and... :-) :-) :-)
--
----------------------------------------
David Pipes
Remove P from return address to reply.
----------------------------------------
TJ
> I would love to see a Revolionay War (U.S.) version of this
>game. But I think the key to this game is the fact that you don't
>have to deal with all of the troops at once. Your NOT fighting
>Gettysburg as the whole battle. It would be a bit overwhelming if you
>were in real-time, and you would lose the fun factor that his game
>does have.
I've never really been interested in the Revolution, but I'd give it a
try. Yes you are right about not having to control all the forces.
I'd like to try a multiplayer game and divide up the armies between
subordinate commanders. That would be awesome. Maybe give each
player a Corps or Division.
> At first I thought Sid was wrong in doing only parts of the
>battle at a time, but I see he wasn't. If he would have done the
>whole battle, you would be unable to keep track of what was going on
>every where. And would of turn this great game into just another click
>fest.
It looks like he did his homework. Unfortunately I only have the
demo, but I'm having a blast playing all the scenarios.
I'd love to see a Napoleonic (SMW Side Meier's Waterloo) or maybe a
game that encompasses all the Napoleonic battles. Imagine giving the
command to form a square in the face of an impending charge by enemy
cavalry.
How about a strategic engine for a TRUE campaign game. The way most
campaigns work is that you play a scenario then depending on the
outcome the campaign branches off to another scenario.
Basically there would be two games combined into one. The first game
would be strategic in nature units could be at Corps level. The
second game would be the tactical game (SMG). A campaign is started
in the strategic game. Players move their units like normal. When
two opposing forces meet the battle is transferred to the tactical
game. The strategic game will generate the objectives and scenario
for the tactical game. Of course if you didn't want to fight a
tactical battle you could use the strategic game to resolve combat.
This is not a new concept. Miniature gamers have been conducting
these kinds of campaigns for years. I don't think I've ever seen this
in a computer game.
I'd also like to see an Ancients game based on a similar engine (SMG)
at least the same graphics.
Winky
There is only one version of the game - you get to play both sides on
the same CD. There are different boxes however - the salesguy has no
idea what he is talking about - probably just a grunt who wanted to make
a quick sale.
Winky
Mike Hussey
In article <6812jr$a...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, old....@att.net-
Don't writes
<snip>
>
> This has been done before, but so far not very well. There
>was a Civil War game some time back, that did this. You could fight
>tactical either with mintures (and give the info into the game) let
>the computer do the out come, or fight a really poor tactical game
>that came with Strategic one.
>
>
Yes, that sounds like Empire's American Civil War, I don't remember the
miniatures part, but I'm not a miniatures player. You are right about
the tactical game, it was very poor - a shame really, because I really
wanted to like the game.
Please remove asterisks if replying by e-mail.
Mike Hussey