HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Topic started by: JMM on 22 January 2004, 19:21:00 PM
-
Hello everybody...
Short questions...
You often play with Combat Mission, Breakaway Austerlitz/Waterloo, or Medieval Total War...
Could you say me their main attractions :?:
Do you think these games have some defaults :?:
What do you want to find with HW :?: which don't exist with these others games :arrow:
THX for your answers...
JMM
-
Bonsoir JMM,
Do you think these games have some defaults :?:
Defaults? You do mean defects or shortcomings, right?
Defaults means "défauts" in French I believe. :wink:
As for your questions I'll be back as soon as I thought it thru.
P.S. I don't mean to mark your words. I'm just concerned that everyone may not understand what you mean.
/Lars L.
-
THX Lars...
Maybe the con of these games.. Is it better than default ou shortcomings? Maybe the 'bad' concept?
Sorry for my error :wink:
JMM
-
JMM,
I play Combat Mission (CM) all the time, and was involved in the development of all 3 games as a BETA tester and graphics contributer.
I think the 3D aspect of the game increases the realism quotient tremendously, not just visually, but a lot of the simulation aspects can only be done in 3D, ie. fall of shot, LOS, etc. It was a leap ahead in wargame design IMO.
That being said I do have some issues with CM (that i would love to see implemented in your game), here are the main ones:
1. Micro-management. I have been fighting against this since the first release of the game... but they like having control over every single vehicle and squad on the map. It can take a very long time to play a scenario because of this.
I would rather see this type of game have a good command and control system like Highway to the Reich (http://www.highwaytothereich.com), which does C2 very well (and yes I'm involved in the development of that game too :wink:
2. Turn based. I would rather the game be real-time, or continuous time. I think this adds to the realism and immersion. This also adds to the time required to play out a scenario.
3. A lot of abstraction. Many of the features, like artillery, air support, etc. is very abstracted and not realistic in implementation. I would rather a realistic application of as much of the period covered as possible.
4. What you see is not what you get. The 3D models do not block LOS to each other (you can see and shoot through destroyed tanks for example). The 3D terrain is only a representation of the data used by the computer AI. Often you can shoot through buildings of other obstacles that should be a hindrance to LOS and fire. I would love to see that be tightened up, so you can peek around a building, treeline, etc. without setting yourself up.
But overall I think this series of games in particular (I can't speak for the others you mentioned) is outstanding and I have been playing the series for over 4 years now, since the first game's early BETA days.
Hope that helps.
Regards, Bil
-
No problem JMM, I think they understand by now. :)
I have only played Brakeaways games simply due to that fact that it's the only one of those stated above that are Napoleonic.
Here is the pros and cons:
Pros
-Easy to learn but difficult to master (Very strong AI for beginners).
-Historical accurate uniforms and OoB etc.
-Realistic combat system with morale, formations etc
-Easy to overview.
-Occupy able houses.
-Good sound with voice commands.
-In all fun to play.
Cons
-Not all Napoleons battles just one battle per game.
-No map or OoB editor.
-No linked battles.
-Out of date graphics.
-Rather poor animations.
-Low soldier ratio (1 Soldier represents 40-50 men).
-No effects like breaking walls or ruined houses.
-No adjustable vertical camera view.
-No adjustable tactical doctrines.
-The different AI levels are more like a handicap system rather than different intelligent levels.
If Histwar can eliminate all those cons and keep the pros stated above then we have the ultimate Napoleonic game on a tactical level. 8)
As for the strategic level I would like options to keep it simple or have the details automatic.
/Lars L.
-
This is kinda scary, but I agree with virtually all the points made by Link and Bil about the games in question. 8O
I'd like to add an observation about their current state, though. Both are, IMO, pretty much at the end of their tether from a technological standpoint. Which is to say, that there's not a heck a lot more that can be done with those engines.
I look forward to games like yours, JMM, and Madminutegames title, "Take Command 1861." Wargaming/Simulations need a shot in the arm, and these two could well do the trick. :D
Ivanmoe
-
I owned Breakaway's Waterloo and I ended up throwing it away. You had to be everywhere and unhistorical things always happened because you couldn't see them happening at the other end of the battlefield. I also threw it away because of things like entire battalions of Prussian Landwher having the ability to into skirmish order. It was just a click-fest for sure. Things happened too fast.
I had the original Total War (Warlord Edition) and it too seemed like a click-fest. I no longer have it as well.
I play COMBAT MISSION all of the time too and CM's we-go style of play is the BEST part of it that I like. The scenario and Quick Battle generators are like manna from heaven. It is cool to purchase units for a Quick Battle.
Traditional turn-base and "real-time" styles are just two extremes. Something like we-go or symultaneous movement is a terrific compromise.
By the way, I would prefer turn-based if I had to choose from just the two. I believe that we are intelligent enough to know that there is more than just those two choices.
In my opinion, the best way to do things is to allow "real-time" (an oxymoron) with the ability to set turns if the player wants it to be that way. Straight "real-time" for those that want it AND a choice to set variable turns for those that like that. An example would be the choice to have the turns set at every 15, 30, 45, or 60 minutes of gameplay. Naturally, both players would have to agree on turns or not before they start.
JMM, I am thinking of you and how much work you might have to do. I believe that having a choice shouldn't be too much work and it would make both camps happy at the same time.
-
Le Tondu's comments about the difficulty managing battles in "Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle" are well taken. Players, such as myself, who are fans of Waterloo & Austerlitz get overwhelmed as well, no matter how accomplished we become at handling the interface.
The closest we've come to overcoming this problem is by going multiplayer, with two to six players. This really wasn't possible with Waterloo,before, but works quite well with the newer game, playing either with two teams, or with EVERYONE against the AI as a team.
We have a lot of fun with the game, and IMHO, they're easily the best COMPUTER games in existance for folks interested in Napoleonic warfare.
As to turns... :(
I can't set down in front of a turn-based, computer wargame and think to myself anything other than "what a waste." We have this marvelous contraption that offers us all the stuff that we longed for in boardgames, stuff like fog-of-war, an omniscient game-master, and THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, freedom from hexes and turns!
If I'm not mistaken, JMM's concept doesn't really call for micro-management of units in its real-time environment, but, rather, for careful planning and macro-decision making during the actual fracus, and for that I'm elated. :D
Ivanmoe
-
If I'm not mistaken, JMM's concept doesn't really call for micro-management of units in its real-time environment, but, rather, for careful planning and macro-decision making during the actual fracus
Right..
Five tactical orders:
* deployment, diversion, defense, march and link to another corps..
Onky Three regimental orders:
*move, assault against an unit, or link (support) to another unit...
I don't believe a gamer can manage a lot of units in Real Time.. and it's the mean concept of this game : many AI levels to help the user.. (and I hope this task works fine 8)
Hovewer, the gamer can manage the unit organization (line, column (division or peleton), square or column of march) but AI does that too..
In the new engine, you can create your doctrine to define the behaviour of each kind of regiment.. and to choose the main target of the artllery unit (infantry or cavalry or cannon (THX to Link, because I haven't do the difference between Cav and Inf)) So, the colonel looks at his doctrine and uses your 'a priori' order... :wink:
For example ->
For a Light Infantry : Use the Column and Halt if the opponent is stronger than your unit, and if his organization is the Column...
For a Heavy Cavalry.. Use the Line and Charge! if....
JMM
PS : the new engine works either 6 or 9 compagnies...(to follow the historical doctrines..)
-
Le Tondu's comments about the difficulty managing battles in "Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle" are well taken. Players, such as myself, who are fans of Waterloo & Austerlitz get overwhelmed as well, no matter how accomplished we become at handling the interface.
The closest we've come to overcoming this problem is by going multiplayer, with two to six players. This really wasn't possible with Waterloo,before, but works quite well with the newer game, playing either with two teams, or with EVERYONE against the AI as a team.
Don't forget the "friendly AI in Austerlitz that soon will find it's way into Waterloo. This "friendly" AI is a great help for the gamer regarding this micro management issue. It's not perfect though. You still have to micro manage things.
We have a lot of fun with the game, and IMHO, they're easily the best COMPUTER games in existance for folks interested in Napoleonic warfare..
I agree. And it's better than LGAA but I have high hopes and believes that "Les Grognards" will take the place on the top when it's released. :D
I also agree with Ivanmoe regarding the turns...
For the tactical level I prefer real-time 'coz it's more realistic and gives you the feeling of the heat of battle. Plus turn-based games on this level takes forever to play.
I remember Talonsofts Battlground series. They was the best Napoleonic games at that time and I enjoyed them very much but one full battle could take weeks to play. Now I can't go back to that type of game anymore.
For strategic level I would prefer a turn-based system though.
/Lars L.
-
I play the BAG games mainly against the AI
Pros
Fun and absorbing
Real time
good multiplayer opportunities
can manually move and target artillery
Cons
AI behaves in non Napoleonic way (eg swarms all over the battlefield)
Orders are instantaneous - which makes it seems that the CiC has radio contact with all his subordinates
and following from this you do not need to formulate a grand plan for the battle
full batallions can deploy into skirmish formation rather than just the approriate company
also cavalry cannot pursue and destroy routed units
nor deploy into skirmish formation
nor do carbiniers have sidearmas to fire atinfantry in square
also cavalry cannot break down into squadrons for independent action
units rout too readily
infantry never runs out of ammo
enemy units rally behind your lines or near victory point locations
the time delay for orders built into JMMs system is preferable
I dont mean this to be negative to BAG - I still play these games with pleasure
-
Napoleonic battles weren't as fast acting as Breakaway's Waterloo, etc...
I guess that a "real-time" game that has something like real time in it would be fine. I'm talking about a game where one minute of every day time equalled one minute of game time (or something close to it.)
-
Dear JMM,
I have been a lurker in your forums for quite a while. I have played the Talonsoft series of the Napoleonic wargames, BreakAway’s Waterloo and the Total War series of games. I was one of the modders for the Napoleonic Total War (based on the Medieval Total War game.)
Napoleonic Wargaming is my hobby and passion. So it is with great interest that I follow any and all of the Napoleonic games that are coming out.
My takes on the Napoleonic games that I have played so far:
*Talonsoft’s hex based anachronisms: I don’t even want to talk about this. This is the 21st century and we don’t have to stick to those cruel hexes.
*BreakAway’s Waterloo and Austerlitz:
PROS
*Simulates the chain of command on a Napoleonic battlefield nicely. You can attach and detach battalions to/from a brigade, order a divisional commander to rally routed troops, order a corps commander to collect the corps reserve artillery at a given location etc.
* All of the Napoleonic tactical formations could be used (line, column, skirmish, square, mixed order etc)
*Very detailed OOB. Many battles with amazingly accurate OOBs could be created that lends nicely to the game flavour.
CONS
*2D battlefield. Takes away the realism.
*Downright unpleasant sprite graphics and animation. To be fair to Breakaway, perhaps they were labouring under the restrictions of the dated Sid Meier’s engine.
*Melee combats were resolved instantaneously. A regiment of cavalry charging another would either repulse the adversary instantly or would self be repulsed immediately. No animations for the “hack and thrust” of the edged weapon combat. This is a big no-no for me.
*Rallying algorithms for routed units are a scandal in Waterloo. Routed units would rally right under your nose with a “legendary” leader close by who would be helping the process.
*Cavalry combat was not satisfactorily modelled. There was no option to combine regiments into brigades and brigades into divisions and divisions into corps during a cavalry charge. It was not at all unusual for the French to fling forth corps size cavalry charges. As we all know eight regiments charging under 8 separate colonels is not the same as 2 divisions charging under a Murat or Kellerman!
*Napoleonic Total War mod for the Medieval Total War:
PROS
*3D battlefield. Does wonders for realism.
*Excellent sprite graphics and animation. Good 3D terrain.
*Melee combats were a delight to watch. Each individual trooper could be seen fighting with an adversary from the opposing regiment. Animations for the “hack and thrust” of the edged weapon combat was pretty good.
*Rallying algorithms for routed units are eminently believable. Routed units would run away, normally behind your own lines, at a great distance from the line of battle.
CONS
*Very difficult to simulate the chain of command on a Napoleonic battlefield. It was basically a battalion vs battalion (for infantry) or a regiment vs regiment (for cavalry) combat. The concept of higher command structures like brigades, divisions and corps does not exist.
* We tried like hell to get the square formation for the infantry but could not succeed. This was one of the reasons why I left the mod. Other Napoleonic tactical formations could be used (line, column and skirmish)
*Can not assign names to individual regiments. Takes away the historical flavour of the game.
Will post more!
Best Regards,
Cuirassier
-
Dear all...
A lot of very deep comments... Thank!
I believe Les Grognards offers many features you wish.
Hovewer, I am no sure all will be in this game!
(just an example: it's not possible to choose the compagnies to deploy into skirmish formation... the colonel only deploies two coys per regiment)... but in your doctrine, you can define the distance for fighting... (and it's possible to change it in the game)
Hovewer, in this Wargame, you are the Commander in Chief, (or sometimes a Marshall).. so you have to manage the army.. not the regiments.
I think it's difficult to compare this game with other ones... it's different... and I hope the concepts are right.
Moral, rout and rally are the most important things of the Napoleonic battles.. I spent a lot of time about these topics. I believe behaviours of units are fine..
ASAP, I'll sum up your great posts... and I'll talk about the difference between your 'Pros-List' and the features of Les Grognards.
Again THX... nice work! I like your remarks.
JMM
-
What is all this nonsense with 3D graphics and nice images? The more important thing is a real system that plays properly. Make sure the units do what we told them to do, and go where we told them to go, take cover if we told them so, and don't run into silly situations. - allowing for all the order delays and chaos of the battlefield.
I like the WEGO system of turns, but I'm ready to try real time as long as it doesn't degenerate into a competition of who click faster.
JMM I think your game has great potential, just keep it real, and keep it simple.
Best regards
-
Well, if people want great graphics to with truly historic Napoleonic gaming what's wrong with that? I can't understand the wargamer's fetish for self-torture by looking at crude graphics.
-Best Regards
Cuirassier
-
What is all this nonsense with 3D graphics and nice images? The more important thing is a real system that plays properly. Make sure the units do what we told them to do, and go where we told them to go, take cover if we told them so, and don't run into silly situations. - allowing for all the order delays and chaos of the battlefield.
There are 2 mains things to dive you in the middle of the battle...
a) 3D to understand all facts.. for example, the small draft show a regiment with 4 batailions which is changing his orientation.. this simple movement spends some time.. (very easy with 2D symbol.. just you turn the small box 8)
and to see a nice spectacle.. (I believe HW will be a good movie.. but you will be the director)
2 formation: column of peleton or division...
(http://www.lesgrognards.com/screenshots/Formation.jpg)
C: chief of bataillon
F: Flag
V: Voltigeur
G: Grenadier
S: Sapeur
T: Drummer
(http://www.lesgrognards.com/screenshots/chgtFrontDivision.jpg)
Regiment 4 Bataillons and 9 Coys
b) Real time to put pression on the gamer.. I don't like the clickfest.. and Les Grognards isn't like the present RTS.. For example, if your tactical is very good, you can let the AI manages the battle... If your tactical isn't the best of the world 8) , you have to send some orders to your Corps or units.. The time is important, but it's not a clickfest..
I like the WEGO system of turns, but I'm ready to try real time as long as it doesn't degenerate into a competition of who click faster.
HW uses 3 AI.. no to say.. :guitare: :elephant: :guitare: WH uses 3 AI.. :guitare: but it's a system allowing to manage the army without a lot of clicks.. (again, I don't like this.. :wink: )
The third AI (regimental AI) chooses the best formation.. (and sometimes you defined this behaviour with the doctrine).. easy example : square when the Infantry watches an Cavalry unit..
If you wish to shell a opponent, you have to point out the unit, and your artillery move to the good place, and point at the ennemy.. (because the AI knows the good distance to start the fighting...
The second AI manages the Corps..
a) you have to send some orders to your Cheif of Corps.. (deployment, defense...) After taking the parameters of your orders (formation line/column/mixte/checkerboard/echelon, hour to launch... level of reserve ), the AI places all his regiments on the line.. and manage the advance.. You have to watch the process..
The AI manages all micro-managments (rally.. )
JMM I think your game has great potential, just keep it real, and keep it simple.
Yep.. I hope too... I am sure Les Grognards is very simple.. and the wargamers only can use 5 orders.. (and no clickfest.. because I don't like ClickFest 8) :lol: )
-
Interesting post JMM... not sure I understand everything that's going on though with your graphics :wink:
I have some concerns about only having access to 5 orders though... I agree about keeping it easy, however please do not dumb it down so much that it becomes a simple game.
On orders... is there going to be a delay from the time the order is issued to when it is received and then acted upon by the subordinate unit? Or will the orders be acted on immediately? I would of course prefer the former.
The third AI (regimental AI) chooses the best formation.. (and sometimes you defined this behaviour with the doctrine)..
Are you saying that you can adjust your army's standard operating procedure (SOP)?
If you wish to shell a opponent, you have to point out the unit, and your artillery move to the good place, and point at the ennemy.. (because the AI knows the good distance to start the fighting...
I like this, but again, will there be an order delay before the artillery unit jumps off? Or will it be immediate?
Overall sounds impressive... still, I do have concerns over the limited control over your forces. I agree with taking the micro-management out of the game, but I like to have more options. A simple attack order IMO isn't good enough, you should have probe, perform turning movement, attempt envelopment, etc. options as well, and that's just for the offene. Especially at the command level you are implementing in this game.
I'm waiting with great anticipation this game JMM.
Bil
-
Interesting post JMM... not sure I understand everything that's going on though with your graphics :wink:
:lol: I want to show a lot of things.. and I don't spend the time to do that.. :oops: :oops: SORRY SORRY...
The grey pictures shows two formations with 9 compagnies...
The first one is the Column of Peleton.. each line is a compagny.
On the first line, there are the Flag and the Chief of Battailon...
The second line is the Voltgeur Compagny...
On the third, you can see the 3 drummers...
On the last line, there are the grenadiers..
The second grey picture shows a Column of Division...
The colored picture shows a new orientation of the battailon...
4 phases to do that! The objective is to display the 3D process to modify the orientation.. In 2D, it's very easy.. and the software can forget this movement! in 3D NO! ( :cobra:
SORRY for these 2 crazzy graphics.. I don't do that again :lol: :wink:
I have some concerns about only having access to 5 orders though... I agree about keeping it easy, however please do not dumb it down so much that it becomes a simple game.
This game isn't simple.. I hope the Command Control Interface will be easy.. but the game is difficult.. When you have to define your Tactical Plan on the beginning of the battle, it's not easy to do the good choice.. (the oppoments aren't displayed for the hard option)
On orders... is there going to be a delay from the time the order is issued to when it is received and then acted upon by the subordinate unit? Or will the orders be acted on immediately? I would of course prefer the former.
There are 2 kinds of order...
a) order to Corps.. the user is the Commander in Chief! the order is sent to the Marshall.. (delay to receive the message). After the order is understood, the marschall send messages to all colonels..
(the mechanism is more complexe.. because there is the Division and Brigade structure) So, the delay increases with the corps strength, and the Marschall value...
The third AI (regimental AI) chooses the best formation.. (and sometimes you defined this behaviour with the doctrine)..
Are you saying that you can adjust your army's standard operating procedure (SOP)?
Yep.. At the beginning of the battle, each user have to define his doctrine.. For each type (Inf, Cav), you define the behaviour of your unit when there is an event.. for example, when the Infantry of the Guard meets a INF in line, the guard does.. (halt or avance and line or column)... Wait for monday to read the FAQ.. there will be a short Faq about this question
If you wish to shell a opponent, you have to point out the unit, and your artillery move to the good place, and point at the ennemy.. (because the AI knows the good distance to start the fighting...
I like this, but again, will there be an order delay before the artillery unit jumps off? Or will it be immediate?
b) (the second case...) When the gamer sends an order to an unit, he becomes a Chief of Corps.. and his units are near.. so no delay (max 1 minute) But the order isn't always done (moral, engaged unit...)
I hope it's clear...
JMM
-
On orders... is there going to be a delay from the time the order is issued to when it is received and then acted upon by the subordinate unit? Or will the orders be acted on immediately? I would of course prefer the former.
There is an option before you start the battle that allow you to choose if you want orders to be performed immediately or with a delay.
Overall sounds impressive... still, I do have concerns over the limited control over your forces. I agree with taking the micro-management out of the game, but I like to have more options. A simple attack order IMO isn't good enough, you should have probe, perform turning movement, attempt envelopment, etc. options as well, and that's just for the offene. Especially at the command level you are implementing in this game.
That's where you come in as the Commander in Chief. :wink:
You send the orders to your Corps. For instance you give your I Corps the "March" order towards enemy on a frontal attack and you give II Corps the "Diversion" order to attack them on their flank. As it is a "Diversion" order the Corps will try to mislead the adversary on its true intentions.
Here are the five orders:
Deployment : define in some clicks, the sectors to occupy, the hour of realization, the desired formation (in line, checkerboard, echelon), the organization (line, column, mixed), the reserve.
Defense : indicate the zones to held, using as well as possible on the geography of the site.
Diversion : try to mislead the adversary on its intentions.
March : send troops in a minimum of time on a zone to occupy.
Link : associate Corps to get an army.
Yep.. At the beginning of the battle, each user have to define his doctrine.. For each type (Inf, Cav), you define the behaviour of your unit when there is an event.. for example, when the Infantry of the Guard meets a INF in line, the guard does.. (halt or avance and line or column)... Wait for monday to read the FAQ.. there will be a short Faq about this question
I believe this is already up at the FAQ section. Frédéric have been really busy lately :)
This adjustable tactical doctrine is a really nice feature. Even though you can take command of a single unit if you want to you don't really have to because of this feature. :D
/Lars L.
-
JMM and Lars, thanks for the replies.
Lars, you mention orders to Corps.. can you go lower in echelon? For instance, say I want to command at the Division or Regiment level? Would that be possible, and if so, would I still only have the same 5 commands?
Also, I don't see any command for attack, or seize ground.. does the AI attack as it deems necessary, for instance with a deployment order?
I'm sorry, I'm sure it all works just fine, but I am having a hard time picturing how it will work without being too vague for the AI. IOW, you seem to be relying a lot on the AI to decide on its own course of action. Not that I doubt your AI is superb, its just that I'm sure more control for guidance wouldn't hurt and would be more realistic, not to mention it would improve the AI as it could be more focused.
Is there a list somewhere of the actual commands/order types that were available at this level of command, at this time, to the on field CO in reality? For example (and this is for Modern US Army), here is a partial list of actual order types (for offense only) used to command a force:
·Offense:
o Attack
o Attack by Fire
o Movement to Contact
o Ambush
o Feint
o Raid
o Exploitation
o Pursuit
o Breach
o Follow & Support (follow lead element & become Base of Fire (BOF) upon contact)
o Follow & Assume (follow lead element & become Maneuver Element (ME) upon contact)
o Reinforce
o Destroy
o Disrupt
o Block
o Secure
I guess my concern is that you are giving too much control to the AI and expecting it to do the fine thinking while trying to guess your intent. In reality orders are very specific (I doubt it was much different then) just so there is no miscommunication or misunderstanding.
Regards,
Bil[/quote]
-
Is there a way to edit these posts?
Bil
-
Is there a way to edit these posts?
Bil
Hello Bil 8)
You may edit your posts.. but you must login :!:
JMM
PS : I believe there is a problem with the english langague of this forum.. Some sentences aren't translated :oops:
Wait for our next version of this WebSite 8)
To login : Se Connecter
Nom d'Utilisateur = User Name
Mot de passe = Password
Se connecter automatiquement = save your password for quick login
-
Lars, you mention orders to Corps.. can you go lower in echelon? For instance, say I want to command at the Division or Regiment level? Would that be possible, and if so, would I still only have the same 5 commands?
You can send orders to 2 levels of the hierarchy...
5 to the Corps,
4 to the Regiment,
Divisons and Brigades allow to decrease the delay... Idea is...
Marschall gets an order.. ie : deployment on this sector...
For example, the (AI) Marshall chooses:
a) DIV1 on the left
b) DIV2 on the right
c) Div3 in support.. and 3 orders are sent to Général de Division
Each (AI) Général de Division chooses:
a) Brigade A on the Left
b) Brigade B on the Right
.. and so on!
So, all these tasks are done at the same time...
If there aren't Div and Brigade, the Marschall have to write all orders.. for example with 15 regiments -> 15 minutes...
With the intermediate hierarchy, delay is around 8 minutes...
Also, I don't see any command for attack, or seize ground.. does the AI attack as it deems necessary, for instance with a deployment order?
Yep, there isn't order to attack a corps... The Corps AI isn't very smart. This AI helps you to realize your tactical plan.. You drew a deployement line.. and the AI tries to place his regiments on this line.. This AI avoid you to manage the micro-management...
The main concept of Les Grognards is : You are Napoleon, Koutouzov or.... Chief of Army.. For example, you have defined 3 sectors...
a) main attack on the left
b) diversion on the center
c) diversion on the right + defensive line to keep your communication line.. (Very Important in HistWar)
Don't forget the reserve.. on the center, behind the front...
The battle begins... Very important to keep watch all movements on.. for example. AI on the left is halting the corps.. you don't want this! you only switch the AI off for this corps... Now, you have to manage the movement.. (but the basical tasks like Rally are always active)
I am sure your choices will be better than AI ones.. but it's not easy to manage all.. To summarize : I am sure you are better than the AI to manage some units.. but I hope this fact isn't true for 15 or 20 regiments...
Design notes : priority
Corps : execute your order, and save the corps!
Unit : save the unit and execute your order!
what does 'Save the Unit' mean! when the losses are important, the unit gets out!
So, when you define a deployement order, the Corps tries to go to the line.. and the Corps attacks all opponents on the way...
In the diversion order, the Corps tries to go to the line, but retreat if there is an important army on the way :wink:
I'm sorry, I'm sure it all works just fine, but I am having a hard time picturing how it will work without being too vague for the AI. IOW, you seem to be relying a lot on the AI to decide on its own course of action. Not that I doubt your AI is superb, its just that I'm sure more control for guidance wouldn't hurt and would be more realistic, not to mention it would improve the AI as it could be more focused.
The Great Tactical AI is the most smart (I hope).. It creates the tactical plan, and tries to take your Communication line..
I believe this 5 orders allow to build all tactical plans.. hum! I am sure! (in LGAA, there wasn't MARCH.. :cry: this new order without concentration allows to increase the set of Tactical Plan...)
JMM
PS1 : I hope all is clear!
PS2 : Thx Lars for your support...
[
-
Lars, you mention orders to Corps.. can you go lower in echelon? For instance, say I want to command at the Division or Regiment level? Would that be possible, and if so, would I still only have the same 5 commands?
You can become a Corps commander and give orders to each unit within that Corps (a unit is either a regiment or a brigade). Or you can become a colonel and order just a specific unit.
Here is the four orders you can give to a unit:
March to...
Charge a unit
Support a unit
Reconnaissance
And off course order the unit into a specific formation:
Line, marsh column, attack column, skirmish, square, mixed order. (I think I covered most of them)
See the order dialog for the units below:
(http://www.6thema.net/~betatest/Link/unitorders.jpg)
Napoleons hat by the way is for giving the command back to the AI.
/Lars L:
-
JMM and Lars,
Thanks you for your exhaustive replies. They really help me in learning what this game is about. From what you say I am very intrigued.
So when is that demo coming out? ;)
Bil
-
JMM and Lars,
....
So when is that demo coming out? ;)
Bil
ASAP..
I made mistake about the date of the demo.. I thank for Christmas ...2003 :P
So, I am working hard with my small team.. but 1 day = 24 hours :wink:
and I don't want to talk about a date :arrow: ASAP...
JMM
PS : Demo = Tutorial in solo mode...
-
jmm, thanks for your replies, I'm not sure i understand everything but i'll reread it again, no time now :-), but i apreciate the effort you make to answer our questions
best
-
Hi Conscript,
Is it something in particular you don't understand from JMM's post?
I'll try to interpret it for you. 8)
A tip. :idea:
If your press the first green box on the top right on his post called "citer" you will get his message as a quote. Then you can remove the part you do understand and leave the part you don't understand starting with {quote="JMM"}" and ending with {/quote}.
Just Use [ ] instead of { }. I couldn't use the [ ] in this post since it would return a quote. :wink:
/Lars L.
-
thanks link, i was in a hurry the other day and didn't have time to read the post, but i was intrigued.
I think i understand most of it.
I'll think of another annoying question and I'll post it here :-)
keep the good work
-
You're welcome Conscript. 8)
If you think of an other question you can post it on this forum but not necessarily on this topic since this is "The other games" topic.
As the new moderator I will try to answer all questions on this forum so that JMM can focus on getting the game ready. Off course if I don't have the answer I will ask JMM to back me up.
P.S. No question is annoying as long as they are on topic. :wink:
/Lars L.
-
Hello to all: This is my first post.
I have been playing American ConQuest: Fight Back, which is a Cossacks style Real-Time Strategy (RTS) game covering the colonization of the americas up until the American Revolution. (So, right on up until the time frame stipulated for Grognards!). CDV is now planning a release of Cossacks2: Napoleonic Wars; which I WAS eagerly anticipating until I found THIS site.
Pros:
Beautiful uniforms (though limited number and types)
Beautiful animations
Ability to use formations and infantry / artillery / cavalry more-or-less-historically.
Morale rules
Cons:
Not really a great simulation, more of a strategy GAME.
Kind of a click-fest to maintain control.
The artwork is fantastic, though.....
However, I am really looking forward to the progress of THIS magnificent project!!!!!
One request - make an ability to view the dead soldiers and destroyed houses, trees, wagons, artillery, etc. as the battle progresses. If it's not too much trouble, being able to see the hoof tracks, wheel tracks, and footprints of the battlefield would be GREAT eye-candy!
I won't ask for vultures, that'd be asking for too much! :wink:
-
Hello to all: This is my first post.
Bienvenue :D
One request - make an ability to view the dead soldiers and destroyed houses
yes :!:
wagons, artillery
There are some wagons on the roads, near the Communication lines...
There are 4 kinds of cannons : 12 / 8 / 4 pounds + howitzers.
the hoof tracks, wheel tracks, and footprints of the battlefield would be GREAT eye-candy!
:arrow: I have to finish Les Grognards with the present design.. but why not some tracks in the next version.. But today, the more important is to draw a lot of 3D animated soldiers :wink:
I won't ask for vultures, that'd be asking for too much! :wink:
Why not some birds.. (no need a lot of PC ressources)
JMM
-
Hello and welcome to this forum Kikka. :)
You'll find more screenshots of Les grognards elements posted in this forum that is not in the screenshot section.
I'll suggest you read old posts 'coz they are very informative. :wink:
http://www.histwar.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=799
http://www.histwar.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=782
http://www.histwar.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=796
Enjoy!
/Lars L.
-
Merci bien, Link!
Question, though:
When is it projected that this game be available, how much will it cost, and where will it be sold?
-
Bonjour,
Merci bien, Link!
Question, though:
When is it projected that this game be available, how much will it cost, and where will it be sold?
As soon as possible... I can't say any date today.. but soon 8)
Cost : like a lot of PC Games (45..50$.. price is unknowed today)
Where : over the world... (Sure in North America and Europe)
JMM