HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Discussion démarrée par: Broadsword le 23 janvier 2010, 18:17:57 pm
-
I'm as excited about the coming release of LG as anyone, but -- I really need these battles to "mean something" in the larger context of a campaign. Napoleon's real genius was in the operational art of war, and in arranging the circumstances so he could meet the enemy with superior numbers at the decisive place and time, on the battlefield of his own choosing. I loved the simulation of attrition and logistics in Kevin Zucker's classic Napoleonic boardgames, like "1809" or "Napoleon at Bay."
So, here is a thread for us to develop ideas on how we might use some other Napoleonic campaign game in conjunction with LG, to simulate real campaigns, until that wonderful day when JMM gives us a campaign-level game as well.
Frank Hunter's "Campaigns on the Danube 1805-1809" (Matrix Games) seemed very promising at first, because it is supposed to allow players to pause the campaign when a battle is about to happen, so they can use minitatures or some other tactical game to fight the battle, then "import" the results back into the campaign and continue it from there. Unfortunately, those of us who tried to play CotD on today's computers and OS have been frustrated at every turn. Hunter is promising an update sometime soon, but so far CotD has not been the answer to our needs.
The HPS Napoleonic wargames (Campaign Eckmuhl, etc) are OK, but they really don't model FOW, supply, and attrition enough for my taste. Lately, I've even wondered whether we might be better off playing one of the better campaign boardgames using Aide de Camp II (which lets boardgames be translated into digital versions that can be played PBEM on computer), and using that to set up the situations for LG battles. It's easier to "pause" and "restart" a boardgame campaign, to tally up the strengths, OOBs, etc, for a battle, than to use a campaign game on the PC that' doesn't let its OOBs and strengths be exported.
Any other ideas?
Does anyone else care?
-
Yes I would like to see something like this. Years ago there was a Campaign management tool that we used for several campaigns that seemed to work very well. I have sent a PM (on another forum) to a fellow that knows allot more about it then I do and will post here when and if I get a reply. Been a long time since I have used it ( 2004ish) and dont know how well it could be adapted for use here if at all.
-
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/282/details/Campaigns.On.The.Danube
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/285/details/Empires.in.Arms
http://murat.ca/
Maybe this is the better place for this topic: 1806 - General
-
ADC II looks interesting. I expect it's IGOUGO? :(
I really like the idea of the campaign and finding some method of using PBEM to do it. I have virtually no background in boardgaming but your ideas sound good.
ADC II looks like it came out 11+ years ago? Will it work with our systems?
-
My intent is to use Pratzen's "Vol de L'Aigle". It's essentially an operational-level kriegsspiel done on period maps with a pretty reasonable set of rules.
It currently has OrBats for all the major Napoleonic campaigns EXCEPT the Peninsula (a real regret), Italy, and Egypt.
FWIW, the more detail you throw into the strategic layer, in my relatively long experience, the less likely you are to finish. To those planning on using EIA, I wish you well. There is no greater system, IMHO, for simulating that level of the Napoleonic Wars, but you need seven real believers who are preferably either in college or retired.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
-
in my relatively long experience, the less likely you are to finish.
Agreed, there will be many things started, but not so many that finish !.
I like the idea of a Camapign and I'm sure someone, somewhere, will make something work, but LG is such a big thing that it's less important than some may think......Campaigns are to create battles - yes ?.....that's what LG is for, to fight battles.
Even the very basic matter of getting people logged on at the same time, is many times harder than most people can even guess at.
-
Actually, I've found something I like better than ADCII and it serves the same purpose: Allowing you to play digital versions of board wargames. It's called Cyberboard ( http://cyberboard.brainiac.com/index.html (http://cyberboard.brainiac.com/index.html) ) and it's FREE (although the creator encourages users to donate if they like it).
Not only that, many many of the greatest board wargames have already been turned into Cyberboard "gameboxes" by the community. The best download site for them is Limey Yank Games ( http://loakes.game-host.org/limeyyankgames/limeySponsors.php (http://loakes.game-host.org/limeyyankgames/limeySponsors.php) ), and the vast majority of those gameboxes are free as well (although you always need to own a physical copy of the boardgame). I saw a gamebox for Kevin Zucker's "Napoleon At Bay," a favorite operational game long used by miniatures players to set the stage for tabletop battles. Als there was Zucker's acclaimed "Sun of Austerlitz."
So I took the plunge on a little experiment yesterday: I came across a Cyberboard gamebox for an interesting little solitaire campaign came called Napoleon At The Berezina ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6374/napoleon-at-the-berezina (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6374/napoleon-at-the-berezina) ), so I ordered the physical game. I was intrigued because it simulates one of the least romantic and most desperate episodes of Napoleon's career (retreating, army disintegrating, and about to be crushed with a river at his back). I'll report on my experience with it as an LG-partner here, maybe post some AARs. The winter weather and terrain in LG is already my favorite -- that mist and blowing snow is so miserably atmospheric...now all we need is a (apologies to Bob Dylan) "Napoleon In Rags" mod for the French uniforms!
-
Sounds great. I too would love to see battles as part of a greater action.
I have tried EIA using my minis but gave up. The interface on the campaign side is really bad.
I currently am checking out Berthiere. Could work?
Otherwise I will just go to a boardgame or miniatures campaign system and import the OOBs for battles.
-
Sounds great. I too would love to see battles as part of a greater action.
I have tried EIA using my minis but gave up. The interface on the campaign side is really bad.
I currently am checking out Berthiere. Could work?
Otherwise I will just go to a boardgame or miniatures campaign system and import the OOBs for battles.
Im Glad you guys have mentioned this.
Well you should'nt have given up, there is actually a very easy way of doing it, we have worked these details
We have a Campaign system using EiANW already made, using the third party battles system in the EiANW software
The Campaign will be involving a Danube Campaign set in 1805
-
I have Pratzen's "Vol de L'Aigle" and it's designed for exactly what you want to do. Also there is a vassal module out for it to run of your PC. Good stuff.
-
Broadsword, you're a bloody gem! When I reformatted my computer, I lost the link I had to cyberboard & couldn't remember it's name. Good on ya! I'll go and check it out.
Like Cyrano, I bought a copy of Pratzen Edition's 'vol de l'aigle' and recently a mate lent me back the old copy I had of the Empire Games campaign system (15 years ago!). Presumedly Cyberboard could 'computerise' either of them so that I can run campaigns with more than just the mates I have around here (and solve some of the bookwork for me either way).
Looks like we'll get a campaign running at some stage --- and maybe that fella will update CotD so it isn't 'abandonware').
HEY LOS, where/what is the vassal module? Where do we get it? Off Pratzen or is it elsewhere?
-
Oooo. A little research and I find: http://www.vassalengine.org/community/index.php?option=com_vassal_modules&task=display&module_id=380
So, with LVdA and this module, something should be possible? How exciting!
-
Looks like we'll get a campaign running at some stage --- and maybe that fella will update CotD so it isn't 'abandonware').
[quote/]
The last I heard CotD want going to have a feateur in it for third party battles.
There is a certain cluckness about the change over but with clear attitudes would be good
-
Actually, I've found something I like better than ADCII and it serves the same purpose: Allowing you to play digital versions of board wargames. It's called Cyberboard ( http://cyberboard.brainiac.com/index.html (http://cyberboard.brainiac.com/index.html) ) and it's FREE (although the creator encourages users to donate if they like it).
Not only that, many many of the greatest board wargames have already been turned into Cyberboard "gameboxes" by the community. The best download site for them is Limey Yank Games ( http://loakes.game-host.org/limeyyankgames/limeySponsors.php (http://loakes.game-host.org/limeyyankgames/limeySponsors.php) ), and the vast majority of those gameboxes are free as well (although you always need to own a physical copy of the boardgame). I saw a gamebox for Kevin Zucker's "Napoleon At Bay," a favorite operational game long used by miniatures players to set the stage for tabletop battles. Als there was Zucker's acclaimed "Sun of Austerlitz."
So I took the plunge on a little experiment yesterday: I came across a Cyberboard gamebox for an interesting little solitaire campaign came called Napoleon At The Berezina ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6374/napoleon-at-the-berezina (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6374/napoleon-at-the-berezina) ), so I ordered the physical game. I was intrigued because it simulates one of the least romantic and most desperate episodes of Napoleon's career (retreating, army disintegrating, and about to be crushed with a river at his back). I'll report on my experience with it as an LG-partner here, maybe post some AARs. The winter weather and terrain in LG is already my favorite -- that mist and blowing snow is so miserably atmospheric...now all we need is a (apologies to Bob Dylan) "Napoleon In Rags" mod for the French uniforms!
great links.
This can help :)
-
Guys this is the harder way to go let me say
-
My intent is to use Pratzen's "Vol de L'Aigle". It's essentially an operational-level kriegsspiel done on period maps with a pretty reasonable set of rules.
It currently has OrBats for all the major Napoleonic campaigns EXCEPT the Peninsula (a real regret), Italy, and Egypt.
FWIW, the more detail you throw into the strategic layer, in my relatively long experience, the less likely you are to finish. To those planning on using EIA, I wish you well. There is no greater system, IMHO, for simulating that level of the Napoleonic Wars, but you need seven real believers who are preferably either in college or retired.
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Well im sorry you have had such a bad experience at this.
In the PC version of EiA (EIANW) we have had 7 games going for some time, three of which have been going on for three years now, but thats the 10 years Campaign, we have a couple of players pull out, but have had replacements which have continued on.
We get players coming to us for a great gaming experience and they get it with EiANW make no mistake join us and we will get you a good game with young and experienced players if you want a game of EiANW.
Now there is a game editor with EiANW and you can make short Games or Campaigns now.
The EiANW game editor, you only need a requisite number of players for a particular Campaign you want to design, you dont need seven players for this, 2 or 3 would be sufficient for heads of state, the rest play only battles. Other heads of state can be run by the AI its not a good AI but you can design your Scenario so that the other AI players are out of the way so to speak, till the end of scenario time.
Whats the problem ? :D
-
Ah, but Gaz, what if I just want to romp down the danube valley trying to trap Mack or Karl or Kutusov or you or Miloradovich or Broadsword in an operational level effort with 10km hexes?
-
Ah, but Gaz, what if I just want to romp down the danube valley trying to trap Mack or Karl or Kutusov or you or Miloradovich or Broadsword in an operational level effort with 10km hexes?
Well I dont know why you didnt mention this when you chatted to me recently
Its simple mate play each EIA area in the Campaign size map of HW LG
Going down the cyberboard road is a long and hard one, you have to make everything from scratch
-
For me i can base it to my personal rules...
thats pretty cool. Also for tournaments.. :)
Yes its a bit work but that ok... somthing to do till the final release.
he he
-
Regarding a strategic level using another program. One of the limitations is going to be just how easy is it to "create" a scenario in the editor based on the campaign map/situation. In other words, will it be extremely time consuming for any GM(s) to create individual scenarios based on encounters on the campaign map? GM's will have to be able to put these out in a fairly short time to keep things running smoothly and players will need to be able to complete their battles in a reasonable time frame as well. Due to the various time zones players will be in reliance on Pbem's may be necessary which will considerably slow the scenario completion time.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts from the years of having personally run several of these type games using other game engines (predominantly WWII and Modern themes).
Also, although I may not be able to dedicate time for running something like this, I would be more than willing to help out anyone who does and maybe even consider running a "very small" test campaign.
-
You're quite right, DD. Combat Mission, for example, has never spawned a workable campaign system as PBEMs usually take 4-6 weeks or so. Far too much slow down whenever battalions go bump! Somehow the 'Onion Wars' play on but I've not seen any other groups survive many encounters before burnout.
So, a PBEM campaign is likely to be a year's undertaking, perhaps. Alternatively, if you're in it with a few locals (or, at least, people in nearby time zones) then the resolutions can be quicker and the whole kept rolling along. A mate here in Melbourne has been running a French Revolutionary campaign for years using Empire Rules. He has the same issues in a way. The fighting with miniatures is a little like watching paint dry. Slower, actually, as they'd meet weekly and often have to run big battles over several weeks to get them done. Paint generally only takes a day! LG at least promises to get battles over in one sitting, even with half-a-dozen players, allowing the campaign to get going again. For a long time I've imagined that to be one of this games great promises.
@Gaz: I thought EiA was much more strategic in outlook. You've trimmed it down a bit in a campaign mode to synch with LG? It'd be a good idea to do a thread, I suppose, narrating the use of the system with LG once it's out, perhaps. I know you said you've worked on linking it with LG. Sounds very promising. :)
I understand that Cyberboard would be some work. Surfing around yesterday brought up a site that showed even a simple boardgame requires about 12 hours of construction. Still can't help wondering about fiddling with a version of the empire campaign rules adapted for LG. And, as mentioned, I believe someone has already produced a vassal to support Le Vol de l'Aigle.
As for OoBs, I've presumed that you'd set up a LG file of each side for the campaign, then just do quick edits for the troops at particular engagements, no?
-
I understand that Cyberboard would be some work. Surfing around yesterday brought up a site that showed even a simple boardgame requires about 12 hours of construction.
It's no work if you use an existing gamebox. Just download and play. But yes, creating gameboxes is another thing altogether.
As for OoBs, I've presumed that you'd set up a LG file of each side for the campaign, then just do quick edits for the troops at particular engagements, no?
Exactly. One reason I bought Napoleon at the Berezina and DL'ed that gamebox is because Berezina is already one of the battles we're supposed to get with LG. So there should be a pretty usable OOB already for any battle in that game, plus or minus some units here or there. Since Cyberboard has no AI and is just a playing aid, one can just stop playing at any point, say "OK, here's a battle I want to fight with LG" and then reset the campaign map/OOB/etc with the situation at battle's end. The longest work would be creating a map for every LG battle. But with the LG random map generator, I think (or I hope) that this might not be terribly difficult (generate a random Russian winter map and then tweak features as necessary).
-
Due to all these management issues, I'd prefer to play simple operational+LG PBEM campaigns with just one opponent at a time.
-
You're quite right, DD. Combat Mission, for example, has never spawned a workable campaign system as PBEMs usually take 4-6 weeks or so. Far too much slow down whenever battalions go bump! Somehow the 'Onion Wars' play on but I've not seen any other groups survive many encounters before burnout.
So, a PBEM campaign is likely to be a year's undertaking, perhaps. Alternatively, if you're in it with a few locals (or, at least, people in nearby time zones) then the resolutions can be quicker and the whole kept rolling along. A mate here in Melbourne has been running a French Revolutionary campaign for years using Empire Rules. He has the same issues in a way. The fighting with miniatures is a little like watching paint dry. Slower, actually, as they'd meet weekly and often have to run big battles over several weeks to get them done. Paint generally only takes a day! LG at least promises to get battles over in one sitting, even with half-a-dozen players, allowing the campaign to get going again. For a long time I've imagined that to be one of this games great promises.
@Gaz: I thought EiA was much more strategic in outlook. You've trimmed it down a bit in a campaign mode to synch with LG? It'd be a good idea to do a thread, I suppose, narrating the use of the system with LG once it's out, perhaps. I know you said you've worked on linking it with LG. Sounds very promising. :)
I understand that Cyberboard would be some work. Surfing around yesterday brought up a site that showed even a simple boardgame requires about 12 hours of construction. Still can't help wondering about fiddling with a version of the empire campaign rules adapted for LG. And, as mentioned, I believe someone has already produced a vassal to support Le Vol de l'Aigle.
As for OoBs, I've presumed that you'd set up a LG file of each side for the campaign, then just do quick edits for the troops at particular engagements, no?
Yes see link here in a thread in TGHQ http://www.thegeneralshq.org/phpBBForum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=1170 (http://www.thegeneralshq.org/phpBBForum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=1170)
-
I've got NOTHING against EIA. I think it's another classic labour of love that has borne better fruit than anyone dared hope. I'm simply trying to imagine the level of dedication you'd have to have to use EIA as the operational layer and HWLG as the tactical, all by e-mail.
I've run a lot of campaigns in my day and have learned the hard way that everybody says they want chrome and detail but, in the event, they head for the hills the minute the game goes south on them.
I've personally played four boardgame campaigns of EIA and two of them melted when those getting the short end suddenly discovered other committments.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
-
I've got NOTHING against EIA. I think it's another classic labour of love that has borne better fruit than anyone dared hope. I'm simply trying to imagine the level of dedication you'd have to have to use EIA as the operational layer and HWLG as the tactical, all by e-mail.
I've run a lot of campaigns in my day and have learned the hard way that everybody says they want chrome and detail but, in the event, they head for the hills the minute the game goes south on them.
I've personally played four boardgame campaigns of EIA and two of them melted when those getting the short end suddenly discovered other committments.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Well try the new PC version EiA EiANW by Matrix Games and you may be reinspired.
I beleive I have eluded to this in my past posts, so move on! and stop being negative, Im nearly in tears :)
If you had players that have run for the hills I feel sorry for you, but it also means there is something alse wrong with your set up.
I think we need to move on, this is going in circles
-
The only thing to do, is to do it, and see what happens !.
For what it's worth I've found you CAN get small numbers of interested people that stay the course with things like this, but it is oh so hard and someone needs to spend a massive amount of time keeping things on track, if they do that - then there is a chance.
On the "negative" side I would wager this is a subject that is a lot easier to chat about than "do", as many things in life are.
Good luck all.
-
The only thing to do, is to do it, and see what happens !.
For what it's worth I've found you CAN get small numbers of interested people that stay the course with things like this, but it is oh so hard and someone needs to spend a massive amount of time keeping things on track, if they do that - then there is a chance.
On the "negative" side I would wager this is a subject that is a lot easier to chat about than "do", as many things in life are.
Probably the most accurate assessment yet. ;)
-
Thanks, some might say it's a bit "negative" but I prefer to call it being honest !......In part it's based on my ntw2/CB MP experience here : http://ntw2.wikispaces.com/ which was the best entertainment I've had in the old ntw2 MP Community. It worked with a small group by people who all worked hard to make it work, this will be what's needed for any such LG Campaign or other form of extended play, rather than one off battles.
For myself, the biggest map in LG, in MP mode (or perhaps PBEM) will be almost like a mini campaign in it's self....it will provide all I need, but IF someone makes a Campaign type game before JMM does, and it's easy to understand and run, I may request to join in.
-
I would like to suggest this site for a great computer moderated campaign game. Clinton is very open to input and updates his software on a regular basis. there is also a yahoo site. I have used his system since "the days of Dos 6.22" :shock:
anvil
-
The only thing to do, is to do it, and see what happens !.
For what it's worth I've found you CAN get small numbers of interested people that stay the course with things like this, but it is oh so hard and someone needs to spend a massive amount of time keeping things on track, if they do that - then there is a chance.
On the "negative" side I would wager this is a subject that is a lot easier to chat about than "do", as many things in life are.
Good luck all.
Actually the opposite is true, and especially on a forum, it takes too long to get the message accross, becuase the written words becomes easier to misunderstand, and with differant empahsis with language.
Its easier to do than you realise, prospective thinking is hard to convey, people have to have an open mind.
We have realise, as I have said before over the past years, that there are people who prefer the one off battles, and they are good to a limit.
Not everyone likes to play a game for the long haul, but theres are those that do, you have to sort that out quickly and you can, its just the skill to knowing how to do it, and to be able to use both types of players, so everyone benefits. And have a system that can take advantage of that.
-
I would like to suggest this site for a great computer moderated campaign game. Clinton is very open to input and updates his software on a regular basis. there is also a yahoo site. I have used his system since "the days of Dos 6.22"
Which site do you mean ?. Did I miss something here ?.
-
Checking the various PC games out there I am not sure that any of them would really be suitable for managing the strategic level of a campaign. Maybe I missed something checking them out but I haven't found any that have a game editor to use for trying to help track units strengths. I really, really wish that AGEOD's Napoleon's Campaigns had an editor.
Another option might be extensive spreadsheets but that can get really time consuming and that's after the sheets are designed.
-
I really, really wish that AGEOD's Napoleon's Campaigns had an editor.
Oh yeah...you'd have the perfect OoBs already there... :p
-
Checking the various PC games out there I am not sure that any of them would really be suitable for managing the strategic level of a campaign.
Yes, and that's why I'm planning to use more traditional board wargames as campaign engines (you don't need an editor; just stop playing and note the positions and strengths at the time). I wish we had a PC solution, but until Campaigns on the Danube is fixed for Vista/Windows 7, I can't see much hope of it happening. The HPS Simulations Napoleonic campaign games for PC have a campaign and a battle editor included with them, and the OOB files can be read and printed out. Here is a sample from an OOB I exported from Campaign Eckmuhl... but the HPS games do little or nothing to simulate really important factors of weather, attrition and supply.
Order of Battle
1 L'Armee d'Allemagne
1.1 Emperor Napoléon
1.2 Marshall Bertier
1.3 II Corps
1.3.1 Marshal Oudinot
1.3.2 1st Division
1.3.2.1 GD Tharreau
1.3.2.2 1st Brigade
1.3.2.2.1 GB Conroux
1.3.2.2.2 4 Bn/6 Légére
1.3.2.2.3 4 Bn/24 Légére
-
I have HPS Eckmuhl. I have never played with the campaign side of it. Do you have to move every flipping company/battalion like on the 'battlefield' or is the basic unit something like the brigade?
-
Which site do you mean ?. Did I miss something here ?.
He means the computer moderated pc game "Iron Duke" (for the napoleonic era) developed by Clinton Reilly (computerstrategies.bigpondhosting.com).
Checking the various PC games out there I am not sure that any of them would really be suitable for managing the strategic level of a campaign.
I found that for the sandbox WWII game "Advanced Tactics", napoleonic and civil war scenarios were made. I don't know how good they are, 'cause I haven't the game and I don't know how good manageable the import and export of battles is. But the game features are interesting (supply rules, fow, etc.). You can build and play scenarios on an operational and strategic scale.
-
Mmm... what scale operational do you reckon it could get down to? Like, could it handle the 1809 Danube valley campaign?
-
Mmm... what scale operational do you reckon it could get down to? Like, could it handle the 1809 Danube valley campaign?
As I understand from the forum discussions, there are global scenarios and scenarios covering only one battle. So it seems the editors (map and scenario) of the game are very flexible.
You can have a look at Matrix Games. Here are some features:
Random map and scenario generator with optional shroud of darkness and mirror map functionality, infinitely replayable!
A Wargame Construction Kit-like editor allowing you to make any wargame scenario you like
Realistic Supply System that can be harassed by damaging bridges and ports or by interdicting enemy supply lanes with your navy or airpower.
Customizable Chain of Command
Excellent PBEM cheat prevention mechanism, not even re-installing the game will let you cheat.
Detailed, but fully automated mini battles, with results that show you what's happening during the battle.
Engineers can construct roads and fortifications, blow bridges and build airfields.
Excellent Fog of War, depending on your recon level you have full information, partial information or almost no information on enemy units and hexes.
You can control what all your towns and cities produce
Up to 4 research levels for almost all equipment; possible to upgrade existing equipment both in service and on production lines
Fictional USA and Europe map scenarios, as well as a Diplomacy style scenario and loads more (see the full list in the More Info section)History Screen in which you can review all moves the enemy made in his turn
Not just limited to 2 players, scenario for up to 9 players are included
Very customizable units; you decide the weapon mix of your divisions!
Command forces on land, sea and in the air
As I said I don't own the game, so I don't know how good this game handles napoleonic campaigns.
-
I have HPS Eckmuhl. I have never played with the campaign side of it. Do you have to move every flipping company/battalion like on the 'battlefield' or is the basic unit something like the brigade?
Yes, that's the other big problem with those games.
-
He means the computer moderated pc game "Iron Duke" (for the napoleonic era) developed by Clinton Reilly (computerstrategies.bigpondhosting.com).
Interesting. All my years of gaming I never ran across this thing. Not really much information on the site (I just joined their forum and am awaiting Moderator approval). Access to more detailed information and some more screenshots would be nice but from reading it looks like it might be something worth looking into, if not for Napoleonics, for some other games out there. I'll post more when that information is available.
If someone has this game/rules set and can post more information that would be great. Might even need to start a new thread for it. ;)
-
@ Broadsword. *sigh* I remember looking at those games years ago wondering what computers offered for napoleonic gaming and thinking YUK!!! and forgetting about it for years. Then, hanging out for LG, I bought Eckmuhl & picked up some of the other games from a friend. Tried a few PBEMs and decided my first impression was spot on. Kinda just like a cyberboard version but without the physical boardgame and with an entirely forgettable AI (ie. it's often unlikely to attack you when you set up a defensive position but just fusses over the position of its troops, so it's just one step up from the straw dummy troops in the LG demo, really). Nor were they really designed for PBEMs (apparently their customer base is 2/3rds+ solo gamers!) I was so unimpressed that the developers hadn't really moved beyond the bare basics necessary to market the game. Still, to be fair, there's a swag of gamers who've played them for years so they must bring joy somewhere, but not to moi.
The advanced tactics looks a bit like a souped up cyberboard, but I haven't had good experience with Matrix, so I'm loath to part with anther $50-60 for something so out of date that it won't work. I'll be more rewarded buying a second copy of LG to extend my MP potential.
-
Trying to pass the time until LG makes its debut, I started checking Google Earth for the present-day locations of the Napoleonic battles around the Berezina. I found Borisov (now in Belarus), but I couldn't find any of the 19th century villages in the area that appear on my "Napoleon at the Berezina" map. Most of these must have been just little hamlets at the time. Place names on maps of the area are hard to come by, and it looks like a very rural area to this day. Also, the spelling of these place names varies considerably, depending on whether the mapmaker was French, Russian, etc. This might make it harder than I expected to create LG maps "on the fly" for my anticipated solo campaign using LG and the boardgame. In the past, I've always found it pretty easy to pinpoint Google Earth locations of WWII battles for maps I've made in other games. Does anybody know GPS coordinates for places like:
Weselowo (?)
Studianka (?)
Zastenok (?)
Bytczi (?)
Doubena (?)
-
Interesting. All my years of gaming I never ran across this thing. Not really much information on the site (I just joined their forum and am awaiting Moderator approval). Access to more detailed information and some more screenshots would be nice but from reading it looks like it might be something worth looking into, if not for Napoleonics, for some other games out there. I'll post more when that information is available.
If someone has this game/rules set and can post more information that would be great. Might even need to start a new thread for it. ;)
yeah I'd like more info too. It looks rather interesting indeed.
-
The advanced tactics looks a bit like a souped up cyberboard, but I haven't had good experience with Matrix, so I'm loath to part with anther $50-60 for something so out of date that it won't work. I'll be more rewarded buying a second copy of LG to extend my MP potential.
It's a pity, that there is no demo for advanced tactics so you can try it. There are also some graphical improvements mods, but as you said it's not worth the try to spend $50 and see it won't work.
It would be interesting if someone has some experience with the game.
I think you mean with "out of date that it won't work" - the Campaigns on the Danube - game. But I must say, I have no problems with this game to run it on my vista laptop. My settings with the compatibility for the exe are: Win98, no visual designs, no desktop configuration, no scaling of high dpi-values (don't know if that are the right english translations - I mean the last three settings). I have at the beginning of the game three error messages, but if you ignore them (don't klick ok or so on the message boxes), you can play the game without additional errors - also the battles.
If you know the code, you can build any campaign that you want. The scenarios are two hexcode-files, one for the map and the second for the oobs, etc. It's a little bit of work to go through it, but not so difficult. You can also change the counters for more different armies.
yeah I'd like more info too. It looks rather interesting indeed.
There is an alternativ program called "Follow the eagle", look at (eagle-software.co.uk). It seems also interesting.
-
Campaigns on the Danube is good but is a bit clucky when it comes down to the translations between programes.
In all it worked ok, but it left holes in relation to troops on the march, how many where in hospitals and the supply issue was hard to keep track of at times.
Then you had an issue with one side being out numbered and always didnt give battle, and so sometimes you where left with more often than not, one side would out number the other by about 6 or more to 1, which is not inspring for both sides where the odds are so high even three to one isnt good. The contacted units, would a lot of the time only worth resovling "in game" because of this.
Out of the 2 Campaigns we had I would say we could only make up 2 good battle out of it, that was worth doing, and after a lot of manouvering
-
Then you had an issue with one side being out numbered and always didnt give battle
A very common problem, with anything like this.
-
more often than not, one side would out number the other by about 6 or more to 1
Either someone's got their forces spread way too thin, or the rules aren't allowing for concentration of forces before battle.
Hook
-
Campaigns on the Danube is good but is a bit clucky when it comes down to the translations between programes.
In all it worked ok, but it left holes in relation to troops on the march, how many where in hospitals and the supply issue was hard to keep track of at times.
Then you had an issue with one side being out numbered and always didnt give battle, and so sometimes you where left with more often than not, one side would out number the other by about 6 or more to 1, which is not inspring for both sides where the odds are so high even three to one isnt good. The contacted units, would a lot of the time only worth resovling "in game" because of this.
Out of the 2 Campaigns we had I would say we could only make up 2 good battle out of it, that was worth doing, and after a lot of manouvering
Hello gazfun,
for understanding, is the ai that outnumbers you or your opponent in a multiplayer game or the other way round. For me it sounds like a realistic behavior, if you are outnumbered by many odds you have to retreat, or you know that reinforcements are not far away (option: sound of the guns). Also with good cavalry patrols / screens you have that behavior?
The aim is to split the enemy forces as you hold your corps together as much as possible. So you can decimate the enemy piecemeal.
There are a few good AARs about that game and they show that it's all about concentrating the armies on the right place, with battles with outnumbered units, fight to hold a position or to delay the enemy and nearly equal number battles to make the big clash.
It's the first time I hear from that...
-
Either someone's got their forces spread way too thin
Yes Hook, that's what I guess, too.
-
to get all this even close to realism, you would have to study the entire road-network of the time in that particular area, and then you would have to make up a sophisticated weather system, to simulate road conditions (which is probably the least of the problems)...and the rest summarizes in: the genius of the CinC, to spread his forces wide enough in order to render quick movement possible, maximize the use of good roads, yet not to get them crowded, and then keep the forces close enough to be able to concentrate them for battle (a good and obvious example would be the campaigns in the American civil war, where many battles were fought over road junctions...), and not let them be defeated independently...only few have achieved this - and those became the few famous generals we remember throughout history, Napoleon was definitely one of them...These considerations are the most difficult to consider, when in command, even nowadays with different parameters...so in a game it, if you played it realistically, which I believe you did, it's absolutely normal to have the problem of being outnumbered...this is where independent command and rear-guard actions become the most valuable...
I know that most of you already know the stuff, I just mentioned...
For myself in theorie the best combination would be "1813" and HWLG although I know it's not possible...)
-
There I believe is one of the basic differences between a campaign using a game to create the circumstances that dictate battles and a Human moderated campaign. In a human run and moderated campaign you don't necessarily have the option to not fight, perhaps its a rear guard action to save your out numbered force. In other words a level of detail the grand strategy titles aren't equipped to provide add to that at the end of the day your still going to need game moderators to maintain casualty figures ,update OOBs and state of reinforcement/resupply. So for my money its a program such as Cocat (a free download I believe) as DD mentioned earlier with the addition of spread sheets for maintaining the necessary info for setting the OOBs .
As to the number of people who might be inclined to take part......we wont know until the game is released and folks have a chance to give it a run. What I believe we may see with LG is the combining to some extent of three previously separate parts of the strategy gaming community. The RTS players and those that have devoted there time to the hex/turn based titles such as the HPS simulation and --------- series games and the folks that preferred the grand strategy titles. Not to mention those that LG will potentially draw from other game types.
Unfortunately until LG is released and we get a chance to play around with the Map and OOB editors we won't know if any of this is viable.
-
For myself in theorie the best combination would be "1813" and HWLG although I know it's not possible...)
Graf von Csollich, 1813 is on Opensource (Sourceforge) and if some C++ programmers want to volunteer then this could be worked on. Probably would result in a manual interface - extract from 1813, fight the battle and post the results back into 1813. The problem would be to ensure that the post battle state on 1813 took account of the battle outcome including losses and changes in morale.
-
Graf von Csollich, 1813 is on Opensource (Sourceforge) and if some C++ programmers want to volunteer then this could be worked on. Probably would result in a manual interface - extract from 1813, fight the battle and post the results back into 1813. The problem would be to ensure that the post battle state on 1813 took account of the battle outcome including losses and changes in morale.
A great idea...I don't have any knowledge of software and programming though...that's why I said...."I can't do it" :mrgreen: :mrgreen:, I just think that the 1813 campaigns come very close to realism...if you overlook the crashes and bugs...
the inclusion of battle results is an absolute MUST...but to realise that... I have to leave up to you... :mrgreen:
I fit could be done...it would be great...but I think we should all start with normal Multiplayer battles at first...get acquainted and then move on to the next step... :mrgreen:
-
Graf von Csollich, 1813 is on Opensource (Sourceforge) and if some C++ programmers want to volunteer then this could be worked on. Probably would result in a manual interface - extract from 1813, fight the battle and post the results back into 1813. The problem would be to ensure that the post battle state on 1813 took account of the battle outcome including losses and changes in morale.
Yes it is possible and no I have no programming skills. Some time ago I managed to make little changes, like a clock, that you have the time when a battle begins, but it was more a trial and error principle.
I thought about the import of battle results, that there is the unit editor-pop up menu when you open the campaign editor.
It uses the same code structure as the game, so there is no real difference between the editor and the game structure. I think it could be possible to implement the unit editor menu in the campaign game, with access in a running game. So you play a campaign game and a battle begins, you have the battle with LG. After that you implement the results (losses, morale, position, etc.) with the unit editor in the running campaign game and you have the conditions after that battle.
Worth a try?
-
But for 1813 you'll have to wait until LG adds Prussians, non?
-
for understanding, is the ai that outnumbers you or your opponent in a multiplayer game or the other way round. For me it sounds like a realistic behavior,
Sounds perfectly realistic to me, too. Look at any of the historic campaigns: A lot of maneuvering, some rearguard actions and probes, cavalry screens clashing her and there, feints and counterfeints, and then one or two big battles that decided the campaign. I know that seems boring to a lot of gamers, but "a chacun son gout." To me, it's wonderfully suspenseful. The LAST thing a good general wants in a campaign is a fair fight. If, when the big battle takes place, I turn out to be outnumbered 3:1 or more, my disappointment will be balanced by the thrill of knowing I've played especially well if I can execute a stubborn holding action, a stealthy retreat, or some develish ambush that takes my overconfident opponent by surprise. Wargaming doesn't get any more fun than that!
-
But for 1813 you'll have to wait until LG adds Prussians, non?
Well i heard that you could create your own map...so the prussians wouldn't be the problem....I think the huge amount of work that needs to be done will be...
-
the Campaigns on the Danube - game. But I must say, I have no problems with this game to run it on my vista laptop. My settings with the compatibility for the exe are: Win98, no visual designs, no desktop configuration, no scaling of high dpi-values (don't know if that are the right english translations - I mean the last three settings). I have at the beginning of the game three error messages, but if you ignore them (don't klick ok or so on the message boxes), you can play the game without additional errors - also the battles.
If you know the code, you can build any campaign that you want. The scenarios are two hexcode-files, one for the map and the second for the oobs, etc. It's a little bit of work to go through it, but not so difficult. You can also change the counters for more different armies.
Thank you, Tiraulleur -- that's already better technical support for CotD than Matrix Games has given us in years! Harry, have you tried those settings? I had my CotD running in Vista on Win95 compatibility mode, but I didn't have those other two "preference" boxes checked. I'm going to try that and see what happens. Maybe we can get our campaign going after all (?)
-
Well i heard that you could create your own map...so the prussians wouldn't be the problem....I think the huge amount of work that needs to be done will be...
Yes that's right. You can create your own map - it's more you place an background image of a historical map and place the towns on it. The towns have a road network. Here you can modify the town attributes (how big, supply source, fortress, etc.) and the road connections (road conditions, bridges, etc.).
The problem with the editor(s) and also with the game is, if you don't follow the right steps the game will crash.
-
Well the way I found out is that the game will crash anyway :twisted:...because I never got "1813" working for more than 20 minutes... :evil:
-
Well the way I found out is that the game will crash anyway :twisted:...because I never got "1813" working for more than 20 minutes... :evil:
Well, I had more luck 8)
-
It doesn't solve anyone else's problem for getting a Campaign system for Histwar:Les Grognards, but I am really hoping that the game allows my web-based campaign system (designed for miniatures) to finally get the option to choose to fight some battles in near-to-real-time on-line. The problem that I expect to have is the difficulty in generating quick semi-random OOBs without having to go in an define every battalion. When I need to generate a weak French infantry division, I will want a means to have a way of generating it, even if it is just an allocation of point limits. And then the trouble will be translating game results back into the campaign system. As a bonus, I'll want to be able to save maps for each city so my players will be able to inspect battlefields when they are planning. Of course, with 1750 towns and growing, it can at best be a small database of battlefield maps created and saved as maps are needed.
The current Peninsular campaign that I'm running is open only to locals so that we can play miniature games from it but one day, if this game is capable of meeting the needs, it might be again opened to international players with the interesting battles resolved using this game.
Log of our current campaign from the Spanish perspective: http://www.murat.ca/blog1809/great_war_of_defiance.htm (http://www.murat.ca/blog1809/great_war_of_defiance.htm)
-
We will be starting a campaign very soon, using (EiANW) Empire in Arms Napoleonic Wars with 3 players as heads of state, Corps and Armies that are available will be assigned to each player for HW:LG battles.
Most EiANW area battles will be using the HW:LG Campaign maps for Army manouvers.
All the unnecesary phases will be skipped, as EiANW has this option available now, and using the editor functions we will have a short 1805 Campaign. Apart from the standing OOB the purchasing of troops will be using the EiANW Economic System.
We have a conversion system in place and looks to work well.
We plan next to have a Russian Campaign after that. Using a combination of the same systems. Most the work has been done all we will be looking for is reliable players.
We anticipate that the Campaign will go fo a maximum of 2 to 3 months.
Thanks for your attention
-
Thank you, Tiraulleur -- that's already better technical support for CotD than Matrix Games has given us in years! Harry, have you tried those settings? I had my CotD running in Vista on Win95 compatibility mode, but I didn't have those other two "preference" boxes checked. I'm going to try that and see what happens. Maybe we can get our campaign going after all (?)
I've just tried them and... no. No joy. Same problem of the missing 'battleback' .bmp When I first got CotD, it was running on an ancient desktop machine in XP and it did run for me. I couldn't find any opponents to make games intersting but I must admit that it ran. That machine died and I upgraded to an HP laptop and I've never got it running since. Nor will it run on my Lenovo work laptop. :(
What is COCAT? Googled but didn't see anything that looked like it sensibly related to the comment.
Has anyone heard of Gamemaker 7 from Yo Yo Games. Looks like an application you'd use to create kids games but who knows...
-
The original DOS version of the Carnage and Glory computer moderated rules system included both a tactical and strategic element. The strategic element was designed to run user created campaigns and generate miniatures scenarios that would be resolved on the tabletop. The condition of units, fatigue, attrition, etc would be reflected in order of battle for the tactical battle and the results of the miniatures battle would then be returned to the campaign.
When the tactical system transitioned to a windows environment the campaign system was not upgraded. The creator is now working on bringing the campaign system into Windows. One of the options he's looking at is the ability to use the campaign system with tactical rules other than the CG tactical system. This would allow some sort of coordination between Histwar and the CG system to run campaigns.
db
-
Campaigns on the Danube is good but is a bit clucky when it comes down to the translations between programes.
In all it worked ok, but it left holes in relation to troops on the march, how many where in hospitals and the supply issue was hard to keep track of at times.
I think that supply and troop recuperation and replacement need to be streamlined if a workable campaign is going to be set up, at least at first. Since the game already incorporates lines of operation, we should base supply on this somehow.
-
I think that supply and troop recuperation and replacement need to be streamlined if a workable campaign is going to be set up, at least at first. Since the game already incorporates lines of operation, we should base supply on this somehow.
You can make simple rules in a very large scale and instead of playig single battle just use the "campaign map" to portrait a region, for istance a sector of Piedmont or a sector o Danube valley and let's play with the campaign map.
-
There is an old utility called Staff Map Assistant (smaz). It runs in Vista and allows you to load a map, set up and OOB and track units over time. It would probably be best for a moderated campaign.
You can get smaz for free on this page.
http://grognard.com/aides.html
Not sure its a good fit, but it might be...
-
I think that supply and troop recuperation and replacement need to be streamlined if a workable campaign is going to be set up, at least at first. Since the game already incorporates lines of operation, we should base supply on this somehow.
yes with the system I had advocated before this is all encompassing.
We would probably get as many people to run seperate Campaigns for there own purposes and experience for all who want it
-
I ran an 1866 Prussia v Austria online campaign with 6 friends last spring. We had been hand ringing on how to do a decent online campaign with, similar to here, everyone trying to find some sort of perfect system that addressed everyone's need.
I decided to just go for it. Ultimately I went to the Kriegspiel website and looked at the materials, found a map of the Koniggratz area, put it into powerpoint and went to town. I very slowly added more players as time went on. Eventually I transitioned to the Austrian Army maps of Bohemia drawn up in 1890s as the basis for the campaign. I created my own graphics and things were passed along through ppt.
For resolving major battles I used Carnage and Glory again on the PPT. I would fight the battles my self giving commanders relevant info and getting relevant orders and intent from them since in real life they would not be sitting around telling every squadron and battalion what to do. I worked out the timings of couriers and the fog of war (I spent 25 years in Army so know a thing or two about both friction and how people thing in these types of situations). During battles I would update the commanders as I saw fit sometimes in 15 min increments sometimes 30 mins based on where they were and their initial intent. It became complex at time when you have say six guys fighting a battle but this was all PBEM and worked out great as it was mostly a tactical decision game for them.
The center of the game became the personalities of the commanders. Two of the players were serving or recently retired military officers. I put both on the Prussian side to give those Prussians that edge in professionalism. I did keep them off balance with occasional or obstructionist stupid superiors or subordinate NPCs that they Ultimately they also had a had to deal with a third player tat knew NOTHING about wargaming or military stuff which sort of worked out like a political crony.
For roleplaying the Austrians I had two veteran gamers who also btw in real life are always nipping at each other so this gave me just the right amount of court intrigue. The overall commander was also new to horse and musket which helped with the sort of basic ineptitude some commanders were afflicted with at that time.
It should be noted that none of the players knew who was playing what role OR if any of the other guys were NPCs or real humans.
-
As far as the conduct of the campaign it took about 8 weeks in real time and ultimately consumed everyone with the incredible experience. Everyone roleplayed their roles very well. There were times when each player was shaking with rage and frustration, even a few hints at potential duels. I served as both GM but also chief of staff for each side to occasionally make suggestions to the commander to help steer things along. Suggests they could either take or ignore.
The Austrians were at all times in a disadvantage. They had more troops, but of more uneven quality. They had a wider range of incompetent generals above and below them some of whom had different political motives for what they did, as well as various court intrigues. Also they had less military experience, which led to lack of clarity in their communications and coordinations as well as lack of establishing a good unity of command, which, given the court intrigues, they were never going to get anyway. They made up for this with aggressiveness, some creativity, some unpredictability, and for one of them, a quick learner. Also they were in friendly territory and had the advantage of civilian population intel whenever they thought to ask for it. They had larger forces but these forces were much more ponderous to get going.
The Prussians had the advantage of professionalism, they understood the basic principles such as mass, unity of command, clarity of orders, maintaining an effective reserve, reconnasaince, operational planning. They had disadvantages in that they were in unknown, unfriendly territory, the onus of the attack,and also never enough forces.
Ultimately the real challenge for both sides was one of limited intelligence and make decisions without knowing everything. How to mitigate this disadvantage, and operate within it became the keys to success of failure. Very rapidly one learned not to throw away their light cavalry in battle when on all the other days between heavy combat is when you need those guys to do that work effectively. once side made this mistake up front and had a difficult time recovering from it.
The ability to effective plan pre battle and lay out the commanders intent so commanders can operate effectively ina dearth of guidance and information was key.
Also this was not some even fight with carefully balanced points driven forces. That doesn't happen in real life. How one side's commanders could deal with this fact and operate within these parameters, was a test of their character. In the end as the campaign was moving along and getting long in the tooth, the King back in the capital threw in the towel based on a decisive massive battle occurring somewhere else in the war. But then again stuff like that happens.
Ultimately in our campaign everyone had a great time. Nothing happened in tis campaign that did not happen in real life at some point or another during 1860s warfare. Bravery, savagery, blundering, incompetence, miscommunication etc all led to various events grave and farcical. Te enjoyment was less about the tools we used and more about the interactions and decisions players were faced with. Everyone came away a little more humble about what they thought they could accomplish in these situations when they were faced with the twin devils of friction and lack of information. Cheers..
:D
Los
-
I ran an 1866 Prussia v Austria online campaign with 6 friends last spring.
Thanks for sharing, Los.
I enjoyed reading your story. Sounds like Fun, but much seems to depend on having a good game master.
-
Yes that's the point, a successful campaign requires a good GM. the tools are the tools, but it's the interactions and the "roleplaying" of the commanders personalities and the lack of intel and the commanders . It's not like all the commanders we re pulling along together in the best interests of their side to win the war for Napoleon. So to some extent each Corps commander/Marshall should have his own secret set of personal of goals, other than "your side wins". Perhaps victory conditions like:
Your side wins.
Your side wins but you corps has suffered the least amount of casualties.
Your side wins but has garnered the most amount of kills
Your side wins and you have captured the most enemy cities
Your side wins and your corps never helps X's corps since he's banging your wife on the side.
Your side wins and you hate Russians so you refuse to ever cooperate with them (Say you are Austrian)
You win if you have limited your casualties to <10% irregardless if you win or lose.
etc etc
To have a campaign without these factors is not realistic, much like playing a wargame that takes no account for unit morale. Also the GM can smooth over and take in account/mitigate any shortcomings or pitfalls in the actual campaign tool.
-
Frank Hunter, the very nice designer of CotD, has responded to my whinging on the Matrix site & provided me with a missing file from the game, the absence of which mean it wouldn't work.
The file is the BattleBack from the background folder in graphics. If you have the same problem, please PM me with an email addy and I'll email you the file.
@ Broadsword: This might mean we can finally start our CotD campaign, as I now seem to be able to use the program. :D
-
As a player in the Campaign that Los ran last year I will second everything he said. It turned out to be both a great learning experience and a very fun game. The lack of detailed knowledge on the other sides forces made all the difference. Instead of playing like a wargamer and throwing my forces away since I knew the battle ended at dinner time we had to conserve force and only spend troops when we had a chance for a decisive strike.
The key remains with the GM. Any of the tools will work but having a neutral human in the loop makes the difference in translating the output of those tools to the players.
rmako