If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to
register or
login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
| 1 MAR 2008 at 7:01pm |
Warship NWSColonel
Posts : 4244
Joined: 7 JUN 2001
Status : Offline | I have not personaly seen it myself but the best Gettysburg game out there at present, IMHO, is the HPS edition of Gettysburg.
[link=http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/ciwarbacage.html]Click here for more info[/link]
Christopher Dean
Director of Operations
Naval Warfare Simulations
http://www.navalwarfare.net
NWS Online Gaming Store
http://www.nws-online.net
|
| 1 MAR 2008 at 7:13pm |
BeerCatCenturion
Posts : 237
Joined: 14 SEP 2006
Status : Online | You are going way back. It was from SSI. They also did Rebel Charge at Chickamagua, and many other war and fantasy games. I believe the scale was 2 units to a brigade.
"If we're not willing to use it here against OUR FELLOW CITIZENS,then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation" Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne. ( testing non-lethal weapons such as high powered pulse weapons)
|
| 1 MAR 2008 at 7:33pm |
Warship NWSColonel
Posts : 4244
Joined: 7 JUN 2001
Status : Offline |
ORIGINAL: BeerCat
You are going way back. It was from SSI. They also did Rebel Charge at Chickamagua, and many other war and fantasy games. I believe the scale was 2 units to a brigade.
Yep, just found it.. 1986.. surprised I did not remember that one as I used to play Mech Brigade (cost me around $65 at the time) from back in 1985-1986. Probably saw Gettysburg .. just don't remember it off the top of my head.
Christopher Dean
Director of Operations
Naval Warfare Simulations
http://www.navalwarfare.net
NWS Online Gaming Store
http://www.nws-online.net
|
| 1 MAR 2008 at 8:16pm |
Jim_LineofDepartureCommander
Posts : 1451
Joined: 5 OCT 2006
Status : Online | I used to play the Shiloh sister game, and it was very good for its time.
Jim Werbaneth
[link=http://www.jimwerbaneth.com/lod]OnLine of Departure[/link]
[link=http://www.jimwerbaneth.com/wargames]Wargames by Jim Werbaneth[/link]
|
| 1 MAR 2008 at 9:45pm |
BismarckColonel
Posts : 4434
Joined: 31 MAY 2001
Location: US, Wisconsin
Status : Offline | The trouble with that one was you couldn't breakddown the units like you could with the others. Frontage was wrong. I wrote SSI about retrofitting to the new system; they said it wasn't necessary. If that was true, why did they have the feature in their newer games?
Jim Cobb, Ph. D. Adjunct Faculty, Cardinal Stritch University 
|
| 3 MAR 2008 at 5:55am |
FlickJaxCenturion
Posts : 598
Joined: 5 OCT 2005
Status : Offline |
ORIGINAL: BeerCat
You are going way back. It was from SSI. They also did Rebel Charge at Chickamagua, and many other war and fantasy games. I believe the scale was 2 units to a brigade.
Rebel Charge at Chickamagua
Rebel Charge was ace that is in my top 3 wargames of all time I had days of fun on that as both sides which is rare...
|
| 3 MAR 2008 at 8:53am |
uggisCenturion
Posts : 299
Joined: 21 APR 2006
Status : Online | Strange as it may seem, the "AI" (scripted, I assume) of the 1986 game was better (at least made more sense) than the "AI" in the much more recent Campaign Gettysburg. I remember having a hard time with the enemy actually falling back to a new defensive line, when I outflanked the first. In the newer game, the computer opponent will simply keep defending a hopeless position (and attacking it, once they've lost it).
There is also the Sid Meier game on the same subject, which should be cheap but I don't know how good it is. And then I think there is a mod for Take Command 2 with Gettysburg and also Civil War Generals 2 (old but still kind of fun). also, there were several Gettysburg scenarios for Age of Rifles.
|
| 3 MAR 2008 at 4:43pm |
BeerCatCenturion
Posts : 237
Joined: 14 SEP 2006
Status : Online | Yes, I agree. I had my best fights around the bottom half of the map where the Rebs would try to cut off the Union march north. On another note did anyone play Battles of Napoleon? The charging cavalry script was ahead of it's time.
"If we're not willing to use it here against OUR FELLOW CITIZENS,then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation" Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne. ( testing non-lethal weapons such as high powered pulse weapons)
|
| 3 MAR 2008 at 8:49pm |
paplanCenturion
Posts : 141
Joined: 18 JUL 2005
Status : Offline | Follow up question:
1) Is HPS Shiloh better than HPS Gettysburg? The screen shot shows a ton of units. Is this micromanagement hell?
2) Has anyone played the Take Command Gettysburg mod?
|
| 3 MAR 2008 at 9:01pm |
bboyer66Colonel
Posts : 4709
Joined: 17 APR 2006
Location: US, Pittsburgh PA
Status : Offline |
ORIGINAL: BeerCat
Yes, I agree. I had my best fights around the bottom half of the map where the Rebs would try to cut off the Union march north. On another note did anyone play Battles of Napoleon? The charging cavalry script was ahead of it's time.
You beat me to it. Battles of Napoleon was great, the cavalry charges and the counter charges were great. SSI's Gettysburg was the first computer wargame that I played, that I really thought was worth a damn.
|
| 3 MAR 2008 at 9:41pm |
hairogCommander
Posts : 1806
Joined: 17 JUL 2005
Status : Offline | The HPS series would be fantastic if they had only fixed the AI. It really sucks. I try and play it by setting objectives for my own divisions and brigades but they go charging off in the wrong direction even when I have placed them so the surround an enemy unit. It truly is silly AI. It looked like they where actually going to fix it at one time and I was in a dialog with them but they stopped working on it. Too bad.
|
| 3 MAR 2008 at 9:50pm |
Warship NWSColonel
Posts : 4244
Joined: 7 JUN 2001
Status : Offline |
ORIGINAL: hairog
The HPS series would be fantastic if they had only fixed the AI. It really sucks. I try and play it by setting objectives for my own divisions and brigades but they go charging off in the wrong direction even when I have placed them so the surround an enemy unit. It truly is silly AI. It looked like they where actually going to fix it at one time and I was in a dialog with them but they stopped working on it. Too bad.
They have not ignored comments about the AI. The AI actually does ok with various scenarios and they do note which scenarios are more tailored for playing against the AI or in 2 player mode.
Christopher Dean
Director of Operations
Naval Warfare Simulations
http://www.navalwarfare.net
NWS Online Gaming Store
http://www.nws-online.net
|
| 3 MAR 2008 at 10:32pm |
Warship NWSColonel
Posts : 4244
Joined: 7 JUN 2001
Status : Offline | ORIGINAL: paplan
Follow up question:
1) Is HPS Shiloh better than HPS Gettysburg? The screen shot shows a ton of units. Is this micromanagement hell?
2) Has anyone played the Take Command Gettysburg mod?
HPS games are very easy to play and any turn based wargame with lots of combat units involved will require some management, however, HPS makes the management intuitive with stack movement, good use of hotkeys, multiple map options, etc.
Christopher Dean
Director of Operations
Naval Warfare Simulations
http://www.navalwarfare.net
NWS Online Gaming Store
http://www.nws-online.net
|
| 4 MAR 2008 at 8:27am |
uggisCenturion
Posts : 299
Joined: 21 APR 2006
Status : Online | I would say the computer opponent in most scenarios in Campaign Gettysburg is EXCEPTIONALLY bad, compared to other games in the civil war campaigns-series. This is because that game features a lot of "movement-to-contact" scenarios, which is way beyond what the AI can handle.
The HPS-games are fun when armies start within striking distance from each other and the computer is on the defensive.
ORIGINAL: Warship NWS
ORIGINAL: hairog
The HPS series would be fantastic if they had only fixed the AI. It really sucks. I try and play it by setting objectives for my own divisions and brigades but they go charging off in the wrong direction even when I have placed them so the surround an enemy unit. It truly is silly AI. It looked like they where actually going to fix it at one time and I was in a dialog with them but they stopped working on it. Too bad.
They have not ignored comments about the AI. The AI actually does ok with various scenarios and they do note which scenarios are more tailored for playing against the AI or in 2 player mode.
|
| 4 MAR 2008 at 9:48am |
mirrorshadesCenturion
Posts : 63
Joined: 13 MAR 2007
Status : Online | ORIGINAL: paplan
Does anyone here remember a game called "Gettysburg--the turning point"? I believe it was made for both the Amiga and the PC.
It was a fabulous, turn based, regiment level rendition of Gettysburg.
Here is some more info: http://www.mobygames.com/game/gettysburg-the-turning-point
I am a fan of the old SSI games... Battles of Napoleon is incredible, and still worth playing if you can get beyond the simple graphics. Lots of stuff in the way they did their engine that I've not seen replicated in other, more recent games. Battles of Napoleon also came with a full-blown construction set and map editor, effectively allowing you to use SSI's game engine to create almost any battle.
I have to agree, the cavalry charge / counter charge / form square stuff was very well done. Nicely balanced, kept you from just charging over and over again.
|
| 4 MAR 2008 at 10:34am |
bluenosedvikingCenturion
Posts : 150
Joined: 13 MAR 2006
Status : Online | The SSI graphics for both Napoleon and Civil War were great. So was the span of control which encouraged you to keep your units in formation.
However, not to be forgotten is the SSG's Civil War system which allowed you to work through a chain of command where whether or not your orders were carried out depended on the personalities of the leaders.
Also the wargame construction feature allowed you to create new battles based on your own research. There was a limit though - you had to pretty much stay within the Civil War period. I remember one time "computerizing" an Austerlitz boardgame - the terrain was quite good and so was the infantry. I learned about the cavalry limitation when I had a thousand French saber equipped cavalry positioned to deliver a devastating charge and found them standing dismounted! That's exactly what Civil War cavalry did when stopped - fight on foot.
|
| 4 MAR 2008 at 11:00am |
HemmingwayCenturion
Posts : 20
Joined: 26 FEB 2008
Location: 0
Status : Online | The HPS Civil War series are far and away my favorite wargames. But of course there is a caveat... I don’t play against the AI. The AI can’t handle even straight forward battlefield situations. Instead I get around the AI issue by playing head-to-head games against myself.
I know this sounds lame, and it took me quite a while to come around to doing this. But since I started (3 years ago), it has become my favorite way to play most games. The plus is that you get to feel the problems faced by both sides. One of the main reasons I play wargames is for the historical lesson they can teach; for that you can’t get better than a solo head-to-head game. The negative is summed up by the question “if you know what the enemy is doing how can you have any fun?” The short answer is that I develop a basic strategy for both sides at the beginning of the game (often before any units are in sight). I then use logic to deduce what each side would do while trying to accomplish their strategy in the face of the changing battlefield situation. It took me a few games to get the right feel for playing this way, but now I love it. I challenge any skeptics (I certainly would have been one a few years back) to give it a shot and see what they think.
Also I understand PBEM with HPS games is excellent. Sadly, I have very limited time to play (like a few hours each week) so haven’t tried a PBEM.
PS - I like all the HPS games. Gettysburg is my favorite. For those looking for smaller actions, Chickamauga is good including Perryville and Stone's River.
|
| 4 MAR 2008 at 11:22am |
mirrorshadesCenturion
Posts : 63
Joined: 13 MAR 2007
Status : Online |
ORIGINAL: Hemmingway
I don’t play against the AI. The AI can’t handle even straight forward battlefield situations. Instead I get around the AI issue by playing head-to-head games against myself.
Ok... I've heard a number of people say they do it this way. How in the heck does it make any sense? How can you "outsmart" or "outmaneuver" yourself? Or is it just something you get used to, where you can willingly suspend your disbelief?
I'd enjoy playing this way, I think, but I'd be forced to introduce some kind of "lag" so that what I did on the previous turn wasn't fresh in my mind. Maybe play one side at home, the other side at work?
|
| 4 MAR 2008 at 11:50am |
HemmingwayCenturion
Posts : 20
Joined: 26 FEB 2008
Location: 0
Status : Online | The way I do it is to give each side objectives and then have them act within the limits of these objectives. Often this is relatively easy because during historical scenarios the initial disposition of both sides is well known. For example, during an HPS historical Shiloh battle:
The South: Knows the approximate location of northern units. Their intention is to attack hard and smash the Federal Army before help arrives.
The North: Is unaware an attack is imminent and is unprepared to meet one.
The scenario helps set up these condition because many Union units start fixed and disordered. Play proceeds naturally: The south rushes forward and attacks everything in sight, the north tries to weather the attack and wait for reinforcements.
Problems occur when troops get close to “known” enemy positions. Like when CS troops are about to break from the woods into an open field that you “know” has the enemy on the other side. In these situations I look to the overall objectives to figure out what the CS troops would likely do. In Shiloh, they are vigorously attacking. Hence, I would have the units boldly stride into the field and into the waiting guns. In other scenarios, it might be more realistic for the unit to throw out skirmishers or to wait for more troops to come up before advancing. These choices become common sense pretty quickly.
Finally, given the large size of the HPS maps and the massive number of units, local surprise is still possible even when playing against yourself. I have often blundered into unseen lines despite “knowing” where they are simply because it’s impossible to remember the placement of all units. You’d be surprised at how “open” the map looks when you switch sides and all those units you were just moving disappear...
|
| 4 MAR 2008 at 12:00pm |
DonanCenturion
Posts : 31
Joined: 8 MAR 2006
Status : Online |
ORIGINAL: bluenosedviking
The SSI graphics for both Napoleon and Civil War were great. So was the span of control which encouraged you to keep your units in formation.
However, not to be forgotten is the SSG's Civil War system which allowed you to work through a chain of command where whether or not your orders were carried out depended on the personalities of the leaders.
SSG's series was called, 'Decisive Battles of the American Civil War'. It was an interesting system that some hated (because they couldn't control the units), and those that loved it for it dealt with chain of command/leadership abilities as you mentioned. The only reason it was successful, is that it had the typical outstanding SSG AI. I found it enjoyable.
SSI's ACW series was good and I too was a big fan of their Gettysburg: The Turning Point.
|
| 4 MAR 2008 at 12:09pm |
eirheadCenturion
Posts : 56
Joined: 16 JAN 2007
Status : Offline | Spent a lot of time playing both Turning Point & Battles of Nap.,believe they had the same game design or designer team,I know they didn't do alot of things newer games have but what they did thet did right.
My question:was the AI really that good (I thought it very good at the time) and if so, why is the AI in both the HPS and Battleground series so dreadful?
|
| 4 MAR 2008 at 12:24pm |
mirrorshadesCenturion
Posts : 63
Joined: 13 MAR 2007
Status : Online |
ORIGINAL: Hemmingway
The way I do it is to give each side objectives and then have them act within the limits of these objectives. Often this is relatively easy because during historical scenarios the initial disposition of both sides is well known.
Ok, so it's kind of like roleplaying in addition to wargaming. I think I get it.
|
| 4 MAR 2008 at 12:29pm |
HemmingwayCenturion
Posts : 20
Joined: 26 FEB 2008
Location: 0
Status : Online |
ORIGINAL: mirrorshades
Ok, so it's kind of like roleplaying in addition to wargaming. I think I get it.
I hadn't thought of it like that before, but yeah I think that describes it pretty well!
|
| 4 MAR 2008 at 1:07pm |
MC82Commander
Posts : 1598
Joined: 7 APR 2005
Location: US, Tx
Status : Offline | ORIGINAL: Warship NWS
ORIGINAL: hairog
The HPS series would be fantastic if they had only fixed the AI. It really sucks. I try and play it by setting objectives for my own divisions and brigades but they go charging off in the wrong direction even when I have placed them so the surround an enemy unit. It truly is silly AI. It looked like they where actually going to fix it at one time and I was in a dialog with them but they stopped working on it. Too bad.
I'll have to find the latest patches and try these again- the boring AI really put me off of the HPS Civil War games, and I have a couple of them. Playing PBEM in phased mode seems like it would require the patience of a Zen Master to me, I only want to play these in single player but that hasn't been any fun yet since: Micromanaging your forces one by one= destroy the AI utterly, while allowing the "Command Control" AI feature to carry out your orders makes the Total War AI look brilliant in comparison when your units then scatter all over the map.
Maybe this has been fixed up?
This was in response to NWS' quote here:
They have not ignored comments about the AI. The AI actually does ok with various scenarios and they do note which scenarios are more tailored for playing against the AI or in 2 player mode.
(I cannot figure out how to make the "quote" feature work correctly on this board)
|
