Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Rich,

Sorry, Matrix has it wrong about the IGOUGO thing. For those that don't know, Matrix is not the developer of this game. Matrix is basically the seller that provides some help.

According to "Double Shot Design" (aka Tim at the Matrix boards) :
-----
<b><u>07/02/05</u></b>
<font color="orange">Great questions:
................Reaction: <b>it is a WEGO game</b> so the reactions do not play as big a part...but they are in there. I just had a cav unit approach some inf and they changed to square................. </font id="orange">

<b><u>07/18/05</u></b><font color="orange"> The game executes pulses and units will move/act when they are designated. A unit will not move 8 hexes, for example, when it has an impulse, but will move 1 hex and then the game will continue resolving actions.

It allows for ebb and flow...with combat occuring as needed. I just ran a test with two brigades approaching a village from opposite sides. The Franch arrived first, by a small margin, because the British encountered "unfortunate delay" of +1 Action Point (a 10% random chance per hex).

Tim </font id="orange">
-----

But hey, Bill can ask himself over at the Matrix discussion board.

As for "La Grande Armee At Austerlitz" that was a totally different product all together. It's developer is now making "Les Grognards." Comparing LGA with BoN is like comparing apples and pineapples, IMO.

Regarding the current state of things. We get a trickle of enhancements over many years <font color="orange">with that list below in orange still needing attention.</font id="orange"> BoN is pretty much giving it to us all at once. That's a choice, I'd say.

It has been said that if BoN so much as breaks even, the Brigade level campaign companion game is a go. I think your "couple of years (tops)" thought is overly pessimistic.

This is a "labor of love" for the developer. Napoleonics is <u>all</u> he is doing. There are no WWII, ACW, AWI, etc.... products that are competing for his time.

Afterall, when suggestions have been made here, some of the excuses I've seen (I'm paraphrasing here) for not including them were : <font color="yellow">John has a family to feed. He can't devote so much time to our Napoleonic games. He has his WWII interest that butters his toast. He can only do a few suggestions at a time. We'll put it on the list......</font id="yellow">

The point being that in terms of tactical level Napoleonic games, you guys have enjoyed being on the top for many years. It was the only game in town. If history teaches us anything, it is that no one stays on top forever.

Your fate is in our own hands. What are you going to do about it? From the responses I've seen so far, it looks like you're going to pretty much do nothing about it ---and that is sad.

Rick

<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>

Rick,

Changes for Campaign Waterloo 1.0
- New implementation of DirectPlay which fixes DirectX 9 problems.
Note: firewall ports have been changed by Microsoft.
See: http://support.microsoft.com/default.as ... -us;240429
This implementation uses DirectX 8 method.
- Added On-Map Results option which causes combat results to be displayed
on the map rather than in a separate dialog box. The setting can be
changed on or off from the Settings Menu.
- Leaders, Skirmishers and Supply Wagons no longer block the retreat of
non-Skirmish units, but instead are eliminated and captured.
- Reduced morale of Skirmishers by one for the purpose of Rout check.
- Change so that Charging Cavalry which are continuing can move into
empty hexes and can melee units which have already meleed.
- Change so that Disordered units attack at 1/3 strength and defend at
2/3 strength.
- Added a new Weather feature that allows for weather conditions to change
during a scenario. This feature is described in the Users Manual under
Weather and Conditions. Also see the documentation for the Parameter
Data Dialog and the Info Menu in the Main Program help file.
- Added ability to terminate AI Campaign Games using Termination Bid
feature.
- Added option for Division Colors under View Menu.
- Changed the trip range for releases from 5 to 9 hexes.
- Added optional rule for No Op Fire Against Skirmishers.
- (Editor) Added ability to shift units on the map (see Hex Menu).

-------------

Not to mention the items I have looked into for the patch for Waterloo for you.

Personally I take your posts as ungrateful, and sort of a slap in my face. Thanks, needed that. [:(!]

Rich

Maréchal Hamilton, Baron d'Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

Saxon Leib-Garde, de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale

Hey Rich, wait til Rick finds out about the realities of game companies some day. Maybe you could put him on to the Tech Support side of life for just a tad.

Or perhaps we will consider how DoubleShot will handle emails about fire and melee values being not as how so and so wrote it in his book.

And how can a game that only has 2d get the market share from folks that will only play 3d? (I didnt say get HPS market share)

There are folks that dont like our 3d view but when you dont have any 3d view to offer where do you go from there?

Tim and Frank are up against the 200 x 200 hex limitation. That problem is probably going to be solved but already Stephane C. has noted that you wont be able to play Leipzig on that scale (same scale as our games). 200 x 200 hexes is a medium sized map in our scenarios. I hope that Frank and Tim overcome this graphics obstacle but if the game comes out with that limitation then how will they sell the battle game? How can you play Wagram on 200 x 200? How about Bautzen? Again, its not my desire to see them limited to this. I am just waxing hypothetical here.

This:

"Afterall, when suggestions have been made here, some of the excuses I've seen (I'm paraphrasing here) for not including them were : John has a family to feed. He can't devote so much time to our Napoleonic games. He has his WWII interest that butters his toast. He can only do a few suggestions at a time. We'll put it on the list......"

Isnt even worth my type to answer its so ridiculous. Its not that I havent said something like this on occaision Rick, you dont understand software design obviously! John cannot step back to fix a game for many hours in a month and maintain a steady flow of income. However, I will just rest my case here on all of the things he has fixed. And yes, if some things were improved we would gain some sales. But to what degree? Is the sale going to mean a customer that will now buy every game we put out in the series. Some of them? Its a balancing act and I prefer the way that John balances his work than if he were to drop everything and spend two months on recoding the Napoelonic engine. I like having to convince him with sound explanations to code something (hey, he just fixed something for me a day or so ago). He makes me look the game over from as many angles as possible.

We had a great group at Tiller Con 1. None of them made any ridiculous charges against John during our Napoleonic round table discussion did they Rich? Not after they found out what a great guy he is.

I would say that they all wanted a better A/I (hoping to see that in all of the series), wanted some other things done but really the group didnt mind seeing a new title come out using what we already had. We get the idea that the customer likes the series. And we sold several copies of Wagram and Eckmuhl there to guys that had never played the series. I sat down with one man and showed him how it worked. He loved it!

John Tiller was the star of the con hands down. He has a quiet humble personality that immediately drew me and others to him. He's the guy that gets it done year after year. It was great meeting him.

Finally, Dr. David Chandler got to see my two 1809 games before he passed on. My good friend Bob from LA sent them to him (Bob has known the Chandler family for many years). That more or less speaks volumes for me. He liked the games during the little amount of time that he had left in this world. He and his son enjoyed pushing the units around the map.

If Dr. Chandler liked the games that John Tiller, myself and a host of others helped to bring to completion then that makes me content that what we have been doing was well worth the criticism and effort we put into the product.

And if Doubleshot puts out a good product then great. I dont look for them to make a dent in our sales. Like I said before both companies will feed off each other as they will be compared and discussed on each other's forums. Reciprical Advertising.

But lets see how the DS games do first before we start drawing conclusions.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

As an impartial, since I do not play the HPS games, I have to say that interesting as the new game looks, it seems over-complex to me for a tactical game. It's bad enough making movement phases with the current large scenario games, factor in all the additional options listed, remembering to check units training, experience and which of 6 facings (whatever this means) to employ, before moving them only adds to the time, without, for me, adding any significant benefit.

The WEGO format is a hybrid between IGO-UGO and real-time and not one that I favour, as it can restrict reaction to opponent moves. I am too slow to react in real time so favour IGO-UGO (with all its failings, but at least I can react to a move by my opponent).

The only feature on the list that was of any particular interest to me was the pre-melee morale test. This is a step in the right direction but could (should?) have been a morale test based on any advance into an enemy threat zone. I advocated this some years ago for the BG games after watching fatigue 9 disordered residual battalions advance to block the approach of fresh enemy units.

Anyhow, it will be good to have a choice, although for me, I'm afraid that this one is a non-starter without 3d graphics.

My 2d

Mark
VII Corps

Tim Coakley from Double Shot Design here. I have tried not to post too much about the game since this is a gaming site…not an ad venue. Just jumping in to clear up a few things.

John Tiller’s dedication to the series is commendable…truly an example for me to follow with my game. His games go back to 1995 or so and then 2000 for the HPS versions (when I started playing CE). Lots of support, new features, and great games overall. John’s concept is to release the games over a longer period of time with incremental additions. I have taken the “toolkitâ€

Rich,
My comments weren't meant to be a slap. The improvements that you have made for Campaign: Waterloo are the very reasons that I bought the game -and returned to the club since I bought CE (after buy all of the previous games.) They are also the reasons why I talked it up so much over at Matrix's discussion board.

Your efforts are highly commendable and it is only because of you that I believe the series has a new lease on life. My ire was never meant to be personally directed at you. My apologies since you took it that way. I find his type of communication to be so limiting. [B)]

Like I said before, I will buy the next HPS Napoleonic game <u>and</u> I will buy Tim's game. I want everyone to buy them as well.

Sales really never was what this was all about, --even though Bill keeps tripping over that issue.

It was about friendly competition. It was about a type of competition that <u><font color="orange"><b>everyone</b></font id="orange"></u> would benefit from.

Rick

<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>

Rick,

Apology accepted, and I extend mine as well...I tend to get a little passionate about the hobby and related topics. FWIW, it's a labor of love for me too on the Support side and design side. [:)] And there are more changes coming down the pike for the series...just can't tell you exactly when they will make their appearance.

And, to reitterate what I said in a previous post, I too would like to see the new DSD title do well, if I had my way our hobby would grow ten fold...I keep trying, one step at a time.

Regards,
Rich

Maréchal Hamilton, Baron d'Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

Saxon Leib-Garde, de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale

Rick M. "Sales really never was what this was all about, --even though Bill keeps tripping over that issue."

Rick - I never would have said a word about sales if you hadnt of said:

"The BIG downside of all of this is that it just might kill this series entirely." referring to the maps being locked - this has not killed the series at all - note that only a handful of games using the mods have ever been registered in the club whereas we have MANY finished scenarios based on the stock HPS games or alternate versions of the scenarios. Folks play the stock scenarios 98 percent of the time who play in this club and register the game.

You were talking about sales here. Our mistake of locking the maps will kill the series - you said that Rick.

Then this (referring to the DS game):

"If it so much as breaks even, there will be:"

You mean money of course? Which I have no problem discussing. You use monetary phrases in your posts. Its about money.

Then this:

" So, we will have a choice. It will be a choice between a game that gives us everything or what we have." (but you forget to say about "what we have" is that it is "what it will become")

This is an OR statement but you make it sound like an exclusive OR (Boolean algebra reading) which means one OR the other but not both. This was definitely a comment on what folks would BUY. You were referring to LOST SALES - not folks buying both games.

And who gave you the power to force folks to make a choice? Hmm?

Then this:

" I see it as competition plain and simple. I will still buy the next Napoleonic title (hopefully 1813) from HPS, yet it is inescapable that the bar has been raised."

You tell folks that they have a choice and then you say you will buy our games? Huh? I must be seeing double.

Friendly competition? No. You are aluding to market share here.

The bar is not raised - DS's title is a different game than ours. It doesnt offer 3d graphics so the miniature guy is not going to like it as much. In other words it has many things that ours does not but it lacks many things that ours has.

Then:

" I am just hoping HPS notices and acts accordingly."

This had nothing to do with friendly competition. It has to do with making money or the possiblity that HPS would have a money losing project on their hands. Your use of the word "hope" refers to the fact that if HPS doesnt notice that something adverse will happen - in sales.

And then:

"The point being that in terms of tactical level Napoleonic games, you guys have enjoyed being on the top for many years. It was the only game in town. If history teaches us anything, it is that no one stays on top forever."

Which obviously points to market share and not friendly competition between game companies. We are the top dog you say but for how long? Sheesh, I dont know but your comment has to do with .... er, money and market share!

Then to Rich:

" Your efforts are highly commendable and it is only because of you that I believe the series has a new lease on life."

I key in on the phrase: "only because of YOU"

I take this to mean Rich Hamilton.

Ok - so John Tiller had nothing to do with the process! Give me a break. Or did you mean to say "you and others like you" instead of making it sound like Rich is a one man act?

Would you please give credit to my playtesters who along with myself have injected into the game engine with code change from John Tiller a new feature that you see in the games: look in the Optional Rules: its the featured called "No Opportunity Fire Against Skirmishers" - its because of Paco Palomo, Ken Jones, Gary McClellan, Bill Peterson, Jeff Bardon, Dean Beecham that you have this rule! We all agreed that it needed to be in our latest project and after it was coded into the engine John used it in Waterloo too.

Its not a one man show. Rich GREATLY aided Charlie in this project but he was not the guy that got that change in the engine. It was a TEAM effort. So while you fooled Rich you didnt fool me. Your comment had so much butter on it it wasnt even funny.

And finally,

" Sales really never was what this was all about, --even though Bill keeps tripping over that issue.

It was about friendly competition. It was about a type of competition that everyone would benefit from."

Tripping over the issue? Look at the above quotes you make and then tell me that it was NEVER about sales!

Look Rick, what you type is what we read. Right from the git go you were introducing a new product into a thread that had to do with a HPS product. You took the entire thread way off its course by doing that. What was an honest question from Jagger become a sales pitch! I dont mind that you did this but admit it and look at it from a different perspective: you deliberately brought up the game as an alternative to what we have! In fact you directly were making a SALES pitch for the new game. Why not be honest with yourself and see that this is true! Friendly? It was all I could do to remain friendly when I saw you inject this in. Age of Rifles is a good game and is still played but as you say it doenst have the market share that a HPS game has. But when Rich White added in about that title it was with an effort to suggest that we add in features to the HPS engine - not introduce a new sales opponent.

You then wah wah about John not putting in enough work on the series to please you. Then you piss Rich off, he apologizes, but then you say it was never about sales!

Either you cant write or you are not a native English speaking person.

Like Rich I dont mind a new game on the market. Unlike Rick I see through your reply to him. You isolated him as the sole reason you bought Waterloo and for how the engine has been updated! Forget John Tiller and Mark Adams (busting his butt on two jobs, being a husband/parent and trying his best to give us coordinate with Joe to give us better graphics).

And forget guys like Dierk Walther who was consulted on the historical aspects of the game and probably a littl of the German usage of words (dont know about this part but can hazard a guess in this direction.

I am not mad at your Rick. Just concerned that you may not understand how to best communicate your opinions. You were directing comments about sales and competition. And I was responding to those concerns.

In the future type and live with what you typed. Dont try and convince us that it was otherwise.

As for your comments "it is only because of you" - No Rick - it was ALSO because of Charlie (sheesh like he did nothing to help you make your decision to buy the game), John, Mark, Joe, Paco (and my playtesters), Dierk, Scott Hamilton and crew, Ernie (and the other Waterloo playtesters), myself and others so numerous it cant be listed here to thanks as well!

This is and remains a team effort.

Just a simple thanks from our customers makes all the difference.

I am not sorry that I posted this - I dont want to prolong this issue after Rich has so graciously posted an apology but you really need to see that you were promoting something different than what you have said you were.


Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

Rich - I wanted to answer this properly. Look below in the text for my comments on each item. Like you I truly would like to see some changes in the system. Like you I enjoy the HPS/John Tiller products and am thankful to have been a part of the team.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />Bill,

Age of Rifles is still a pretty good game despite its age (1996) and dreadful graphics. It's still quite playable - I've even managed to get it to work on my XP machine with a bit of tinkering - and there's a Yahoo group with about 750 or so members that still play the game and create new scenarios:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/age ... =183873057

<font color="yellow">BP - I am impressed. 750 folks! That is quite a following. Obviously this should be a target group for us to look to. I wonder how many of them own a HPS title and still play it?</font id="yellow">

Of course the game hasn't been sold for years now - and unfortunately hasn't been patched since the 90s - but, despite its various faults, it still has a number of features that could usefully be incorporated into the HPS engine, for instance:

More formations - march & attack column, line & supported line, defensive, and a "disordered" formation for recovering fatigue faster.

<font color="yellow">BP - yes, fully agree with you. Have asked John about this several times. March columns, cavalry forming Line, Column or March Column. Have gone over alot of this and wont give up hope. Also would like to see our Extended Line units act as ONE unit - like a big counter in the GMT boardgames - their Austerlitz battlegame has a three hex long counter that is for a Russian Cuirassier regiment.</font id="yellow">

For artillery - gun capture/recrw/spike feature, retreat by prolong, the ability for meleed batteries to have some chance of limbering up and retreating with some gun losses rather than automatically losing every single gun.

<font color="yellow">BP - did guns retire by prolong in this period? Dont know enough to verify this. Fully agree with your views.</font id="yellow">

A fatigue for excessive movement feature - units that use their full movement allowance will clock up fatigue.

<font color="yellow">BP - Yes, have wanted this for some time</font id="yellow">

A terrain damage feature - guns bombarding a village will turn the hex into rubble and may set it on fire, depending on the weather. Troops marching through a cornfield will trample down the corn after a few units have passed through, etc.

<font color="yellow">BP - well I have to ask for some things and leave others out. I am a big proponent for Sapper abilities (vs. Pontoneers). Sappers would aid in capturing and defending hard terrain like a villiage hex or gate hexside.</font id="yellow">

There are various other interesting features, including units getting pinned down and a reaction fire system that often results in multiple units on both sides exchanging fire after a single unit decides to fire.

<font color="yellow">BP - currenlty we discussed the PIN idea on the ACW forum - I think you saw that. I am a big proponet of this. I dont want the unit to DISORDER. Its not the same thing! PIN means they dont move. An attacking or advancing unit would often STOP and just exchange fire much to the dismay of its commander as it meant that it was going to just get whacked by more fire. Patton had it right - dont stand and die, advance and win! Retreating had the same affect as standing - artillery would just follow you as you retreated.</font id="yellow">

Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Finally, regarding those 750 folks who play this game - do you know of any of them that could be used as a poll group about our games. Why they do or do not play the HPS titles?

I always like to get feedback from folks like that. Not disgruntled folks mind you - just those that said "Well I dont get to make a new map so I wont play the game"

I also know this: Age of Rifles covers a broader spectrum of history. To some extent this is NOT possible in a game. On the other hand 750 folks seem to enjoy the older product.

I will have to check out the game again and look it over. Also the new modules. Thanks for the link.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>

................I dont want to prolong this issue..............


Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Bill,

Even though that last paragraph and few other sentences was all I read, it is very clear that is exactly what you're doing. You're prolonging it, plain and simple.

You're quicksand.

I will not discuss this with you. Please, don't bother wasting any more of your time.

<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Le Tondu</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>

................I dont want to prolong this issue..............


Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Bill,

Even though that last paragraph and few other sentences was all I read, it is very clear that is exactly what you're doing. You're prolonging it, plain and simple.

You're quicksand.

I will not discuss this with you. Please, don't bother wasting any more of your time.

<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sure Rick. Its ok that I take the time to answer your concerns and questions but if the shoe is on the other foot you just drop me like a rock.

The HPS Support email is always there if you have a question on our products as I never plan on answering any question you have for any of our products in the future.

Good day.


Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

Bill,

Thanks for your reply. Of course, however good a game engine is, there's always room for a few improvements and I know you're keen on seeing a good game system get even better. But I realize that adding in new features takes time and needs careful thought in case they cause more problems than they solve.

Apart from the features I've already mentioned from Age of Rifles, perhaps a more sophisticated <i><b>disruption</b></i> system would be useful. For instance, in Shrapnel's <i>Dragoon</i>, there's 10 levels of disruption and players can spend movement points attempting to recover from disruption. This would help to slow down the pace of the game, since units advancing in line would need to regularly "dress the line" to keep the unit in good shape. Also, the effects of disruption in the HPS games seem rather drastic, especially the movement penalty, which usually prevents disrupted units from "escaping" when on the retreat, even though it might seem more logical for disrupted units to move faster if retreating.

There are also a number of features already present in other HPS series that might be usefully ported over into this engine, such as the following from the WW2/Modern series:

1./ A flexible action point system, so that movement, firing & melee were linked. (see my earlier post on this subject a couple of weeks back)

2./ The possibility of assigning different action points & victory point values in the OOB - thus militia might be slower to manoeuvre and worth less points than regulars and these again less competent than grenadiers, etc. (Perhaps rather like the values in the OOB editor, where value isn't just about unit quality, since light troops are worth slightly more, as are units with rifles)

.............................

Back to the subject of Age of Rifles and the folk who still play the game. Unfortunately, although I play one or two AoR games myself by PBEM, I only know a few of the members. The best person to get in contact with for organizing a poll would be Maciej Czuchnowski. I don't get the impression there's much overlap between this group and the people who play the HPS games - maybe quite a few of them aren't even aware of the existance of HPS or these HPS-related clubs. What I can say is that there are still scenarios being regularly created for the game, so perhaps that's part of the attraction. Apart from the original and expansion pack scenarios, there are various AoR scenarios for most Napoleonic and ACW battles, plus numerous other scenarios ranging from the pre-gunpowder age right up to WW1. Some of these scenarios are available for download from the AoR Yahoo site, and a further 220+ scenarios from:

http://www.wargamer.com/gamesdepot/search_game.asp

See also the following Wargamer web page on the game:

http://www.wargamer.com/aor/

I've only actually made one AoR scenario myself - a straight conversion of a small HPS Gettysburg scenario for testing purposes. I'll see if I can find it and perhaps you'd like to play both the HPS and AoR versions with me to see how the two engines play differently? My impression is that while HPS tends to favour the attacker, AoR favours the defender - probably a good thing for the actual period of the game 1845-1905, although perhaps too much for attempting to represent Napoleonic or earlier conflicts with this engine, unless playing without the reactions+ ADF mode and a house rule is used to prevent troops digging in mid game.

I suspect quite a few AoR players would be interested in playing the HPS games - the much larger HPS maps would certainly be a big incentive (I think the max AoR map size is only 50x50 hexes!) as would the fact that many of them seem to be having difficulty getting AoR to run on WinXP. However, without a few further improvements to the HPS engine (those I've previously mentioned, especially those relating to artillery), I doubt they'd want to completely stop playing at least some AoR games as well.


Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />Bill,

Thanks for your reply. Of course, however good a game engine is, there's always room for a few improvements and I know you're keen on seeing a good game system get even better. But I realize that adding in new features takes time and needs careful thought in case they cause more problems than they solve.

Apart from the features I've already mentioned from Age of Rifles, perhaps a more sophisticated <i><b>disruption</b></i> system would be useful. For instance, in Shrapnel's <i>Dragoon</i>, there's 10 levels of disruption and players can spend movement points attempting to recover from disruption. This would help to slow down the pace of the game, since units advancing in line would need to regularly "dress the line" to keep the unit in good shape. Also, the effects of disruption in the HPS games seem rather drastic, especially the movement penalty, which usually prevents disrupted units from "escaping" when on the retreat, even though it might seem more logical for disrupted units to move faster if retreating.

There are also a number of features already present in other HPS series that might be usefully ported over into this engine, such as the following from the WW2/Modern series:

1./ A flexible action point system, so that movement, firing & melee were linked. (see my earlier post on this subject a couple of weeks back)

2./ The possibility of assigning different action points & victory point values in the OOB - thus militia might be slower to manoeuvre and worth less points than regulars and these again less competent than grenadiers, etc. (Perhaps rather like the values in the OOB editor, where value isn't just about unit quality, since light troops are worth slightly more, as are units with rifles)

.............................

Back to the subject of Age of Rifles and the folk who still play the game. Unfortunately, although I play one or two AoR games myself by PBEM, I only know a few of the members. The best person to get in contact with for organizing a poll would be Maciej Czuchnowski. I don't get the impression there's much overlap between this group and the people who play the HPS games - maybe quite a few of them aren't even aware of the existance of HPS or these HPS-related clubs. What I can say is that there are still scenarios being regularly created for the game, so perhaps that's part of the attraction. Apart from the original and expansion pack scenarios, there are various AoR scenarios for most Napoleonic and ACW battles, plus numerous other scenarios ranging from the pre-gunpowder age right up to WW1. Some of these scenarios are available for download from the AoR Yahoo site, and a further 220+ scenarios from:

http://www.wargamer.com/gamesdepot/search_game.asp

See also the following Wargamer web page on the game:

http://www.wargamer.com/aor/

I've only actually made one AoR scenario myself - a straight conversion of a small HPS Gettysburg scenario for testing purposes. I'll see if I can find it and perhaps you'd like to play both the HPS and AoR versions with me to see how the two engines play differently? My impression is that while HPS tends to favour the attacker, AoR favours the defender - probably a good thing for the actual period of the game 1845-1905, although perhaps too much for attempting to represent Napoleonic or earlier conflicts with this engine, unless playing without the reactions+ ADF mode and a house rule is used to prevent troops digging in mid game.

I suspect quite a few AoR players would be interested in playing the HPS games - the much larger HPS maps would certainly be a big incentive (I think the max AoR map size is only 50x50 hexes!) as would the fact that many of them seem to be having difficulty getting AoR to run on WinXP. However, without a few further improvements to the HPS engine (those I've previously mentioned, especially those relating to artillery), I doubt they'd want to completely stop playing at least some AoR games as well.


Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Rich - right now I am swamped for design work but looking at AoR would be of interest (again).

I am going to copy the text of this thread and keep it with the express purpose of looking at it again in the near future.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]