You know, I had never really thought about that for infantry, but I also agree that is a very good point.
| Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC) https://wargame.ch/board/nwc/ |
|
| What do you want for next games ? (engine game) https://wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12266 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | David Billieres [ Mon May 07, 2012 3:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
| Author: | Bill Peters [ Mon May 07, 2012 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
David - at one point in time we had a choice: finish up the Napoleonic series using the present engine or use the Musket and Pike game series engine. I voted to continue using the Nap series engine and I believe so did Rich Hamilton. Rich White would have liked to move over to the newer engine. My feeling was that by moving over to the M&P engine, where we could incorporate such things as MP rate by individual unit, VPs by individual unit and so on that I would not be able to reuse older OB data easily. Nor would we have continuity for the series. Could we put out more games after we do up the Nap series using the newer engine? Not sure if John is up for that. Rather than go that route I would prefer a newer engine that has other features along with what you are asking for. But that is my two cents on this topic. I believe that M&P could accommodate the Nap battles just fine. If we didn't already have eight games out in the series I would say move on over and finish it up using M&P. One thing you also have to take into account is that the M&P engine does not have all of the features of the Nap series engine. Thus: 1. Phase one would be to finish up the Nap series. 2. Phase two would be to bring a COPY of the M&P engine up to the same level as the Nap series. 3. Phase three would be to port over the various files from the Nap series to work with the new M&P engine (lets call it Nap Series 2). 4. Phase four would require a lot of work on the Scenario Designer's part: add in the missing values for ALL of the OB files and also PDT files as needed. The scenario data format also is different I am thinking. Will we go that route? Hmm, I would rather explore other avenues myself. If John were to go that way he could offer up the projects to other folks that could take our work and perhaps upgrade the scenarios too. I like the idea that we are only about four to five titles away from finishing up the series. One thing I will say - for my own reasons I do NOT like the MP rates in the Ren game for cavaly. It is different than the Nap period of course but the light cavalry just zip all over the place. Super blitz is what I call it. No, they are not battle cavalry but they easily can pin down an infantry force trying to retreat while the heavies come up to attack (along with supporting infantry). Semi-historical but for our games the old "radio" format makes it too easy for the attacker to wipe out entire columns. That is unless there are tons of Pike units in the formations. Question: what MP rate would you give Light Cav based on the present format for Leipzig/Austerlitz/Jena/1814? Presently cavalry has 21 MPs. How many additional MPs would you give Light Cavalry? Cossacks more? 24 MPs? 26? |
|
| Author: | David Billieres [ Tue May 08, 2012 3:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
| Author: | Bill Peters [ Tue May 08, 2012 9:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
You make a VALID point for infantry melees. I truly would like to see where infantry charges and it would have to be straight forward. |
|
| Author: | MCJones1810 [ Tue May 08, 2012 9:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
You know, I had never really thought about that for infantry, but I also agree that is a very good point.
|
|
| Author: | David Guegan [ Tue May 08, 2012 9:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
David, It looks like a very interesting solution! Simple and elegant! |
|
| Author: | David Billieres [ Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
Well, after two years, and my back on the JT games.... I continue to believe that certain aspects of the game are badly managed... The mêlées (or the simulation of the very short-range firing) are really the weak point of the game... I think that it is really necessary to limit the mêlées and to favor the fatigue of the enemy lines by the fire and to make of the mêlée the ultimate solution... But my essential question: is that an evolution of the game is planned in the future? It's not a critism. But after several years with an engine of purring but imperfect game, is it not time to propose innovations more important than those already made? I love the talonsoft series, love HPS games, and love JT, to permit us to play our favorite battles.... but I want see some changes ! 
|
|
| Author: | MCJones1810 [ Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
To be absolutely honest, David, I do not think JT has any interest in changes to the game engine. |
|
| Author: | David Guegan [ Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
| Author: | Christian Hecht [ Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
I think the guys from the HISTORICITY & REALISM PROJECT toyed already around with that kind of approach but that was for Austerlitz. I read thru an old thread and Bill Peters didn't seem too happy(politely expressed) about their approach. Anyhow yes these games need a serious upgrade are a complete new engine, start point would be a separate value for training level because units can have a good moral but a bad training what simply leads to an average moral value on the battelfield and depending on the situation might not mirror the historical performance. Also speed would be and interesting factor, to be able to switch into the second gear and "exhaust" a unit but to get it faster into a specific position would be interesting, the all time slow cavalry is a good example. Last but not least a real multiplayer feature would be nice, with the player being able to assume a specific position and only command the units under his command but also to only see what the units under his command see, add to that a in game messenger feature that delays orders or may not even reach there destination and we have the real uncertainty that was so present in these days. But I wonder what JT is up to, seeing all these "mobile" releases lately makes me worry that he also jumps onto the train of so many others that think there future lies in the hands of people that simply toy around some seconds between leaving a taxi and entering a bar or some kiddies using there new phones for something like that. I still think that the really future lies in the hands of dedicated people and the dedication of the community could be well seen if they would finally get their hands on a full editor suite to make there own scenarios, the HISTORICITY & REALISM PROJECT guys already showed a lot passion but again the work to do all this without proper editors seemed to much to expand that to other games of the series. Even in games as big as Leipzig with its many scenarios there are so many smaller engagements that are not covered and that surely will never be covered by JT scenario designers as those additional scenarios are just not worth the effort and so a dedicated user is needed. I see that clearly in the TOAW game series, without the many many user made scenarios that game series wouldn't have never made it past the year 200 and by now to its 4th incarnation. JT on the other hand is just still running because there are simply no alternatives and no competition, maybe HistWar gets them moving but I doubt as the 3D environment is too different from the hexes of the JT games so the will simply get along without forcing each other to a bigger effort lie it would be needed for a new engine or at least some bigger changes in the current engine. |
|
| Author: | clifton seeney [ Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
First off have you return Monsieur and second I am glade? |
|
| Author: | David Billieres [ Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
| Author: | Andy Moss [ Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
Clifton. Bill has gone. That post David is quoting is 2 years old. I really don't see any engine changes, sorry. I'm playtesting one game but that's also been dead in the water for nearly a year now. |
|
| Author: | clifton seeney [ Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
DO you young Guys know that this is a two year old post |
|
| Author: | David Guegan [ Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you want for next games ? (engine game) |
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|