Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Guys - it is becoming more and more noticeable through the years that the majority of our customers are solo players. We have commented to several of them to move over to PBEM gaming but in many cases they are not budging. There are a few of them that actually say anything but the numbers are there. Its much larger than the PBEM gamer - despite crossover from solo gaming the AI players constitute a majority of our customer base.

To this end my next title will cater to the solo gamer. Most of the scenarios will be tested based on solo testing. AI scripts will be added. Each scenario will have at least two scripts. Some more.

While this may alarm some of you rest assured that just as soon as the game is out a Head to Head (that is for PBEM) version of each scenario will be available from my website for download. I will post a note about this on just about every website I can get to. NWCGC, Gamesquad, Wargamer, etc.

The gist of this is that we are losing sales in part because the solo gamer buys a title and sees that only a smaller percentage of the total scenario count cater to him. So ...

1. All campaigns for the most part will be small to medium sized. They will be short to medium sized in length. Some will be perhaps 40 turns. Most will be lower in turn number.

2. All standalone scenarios (those you see in the Scenario Dialog window when you choose a scenario via the game engine and not campaign front end) will be no more than say 25 turns in length and will feature 2-3 scripts. They will not involve more than two corps.

3. The game will come with 80-100 scenarios maximum (not counting copies of the same scenario found in the campaign engine). This is so we can playtest every scenario. Two testers will have looked over each scenario besides myself and reviewers (guys like Rich H. or my friend Bob who only give them a cursory glance at best). So gone are the days of 400 scenarios. The campaign scenarios WILL have some duplicate scenarios to vary the setup but because of playtesting constraints we cant possibly come up with more than two extras for each. The variations will have the units placed in different locations to help with replayability (the old "I know where the II Corps is in this one" problem).

4. Head to head playtesting will be optional for the guys. It will NOT cut into their solo testing time. Only those scenarios that I think have to be Head to Head will come in the product so that we can deliver this thing to John/Rich for review/release in a timely fashion.

So dont despair - the game will feature HTH scenarios, they will be available from my website after the game comes out. I am certainly not forgetting that you guys are loyal customers are well and want the game for its PBEM use. Me too! [:D][:p][;)]

Anyway, just wanted to let you know so that if and when the game comes out and you buy a copy you are not dissappointed. I will continue with our fine heritage of providing HTH scenarios for the club gamer too.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Bill,

I can certainly understand you putting more emphasis on catering for the requirements of solo gamers, but why must the scenarios be limited to shorter and smaller ones only? Wouldn't this cut out some of the epic grand scale gaming experiences, especially if you cut out scenarios with more than 2 corps? Will large historic multi-corps battles not be included except as smaller scenarios covering portions of the field?

If you are playing solo you can get through the turns so much quicker than if you are playing PBEM and having to wait for your opponent to return the file. I would have thought that the longer and bigger scenarios are more manageable for solo gamers. Why not provide a variety of sizes?

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/Napoleonic/nap.htm"]Brigadier General Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/anglo_allied_army_stats/Anglo_Allied_Army_Cavalry_Corps.htm"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps[/url] ~
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/dragoons.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
</center>

<hr noshade size="1">
"... but why must the scenarios be limited to shorter and smaller ones only?"
<hr noshade size="1">

Perhaps because the bigger the scenario the dumber the AI -- it's always dumb, but when it has too much to consider it seems to get even dumber.

Marechal Theron Lambert
Grande Duc de Montereau et Duc d'Angers
Cavalerie du VI Corps
Armee du Rhin
Commandant Grenadiers a Pied "les Grognards"

The natural leap in logic would suggest that the A/I will be improved????

<center>
</center>
<center>
[img]</center>
<center>Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin
Commanding L'Armee du Rhin
Grande Duc de Piave et Comte de Beauvais
Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Moyenne Garde
NWC President</center>

The main thing about the long battles and the AI is that the longer a scenario is the wider the variance of computer moves. Thus its far harder to predict the outcome or in other words balance the scenario. The AI acts so irrationally half the time anyway - and word I had from John was that he has no plans to improve it. What can I say? The series is being bypassed eventually for future work. We continue to get improvements but they continue to be in the realism field and not the AI areas of concern.

I know Rich disagrees with me being public about this but face it - if the improvement was going to come it would have by now. The series is not DEAD in our minds. Far from it. But AI programming is expensive. However, based on our customers needs I would say that either we fix it or retire the series in two years. Frankly we are not going to get far trying to sell a series that we know folks are backing off from.

However, I add this in - sales on ALL of our products are down. Thus the AI argument can only go so far. Which is why I dont badger John about it. I do note that if we HAD a better AI that the series would get better followership with the guys that play Solo. Of which over 70 percent and more form our customer base from what I remember.

Bottom line: the longer scenarios create more factors of balance of which causes wider variance and thus most any player could win in the long haul with even a force that is smaller than the AI player.

So what is my goal: something in the form of 8-22 turns for the MOST part. That is about 3 hours of time. This doesnt mean that the occaisional 50-60 turn scenario will not emerge but in the long haul the scenarios that work the best for the AI are of shorter duration. They give the player (ie. customer paying bucks) the most enjoyment.

I played BGW and NIR a few times against the AI. Due to the length of the battle scenarios it wasnt even fun. Now fast forward to something like Wagram. I have played that too and it was not even enjoyable past 30 turns. The Austrians guns all limbered up and I took them out and won on gun points alone I think.

So what do I do? Tone down the points for the Austrians? Who wants to wipe out an entire army?

The scenarios that I have tested in my latest game are of short duration and really give you a run for your money. The guys that have playtested them for the most part agree that you will be hard pressed to win. Thus the replayability feature will be there.

Frankly I have played many games solo. Games like Age of Empires III, Total War series, Railroad Tycoon II and III. Its enjoyable but for me I like the human element. But from what I am hearing guys like to FINISH the battle in one or two sittings, dont want it to take months to get something finished and dont even want to interact with other humans! This unfortunately is where our "I got my own TV, DVD player and popcorn for the night" generation is going.

Add up our customer sales and deduct the club population here and say in the other clubs discounting duplicates and its quite a difference.

I truly wish that the solo gamers would jump on board the PBEM clubs. Giving them shorter scenarios might entice them to play a scenario or two in the clubs! The amount of file turnaround would be shorter, etc.

But anyway, the main thing is that we have to make a move and one that will shorten the scenario length. But we can have our cake and eat it too as the HTH world will still be supported.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Wouldn't it be an idea to reduce the number of scenario's to save costs for improving the AI. When I buy an HPS game I probably play about 6 different scenario's, that's it. I think 60 scenario's like in Waterloo is quite a lot.

A few big scenario's and some more small to medium ones would do for me. I think the battleground series have only about 20 scenario's and even then I never played them all.

Generaal-majoor Marco Rietveld
2e Divisie Commander
I Corps
Allied/Dutch Army

For solo (ie. non hotseat as well as non PBEM) play, it's really necessary to create two versions of each scenario, with the victory levels, objectives, fixed units, troop numbers, etc, etc, all carefully modified so that the A/I can put up a tolerably decent game.

To have any real chance of winning - even against a fairly inexperienced player - the A/I needs everything stacked in its favour - perhaps 3 or 4 to 1 odds, as well as victory levels and objectives adjusted.

There's no way that <i>any</i> scenario could be playable with the A/I able to take either side.


Lt.Col. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

Logically yes, John, but from a business standpoint you have to go with what the majority of your customers want.

This is a niche market. The Panzer games and mainly the Total War:First Battles series has the better AI. Older code is harder to overhaul. Anyone that has done programming can tell you that. Its like going in to remodel a home or worse. Better to start from scratch.

The main thing is that given some time I can put together some scripts that will at least restore the series to the best it can be with what it has. So my job is to do the best with what I've got and not grumble about what its lacking.

Its my fault that the last game Jena didnt have more scripted scenarios. To some extent I rectified that in the last update. But there is still work to do on that.

For the next title I will have a full set of scripted scenarios. Add in the HTH stuff later on and the game will be back to what the solo customer expects for what the engine can deliver.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Hi Guys and Bill
Sorry to hear this Bill but after all market forces are market forces. Some suggestions

Why don't all games comes with a list of club's that support them for PBEM and the advantages of PBEM over AI. (Features/benefits stuff). This would only enhance HPS's offering.

Also HPS could consider a premium priced lower volume series tailored to the club market. I for one would buy it. Perhaps a subscription model for updates. Would members pay for this? Perhaps I am in the minority but it would be worth doing some market research for HPS.

At the end of the day we as a club must support the series or its back to BG mods.

Just a thought

regards





General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde
CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

All of the marketing strategies you ask for would not work. John and HPS dont like to do two versions of the same game. Its the same reasoning why John doesnt do demos of his games.

Multiple packages. Its a headache for the ordering folks.

Anyway, this is pretty much it for now. Just letting you guys know that even though the release will offer mainly solo scenarios that the HTH crowd (us) are still going to be supported. My website and probably the Gamesquad site will offer the HTH scenarios as downloads.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Colin Knox</i>
Why don't all games comes with a list of club's that support them for PBEM and the advantages of PBEM over AI. (Features/benefits stuff). This would only enhance HPS's offering.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This was started a couple of years ago...the following text goes out in every order now that ships directly from HPS. There might be some missed when they run out of a print job, but Shipping has said they are doing this:

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

Thank you for purchasing this HPS product. We trust you will find it to be high-quality and very enjoyable. If you have any questions or comments please direct them to Support@hpssims.com

We design our games to be played in a variety of ways – against the computer A/I, on-line/LAN, hot-seat, or in many cases play by e-mail (PBEM). We encourage you to take some time and explore the user-created on-line community that supports our games. As with most types of gaming, the enjoyment level increases from playing against other people who enjoy the same thing you do. There is a variety of gaming clubs and discussion boards out there that support our games.
http://www.hist-sdc.com/hps/opponents.htm

Vista Users make sure and visit this page prior to installing your game:
http://www.hpssims.com/vistahelp.htm


Maréchal Hamilton,
Duc de Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

1er Regiment Garde
Fusiler-Grenadiers

Bill, if you feel that the focus should be on providing the best gaming experience for solo customers, wouldn't the scenarios you end up creating be likely to be unsuitable for PBEM gamers?

I suspect there are really three approaches:

1./ Cater primarily for PBEM gamers, with each scenario having several basic A/I scripts to provide some rudimentary gaming experience for solo gamers.

2./ Cater mainly for solo gamers, providing two versions of each scenario, one designed for the A/I playing a particular side.

3./ Cater for both types of gamers, providing a balanced PBEM/hotseat scenario plus two alternatives designed for playing either side against the A/I.

This is probably the only way to cater for the needs of both solo and PBEM gamers. Perhaps the two versions designed for A/I play could be basically the same scenario, but with the victory levels and objective hexes altered and the necessary A/I script in place.


Lt.Col. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

Rich - the main customer base is solo gamers. There will be a few HTH scenarios on the game disk. The majority of the guys dont want to even see them in their directories.

I will provide HTH scenarios AFTER the game goes out. And more will be forthcoming.

But they wont be the primary goal anymore. Our customers are upset at the large amounts of HTH scenarios. My playtesters only have so much time. I like them to get at the scenarios LONG before the game goes to press (per a note you sent me if you remember). Since I would LOVE to see the title get out this year or early next year then I have to narrow down the scope that the playtesters have to focus on. If I try and please everyone we wont get the game out sooner.

Again, primarily solo scenarios, HTH will follow soon after, everyone will get what they want. The HTH crowd will get their due but the guys that primarily buy the game wont have to look in the folder and see all of those HTH scenarios AND any playtester that wants to remain on the team a bit after the game is released will help me to playtest the HTH scenarios. Thus I kill two birds with one team.

Adopting the scenarios to HTH play is not as hard as getting it to work against the AI so I dont see that the HTH playtesting will be that difficult. The guys that played them before will offer up tips on what I can do to get the HTH version correct. And after I do a few conversions its not going to take me that long.

But the solo playtesting maximizes my playtesters time. And future updates to my website to the HTH mix can enhance the existing set and not have to bother the solo gamer with more files in their directory.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

As the costs of the game go, Scenario Design is likely the lowest of them. So, going from 60 to 40 scenarios wouldn't really change the production cost much.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarcoRietveld</i>
<br />Wouldn't it be an idea to reduce the number of scenario's to save costs for improving the AI. When I buy an HPS game I probably play about 6 different scenario's, that's it. I think 60 scenario's like in Waterloo is quite a lot.

A few big scenario's and some more small to medium ones would do for me. I think the battleground series have only about 20 scenario's and even then I never played them all.

Generaal-majoor Marco Rietveld
2e Divisie Commander
I Corps
Allied/Dutch Army



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

Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Bn
Allied Coalition C-in-C

Now for a bit more "on point".

I really don't care too much if someone gets upset if they see HTH balanced scenarios in their folder. If necessary, find a way to clearly demark them on the scen listing (for instance, AI scenarios are numbered 0-99, while HTH are 100+, so you have to scroll to the bottom of the list to find it). I don't complain if I see AI balanced scens, though I haven't messed with the AI outside of playtests in probably 5 years.

Further, I'm leery of a move that promises to remove the featured scenarios from a game. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like this drive for "small and short" scenarios will lead away from "full battle" scenarios. If I want to play Waterloo, I'm really much more interested in Waterloo than in Placenoit. If I'm playing Bautzen, I want to see the whole works. Not only Napoleon's pinning attack, but also Ney's failure. I would feel this way if I were playing against the AI or another person. This was an era with a multitude of 2 and even 3 day battles.

Even if I were an AI only gamer, and disinclined to actually fight out Waterloo, I'd want to look at the scenario, the force mix, the positions, and look at how the whole interrelates. As I said, maybe I'm misreading, and you're talking about the extended non-historical scenarios. If so, then I'm sorry. But, you know me, I always feel I need to put in my $.02 worth [:D]

Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Bn
Allied Coalition C-in-C