American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Which one is better, HPS Gettysburg or Talonsoft's[?]

Fld Lt Kyle FitzMaurice
4th Engineers, 2nd Inf Div, I Corps,
Army of Alabama

For overall scope of play, the HPS version is great. I have several games going in it and they are all fun.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
LtGen, CO XXIII Corps, AoO

President, Colonial Campaigns Club
</b></font id="gold">

That's a mighty vague question ... beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, and so is being "better".

My personal opinion is this--HPS played in phases is the best BG that you'll ever get. [8D]

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

I second Dierks beauty in the eye remark.

I think HPS gives ya a lot more options and a better "feel" for Civil War tactics and strategy. I think BGG will give you a better Historical feel and will play much more like the original battle did.I also think it is easier tactically and more "fun" although that too is a vague word.

If you want to refight the battle of Gettysburg play BGG. If you want to fight a more generic Civil War battle with Gettysburg area terrain use HPS.

Major General Tony Best
AOJ

BGG has a graphically prettier map and is great if you want to fight the historical battle. But HPS has far more replay, far more scenarios and maps and variety in ways to play it.

BGen, 2/XIX/AoS

I played numerous games of BGG, I look at the HPS map and try to imagine were on the BGG map I am, all this in my mind of course. I did the same thing when visiting the battlefield. This is because of the superior 3D view. Almost unusable in HPS. Good only to see roads that are hard to see in 2D.

The BGG maps are wonderful and you can even play in 3D. However they’re the price of the limited number of maps and scenario options.

As far as game play is concerned the major difference is single-phase ability.

Because of the revised engine HPS and campaigns options, BGG is not on my HD any more. Not better just newer.


IMHO of course.


Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
CSA Reserve Corps
President, ACWGC

The single phase system in HPS is pretty much useless except when needed for multiplayer games. The move/fight system is more appropriate to modern war games than Civil War.

But if you forget that option exsists, then the HPS system fixes a number of problems and errors in the Battleground system. Not to go into detail the list includes: Better Fatigue handling, better casualty handling, better combat resolution, better artillery modeling, better zone of control handling, maps that are large enough you can't use the borders to cover your flanks, and a few more I can't remember.

The cost is the loss of those hand made map graphics. Although, people are slowly coming out with new graphic files that will make this better like they did in Corinth. While 3D view isn't as good as BGG I still use it although I find with the large maps I am forced to go to 2D in order to see the whole situation.

Col. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1st Div, I Corps, AoM (CSA)

I loved the way BGG "taught" me about the battlefields and the history of the battles. The graphics in 3D make that more possible.

That said, I am really enjoying the HPS Gettysburg campaigns that I have going. The scale, the decisions, and the other benefits make it a great game in my eyes. Can't wait to see what else they (HPS folks) have up their sleeves!!! Saving my money and salivating already...[:D][:p]


Lt. General Jeff Laub
I Corps, Fighting First
Army of the Potomac, USA
http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/I_Corps/

LC. Peters

The problem I found with trying to play multiplayer with the phase system wasn't just the extra mailings. Because the game isn't set up for a replay of a phase one player is always blind to what actually happen in a phase since only one player can execute the end of the phase. In a small scenario this works but in large battles its a pain. The single phase system fixes all that neatly since you see everything that happens to your forces and you can complete all your actions before you pass the file on.

As for special rules to try to fix the single phase system. They might help where you have to use the system as in multiplay but otherwise why bother using the system. It's really badly broke[xx(]. There is no way to correct for an idiot AI[:o)] and a crippled defense fire[:(]. The addition of an "opportunity fire" just doesn't fix a serious enough problem to put up with all the other flaws it introduces. Maybe if HPS kept the phase system and added the "opportunity fire" as an option that occurred only in the movement phase it would be useable. Defender probably needs a little boost in these games.[:)]

Col. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1st Div, I Corps, AoM (CSA)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
The problem I found with trying to play multiplayer with the phase system wasn't just the extra mailings. Because the game isn't set up for a replay of a phase one player is always blind to what actually happen in a phase since only one player can execute the end of the phase. In a small scenario this works but in large battles its a pain. The single phase system fixes all that neatly since you see everything that happens to your forces and you can complete all your actions before you pass the file on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually this is no problem when you arrange it properly. Always send the file to the entire opposing team, so they can all see the replay; and the last player (the one who does the fire and melee) forwards a file saved after the melee phase, but before he advances the turn, to all players on the own side. Also, the player conducting the melees should of course summarize them for the benefit of the rest of the team. We have been doing this for years in our old 2/VIII AoS MP team; it is very little additional effort.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

OK, I just recieved my copy of HPS Getty and have been exploring while home sick all week. (sorry to all of my opponents in other games but my mind has been so befuddled with infection the only opponent I fealt comfortable dealing with was the AI,lol). At any rate here are my thoughts. I love the increased scale and complexity of the battles. I think you could by this game and play it exclusively for the next ten years and not get bored. The maps are not the same so it took me awhile to get reoriented. The biggest problem with the maps is discerning elevation changes. Frankly, the shading is too light for my aging eyes and I toggle between 3d and 2d to make sure I get it right. Also, 3d graphics are rather annoying so I find that I do most of my movement and firing in 2d. That is the opposite of TS. I learned some nasty surprises about ZOC, having thought I had a unit surrounded only to find him routing and running away. Ha, Ha, I have mixed feelings about this. As a commander who has seen XI Corps literally give away thousands of points by inexplicably routing towards the enemy and then get surrounded by two little reb units and eliminated by ZOC countless times, I have to say I'm probably more comfortable with the HPS handling of ZOC. The game is much more about getting your boys in line and blazing away at each other and less about ZOC and melee. Makes for more fun and puts the game, I think, on a more historically relevant tactical level. In short, the more I play it the more I like it. Of course, I've been dealing with the AI so once you humans start kicking my butt I'm sure I'll sing a different tune. I guess the thing I wanted to ask is, has anyone developed a way to adjust the coloring of the 2d map so I can make more contrast available with elevation changes?[?]

Major General Don Golen
Army of the Potomac, USA!

Have to tried setting the contour lines? It is a dark brown line, so that might help.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
LtGen, CO XXIII Corps, AoO

President, Colonial Campaigns Club
</b></font id="gold">

Yes I have Ernie, makes an already cluttered map supercluttered so I also toggle it on and off to be sure of elevation changes. Speaking of cluttered, have you pressed the shift button. Ha ha, I really needed the shift button to identify that building as "building". Look, just so we're clear, I really really like this game. I'm just bringing up this as a fine tune to an already excellent product.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ernie Sands</i>
<br />Have to tried setting the contour lines? It is a dark brown line, so that might help.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
LtGen, CO XXIII Corps, AoO

President, Colonial Campaigns Club
</b></font id="gold">

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

Major General Don Golen
Army of the Potomac, USA!

Sure do agree with Don on elevation shading!! I find that I actually put the line of sight thingy on when I am moving so that I can sometimes better see the terrain!! Any way to get the BGG colors? I kinda doubt it.

Major General Tony Best
AOJ

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by HomerS</i>
<br />Yes I have Ernie, makes an already cluttered map supercluttered so I also toggle it on and off to be sure of elevation changes. Speaking of cluttered, have you pressed the shift button. Ha ha, I really needed the shift button to identify that building as "building". Look, just so we're clear, I really really like this game. I'm just bringing up this as a fine tune to an already excellent product.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes I have pressed that key. Sometimes there could be too much detail and you could call that SHIFT key, something minus one letter.

I was fairly sure you did try the contours, but sometimes you have to state the obvious, just in case.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
LtGen, CO XXIII Corps, AoO

President, Colonial Campaigns Club
</b></font id="gold">