I didnt see anything about the date from the link Ernie gave. I must have missed it but from previous posts I think it was later this month or early October.
All I can say is get it right as with this much hype its going to be disappointing to those (me too) that have been looking forward to it coming out to have it do oddball things.
The AI in particular is going to be HUGE. Most of the gamers out there prefer solo play. As much as that makes us cringe. But thems the facts and if the AI is not strong enough to give you a fight the customer is only going to play it so much.
The AI in the Total War series was decent. I have had my head handed to me in several of my battles in Med:TW2 - just trying to manage all of the units was a real task.
This game is NOT real time. Its similar to CM and that will mean seeing if the units react to an enemy to its rear as it is moving or do they pass like ships in the night.
For instance: If I order my battalion to move past a woods and from the other side comes a regiment of cavalry will my troops try and square up.
CM had a "prisoner bug" that from what I remember they fixed. If units get into proximity where they are going to hit each other by accident do they halt and take a shot at each other by instinct? That is usually what happened.
So alot of the si-move is going to be interesting to diagnose. I know that in my first few playings of it I will be setting up games where I intentionally test out several instances that were a problem in CM.
CM is a great product, especially the later games where the graphics got better, but I am looking at the terrain for HW and wondering if it couldn't have been done with a bit more clarity.
Nonetheless if it can give me a game where I can sit down and get the feel that I am not micromanaging my units, ie. giving brigade orders, and seeing my units do something "normal" for the period, and not running around with their heads cut off, I will be pleased to play it right along with our games.
I plan on writing up a "gamer's" review, staing from an old time gamer's view what I thought of the game, not comparing it to any previous attempt but letting it stand on its own.
I am all for the Napoleonic period and our games will someday pass on just like Tactics II and Blitzkrieg by AH have done, played every so often but newer series preferred as the designs improve the ability to accurately portray the period, while giving the gamer much in playability as well, not demanding (like AGEOD) that they have to tweak a million things in order to "get it right."
The "rules lawyers" are going to find the creases in this thing and get it to do things that it wasn't meant to do. Like any game folks are going to want to use House Rules. Its never been seen, a game that comes out, that doesn't have these. These folks are a designer's friend in that they locate areas that sometimes can be corrected but sometimes cannot. Without them our designs would be without completeness.
My feeling about this game is that it will cater more to the guy like me that doesn't want to micromanage the placement of his troops down to the centimeter. I hope I am right! I would love to hear feedback from anyone that is a player like myself who has playtested it and has some good info for those of us that would like to play with less control but with the idea that whether you tweak or not you can still win.
If its a tweaker's game where I am going to have to live in its full window world doing a turn I may pass on it. If the manager and tweaker cannot come out even after several playings then I feel that it didn't live up to its billing.
What do I mean? Well if by using sound tactics I (the manager) cannot defeat Jeff Bardon (the rules lawyer) half of the time then the engine didn't live up to what I had heard it would do. The idea is not to tweak the game for victory but for the simulation to translate my desires into a winning plan.
Thus if by Jeff tweaking the placement of a unit vs. the AI deciding that the best move would be to setup the units in a similar placement scheme I cannot come out on top at least 40 percent of the time in the engagement (all units being equal) then I may pass on playing it as John Tiller's Window worldview of gaming has spoiled me. And its not a partiality to John - its my health. I dont "live" well in a full windowed game. I feel like I am in a submarine.
So if I cant jump in, make my move in under 10-15 mins. for the battle of Auestaedt for example then its not going to be my cup of tea.
And I honestly hope I am wrong. It doesn't take me long to do a move in the HPS/BG games as I am pretty quick on the mouse, but a Borodino move still takes me and hour (BG series) and frankly its one reason why I dont play it anymore. Too long to do a move in any game ...
So my goal is to spend no more than say 10-20 mins. doing a move once I get up to speed. After that the full window mode is damaging to my health and I have to get away from the game. Yes, I could save the move and come back and finish it. Have thought of that one.... But you get the idea.
Lets have a game where you can give orders to your brigades, expect them to move in Napoleonic like formations and so on and get the job done. Napoleonic style!
Good luck to LG/HW. I hope to be playing the game soon 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)
NWC
Login
FAQ
