Richard
I own all (Napoleonic) BG games and HPS Campaign Eckmuhl.
I play exclusively the BG games, principal reasons as follows:-
I was initially put off the single phase system when one battery fired at 7 independent targets in its defensive phase and, even allowing for a 50% reduction in fire this was 3.5 times more effective than a battery firing in the move / offensive fire phase.
I tried the manual defensive phase, and found I could not adjust to the loss of ability to change formation (especially square). I read a post recently in which a player indicated that he rarely bothers to square battalions. I can understand why as, under these circumstances of having to decide to square early) a player just threatens with cavalry then uses ranged fire against a battalion that squares up. But, for me, this is a gross distortion of Napoleonic warfare as commanders were so concerned by the threat of cavalry that there were occasions when units even marched onto battlefields in square.
Finally, for me, having come from table-top wargaming (all those years ago), rather than boardgames, I prefer using the 3d views. Sure, I use the 2d for the big picture but I conduct all movement and action with the 3d. So this is, for me, a very important aspect of the game.
The detail of the terrain in the Eckmuhl game disappointed me compared to the Battleground games. It struck me as being all plain or wooded with a few fields or orchards around the villages and some streams. This provided little or nothing to work with at the level that you can in the BG games. When generating the map, throw in some variation to add interest. Occasional marsh hexes along a stream, (especially near the source), hedges alongside roads, (actually in Europe they plant trees alongside to give shade, not strictly a hedge but enough to provide some shelter or disrupt a cavalry charge at an inappropriate angle, embankments for ditches, ponds / lakes near villages, some rough ground - there must be some rocky outcrops around those hills. Anything - please. It doesn't need to be real, or necessarily accurate. It needs to be there to provide interest, something to fight over and gain an advantage.
The Battleground games, particularly BGW and PTW, looked like somewhere people lived and worked; Eckmuhl didn't, it looked like a boardgame map. That's not intended as an offence t oBill and any others who worked on it. They did a bloody good job and it is understandable that for the first game the focus was probably on the new engine.
I have not seen any of the HPS titles other than Eckmuhl, so the maps for others may be more to my liking. As I say it is a personal preference born of a miniatures rather than a boardgame background.
That would be the step improvement that I would like to see.
If all these factors were engineered into the HPS games would I change? That depends what else came out / was on the horizon. My dream is for a campaign game complete with political and economic factors with supply and logistical support for the military, interfaced with a reasonable game for the battles. Something of mind-blowingly sickening complexity. If that was available, or on the horizon, before a retro-fit to the HPS titles, I would not switch to HPS. If it wasn't, I would try another title for sure - but I don't know which!
Mark
VII Corps
|
</center>
</center>
