PDA

View Full Version : Solo Gaming Poll - Napoleonic Series



Sgt_Rock
24 Jul 07, 14:38
Here is a poll for you guys to take concerning solo play in our games.

Mike Cox
25 Jul 07, 12:00
By solo gaming, do you mean scenarios balanced for solo play with finely tuned AI scripts?

Sgt_Rock
25 Jul 07, 12:50
Yes, those that cater mainly to those that want to get used to the series or want to play mainly solo or once in awhile like to just see if they can beat the AI when the victory conditions are stacked against themselves.

The solo scenarios take into consideration that the AI is weak thus they are harder to win than you think. Or at least that is what I found when I playtested them.

Scripts take alot of time to put together and really dont work well with rivers (still cant get supply wagons to cross bridges and often other units too).

The best solo scenarios are those that are small to medium.

And yes, we all hope that the AI gets updated eventually. Perhaps by the same fellow that did the Total War series (First Battles 1939-40).

But right now I am working with what I have and just want to see if I can get some feedback on this. So far most of the gamers want more solo scenarios.

rahamy
25 Jul 07, 13:04
I can say based on the feedback I get at the Support account that most custerms in general do. Have had several exchanges recently about this.

Navarone
25 Jul 07, 15:19
Yegads, not more "Strong AI" solo scenarios. Please no.

I own only 3 NWS games, and as you all know, I own a lot of HPS and play a lot. I only own 3 because, though I like the period, I am not thrilled with the period/Campaign choices.

*Jena? Grande Armee Blitzkrieg.
* Napoleon in Russia? Again?
* Waterloo? Again? But I bought it basically because Rich recommended it, and it is well done
* Eckmuhl/Wagram? Great, another Grande Armee Blitzkrieg. But I bought it because I haven't seen it in a wargame since the SPI/OCS days, and it is well done

Frankly this is tied to the Solo/PBEM issue because the core audience who will buy these games are Grognards. Grognards PBEM. Grognards like interesting campaigns. Grognards want something different. The Grognards vs Mass Market debate ended in 1989 and the Grognard marketing strategy won. By default.

I own every title in the PzC, SB, ACW, and EAW line except----the old saws, Gettysburg and the Bull Runs, The Bulge, The Eastern Front.

I only own Eckmuhl, Wagram and Waterloo.

For me to buy more NWB (as a case study)

Give me:
* Pre-Grande Armee in Italy
* The Peninsula
* Egypt
* Assaye
* 1813 Campaign

Give me a different flavor.

I Respectfully Remain

KG_RangerBooBoo
25 Jul 07, 15:49
You are really denying yourself by not getting Gettysburg as the campaign tree makes this one of the most interesting ACW games of the bunch.

Navarone
25 Jul 07, 15:54
You are really denying yourself by not getting Gettysburg as the campaign tree makes this one of the most interesting ACW games of the bunch.


Mark,

I may eventually, but there is so much Perryville, Murfreesboro, Corinth, Vicksburg and Atlanta to be be played first. I am keen to fight the battles I have never gamed before I fight the ones I have.

Pat

KG_RangerBooBoo
25 Jul 07, 19:28
Mark,

I may eventually, but there is so much Perryville, Murfreesboro, Corinth, Vicksburg and Atlanta to be be played first. I am keen to fight the battles I have never gamed before I fight the ones I have.

Pat

I can certainly understand what you are saying but I've played about 5 Gettysburg campaigns now and only had one that resulted in a Battle of Gettysburg. However with the wealth of games we have right now I'm digging into those never played battles too! :D

Lord_Valentai
25 Jul 07, 19:37
To be fair, Pat, the HPS games are nothing like the TS games. Indeed, the OOBs and name are about the only thing the same. TS had one map - Gettysburg; HPS has a half dozen maps over ten miles square.

There is no real comparison between them simply because of the engine.

I'd rather more scenarios...or better AI in all cases. No more artillery suicide charges please!!

rahamy
25 Jul 07, 19:39
The maps in Gettysburg cover from northern Virginia through central Pennsylvania...more map territory than all 5 BG ACW games combined...tons of fields not fought on before.

Navarone
25 Jul 07, 19:48
Gentlemen,

The 3 days in July are serving as an example, but let me be clear. I have not said "talonsoft" once in this thread. I did say,

"I own every title in the PzC, SB, ACW, and EAW line except----the old saws, Gettysburg and the Bull Runs, The Bulge, The Eastern Front."

and later I said

"I am keen to fight the battles I have never gamed before I fight the ones I have."

So I am not saying HPS Gettysburg is a TS knock off or is not a superior game in its own right, not at all.

I bought HPS Waterloo and it indeed knocks the socks off of BG Waterloo.

Talonsoft is indeed part of what I have gamed in the past, but so is SPI (ahh the Quad Series..), Avalon Hill, Victory Games, Johnny Reb, etc etc.

Heck I have played Gettysburg itself at this scale in 8 different systems (Waterloo I think in 10). Terrible Swift Sword, anyone? :)

Until Drew designed it, I had never played Vicksburg.

I bought Vicksburg.

I have never played Salamanca or Assaye.

My point is:

"I am keen to fight the battles I have never gamed before I fight the ones I have."

"For me to buy more NWB (as a case study)

Give me a different flavor."

I've had neapolitan too many times. :)

Pat

Rifleman95th
26 Jul 07, 16:25
I reckon we get a pretty good service in terms of the number of scenarios provided.

However, if I had the option I would always lean towards a smaller number of well designed scenarios than a whole lot of inferior quality scenarios.

I think providing good solo gaming ability is important.

I can not speak for other players, but I mostly play PBEM so my view is a bit clouded. Obviously I primarily seek good scenarios for myself and my PBEM opponant. This is where I disagree with one of the earlier posts. I suspect the PBEM market is significantly smaller than the solo market. If the core market is a solo based one - then continued emphasis should be placed on that target market. I suspect the PBEM player is the more vocal. Of course I could be right off track

And last but not least, I like how HPS gives us a campaign of games in one title. The title does not just focus on one battle. Furthermore, I like how we are seing some variety in the Nappy titles - not just Waterloo. Oh and my selfish push - maybe a Peninsula title?

Overall, I reckon HPS/Tiller and those dedicated sceanario designers deserve a pat on the back. :toast:

Sgt_Rock
27 Jul 07, 15:46
Yegads, not more "Strong AI" solo scenarios. Please no.

I own only 3 NWS games, and as you all know, I own a lot of HPS and play a lot. I only own 3 because, though I like the period, I am not thrilled with the period/Campaign choices.

*Jena? Grande Armee Blitzkrieg.
* Napoleon in Russia? Again?
* Waterloo? Again? But I bought it basically because Rich recommended it, and it is well done
* Eckmuhl/Wagram? Great, another Grande Armee Blitzkrieg. But I bought it because I haven't seen it in a wargame since the SPI/OCS days, and it is well done

Frankly this is tied to the Solo/PBEM issue because the core audience who will buy these games are Grognards. Grognards PBEM. Grognards like interesting campaigns. Grognards want something different. The Grognards vs Mass Market debate ended in 1989 and the Grognard marketing strategy won. By default.

I own every title in the PzC, SB, ACW, and EAW line except----the old saws, Gettysburg and the Bull Runs, The Bulge, The Eastern Front.

I only own Eckmuhl, Wagram and Waterloo.

For me to buy more NWB (as a case study)

Give me:
* Pre-Grande Armee in Italy
* The Peninsula
* Egypt
* Assaye
* 1813 Campaign

Give me a different flavor.

I Respectfully Remain



.... what is Assaye? Havent heard that one yet.
1813 - that is alot of Allies outnumbering the French for the most part.

And actually in the Jena game there are scenarios that offer more forces for the Allied player. History is rarely balanced. For the main Jena battle trying to balance it is almost impossible. Either you cut the French short on turns or you dont give the Prussian enough space to fall back or troops to fight with. In the game I put in alot of what-if situations that took care of the last problem. I am currently working to extend the scenarios to have more turns and the map will have more room to the West.

Napoleon's Russian Campaign offers you just about every battle in the campaign. Its not just Borodino. Its one of my favorites.

We are busy working to try and fill out the period with a game for each major campaign or war. More to come for you ...

Glyn
27 Jul 07, 15:52
.... what is Assaye? Havent heard that one yet.
1813 - that is alot of Allies outnumbering the French for the most part.


Tut,tut.. Oh Bill.:OHNO: ;)

Tha battle of Assaye in 1803 was Wellington's famous battle of the Second Anglo-Maratha War.

Ooops.. forgot to add the link for your education on the matter. ;)
http://www.army.mod.uk/rhf/regimental_history/assaye.htm

My favs are the 1813, 1814 and the Peninsula campaign of course. :) Though what would be nice to see for a change of pace would be Russo Swedish-Finnish War 1808-09

Don't really enjoy solo gaming with this series but I do think it's important to have some at least.

L'Emperor
27 Jul 07, 18:38
Forget 'Solo scenarios'. The AI is never adequate.

1809, 1813 and/or 1814 would be AWSOME!!!!!!!

FM WarB
28 Jul 07, 07:15
Current voting is tending against more solo scenarios. That's how I voted. However I do believe that the "silent majority" of game buyers prefers solo games and is not as well represented as PBEMers on this forum.
Given AI limitations, short scenarios with the AI in stand and defend type roles would seem the best for solo play at this point. The problem with this is the game sytem's bias in favor of the offensive, which would give a human player attacking the AI quite an advantage. But I suppose such victories can be fun.

TheCapt
28 Jul 07, 11:03
Current voting is tending against more solo scenarios.

23 votes out of 37 favor some more scenarios (granted to some its not an "issue") but I'd say thats a clear majority in favor of :p :laugh:

and lets not forgt solo scenarios as the L'Emp suggests...........not everybody has nor wants to devote the time to PBEM or IP play.

Navarone
28 Jul 07, 11:06
23 votes out of 37 favor some more scenarios (granted to some its not an "issue") but I'd say thats a clear majority in favor of :p :laugh:


I'd disagree. I'd say that 10 feel there is no issue (a defacto "no more")and 14 say "no more" and 14 say "more".

So out of the voting public here, the solos lose!

Yay!

I Happily Remain,

AlAmos
28 Jul 07, 20:48
Uh, Pat....

14 say more are needed.
10 say more could be added.
14 say no more are needed.

I see that as 24 yes for more, and 10 against. That's 70% for more.

LeeScott
28 Jul 07, 22:24
Couldnít help but jump in and say my 2 cents ( or No cents). Personally I lean towards historical battles balanced or not but if the developer wants to put in more scenarios Iím not sure why someone would be opposed. As far the AI goes, well if you can find someone who can improve the AI and maybe make the (I) stand for intelligent, hehe then I am sure more people would use this, after all, first time game users do use it and judge your game by it.

Off topic and not 2 stir up trouble , and because it will probably never happen, I would vote for a complete overhaul of this game engine especially in the graphics and the game interface area. Baring that I would like to see some more rules or modifications of set rules.

Navarone
28 Jul 07, 23:55
Uh, Pat....

14 say more are needed.
10 say more could be added.
14 say no more are needed.

I see that as 24 yes for more, and 10 against. That's 70% for more.

I disagree!

The 10 voted for Nader!

I am from Florida!

My math is perfect!;)

Sgt_Rock
29 Jul 07, 00:38
Based on what I am seeing so far I would say that to add in some more Solo scenarios for Jena is not an issue. They will be based on the scenarios you see in the Scenario choice dialog when you boot the game up. Not for campaign situations.

However, a short campaign - fully linear - that covers all of the small actions of the battle of Jena for instance would be interesting. Thus you would play the scenarios in order of time and the losses would carry over and you would be the French player. So basically:

1. Lannes initial attack with Prussian counterattack.
2. Ney's attack followed by Prussian counterattack.
3. Augerau's attacks along with Soult.
etc.

Right now adding in more of the scenarios on the scale of Altenzaum or Halle is not an issue. Even a full blown battle of Jena against the Prussian AI (with AI Orders though and not scripts) wouldnt work out too badly. They would just be a real uphill climb for the French player. Obviously harder to win than the HTH versions. The large map Jena scenarios wont work out well at all.

Thanks for the input guys.

rahamy
29 Jul 07, 08:23
Off topic and not 2 stir up trouble , and because it will probably never happen, I would vote for a complete overhaul of this game engine especially in the graphics and the game interface area. Baring that I would like to see some more rules or modifications of set rules.

Well my friend, then you are talking about an entirely new game. :cool:

New rules and modifications to the rules happen with each release, and are rolled out to the entire series via free updates, so that's already happening.

Personally I wouldn't want the interface changed...I think it works well the way it is...maybe have a customizable toolbar, but that's about the extent of it for me.

Graphics...well, again they work for me, but I'm not going to say there isn't room for improvement. But then again I play almost exclusively in 2D.

The AI on the other hand could stand some programming attention, and we're trying to find the funding to support that...simple consumer game sales don't really cut it. The WWII & Modern games have received enhancements along these lines because there is government funding behind it. Unfortunately there's no government out there that cares about musket era simulations for any of its uses. And the engines are not the same, so its not just a matter of simply pulling the code from one series to another. In time I hope to see some steps in this direction though.

Gary McClellan
29 Jul 07, 15:00
The call "Waterloo or Marengo" is always a difficult choice. On the one hand, there's a great supply of very interesting battles out there that have been done rarely, if at all (Marengo, Hohenlinden, Lutzen, Bautzen, Dresden just to name some of the better known ones). That's probably my favorite part of NRC, is Salta-Novka and Gorodetchna and the like.

There's always a certain call out there for the better known titles, and I'd imagine they have a certain advantage in sales. For real grogs, the story might be different, but for total sales, which would go better, Antietam or the Valley? (Personally, I'd prefer the Valley, but that's not the point). I think the ACW games have hit a nice balance, where we've had Gettysburg and Shiloh, but also Atlanta and Ozark (btw, Pea Ridge is still my favorite battle in the ACW series).

As for solo scenarios, I'm not entirely sure what people are looking for. With the limits on the AI, do they want battle slices? So, for instance, do they simply want more Papelotte scenarios, (or Murat's charge at Eylau and so forth), or what? I'm a bit unclear on that.

Rifleman95th
03 Aug 07, 21:52
Well my friend, then you are talking about an entirely new game. :cool:

New rules and modifications to the rules happen with each release, and are rolled out to the entire series via free updates, so that's already happening.

Personally I wouldn't want the interface changed...I think it works well the way it is...maybe have a customizable toolbar, but that's about the extent of it for me.

Graphics...well, again they work for me, but I'm not going to say there isn't room for improvement. But then again I play almost exclusively in 2D.

The AI on the other hand could stand some programming attention, and we're trying to find the funding to support that...simple consumer game sales don't really cut it. The WWII & Modern games have received enhancements along these lines because there is government funding behind it. Unfortunately there's no government out there that cares about musket era simulations for any of its uses. And the engines are not the same, so its not just a matter of simply pulling the code from one series to another. In time I hope to see some steps in this direction though.

I agree with Rich on this one.

It always worries me when a completely altered version of the original programme comes out. What then happens is that there is a tendancy upgrade the original titles/battles (like the well known ones such as Waterloo) and then it just goes round in circles. The joy of the current HPS crop is that we are seeing titles put out that we have never seen before.

The other thing I like about HPS is that they do upgrade all the games in a series. It just isn't the latest title that gets the engine improvement.