Brother against brother

[bbmike]

RE the scenario editor, the developer said this on the Matrix forums:

There may be a scenario-editor added sometime after release, but with the exception of moving units to new start locations the game is pretty easily modded even without that, and we plan to work with the modding community in whatever ways we can.

With that said, at least initially we will not provide a scenario-editor that would let people make their own Shiloh or Gettysburg -- since we plan to produce our own versions of those battles that would be a rather poor business decision, especially with Gettysburg the battle that should be the biggest seller. I think that once we've taken the war up to 1864 we will find a way to make it easier for modders to create their own maps and scenarios for battles that we did not include. It has never been our intention to cover more than 20 or so battles, but we'd love to see others fill in some of the gaps.

And it looks like I did make it into beta testing. My invite went into my spam box 9 days ago! 
I'll try it tonight!

[Skoop]

As for the comments on FOF, I had an itch to play it again in 2012 and did bang out a full campaign.  Seem to remember there was a way to force the resolution to your native desk top resolution.  I think I had to do some editing of files in notepad, I think I found the tweak in the game's official matrix forum.  If anyone wants to check FOF out again, might want check that out.

[Slick Wilhelm]

I'm a beta tester on BAB, and thus being under an NDA, I can't say much. But I can say that I love the gameplay. Looking forward to when this finally ships!

[tgb]

Mixed thoughts on this after being on the 'back burner' so long and the developer's history of incomplete and unfinished games.

Which games were those?  You claim to love Crown of Glory and Forge of Freedom, and I've never read or heard a word about them ever being "unfinished". No one complained about the Conflict of Heroes games being "unfinished" either.

In short, wtf are you talking about?

[JudgeDredd]

I definitely recall reading that FoF was unfinished. By whom, I cannot recall. Did I ever think it was unfinished? Nope.

[GJK]

From a boardgaming perspective, this title appears to be similar to GCACW series where as SOW is more like the  CWRS/CWBS (aka Line of Battle Series).  Hadn't seen this before but looks promising.

[JudgeDredd]

Although I wanted a strategy layer, I have revisited the forum and seeing some of the new screenshots I like the look of it - and I always like the tactical turn based battles in FoF.

So - never say never

[Zonso]

Which games were those?  You claim to love Crown of Glory and Forge of Freedom, and I've never read or heard a word about them ever being "unfinished". No one complained about the Conflict of Heroes games being "unfinished" either.

In short, wtf are you talking about?

Not sure why the touchy nerve but I'll bite. Specifically Cog, Cog:EE and FoF, the history is on the open forums for the most part I believe. I played and tested them extensively, SP and MP. Both great, flawed concepts with issues that never got addressed, either design, balance or bugs. FoF being smaller in scope was slightly better in that regard. My brief research into CoH as a potential buy also seemed to reveal the same; I never played so can't comment.

[JasonPratt]

I for one hope supporting this game (next year for me, maybe ;) ) will help them go on to FoF2.


The again, Slitherine wrote Legion: Arena as a testbed for eventually going to Legion 2 and other updates of their strategy games, and that never happened. Instead they added a fantasy expansion; re-released it with a bit of rework for a History Channel tie-in; and then did a substantial upgrade of the combat engine for a loose campaign in Great Battles: Medieval which they've since worked on porting to pads.

(Though then again, they did release a version of Chariots of War upgraded sort of to Spartan/Gates of Troy, in another History Channel tie-in, focusing more on Egypt than on the Levant. I owned that for my Playstation Portable, but playing it on that mobile console gave me migraines for some reason; not the game's fault I think.)


So, yeah, working on improving the tac engine doesn't necessarily translate into ever going back to rework and incorporate the strat engine. Especially if they can port this to iPad and/or consoles like the XBone, which they'd be fools not to try if they can.

But I'm still hopeful. :)

[Gil R.]

As many of you know from the Matrix forum, I'm one of WCS's developers, joining this forum now that I have specific reasons to post (see my call for testers in another thread).

You can see my comments regarding FOF2 being a LONG ways out, though possible, here:  http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=10603.30

I thought I would post here just to say, first, that I'd be happy to answer questions, especially since I'm not under a non-disclosure agreement and therefore can tell you anything I want about the game.

Also, someone asked about BAB vs SoW.  I have not played the latter, but I have heard -- from one of the developers, so I believe this to be true -- that because of graphics/memory limitations they cannot fit a whole battlefield into the game at once.  BAB, however, can go up to 50 square miles for its maps (which we're doing with Manassas, a 5 x 10 mile rectangle), and its hexes are 75 yards wide.  So that allows for a heck of a lot of options in terms of scenarios, and for modders to go crazy making all sorts of set-ups.  (And, I'll add, I do not believe it possible to produce a more accurate and detailed map for a Civil War computer game than we have done -- and done at this massive scale.)

And I can confirm that we do plan to work with modders as much as possible, with the exception of doing things that would shoot us in the foot.

[W8taminute]

It's a shame there is no strategy layer like FoF. 

[Gil R.]

But it's a tactical game devoted to historical battles -- there's no way to mix that with a strategic layer, because who's to say that when two armies meet at the strategic level they'll be fighting in the same places as the historical combatants, and with the same commanders and units?

If you like strategic-level games but not tactical, BAB is not going to be for you (though we hope you could at least appreciate it for what it is!).  And perhaps we'll return with a FOF2 in a few years -- the likelihood of which will be increased if BAB proves to be as popular as FOF has been.

[Toonces]

The screenshots look fantastic!

[Skoop]

The thing with doing a civil war tactical game along historical guidelines is that I'm just burnt on it.  I've been reading and gaming the historical Gettysburg since I was 10 years old, I'm over it.  That's why fof was so refreshing because it was fiction under a historical situation.  I was free to maneuver and make my own history as I saw fit. 
BAB  could really work if you had added maybe an operational layer to help set the stage for the tactical battle.  All the 19th century tactical combat games suffer from this.  Sow, histwar, tiller games, after you've played a few battles you get bored and want to make decisions at the operational level to spice things up.

[magnus]

Sorry, but I disagree totally.

I am hoping BAB catches on fire and add on pack after pack gets released.

This is the first game in nearly twenty years that looks like it might replace "Age of rifles".

I don't care at all about the battles in this first effort. I care about Sadowa,St. Privat and battles from the Second war of Italian Independence.

I'll take the Wilderness,when it comes.