Interesting article with screenshots on RPS (yes, they occasionally write good ones) about Matrix's Pike and Shot.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/05/the-flare-path-edges-towards-edgehill/#more-231895
Quote from: Rayfer on September 05, 2014, 09:55:19 AM
Interesting article with screenshots on RPS (yes, they occasionally write good ones) about Matrix's Pike and Shot.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/05/the-flare-path-edges-towards-edgehill/#more-231895
The simple fact is that I now must buy that game when it is available. Well-done review too!
Quote from: MengJiao on September 05, 2014, 10:22:11 AM
Quote from: Rayfer on September 05, 2014, 09:55:19 AM
Interesting article with screenshots on RPS (yes, they occasionally write good ones) about Matrix's Pike and Shot.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/05/the-flare-path-edges-towards-edgehill/#more-231895
The simple fact is that I now must buy that game when it is available. Well-done review too!
Yes, it was well done. Too bad a lot of what's there is painful to even try to read.
Release date set for October 17th.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3712205&mpage=1&key=�
GIGGITY
That's my kind of games... :smitten:
Small, moist, but perfectly formed, presumably.
Small? Never. You can't make Thirty Years War butter with a toothpick.
Probably.
is it crunchy or smooth
Always smooth.
Quote from: Gusington on October 08, 2014, 07:35:52 AM
You can't make Thirty Years War butter with a toothpick.
Does the dog eat it? Probably doesn't come out of the furniture easily.
WTF is wrong with you people :idiot2:
Quote from: bboyer66 on October 08, 2014, 09:55:33 AM
WTF is wrong with you people :idiot2:
Do you want a list? Or just a general overview?
This forum isn't big enough for either.
For those interested, they recorded a live stream of the gameplay here....
http://www.twitch.tv/slitherinegroup/c/5259142
Is there something strange with the scale? Looks like rifle ranges are quite far relative to the graphical representation.
Thanks for posting that, Grim.
Quote from: jomni on October 10, 2014, 07:05:26 AM
Is there something strange with the scale? Looks like rifle ranges are quite far relative to the graphical representation.
I read a post from the developer somewhere that explained that. It had to do with gameplay issues. Range was too low to differentiate from melee in the scale chosen for movement purposes. So they extended it so there was a difference between melee and shooting. Something like that.
If that's the explanation it just moved this game from my must buy column to my might buy at some point down the road column.
17th century musket fire was a very short range and innaccurate affair. The only thing worse was pistol fire from reiter cavalry. Next you'll tell me that artillery pieces can zip around the map.
I watched a few minutes of the video and was disheartened when I heard the commentator talking about taking cover in what looked like a wooded area. Then he moved a cavalry unit into the woods without experiencing massive disorder.
I really hate video games that are [fill in name of period here] period games, only because the developer dressed them up in [name of period here] costume. Combat in this period was unique, and a dressed up WW II squad-level combat engine isn't going to be able to show why. The scale is wrong, for one thing.
Somebody please tell me that I'm wrong.
See quote from Byzantine Games at bottom of 2nd page in this thread from July.
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=10612.15
"We are aware that the shooting ranges in the game are somewhat overgenerous. However, experience has shown that gamers do not like very short move distances, nor very short shooting ranges - however realistic they might be. In order to give the opportunity for several rounds of shooting against advancing enemy, the long musket shooting range needs to be equal to the mounted movement speed and double the normal infantry movement speed. To achieve this without reducing the infantry move to 1 square and cavalry to 2 squares, we have had to be generous with shooting ranges. Note, however, that shooting at long range is at half effect, so units will generally want to get closer to shoot effectively.
The LOS algorithm assumes that units in chequerboard have gaps between the units through which shooting can occur.
Units cannot shoot at targets more than 45 degrees from straight ahead. At targets more than 22.5 degrees from straight ahead, they shoot at half effect, because not all of the front rank can bring their muskets to bear.
So, a unit shooting at long range at a target more than 22.5 degrees from straight ahead would shoot rather ineffectually at 1/4 effect."
Quote from: Philippe on October 10, 2014, 11:34:48 AM
If that's the explanation it just moved this game from my must buy column to my might buy at some point down the road column.
17th century musket fire was a very short range and innaccurate affair. The only thing worse was pistol fire from reiter cavalry. Next you'll tell me that artillery pieces can zip around the map.
I watched a few minutes of the video and was disheartened when I heard the commentator talking about taking cover in what looked like a wooded area. Then he moved a cavalry unit into the woods without experiencing massive disorder.
I really hate video games that are [fill in name of period here] period games, only because the developer dressed them up in [name of period here] costume. Combat in this period was unique, and a dressed up WW II squad-level combat engine isn't going to be able to show why. The scale is wrong, for one thing.
Somebody please tell me that I'm wrong.
Alas, I think you are all too right about this. It's just hard to make the Thirty-years-war as popular as WWII, though for sheer bloody primitive horror they are probably in the same horrible ballpark.
This is one reason I generally prefer WWII games over other games -- WWII is well-documented (as is the Thirty-years war) and if shown in a roughly realistic way -- a bloody mess, but a bloody mess that is comprehensible at least by convention. The Thirty-years war if shown realistically would be an extraordinary bloodbath -- so much so that armies declined pretty rapidly over the course of the war in terms of actual combat power (vs say -- troops in garrisons that could not really go anywhere). Muskets may have been inaccurate, but at 50 paces with twice the muzzle velocity of an American Civil war rifled musket, firing into a dense formation -- they were pure murder.
But you aren't going to see anything like that in Pike and Shot.
In effect, people have been trained to imagine warfare that resembles WWII -- so games on that topic can rely on that. Most people have no training at all in imagining the 30-years war so games really can't quite get to it in terms of what it would have really been like.
So, to get at the 30-years war in a game that reflects what it might have been like -- you are probably going to have to look elsewhere.
I'm thinking Kingdom Come (a fantastic name for a game by the way) will get my 30-years war funds for the next year or two. Sure it is set more than 200 years before but it is set in the cockpit of the war and should have a reasonable amount of point-blank murders.
I guess I'll have to stick with GMT's Musket and Pike series and take another look at Vassal.
Then that means they are using the wrong engine for the game! Panzer Corps engine would have been better. LOL!
If they have no choice but to use those ridiculous ranges, the solution for this is to make each unit occupy more than one square to make them look larger while retaining the ranges. But can the game engine handle that?
I am also one of those put off by that video...
Not a must buy any more.
Quote from: bobarossa on October 10, 2014, 09:50:08 AM
Quote from: jomni on October 10, 2014, 07:05:26 AM
Is there something strange with the scale? Looks like rifle ranges are quite far relative to the graphical representation.
I read a post from the developer somewhere that explained that. It had to do with gameplay issues. Range was too low to differentiate from melee in the scale chosen for movement purposes. So they extended it so there was a difference between melee and shooting. Something like that.
That's quite understandable.
One of my complaints about
Empire TW was that it's vanilla firing ranges were right up against the range at which the Unit AI would automatically charge. So musket volleys often ended up being a very brief volley at each other, when coming into range, quickly followed by a charge. Little standing about volleying when someone was moving.
The mechanics may be completely different between the games but it shows that differentiating the ranges in a strategy game is sometimes needed to retain the tactics of the period. If standing & volleying ends up being bypassed for the more immediate results of a melee charge, just because their ranges are practically the same at the game's scale, then something has been lost in the translation.
If anything is amiss, it would possibly be a lack of formation cohesiveness modelling, as mentioned earlier.
Quote from: jomni on October 10, 2014, 06:52:39 PM
Then that means they are using the wrong engine for the game! Panzer Corps engine would have been better. LOL!
If they have no choice but to use those ridiculous ranges, the solution for this is to make each unit occupy more than one square to make them look larger while retaining the ranges. But can the game engine handle that?
I am also one of those put off by that video...
Not a must buy any more.
They could change the scale and add a layer of command and morale so that infantry formations do some shooting at close range. We know that muskets were effective, but that they had a pretty short range and that there were all kinds of methods for deploying musketeers and all kinds of different ways of timing their fire -- though by the end of the Thirty-years war infantry was a rapidly decreasing proportion of field armies -- suggesting that the more expensive cavalry was far more cost effective and/or that infantry tactics were not working very well.
Of course how do you model that? I mean tactics that were fairly useless? You can't if you just plug in better ranges to sort of fix everything.
What I do not understand is why anyone would bother to accommodate "popularizing" sensitivities in a TYW game?
Does any developer honestly think there's cross-over appeal in a title like this?
I've loved the era since reading Robert's bio of Gustavus Adolphus a long time ago, and would love to believe that there's a budding generation of Wallenstein fans just ready to be born, but that's unlikely.
In the game's defense, fire is more disruptive than destructive (reminds me very much of the TYW folio from SPI in that regard), melee takes roughly the length of the Bible to resolve, and disruption from terrain is pretty brutal.
I dunno. I still think it bears watching -- how many TYW games you think we're going to get? -- but historical compromise in a game of this sort doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And it made N:TW legitimately awful.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Cyrano on October 13, 2014, 10:32:14 AM
I dunno. I still think it bears watching -- how many TYW games you think we're going to get? -- but historical compromise in a game of this sort doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And it made N:TW legitimately awful.
OK, but doesn't this beg the question? If it doesn't play like a TYW game, is it really a TYW game? I mean, at least N: TW was enjoyable.
Point taken...at the moment, it hasn't driven far enough away for me to make me angry or declare it not to be a TYW game...like I say, it has things to like and is based on a pretty good system. RBS has been closely involved in development and I am a bit surprised he let the ranges head out has long as they have, but it's not like they're WWII artillery hits. As I say, they're disruptive not destructive. I certainly can't make any such demand, but I'm withholding my own judgment pending final candidate.
And, for the record, I loathe N:TW. There's an example of a game where I couldn't suspend the disbelief I was asked to suspend.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Cyrano on October 13, 2014, 10:32:14 AM
-- how many TYW games you think we're going to get?
If I understand correctly, part of the attraction of this representation of battles in the 1490-1650 range is that it somehow covers the peculiarities of that period -- when there were armies with lots of pikes and muskets AND (at least in the earlier part of the period)
swordsmen who could slice up pike formations. No matter how you look at it, that is asking a lot of a fairly simple game system.
So I think, as a gamer, I'm willing to accept the probable fact that some things cannot be represented in a fairly simple game system.
It's not so much a question of how little interest there is in the period, but of how a gaming system can be set up to model such things at
all. If the answer is that current gaming systems really don't work well for the period, then there's not much reason to play them even if
they are few and far-between.
I think we're agreeing more than not.
Certainly one ought not slap plume-festooned flat caps and slashed sleeves on GIs and call them Landsknechts. FoG generally is an abstracted system and some of those abstractions were inevitably going to show round in Pike and Shot. How much abstraction each is willing to tolerate is, naturally, a matter of taste.
I've always thought it remarkable, given my own biases, that ancients gaming has received such better treatment than the early modern era...wherein, I suppose I should divulge, I pursued my Ph.D. Maybe I just want to cut the little beggar some slack before declaring it a failure.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Cyrano you may want to try this mod for Medieval 2: Total War called For King and Country:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?804-For-King-or-Country-The-English-Civil-War
It's been around for years and is set around the English Civil War. Not the Thirty Years' War but a similar era, and this mod is quite beloved.
Quote from: MengJiao on October 10, 2014, 02:18:14 PM
Alas, I think you are all too right about this. It's just hard to make the Thirty-years-war as popular as WWII, though for sheer bloody primitive horror they are probably in the same horrible ballpark.
This is one reason I generally prefer WWII games over other games -- WWII is well-documented (as is the Thirty-years war) and if shown in a roughly realistic way -- a bloody mess, but a bloody mess that is comprehensible at least by convention. The Thirty-years war if shown realistically would be an extraordinary bloodbath -- so much so that armies declined pretty rapidly over the course of the war in terms of actual combat power (vs say -- troops in garrisons that could not really go anywhere). Muskets may have been inaccurate, but at 50 paces with twice the muzzle velocity of an American Civil war rifled musket, firing into a dense formation -- they were pure murder.
I don't think I can agree with rating them as being "pure murder". Firearms in that period were used mostly because of their effects on the morale of the men in the rank and file of the target formation. Even if not killing anyone, the whizz of those things flying fast past people heads was something to reckon with. It was not until Maurice of Nassau and, later Gustavus Adolphus, that it was realized that the most effective mode of employment of fire arms was to establish fire superiority with mass volleys following each other as quickly as possible, with no aiming at specific targets, before charging at the enemy with cold steel.
Take into account that regiments - or their counterparts in armies organizing along Spanish lines - used very deep formations, commonly about 16 ranks deep. Even if musket balls could probably kill one or two guys standing behind each other, given that 1) they were wildly inaccurate, firers rarely aimed at specific targets, and after one massed volley visibility well came down to naught due to the powder smoke ,2) misfires were very common and 3) most importantly, reloading one those matchlock muskets could well take 2 minutes, running some simple numbers show that they couldn't kill many people within, say, 20 minutes.
They did a lot of noise though, and indeed, scared shitless those standing next or nearby the odd person killed by them or close to their trajectory. What usually happened is that casualties were concentrated on the ranks closer to the enemy (naturally, and note that in a 16 ranks deep formation it means that only about 1/16th of the force strength are actually elligible to become targets), and the men nearby tried to, driven by instinct, to huddle together or try to hide behind other men. This had a most peculiar effect on formations: under massed fire, these "shrank" as the ranks and files started to get "undressed" - that is, mixed up. Such formations were critically impaired when it was necessary to change facing to meet threats on the flanks, or to do any maneuver at all. This is very similar to the notion of "pinning" that you can find on World War 2 tactics.
The true limit of musket fire lethality wasn't accuracy, but actually rates of fire. That's what changed during the 19th century - there was a very modest improvement of accuracy but a huge increase in ROF. Think of this as the difference between having 100 guys firing 100 bullets every minute, and those same guys firing 200 bullets every minute. If both forces fire with very poor accuracy - that is, very low probability to hit a target per shot - the later is much, much more lethal. Eventually rates of fire were so high, that saturating a given area with fires very quickly was feasible. This lead in due time to the kind of open order tactics that have been the norm since World War One.
As soon as it became obvious that the enemy formation was starting to "shrink", the attacking force commander would try to cajole his men into a cheer and a charge. When successful - this wasn't a given - the mere sight of the enemy advancing with determination was often enough to provoke many men in the defending unit to break ranks and get away. This eventually would result on the defending force to rout and devolve into an aimless, panicked mob. Most of the casualties in the battlefield happened during these routs, very much like in the time of the Ancients, when the pursuer butchers men who are alone or aren't capable of defending themselves.
Gustavus Adolphus' major contribution was to further develop Maurice's ideas about weight and continuity of fires. Always looking for the shock effect of massed volleys, using shallower formations with much wider frontage and, most importantly,
in close cooperation with the cavalry to create a credible threat to formations already crumbling. This also allowed for oblique fire, which was more effective than frontal fire because you'd be firing on an almost 'enfiladed' target (it was easier to get right the elevation of the musket to avoid the fire overshooting or falling short). Even if such firing system was noticeably more lethal, it was still far from being capable of obliterating forces.
And of course, the technical problems regarding reloading and lack of visibility remained, and their Imperial opponents learnt quick enough how to exploit pauses in massed fires or when these degenerated into what the Germans called "hedge firing" as men get tired, stressed and confusion increases within the unit. Or alternatively, pre-empting the Swedish employment of cavalry, engaging it first (this was, in my opinion, the deciding factor in the Battle of Lutzen). When the former happened, the disruptive effect of fires decreased, and Swedish formations were very vulnerable to well-timed infantry or cavalry charges that would find relatively speaking easier to break through the thinner Swedish formations. When the later happened, the more effective Swedish fires weren't up to scratch to decide the matter.
Some authors argue that Gustavus Adolphus tactics' weren't adopted immediately by everyone because it became apparent that the matchlock musket reload times made formations fragile and exposed. No major European army adopted Dutch or Swedish tactics until the 1680s, basically because of the introduction of the bayonet, which enabled infantry formations to defend themselves while unable to fire. And even then, most notably the French, still used very deep formations and firing systems not too different different from those used by the musketeers at Rocroi until the 1750s.
I'll vouch for King and Country as a great M2TW mod though it's been a long time ago I played it and can't remember a lot of detail. But I remember liking it a lot. As an alternative, you could just play a standard "Late Era Campaign". I think you can do this with vanilla, if not then plenty of other mods add the option. I use the Darthmod.
I see that this game will be released on 10/17. How long until it is also released on steam?
Steam store showing it as a simultaneous release, i.e., they'll have it October 17, 2014.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Great summary, Bletchley. Thanks!
I think there are a couple of things you have to keep in mind when thinking about musket fire in the 17th century.
There just couldn't have been that much of it, and our modern notions of laying down curtains of fire to blow an enemy away by the sheer volume of lead thrown down range simply doesn't apply.
As already mentioned, it wasn't aimed. Certain kinds of light troops (jaegers and chasseurs, which means the same thing in their respective languages) started experimenting with aimed fire in the 18th century, but even in Napoleon's day there wasn't much of it.
Musketeers didn't load their weapons from scratch on the battlefield. There was already too much going on with their hands, which often included holding a long stake to prop their musket on and/or a slow burning fuze which had to stay lit for the entire battle. Musketeers kept their amunition in pre-measured cartridges which were slung across their chests on bandoleers. The cartridge box (and paper or parchement cartridge casing) didn't come into use until the 18th century -- the bandoleer had as many individual cartidges as could be easily slung across your chest, usually about a dozen because of the clumsy large containers they came in. That's not a whole lot of lead going down-range during an entire battle.
But it gets worse.
Our concept of massed fire doesn't really apply to that period. Musketeers might be arranged eight or so rows deep, with relatively wide lanes between each row (two or three was the norm in Napoleon's day). There were different drills depending on whether the formation was inching forwards, inching backwards, or standing still while it was firing. But basically what would happen is that everybody -- perhaps an eighth of the formation, depending on it's depth -- would point their muskets in the general direction of a designated enemy and stick their burning fuzes in their firing pans. They would then turn, walk into the empty lane, turn again, and trundle down the lane to the back of the formation, turn again, walk to the back of the row, and then start reloading. That was the closest they came to a massed volley. It would take quite a few minutes for everybody in the formation to get around to firing, if they ever did, and that's probably why there were so few rounds on their bandoleers. The good news, though, is the rate of fire was probably so low (compared to eighteenth century musket fire) that there were fewer misfires.
Keep in mind that an infantry unit almost always consisted of three parts: a big pike formation in the center, and two smaller blocks of muskets attached to either flank. So even in the lucky circumstance in which you managed to get both musket blocks to fire together, the effect is still nothing like an eighteenth century volley because the lead simply isn't going to be travelling forward all down the line -- only down parts of it. The block of pikes in the center of each formation was there because pikes were the main event and did most of the serious dismounted fighting. When cavalry threatened (usually trotting or walking forwards unless they were Swedish), the musket blocks on the flanks of each formation would disolve and the musketeers would hide in or behind the pikemen. The most fashionable thing to read in military circles of the day were illustrated Greek and Roman treatises on Macedonian phalanx tactics (which may explain why Asclepiodotus survived to modern times).
Did I mention that apart from Gustavus Adolfus and Swedish leather cannon, artillery basically didn't move during a battle (too heavy) and was crewed with civilian contractors?
And that's why I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that Slitherine's game portrays 17th century warfare in anything but the costumes.
Quote from: Philippe on October 14, 2014, 12:03:14 PM
I think there are a couple of things you have to keep in mind when thinking about musket fire in the 17th century.
There just couldn't have been that much of it, and our modern notions of laying down curtains of fire to blow an enemy away by the sheer volume of lead thrown down range simply doesn't apply.
As already mentioned, it wasn't aimed. Certain kinds of light troops (jaegers and chasseurs, which means the same thing in their respective languages) started experimenting with aimed fire in the 18th century, but even in Napoleon's day there wasn't much of it.
Musketeers didn't load their weapons from scratch on the battlefield. There was already too much going on with their hands, which often included holding a long stake to prop their musket on and/or a slow burning fuze which had to stay lit for the entire battle. Musketeers kept their amunition in pre-measured cartridges which were slung across their chests on bandoleers. The cartridge box (and paper or parchement cartridge casing) didn't come into use until the 18th century -- the bandoleer had as many individual cartidges as could be easily slung across your chest, usually about a dozen because of the clumsy large containers they came in. That's not a whole lot of lead going down-range during an entire battle.
But it gets worse.
Our concept of massed fire doesn't really apply to that period. Musketeers might be arranged eight or so rows deep, with relatively wide lanes between each row (two or three was the norm in Napoleon's day). There were different drills depending on whether the formation was inching forwards, inching backwards, or standing still while it was firing. But basically what would happen is that everybody -- perhaps an eighth of the formation, depending on it's depth -- would point their muskets in the general direction of a designated enemy and stick their burning fuzes in their firing pans. They would then turn, walk into the empty lane, turn again, and trundle down the lane to the back of the formation, turn again, walk to the back of the row, and then start reloading. That was the closest they came to a massed volley. It would take quite a few minutes for everybody in the formation to get around to firing, if they ever did, and that's probably why there were so few rounds on their bandoleers. The good news, though, is the rate of fire was probably so low (compared to eighteenth century musket fire) that there were fewer misfires.
Keep in mind that an infantry unit almost always consisted of three parts: a big pike formation in the center, and two smaller blocks of muskets attached to either flank. So even in the lucky circumstance in which you managed to get both musket blocks to fire together, the effect is still nothing like an eighteenth century volley because the lead simply isn't going to be travelling forward all down the line -- only down parts of it. The block of pikes in the center of each formation was there because pikes were the main event and did most of the serious dismounted fighting. When cavalry threatened (usually trotting or walking forwards unless they were Swedish), the musket blocks on the flanks of each formation would disolve and the musketeers would hide in or behind the pikemen. The most fashionable thing to read in military circles of the day were illustrated Greek and Roman treatises on Macedonian phalanx tactics (which may explain why Asclepiodotus survived to modern times).
Did I mention that apart from Gustavus Adolfus and Swedish leather cannon, artillery basically didn't move during a battle (too heavy) and was crewed with civilian contractors?
And that's why I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that Slitherine's game portrays 17th century warfare in anything but the costumes.
More recent research suggests a number of slight modifications to the standard view of the Military revolution. For example, the famous leather guns of the Swedes were more antique than innovative and anyway were not much used by the Swedes.
In addition, Peter Wilson (Europe's Tragedy) and Ben Hull (the Musket and Pike games) think that musketry was relatively effective and that matchlocks were relatively reliable. We know that during the 30-years war the loses when infantry fought infantry were pretty big and all armies steadily increased their muskets and steadily reduced their pikes. Plus musketry was what made entrenchments a common tactic and made it very costly to assault entrenchements.
My quarrel with this version of Pike and Shot is that there was nothing generic about such things as musketry between 1490 and 1650 and a more interesting system would make it possible to tease out these changes and developments.
I think the basic problem is that Slitherine does light wargames and we're the kind of crowd that enjoys WITE and DC Case Blue.
I quite agree that historically the game leaves something to be desired.
However, with almost all PC wargames one must suspend belief to some degree, sometimes greatly sometimes not.
Take Panzer General and all of it's children. I detest them with every fiber in my soul, but they are the greatest selling wargames by far. To me they are just rock, paper and scissors done differently.
I cannot for some reason wrap my historically bent mind around them.
From what I have seen, I can deal with it in Pike and shot.
It probably has to do with the fact that it is the only game in town. There is HPS's Musket and Pike, but it does not come with any scenarios after the 16th century. It is a good game though.
Quote from: magnus on October 14, 2014, 02:08:16 PM
It probably has to do with the fact that it is the only game in town. There is HPS's Musket and Pike, but it does not come with any scenarios after the 16th century. It is a good game though.
No one has tried comparing it to The Renaissance yet. I have it somewhere but only played one scenario. I recall being very disappointed in the AI throwing units at me piecemeal and never playing it again. If I could find the CD, I'd check into the range of muskets in that game (100 meters/hex).
Quote from: bobarossa on October 14, 2014, 02:14:44 PM
Quote from: magnus on October 14, 2014, 02:08:16 PM
It probably has to do with the fact that it is the only game in town.
Not the only one ! On my Website stands a free Peg mod about the 30 years war with 10 Scenarios.
It works as standalone.
For win 8 start it in win xp Service pack 3 mod.
Ist old graphic but some People told me they like it but also some dont like it.
Here for download;
www.peoplesgeneral.de
Quote from: Philippe on October 14, 2014, 12:03:14 PM
Keep in mind that an infantry unit almost always consisted of three parts: a big pike formation in the center, and two smaller blocks of muskets attached to either flank. So even in the lucky circumstance in which you managed to get both musket blocks to fire together, the effect is still nothing like an eighteenth century volley because the lead simply isn't going to be travelling forward all down the line -- only down parts of it. The block of pikes in the center of each formation was there because pikes were the main event and did most of the serious dismounted fighting. When cavalry threatened (usually trotting or walking forwards unless they were Swedish), the musket blocks on the flanks of each formation would disolve and the musketeers would hide in or behind the pikemen. The most fashionable thing to read in military circles of the day were illustrated Greek and Roman treatises on Macedonian phalanx tactics (which may explain why Asclepiodotus survived to modern times).
That's precisely one of the reasons this period is so interesting. To a great degree, the military thinkers and leaders of the day looked back on the Ancient Greeks for inspiration. I think that has been greatly overlooked on "classical" treatises on the 17th and 18th century.
I was digging around on Slitherine's website, essentially reading every single bit of information on there.
One comment was interesting..the idea that the Steam price for this game would be inline with the other new Battle Academy titles.
The newest one (which looks pretty darned good, btw) is $39.95, download only.
If this game sells on steam for $40, I am one happy Tercio Commander.
OK, because this sort of thing is an obsession of mine, I did some range checking across systems:
Hull's games use 100 yards per hex and require all fire, foot or mounted, to be at one hex range. One caveat, though, is that his "advancing" fire rule (at a -3 DRM) seems to permit fire at somewhere between one and two hexes of range. Certainly these rules, given the morale effects of salvo fire particularly, take musket and other small arms' fire to have been quite effective when well employed.
Tiller's Renaissance uses 100 meters per hex and permits fire by muskets out to 4 hexes and hackbutts out to 2.
I can't for the life of me find a stated scale for Pike and Shot, but hackbutts fire out to 2 squares and muskets call 2 short range and 4 long. The latter halves combat value which would seem similar to the Tiller approach as, in those systems, everything at the longer ranges is, at best, salutory fire which, in games that have ammo limits, forces the player to decide whether they really need to fire at long range.
In all three games artillery is mobile, can be limbered, and is certainly slow moving.
I forgot how much I really do like this period.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on October 14, 2014, 07:11:21 PM
Quote from: Philippe on October 14, 2014, 12:03:14 PM
Keep in mind that an infantry unit almost always consisted of three parts: a big pike formation in the center, and two smaller blocks of muskets attached to either flank. So even in the lucky circumstance in which you managed to get both musket blocks to fire together, the effect is still nothing like an eighteenth century volley because the lead simply isn't going to be travelling forward all down the line -- only down parts of it. The block of pikes in the center of each formation was there because pikes were the main event and did most of the serious dismounted fighting. When cavalry threatened (usually trotting or walking forwards unless they were Swedish), the musket blocks on the flanks of each formation would disolve and the musketeers would hide in or behind the pikemen. The most fashionable thing to read in military circles of the day were illustrated Greek and Roman treatises on Macedonian phalanx tactics (which may explain why Asclepiodotus survived to modern times).
That's precisely one of the reasons this period is so interesting. To a great degree, the military thinkers and leaders of the day looked back on the Ancient Greeks for inspiration. I think that has been greatly overlooked on "classical" treatises on the 17th and 18th century.
I think there is a more practical side to this period's interest in classical warfare. By the end of the Middle Ages it had become clear that a well-ordered pike formation could probably stand up to just about anything that it came up against (except a Spanish Tercio). This quibble asside, it was clear to anybody involved in the military that if you were going to raise an army, especially if you were raising it from scratch, you needed training manuals. Those ancient texts actually tell you in fairly minute detail how to put a bunch of pikemen through their paces, and exactly what those paces were. Many of the sixteenth and seventh century editions are illustrated, and, not surprisingly, they don't show pictures of antique Graeco-Roman pikemen, they usually show pikemen carrying halberds and wearing morions and breastplates. The Laconian counter-march did not just live in the ancient texts, it was probably practised on the drilling fields and battle fields of 16th and 17th century Europe.
And when Delbrueck was reconstructing what went on in ancient battles by having German high school students march around their football fields in close formations, guess which texts he was using to figure out how they should do it?
Quote from: Philippe on October 14, 2014, 09:16:52 PM
I think there is a more practical side to this period's interest in classical warfare. By the end of the Middle Ages it had become clear that a well-ordered pike formation could probably stand up to just about anything that it came up against (except a Spanish Tercio). This quibble asside, it was clear to anybody involved in the military that if you were going to raise an army, especially if you were raising it from scratch, you needed training manuals. Those ancient texts actually tell you in fairly minute detail how to put a bunch of pikemen through their paces, and exactly what those paces were. Many of the sixteenth and seventh century editions are illustrated, and, not surprisingly, they don't show pictures of antique Graeco-Roman pikemen, they usually show pikemen carrying halberds and wearing morions and breastplates. The Laconian counter-march did not just live in the ancient texts, it was probably practised on the drilling fields and battle fields of 16th and 17th century Europe.
And when Delbrueck was reconstructing what went on in ancient battles by having German high school students march around their football fields in close formations, guess which texts he was using to figure out how they should do it?
With my previous post I wasn't saying that this was just a theoretical exercise - they were aware of the Ancients ways' and probably used treatises "rediscovered" during the 15th and 16th century as inspiration. To what degree they adhered to the same drills used by Alexander's phalangites, I can't say :)
Quote from: MengJiao on October 14, 2014, 12:58:05 PM
In addition, Peter Wilson (Europe's Tragedy) and Ben Hull (the Musket and Pike games) think that musketry was relatively effective and that matchlocks were relatively reliable. We know that during the 30-years war the loses when infantry fought infantry were pretty big and all armies steadily increased their muskets and steadily reduced their pikes. Plus musketry was what made entrenchments a common tactic and made it very costly to assault entrenchements.
FWIW...I am currently reading Diane Purkiss' excellent The English Civil War: A People's History and it is filled with accounts of wounds & deaths from musketry, pistol and cannons. Of course, much of the fighting that occurs during the ECW is either "skirmish level" or seige stuff than large set-piece battles, so this will have a profound impact on the kind of fighting and therefore weaponry that one sees used.
Quote from: DennisS on October 14, 2014, 08:29:12 PM
If this game sells on steam for $40, I am one happy Tercio Commander.
I think it's kind of expensive for a Battle Academy mod
With absolutely no knowledge of the circumstances, I'll predict it sells for less. This is a niche product if ever there was one and they know they must compete on price.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
I'll probably end up buying this despite my criticism. Found myself reading up on the 30 years war for the past few days.
Quote from: Cyrano on October 15, 2014, 11:12:32 PM
With absolutely no knowledge of the circumstances, I'll predict it sells for less. This is a niche product if ever there was one and they know they must compete on price.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Well.. it's also Slitherine. :P
I didn't bother reading the rest of the thread, but has anyone picked this up yet?
(Seems to have been released today via Matrix)
Supposed to be today but I don't see it in the store.
My bad, guess it's still unavailable. :(
Now it is available:
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/537/details/Pike.&.Shot
http://www.slitherine.com/games/pike_shot_pc
Quote from: Tpek on October 16, 2014, 08:41:01 AM
Now it is available:
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/537/details/Pike.&.Shot
http://www.slitherine.com/games/pike_shot_pc
Yep. USD30. I bought it. Waiting for the Steam version to activate.
I picked it up since they have it on sale for $30.
Quote from: jomni on October 16, 2014, 08:54:02 AM
Yep. USD30. I bought it. Waiting for the Steam version to activate.
If you bought it, why wouldn't you install the Matrix/Slitherine version today instead of waiting for a Steam release that's 27 hours away? ???
Because when the steam version goes live I will uninstall the matrix version.
Yes it's stupid but I prefer Steam and the matrix version is a back up when steam dies.
Opinions please. :smitten: or :tickedoff: or maybe :knuppel2: Don't keep your fellow Grogs waiting.
And the interesting question is to what extent can the game be modded. If you can reduce movement rates, firing effectiveness, and firing ranges, you might be able to make the game tolerably realistic. I doubt that it will ever get Steam Workshop support, though.
The gameplay reminds me of Field Of Glory quite a bit. Although the units have their own situational flavor.
I'm only judging by part of the tutorial being played.
My initial impression was of the mouse cursor. It's damn slow and sluggish to react to my mouse movements, which likely means that they have some artificial mouse movement delay setting running in it. >:( Can't stand that.
I probably wouldn't have picked it up if it weren't for 1) Having a random battle generator and 2) being $10 off at release. I've not tried the meat of the game yet so I can't give much of an impression. Just that it reminds me of FOG.
Nefaro hit something I was trying to put into words.
It does play much more like FoG than BA. This makes sense, I suppose, as they're both derived from the base of the FoG ruleset (it is, after all, based on FOG:R).
If you can tolerate FoG's abstractions of ancient combat (and they are many) I think -- still early -- you'll be fine. If not, well...
I haven't poked around in the file structure anywhere near far enough to know how much modding is possible, but, given the PBEM++ handshake, I doubt you'll be able to get by with overmuch.
If anyone's up for an MP game, let me know...I should be back on-line this evening.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
So basically, nobody is raving about it yet...
http://31.media.tumblr.com/779711c2ed89c4e848cf592f98c6380e/tumblr_mstq8a0GEc1ramh22o1_500.gif
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS85m6YHtt8RkH0Nd7GjOZ1P-QhLMq2c9MAj39oj0n9DzBzqayf
I am horrid at using images, but do these suit?
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Cyrano on October 16, 2014, 12:56:21 PM
Nefaro hit something I was trying to put into words.
It does play much more like FoG than BA. This makes sense, I suppose, as they're both derived from the base of the FoG ruleset (it is, after all, based on FOG:R).
If you can tolerate FoG's abstractions of ancient combat (and they are many) I think -- still early -- you'll be fine. If not, well...
I haven't poked around in the file structure anywhere near far enough to know how much modding is possible, but, given the PBEM++ handshake, I doubt you'll be able to get by with overmuch.
If anyone's up for an MP game, let me know...I should be back on-line this evening.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
In terms of modding it has all the same flexibility as BA/BA2. That is, you can build your own campaigns to play in single- or multi-player that alter pretty much anything; game model, logic and orders, stats, text, AI, UI, graphics, tilesets. You can literally build an entirely different game should the urge take you (and example is the Amaris Naval Mod for BA, or indeed the early versions of Pike&Shot itself). This is all supported for MP games (the system checks you are using the same files) and you can package your campaigns to allow other users to download and install them in-game (and we can make good mods 'official', meaning they are shown by default in the download list from our servers).
Cheers
Pip
Quote from: Nefaro on October 16, 2014, 10:46:03 AM
The gameplay reminds me of Field Of Glory quite a bit. Although the units have their own situational flavor.
I'm only judging by part of the tutorial being played.
My initial impression was of the mouse cursor. It's damn slow and sluggish to react to my mouse movements, which likely means that they have some artificial mouse movement delay setting running in it. >:( Can't stand that.
I probably wouldn't have picked it up if it weren't for 1) Having a random battle generator and 2) being $10 off at release. I've not tried the meat of the game yet so I can't give much of an impression. Just that it reminds me of FOG.
From the Wargamer preview:
QuoteHowever, before we start a bit of a (sort of) declaration of interest. Byzantine Games is basically one Richard Bodley Scott, a name that may well be familiar to historical figure gamers out there from his involvement in the DBM and Field of Glory rule sets. Pike and Shot is more or less an implementation of the Field of Glory: Renaissance rules, and I was one of the co-authors of that rule set. So whilst I have no direct connection with Pike and Shot, I was involved with the rules it is based on. Make of that what you will when reading the following first impressions ...
I'm glad they at least chose the BA engine as the FOG engine is horrendous.
Installed it anyway. It's a nice game. Pretty graphics and streamlined interface.
Combat mechanics are adequate to simulate the era and the units are varied.
But you must really get over the scale issue to appreciate the game mechanics. Since a town takes up a square, it means the arquebus and mustkets can shoot across several towns. It's simply unacceptable for us grogs. If they were able to render the terrain to be at a smaller scale, and even make the units occupy several squares (like a tabletop game), then you won't really mind the fire ranges. If you forget about the scale issue and concentrate on combat, it's really a good and quick-playing game. Not cumbersome like John Tiller's Renaissance. And as mentioned before, it does depict the battles of the era pretty well (in a simple way).
Just got around to buying and downloading. More later once I get a chance to play a bit.
Quote from: Nefaro on October 16, 2014, 10:46:03 AM
My initial impression was of the mouse cursor. It's damn slow and sluggish to react to my mouse movements, which likely means that they have some artificial mouse movement delay setting running in it. >:( Can't stand that.
It seems that the mouse won't scroll the map if you have a unit selected. If you hit "space" to unselect the unit, you can again scroll the map with the mouse and the cursor is responsive.
Not sure if that's what you're seeing as an unresponsive mouse cursor, Nefaro, but it did surprise me and took me a minute to work out why the mouse suddenly seemed stuck.
I'm also not sure of the rationale behind that. Maybe that's a known behavior from the engine - I've not played any BA. In any case it seemed odd.
Beyond that, I'm finding the game enjoyable and not a bad representation of the era for a game that plays quickly. I quite enjoy the look of it, too.
Quote from: panzerde on October 16, 2014, 08:31:47 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on October 16, 2014, 10:46:03 AM
My initial impression was of the mouse cursor. It's damn slow and sluggish to react to my mouse movements, which likely means that they have some artificial mouse movement delay setting running in it. >:( Can't stand that.
It seems that the mouse won't scroll the map if you have a unit selected. If you hit "space" to unselect the unit, you can again scroll the map with the mouse and the cursor is responsive.
Not sure if that's what you're seeing as an unresponsive mouse cursor, Nefaro, but it did surprise me and took me a minute to work out why the mouse suddenly seemed stuck.
I'm also not sure of the rationale behind that. Maybe that's a known behavior from the engine - I've not played any BA. In any case it seemed odd.
Beyond that, I'm finding the game enjoyable and not a bad representation of the era for a game that plays quickly. I quite enjoy the look of it, too.
I was referring to general mouse cursor lag. Feels like "Mouth Smoothing", which is just a fancy word for making your mouse cursor lag behind your mouse movement a bit. I usually see that in games ported from console.
Skyrim on the PC has some IIRC. I always turn that crap off in the INI files if possible.
It could just be a driver issue or something, instead of a game engine thing. I noticed that some parts of the interface are stretched on widescreen resolutions (most noticeable in the circular unit pics turned into flattened eggs) so perhaps it's a byproduct of that.
Some people probably don't care, but I prefer my cursor be as responsive as possible and not trail 100ms behind my mouse movements.
I do not notie the lag that you describe on my end.
Quote from: Nefaro on October 16, 2014, 08:48:57 PM
I was referring to general mouse cursor lag. Feels like "Mouth Smoothing", which is just a fancy word for making your mouse cursor lag behind your mouse movement a bit. I usually see that in games ported from console. Skyrim on the PC has some IIRC. I always turn that crap off in the INI files if possible.
It could just be a driver issue or something, instead of a game engine thing. I noticed that some parts of the interface are stretched on widescreen resolutions (most noticeable in the circular unit pics turned into flattened eggs) so perhaps it's a byproduct of that.
I'm playing at 1920X1080 and have sort of an odd display configuration (another display above and one to the left of my main display) and I'm not running into any mouse lag or seeing interface stretching. Sounds like the game doesn't like something about your system setup, maybe?
Just got stomped in the third tutorial mission. Imperial pike & shot infantry is no match for Swedish infantry. I should have taken more horsies.
Those Swedes are tough. Especially with their embedded light canons. But a horse attack from the sides or rear will do the trick.
Quote from: panzerde on October 16, 2014, 09:38:11 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on October 16, 2014, 08:48:57 PM
I was referring to general mouse cursor lag. Feels like "Mouth Smoothing", which is just a fancy word for making your mouse cursor lag behind your mouse movement a bit. I usually see that in games ported from console. Skyrim on the PC has some IIRC. I always turn that crap off in the INI files if possible.
It could just be a driver issue or something, instead of a game engine thing. I noticed that some parts of the interface are stretched on widescreen resolutions (most noticeable in the circular unit pics turned into flattened eggs) so perhaps it's a byproduct of that.
I'm playing at 1920X1080 and have sort of an odd display configuration (another display above and one to the left of my main display) and I'm not running into any mouse lag or seeing interface stretching. Sounds like the game doesn't like something about your system setup, maybe?
Just got stomped in the third tutorial mission. Imperial pike & shot infantry is no match for Swedish infantry. I should have taken more horsies.
Well, I was using it on a mobile GeForce laptop card (GT640M). As I said, it may have been a driver thing. *shrug*
The cursor lag isn't as pronounced as others I've seen. The widescreen stretch of parts of the UI made me wonder if something was amiss too.
I can't seem to beat Tutorial 4. Guerilla warfare is hard to conduct.
Quote from: jomni on October 17, 2014, 08:30:41 AM
I can't seem to beat Tutorial 4. Guerilla warfare is hard to conduct.
Which one is that? Where you are Transylvanian using the six 'Commanded Shot' units in the forest and lots of Hussars?
I just finished all the Tutorial battles. Only one of them gave me some fits. IIRC, it was fighting against the Swedish Pike & Shot units with regimental guns which managed to rout some of my units. But victory was still had. O0
It's out on Steam.
Damn, no Hotseat mode.
Why do devs feel the need to force us to only play multiplayer online? :tickedoff:
Quote from: Tpek on October 17, 2014, 02:18:42 PM
Damn, no Hotseat mode.
Why do devs feel the need to force us to only play multiplayer online? :tickedoff:
We know it's something a small % would absolutely love to have, but a standalone hotseat mode would take considerable development time verses the number of people who would use it. Hacking the MP system to allow it gets us most of the way. Obviously not a lot of use if you are un-connected when you want to play though...
Cheers
Pip
^Hotseat is the easiest MP form to implement.
And if you do the MP system right it shouldn't be hard to have multiple methods of MP.
Agreed fully with the above. True PBEM MP is really built off of a foundation of Hotseat. So they have to go out of their to not have it. Again, it reinforces the false perception that the majority of players are online playing...when it has been shown that the opposite is actually true.
I'm sorry guys but you are just wrong on this :) A hotseat mode would need specific UI to handle the changeover and so on between players, as well as dealing with different game flows in terms of loading up the mission each time verses not etc. But more importantly, trying to build MP on top of hotseat would not be something that I would ever do - the key fact in MP is not being able to rely on any 'carried over' data or synchronisation between the two machines.
While MP is hugely popular on many of our games, we are entirely aware of the fact that only 10-20% of players will EVER go online at all, which is why we aim to provide plenty of SP content in all our games. That said, not playing MP (e.g. against someone else) is not quite the same as not being online at all (e.g. to play hotseat under the current engine).
As I say, a bells-and-whistles hotseat mode is on our wishlist, but no timescales at the moment.
Cheers
Pip
Quote from: Nefaro on October 16, 2014, 10:09:49 PM
Well, I was using it on a mobile GeForce laptop card (GT640M). As I said, it may have been a driver thing. *shrug*
That is odd. I'm running it on a GTX770M which should be the same drivers, IIRC. Sounds like time for an exorcism.
Quote from: jomni on October 16, 2014, 09:52:17 PM
Those Swedes are tough. Especially with their embedded light canons. But a horse attack from the sides or rear will do the trick.
Yep, that's just where I screwed up. Took more infantry and should have taken more horse. Didn't have enough cavalry to chase off the Swedish horse and get behind the infantry. Completely out of character for me to do that, too, since I'm usually all about the cavalry.
Great game.
Quote from: Nefaro on October 17, 2014, 11:18:49 AM
Quote from: jomni on October 17, 2014, 08:30:41 AM
I can't seem to beat Tutorial 4. Guerilla warfare is hard to conduct.
Which one is that? Where you are Transylvanian using the six 'Commanded Shot' units in the forest and lots of Hussars?
I just finished all the Tutorial battles. Only one of them gave me some fits. IIRC, it was fighting against the Swedish Pike & Shot units with regimental guns which managed to rout some of my units. But victory was still had. O0
Yes. So what's the strategy there? So far I have only decimated 1 tercio. And my cavalry gets slaughtered and I lose the game.
Update: I did it. I kept my cavalry away and let their tercio units to cross the middle of the map. I then shoot at them from both sides from the forests to wither them down. They will turn to either side, exposing their flanks to my cavalry. Of course their cavalry is smart enough to provide cover so I have to also shoot at these guys before charging them as my cavalry is basically less capable. Once the horses break / run, other adjacent units will also have a chance of being disrupted making them easier to rout as well.
I'm now moving on to the Italian Wars campaign. Will go about the campaigns chronologically despite the Thirty Years War listed first.
Quote from: jomni on October 17, 2014, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on October 17, 2014, 11:18:49 AM
Quote from: jomni on October 17, 2014, 08:30:41 AM
I can't seem to beat Tutorial 4. Guerilla warfare is hard to conduct.
Which one is that? Where you are Transylvanian using the six 'Commanded Shot' units in the forest and lots of Hussars?
I just finished all the Tutorial battles. Only one of them gave me some fits. IIRC, it was fighting against the Swedish Pike & Shot units with regimental guns which managed to rout some of my units. But victory was still had. O0
Yes. So what's the strategy there? So far I have only decimated 1 tercio. And my cavalry gets slaughtered and I lose the game.
Update: I did it. I kept my cavalry away and let their tercio units to cross the middle of the map. I then shoot at them from both sides from the forests to wither them down. They will turn to either side, exposing their flanks to my cavalry. Of course their cavalry is smart enough to provide cover so I have to also shoot at these guys before charging them as my cavalry is basically less capable. Once the horses break / run, other adjacent units will also have a chance of being disrupted making them easier to rout as well.
I'm now moving on to the Italian Wars campaign. Will go about the campaigns chronologically despite the Thirty Years War listed first.
Yep. I just let them come down the open ground in between the forests, holding back my cavalry. To include not moving the Hussars north of the forest for a couple turns because I don't think the enemy could see them in their start area. Started shooting them when they were in the pocket and brought my Hussars around into their rear.
The Tercios are tough since you don't get a flanking bonus against them, and at least one type doesn't even suffer from rear attacks against it.
As for the map scale in relation to the units, it hasn't been an issue for me at all. The spaces with buildings only look like a cluster of farm buildings or such - not even a village. Horse can run the full range of musket fire in one turn and infantry in two so it plays out well.
I just suffered a massive defeat in Seminara as the Spanish.
Quote from: Nefaro on October 17, 2014, 07:16:22 PM
As for the map scale in relation to the units, it hasn't been an issue for me at all. The spaces with buildings only look like a cluster of farm buildings or such - not even a village. Horse can run the full range of musket fire in one turn and infantry in two so it plays out well.
This is what I'm finding as well. Comparing the size of the building groups with the fields makes them seem like walled farms with outbuildings, not even a small village. The range doesn't feel as off as I thought it might be at first.
Got my cavalry mojo back and gave the Swedes a drubbing. On to finish the last tutorial scenario.
I love that the game tracks individual casualties by KIA, WIA and captured/deserted. I'd like to see some more graphic effects on the map, like lingering smoke, bodies, craters, etc.
I LOVE the look of this game. For whatever reason, I've always enjoyed the "water-painted" textures in games as opposed to the ones with hyper-realistic graphics
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on October 18, 2014, 01:36:26 AM
I LOVE the look of this game. For whatever reason, I've always enjoyed the "water-painted" textures in games as opposed to the ones with hyper-realistic graphics
The map textures look great. O0
The battles are enjoyable. But they're still basically one-off affairs so I'll only ever play 1 or 2 quick ones and move on to a different game at any one time. The random scenario generator will help keep that fresh but I still think Slitherine would hit one out of the park if they ever added a good strategic layer to these games, to increase the depth of the game and invest the player in the individual battles more. I'm not asking for something the size of an EU4 strategic setup but something closer to
Spartan. That would be superb.
As an example, I've been playing a battle (or part of one) and skipping over to Total War shortly afterward. Just to get the dual-layer experience. Make it happen guys!
^ I'd play that. For that matter, I'd play a decent stand-alone operational Thirty Years War game.
I have to admit that this game has really surprised me. I was skeptical of it using the BA2 engine, I was skeptical of the art style, and during last week's discussion I started to get skeptical of the gameplay. Instead, this is turning out to be a real delight. I'm eager to get into the editor and start messing around with it, now.
I'm also interested to compare the Tiller versions of the Italian Wars battles to those in Pike and Shot. Been a while since I unlimbered Renaissance.
How's the campaign? A series of tougher battles? Any ability to change the order of battles or forces involved?
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 18, 2014, 12:00:01 PM
How's the campaign? A series of tougher battles? Any ability to change the order of battles or forces involved?
I think it's just a straight shot through, for the most part. Some scenarios can include extra optional purchases with a small pool of points, to supplement the required forces. The same way
Battle Academy did.
Quote from: Nefaro on October 18, 2014, 02:44:54 PM
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 18, 2014, 12:00:01 PM
How's the campaign? A series of tougher battles? Any ability to change the order of battles or forces involved?
I think it's just a straight shot through, for the most part. Some scenarios can include extra optional purchases with a small pool of points, to supplement the required forces. The same way Battle Academy did.
All battles are unlocked so you can play any battle from a "Campaign". Not real campaigns actually. Maybe just call them "Eras".
The first scenario of the Italian Wars campaign is very hard. I have played 3x and have not won it. I will move on to the next.
I stand corrected. I've seen multi square towns. So single square buildings are just farms and cloisters.
I'm finding the first scenario of the Thirty Years' War campaign tough, too. Seminara I would expect to lose as the Spanish; that's what happened historically. It was a battle the Spanish/Italian forces should have never fought - they stood no chance with their light troops versus the Swiss pikes and French heavy cavalry.
I can't find any references on the Pilgram battles depicted in the first scenario of the Thirty Years' War campaign other than a suggestion that the Protestants won. Something about my approach to this fight just isn't making it. I'm kind of glad about that; it means this game isn't a cake walk!
Doug --
Just say the word and we'll play any of the games that are in both back to back. Wouldn't take long and it'd be an interesting experience.
Just a guess that the pretty in Pike and Shot will let it cheat a bit, but the results would be telling...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Cyrano on October 19, 2014, 09:49:28 AM
Doug --
Just say the word and we'll play any of the games that are in both back to back. Wouldn't take long and it'd be an interesting experience.
Just a guess that the pretty in Pike and Shot will let it cheat a bit, but the results would be telling...
PBEM++ is definitely in the cards here. If you want to start a scenario please do and I'll log into PBEM++ and accept the challenge.
Yesterday I was starting to get suspicious about the AI, but coming back at it fresh today I just soundly trounced the AI in that first battle. 17th Century cavalry is a very different animal, particularly harquebusiers/reiters. Shock action has definitely left the building, at least at the beginning of the era.
I didn't care much for the musket sounds included with the base game. I replaced the handgun_sound02.wav file with one of the musketry wav files from one of Tiller's Napoleonic games and it sounds a lot less like modern small arms now.
The first few tutorial scenarios done and I've got a pretty meh feeling about the games combat mechanics. I'm thinking I should have purchased BA2 instead. Hopefully the remaining tutorial and a campaign play through will change my mind.
Quote from: Bison on October 19, 2014, 10:24:37 PM
The first few tutorial scenarios done and I've got a pretty meh feeling about the games combat mechanics. I'm thinking I should have purchased BA2 instead. Hopefully the remaining tutorial and a campaign play through will change my mind.
Sounds more like a preferential situation to me.
I enjoy the old line formation battle strategy games (Ancients to ACW) more than WW2. Perhaps you're the opposite?
Quote from: Nefaro on October 20, 2014, 04:36:45 AM
Quote from: Bison on October 19, 2014, 10:24:37 PM
The first few tutorial scenarios done and I've got a pretty meh feeling about the games combat mechanics. I'm thinking I should have purchased BA2 instead. Hopefully the remaining tutorial and a campaign play through will change my mind.
Sounds more like a preferential situation to me.
I enjoy the old line formation battle strategy games (Ancients to ACW) more than WW2. Perhaps you're the opposite?
No I'm finding that there are very few options when it comes to combat also outside of barricades and woods there seems to be very little terrain influence to the battles . Yay! I charged my cavalry now I get to wait 4 to 5 turns for the melee to be done and one side to break and rout or not. Yay! I can advance my block formation and walk into fire or stand stationary and fire. It's just meh. Maybe it's an accurate reflection of the historical battles but there is very little to plan. Advance your pike and shot up the middle and try to flank with your cavalry. Anyway like I said maybe it's just the tutorial battles and they change for the better in the campaign.
Quote from: Bison on October 20, 2014, 09:16:34 AM
No I'm finding that there are very few options when it comes to combat also outside of barricades and woods there seems to be very little terrain influence to the battles . Yay! I charged my cavalry now I get to wait 4 to 5 turns for the melee to be done and one side to break and rout or not. Yay! I can advance my block formation and walk into fire or stand stationary and fire. It's just meh. Maybe it's an accurate reflection of the historical battles but there is very little to plan. Advance your pike and shot up the middle and try to flank with your cavalry. Anyway like I said maybe it's just the tutorial battles and they change for the better in the campaign.
When you boil it down to a move-fire-charge-rout-advance summation, then yeah it may seem like nothing. The same could be said for Battle Academy and most other wargames. While the core mechanics may be different for each one, the gameplay still hinges on such staples of wargaming. I don't see much difference between this and BA2 in those terms other than the setting.
I didn't expect this to be anything deep or mind-blowing. Just relatively quick and easy to learn & play. Lite wargaming filler. Probably the same situation with BA2. I mean.. they use the same engine and have the same features. *shrug* Perhaps picking up BA2 would also be a bad idea if you didn't like this one?
Quote from: LongBlade on October 14, 2014, 10:26:57 AM
Great summary, Bletchley. Thanks!
+100, though I might add that the same modest increase in aim in the 1800s also increased effective distance (through various forms of rifling).
Doug --
Game is up.
It's Pavia. Password is "nojeeps" :).
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
There's more to do in BA like scouting, am bushing, house to house fighting, promotions and special skills, off map arty and air strikes, cooperative multiplayer. Victory conditions are varied and not just rout x%.
P&S is just moving blocks is set piece battles. They both have their own flavors but as Nefaro said, good for quick bouts of mindless fun. In fact I am now just doing mostly multiplayer for both BA2 and P&S... just a fwe turns a day.
Re: the complexity business.
I have both BA and BA2, but play neither because CM exists.
I play a bit of FoG but yearn for an iteration of the GBoH series on the PC...or even something else from the guys at Western Civilization Software.
As matters stand, P&S is a decent iteration of the tabletop game and is, absent the fierce side-by-side playtest PanzerDe and I are going to give it and HPS' Renaissance, it's the only game in town. Certainly beats the pants of painting all those armies, building all the terrain, finding all the space, corralling all the opponents, setting aside all the time, all to play one battle instead of dozens.
Although, I will grant, that begs the question that one has a hankering for a game in this era...which I did...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
I think honestly what is most off putting is that everything seems to happen under the hood; dice rolls, combat modifiers, and where your charging unit goes after an attacked unit breaks and runs. It's also missing the stats of a game like HPS Renaissance. I know that's not completely fair, but it's just pushing units together. The maps so far lack size for maneuvers and frankly (I'm not dismissing some semblance of historical accuracy with this game mechanic; I don't really know) there are almost no tactical decisions for the player to make. HPS maps are huge by comparison, so while the same basic engagement choices exist, the player gets to choose how the overall battlefield develops.
Also I think they should have called it FoG: Renaissance since that is what the game is with a few adaptions to the tabletop rules based on what I read on the Slitherine forums. It's the same engine as BA/BA2, but it is the same gameplay as FoG.
Anyway I'm still going to give it a fair shake and hope that it grows on me the more I play it. And it is entirely possible the game real strength is in multiplayer.
Quote from: Cyrano on October 20, 2014, 08:19:08 PM
Doug --
Game is up.
It's Pavia. Password is "nojeeps" :).
Logged into the game and first turn is yours.
Quote from: Cyrano on October 20, 2014, 08:28:01 PM
As matters stand, P&S is a decent iteration of the tabletop game and is, absent the fierce side-by-side playtest PanzerDe and I are going to give it and HPS' Renaissance, it's the only game in town. Certainly beats the pants of painting all those armies, building all the terrain, finding all the space, corralling all the opponents, setting aside all the time, all to play one battle instead of dozens.
Although, I will grant, that begs the question that one has a hankering for a game in this era...which I did...
Pretty much where I'm at with it, too. It isn't the greatest wargame ever - but it works for what's essentially a computerized miniatures game for the era. Given that I was the kid at the table with unpainted armies and who slapped model airplanes together as quickly as I could so I could
play with them, that works for me - in the absence of very many other choices.
Bison, I will say that I'm finding the historical battles and skirmish games to be more challenging and to offer a lot more in the way of maneuver than the tutorials. It's funny though - I can't be bothered with BA or BA2 for many of the same reasons you are having with this. So, I get where you're coming from!
Quote from: Cyrano on October 20, 2014, 08:28:01 PM
I play a bit of FoG but yearn for an iteration of the GBoH series on the PC...or even something else from the guys at Western Civilization Software.
http://www.gog.com/game/great_battles_collectors_edition
O0
I am disappoint if you don't already have this.
Hehe...I do have it. I do, I do.
Now that you mention it, must get 'round to seeing if the MP works at all...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Nefaro on October 21, 2014, 05:21:20 AM
Quote from: Cyrano on October 20, 2014, 08:28:01 PM
I play a bit of FoG but yearn for an iteration of the GBoH series on the PC...or even something else from the guys at Western Civilization Software.
http://www.gog.com/game/great_battles_collectors_edition
O0
I am disappoint if you don't already have this.
I also have this and recommend it O0
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 13, 2014, 10:08:36 PM
I'll vouch for King and Country as a great M2TW mod though it's been a long time ago I played it and can't remember a lot of detail.
As will I.
I have a couple of campaigns under my belt now, and it is great fun. It's a pity it doesn't run under MTW2 Kingdoms though. I got my copy at twcenter.net if any of you want to try it out. You'll need a copy of MTW2 to run it.
Never a good sign when a thread is derailed and it doesn't involve boobs.
OK. I've figured out one of the things that was driving me nuts. For some reason I had (at least I thought had) detailed information being displayed and was underwhelmed with the information. However I reset the detail information in the options and restarted the game and the amount of detail is significantly better. Now the engagements and results actually make much more sense. I might slowly be being won over by the game now. :D
Quote from: Bison on October 21, 2014, 07:51:26 PM
OK. I've figured out one of the things that was driving me nuts. For some reason I had (at least I thought had) detailed information being displayed and was underwhelmed with the information. However I reset the detail information in the options and restarted the game and the amount of detail is significantly better. Now the engagements and results actually make much more sense. I might slowly be being won over by the game now. :D
That does make a lot of difference. Did you also turn on the detailed combat results? I like those much better.
White Mountain is a bloodbath. I went to the mat with the AI the first time I fought it, and came within 1% of winning - the battle was a draw as both forces had lost more then 60%. Tonight the AI concentrated four tercios and half a dozen kuriasser squadrons on my right and simply steamrolled my flank. What was most impressive is that the AI's attack was en echelon. He hit my left first, then my center, and finally a hammer blow on my right. The bulk of my troops were tied up and couldn't reposition. I could only watch in awe as he punched a huge hole in my line and my troops just shattered like glass. AI loses were only 35% this time.
While it's based on the same system as FOG, the combat results don't seem to be so widely varied and the AI may be a bit better in P&S.
I wish we had a FOG series from these guys. Or the original FOG series got that big revision we were hearing about awhile back. The musket era is great, but a second to playing out classical battles for me.
Yes. I'm glad they used this than the FOG engine because the AI there is horrendous!
Clearly, I'm an idiot: how do you end your turn in the tutorial?
There's a little metal-colored arrow that's kind of hard to see in the middle of the portrait of your commander (middle of bottom of screen).
Quote from: Philippe on October 22, 2014, 10:36:07 AM
There's a little metal-colored arrow that's kind of hard to see in the middle of the portrait of your commander (middle of bottom of screen).
Ha! I knew it would be obvious. (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2FSmilies%2Fmagnify.gif&hash=ad73524c22b595ded0d2d031403f681fc4f7cbed)
Quote from: LongBlade on October 22, 2014, 10:21:27 AM
Clearly, I'm an idiot: how do you end your turn in the tutorial?
Don't worry, it took me some 5 minutes to locate this damned arrow :-)
Quote from: PAK on October 22, 2014, 11:30:23 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on October 22, 2014, 10:21:27 AM
Clearly, I'm an idiot: how do you end your turn in the tutorial?
Don't worry, it took me some 5 minutes to locate this damned arrow :-)
I never did find it, though I did do a word search in the game manual for "turn." Didn't find it there, either.
FWIW...I've been playing lots of English Civil War skirmish games, and I can't believe how much of an impact 80 or 90 extra force points can make to an open battle. I have been soundly trounced by the blasted Royalists in 5 out of 6 game, and only managed a win on the one game due to the convenient location of a small wood that protected two muskateer units. Once I manually changed the points-per-side to about equal, victory was much more accessible.
Otherwise a good game, though I do agree that terrain doesn't appear to make a huge difference. I recently Flank Charged a Pike and shot unit that was positioned in square with a stream, and they held fast.
Ah.
A much improved gaming experience when you can end a turn.
The Battle Academy engine does a surprisingly good job of holding up in the 30 Years War.
A couple of minor quibbles: the first tutorial tells us that we're German Protestants facing German Catholics, but the actual game has Swedes vs Germans.
Also, the introduction from the game manual is deceptively simple. The 30YW is the most complicated piece of history I've yet run across. I get they want to go simple, but still...
I don't believe how well the game engine translates to the musket and pike period. I think it would work just as well for battles of the Napoleonic and Civil War eras. Get to it Slitherine.
Quote from: LongBlade on October 22, 2014, 11:54:06 AM
Quote from: PAK on October 22, 2014, 11:30:23 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on October 22, 2014, 10:21:27 AM
Clearly, I'm an idiot: how do you end your turn in the tutorial?
Don't worry, it took me some 5 minutes to locate this damned arrow :-)
I never did find it, though I did do a word search in the game manual for "turn." Didn't find it there, either.
I used the [ENTER] key until I happened to notice it sitting on top of the pic at the bottom center. ;D
I'm guessing it's placed over the top of it on lower screen resolutions, if there isn't enough space underneath.
Quote from: Nefaro on October 22, 2014, 01:19:30 PM
I used the [ENTER] key until I happened to notice it sitting on top of the pic at the bottom center. ;D
I'm guessing it's placed over the top of it on lower screen resolutions, if there isn't enough space underneath.
I'm on a laptop. It was (and remains) virtually invisible.
I'm usually the blind guy in the room and compensate with a VERY large monitor.
It is rare that I don't have a visual problem that others do...
Feeling MIGHTY pleased with myself at the moment.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Johnnie on October 22, 2014, 12:32:23 PM
I don't believe how well the game engine translates to the musket and pike period. I think it would work just as well for battles of the Napoleonic and Civil War eras. Get to it Slitherine.
They can even recode ancient warfare Field of Glory into this and dump the old FOG computer game.
Quote from: jomni on October 22, 2014, 06:37:40 PM
They can even recode ancient warfare Field of Glory into this and dump the old FOG computer game.
I would prefer 7 Years War or Great Northern War. Ancients, Napoleonics and Civil War were already played to the dead
Quote from: PAK on October 23, 2014, 02:45:09 AM
Quote from: jomni on October 22, 2014, 06:37:40 PM
They can even recode ancient warfare Field of Glory into this and dump the old FOG computer game.
I would prefer 7 Years War or Great Northern War. Ancients, Napoleonics and Civil War were already played to the dead
Naaa..
We need more of everything Pre-Napoleonic.
Has the Great Northern War been mentioned as a possible expansion to this?
Edit
Based on an Historicon conversation a couple years ago, I see an opportunity for DLC in the P&S era, but they surely want to use the "already in the can" FOG:Napoleonics rules in the near future.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
17th & 18th centuries first, plz?
Mainly the 18th, I suppose.
By-the-by, if you haven't found it, pressing shift-3 gives a lower-angle view of the battlefield.
Solved one of my larger gripes during the BETA.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
A 'Wot I Think' review from RPS. Curious of what you guys think of it. This is a game I'm considering getting. Thanks.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/10/24/pike-and-shot-review/#more-244467
Overwritten (then again, who am I to judge), but pretty well spot-on, I think me.
Also, you can get the views he refers to with the shift-3 I mentioned earlier.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
QuoteBattle visuals don't include corpses or lowered pikes.
That's what killed it for me...these strange looking block style units with their pikes straight up in the air all the time...no...I can't stand that :crazy2:
A link in the comments of the RPS review of the game had this clip
That really sets the scene for the game, if you like jazzing up your enthusiasm before playing.
Quote from: Cyrano on October 24, 2014, 09:34:31 AM
Overwritten (then again, who am I to judge), but pretty well spot-on, I think me.
Also, you can get the views he refers to with the shift-3 I mentioned earlier.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Ugh.
Yet another review with way too many Panzer/Tiger references that have nothing to do with WW2. ::)
Maybe some of these people should just go fap it to Tiger porn before writing and get that nonsense out of their system?
I'm more a Panther-porn fellow myself, but your point is taken...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Is this the French version of "The patriot"?
I always thought Conde won the battle.
Quote from: Grimnirsson on October 24, 2014, 11:34:27 AM
QuoteBattle visuals don't include corpses or lowered pikes.
That's what killed it for me...these strange looking block style units with their pikes straight up in the air all the time...no...I can't stand that :crazy2:
The graphics are specifically intended to reflect period woodcuts of battles. The battlefields do indeed look very much like contemporary illustrations. Combined with the watercolor style terrain its a nice, albeit different effect.
They said that they are going to try and insert battle debris and casualties in a future patch.
Quote from: Nefaro on October 24, 2014, 01:20:58 PM
Ugh.
Yet another review with way too many Panzer/Tiger references that have nothing to do with WW2. ::)
Maybe some of these people should just go fap it to Tiger porn before writing and get that nonsense out of their system?
Two one word Tiger references in the intro of a 1000+ word review (both used in an attempt to make a serious point about the under-representation of 16th/17th Century warfare in PC wargames). Hardly evidence of a fetish.
For the record I got bored of Tiger porn about 10 years back. Only T-35s really do it for me anymore. All those pert turrets...
Quote from: panzerde on October 24, 2014, 05:18:44 PM
Quote from: Grimnirsson on October 24, 2014, 11:34:27 AM
QuoteBattle visuals don't include corpses or lowered pikes.
That's what killed it for me...these strange looking block style units with their pikes straight up in the air all the time...no...I can't stand that :crazy2:
The graphics are specifically intended to reflect period woodcuts of battles. The battlefields do indeed look very much like contemporary illustrations. Combined with the watercolor style terrain its a nice, albeit different effect.
I am pretty sure they were based upon the illustrations and maps from Theatrum Europaeum -however, technically speaking I think those were copper engravings (leastwise I thought that was what I read someplace). They are pretty good really - more like a 3d sorta, basically birds' eye view of a battlefield (all prior to human flight).
Disclaimer: It would probably be fair to say that I am much more interested in the miniature rules (more directly comparable to some other rule sets - and that is more what I am interested in -all things being equal).
I am sure this one was a labour of love for the designer, and I wish him all the best with it.
Quote from: pobjoy on October 25, 2014, 05:41:10 AM
For the record I got bored of Tiger porn about 10 years back. Only T-35s really do it for me anymore. All those pert turrets...
<chuckle>
Quote from: panzerde on October 24, 2014, 05:18:44 PM
Quote from: Grimnirsson on October 24, 2014, 11:34:27 AM
QuoteBattle visuals don't include corpses or lowered pikes.
That's what killed it for me...these strange looking block style units with their pikes straight up in the air all the time...no...I can't stand that :crazy2:
The graphics are specifically intended to reflect period woodcuts of battles. The battlefields do indeed look very much like contemporary illustrations. Combined with the watercolor style terrain its a nice, albeit different effect.
They said that they are going to try and insert battle debris and casualties in a future patch.
Unit and landscape optic are a Problem for me, i had the the hope i could use to it, but cant.
Quote from: southern_cross_116 on October 25, 2014, 05:46:03 AM
I am pretty sure they were based upon the illustrations and maps from Theatrum Europaeum -however, technically speaking I think those were copper engravings (leastwise I thought that was what I read someplace). They are pretty good really - more like a 3d sorta, basically birds' eye view of a battlefield (all prior to human flight).
...
I am sure this one was a labour of love for the designer, and I wish him all the best with it.
I believe you're dead on about the illustrations and the medium. All I've read from the designer was that the graphics were based on "contemporary illustrations."
After playing this quite a bit the past few days I feel like it's a good PC version of a set of light miniatures rules. Playing this rekindled my interest in Tiller's
Musket & Pike: Renaissance and I've played a good bit of that the past few days.
Pike and Shot is fast and engaging, and evocative of the era in a general way. However, the mechanics really start to wear on me after playing it for awhile, particularly during the historical battles. There's a lot abstracted here that eventually leaves my groggy soul wanting. Much of that is due to the engine, which works on a macro scale but appears to have some limits in terms of the number of units, ability to play different sides in a scenario, ability to have specific unit names, etc. And, while the AI is difficult I'm coming to feel that it isn't terribly realistic.
The game play in
Renaissance delights me now that I've started playing it again. The maps, the detailed OOBs, and the overall feel of the combat are so "on." for the era. Graphically it makes me weep, and that after I've done some modding. As wargames go, I'm finding I ultimately prefer playing it to playing
Pike and Shot. Ultimately I'm after the depth.
If JTS would work on the graphics a bit, and release more games in the series focused on, say the Thirty Years War and the ECW, I'd be overjoyed. I think a lot of my initial positive reaction to P&S boils down to "Yay! A game that covers the TYW and ECW!" Don't get me wrong, I still think it's a fun game, and I believe it'll sell well. It's great for a few rounds of PBEM. For a serious student of the period though Tiller is the ticket.
Now, if only JTS were working on another Musket & Pike series game...
Quote from: panzerde on October 27, 2014, 06:12:30 PM
Quote from: southern_cross_116 on October 25, 2014, 05:46:03 AM
I am pretty sure they were based upon the illustrations and maps from Theatrum Europaeum -however, technically speaking I think those were copper engravings (leastwise I thought that was what I read someplace). They are pretty good really - more like a 3d sorta, basically birds' eye view of a battlefield (all prior to human flight).
...
I am sure this one was a labour of love for the designer, and I wish him all the best with it.
I believe you're dead on about the illustrations and the medium. All I've read from the designer was that the graphics were based on "contemporary illustrations."
After playing this quite a bit the past few days I feel like it's a good PC version of a set of light miniatures rules. Playing this rekindled my interest in Tiller's Musket & Pike: Renaissance and I've played a good bit of that the past few days.
Pike and Shot is fast and engaging, and evocative of the era in a general way. However, the mechanics really start to wear on me after playing it for awhile, particularly during the historical battles. There's a lot abstracted here that eventually leaves my groggy soul wanting. Much of that is due to the engine, which works on a macro scale but appears to have some limits in terms of the number of units, ability to play different sides in a scenario, ability to have specific unit names, etc. And, while the AI is difficult I'm coming to feel that it isn't terribly realistic.
The game play in Renaissance delights me now that I've started playing it again. The maps, the detailed OOBs, and the overall feel of the combat are so "on." for the era. Graphically it makes me weep, and that after I've done some modding. As wargames go, I'm finding I ultimately prefer playing it to playing Pike and Shot. Ultimately I'm after the depth.
If JTS would work on the graphics a bit, and release more games in the series focused on, say the Thirty Years War and the ECW, I'd be overjoyed. I think a lot of my initial positive reaction to P&S boils down to "Yay! A game that covers the TYW and ECW!" Don't get me wrong, I still think it's a fun game, and I believe it'll sell well. It's great for a few rounds of PBEM. For a serious student of the period though Tiller is the ticket.
Now, if only JTS were working on another Musket & Pike series game...
Am I right to say that Tiller Renaissance does not have mixed units and has smaller unit sizes? Does that mean it is up to the player to actually mix up the gunners and pikes, set them in some formation, and actually delve into the "micro" tactics of the time? If so then that is quite interesting.
Quote from: jomni on October 27, 2014, 06:25:47 PM
Am I right to say that Tiller Renaissance does not have mixed units and has smaller unit sizes? Does that mean it is up to the player to actually mix up the gunners and pikes, set them in some formation, and actually delve into the "micro" tactics of the time? If so then that is quite interesting.
Yes, that's exactly the case. A Spanish colunela for example would be made up of a pike unit or two, a couple units of arquebusiers and some swordsmen, for example.
I have embarked on a modding project. I don't know how to do 3D objects so I will just reskin the default ones for now.
Haven't created the battles yet as I have to mod the units first so you still see the default scenarios in the campaign folder in the screens below.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-T9QXThbsayI/VF4gMeRaTwI/AAAAAAAAI6A/xv5xSctjq9c/w1598-h899-no/2014-11-08_00002.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XN8H9R0irYs/VF4gMmRYCfI/AAAAAAAAI6E/EpgVvCBRtFw/w1598-h899-no/2014-11-08_00001.jpg)
In another thread someone suggested this game engine for a Warhammer and/or Warhammer 40K tactical game. I don't own Pike and Shot but I have played Battle Academy. I think it might work.
Quote from: jomni on November 08, 2014, 08:55:21 AM
I have embarked on a modding project. I don't know how to do 3D objects so I will just reskin the default ones for now.
Haven't created the battles yet as I have to mod the units first so you still see the default scenarios in the campaign folder in the screens below.
Great news Jomni :)
Quote from: jomni on November 08, 2014, 08:55:21 AM
I have embarked on a modding project. I don't know how to do 3D objects so I will just reskin the default ones for now.
Haven't created the battles yet as I have to mod the units first so you still see the default scenarios in the campaign folder in the screens below.
Excellent!
Cool stuff Jomni.
Quote from: panzerde on October 27, 2014, 06:12:30 PM
If JTS would work on the graphics a bit, and release more games in the series focused on, say the Thirty Years War and the ECW, I'd be overjoyed.
With regards to the artwork -don't assume that it is not happening. ;) Saying no more on that one. As for the second part- Rich Hamilton in reply to Micha I think, over on his own board some while back confirmed that there is work on a TYW title going on.
Quote
Now, if only JTS were working on another Musket & Pike series game...
See the above -and that is about the extent to which I am commenting on it.
Quote from: southern_cross_116 on November 09, 2014, 12:25:11 AM
Quote from: panzerde on October 27, 2014, 06:12:30 PM
If JTS would work on the graphics a bit, and release more games in the series focused on, say the Thirty Years War and the ECW, I'd be overjoyed.
With regards to the artwork -don't assume that it is not happening. ;) Saying no more on that one. As for the second part- Rich Hamilton in reply to Micha I think, over on his own board some while back confirmed that there is work on a TYW title going on.
Consider me overjoyed. O0
My flag experiment is somewhat a success. Guess the clan..
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-pzmV6HQsCLg/VF8ANp9k-XI/AAAAAAAAI64/w90Unn-86Ek/w1598-h899-no/2014-11-09_00003.jpg)
Takeda?
Yep. Takeda.
I am now quite comfortable with the system, artworks and data files. The modding will go full swing and I will post updates. Only thing left to learn is scripting (for scenario) but that can come later. Just by painting skins and setting the OOB, we can already play non-historical skirmish. I will release the preview file when I get at least two opposing clans "fully painted".
Quote from: jomni on November 10, 2014, 01:17:59 AM
Yep. Takeda.
I am now quite comfortable with the system, artworks and data files. The modding will go full swing and I will post updates. Only thing left to learn is scripting (for scenario) but that can come later. Just by painting skins and setting the OOB, we can already play non-historical skirmish. I will release the preview file when I get at least two opposing clans "fully painted".
What's the other clan gonna be? Uesugi? Tokugawa/Oda? ^-^
Bingo! Uesugi is the next clan I'm going to make after Takeda. 4th Kawanakajima is the first historical scenario to be set up.
Under Takeda and other Daimio, I will be making sub factions too for prominent generals with their own banners for better historical feel (if I am able to find them). So in Kawanakajima you will see Takeda Shingen, his brother, and other prominent generals. As a plus, by the way armies work in the game, each general can be selected to fight individually against another opposing general in Skirmish mode. OOB of each general will be based on GMT Games Samurai. Historical battles will be based on the ones available in that board game.
I would get this game just to play your Japanese scenario campaign. Didn't realize that full campaigns can be created here.
Is the art work 3d or bmp?
Well, Jomni is definitely answering the question re: whether or not P&S is moddable!
This era has long been one of my few areas of historical disinterest (can't rightly say why), but I'm glad to see the engine getting some love!
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: undercovergeek on November 10, 2014, 08:50:21 AM
Is the art work 3d or bmp?
You can both change the textures for already-built 3D models (which just involves drawing, of course). You can also build and export your own 3D models as you desire (exporters currently exist for MAX and Blender as well as (IIRC) a gMAX hack which some people also use).
Cheers
Pip
Test skirmish battle. Fine tuning the stats. Cavalry charge don't really work head-on. Wonder if that is historical. I'm asking for suggestions on how to tweak the unit stats in the Slitherine forums.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-X98eB9uOirQ/VGE1sXYYJ9I/AAAAAAAAI7c/zhTGvKygYyg/w1598-h899-no/2014-11-10_00001.jpg)
Quote from: Cyrano on November 10, 2014, 01:15:08 PM
Well, Jomni is definitely answering the question re: whether or not P&S is moddable!
This era has long been one of my few areas of historical disinterest (can't rightly say why), but I'm glad to see the engine getting some love!
Lack of jeeps?
Quote from: jomni on November 10, 2014, 05:11:52 PM
Test skirmish battle. Fine tuning the stats. Cavalry charge don't really work head-on. Wonder if that is historical. I'm asking for suggestions on how to tweak the unit stats in the Slitherine forums.
This is looking very nice!
Up until Gustav Adolph, Renaissance European cavalry had pretty much discarded shock tactics. There's probably enough difference in the game parameters in P&S for European cavalry versus Swiss or Landsknecht pikes rather than Samurai versus Ashigaru spearmen to skew things considerably.
On top of that I think the P&S pike formations are probably a bit too invulnerable to cavalry, even given the tactics of the time. Even cuirassiers in P&S can't take on pike formations in a frontal charge. My guess is that not only should you amp up the shock value of Samurai cavalry but turn down the pike formation invulnerability - particularly on the flanks.
Fortunately it should be pretty easy to map the P&S light cavalry to bow armed Samurai cavalry and the cuirassiers to yari and katana armed Samurai.
Being able to set up the forces so that you can skirmish generals is a nice touch!
Quote from: Gusington on November 10, 2014, 08:41:47 AM
I would get this game just to play your Japanese scenario campaign. Didn't realize that full campaigns can be created here.
The way mods work is that all modified data files, 3d models, textures, scenarios, scripts, etc. are placed in a separate campaign folder. That way, they do not mess up the core game assets.
^Yep. For the last 10-12 years...
Quote from: panzerde on November 10, 2014, 05:33:00 PM
Quote from: Cyrano on November 10, 2014, 01:15:08 PM
Well, Jomni is definitely answering the question re: whether or not P&S is moddable!
This era has long been one of my few areas of historical disinterest (can't rightly say why), but I'm glad to see the engine getting some love!
Lack of jeeps?
Ha! ;D
Does Cyrano play anything besides WW2? :))
Quote from: Nefaro on November 10, 2014, 08:23:13 PM
Quote from: panzerde on November 10, 2014, 05:33:00 PM
Lack of jeeps?
Ha! ;D
Does Cyrano play anything besides WW2? :))
He does, he and I are about ten turns in to a Napoleonic scenario in
Campaign Leipzig and within a turn or two of finishing up Pavia in
Renaissance. However, if the game has soft-skinned light personnel carrying vehicles, he has a reputation for bringing overwhelming firepower to bear.
(He's not really that gratuitous in his attacks, but I had to get him back for suggesting that my use of Cossacks to run down his fleeing French skirmishers was 'on par with jeep-killing'). ;)
In all seriousness if you want an excellent PBEM opponent for just about any era, Jim is your man.
Eureka moment.
I may have finally found the solution to my Japanese cavalry problem. Based on the resource below which agrees with GMT Samurai depiction, horse units are mixed. 2 spearmen for each horsemen.
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=277195
Based on this, I will simply model japanese cavalry as fast moving heavy hitting infantry. Of course I will still use a cavalry 3d model. This will make them more valuable and effective than P&S pure horse units. During the Renaissance they are losing their usefulness. It will be a big deviation from common western notion of cavalry.
That's really interesting information, Jomni. It certainly reflects a completely different approach to organization than in a Western army. Somewhat similar to the idea of a Medieval "lance" in some respects, and for similar reasons: these are formations based around fighting between individual noble warriors assisted by retainers.
If these are accurate representations of samurai army organization then there really isn't anything similar to a western heavy cavalry charge being employed. Horses are transport but not used for shock tactics.
Thanks for digging that up! It certainly turns my ideas of Sengoku era army organization upside down. Given that those idea primarily come from playing Total War games, I shouldn't be surprised!
Intersting stuff. Makes you question the classic image of Takeda cavalry charging Oda rifles at Nagashino. Yes they had a lot horses then but not organized as a real cavalry troop. It just meant all the mounted samurai charged ahead of the attached foot troops.
Yeah that's interesting stuff.
I picked up Ran on the GMT sale, along with Hoplite. Gotta decide which to learn & play first. From the sound of it, Hoplite may be quicker to learn since it's a newer trimmed down ruleset, and fewer special rules. But I'm also very curious about some of the historical Sengoku Jidai battles and some of their unique nuances. Tough decision. :smiley6600:
I've always enjoyed playing the Mori Clan in TW. And just getting roflstomped as them in the unfortunately simplistic Paradox game (wish they would've filled that out like CK2! That would be awesome). Not one of the biggest names, so it's a bit off the beaten path. Still need to finish learning A Most Dangerous Time too, although the translated rules can be a bit ambiguous in places. That looked like the only English grand strategy tabletop wargame on the subject that was worth a shot.
Quote from: Nefaro on November 12, 2014, 06:44:13 AM
Yeah that's interesting stuff.
I picked up Ran on the GMT sale, along with Hoplite. Gotta decide which to learn & play first. From the sound of it, Hoplite may be quicker to learn since it's a newer trimmed down ruleset, and fewer special rules. But I'm also very curious about some of the historical Sengoku Jidai battles and some of their unique nuances. Tough decision. :smiley6600:
I've always enjoyed playing the Mori Clan in TW. And just getting roflstomped as them in the unfortunately simplistic Paradox game (wish they would've filled that out like CK2! That would be awesome). Not one of the biggest names, so it's a bit off the beaten path. Still need to finish learning A Most Dangerous Time too, although the translated rules can be a bit ambiguous in places. That looked like the only English grand strategy tabletop wargame on the subject that was worth a shot.
Hoplite is a weirdly subtle and elegant game -- at least for the smaller scenarios. It also includes the largest GBofH scenario, Plataea, which is a different animal, I would think. I doubt I will ever play it.
Sounds interesting.... :coolsmiley:
The famed Takeda cavalry in their red armor. I made the other cavalry (non-hatamoto / bodyguards) wear black so that they can be easily identified. The banner for the bodyguards are big and square (uma-jirushi)to indicate a commander unit instead of the thin unit banners (hata-jirushi, nobori).
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-HSHWTiuvCIU/VGU6E16TjlI/AAAAAAAAI8Q/cJGIZIexREM/w1598-h899-no/2014-11-13_00001.jpg)
Painting the men is tedious. You work with a small 256 x 256 texture file so I have to do it by the pixel.
Quote from: jomni on November 13, 2014, 06:12:13 PM
Painting the men is tedious. You work with a small 256 x 256 texture file so I have to do it by the pixel.
That looks good Jomni.
Conversion mods always take time. I'm sure many modders give up in frustration before finishing because they expected to be done much earlier than they had originally planned. Patience Grasshoppa. :)
Looking really good, Jomni! Keep it up!
Uesugi. Take note of the 'Bi' character in the banner of the horsemen at the back. Kenshin is devoted Bishamonten, a buddhist god of war.
As for the infantry, I changed the tunic color under the black armor to mustard in a newer version.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-1BnSIEeGTNc/VGavJH-B3gI/AAAAAAAAI9M/wToxEKafD5E/w1598-h899-no/2014-11-15_00002.jpg)
Takeda army fully painted. Red armor troops are elite.
As for the infantry, I changed the pants color to grey in a newer version as they looked too much like spiderman.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-TB_-HvDPZsI/VGaR2qlGUyI/AAAAAAAAI80/Y4H89P4UQ_4/w1598-h899-no/2014-11-15_00001.jpg)
Pike and Shot is the topic of this weeks Three Moves Ahead podcast
https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/this-is-my-arquebus
Thought you might like this Extra History youtube on the Sengoku Jidai: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDsdkoln59A
Looks like I stumbled into a limitation in the editor. You can only make use of a limited number of skins per 3d model. My mod shares the same 3d models of the different generals. So my dreams of having several generals with their own banners in a single battle are shattered.
I'm stumped! Whatever I do from now will just be for skirmish. :/
Pike and Shot Patched.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=299&t=54371&sid=3e77aeffa5250cd16862af215b3e06c8
But there's a problem with the non-Steam installer. Steam is fine.
Quote from: jomni on November 26, 2014, 09:36:37 PM
Pike and Shot Patched.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=299&t=54371&sid=3e77aeffa5250cd16862af215b3e06c8 (http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=299&t=54371&sid=3e77aeffa5250cd16862af215b3e06c8)
But there's a problem with the non-Steam installer. Steam is fine.
Some nice fixes and additions. I'm most interested in the idea of being able to set up PBEM games with custom points. I just picked up All is Lost Save Honour (http://italianwars.net/games/all_is_lost_save_honour) and might look at P&S as an alternative means of resolving the tactical combat.
Quote from: jomni on November 20, 2014, 08:11:43 PM
Looks like I stumbled into a limitation in the editor. You can only make use of a limited number of skins per 3d model. My mod shares the same 3d models of the different generals. So my dreams of having several generals with their own banners in a single battle are shattered.
I'm stumped! Whatever I do from now will just be for skirmish. :/
I've increased the number of possible texture sets and so that will be in a future patch.
Cheers
Pip
Quote from: PipFromSlitherine on November 27, 2014, 12:52:49 PM
Quote from: jomni on November 20, 2014, 08:11:43 PM
Looks like I stumbled into a limitation in the editor. You can only make use of a limited number of skins per 3d model. My mod shares the same 3d models of the different generals. So my dreams of having several generals with their own banners in a single battle are shattered.
I'm stumped! Whatever I do from now will just be for skirmish. :/
I've increased the number of possible texture sets and so that will be in a future patch.
Cheers
Pip
Great news.
Looks like they've put in some useful changes. :)
Unit portraits replaced. O0
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-C9O_s04T1vE/VHnLWuDYveI/AAAAAAAAJCM/-ACouzeHbhE/w1598-h899-no/2014-11-29_00002.jpg)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-jnUQBXuAfdY/VHnLWrly4XI/AAAAAAAAJCI/SNelh40e5i0/w1598-h899-no/2014-11-29_00001.jpg)
The lack of leaders in this game is really a problem. Command and leadership were such a big deal in the era and I'm really feeling the lack of leader units. The melee, rout, and pursuit mechanics are very period. Adding leaders and some simple command rules would really make a difference in this game.
Quote from: panzerde on November 29, 2014, 08:38:34 PM
The lack of leaders in this game is really a problem. Command and leadership were such a big deal in the era and I'm really feeling the lack of leader units. The melee, rout, and pursuit mechanics are very period. Adding leaders and some simple command rules would really make a difference in this game.
I asked for leaders in the Slitherine forums and how to actually code them. It seems pretty logical that one can implement bonuses to units within the leaders radius, gets more movement points, combat bonus etc. It may possible though complicated but I did not dig deeper. Why? Because I realized the AI will not be using the leaders as they should when implemented. These things should be a native implementation rather than a mod.
Quote from: jomni on November 30, 2014, 12:41:21 AM
I asked for leaders in the Slitherine forums and how to actually code them. It seems pretty logical that one can implement bonuses to units within the leaders radius, gets more movement points, combat bonus etc. It may possible though complicated but I did not dig deeper. Why? Because I realized the AI will not be using the leaders as they should when implemented. These things should be a native implementation rather than a mod.
+1 to this. I understand the desire to have a simple game to increase the appeal, but let's face it, a game that covers pike and shot warfare is never going to be "mainstream" even if you define mainstream as "people who will play a simple WW2 game." The lack of things like leaders and their accompanying formations makes P&S ultimately a bit shallow in terms of replay value.
I've completely given up on the historical battles, for example. There really is no point in trying to simulate Breitenfeld or Lutzen or White Mountain without leadership effects. Several of these battles completely revolved around the army leadership. Trying to simulate them without it isn't a historical scenario, it's just plopping some generic units on a map that vaguely resembles the field in question, and smashing them together.
The redeeming aspect of P&S IMO is the skirmish engine. That's a nice laboratory for trying out different army compositions against each other. From that perspective I guess it shows it's FOG roots - FOG is much the same way regarding historical versus skirmish battles. FOG has leaders, though.
Quote from: jomni on November 30, 2014, 12:41:21 AM
Quote from: panzerde on November 29, 2014, 08:38:34 PM
The lack of leaders in this game is really a problem. Command and leadership were such a big deal in the era and I'm really feeling the lack of leader units. The melee, rout, and pursuit mechanics are very period. Adding leaders and some simple command rules would really make a difference in this game.
I asked for leaders in the Slitherine forums and how to actually code them. It seems pretty logical that one can implement bonuses to units within the leaders radius, gets more movement points, combat bonus etc. It may possible though complicated but I did not dig deeper. Why? Because I realized the AI will not be using the leaders as they should when implemented. These things should be a native implementation rather than a mod.
I know Richard and Iain had their reasons for not including leaders, but just to note that you can also custom script the AI in any campaign, and so that is no impediment to implementing leaders in a mod :)
Cheers
Pip
Working on Japanese terrain. Only works in the editor. Skirmish mode will always randomly generate a map using the original Central Europe scenery. :tickedoff:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steampowered.com%2Fugc%2F49867799031816691%2FF8E0AD05CC510808322F71ADED3917D29529E81D%2F&hash=49fba10494333d20eab9f3968b02f46bbd9fa4db)
New patch. They're addressing one of the limitations in my modding which is using and modding the Ramdom Map generation script.
Quote from: PipFromSlitherine on December 01, 2014, 01:59:08 PM
Quote from: jomni on November 30, 2014, 12:41:21 AM
Quote from: panzerde on November 29, 2014, 08:38:34 PM
The lack of leaders in this game is really a problem. Command and leadership were such a big deal in the era and I'm really feeling the lack of leader units. The melee, rout, and pursuit mechanics are very period. Adding leaders and some simple command rules would really make a difference in this game.
I asked for leaders in the Slitherine forums and how to actually code them. It seems pretty logical that one can implement bonuses to units within the leaders radius, gets more movement points, combat bonus etc. It may possible though complicated but I did not dig deeper. Why? Because I realized the AI will not be using the leaders as they should when implemented. These things should be a native implementation rather than a mod.
I know Richard and Iain had their reasons for not including leaders, but just to note that you can also custom script the AI in any campaign, and so that is no impediment to implementing leaders in a mod :)
Cheers
Pip
It would be nice to know their reasons as it is a bizarre and in my opinion poor decision that every time I fire it up completely kills my interest. Dumbing down a game with this subject matter is well, just dumb.
I didn't even take notice of a need for leadership. I didn't expect it to be The Great Battles series or anything. *shrug*
Quote from: Nefaro on December 13, 2014, 06:21:35 AM
I didn't even take notice of a need for leadership. I didn't expect it to be The Great Battles series or anything. *shrug*
Well it's based on FOG and FOG has leaders.
It's the bit that Jomni mentions that really puzzles me. I'll admit to always having been a DBR for this period (or a DBA extension when I was getting lazy), but this is built far more like FOG:R than FOG:A was and it's a noticeable omission for that reason.
Breitenfeld and Lutzen aren't quite the same for me without Gustavus and the less said about certain ECW battles without Cromwell and Fairfax the better.
Don't get me wrong, I'm quite grateful to have a good game in this niche of niches, but I hope it's successful enough for them to consider taking a swipe at leaders down the road.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Pike and Shot Expansion is coming. More factions, units and battles.
http://www.slitherine.com/games/ps_ts
Quote from: jomni on February 18, 2015, 06:11:42 AM
Pike and Shot Expansion is coming. More factions, units and battles.
http://www.slitherine.com/games/ps_ts
Still no leaders by the looks of things though.
The game is just a little bland without that flavour I find.
A day one purchase for me. I love this game.
A little update, I am in the midst of rewriting the squads.csv file. Unit stats will be patterned after Field of Glory Renaissance Asian armies. After that I will paint some units and create army lists. Priority is to get at least two factions in Skirmish. Editing random map generation script for Japan terrain is also planned. Canned scenarios will be done last and will be somewhat based on GMT Great Battles of History Samurai.
Factions:
Unifiers = Oda, Toyotomi, Tokugawa, Uesugi, Aoi (generic blue force)
Opponents = Takeda, Imagawa, Uesugi, Ishida, Ikko ikki, Akai (generic red force) etc.
Uesugi appears on both sides but at different times. Early on Uesugi was at odds with Takeda. After Takeda was defeated by Oda, Oda and Uesugi battled each other. The actual 3 Unifiers of Japan during the era are Oda, Toyotomi, and Tokugawa. Generic blue and red forces are included for fun.
I will also build Imjin War (Korean Invasion) armies namely Joseon Koreans and Ming Chinese. These should be paired againt the Japanese Toyotomi clan units in Skirmish.
New 3D assets are not a priority but it may eventually find its way in the mod especially in the terrain aspect.
Cool.
No Mori clan? I am disappoint.
Quote from: Nefaro on March 11, 2015, 10:36:30 PM
Cool.
No Mori clan? I am disappoint.
Maybe in as part of opponents. They weren't present as a major faction in GMT Samurai scenarios. They fought against Toyotomi. They were an alliance leader vs. Tokugawa but the over all leader in the Battle of Sekigahara is Ishida. They were a no-show in the battle. Shimazu also comes to mind.
You have GMT Ran right? Who else is there?
Quote from: jomni on March 11, 2015, 10:55:17 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on March 11, 2015, 10:36:30 PM
Cool.
No Mori clan? I am disappoint.
Maybe in as part of opponents. They weren't present as a major faction in GMT Samurai scenarios. They fought against Toyotomi. They were an alliance leader vs. Tokugawa but the over all leader in the Battle of Sekigahara is Ishida. They were a no-show in the battle. Shimazu also comes to mind.
You have GMT Ran right? Who else is there?
Yes, I have
Ran.
It also has Hojo, Takeda, Amako, Otomo, Shimazu, Ikeda, Tokugawa, Ryuzoji, Date, Ashina, and Toyotomi along with many of their smaller subordinate and allied troops. In 7 battles.
FWIW...just finished playing some more quick battles with this game. I really do enjoy the title, but I agree it would benefit greatly from leader units. I would also like to see a "unit performance" screen at the end of each battle, so that you can go back and see survey individual unit losses, number of casaulties caused. Etc. Admittedly I am geek for this kind of statistics based stuff (heck - it's what computers are DESIGNED for). It's one of the reason I used to enjoy playing Waterloo: Napolean's Last Battle so much.
There's a debate about leaders in the Slitherine forum. A majority has voiced concerns that leaders historically do not add much in renaissance era battle. Leaders that run around the battlefield rallying and inspiring units "Total War style" does not simulate the chain of command during that era. Less commanders in chief are leading charges and fighting from the front. Individual battlefield leaders were more influential during ancient times. The brilliant leaders of the renaissance were more responsible for development of organization and tactics which happen before the battle.
I partly agree. As for Sengoku Japan, the Commander in Chief stays in his command tent. But ancient / mediveal style leadership is also practiced. The battlefield commanders do the rallying and inspiring but it is limited to their own followers / units. They do not go rallying other general's men as in Field of Glory rules and Total War gameplay. But not sure about renaissance Europe as I'm not an expert in that topic.
Having Leaders as Mobile Bonus Units isn't something I think games of this scale really need.
The only time you need leaders, IMO, is when you have a command structure modelled in the game mechanics. Like that in Scourge Of War or in the Great Battles series where turn sequence & activations are tied to them. Otherwise, they're just some unessential bonus DRM fluff.
Leadership, and that from the front, was vital in this era.
Gustavus is the easiest example, but Cromwell, Fairfax, Parma, Wallenstein, &c., counted as well.
The critical piece to note is that the game that this is notionally based on has them. Why? Because they mattered and it made good sense to include them.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Nefaro on March 13, 2015, 05:39:50 AM
Having Leaders as Mobile Bonus Units isn't something I think games of this scale really need.
The only time you need leaders, IMO, is when you have a command structure modelled in the game mechanics. Like that in Scourge Of War or in the Great Battles series where turn sequence & activations are tied to them. Otherwise, they're just some unessential bonus DRM fluff.
I am not talking about this particular game by Slitherine, but rather the period instead. I don't really entirely know if it is inessential bonus dice roll modifier stuff in that how else would you be able to rationalise why it was that Gustavus Adophus felt compelled to lead charges -one of which resulted in his death? Why exactly would a king go and do that unless he felt there was some sort of advantage because of his presence; it had to be more than just he could whack a whole lot of enemies and tip the balance -so it had to be down to more than any sort of individual impact...
But the real thing I wanted to talk more about, is how do you avoid having a command structure built into the mechanics in so far as if you accept that the reason all of the formations in this period were compacted - very compacted, and I don't mean just say a combined pike and musket unit ... but entire formations of them which were mutually supporting, if it was not down to some sort of command control factor? The other thing too is, that if subleaders (below say a wing, vanguard, or centre) had no role -then wouldn't this basically encourage units to spread out all over a field of battle? I don't know that it would be a good enough solution to restrict the size of the battle field on a map - because, really these guys back then -would go out of their way to pick their spots to situate their lines of battle - and these lines were uniformly compact (when compared to later periods) ... again due to command control - I guess in a sense a lot of it had to do with being aware of what the formations on either side of you were doing as to how stable a particular group might stand...
I had bought the FoG:Ren mini rules in (what turned out to be vain) hopes that I could work out what was going on when compared to reference material -unfortunately all there were (including in the supplements) were several army lists and no specific scenarios or description of what was in the rules when compared to the actual events of a given battle... kind of s disappointment, but I did have to know... In other words it is pretty much impossible to directly compare the FoG:Ren mini rules to say, something like the Father Tilly system.
Thing is though - I am not going to claim that I have the answer for something like GA and the impact I described -it is a tough one as the results run counter-intuitively to what one might expect to happen -otoh there is the theory that after Breitenfeld and even Rain that GA thought himself invincible... (spoiler alert: he was vincible -to paraphrase Flight of the Conchords). :D
Preview of my new units.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F531762467434682492%2FBA3B4816C5E340FA95FE6957F86787FB7EC401F3%2F&hash=4e116e317760b87f95c6fdf6e3fb4c663ad42c2f)
From top left:
Ronin (swordsmen)
Samurai Teppo (dragoons)
Sohei Warrior Monks (heavy weapons)
Mounted Samurai Yumi (mounted archers)
Excellent. O0
Quote from: Nefaro on March 18, 2015, 01:27:42 PM
Excellent. O0
thanks. I think the first public build will be out in a month or two if i stick to the current pace. Reading the FOGR Asian armies expansion help speed things up with regards to conceptualization.
Very impressive work, Jomni.
Working on new 3D models. This is the HQ unit. Immobile and high-value. O0 Let's see how it looks like in the game (smaller and less detail textures).
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-yH1suxNr0RE/VRYQKI_kFBI/AAAAAAAAJw8/NNsz0hiapfQ/w1152-h726-no/2015-03-28_101952.jpg)
Looks like the exporter doesn't work. Scripts must be too old. :-[
Good target for a decapitation. >:D
That's awesome!
Blue army on the march.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F531763552343306256%2FCB0435B9D6E8307413A67253569504E517912C13%2F&hash=dbbb5c1235d67408443b123034f3e493bef5e05c)
Red Army in defensive position with Japansese style mantlets auto deployed in Skirmish mode. Don't worry too much about the buildings. They will turn into real Japanese huts, shinto shrines, and buddhist temples. The fields are to become rice paddies.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F531763737825773838%2F4F9E0C0A95A99E579B1C98F7D87E6A1B6EF69DCD%2F&hash=cd7fd3a8e15a228124f759d7eebe30f8bc3437e8)
O0
Really looks like you're going to achieve a full conversion. 8)
Does setting up the canned battles require a lot of time or not? I've not checked out the editor. I'm also very curious if the random battles generator would still work well with them.
Quote from: Nefaro on April 02, 2015, 12:39:14 PM
Does setting up the canned battles require a lot of time or not? I've not checked out the editor. I'm also very curious if the random battles generator would still work well with them.
The UI of the editor is horrendous! I have yet to really learn them. Then there's scripting if I want to implement some special rules or make the AI a bit smarter.
Random battles are my focus for now. O0
I'd be interested to know what about the editor UI you find problematic? It can be a little intimidating at first (bear in mind it's the tool we use to build the game so...).
One thing to bear in mind is you can get one-click random maps built in the editor (using the same script as the skirmish system) and then tweak them or just lay down your forces etc.
Cheers
Pip
Quote from: PipFromSlitherine on April 02, 2015, 06:13:31 PM
I'd be interested to know what about the editor UI you find problematic? It can be a little intimidating at first (bear in mind it's the tool we use to build the game so...).
One thing to bear in mind is you can get one-click random maps built in the editor (using the same script as the skirmish system) and then tweak them or just lay down your forces etc.
Cheers
Pip
Most functions are "hotkey driven". Just have to sit down and learn them eventually. Where can I get a refresher?
I changed the default defenses from mantlets to horse barriers (umabosaku). I think they look better than a long array of mantlets. The mantlets can still be used in custom battles.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F531763737830889110%2F154F9C1F31F7DA25B8BCD12A0172604443212EF2%2F&hash=fd6063fded65971c00830ed88157afbc7d35c70a)
It's looking really nice. How far do you reckon the mod is from completion?
Quote from: Boggit on April 04, 2015, 01:25:12 PM
It's looking really nice. How far do you reckon the mod is from completion?
What I have to do before first public version:
1. Finish new 3D terrain objects
2. Edit the random map generaiton
3. Complete the army lists for Red and Blue armies.
First public version is fully playable between Red and Blue samurai armies in skirmish mode.
Future versions will be more about painting the other clans and creating historical scenarios as all the building blocks are complete.
Pike and Shot Tercio to Salvo expansion released!
Base game updated to 1.04.
QuoteSkirmishes have been updated to offer additional customisation options, including allowing the type of territory to be selected - Agricultural, Hilly, Wooded or Mountainous
O0
We're clearly not in Europe anymore.
Rice paddies, oriental buildings, shinto shrines, buddhist temples, pagodas...
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F531764507020977538%2F8F3B9EADB8F9B1139453743F05FDB2BE34324102%2F&hash=c8a8d4a81018f0208244f73d85887d3ae53a76a3)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F531764507020980548%2FFCA1C389401D04E3921BB78807DFDCC5091A6AC6%2F&hash=d550ebf5562562ac1e885598e8f2e426549ae126)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F531764507020980871%2F9B65460247825DE3B37CB43C0BA375126993D9E5%2F&hash=ab4c633eb79d168a8597489ee84f8e6ee226ce13)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F531764507020981219%2F8D60F9BAD56E7AFD8BDB035043C3C74EF44FBDD7%2F&hash=b53917aa535e4ea80a105b7be62eb250035d067a)
Wow! Very nice!
Nice work!
Very nice buildings and rice paddies. Good job!
Great job Jomni O0
Nicely done, sir. 8)
For those following my mod, I will be changing the 3d model of the default infantry. The infantry can be either 500 or 800 men. Currently both in square block formation so we cannot distinguish visually. Would you like to see wider frontage for the 500 man unit? Then the 800 man unit will have deeper ranks. Or shall I keep the 500 man unit square and make the 800 man unit a bit wider? Historically I think samurai armies don't really keep clean formations.
I would think widening the frontage for the larger force makes the most sense. But that could have repercussions if there are too many on maps with limited size. Dunno.
Quote from: Nefaro on April 10, 2015, 11:42:16 AM
I would think widening the frontage for the larger force makes the most sense. But that could have repercussions if there are too many on maps with limited size. Dunno.
It's just cosmetic. They all fit in the same square.
Something like this
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F531764507026389780%2F95C8E5D550A90F067793908BE09930E9A23C5638%2F&hash=1cd26a50abcd6591a33384aa4f93a993abd1fe7a)
I got the impression, from some of the OOB stuff you posted awhile back, that they were more spread out like that. Rather than deep squares of men. Is that the case? At least.. regarding ashigaru infantry. Not sure about cav or archer units. *shrug*
While I find the SJ quite interesting, I have almost no knowledge of their low level unit organization and tactics, other than what you posted here.
Quote from: Nefaro on April 11, 2015, 02:41:51 AM
I got the impression, from some of the OOB stuff you posted awhile back, that they were more spread out like that. Rather than deep squares of men. Is that the case? At least.. regarding ashigaru infantry. Not sure about cav or archer units. *shrug*
While I find the SJ quite interesting, I have almost no knowledge of their low level unit organization and tactics, other than what you posted here.
I also don't know. I think they're just mobs. Lol! They only became organized spearmen fighting in formation near the 1600's.
Unit identification can be problem as the order of battle has several quality levels and number of men. Based on Richard Bodley Scott's (Byzantine Games) suggestion, I devised a scheme that will enable the players to identify the units easily. So here are the Yari (spear units) for the generic Red and Blue armies.
Front row = Superior / Elite. They have three fancy flags (hatajirushi) and have colored or black armor.
2nd row = Average. They have two normal flags, brown armor, colorful clothes.
3rd row = Raw. They have one simple flag, brown armor, drab clothes.
As you can see, unit size can also be distinguished in the model. The smaller one represents 6 FOG bases or 500 men. The larger one is for 8 FOG bases or 800 men.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F531764507028252165%2F521F58FE235E3F989ECFB766B27A8CAEA64CAFBC%2F&hash=9a941cd8b924b185a6800328a18c3c21ab1872a4)
Jomni, You've done some lovely work O0with your mod. I'm really impressed! I can't wait for it to go public! O0
They told me not to use copyrighted images. So I drew my own stuff just to make sure. This is the Yari Samurai unit portrait.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-oqstPFnOMqs/VTPEQi3oasI/AAAAAAAAJ-g/P-5HDhYtXPI/w636-h899-no/Samurai.jpg)
That's great! O0
Also, for anyone that hasn't tried them yet, some of the new Community scenarios are very well done. The two that I've tried so far had amazing maps, and much more accurate OOBs. Copredy Bridge in particular impressed me.
This looks really good Jomni! O0
Quote from: Toonces on April 19, 2015, 01:38:32 PM
This looks really good Jomni! O0
+1 That is excellent. I wouldn't mind a framed copy to hang on the wall O0
Quote from: bob48 on April 19, 2015, 04:36:38 PM
Quote from: Toonces on April 19, 2015, 01:38:32 PM
This looks really good Jomni! O0
+1 That is excellent. I wouldn't mind a framed copy to hang on the wall O0
Thanks guys. I learned a lot of tricks in this project.
1) 3D model buildings in Sketchup.
2) 3D stuff (modeling and skinning) in Blender.
3) Digital hand drawing with Intuos pen and tablet using Clip Studio Paint (Manga drawing software).
This is in addition to my existing photo editing skills with Gimp and some coding knowledge.
Someone from Slitherine forums say that my mod should be an official expansion.
Thanks to Richard Bodley Scott for being part of the creative process and "pushing" me to do more.
Quote from: jomni on April 19, 2015, 10:11:43 AM
They told me not to use copyrighted images. So I drew my own stuff just to make sure. This is the Yari Samurai unit portrait.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-oqstPFnOMqs/VTPEQi3oasI/AAAAAAAAJ-g/P-5HDhYtXPI/w636-h899-no/Samurai.jpg)
You drew that? Wow. Looks better than many tabletop wargames' artwork.
Quote from: jomni on April 19, 2015, 09:06:12 PM
Someone from Slitherine forums say that my mod should be an official expansion.
I agree with them, once your mod gets fully finished. O0 May be worth looking into.
Quote from: Nefaro on April 19, 2015, 10:38:09 PM
Quote from: jomni on April 19, 2015, 10:11:43 AM
They told me not to use copyrighted images. So I drew my own stuff just to make sure. This is the Yari Samurai unit portrait.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-oqstPFnOMqs/VTPEQi3oasI/AAAAAAAAJ-g/P-5HDhYtXPI/w636-h899-no/Samurai.jpg)
You drew that? Wow. Looks better than many tabletop wargames' artwork.
I traced some old japanese woodblock print and changed the armor to something contemporary (Sengoku era). Changed the weapon too. It completely looks different from the original save for the pose.
For those who like the period there is a lecutre on the 24th in New York.
The Rise of Infantry should be very exciting.\
http://bobrowen.com/nymas/
The original period doesn't hold a whole lot of interest for me, but I would buy the game just to play that mod. When do you expect it to be available?
Quote from: besilarius on April 20, 2015, 05:28:26 PM
For those who like the period there is a lecutre on the 24th in New York.
The Rise of Infantry should be very exciting.\
http://bobrowen.com/nymas/
FWIW, the Soldiers and Sailors Club on Lexington Avenue is a really great place.
Quote from: tgb on April 20, 2015, 07:24:53 PM
The original period doesn't hold a whole lot of interest for me, but I would buy the game just to play that mod. When do you expect it to be available?
Here's the plan as stated before.
I'm now doing the original artwork. So it may take a month if I keep my pace. Then it's ready for initial release. It only has two generic red and blue factions and no historical scenario, just skirmish (Done). these two sides will each have different army lists from 1500 - 1600 (Done). You can see the evolution from classical samurai horse archers to mounted shock cavalry and their eventual decline due to firearms. The dwindling % of Samurai compared Ashigaru (common infantry). The increasing pominence of firearms. The evolution of warrior (man-to-man) tactics to organized foot formations. By the 1600s, troops will behave much like European renaissance counterparts except melee troops will be more dominant. Of course Samurai who fight in the traditional "warrior" style will still be around.
Next release will have the prominent historical clans in central Japan. All playable in Skirmish with their alliances and relations taken into consideration.
Subsequent releases will have historical battles along with new non-Japanese factions (Joseon Koreans, Ming Chinese).
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-YE4iyTzg4NA/VTtkpcMLZgI/AAAAAAAAKBA/5xjcnrWVa2w/w636-h899-no/Horse%2BYumi.jpg)
On a related note to P&S...has anyone tried the new content, tercio and salvo?
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on April 25, 2015, 09:29:03 PM
On a related note to P&S...has anyone tried the new content, tercio and salvo?
I have it but haven't tried playing since I'm moding. But I know that the skirmish is better because you can now choose the terrain (Agrarian, Hills, Forest, Mountain).
But this comes as a game engine change and not specific to the expansion. With regards to the expansion, I guess it's just more of the same... more armies, different time frame.
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on April 25, 2015, 09:29:03 PM
On a related note to P&S...has anyone tried the new content, tercio and salvo?
I have it, but haven't played many of the scenarios yet. Jomni is right on; it looks like more of the same with different armies and time periods. That's a good thing, IMHO.
I've actually spent more time with the recently released Community Scenarios that can be downloaded from within the game. The ones I've played so far are definitely superior to any included in the game, with better maps and more historical OOBs.
Quote from: panzerde on April 26, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on April 25, 2015, 09:29:03 PM
On a related note to P&S...has anyone tried the new content, tercio and salvo?
I have it, but haven't played many of the scenarios yet. Jomni is right on; it looks like more of the same with different armies and time periods. That's a good thing, IMHO.
I've actually spent more time with the recently released Community Scenarios that can be downloaded from within the game. The ones I've played so far are definitely superior to any included in the game, with better maps and more historical OOBs.
Here's a list of community scenarios for those who have and don't have Pike and Shot:
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=299&t=55562
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-LSWu1gJoFBg/VW7-rjlA01I/AAAAAAAAKNk/r6hWoZoUucU/w1598-h899-no/2015-06-03_00001.jpg)
I can't believe I missed this.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=299&t=65198&p=557481#p557481
Key words: persistent campaign, strategic map, resources, sieges.
My loins are moistening at the thought.
Quote from: jomni on June 24, 2015, 03:12:11 AM
I can't believe I missed this.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=299&t=65198&p=557481#p557481
Key words: persistent campaign, strategic map, resources, sieges.
Quote..Beta of Pike and Shot Gold..
Gold?
I suppose we'll be buying a full version once again?
Quote from: Nefaro on June 24, 2015, 10:59:42 AM
Quote from: jomni on June 24, 2015, 03:12:11 AM
I can't believe I missed this.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=299&t=65198&p=557481#p557481
Key words: persistent campaign, strategic map, resources, sieges.
Quote..Beta of Pike and Shot Gold..
Gold?
I suppose we'll be buying a full version once again?
Beats me. But they said the new features will not make its way to the iPad version. Since Apple will stop accepting 32bit programs.
So it seems to be a separate product. Hope there's an upgrade path.
Pike and Shot: Campaigns announced (http://www.matrixgames.com/news/1751/Pike.and.Shot:.Campaigns.announced!)
Quote
Pike and Shot: Campaigns is a brand new all-in-one package. It includes the Pike and Shot base game and the Tercio to Salvo expansion, plus 21 new skirmish army lists for the rest of Europe during the period of the Italian Wars (1494-1559) covering the armies of England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, German States, Austria, Hungary, Transylvania, the Ottoman Empire, Poland-Lithuania and Russia!
But the main new feature is the strategic map system, implemented to allow you to lead your armies to victory over an entire theatre of operations, taking into account strategic considerations such as terrain, available manpower, supply, attrition, sieges and economic damage.
Pike and Shot: Campaigns includes 4 campaigns:
- Gustavus Adolphus, set in the "Swedish phase" of the Thirty Years War, allows you to play as Swedes or Imperialists.
- English Civil War allows you to play as Royalists or Parliamentarians.
- Great Turkish War, set in the period of the famous Siege and Battle of Vienna in 1683, allows you to play as Austria and Poland or as the Ottoman Empire.
- Pike and Shot allows you to match any two armies from 1494 to 1648 in a struggle for dominance.
If you already own Pike and Shot and Tercio to Salvo, prepare for a great promotion. The game launches on August 13th!
What with AGEOD's Thirty Years War in development, and this coming out soon, I'm in renaissance heaven. :smitten:
Here's Pike and Shot Campaigns in action.
I have to say, as much as I love the era I think I'm giving this a miss. The campaign layer is far too coarse with the focus being on regions and not cities/towns. There's not really much there. It also looks like there's no attempt at historical units in the campaigns. When I see stuff like "Royalist 4th Pike & Shot" as a unit name that sucks an awful lot of the enjoyment out of the game for me.
So, since this looks to be a pretty simplistic campaign layer that doesn't have much relationship to the realities of campaigning in the era, I'll stick with the original game. I'm hoping the new AGEOD title will be more historical.
Basically, the campaign is a just a way to tie together the skirmish battles.
You can't have historical unit names when the units are actually raised by the player "skirmish style".
But if you raise units from a fixed set of OOB, then that can be done in a historical way.
Agree, that the "4th" naming convention is quite funny and off-era.
The lack of a cohesive campaign was the only thing keeping me from getting the original. I've got my eye on this one.
My campaign AAR has been published by Slitherine. Hope you get a picture of how the campaign works.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=299&t=66598&sid=b829655e168003b9f3a7f1de6e3fe0a0
I'm liking what I'm seeing here. Is this the only area of the campaign, central Germany?
I've been on the verge of buying this game for a while. If the campaign layer adds anything at all, I am going to finally take the plunge.
That's how I feel, but with the original game priced at $40 and the expansion at $20, I have a feeling this will be another Matrix "premium" package for $70-$80.
Frankly I expected them to put vanilla P&S on sale this week to coincide with the release, and the fact that they didn't only shores up my argument.
Quote from: Sir Slash on August 11, 2015, 10:17:11 AM
I'm liking what I'm seeing here. Is this the only area of the campaign, central Germany?
Germany (Adolphus Gustavus campaign)
Balkans (Turkish wars)
Randomized Genereric / Fictional (Sandbox campaign, pick any country vs another country)...
Thanks Jomni.
Campaigns is out, at the surprisingly low price of $39.99 (same as vanilla P&S), or $36.99 on Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/377520/?snr=1_7_15__13). That makes it cheaper than getting P&S plus the Tercio expansion. Can Matrix finally be coming to their senses regarding pricing?
Downloading now.
Quote from: tgb on August 13, 2015, 05:41:31 AM
Campaigns is out, at the surprisingly low price of $39.99 (same as vanilla P&S), or $36.99 on Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/377520/?snr=1_7_15__13). That makes it cheaper than getting P&S plus the Tercio expansion. Can Matrix finally be coming to their senses regarding pricing?
Downloading now.
Is that also the price for owners of the original game and the tercio expansion? If so, that is far from a reasonable price and I'd say you've been drinking the koolaid.
No, owners of the previous version get a 75% discount, so $10.
Quote from: tgb on August 13, 2015, 07:01:15 AM
No, owners of the previous version get a 75% discount, so $10.
Sweet! I was going to say!
I just got Pike and Shot Campaigns on Steam for $6.00, that's 85% off. It was listed for me as a special promotion till August 20, and I don't have the previous versions.
10 % off untill August 20 over here.
Quote from: Pete Dero on August 13, 2015, 02:40:23 PM
10 % off untill August 20 over here.
Yeah, I see that they're stacking the 10% with the 75% for owning the core game. A very good deal to start out.
I'll grab it for $6, even if I don't see it as a particularly compelling campaign layer. Even $10 it's a good deal.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on August 13, 2015, 02:41:38 PM
Quote from: Pete Dero on August 13, 2015, 02:40:23 PM
10 % off untill August 20 over here.
Yeah, I see that they're stacking the 10% with the 75% for owning the core game. A very good deal to start out.
I pulled the trigger, expecting to pay full price, and it came up as six dollars. HELL YEAH!!!!! ;D
I'd have paid $6 for the Elizabethan army.
Let that sink in folks. There's now a game available on Steam that includes a reasonable -- not perfect by any stretch but reasonable -- facsimile of an Elizabethan army with which you can fight tabletop-ish battles.
Some of what Slitherine has put out of late has been a grievous disappointment, but, man, these are the good old days.
For those who are interested, I've made a second version of my Period Music mod to work in Pike and Shot Campaigns.
Here's a link to the thread at the Slitherine forums that has links to the Steam and non-Steam versions of the regular Pike and Shot Period Music mod, as well as to the Steam and non-Steam versions of the (essentially identical) Pike and Shot Campaigns Period Music mod.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=322&p=565557#p565557
To get a sense of what the mod sounds like, all of the music in the mod comes from music that was inlcuded in this thread, also at the Slitherine forums:
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=299&t=62438
Not all of the music in this thread shows up in the mod, but if you don't like the music in the thread, you won't like the Period Music mod.
(And yes, I'm Philippe_at_bay over there because my name was already taken).
I bought and it is pretty good, especially for $6.
Does anyone know how to play either side in the historical battles?
Pricing is important....for me anyway. I never bought the original game because it just seemed expensive for the feature set.
However, Campaigns is just right in the price / feature mix: IMHO. I didn't get it for $6, but picked it up for $35. It is still a great game at that price.
Now, if they will just do something about the price of Brother against Brother.
Does the new Campaign game contain the complete first release as well?
Quote from: Rayfer on August 15, 2015, 07:57:05 AM
Does the new Campaign game contain the complete first release as well?
Yes. And the expansion too.
There is a compelling reason for buying Pike and Shot Campaigns even if you already own Pike and Shot which I will attempt to articulate.
Pike and Shot Campaigns will become the base game for Pike and Shot, and will be the one getting all of the patches.
It also has, if I am not mistaken, a lot more army lists available for scenarios, and I wouldn't be surprised if more were on the way.
This is important because what makes this game really shine is the scenario-modding community that has grown up around it.
I will admit to having been a bit lukewarm about the game in the begining, but when I saw the raft of detailed scenarios by competent designers that started coming out, I had an early days Combat Mission flashback and realized that what I wanted from the game that the base game wouldn't provide, the independant scenario designers could and would provide in spades. I still remember putting together a compendium of scenarios for the old Combat Mission and being blown away by the quantity and quality of user-made scenarios. That same thing is happening in Pike and Shot, and as user-made scenarios start getting made for army lists that only show up in Campaigns, I suspect those scenarios will only work in Pike and Shot Campaigns rather than the original Pike and Shot.
I think we've been given a hint of the kind of army lists that may be coming out in future patches by one of the campaigns in Pike and Shot Campaigns. One of the campaigns in Campaigns is late 17th century. If patches extend the army lists to that period, it opens up a lot of fascinating battles from the second half of that century (but I'm still talking about pre-Malborough warfare). And even if there aren't any official scenarios covering battles from that period, those army lists will be jumped on by scenario designers.
So that in itself is enough reason to buy Campaigns. To my warped point of view the campaigns are a lot of fun, but are sort of a consolation prize for having to get a new base game.
Yeah, but for people who already own the base game it's only $6, and for those of us who didn't up until now, it was still less than the original + DLC. If the plan was to bring in new owners, I think it worked.
BTW, I installed your music mod and really like it a lot.
At the price, it's a no-brainer.
This would make a good engine for medieval battles - a severely under represented field in computer wargaming
Quote from: Zulu1966 on August 15, 2015, 02:13:04 PM
This would make a good engine for medieval battles - a severely under represented field in computer wargaming
You're right. It would be pretty cool if they had one with a campaign system like this. I wonder if they're making another one with this engine, in a different period.
Of course, I would also buy one set in the Classical period. I can never get enough of those. While I enjoyed FOG for a bit it's just one-off battles, the results can seem a bit too random at times and, most importantly, the single-player AI is easy to beat. There is also the big issue of all the high-priced DLC that requires a large investment to own. I never bought any due to the expense (and the lack of AI challenge), but this engine could do a better job IMO.
Development route here will indeed be interesting.
Two Historicons ago, Ian told me the plan was for FoG:Napoleonics (makes the most sense honestly) and then to work towards the FoG: Ancients re-boot to bring it to this standard.
Curious what the choice will be in the end, but glad to see this one coming from humbler beginnings and really at least starting to thrive.
All custom scenarios will work on the new version as well, including my mod.
The only sad part is that P&S Campaigns is not compatible with the iPad version.
The devs claim that Apple does not want to accept 32bit programs anymore and rewriting to 64bit may be too much work.
So one needs the old P&S to play mulitplayer with iPad. This divides the mulitplayer community. So it might be worth keeping both versions.
Rest assured, there will be other eras in the works based on by dealings with Byzantine Games.
Quote from: jomni on August 15, 2015, 06:36:51 PM
The devs claim that Apple does not want to accept 32bit programs anymore and rewriting to 64bit may be too much work.
It's true....new rules for Apple apps
https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=12172014b
I've been rather proud of only having purchased one game so far this year (and backed Shadowrun: Hong Kong), but I have to say that this game is calling me for some reason. Reminds me of Frozen Synapse in that it seems packed with replayability, what with the skirmish generator and the PBEM opportunities.
I might break my gaming fast for this one. O:-)
What makes the game stand out is the degree of developer involvement in user-made scenarios.
A new scenario comes out every couple of weeks or so. These tend to be as good as anything the game was released with or better, and everything gets the once-over by the developer to make sure that it's compatible with the game and the game's servers.
That's a far cry from a game where scenarios are being constructed without developer consultation or supervision, and where you never really know what you're downloading. What it means in practise is that the game is always steadily increasing in size and variety, even when there are no new releases coming out.
I don't know what's being cooked up for the next expansion, but the evolution of the game doesn't seem to have ended. There were a lot of colorful 17th century wars before the age of Marlborough in eastern and northern Europe.
And don't forget the fact that the AI can be extremely (sometimes embarassingly) robust.
One thing I really like about it is the way c &c sometimes breaks down when your units go into a killing frenzy. It can be frustrating as hell when one of your best guys rushes headlong into half a dozen AI controlled pike & shot units, but it's always entertaining. And, from what I understand, historical.
Quote from: RooksBailey on August 19, 2015, 01:42:50 AM
I might break my gaming fast for this one. O:-)
For me it was more a case of a wafer-thin mint...but I did it anyway.
Quote from: Father Ted on August 19, 2015, 03:32:14 PM
Quote from: RooksBailey on August 19, 2015, 01:42:50 AM
I might break my gaming fast for this one. O:-)
For me it was more a case of a wafer-thin mint...but I did it anyway.
Oh shit! It's Mr. Creosote!
Fasting is okay, probably a good idea in this era.
But watch the shellfish. Lots of generals died from bad shrimp.
Pike and Shot is Updated.
QuoteCampaigns: Significantly increased chance of defending army fighting either open battle or defending field fortifications rather than retreating when province is invaded. If they fight an open battle against a superior invading force there is a chance they will engage the invader before all his troops have arrived.
Campaigns: Improved auto resolution algorithm for defensive (field fortification) battles.
Campaigns: Corrected bug in reporting of supply limits for provinces with enemy armies in them. Now correctly reports supply limit that will apply for player armies when the enemy field army has been driven from the province.
Corrected sound effect for Szeklers and Lancer Banners shooting.
Corrected troop description of Veteran Late Pike & Shot and LG.
For me the big news with this update is not the bug fixes but the fact that the army lists have been extended to 1690.
That means that sooner or later we'll start seeing scenarios on things like the last siege of Vienna by the Turks, the Scanian War, or the battle of the Boyne.
The game now provides a framework for the period stretching from the end of the Middle Ages to the dawn of 18th century warfare.
I think the periods before and after (18th century and Medieval) would be better served by a different engine. But what this current engine will be able to cover in detail in these two centuries is pretty exciting.
Quote from: Philippe on September 08, 2015, 11:56:18 AM
For me the big news with this update is not the bug fixes but the fact that the army lists have been extended to 1690.
That means that sooner or later we'll start seeing scenarios on things like the last siege of Vienna by the Turks, the Scanian War, or the battle of the Boyne.
The game now provides a framework for the period stretching from the end of the Middle Ages to the dawn of 18th century warfare.
I think the periods before and after (18th century and Medieval) would be better served by a different engine. But what this current engine will be able to cover in detail in these two centuries is pretty exciting.
Can't wait to play the Battle of the Boyne
It's a nice piece of work, and makes the Pike and Shot game just so much better IMHO. O0
Quote from: Philippe on September 08, 2015, 11:56:18 AM
For me the big news with this update is not the bug fixes but the fact that the army lists have been extended to 1690.
That means that sooner or later we'll start seeing scenarios on things like the last siege of Vienna by the Turks, the Scanian War, or the battle of the Boyne.
The game now provides a framework for the period stretching from the end of the Middle Ages to the dawn of 18th century warfare.
I think the periods before and after (18th century and Medieval) would be better served by a different engine. But what this current engine will be able to cover in detail in these two centuries is pretty exciting.
I bought the game. If it covers the period 1494 to 1698 in an even remotely convincing fashion, I'm in. So far it has been reasonably convincing (Tutorials!)
It's a great game, and Richard is a terrific guy and incredibly passionate on his work and subject. I cannot recommend it enough.
Quote from: Philippe on October 14, 2014, 12:03:14 PM
And that's why I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that Slitherine's game portrays 17th century warfare in anything but the costumes.
I was originally not so skeptical about 17th century musketry as everyone else in this thread-- I'm pretty sure you could kill a lot of people pretty fast with muskets, otherwise why would they steadily replace pikes? Moreover the change in musketry from say 1650 to 1750 seems to have had more to do with regulating musket fire (eg. fire by platoons) rather than changing its basic nature.
So, eventually I bought the game. It is clearly more a case of design for effect (like a board game) rather than a total simulation (like DCS Nine-Years war or Combat Mission Dutch Revolt would be), but as a design for effect game, it works fine and musketry will hit lots of people, which seems quite realistic to me.
It's clearly a tabletop wargame game design more than an accurate simulation. You'll be amazed that every bit of abstraction in the game has its logical reasoning (not documented anywhere though). Just ask the designer. He is open to fine tuning the rules too if it has merits.
Quote from: MengJiao on October 23, 2015, 02:51:41 PM
So, eventually I bought the game. It is clearly more a case of design for effect (like a board game) rather than a total simulation (like DCS Nine-Years war or Combat Mission Dutch Revolt would be), but as a design for effect game, it works fine and musketry will hit lots of people, which seems quite realistic to me.
I...I would buy Combat Mission Dutch Revolt. Think they'll release it anytime soon? O0
I'm back in one of my frequent musket & pike obsession periods, and I'm having a "love and not as much love" relationship with this game. I'm playing some of the same battles in P&S as I am in GMTs Musket & Pike series. I'm finding that a lot of the historical scenarios included with Pike & Shot are so abstracted as to be completely different battles than what they're supposed to depict. That's less true of the historical scenarios created by the community, most of which are very, very good.
I think the biggest thing I miss in P&S I've remarked on before: lack of leaders and any sort of command and control. Certainly not including that makes for a simpler, more playable game. It loses some of what I find interesting about the period, though.
Quote from: panzerde on October 23, 2015, 08:33:18 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on October 23, 2015, 02:51:41 PM
So, eventually I bought the game. It is clearly more a case of design for effect (like a board game) rather than a total simulation (like DCS Nine-Years war or Combat Mission Dutch Revolt would be), but as a design for effect game, it works fine and musketry will hit lots of people, which seems quite realistic to me.
I...I would buy Combat Mission Dutch Revolt. Think they'll release it anytime soon? O0
I'm back in one of my frequent musket & pike obsession periods, and I'm having a "love and not as much love" relationship with this game. I'm playing some of the same battles in P&S as I am in GMTs Musket & Pike series. I'm finding that a lot of the historical scenarios included with Pike & Shot are so abstracted as to be completely different battles than what they're supposed to depict. That's less true of the historical scenarios created by the community, most of which are very, very good.
I think the biggest thing I miss in P&S I've remarked on before: lack of leaders and any sort of command and control. Certainly not including that makes for a simpler, more playable game. It loses some of what I find interesting about the period, though.
Omitting command and leaders seems very odd. Still it is a fun game and does seem to produce roughly historical outcomes in some mysterious way. It reminds me in some ways of Flying Colors -- reasonably abstract with a lot of period flavor, but you can push it in a more
convincing direction if you want to.
Quote from: MengJiao on October 23, 2015, 02:51:41 PM
Combat Mission Dutch Revolt
This must happen, this
must be a thing.
Quote from: Staggerwing on October 26, 2015, 08:30:35 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on October 23, 2015, 02:51:41 PM
Combat Mission Dutch Revolt
This must happen, this must be a thing.
Umm...
Wouldn't that just be extending the timeline of
Pike & Shot a bit? Up to the War of Spanish Succession at least?
Pike and Shot already runs from the end of the fifteenth century to the end of the 17th.
I think we're referring to the Dutch War of Independence, AKA the Eighty Years War, 1568-1648.
Quote from: panzerde on October 27, 2015, 07:39:54 AM
I think we're referring to the Dutch War of Independence, AKA the Eighty Years War, 1568-1648.
So Pike and Shot covers it, but Combat Mission doesn't yet.
PLUS, Pike and Shot got a patch recently and so did SPINTires. Not that there is any relation.
Thinking it over, I think DCS might work better for some parts of the Eighty-years War. For example the giant bomb that blew up the
fortified bridge at Antwerp might work better in DCS than in Combat Mission.
Quote from: panzerde on October 27, 2015, 07:39:54 AM
I think we're referring to the Dutch War of Independence, AKA the Eighty Years War, 1568-1648.
I've been looking at the community-built scenarios -- Flodden is awesome!
Quote from: MengJiao on October 29, 2015, 08:30:14 AM
Quote from: panzerde on October 27, 2015, 07:39:54 AM
I think we're referring to the Dutch War of Independence, AKA the Eighty Years War, 1568-1648.
I've been looking at the community-built scenarios -- Flodden is awesome!
Yes, I think the community scenarios are far better than the historical scenarios that shipped with the game.
Someone released a War of the Roses campaign. Now we have something out of the Medieval Era. It let's you play the persistent campaign on the England map. And also skirmish.
Is Pike and Shot on Steam? I'm not home to check right now.
Quote from: Gusington on November 06, 2015, 09:12:05 AM
Is Pike and Shot on Steam? I'm not home to check right now.
Yes. It's called
Pike and Shot Campaigns.
You can also buy it from Slitherine/Matrix and get both their own client-less version AND Steam key, which is what I tend to do.
Thanks Nef, I will take the plunge this weekend.
Buying from Slitherine and having them issue a Steam key is always a better way to go.
If you decide to mod it, having a non-Steam installations avoids awkward mishaps (like an unintended validation of local Steam files which would wipe out a non-workshop mod).
It looks like it has come on a lot from when i played the Beta, need a sale though as xmas is wiping me out already!!!!
Thanks for the above Philippe.
Quote from: Philippe on November 06, 2015, 11:21:19 AM
Buying from Slitherine and having them issue a Steam key is always a better way to go.
If you decide to mod it, having a non-Steam installations avoids awkward mishaps (like an unintended validation of local Steam files which would wipe out a non-workshop mod).
Mods are placed in a separate folder in my docs. Changing the core files in Steam or non-Steam game directories are not necessary in most cases.
Ha. Someone uploaded a Little Big Horn scenario. You guys should try it. O0
DCS Gundam: One Year War 8) ;D
P&S has some great user support. Slitherine published some modding highlights
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=299&t=73801&sid=5a11820eaf0c2427c068c218bd96f5d6
Quote from: jomni on September 06, 2016, 09:01:27 PM
P&S has some great user support. Slitherine published some modding highlights
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=299&t=73801&sid=5a11820eaf0c2427c068c218bd96f5d6 (http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=299&t=73801&sid=5a11820eaf0c2427c068c218bd96f5d6)
The 9 Years War and Great Northern War series of scenarios that have been done recently are fantastic. They really show off just what's capable with the game. Cyrano and I are doing a PBEM of the massive Blenheim scenario right now. Fantastic stuff!
If the Blenheim scenario works out, does it seem possible there could be a whole series of Marlburian/Louis XIV battles?
That would be a lot of virgin wargaming territory.
Quote from: besilarius on September 10, 2016, 07:57:43 AM
If the Blenheim scenario works out, does it seem possible there could be a whole series of Marlburian/Louis XIV battles?
That would be a lot of virgin wargaming territory.
I'm hoping so. Given that all of the major battles of the Nine Years War have been done and a good bit of the Great Northern War, it's not a huge jump to cover the War of Spanish Succession. There have also been some later battles done, like all of the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion. So, the system works pretty well for the period into the mid-18th Century.
The biggest challenges I see as you start to try and make it work for the Seven Years War and later are the limits on the overall number of units, the lack of leaders as in Sengoku Jidai, and the lack of formations for anything other than artillery. Blenheim gets around the first problem by making units brigades rather than battalions and squadrons, and it generally seems to work. The last issue (formations) isn't much of an issue for Blenheim, but there are battles where it could be an issue. The lack of leaders and command radius is an issue in these battles though. It allows for a level of command control that's not realistic for the period at all. Of course, that applies to all of the earlier period battles as well, so it's really something you have to just acknowledge as part of the game.
After all the recent talk, I ended up buying.....holy cow there is a ton of free user made scenarios! Looks like a lot of replayability with all those options.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on September 10, 2016, 08:36:08 PM
After all the recent talk, I ended up buying.....holy cow there is a ton of free user made scenarios! Looks like a lot of replayability with all those options.
I've played this game a lot and have yet to get through all of the scenarios. There is a TON of stuff. The player made stuff is also amazingly good - take a look at Copredy Bridge v2, for example, or any of the Nine Years War scenarios.
Skirmish alone gives you tons of replay-ability.
I ended up downloading all the single player battles.....96 of them ! This does not even include the multiplayer battles. Pretty impressive community.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on September 11, 2016, 05:21:37 AM
I ended up downloading all the single player battles.....96 of them ! This does not even include the multiplayer battles. Pretty impressive community.
Grim.Reaper,
From where did you download the single player battles?
Thanks,
Groggy
Quote from: GroggyGrognard on September 11, 2016, 11:56:33 AM
Grim.Reaper,
From where did you download the single player battles?
Thanks,
Groggy
They can all be downloaded from within the game. Go to "Historical" and click on the globe icon with the down arrow on it at the top of the screen.
^ Ah, found it. Thank you!
Groggy
O0
We now have Anglo-Zulu war scenarios.
Quote from: jomni on October 18, 2016, 01:31:46 AM
We now have Anglo-Zulu war scenarios.
Nice, will have to fire it up again.
Quote from: jomni on October 18, 2016, 01:31:46 AM
We now have Anglo-Zulu war scenarios.
Now you have my attention. where's the info on this?
Quote from: -budd- on October 18, 2016, 07:37:34 PM
Quote from: jomni on October 18, 2016, 01:31:46 AM
We now have Anglo-Zulu war scenarios.
Now you have my attention. where's the info on this?
Do you have the game? Just use the download option in the Historical menu.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=319&t=54255&start=180
not yet, but found the list of user made stuff. Wow some interesting battles, even a little big horn battle.
Someone made the Battle of Balaclava (Crimean War).
I have a hard time getting enthusiastic about the more modern battles since the P&S engine starts to creak the further you get from the early 17th century.
It doesn't model grape shot and cannister, so artillery at close ranges doesn't work by the time you get to the eighteenth century.
I suspect it doesn't handle 18th century musketry very well, so I can't imagine it does justice to mid- to late-nineteenth century rifle fire.
If you're going to make a game about a certain period in history, you need to use an engine that attempts to model what was going on then.
I'm very fond of 19th century colonial wars as a subject (don't ask what that says about my politics), but it needs to be handled correctly.
If you dress pixels up in Roman costumes and make them behave the way everybody else did in your last game rather than having them use maniple or cohort tactics, all you've made is a Roman-themed arcade game.
Quote from: Philippe on November 04, 2016, 10:52:24 AM
I have a hard time getting enthusiastic about the more modern battles since the P&S engine starts to creak the further you get from the early 17th century.
It doesn't model grape shot and cannister, so artillery at close ranges doesn't work by the time you get to the eighteenth century.
I suspect it doesn't handle 18th century musketry very well, so I can't imagine it does justice to mid- to late-nineteenth century rifle fire.
If you're going to make a game about a certain period in history, you need to use an engine that attempts to model what was going on then.
I'm very fond of 19th century colonial wars as a subject (don't ask what that says about my politics), but it needs to be handled correctly.
If you dress pixels up in Roman costumes and make them behave the way everybody else did in your last game rather than having them use maniple or cohort tactics, all you've made is a Roman-themed arcade game.
This is exactly why it boggles the mind why so many people want AGEOD to use the AGE engine to make a WW2 game
Most people want something that wears a WW II costume and don't really care if it behaves like WW II or not.
I'm pretty happy with the community scenarios up through the end of the 17th century, and even the very early stuff in the 18th, like the Great Northern War and Blenheim scenarios. I have to agree with Philippe though on any scenarios that have been created for periods beyond about 1710.
It's a great engine, and I'm sure it can be adapted for all sorts of periods. But P&S is not suitable as it stands for Colonial, or American Revolution, or ACW, or Napoleonics...etc. As evidenced by the 9 Years War scenarios, though, you sure can do some great stuff with it when working within the period it covers.
True. If the modder is skilled enough, they can sneak in the 19th century stuff. The engine can actually handle additional scrips and rules for specific scenarios and doesn't break the core. But of course the community just use standard rules which is stuck in the Renaissance. It will just end up being basic musket + bayonet + cannon.
I always say this about the engine, the original always tailored for a certain functionality of certain theme/ period of history.
I appreciate modders work to try to bring another period into the original game engine, but it is really rare to see this work, I can think of few games mods that work really well (Third Age for M2TW for example).
Mods are good experiment to see if the engine has a potential to cover another theme or period.
However, many developers try to take their engine somewhere it doesn't originally built for and create a game just based on fans request (AGEOD TEAW as an example) (Total war the second engine was perfect for classical period, and the third was only for working well for musket warfare to some extend).
I think P&S engine can handle earlier warfare mechanism pretty well.
Lest we forget, this is all part of RBS's Fields of Glory system.
There are certain underlying principles to be sure but each of the tabletop games has been very different.
I remain hopeful that the digital iteration of the Napoleonic version will see the light of day, but, as Phillipe correctly says, there needa to be significant changes to the engine to accommodate the differences in warfare between the two periods.
Oh, and leaders. Leaders become non-optional in the Napoleonic period...not that they should have been omitted from P&S, but I digress.
Raising this sum'b@tch from the grave.
You guys who play are aware I'm sure, but if you don't or haven't played lately, I recently discovered the mods. Battles in the Great Northern war, Spanish and Austrian Seccsion, nine years war....all sorts of battles. Plus, it cannot be easier to load them. You just select "campaigns" from the start menu and click on the "download scenarios" button. It brings up a list of all the battles and mods. You click the ones you want and that's it.
I had no idea I could fight Fontenoy, Malpequet, Blenheim, Narva, etc.
Just throwing it out there of your in a game funk
This game has turned into the one game I pretty much constantly have something going in. It's almost entirely due to the great community generated scenarios. Most of the scenarios that come with the game are just okay - and they could completely rip out the "campaign" system for all I care. It's a barely passable means of generating random battles, and that's about it.
The sandbox mode, however, particularly combined with the mods that reduce fire ranges and move speeds, and the amazingly well done community scenarios keep me playing this more than nearly anything else. In particular the exhaustive set of scenarios that have been done for the War of the League of Augsburg/ Nine Years War and the Great Northern War are not to be missed.
Yeah, the new scenarios make it for me. I know it was already discussed above, but I hadn't realized that there were so many - and more importantly- so easy to download and play
Hit me up if you want to play a game or two!
Quote from: panzerde on November 04, 2016, 04:46:18 PM
I'm pretty happy with the community scenarios up through the end of the 17th century, and even the very early stuff in the 18th, like the Great Northern War and Blenheim scenarios. I have to agree with Philippe though on any scenarios that have been created for periods beyond about 1710.
It's a great engine, and I'm sure it can be adapted for all sorts of periods. But P&S is not suitable as it stands for Colonial, or American Revolution, or ACW, or Napoleonics...etc. As evidenced by the 9 Years War scenarios, though, you sure can do some great stuff with it when working within the period it covers.
+1
I see Pike and Shot Campaigns on my Steam wish list on sale for $19.99. In games like this I prefer individual battles over linked campaigns. Does this Campaign version include all the single battles and can I download individual battles from the mod community to play? Thanks....Ray
Campaign version means it has the Dynamic Campaign. It still has all the contents of the old one.
Only downside is the Campaign version does not let you play multiplayer with iPad players. The non-Campaign one can still pay with iPad players so the audience is more.
Both versions will get the user scenarios that are non-dynamic.
Quote from: jomni on December 26, 2016, 06:29:20 PM
Campaign version means it has the Dynamic Campaign. It still has the contents of the old one.
Though the Campaign version does not let you play multiplayer with iPad players. The non-Campaign one can still pay with iPad players so the audience is more.
Both versions will get the user scenarios that are non-dynamic.
Thanks....that's the answer I was hoping for. I don't do MP or iPad games so that is no issue for me.
Oh my gosh yes. This game is very much about the individual battles. The campaigns are either just a series of historical battles, all of which can be played individually. or a campaign engine that is really just a battle generator with loss carryover. The community scenarios are downloadable right from within the game. You don't even have to do anything special to install them. There are dozens of great ones - see some of the previous discussion.
PM me if you want to PBEM a game or two.
Trying out the Waterloo community scenario. Old Guards, Middle Guards, Young Guards from different divisions wearing different uniforms. Good job! Only thing lacking is that there are no varying formations in this mod. A unit is a brigade (half a division). All are in attack column. Some approximation of square formation in the rules.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.akamai.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F84846405863617191%2FEB9217887F94F791A74BAB6E88604B30B37F9122%2F&hash=87334bb360ddb3b67cd96c7d22a11788932ab936)
Well, if nothing else, perhaps it will shame them into a proper FoG: Napoleonics release.
It's not like there isn't a rule book for it!
Quote from: Cyrano on March 17, 2017, 10:26:10 PM
Well, if nothing else, perhaps it will shame them into a proper FoG: Napoleonics release.
It's not like there isn't a rule book for it!
Yeah but development effort is focused on a prior period.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XRQxhStl3MM-ormgFPuCA-RlunnM9A2QuY3XQiF8UsfeuMrtlD_wBSUPvVjuE5xOB_jonMv61mZC7HkpqoMjoZZbFHl_V9irYhi2jLR-h0-SArbknr8AB6qBH1Nn_lfzegjnIacsYDS30kidIsn1Nvz9i0FtPX6mf200Sv7wx1q9FrjI87q4-NsaFlaoQPinp1evf0EmI7pZhSi_x4SdyO27c26O-UCj2e-JmqFIwOaQscjBA4_0QRV5U6CYUM0I36eBPUw8FIbYNvZic23tq13ffuVc3vrsbtWRQ52RebsLfdCEwSg2l3D0ht3NjGJuCiQRhgTA7J5hwHbOmA5Jhr5o5OCw6-NI-LSdKQG4lxWY0M1OPrFHsyGU6lCjYyN2RILkbLQAMGeNG0UP6ELNXAIQNIu08ZX7HRLCdeSUcLoX2RqFhCTYTgmAZm_f2Q7N_Qr2PD4yVJseRqBjN_r9FSKIu3XfEfZLZhVxG0ymqG7SyNy7RzKzjxS6kHBTsDsrZNPqwpH4195W4rAUpWNfuvPCO3doFKFvin4dpY7c6fawYxOkKQCKXLz3UXBYJusIqHc2IsXFEO0Y-GOj7HC7003E3_CnhGwVijujglEq-qnTPs89TSWe=w1629-h611-no)
Guess what's coming to P&S? I just submitted this scenario to the developer for uploading to the FTP server. Stay tuned.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjBd5eVa.gif%3Fnoredirect&hash=c4caf8940464911fa0d38430e6e09b23ce493d88)
Is that Lepanto??! I saw the Venetian Flag among the Spanish ships.
Galleons and Galleys?? I am intrigued.
Quote from: CJReich46 on May 05, 2017, 08:38:47 PM
Is that? Lepanto??! I saw the Venetian Flag among the Spanish ships.
Galleons and Galleys?? I am intrigued.
More info here. http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=77276
NOW you got my attention! :dreamer:
Released. You should be able to download it from within the game.
Sadly it only is available for Pike & Shot Campaigns (not the original, not iPad version) due to some scripts I used.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UpzOujmeJ5EWktVoHtXZ2hNbfSnlBPlbSxMGOQ4lxOyTHFQBTGxppRHilJPA5DYPRveQJelZ2jLnRl1Ie-uClFhldlDAgtDfJHQl8F7OGQvCTQl4-9kEz00bZ59LqrkV9W0tadhgXanQYz0x108ks1ZgfcAhfnfJZWAYJqWEpY3nFS_pAytIWkWH8z1X16zHZou-39bwKo4LbWi6jYIVPK61kJP8eldj_wduoGIuEhc72dKxcUxiTzRzyyvYlEzxWuikoTU5nG7l_09D4wCsoVzB04AzTgYpgObL_lz1-bDSZj1tY5wm522djOb_wXbbfJhBkYZRjVJP5U9FAXx4RYhFCbvocVPQCmYEYirCejxFkES4EdYuSWxc-a-5vv__oNCk5g48ZTZf49AZd2M9WoxUm-UojPP0pM87d9htkRKfn4P53FwYUD1KEWQDY57TzM9PRDB_-kp4imy36r9M0_v48ZZNN_adhyeuK4B6GU6mrGxDIhamNjRjeYZDJdp9Rjbl4bZ53LOc92DIuOtit_VlWJO3pwm_gOi2OODc_tghxUn49tKJTpfF96FBgjiDqbWdJUBcv0G6hs6YRi-c-JtpDv3s-Ez2wNhodvyOIWZ_9jQTMKyV=w1750-h984-no)
Wow, congrats on the release jomni-impressive.
Woah...
:notworthy:
A square button for your coat, sir!!
Don't you just love galleys and galleases?
Nice!
I'll have to try that one out Jomini. :)
Just downloaded it. Thanks, Jomni :bd: