Yeah, that's an odd choice. But I feel like a bit of turn-based tactical action not set in WW II. I gather both pretty much use the Battle Academy 2 engine, but I really have been vascillating on which to get.
P&S, on one hand, covers an under-represented historical era, and is unique. However, there's no campaign and it seems to be made up of a series of disconnected scenarios.
Hell, on the other hand, has a couple of campaigns, but there are lot of other ways to scratch the same itch already available to me (AoW 3, for example).
So my question to anyone who has played both, which do you prefer and why? Not so much for the background, which willl obviously be very different in the two games, but in terms of polish, interface, and enjoyment
I'm not familiar with Hell so I can't give a good answer.
Pike & Shot has been enjoyable although my PC strategy gaming hasn't been getting much attention the past few months so I don't know how much longevity it has.
I have neither, but am interested in both and have AoWIII, and love it. I would choose Hell.
Pike and Shot for me, in a walk, in fact, but that's my historical sheet showing...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
In my opinion Pike and Shot is the better of the two. However, Hell is also very good, and is much better since they added a skirmish mode.
You could probably get Solium Infernum for less than Hell right now, and it plays like no other game on the market (instead of being another MoM throne claimer).
Solium Infernum is one of the great under appreciated games pretty well EVER.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: JasonPratt on January 16, 2015, 12:35:53 PM
You could probably get Solium Infernum for less than Hell right now, and it plays like no other game on the market (instead of being another MoM throne claimer).
And you can get it in a discounted bundle with Armageddon Empires, another amazing, unique game from Cryptic Comet.
Also, it's a hell of a party game on hot seat (or so I'd imagine).
Test your friendship to its limits! -- play SI!
(Come to think of it, we haven't had a Groghead mp game of SI in a while, since before I joined I think...)
Quote from: Skwerl on January 16, 2015, 10:54:17 AM
In my opinion Pike and Shot is the better of the two. However, Hell is also very good, and is much better since they added a skirmish mode.
Is this skirmish mode a random battle generator? If so, does it have random forces and maps?
Quote from: DennisS on January 16, 2015, 05:43:19 PM
Quote from: Skwerl on January 16, 2015, 10:54:17 AM
In my opinion Pike and Shot is the better of the two. However, Hell is also very good, and is much better since they added a skirmish mode.
Is this skirmish mode a random battle generator? If so, does it have random forces and maps?
Units can be random or user "purchased". Maps are random.
I've had Solium Infernum for years. In fact, I was a beta tester. But yes, it's an excellent game.
For the record, I went with Hell. Played the tutorial last night and will be diving in over the weekend.
^Impressions! I actually forgot all about Hell. 'Til this thread.
Quote from: Gusington on January 16, 2015, 07:47:27 PM
^Impressions! I actually forgot all about Hell. 'Til this thread.
So far I'm liking it.
It's good, could have been great. The tutorial/manual gives an impression that the game is a lot shallower than it actually is. Getting down the basics of attack, movement, flanking, morale (called Willpower), and support takes only a couple of minutes. Once you get into a scenario, and actually start experiencing the variety of units, spells, buffs, debuffs etc. it becomes clear that Hell falls into the "easy to learn, hard to master" category. There's no supply modeled in the game, but everything hinges on positioning your units correctly and making smart use of terrain. In that sense, I would day it's considerably deeper than the Panzer Corps games.
I just wish the "campaigns" were actually dynamic campaigns. As is, they are a collection of individual scenarios, that, when played in order, tell a story. In fact, you can play them in any order you wish, and even go back and replaya scenario, but since there's no persistence, there's no real reason to do so. Units gain experience and level up, but within the confines of a single scenario.
The 3-D map is nice, but it's sometimes hard to see units in the cover of a forest. I wish there was a hotkey to remove some of the terrain. A 2-D overview map helps, but you can't take all the actions from that view. Also I wish the camer zoomed to the site of attacks by the AI. It's possible there's something in the options that turns that on, but I haven't found it yet
One more thing - this game is tough. I'm already struggling with the second scenario in what is supposed to be the easier campaign. Part of the problem is a huge number of AI units to fight against, but I haven't seen it do anything blatantly stupid, either. In fact, the AI seems fairly competent.
Sounds very serviceable so far. Is it unfair to compare it to Solium Infernum?
Very unfair. This is a BA-engine game focuses solely on strategic combat between humans and denizens of hell. Solium Infernum is a strategy board-like game with n tactical combat at all.
Does it suffer from the same dynamic that eventually wore me out on the Panzer General-type games, where individual scenarios are fun, but the only way they can raise the difficulty is to make each scenario more and more puzzle-like, where you have to know that there are snipers hiding in those trees but not those trees, and you have to have just the right unit combos to fight your way through that situation without sustaining crippling casualties.
When the element of tactical problem solving is replaced by customizable trial-and-error, I find the games get to be tedious. That's one reason I held off from buying Hell and went with Xenonauts instead. (not that I've had time to play Xenonauts, you understand)
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on January 18, 2015, 05:49:29 PM
Does it suffer from the same dynamic that eventually wore me out on the Panzer General-type games, where individual scenarios are fun, but the only way they can raise the difficulty is to make each scenario more and more puzzle-like, where you have to know that there are snipers hiding in those trees but not those trees, and you have to have just the right unit combos to fight your way through that situation without sustaining crippling casualties.
When the element of tactical problem solving is replaced by customizable trial-and-error, I find the games get to be tedious. That's one reason I held off from buying Hell and went with Xenonauts instead. (not that I've had time to play Xenonauts, you understand)
I haven't played far enough into it to answer that. I may have to restart the second scenario of the human campaign, because I had no idea that I was awarded a victory in one objective and had received another. There a listing on the side of the screen of where you stand in terms of the various objectives in a scenario, but that can be closed. If you close it (as I did) you get no indication when objectives are achieved or even changed.