Looks like nearing release and looking for some more beta testers .
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3791822
Wow -- I was under the impression that this was nearing Vaporware status. Glad to see I'm wrong!
Haven't really been able to return to Forge of Freedom since Ageod's Civil War II came out. This looks cool -- but is there no strategic layer?
Insta-purchase for me. I applied to be a beta tester last time but never heard back. ???
Quote from: sandman2575 on January 27, 2015, 06:54:44 PM
Wow -- I was under the impression that this was nearing Vaporware status. Glad to see I'm wrong!
Haven't really been able to return to Forge of Freedom since Ageod's Civil War II came out. This looks cool -- but is there no strategic layer?
Nope, just battles.
:( that dampens my enthusiasm considerably...
The art in the screen shots just looks the same as FOF battles, with scourge of war out there, why get this ?
Loved FOF, still baffles me the devs left the strategy layer out this time around.
Quote from: Skoop on January 28, 2015, 01:45:25 AM
The art in the screen shots just looks the same as FOF battles, with scourge of war out there, why get this ?
Loved FOF, still baffles me the devs left the strategy layer out this time around.
My sentiments, too. I mean, the more ACW games the merrier, but I also find myself asking why get this when I have SoW.
Quote from: sandman2575 on January 27, 2015, 07:19:02 PM
:( that dampens my enthusiasm considerably...
Yeah - and mine.
All I ever EVER wanted was for them to fix the interface in FoF so it would look pretty on a modern screen and in a decent res. I would've paid for the game again for that to happen.
Unfortunately, a truly great game went and slipped away...never to be seen by my eyes again.
One of the beta testers showing more screens and providing some feedback.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3630741
some ask why buy this if you already have sow.....I don't see this being much different when countless new wwii games come out...most have the same general idea, just implemented differentlly but people gobble them up. I actually see this much more resembling a tiller/hps game with a little better graphics but probably less content. They have said from the start the goal of this game was to solely focus on the tactical battles. As to why, no idea.
It is a shame some developers don't stick with their core product and just improve it over time. Fof was a good start and could have gotten better with time. Although a different genera in sports, ootp is a perfect example where it is on its 16th version of just improving the core game concept and people keep coming back. I know it is different for war games, but I like the concept.
I have to admit I am a civil war fan and at this point I don't have any real desire to pick this one up. It will be interesting to see how much it will cost based on the content provided. Time will tell.
I am hoping that this turns into the new Age of Rifles.
With a robust editor it could turn into one.
I don't have Scourge of War but I do not like real-time games. This one is turn based. And I was one of the few who actually loved the tactical battles in FoF. :P My hope is that this game is like that but a lot more detailed.
Scourge of War looks good but I don't really want to fight these types of battles where my point of view is behind a tree standing next to Private Cleetus.
I always played the battles out too...unless they were very small.
The tactical battles in FoF were great and had some superb parameters and effects.
But I still wanted a beautiful FoF
I'm not saying I won't get this - just that I'm not overly enthused about not having a strat layer.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on January 28, 2015, 06:40:10 AM
...
But I still wanted a beautiful FoF
I'm not saying I won't get this - just that I'm not overly enthused about not having a strat layer.
An updated, beautiful Fof would be awesome! O0
Agreed, when I first started playing FoF, I was like "what the heck" with the tactical battles, I hated how you couldn't go out of turn with which piece you were giving orders to. I grew to really like them.
Mixed thoughts on this after being on the 'back burner' so long and the developer's history of incomplete and unfinished games. I loved CoG and FoF, and was initially looking forward to this when first announced but now will wait to see the fallout from players on release. Am more than a little suspicious about its imminent release and am also disappointed there will be no editor included to create your own battles, though understand why.
RE the scenario editor, the developer said this on the Matrix forums:
There may be a scenario-editor added sometime after release, but with the exception of moving units to new start locations the game is pretty easily modded even without that, and we plan to work with the modding community in whatever ways we can.
With that said, at least initially we will not provide a scenario-editor that would let people make their own Shiloh or Gettysburg -- since we plan to produce our own versions of those battles that would be a rather poor business decision, especially with Gettysburg the battle that should be the biggest seller. I think that once we've taken the war up to 1864 we will find a way to make it easier for modders to create their own maps and scenarios for battles that we did not include. It has never been our intention to cover more than 20 or so battles, but we'd love to see others fill in some of the gaps.
And it looks like I did make it into beta testing. My invite went into my spam box 9 days ago! :tickedoff:
I'll try it tonight!
As for the comments on FOF, I had an itch to play it again in 2012 and did bang out a full campaign. Seem to remember there was a way to force the resolution to your native desk top resolution. I think I had to do some editing of files in notepad, I think I found the tweak in the game's official matrix forum. If anyone wants to check FOF out again, might want check that out.
I'm a beta tester on BAB, and thus being under an NDA, I can't say much. But I can say that I love the gameplay. Looking forward to when this finally ships!
Quote from: Zonso on January 28, 2015, 07:56:23 AM
Mixed thoughts on this after being on the 'back burner' so long and the developer's history of incomplete and unfinished games.
Which games were those? You claim to love Crown of Glory and Forge of Freedom, and I've never read or heard a word about them ever being "unfinished". No one complained about the Conflict of Heroes games being "unfinished" either.
In short, wtf are you talking about?
I definitely recall reading that FoF was unfinished. By whom, I cannot recall. Did I ever think it was unfinished? Nope.
From a boardgaming perspective, this title appears to be similar to GCACW series where as SOW is more like the CWRS/CWBS (aka Line of Battle Series). Hadn't seen this before but looks promising.
Although I wanted a strategy layer, I have revisited the forum and seeing some of the new screenshots I like the look of it - and I always like the tactical turn based battles in FoF.
So - never say never
Quote from: tgb on January 29, 2015, 06:49:44 AM
Which games were those? You claim to love Crown of Glory and Forge of Freedom, and I've never read or heard a word about them ever being "unfinished". No one complained about the Conflict of Heroes games being "unfinished" either.
In short, wtf are you talking about?
Not sure why the touchy nerve but I'll bite. Specifically Cog, Cog:EE and FoF, the history is on the open forums for the most part I believe. I played and tested them extensively, SP and MP. Both great, flawed concepts with issues that never got addressed, either design, balance or bugs. FoF being smaller in scope was slightly better in that regard. My brief research into CoH as a potential buy also seemed to reveal the same; I never played so can't comment.
I for one hope supporting this game (next year for me, maybe ;) ) will help them go on to FoF2.
The again, Slitherine wrote Legion: Arena as a testbed for eventually going to Legion 2 and other updates of their strategy games, and that never happened. Instead they added a fantasy expansion; re-released it with a bit of rework for a History Channel tie-in; and then did a substantial upgrade of the combat engine for a loose campaign in Great Battles: Medieval which they've since worked on porting to pads.
(Though then again, they did release a version of Chariots of War upgraded sort of to Spartan/Gates of Troy, in another History Channel tie-in, focusing more on Egypt than on the Levant. I owned that for my Playstation Portable, but playing it on that mobile console gave me migraines for some reason; not the game's fault I think.)
So, yeah, working on improving the tac engine doesn't necessarily translate into ever going back to rework and incorporate the strat engine. Especially if they can port this to iPad and/or consoles like the XBone, which they'd be fools not to try if they can.
But I'm still hopeful. :)
As many of you know from the Matrix forum, I'm one of WCS's developers, joining this forum now that I have specific reasons to post (see my call for testers in another thread).
You can see my comments regarding FOF2 being a LONG ways out, though possible, here: http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=10603.30
I thought I would post here just to say, first, that I'd be happy to answer questions, especially since I'm not under a non-disclosure agreement and therefore can tell you anything I want about the game.
Also, someone asked about BAB vs SoW. I have not played the latter, but I have heard -- from one of the developers, so I believe this to be true -- that because of graphics/memory limitations they cannot fit a whole battlefield into the game at once. BAB, however, can go up to 50 square miles for its maps (which we're doing with Manassas, a 5 x 10 mile rectangle), and its hexes are 75 yards wide. So that allows for a heck of a lot of options in terms of scenarios, and for modders to go crazy making all sorts of set-ups. (And, I'll add, I do not believe it possible to produce a more accurate and detailed map for a Civil War computer game than we have done -- and done at this massive scale.)
And I can confirm that we do plan to work with modders as much as possible, with the exception of doing things that would shoot us in the foot.
It's a shame there is no strategy layer like FoF.
But it's a tactical game devoted to historical battles -- there's no way to mix that with a strategic layer, because who's to say that when two armies meet at the strategic level they'll be fighting in the same places as the historical combatants, and with the same commanders and units?
If you like strategic-level games but not tactical, BAB is not going to be for you (though we hope you could at least appreciate it for what it is!). And perhaps we'll return with a FOF2 in a few years -- the likelihood of which will be increased if BAB proves to be as popular as FOF has been.
The screenshots look fantastic!
The thing with doing a civil war tactical game along historical guidelines is that I'm just burnt on it. I've been reading and gaming the historical Gettysburg since I was 10 years old, I'm over it. That's why fof was so refreshing because it was fiction under a historical situation. I was free to maneuver and make my own history as I saw fit.
BAB could really work if you had added maybe an operational layer to help set the stage for the tactical battle. All the 19th century tactical combat games suffer from this. Sow, histwar, tiller games, after you've played a few battles you get bored and want to make decisions at the operational level to spice things up.
Sorry, but I disagree totally.
I am hoping BAB catches on fire and add on pack after pack gets released.
This is the first game in nearly twenty years that looks like it might replace "Age of rifles".
I don't care at all about the battles in this first effort. I care about Sadowa,St. Privat and battles from the Second war of Italian Independence.
I'll take the Wilderness,when it comes.
To repeat what I said in a related thread recently: {ahem}
ALL HAIL GIL! ALL HAIL GILL! 8)
I'm perfectly willing to appreciate BaB for what it is. We still have FoF, until whenifever we have FoF2.
For that matter, there's clearly a place for both BaB and SoW. They cater to somewhat different though overlapping needs. (Well, not needs, but you know what I mean.)
Quote from: JasonPratt on March 13, 2015, 12:22:04 PM
To repeat what I said in a related thread recently: {ahem}
ALL HAIL GIL! ALL HAIL GILL! 8)
Were you trying to summon me? That's best done using a pentagram.
I'm pleased to be able to report that our programmer Eric Babe is at this very moment putting together the game's newest build, which includes -- in addition to two new scenarios -- the 100% finished maps for Williamsburg and Mill Springs. Two other maps still need for some corrections to be made. So we're getting there...
I'm not sure you can come here and quote maps are done and not post some screen shots ;).......can he? thought i read a forum rule somewhere about that.
Quote from: -budd- on March 13, 2015, 06:24:59 PM
I'm not sure you can come here and quote maps are done and not post some screen shots ;).......can he? thought i read a forum rule somewhere about that.
I think you are very correct...confirmation of finalising something should result in some sort of visual confirmation!
Well, I wouldn't want to break any rules and have to face JudgeDredd, but at the same time, it is too early to be sharing screenshots. So what I've decided to do is show details from each of the three finished maps, but ones that focus on unimportant parts of the map (which nonetheless will certainly give you a good idea of the maps' quality).
First, here is Redoubt 1 from Williamsburg, the southernmost of the line of fortifications meant to hold off a pursuing Union army. This part of the battlefield didn't come into play, though the Union briefly did recon in the area. As you can see, that's probably a good thing for them, since forcing a crossing of that bridge while being fired down upon from the redoubt and adjacent trenchwork would not have been an enjoyable tactic.
Second, I am showing the Union's uppermost encampments at Mill Springs, more than a mile from where the fighting began. If fighting is going on there at any point the Union player (or A.I.) has done not just something wrong, but a lot wrong.
Third and last, here is the "real" Mill Springs, an area south of the Cumberland River which was the Confederate army's encampment area until they decided to cross the river and set up at Beech Grove (which occupies most of this map), and to which they ultimately returned after getting whipped in the Battle of Mill Springs, which was fought in the area of Logan's Cross Roads near the Union encampment I'm showing. Due to the river being impassable terrain in BAB it is impossible for any fighting to occur in this part of the map, but we included it for the sake of alternate-history scenarios and modders. And because it makes the map more appealing to have this area in addition to the fortified encampment above the river's north bank.
More images will have to wait.
Very cool thank you
I loved the tactical battles in FoF and I loved the options for the various formations.
I am looking forward to this one. :smitten:
thanks for the screens....at the risk of pressing my luck are we going to get an AAR before release, with plenty of screens.
Definitely. At some point in the not too distant future you will be flooded with information and images.
Quote from: Gil R. on March 13, 2015, 09:36:25 PM
Definitely. At some point in the not too distant future you will be flooded with information and images.
How cool ;D
A release date has been announced: April 16 (http://www.matrixgames.com/news/1632/Brother.against.Brother.gets.a.release.date!)
Well...... gonna need proof of concept.... AAR time yet ;D
Does this game include an editor?
Thanks.
Good Hunting.
MR
Would be nice if they moved to bigger screenshots :-\
Quote from: Mad Russian on March 18, 2015, 12:12:00 PM
Does this game include an editor?
Thanks.
Good Hunting.
MR
Not initially, BUT we do plan on making the game modder-friendly, and at some point would like to release some form of editor. The one thing we don't want to do, as I have mentioned on the Matrix forum, is make available all of the tools necessary for modders to make Gettysburg, Shiloh, and the other major battles that we plan to do. So first and foremost, we will do whatever we can to help modders who want to work with the four battles (and five battlefields) we are including, and secondarily will also help modders who want to make battles that we do not plan on covering in the series. (The way to do this would be to release the editor that places units, which can be done manually via the data files but is much, much easier in the editor, while I have promised to add terrain data to any maps of unplanned battles, since that is preferable to releasing the program that does that. What I mean is, say that we have no intention of including Monocacy and there is someone out there with sufficient graphics skills to make a good Monocacy map -- if they do that I will take the time to assign the terrain values and make it playable.) Once the series is finished, or close to finished, we may provide everything needed for modders to create new battles and scenarios on their own. But at the time of this our first release we believe it would be a poor business practice to let others make and give away for free the battles that we intend to make centerpieces of upcoming releases.
With that said, our 1st Manassas map is so big that it covers large portions of the 2nd Manassas battlefield, so clever modders will be able to make some Day 2 and Day 3 scenarios for that as well, instead of waiting for BAB#2.
Quote from: Mad Russian on March 18, 2015, 12:12:00 PM
Does this game include an editor?
Thanks.
Good Hunting.
MR
Mad Russian,
Coming back to this issue, I raised the question at our weekly meeting with Matrix on Friday, and it was agreed all around that we should indeed release a scenario-editor soon after the game comes out, though not the map-editor. That means that modders will not be able to create new maps on their own just yet -- though I remain willing to work with modders on maps that are of sufficient quality and are for battles not planned for the BAB series -- but they WILL be able to create/modify OOB's and place units at will, and pretty much do whatever they want on the existing maps. And one day there is likely to be a map-editor as well, though not in the foreseeable future.
Every game is a trade off about what goes in the box when you sell it. I fully understand that having games for sale at Matrix myself.
Thanks for your quick replies.
Good Hunting.
MR
I'm surprised to not see more discussion on this as it's releasing next week, so I'm going to try to fix that ;-)
First, have a look at the game:
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/505/details/Brother.Against.Brother
Now be sure to also look at the amazing battle maps, battle histories and OOBs we've released. They're linked in the product page above, but I'll link one in directly here:
First Manassas/First Bull Run Battle Map: http://www.matrixgames.com/amazon/art/BrotherAgainstBrother/BaB_BattleMap.jpg
Battle History and OOB: http://www.matrixgames.com/amazon/art/BrotherAgainstBrother/First Manassas Map and Book.zip
We've also just posted the first battle report, covering Wilson's Creek. In this report, GWgardner plays against the AI in this exciting battle from the Western Theater of the American Civil War. Surprise attacks, flank marches and desperate fighting! Read more here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3833438
Be sure to grab the Wilson's Creek Battle Map, OOB and History from the product page links above as you read along with the battle report!
Thanks for your time.
Quote from: ERutins on April 10, 2015, 07:21:43 AM
I'm surprised to not see more discussion on this as it's releasing next week, so I'm going to try to fix that ;-)
First, have a look at the game:
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/505/details/Brother.Against.Brother
Now be sure to also look at the amazing battle maps, battle histories and OOBs we've released. They're linked in the product page above, but I'll link one in directly here:
First Manassas/First Bull Run Battle Map: http://www.matrixgames.com/amazon/art/BrotherAgainstBrother/BaB_BattleMap.jpg
Battle History and OOB: http://www.matrixgames.com/amazon/art/BrotherAgainstBrother/First Manassas Map and Book.zip
We've also just posted the first battle report, covering Wilson's Creek. In this report, GWgardner plays against the AI in this exciting battle from the Western Theater of the American Civil War. Surprise attacks, flank marches and desperate fighting! Read more here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3833438
Be sure to grab the Wilson's Creek Battle Map, OOB and History from the product page links above as you read along with the battle report!
Thanks for your time.
I have the interest, but way too many games at the mo and the funds well......
Erik, the Battle History and OOB link is broken.
Quote from: ERutins on April 10, 2015, 07:21:43 AM
I'm surprised to not see more discussion on this as it's releasing next week, so I'm going to try to fix that ;-)
First, have a look at the game:
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/505/details/Brother.Against.Brother
Now be sure to also look at the amazing battle maps, battle histories and OOBs we've released. They're linked in the product page above, but I'll link one in directly here:
First Manassas/First Bull Run Battle Map: http://www.matrixgames.com/amazon/art/BrotherAgainstBrother/BaB_BattleMap.jpg
Battle History and OOB: http://www.matrixgames.com/amazon/art/BrotherAgainstBrother/First Manassas Map and Book.zip
We've also just posted the first battle report, covering Wilson's Creek. In this report, GWgardner plays against the AI in this exciting battle from the Western Theater of the American Civil War. Surprise attacks, flank marches and desperate fighting! Read more here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3833438
Be sure to grab the Wilson's Creek Battle Map, OOB and History from the product page links above as you read along with the battle report!
Thanks for your time.
As a devoted ACW fan and matrix fanboi, I can tell you that I haven't been paying attention because this game has been I'm development for like 8 years. It's one of those..."I will believe it when I see it" things.
It looks great and I will buy it...I kind of just lost interest in talking about it 4 years ago. I think the game will be great and you guys will make $...just speaking for me
Quote from: bbmike on April 10, 2015, 07:32:17 AM
Erik, the Battle History and OOB link is broken.
The forum parser split the end off the path: Just C+P the whole link, or use:
http://www.matrixgames.com/amazon/art/BrotherAgainstBrother/First Manassas Map and Book.zip (http://www.matrixgames.com/amazon/art/BrotherAgainstBrother/First%20Manassas%20Map%20and%20Book.zip)
into the browser and it will download the package.
Cheers
Pip
I'm pretty stoked on this game. I have several Tiller/HPS ACW games and I've had a lot of trouble getting into them due to the interface. I am really hoping that this game will fill that void in my gaming library.
I'm not saying anything is wrong with the HPS games, or that this game is better. I just have had trouble finding a hex-and-counter ACW game that I enjoy. So I have high hopes for this!
Quote from: Toonces on April 10, 2015, 11:20:13 PM
I'm pretty stoked on this game. I have several Tiller/HPS ACW games and I've had a lot of trouble getting into them due to the interface. I am really hoping that this game will fill that void in my gaming library.
I'm not saying anything is wrong with the HPS games, or that this game is better. I just have had trouble finding a hex-and-counter ACW game that I enjoy. So I have high hopes for this!
A big +1.....!!
I went and looked at this a couple weeks ago, the screenshots were so tiny, I moved along.
Quote from: Tuna on April 11, 2015, 07:32:25 AM
I went and looked at this a couple weeks ago, the screenshots were so tiny, I moved along.
you are really not going to consider a game because the screenshots were small?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 11, 2015, 07:48:22 AM
Quote from: Tuna on April 11, 2015, 07:32:25 AM
I went and looked at this a couple weeks ago, the screenshots were so tiny, I moved along.
you are really not going to consider a game because the screenshots were small?
There are... 'other'... considerations? Heresy! :o ;)
Quote from: Tuna on April 11, 2015, 07:32:25 AM
I went and looked at this a couple weeks ago, the screenshots were so tiny, I moved along.
My browser lets me zoom in and see them just fine. They also provided downloads of the map of two of the battles.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 11, 2015, 07:48:22 AM
Quote from: Tuna on April 11, 2015, 07:32:25 AM
I went and looked at this a couple weeks ago, the screenshots were so tiny, I moved along.
you are really not going to consider a game because the screenshots were small?
LOL.. well I loved FoF, but the fixed resolution was a bummer!.. but really, I want to see if a game looks cool, I don't want to have to hold my old eyes close to the screen, or be zooming and what have you.. I thought Matrix already had a poll on Screenshot size, did everyone respond that they prefer 640x480?
Caveat!!! I'm going to talk in general terms here and am not aiming any negativity towards this game.
Good marketing means that the customer doesn't have to play a bunch of right clicking alt ctrl tab computer magic to look at a screenshot. I'm with Tuna, if I have to work hard or even just mildly to try to see what product I'm trying to buy whilst struggling with a micro screen shot midget, I'm moving on. There are so many choices out there.
The other thing I don't like about games that provide you with tiny screenshots to try to get you to buy is that it almost feels like they're trying to hide something. Like the game is carp or something.
Hello, I'm one of WCS's developers. I just saw the posts about screenshots, and can assure you we're not trying to hide anything: in fact, we consider our maps to be our #1 selling point (or, more accurately, either #1a, #1b, or #1c... but still Number One). And we're also very pleased with our interface. The only thing I personally have been hiding from players is that I wasn't able to come up with historically justifiable commander ratings for every single regimental leader and his two most senior officers in every battle we cover, and thus a good number of these ratings had to be randomized. And I've been hiding that there is an important part of the Williamsburg battlefield that wasn't properly mapped and therefore is something of a mystery, and thus what our map has represents my best guesswork.
So, now that I have confessed these two things, I will personally take screenshots of any aspect of the game that any of you might wish to see and post them here. You point, I click.
Also, I might as well address the point made up above about length of development. To the outside world it looks like this game was under development for 7-8 years, but in truth there would be long periods of time when we were unable to work on it (though a few hardy testers would continue to test it, and every once in a while I would take a few minutes to post on a public forum that the game was NOT vaporware). Our programmer had to spend months at a time working instead on our WWII game "Conflict of Heroes" and its two follow-ups, I had all sorts of things to do for my real career that kept me from doing anything for similarly long periods, and our primary graphics person was in a similar situation. It was only in the past year that there would be times when programming, scenario design, and art were all being worked on at once. So the game probably took three, or perhaps four, years of actual development time.
Please do let me know if you have any questions, either here or in the Matrix forum.
I'm very interested in this game. There is just so much gaming greatness out now that some titles can unfortunately fall through the cracks. Some of us picked up titles in the Matrix Easter sale...for me it was War in the West, a huge and very deep game. New titles will just have to wait awhile.
Interview with devs
http://www.wargamer.com/Article/10102
Thanks for the link O0
"I cannot consent to place in the control of others one who cannot control himself." (R. E, Lee)
After years of development, Brother Against Brother will be available in 48 hours! In order to shorten the waiting time and introduce the main features of this new wargame from the Western Civilization Software team to you, we'll stream the game tomorrow, 15th of April at 20 CEST/2pm EDT.
Follow us on our official http://www.twitch.tv/slitherinegroup Twitch Channel! <--- I'll be doing this one, btw, my first Twitch stream! Wish me luck.
And it's not over!
We have more news to share with you! The map and booklet about the Battle of Williamsburg is available!
http://www.matrixgames.com/amazon/Art/BrotherAgainstBrother/BaB_Williamsburg_BattleMap.jpg
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/505/downloads/
And if you want to see how this battle can be fought in Brother Against Brother, you can read this detailed AAR http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3835927, in which Zakblood – one of the most loyal Beta Testers of the game - plays on both sides using historical guides to better show you how accurate and challenging this game can be!
Get more information about the game here: http://bit.ly/1AEkdLD
Quote from: Tuna on April 11, 2015, 12:48:19 PM
LOL.. well I loved FoF, but the fixed resolution was a bummer!
Agree.
Did some searching in Matrix forum but didn't come across an answer --
Is Brother Against Brother still locked in FoF's low resolution? Can't recall what that was offhand -- 1024x768 perhaps? The screenshots sure look that way, and it's discouraging.
I hope it's not locked. However, the screen shots I've seen are so similar and rather pixelated (unit sprites) that I fear it is locked. Perhaps not to 1024x768 like FoF
As I said - I do hope not.
Erik - is this going on Steam? This isn't a deal breaker - unlike the fixed resolution - but just asking.
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 14, 2015, 11:35:32 AM
Quote from: Tuna on April 11, 2015, 12:48:19 PM
LOL.. well I loved FoF, but the fixed resolution was a bummer!
Agree.
Did some searching in Matrix forum but didn't come across an answer --
Is Brother Against Brother still locked in FoF's low resolution? Can't recall what that was offhand -- 1024x768 perhaps? The screenshots sure look that way, and it's discouraging.
I don't believe it is locked... look at the screenshots on this AAR: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3835927
I see screenshots at 1920x1080. That said, it would be nice to get an official confirmation.
Screen shots are nice and big in the aar!
No, not locked. Normal resolution!
I'm glad someone asked, because last night I made a horrific discovery: in the Matrix forum I began a FAQ thread five years ago in which I said the game was likely to be in fixed resolution, and I didn't update that when the resolution issue was resolved. Also, at the time I posted Windows 8 didn't exist, so I didn't list Windows 8 as one of the OS's that can handle the game. So, if anyone has been left with the impression that the game won't run on Windows 8 or at normal resolution, that's not the case.
ok - I'm in! O0
there is just too much gaming goodness coming out lately....need more time :o
So is this going to be released on Steam?
Quote from: -budd- on April 14, 2015, 09:12:36 PM
there is just too much gaming goodness coming out lately....need more time :o
Agreed...but for me it's a need for more time and $$$$$$$$. :-[
It appears from the AAR that turns are 20 min's in length. With that, it also appears that orders can be created, distributed and implemented (without fail?) within that time period. Is that accurate?
I actually won't be in on day one. Funds.
But in the words of a terminating governor - I'll be back ;)
Orders can be fouled up and not followed or not understood by the unit.
Effectively showing command control or lack of in these battles.
It's released.
Ouch!
£35.99+VAT = £43.19 DD
£56.99+VAT = £68.39 Collectors Edition
I know - we say it all the time - but I think the term rhymes with "Clucking Bell"
Sorry Erik , Eric and Gil - I just can't. :'(
Good luck though. O0
I pretty much figured $50 based on how Matrix has priced comparable titles.
Including local tax (VAT here) that's $64 and $101
Bought! I'm swamped with so many games I want to play right now. :)
It's indeed fairly expensive for today's standards...if I knew I'd spend the next 3-4 months with it maybe, but I've got so many other games to play first...
I will have to wait...but it stays on my list.
Lets start a pool for how long JD can hold out! :crazy2:
Start posting impressions, boys.
Hi guys,
VAT should actually be included now - are you seeing it as still a separate charge, JD?
$49.99 is actually a pretty good price and about average for a wargame, especially with the time that went into this one, but it's absolutely your call if that's the right price for you. I can only say that I think it's worth it! :-)
In case you missed the Twitch Livestream, you can now watch it here:
https://youtu.be/rJI9L2yh9uE
That should hopefully answer a lot of questions as well.
The game fully supports modern resolutions and the command and control system works very well. You have functions for each command echelon. Each regiment can change formation and be given orders, there are brigade orders and significant effects on brigade coordination and orders change based on the brigade commander. The division level can help set the objective for the division, Corps level handles intelligence/fog of war, scouts and can speed divisions. Army level can be a big help with overall morale and breaking point, etc.
If you have excellent command, formation and orders changes can be quick. Turns are about 20 minutes each. If you are out of command or your commanders are not that great, or something simply goes wrong, it can take much longer to get things re-organized and moving in the right direction. It's all based on the real historical challenges of command and control in this era.
Regards,
- Erik
Yes Erik - that seems to be different. I could've been wrong, but I'd swear it said + tax before.
Anyway...truthfully £35.99 is easier to swallow. I'll still have to think though Tuna - so keep the bets coming in :smitten:
I had really wanted that title to see if it was a viable alternative to Tiller's ACW games.
I fully appreciate how much research goes into something like this, and understand that the researchers and developers need to be compensated for several years of unpaid work.
But I think the pricing is a mistake.
With the exception of Bull Run these are fairly obscure battles that are unlikely to win much of a mass audience. The only way to attract a mass audience for the series (if there ever is a series) is to price the games low enough so that the typical Steam user says 'what the heck, I've never heard of Wilson's Creek, but for twenty bucks it might be fun'. Impulse buys happen at ten dollars or less, at twenty bucks you need to have some connection to something to attract new users. There's not much of a connection here, and the price is a killer.
This is priced higher than a Tiller game. The time in development and amount of research involved is comparable to a Tiller title, but Brother against Brother delivers a fraction of the number of scenarios you'd expect from a typical Tiller title. The graphics seem better and hopefully the AI is better (that' should be easy because Tiller ACW AI is pretty awful). Tiller games shine in PBEM, and this game is probably saddled with Matrix's boneheaded PBEM scheme.
At this price the game is probably not going to attract new users to the hobby, so I have to worry about the continuation of the series. And the rest of the series is why I would have bought the game in the first place (Wilderness and Peninsula campaigns).
So my wallet is going to stay in my pocket, and will probably stay there for two or three years until Matrix figures out what a sale really looks like.
Which is a shame, because I would have liked to support this game at the outset.
Erik
Can you tell us what is with the Collectors Edition - that's quite a jump in price. Is the manual as good as the War in the West one? Hard backed? With a hard spine? or spiral?
It really bums me out when new game discussions immediately devolve to price discussions. :-\
Philippe...I agree with your first statement...I had really wanted that title to see if it was a viable alternative to Tiller's ACW games.
...that's precisely what I'm hoping this game is. Somewhere along the way I'm getting this game but I want to see some reviews and feedback first.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on April 16, 2015, 11:55:26 AM
I could've been wrong, but I'd swear it said + tax before.
You're not wrong. It seems
all their prices went down for me. This morning Flashpoint Campaigns was 60 € (price + 21% VAT) and now its 49,99 € (price VAT included).
If these prices stay (and I really hope they do) it's like having another easter sale for us in Europe.
Quote from: Toonces on April 16, 2015, 12:26:51 PM
It really bums me out when new game discussions immediately devolve to price discussions. :-\
...or DRM for that matter.
Simple fact is, if the game is good, it will sell. I don't really care about attracting new users on steam. Hardcore wargamers will buy it if given a reason to. I'm ready to purchase, I just want to hear some feedback first.
Man...if only this had Sharpsburg or 2nd Manassas even it would be an instant buy. It seems very much to be a PC version of The Gamers "Line of Battle" series of games of which I'm delving in to now. Eric, any early ideas on when additional maps/scenarios/campaigns will be added to the game and will those come as add-ons or as separate (and complete) games within themselves?
Of course I'm all in with this title. I've been waiting and testing for years to finally see this day arrive. I hope this series becomes wildly popular so that they can add more battles and scenarios. I doubt that it will ever grow into Forge of Freedom 2, but that's ok for now.
I will be playing BAB tonight, and will report back.
ahem....
http://grogheads.com/?p=7903
that is all ;)
Quote from: bayonetbrant on April 16, 2015, 01:36:25 PM
ahem....
http://grogheads.com/?p=7903
that is all ;)
Very nice, bb. Yogi and I had a couple of really fun PBEM matches a few years ago before the lovely new maps arrived. The game was already a blast back then, and it looks even more polished now. O0
Will future battles be full games, or expansions?
A quick criticism from me, is that when combat resolves (no matter the zoom selected when planning) the game zooms out to a far view (presumably to get the whole combat on the screen at once), but it just makes appreciating the resolution of the combat a bit "squinty" and you're distanced from it all.
See this screenshot:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkafrVJg.jpg&hash=4b56567f7e154b53d26bc6a27951ec7de8c6c140) (http://imgur.com/kafrVJg)
Approx 80% of the screen is superfluous to the resolution of the combat.
Overall, I like the plan/resolve cycle, and the command and leader complexity. The level of detail you can uncover about the combat and the modifiers is really outstanding. But the actual visual (and usually the exciting 'reveal' part of it all) is actually weakened by the distance its presented at.
I wonder if there is a setting (I couldn't find it), or perhaps a proposed setting to set the zoom level of the combat resolution?
Also, I'd put flags against the units names in the combat details window (they are there in the above Turn summary window - but in each individual combat resolution window - the names of the combatants are just written out in text), just so you don't have to pick out the units name from the text, and then work out what side its on from where it was formed. Obviously this could be more of an issue with a clueless limey. :)
I really enjoyed Erik's twitch stream intro to the game, it sort of got things moving without too much mithering in the manual.
It does seem backwards; I would think that it would zoom IN to the battle (the affected unit if not both the firer and target) and then zoom back OUT for the 'big picture' overview.
Quote from: Toonces on April 16, 2015, 12:26:51 PM
It really bums me out when new game discussions immediately devolve to price discussions. :-\
First of all I apologise.
But the price is important to me. I felt compelled to inform the developers that I couldn't pay that price. I wasn't actually telling them to reduce it. I wasn't bitching. I was just informing them the reason I wouldn't be buying it yet.
I was already thinking about picking it up as there was an issue with the online store which showed the price was exclusive of tax and Erik pointed out the price now showed including tax.
I also apologised if I got that wrong - but that's what I recalled seeing.
Quote from: Tuna on April 16, 2015, 03:11:30 PM
Will future battles be full games, or expansions?
Each BAB title -- assuming this first release is popular enough for it to become a series! -- will be a stand-alone game, built around 1-2 major battles and 2-3 lesser ones. I say a bit more in the FAQ thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2453818
Quote from: Gil R. on April 16, 2015, 06:43:29 PM
Quote from: Tuna on April 16, 2015, 03:11:30 PM
Will future battles be full games, or expansions?
Each BAB title -- assuming this first release is popular enough for it to become a series! -- will be a stand-alone game, built around 1-2 major battles and 2-3 lesser ones. I say a bit more in the FAQ thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2453818
And in addition, Gil forgot to mention that Forge of Freedom 2 is in the works. >:D ::)
Quote from: GJK on April 16, 2015, 01:26:58 PM
Man...if only this had Sharpsburg or 2nd Manassas even it would be an instant buy. It seems very much to be a PC version of The Gamers "Line of Battle" series of games of which I'm delving in to now. Eric, any early ideas on when additional maps/scenarios/campaigns will be added to the game and will those come as add-ons or as separate (and complete) games within themselves?
Adding to what I just wrote to Tuna, we will begin serious work on BAB#2 this summer -- assuming sales suggest we should! -- so my hope is early next year to have it out. That is not a promise, but an estimate. We already have the 2nd Manassas map completed, since our artist and I made a super-giant map of the area that could be carved into a 1st Manassas map and 2nd Manassas map, and I've done a lot of the OOB work, but I still need to research and draw the Seven Days Battles maps, which are very large, and I doubt I'd finish that before autumn. But early next year is possible.
As for new scenarios, we'll be releasing those regularly, and for free. Probably next week I'll have time to start working on the next one.
Quote from: Philippe on April 16, 2015, 12:16:22 PM
...
With the exception of Bull Run these are fairly obscure battles that are unlikely to win much of a mass audience. The only way to attract a mass audience for the series (if there ever is a series) is to price the games low enough so that the typical Steam user says 'what the heck, I've never heard of Wilson's Creek, but for twenty bucks it might be fun'. Impulse buys happen at ten dollars or less, at twenty bucks you need to have some connection to something to attract new users. There's not much of a connection here, and the price is a killer.
...
Philippe, there is a chance you are correct about price/sales, but it is my hope that, even if three of the battles are obscure, people become convinced that they are
wrongly obscure. Each of the battles we chose has a very interesting back-story, and the battle itself is likewise interesting and compelling. Moreover, putting aside the visual appeal of the maps, the four non-Manassas maps each have some very challenging terrain. Even if someone has never heard of Beech Grove and the CSA encampment there, I'd think that one look at the map should make him think "I've never heard of Beech Grove, but I've got to try fighting out a battle there." So even without the quality of the program, the detail of the OOB's and everything else that we hope will make BAB a hit, the individual battles and their battlefields are very much worth people's time (and money).
Quote from: Slick Wilhelm on April 16, 2015, 01:35:13 PM
Of course I'm all in with this title. I've been waiting and testing for years to finally see this day arrive. I hope this series becomes wildly popular so that they can add more battles and scenarios. I doubt that it will ever grow into Forge of Freedom 2, but that's ok for now.
I will be playing BAB tonight, and will report back.
It's great to see this. It is no understatement to say that BAB would not be as good without your countless hours of testing.
And no, BAB will not grow into a FOF2, but Eric and I would certainly like to make FOF2. Not in the next few years, though -- too many other projects.
Quote from: spelk on April 16, 2015, 03:28:51 PM
A quick criticism from me, is that when combat resolves (no matter the zoom selected when planning) the game zooms out to a far view (presumably to get the whole combat on the screen at once), but it just makes appreciating the resolution of the combat a bit "squinty" and you're distanced from it all.
See this screenshot:
...
Approx 80% of the screen is superfluous to the resolution of the combat.
Overall, I like the plan/resolve cycle, and the command and leader complexity. The level of detail you can uncover about the combat and the modifiers is really outstanding. But the actual visual (and usually the exciting 'reveal' part of it all) is actually weakened by the distance its presented at.
I wonder if there is a setting (I couldn't find it), or perhaps a proposed setting to set the zoom level of the combat resolution?
Also, I'd put flags against the units names in the combat details window (they are there in the above Turn summary window - but in each individual combat resolution window - the names of the combatants are just written out in text), just so you don't have to pick out the units name from the text, and then work out what side its on from where it was formed. Obviously this could be more of an issue with a clueless limey. :)
I really enjoyed Erik's twitch stream intro to the game, it sort of got things moving without too much mithering in the manual.
Thank you for your comments. I've passed them along to our programmer.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on April 16, 2015, 05:14:49 PM
Quote from: Toonces on April 16, 2015, 12:26:51 PM
It really bums me out when new game discussions immediately devolve to price discussions. :-\
First of all I apologise.
But the price is important to me. I felt compelled to inform the developers that I couldn't pay that price. I wasn't actually telling them to reduce it. I wasn't bitching. I was just informing them the reason I wouldn't be buying it yet.
I was already thinking about picking it up as there was an issue with the online store which showed the price was exclusive of tax and Erik pointed out the price now showed including tax.
I also apologised if I got that wrong - but that's what I recalled seeing.
I for one don't think a discussion of price is out of line. Many reviewers get the game for free so not an issue for the reviewer, but a high price tag is an issue for the rest of us. This game, IMHO, has raised the price bar, past what I will pay for the feature set; I'll wait a year or so for it to go on sale...if it ever does.
I agree. The price is part of the game and is just as important to some gamers as graphics or resolution is to others. I can afford it but I just don't think the game has enough to justify that price. I paid a crap ton for WiTE, WitW, WitP and Command...because they have incredible depth and the complexity justifies the price. This is a tactical game which is based on an older game. Seems to me the price was set to make up for the unbelievable development time because i just don't see how the game justifies that price
I'm just guessing though.
That's an understandable but incorrect assumption re: pricing. Whether development took seven months or seven years, the difference in cost to Matrix/Slitherine was negligible, since the cost of developing the game was that of WCS rather than Matrix/Slitherine. So their decision regarding the price was based solely on current market considerations, not development time.
Seems there were glitches all over re pricing...so I'm glad I posted about the price.
The physical version is (imo) a reasonable £46.99 (if the kind of manual that comes with it is on a par with WitW - I don't know but I'm currently checking).
The Flare Path takes a look at BaB
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/04/17/the-flare-path-on-bloody-point
Not a massively glowing endorsement, but there are many positives highlighted on the way.
Quote from: spelk on April 17, 2015, 07:06:06 AM
The Flare Path takes a look at BaB
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/04/17/the-flare-path-on-bloody-point
Not a massively glowing endorsement, but there are many positives highlighted on the way.
Yes, a disappointing review in that I've been thinking about this one since it released the other day. But it is RPS...their reviews are not always in alignment with how I see games.
Quote from: Gil R. on April 16, 2015, 09:23:24 PM
That's an understandable but incorrect assumption re: pricing. Whether development took seven months or seven years, the difference in cost to Matrix/Slitherine was negligible, since the cost of developing the game was that of WCS rather than Matrix/Slitherine. So their decision regarding the price was based solely on current market considerations, not development time.
Fair enough
To be honest that review makes me more likely to want the game.
Does anyone know if there is an option to use counters instead of the graphics?
Quote from: dinsdale on April 17, 2015, 01:02:13 PM
Does anyone know if there is an option to use counters instead of the graphics?
Yes, you can have the sprites or the counters. In the zoomed out combat resolution mode, it defaults to the counters view.
In other news my two micro gripes (in my post higher up in the thread) are planned in the post-release patch (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3843188#). Zoomed in combat resolution, and flags attached to combat names in the details box! Woohoo!
QuoteThere are two more planned improvements for this post-release. First, to add the flag next to the unit name in the combat report so that some cases where you have, for example, the East Tennessee unit firing on the Tennessee unit are less confusing.
The second is an option to stay zoomed in during combat.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on January 28, 2015, 06:40:10 AM
I always played the battles out too...unless they were very small.
The tactical battles in FoF were great and had some superb parameters and effects.
But I still wanted a beautiful FoF
I'm not saying I won't get this - just that I'm not overly enthused about not having a strat layer.
I love a strategy layer with my tactical games - sadly save for the likes of Total War and Achtung Panzer/Graviteam Tactics you don't often see it. :'(
I was hoping you could default it to counters all of the time. The troop graphics were not thrilling me.
I'll probably grab it to give it a try this weekend.
Ok, I'm not trying to bash this game as Gil has put a lot of work into it. I made my peace with the price and that has been discussed. I had assumed that it came with a number of different battles. I'm sure you guys probably know but I didn't... that it only comes with first Manassas, Wilson's Creek and Williamsburg? Why not some more interesting battles like maybe Chattanooga, Chickamauga, Shiloh or second Manassas? I don't know, maybe even the seven days campaign?
Just seems odd that I have to pay 60 bucks and after seven years of development I get three minor Civil War battles? I'm sure people will create their own and other DLC's will come out but I'm just kind of disappointed. I do really like scorch of war but I really wanted to play a text based tactical Civil War game and thought this was going to be it. It still might be eventually but I just can't justify purchasing this for those three battles.
I guess there's no real point to this post other than hoping someone will come out and say no Mike go to the site and there are a couple other battles you can download??
I thought that too at first but the amount of detail in the scenarios and maps is incredible. And they did say that more scenarios were coming in the future.
Mikeck,
Your viewpoint is an understandable one, and it is not surprising that some potential customers would have this reaction, but let me explain our thinking a bit.
First, BAB is meant to be a series of releases that chronologically trace the war -- and, assuming that sales suggest that there is demand for more releases, it will indeed become one. Ideally, BAB would end up as 6-7 releases. I spent an enormous amount of time playing with the possibilities, and have sketched out what the releases would look like for a 4-game series, a 5-game one, etc. So we did not include those other battles mainly because we expect to cover them in future releases.
Now, the original name of this release was to be "Opening Battles of the Civil War," but then we went with something more poetic. Still, that's the theme: the first eastern and western battles in 1861, and then the first two of the following year. There weren't really other good candidates to add: Seven Pines would require a massive map, and the nature of that battle suggests it wouldn't be ideal for a computer game, while adding the Seven Days Battles would have been so massive an amount of work that it would have added a year of development time. The one battle that might have made sense was Fort Donelson, and indeed I began working on that as our fifth battle, but early on we decided that having one less battle would speed up development -- and since Fort Donelson is neither a large battle nor a well known one we did not feel it would impair sales. So instead Fort Donelson will join Shiloh, Pea Ridge, and one or two others in BAB#3, on the western theater in 1862. (Shiloh itself, arguably, could be an "opening battle," but that would have added even more to development time. Plus Shiloh is a major enough battle that it deserves to be the centerpiece of its own release.)
Also, please note the scale of the maps. Our largest possible map is 5 x 10 miles, and in this release we have 1st Manassas at something like 5 x 8 (going from memory here), while Williamsburg is 5 x 5. In these and the other three maps the peripheral areas dwarf the central battlefield area, because we wanted to allow for maximum maneuver and replayability, especially for scenarios designed by modders. So it is our belief that even if the battles themselves were small relative to Antietam, Gettysburg, etc. the size of the maps creates a large number of possibilities.
Finally, it has always been our hope that BAB would appeal to modders, both those skilled in scenario design and those who can make suitable maps. While we do not currently plan to release a map-editor, I have promised to help work with modders who create maps for battles not currently planned for BAB, doing the map-editing myself so that their artwork can be snapped into the game and used. So I am cautiously optimistic that before too long there will be other battles that one can play.
Gil,
I appreciate the response. I have no doubt it is a superb product. I Have been following it for years and i know it's a labor of love. I DO like games that experiment with smaller battles or battles that are under-gamed. That's what I like about Graviteam tactics.
I will pick this up at some point here as it looks beautiful and well done. Not for me now, but I didnt want to come across as pissing and moaning about the game. It is what you wanted it to be. Now if we could get as many hex based civil war:musket era games as we have space 4xs...we will be in bidness
Well, I decided not to jump on this at the moment. Instead, it piqued my interest in the Civil War (which I have dipped in and out of over the years through various books) and I bought Ken Burns Civil War series of DVDs.
The aim is to get me in the mood to spunk the £50 on the physical edition.
Can I ask Gil whilst you are checking here - do you know if the manual is the same in type (hard backed hard bound) as the War in the West manual?
I might as well throw one to Erik here - Erik - your description page could do with more info so the user can decide to spunk the extra cash on a physical copy or not. It's not at all clear what the manual looks like.
Quote from: panzerde on April 17, 2015, 05:21:54 PM
I was hoping you could default it to counters all of the time. The troop graphics were not thrilling me.
I think you can turn on the counter graphics all the time. If you want. It's a key toggle, or from the options menu.
Historical Gamer gives us his first impressions of BaB
https://youtu.be/EzEUkfmp6pI
Quote from: JudgeDredd on April 18, 2015, 12:50:48 AM
Instead, it piqued my interest in the Civil War (which I have dipped in and out of over the years through various books) and I bought Ken Burns Civil War series of DVDs.
Hey JD, I just watched the first 2.5 episodes on Netflix and it's fantastic- you're going to love it!
Quote from: Toonces on April 18, 2015, 04:22:20 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on April 18, 2015, 12:50:48 AM
Instead, it piqued my interest in the Civil War (which I have dipped in and out of over the years through various books) and I bought Ken Burns Civil War series of DVDs.
Hey JD, I just watched the first 2.5 episodes on Netflix and it's fantastic- you're going to love it!
Ken Burns series is excellent, you feel like your 'living' it. lol, my Stepson 'borrowed' mine when he moved to NYC, granted his first job was working on a Civil War collection for the NYPL, but that was 5 years ago, I want it back!
Quote from: spelk on April 18, 2015, 02:22:16 AM
Historical Gamer gives us his first impressions of BaB
https://youtu.be/EzEUkfmp6pI
A much more positive review as compared with that on RPS.
I'm looking forward to it. It may spur me into playing Civil War II and perhaps even buying this for the get down and dirty battles.
Haven't dived completely in yet but it's making me want to play Forge of Freedom again. :))
Quote from: spelk on April 18, 2015, 02:22:16 AM
Historical Gamer gives us his first impressions of BaB
https://youtu.be/EzEUkfmp6pI
Thanks for that. I've been on the fence and HG's videos are always intelligent and insightful.
Quote from: mikeck on April 17, 2015, 09:32:52 PM
Gil,
I appreciate the response. I have no doubt it is a superb product. I Have been following it for years and i know it's a labor of love. I DO like games that experiment with smaller battles or battles that are under-gamed. That's what I like about Graviteam tactics.
I will pick this up at some point here as it looks beautiful and well done. Not for me now, but I didnt want to come across as pissing and moaning about the game. It is what you wanted it to be. Now if we could get as many hex based civil war:musket era games as we have space 4xs...we will be in bidness
I didn't take your post as "pissing and moaning," but rather expressing what we knew might be the reaction of some. It may turn out that our plan for BAB was wrong, and we should have done just three releases jammed with only large battles rather than trying to get to 5-7 releases. But if sales levels prove us wrong, that won't mean that we didn't have good reasons (several, in fact) to start with smaller battles and build to larger ones.
All,
On a semi-related note, in my previous response to mikeck I mentioned that we wouldn't be doing Seven Pines, mainly because the way it happened historically seemed -- at the time we were planning -- to be almost impossible to pull off, since so much of the way that battle unfolded depended on specific commanders not doing what they were supposed to. (From the point of view of designing a game, I think that Seven Pines and Antietam are the major battles most difficult to simulate. Much easier to have something like Gettysburg Day 3, where the two forces are mostly lined up and facing each other.) However, our Peninsula Campaign maps will include the area of the battlefield, so maybe I'll take a shot at it, but if not it will be there for modders. So in some form Seven Pines will be in BAB.
I believe that Matrix uses the same approach to designing all its manuals and the same printer.
Erik is off this coming week, so he he's unlikely to be responding in this thread for a while.
re: the manual
From Eric on the Matrix forum
The printed manual for Brother against Brother is a full color 200 page printed manual on good stock. It's not the hardbound style like WIF and WITW, it's the same style as our other manuals so that it fits (barely) within the case.
Regards,
- Erik
I did a quick 'plan and see' session on the Williamsburg scenario.
http://sugarfreegamer.com/brother-against-brother-plan-and-see/
Only JD would buy a $50 DVD set to watch in order to convince him to spend $50 on a game! :idiot2:
Quote from: challerain on April 18, 2015, 12:14:09 PM
re: the manual
From Eric on the Matrix forum
The printed manual for Brother against Brother is a full color 200 page printed manual on good stock. It's not the hardbound style like WIF and WITW, it's the same style as our other manuals so that it fits (barely) within the case.
Regards,
- Erik
So that sounds to me like the War in the East manual. a relatively small DVD case size manual. No thanks. I didn't get on with that size manual at all. It was too small and the pictures were almost useless.
A Collectors Edition smacks of "something special" - like the manuals for World in Flames (and they went over and above on that one imo with the manuals - though I don't have them I did want them and might one day still get them) or the manual for War in the West.
However that's not the case - it's just "a colour manual". It could be 30 pages - but if it's colour, they can call it the Collectors Edition. I know they wouldn't - just saying that the colour part seems to be what makes the Collectors Edition.
DX = PDF
ST (should) = DVD B&W manual
CL (should) = Special hard back colour manual
Just my opinion
Quote from: Toonces on April 18, 2015, 01:23:41 PM
Only JD would buy a $50 DVD set to watch in order to convince him to spend $50 on a game! :idiot2:
There's some logic in my madness - I could buy the game and have it sit there doing nothing with my other games (and my ACW II game) or...the series might get me hankering for more ACW goodness. >:D
I have heard about the Ken Burns series and have honestly wanted to buy it for ages but put it off enough to keep forgetting to buy it. This game got my juices flowing again for some ACW.
I honestly don't know if I'll buy this one...but the series might at least get me to play the CW II game I have and never touched.
Well you know the saying, you've got to spend money to spend money. :P
Or something like that.
Hey surf boy - how was the water? :buck2:
Quote from: JudgeDredd on April 18, 2015, 12:50:48 AM
Can I ask Gil whilst you are checking here - do you know if the manual is the same in type (hard backed hard bound) as the War in the West manual?
The physical manual in this case is a full color 200 page printed manual on good stock, sized as most of our manuals are to fix (barely) in the game box. This is not the hardbound type (only WIF and WITW are) but softcover that fits in the box.
Regards,
- Erik
Quote from: mikeck on April 17, 2015, 08:04:10 PM
Ok, I'm not trying to bash this game as Gil has put a lot of work into it. I made my peace with the price and that has been discussed. I had assumed that it came with a number of different battles. I'm sure you guys probably know but I didn't... that it only comes with first Manassas, Wilson's Creek and Williamsburg?
First Manassas and Williamsburg are actually pretty huge battles and Wilson's Creek is a lot of fun. Have you had a look at the in-game maps we've posted? I guess I'm of the type that battles which are interesting which I haven't already played 10 times are actually more interesting to me than doing Antietam or Gettysburg again (though those would be fun too).
Also, you missed Mill Springs, which also includes the "what if" additional battlefield of Beech Grove.
JD, watching the Ken Burns Civil War series WILL make you want to play Civil War games. Well, at least it does for me. 8)
Quote from: ERutins on April 18, 2015, 03:30:56 PM
Quote from: mikeck on April 17, 2015, 08:04:10 PM
Ok, I'm not trying to bash this game as Gil has put a lot of work into it. I made my peace with the price and that has been discussed. I had assumed that it came with a number of different battles. I'm sure you guys probably know but I didn't... that it only comes with first Manassas, Wilson's Creek and Williamsburg?
First Manassas and Williamsburg are actually pretty huge battles and Wilson's Creek is a lot of fun. Have you had a look at the in-game maps we've posted? I guess I'm of the type that battles which are interesting which I haven't already played 10 times are actually more interesting to me than doing Antietam or Gettysburg again (though those would be fun too).
Also, you missed Mill Springs, which also includes the "what if" additional battlefield of Beech Grove.
Erik,
The maps look great. My point was just that if you are only going to have a few battles, why not battles that were a bit more impactful and bigger. Gil actually answered by explaining that the intention was to use only early 1861-2 battles. I'm on board with Wilson creek but why not shiloh or 2nd manassas. Both were bigger battles with more organization but were still early (spring-summer 1862). But that was the choice and I understand what Gil was saying
I just couldnt imagine "Scourge of War: Belmont". It was a battle but not one I would imagine many want to wargame. I could be wrong. I hope this game sells like hot cakes and we get more
Personally I think it's a cool idea to have a road map which covers the battles from start to finish. Kind of your own journey.
Also - it's a nice idea to have some of the more obscure or lesser battles. At least from a person who isn't overly knowledgeable - I understand people who know about the war in detail might see some as "not worthy" for want of a better phrase.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on April 18, 2015, 04:55:37 PM
Also - it's a nice idea to have some of the more obscure or lesser battles. At least from a person who isn't overly knowledgeable - I understand people who know about the war in detail might see some as "not worthy" for want of a better phrase.
I really enjoy playing less well known battles, and even quite small and historically indecisive engagements. Aside from having played battles like Gettysburg and Antietam to death, some of the smaller battles, where the commanders were very constrained in number and types of troops, can be very challenging and tactically interesting.
I really like playing 1st Manassas. I even recently read a book about it, because I found it so interesting. Neither side really knew what they were doing yet and it makes for some interesting situations.
I've been trying to hold off on buying this because there are a couple of other games I want to pick up, and the price tag gives me pause. Still, I'll almost certainly pick it up soon.
I really wish someone besides tiller would do some of the western battles: Shiloh, Chickamauga and Chatanooga in particular. Oh well. Don't get me wrong, I like to play smaller obscure battles too...just not exclusively. But then I'm not the one making the game. To each their own
JD...if you are now just starting to get interested in the ACW, I recommend Shelby Footed 3 volumn narrative. T about 3000 pages all told but it is a great read and truly a "narrative" instead of a "1st Regiment went here and 3rd division went there"
It occurred to me that this is very much the sort of game I want to encourage Matrix/Slitherine to make, so I ought to vote with my wallet. Purchased and installing now.
The engine looks like it might be quite nice for Napoleonics, too.
The game has crashed twice on me so far. Other than that, the game system seems interesting and easy to play. I was pretty much crushing the CSA in the tutorial before it crashed, so I'm dialing up the difficulty a bit.
There's a lot of interesting depth here. I need to play some more before I really know what I'm talking about, though.
Quote from: panzerde on April 18, 2015, 08:44:20 PM
The game has crashed twice on me so far. Other than that, the game system seems interesting and easy to play. I was pretty much crushing the CSA in the tutorial before it crashed, so I'm dialing up the difficulty a bit.
There's a lot of interesting depth here. I need to play some more before I really know what I'm talking about, though.
I downloaded the manual a few days ago. I'm about 75 pages through the 200 pages. I don't think you should be concerned about depth. There is plenty going on both apparent and under the hood
I'm interested but i'm on the fence right now. I'd like to see how much meat is on the bone. A big thing for me is if the AI responds differently when you use a different plan. Whats the unit count in the larger scenario's. So far i've only seen the tutorial scenario, looking forward to seeing other scenario AAR's and youtube vids. The scale is where i like it, and the maps look great.
Quote from: panzerde on April 18, 2015, 05:04:14 PM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on April 18, 2015, 04:55:37 PM
Also - it's a nice idea to have some of the more obscure or lesser battles. At least from a person who isn't overly knowledgeable - I understand people who know about the war in detail might see some as "not worthy" for want of a better phrase.
.....
Still, I'll almost certainly pick it up soon.
Quote from: panzerde on April 18, 2015, 07:14:39 PM
.....
Purchased and installing now.
.....
lol - just over 2 hours later. I think we have a challenger to me ladies and gentlemen :))
I had a stab at the Mills Creek scenario on Lt Col difficulty, and boy it was a dis-organised learning experiment. It seemed like i just couldn't get the right units in place, before the Rebs were all over me. I tried to take and hold that hillock, near The Sag, that Robear (from GamersWithJobs said (http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/35998?page=117#comment-3243513) he had an enemy unit popping back and forth on. It seemed like the key set of heights to take and hold, if I could. So that was my simple aim. I never seemed to have enough lines at the front, and my arty always seemed to be hampered by the "hot gates" style landscape.
Anyway, I struggled onwards with it all, and here is the lie of the land at the end of the game. I got a win, but only 1 star. I lost a unit to routing (all the way off the map!!).
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7rP2ViY.jpg&hash=249daf24cdb773c4dd0d75198c17649322a433f8) (http://imgur.com/7rP2ViY)
The AI seemed to do a decent job of rotating fresh troops in and taking battered troops out for a rest, all under the cover of the dreaded fog of war. Holding that area didn't seem to give me any intel beyond the edge of it. Also, I couldn't get my cav round either side, for rebs blocking the movement with their Zones of Control.
The scores on the doors
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiBK1nQA.jpg&hash=5941df7b0f53ecb630eee97d73e4b9e5b73016b7) (http://imgur.com/iBK1nQA)
The shameful Morale graph
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWPpablg.jpg&hash=3dc249d9d53840fe13437cf0639bbef33dc90837) (http://imgur.com/WPpablg)
The vicarious Casualty graph
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F41ZeqRy.jpg&hash=f5d315191b0604b306468dd818da10969bf6d9ec) (http://imgur.com/41ZeqRy)
And finally, just because I'm so proud of them, the 10th Indiana Infantry unit that simply held the line whilst all the other troops where on their way. They eventually routed, but they held for so long and they clocked up the most inflicted casualties, they need to be recognised for their efforts! They were stationed at the crux of the road and the hillock. In Hold orders, with lots of urging.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdXVhbg6.jpg&hash=d687c6b1b431460b838b5d76c3cb82c14a662b18) (http://imgur.com/dXVhbg6)
Game crashed two times, so the smoke was reset in between autosaves. Enjoyed it immensely, but I'm going to have to spend hours in the manual to become a lot better and mass movement, and keeping Brigades together properly.
A problem with the chits view is that you can't tell which units are generals. In the sprites view the coloured emblem is circular for generals, but the chits everyones colours are rectangle.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on April 19, 2015, 12:57:06 AM
lol - just over 2 hours later. I think we have a challenger to me ladies and gentlemen :))
You're absolutely right. I'm completely hopeless. I had an excuse for going ahead and purchasing it within minutes of posting. :-[
Quote from: panzerde on April 19, 2015, 11:25:16 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on April 19, 2015, 12:57:06 AM
lol - just over 2 hours later. I think we have a challenger to me ladies and gentlemen :))
I had an excuse for going ahead and purchasing it within minutes of posting. :-[
"Mrs Panzer, Mrs Panzer!!! ive just got to buy this ACW game on the net because theres this Scottish guy who thinks he can buy more games than i do, okaaaayyyyyy?!"
Let battle commence :D
Finished the tutorial as USA with a victory at Captain difficulty. I really like the game mechanics. Smoke effects are a nice addition at this scale and something the JTS ACW/NC games could benefit from.
Graphically the maps are great. I really wish they'd clean up the unit graphics, both the miniatures style and counters. PC wargame developers need to spend some time looking at the counters in newer board games and take some inspiration from them. Its a damn shame because so much else about this game seems really on.
The UI is a bit clumsy in spots but does a pretty good job of making information available when you need it. I would rather see the map center on combat rather than the zoom out to max view during combat resolution. It isn't always easy to see where the combat in question is, particularly when the results pop up and cover the bottom half of the map. Leave my zoom level alone and just center on the unit being impacted, ok?
This is a much more groggy game than I first thought it was. I'm eager to try a larger engagement like First Manassas. The emphasis on command & control makes for a very period feel when maneuvering units and bringing them into contact. I like the brigade order system - and I think there are similar tiers of orders at division and corps levels? The morale system is also very good. The AIs attacks on my position were sensible. It made a good attempt at flanking with fresh troops when it received reinforcements.
So far I'm pretty impressed, even if the unit graphics themselves make me weep.
Some quick comments responding to the past 24 hours or so:
All,
I should note that the manual may be 200 pages, but only 80 are devoted to explaining the game, while the rest has OOB's and long summaries of the battles. So while the game is complex, it is not 200-pages complex.
Spelk,
It was good to see you playing session. I hope you move on to other, large, more dynamic battles soon!
Mikeck,
"Scourge of War: Belmont" is one of the funnier ideas I've seen recently.
panzerde,
No one is reporting a crash in the Matrix forum, so let me ask -- did the crashes occur because you clicked on the screen or alt-tabbed to another program while the AI was thinking? Doing that can cause trouble, so when it's the computer's turn one needs to wait for it. If there is another sort of crash please do report it in the game's Support area, so our programmer can investigate.
JudgeDredd,
I'm glad you bought the game. And luckily it's Sunday, which means that I'll have "Mad Men," "Game of Thrones" and "Wolf Hall" to wean me off this thread's "Will he or won't he?" drama. :)
"MikeCK,
"Scourge of War: Belmont" is one of the funnier ideas I've seen recently."
It's yours...I just want 20% of any profits!
Quote from: Gil R. on April 19, 2015, 02:59:22 PM
....
JudgeDredd,
I'm glad you bought the game. And luckily it's Sunday, which means that I'll have "Mad Men," "Game of Thrones" and "Wolf Hall" to wean me off this thread's "Will he or won't he?" drama. :)
Bugger. Sorry Gil for my misleading post but I haven't bought yet. My "let battle commence" post was about Panzerde attempting to steal my reputation for not holding out for very long. :-[
Having said that - it is still on my radar. I'm waiting on some more impressions and also my Ken Burns series.
Quick question if you're still about - are any of these battles featured in the Ken Burns series?
Quote from: JudgeDredd on April 19, 2015, 04:09:37 PM
Quote from: Gil R. on April 19, 2015, 02:59:22 PM
....
JudgeDredd,
I'm glad you bought the game. And luckily it's Sunday, which means that I'll have "Mad Men," "Game of Thrones" and "Wolf Hall" to wean me off this thread's "Will he or won't he?" drama. :)
Having said that - it is still on my radar. I'm waiting on some more impressions and also my Ken Burns series.
Quick question if you're still about - are any of these battles featured in the Ken Burns series?
All this talk on the Ken Burn's series made me go out and purchase the series as well:)
First Manassas is, but I don't think the other battles are featured in his series. I was drinking Captain Morgan's while I was watching it, though, so, you know... :buck2:
Mikeck,
What profits? If WCS calls one of its games "Scourge of War"-anything we'll be sued, and rightly so. Unless it's a parody. (One of the subjects that came up in the far-ranging conversation at our BAB launch party yesterday (see here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3845056) was that one can make a game based on someone else's if it is clearly a parody, but if it's a thinly-veiled immitation then the courts will side against you. (Mind you, I already knew this, but Eric was explaining the law to others who don't have to worry about such things.)
JudgeDredd,
Oh, I see. Then the drama continues! In answer to your question, I don't remember, but I doubt that Burns says much about any of the battles other than Manassas. (All this talk of the Ken Burns documentary has been reminding me of how when we first began working on BAB I thought I would rewatch it to help with my research, but after 2-3 episodes realized it was pretty much useless for a tactical game, since his treatment of tactics is superficial, and topics like weapons, quality of commanders below the rank of army or corps commander, etc. barely come up. Not a knock on the series, which is great -- it just was aimed at a larger audience than game- and scenario-designers.) But with that said, I have stumbled upon a wealth of great stuff pertaining to specific battles on YouTube, especially from reenactors. So you might want to poke around there. If you find anything of interest, please do let us know.
Grim.Reaper,
Thanks to this interest in his series that BAB is causing I am now of the opinion that if ever I meet Ken Burns I am going to insist that he buy me a drink.
Gil - I just played Blackburn's Ford, and I have to say - you've got a winner here. What I just played was a very faithful recreation of ACW fighting, and the outcome made complete sense in terms of the tactics I used and the historical outcome of the battle.
After ordering my green Union troops forward in a hasty attack Longstreet and Early's Rebs shot them up and routed them just as happened in reality. Meanwhile the Regular cavalry I placed on my right to defend my flank very ably held off most of a Reb brigade until the my 4th Brigade could come up and relieve them.
Not surprisingly, artillery has been the big killer in both scenarios I've played so far. Charging infantry in not to be despised for sheer mayhem caused either, but very logically ends up disordered.
I'm impressed. As I said, I could go for improved unit art and could wish for some better sound effects, but this is a very good, very playable ACW tactical game. It has a great board game feel, too.
Finally, a lot has been said about the maps, but I really have to salute you on these again. I'm pretty familiar with the 1st Manassas battlefield and this map is just stunning.
O0
panzerde...you're not helping me resist buying this one...stop! :(
wish you guys would just be quiet already..blahblah...greatmaps, blahblah...plays great....blahblahblah. Enough already. But just in case your gonna post more how about some bigger battles, Pictures and impressions please. ::)
Quote from: Gil R. on April 19, 2015, 07:30:36 PM
Mikeck,
What profits? If WCS calls one of its games "Scourge of War"-anything we'll be sued, and rightly so. Unless it's a parody. (One of the subjects that came up in the far-ranging conversation at our BAB launch party yesterday (see here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3845056) was that one can make a game based on someone else's if it is clearly a parody, but if it's a thinly-veiled immitation then the courts will side against you. (Mind you, I already knew this, but Eric was explaining the law to others who don't have to worry about such things.)
JudgeDredd,
Oh, I see. Then the drama continues! In answer to your question, I don't remember, but I doubt that Burns says much about any of the battles other than Manassas. (All this talk of the Ken Burns documentary has been reminding me of how when we first began working on BAB I thought I would rewatch it to help with my research, but after 2-3 episodes realized it was pretty much useless for a tactical game, since his treatment of tactics is superficial, and topics like weapons, quality of commanders below the rank of army or corps commander, etc. barely come up. Not a knock on the series, which is great -- it just was aimed at a larger audience than game- and scenario-designers.) But with that said, I have stumbled upon a wealth of great stuff pertaining to specific battles on YouTube, especially from reenactors. So you might want to poke around there. If you find anything of interest, please do let us know.
Grim.Reaper,
Thanks to this interest in his series that BAB is causing I am now of the opinion that if ever I meet Ken Burns I am going to insist that he buy me a drink.
Gil, I was joking bud.
On another note, will this ever come out in steam? Ide love to have "workshop" access to download future scenarios and such
Quote from: Rayfer on April 19, 2015, 08:21:20 PM
panzerde...you're not helping me resist buying this one...stop! :(
Rayfer, you want this one man! Then we can play PBEM! :D
Quote from: -budd- on April 19, 2015, 08:27:44 PM
wish you guys would just be quiet already..blahblah...greatmaps, blahblah...plays great....blahblahblah. Enough already. But just in case your gonna post more how about some bigger battles, Pictures and impressions please. ::)
That's a fair cop. :)
I'll try 1st Manassas next and try and remember to grab some screenies.
If you want darker victory hexes, Eric Babe knocked up a replacement file.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3843519
QuoteTry this file:
www.west-civ.com/BaB/BrighterVicHexes_PutInGfx.Hexwar.zip
You should be able to unzip this and put the HW_DirectionArrows.pcx file in the Gfx/Hexwar/ directory. This should increase the visibility of the victory hexes. I just whipped it up and haven't tested it yet, so hopefully it will work OK.
This file controls the opacity for most of the map overlay graphics. If anyone would like to try his hand at modding this file, you can select elements on this sheet and use the Image|Adjustments|Shadows/Highlights tool in Photoshop to tweak the opacity of graphics up and down. I'm sure GIMP and other similar image editing programs must have similar tools.
Quote from: mikeck on April 18, 2015, 05:57:04 PM
I really wish someone besides tiller would do some of the western battles: Shiloh, Chickamauga and Chatanooga in particular. Oh well. Don't get me wrong, I like to play smaller obscure battles too...just not exclusively. But then I'm not the one making the game. To each their own
JD...if you are now just starting to get interested in the ACW, I recommend Shelby Footed 3 volumn narrative. T about 3000 pages all told but it is a great read and truly a "narrative" instead of a "1st Regiment went here and 3rd division went there"
Noted
Historical Gamer does more on BAB
https://youtu.be/XBgWfnYkVQE
Wow, I have never seen so many leader casualties in that scenario. Just his luck to lose his favorite generals! He was playing with them fairly aggressively, but that was extraordinarily bad luck.
Quote from: mikeck on April 19, 2015, 08:28:49 PM
On another note, will this ever come out in steam? Ide love to have "workshop" access to download future scenarios and such
No plans at this time, but if we do, everyone who purchased from our store already will get a free Steam key.
Regards,
- Erik
Quote from: spelk on April 19, 2015, 09:58:15 AM
I had a stab at the Mills Creek scenario on Lt Col difficulty, and boy it was a dis-organised learning experiment. It seemed like i just couldn't get the right units in place, before the Rebs were all over me. I tried to take and hold that hillock, near The Sag, that Robear (from GamersWithJobs said (http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/35998?page=117#comment-3243513) he had an enemy unit popping back and forth on. It seemed like the key set of heights to take and hold, if I could. So that was my simple aim. I never seemed to have enough lines at the front, and my arty always seemed to be hampered by the "hot gates" style landscape.
Anyway, I struggled onwards with it all, and here is the lie of the land at the end of the game. I got a win, but only 1 star. I lost a unit to routing (all the way off the map!!).
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7rP2ViY.jpg&hash=249daf24cdb773c4dd0d75198c17649322a433f8) (http://imgur.com/7rP2ViY)
The AI seemed to do a decent job of rotating fresh troops in and taking battered troops out for a rest, all under the cover of the dreaded fog of war. Holding that area didn't seem to give me any intel beyond the edge of it. Also, I couldn't get my cav round either side, for rebs blocking the movement with their Zones of Control.
The scores on the doors
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiBK1nQA.jpg&hash=5941df7b0f53ecb630eee97d73e4b9e5b73016b7) (http://imgur.com/iBK1nQA)
The shameful Morale graph
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWPpablg.jpg&hash=3dc249d9d53840fe13437cf0639bbef33dc90837) (http://imgur.com/WPpablg)
The vicarious Casualty graph
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F41ZeqRy.jpg&hash=f5d315191b0604b306468dd818da10969bf6d9ec) (http://imgur.com/41ZeqRy)
And finally, just because I'm so proud of them, the 10th Indiana Infantry unit that simply held the line whilst all the other troops where on their way. They eventually routed, but they held for so long and they clocked up the most inflicted casualties, they need to be recognised for their efforts! They were stationed at the crux of the road and the hillock. In Hold orders, with lots of urging.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdXVhbg6.jpg&hash=d687c6b1b431460b838b5d76c3cb82c14a662b18) (http://imgur.com/dXVhbg6)
Game crashed two times, so the smoke was reset in between autosaves. Enjoyed it immensely, but I'm going to have to spend hours in the manual to become a lot better and mass movement, and keeping Brigades together properly.
A problem with the chits view is that you can't tell which units are generals. In the sprites view the coloured emblem is circular for generals, but the chits everyones colours are rectangle.
Good write up. Whet my appetite!
Can you switch between icon and sprite units at any zoom level?
Quote from: mikeck on April 20, 2015, 02:43:23 PM
Can you switch between icon and sprite units at any zoom level?
Yep. Toggle is the 'v' key.
For those wanting to see a larger battle, the early turns of 1st Manassas...
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi36.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe12%2Fdoug_miller3%2F2015-04-20%252021_30_57-Greenshot_zpsam6oredo.png&hash=93b4ac7580296b716ffcb5c8543a7a706f331981) (http://s36.photobucket.com/user/doug_miller3/media/2015-04-20%2021_30_57-Greenshot_zpsam6oredo.png.html)
Hunter's Division at Sudley Springs, 10AM. Burnside's Brigade is in the lead.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi36.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe12%2Fdoug_miller3%2F2015-04-20%252021_43_37-Greenshot_zpsh1fentvw.png&hash=7c9a36670ca47e4702ff82467ee450db859b4563) (http://s36.photobucket.com/user/doug_miller3/media/2015-04-20%2021_43_37-Greenshot_zpsh1fentvw.png.html)
Three brigades of Tyler's Division east of the Stone Bridge, also 10AM. This division include Sherman as a brigade commander.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi36.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe12%2Fdoug_miller3%2F2015-04-20%252021_42_27-Greenshot_zpsbkuitzrv.png&hash=e36a2e50880d03ddffc13ee4a10dbf0b972cfbac) (http://s36.photobucket.com/user/doug_miller3/media/2015-04-20%2021_42_27-Greenshot_zpsbkuitzrv.png.html)
Tyler's remaining brigade (Richardson) near Blackburn's Ford, to threaten the Confederate right.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi36.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe12%2Fdoug_miller3%2F2015-04-20%252021_55_57-Greenshot_zpsjcolr703.png&hash=bbff0a6313f3264b554739622bb66b2f1c7a0ebd) (http://s36.photobucket.com/user/doug_miller3/media/2015-04-20%2021_55_57-Greenshot_zpsjcolr703.png.html)
10:20, and I have a traffic jam at Sudley Springs ford. Porter's brigade is out of command (note the black stars on the units) and under brigade orders to Advance, meaning they can't make good use of the ford. I need to move Porter back closer to them and change their orders to March. When I try this, the green Union troops proceed to trip on their shoelaces and wander off the road to pick blackberries. I am beginning to empathise with McDowell.
Heintzelman's Division is stacked up behind Hunter. I've neatly managed to replicate history.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi36.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe12%2Fdoug_miller3%2F2015-04-20%252021_59_31-Greenshot_zpsftu1ey5k.png&hash=21aa7499da45e4390ff93d0c84b7b62af9f71836) (http://s36.photobucket.com/user/doug_miller3/media/2015-04-20%2021_59_31-Greenshot_zpsftu1ey5k.png.html)
Burnside however has had enough waiting around and places his brigade in line on Matthews Hill. We are getting indications that there are Rebs just down the slope!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi36.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe12%2Fdoug_miller3%2F2015-04-20%252022_23_18-Greenshot_zpsanf26qad.png&hash=1d3b0f5f00f7399434ef6bbc1ce08cdccbc2a24e) (http://s36.photobucket.com/user/doug_miller3/media/2015-04-20%2022_23_18-Greenshot_zpsanf26qad.png.html)
The bulk of Tyler's Division consolidates and begins to fire artillery at the Confederates on the other side of the Stone Bridge. 10:20 AM
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi36.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe12%2Fdoug_miller3%2F2015-04-20%252022_22_20-Greenshot_zpsgobgpux3.png&hash=74ce3e802ffc588aef208be81c76036f28ba572a) (http://s36.photobucket.com/user/doug_miller3/media/2015-04-20%2022_22_20-Greenshot_zpsgobgpux3.png.html)
By 10:40 Porter has sorted himself out and Hunter's Division is again movign across the ford and down the road to Matthews Hill.
Sorry, not much combat yet but you can get an idea of what maneuver is like and what can happen if your troops are out of command and have the wrong brigade stance. Annoying on the march and potentially a disaster in battle!
This is a BIG map. I have pretty respectable rig, but map scrolling with this map is a bit choppy - though that may be the shift-mouse map scrolling system in the game, which feels very odd to me.
I'll post more once things get interesting.
Intersting. I see some commander perks.
How does the treatment and maneuvering compare to HPS Antietam (which includes the two Bull Run battles) and HPS Ozark (Wilson's Creek et al.).
And in particular, how does the AI compare, especially in its use (or non-use) of combined arms?
Quote from: Philippe on April 21, 2015, 12:32:42 AM
How does the treatment and maneuvering compare to HPS Antietam (which includes the two Bull Run battles) and HPS Ozark (Wilson's Creek et al.).
And in particular, how does the AI compare, especially in its use (or non-use) of combined arms?
As I'm sure you know, I'm a long-time HPS/JTS fanboi and lover of those games (as well as your mods). Having said that, this system feels like it plays better that the Tiller ACW games. C&C and maneuver seem closer to how units are portrayed in campaign histories and games like Scourge of War. Multi-level command is much more important than it is in the Tiller games. I'm still coming to grips with the various commander abilities that are available at the different levels of the hierarchy, but I can say that the Brigade Orders approach seems a lot more realistic.
The AI is definitely better, not suicidal, and capable of beating me - which the Tiller ACW AI hasn't really ever been. The jury is still out on
effective combined arms use. Yes, it does seem to intelligently use artillery and infantry at times, but other times it seems like the artillery will fire on whatever is closest rather than in direct support. The CSA AI fired on some supply wagons, for example, while a Union brigade was trying to force Blackburn's Ford, for example. It may honestly not have been able to fire on anything else - I need to watch it some more and see.
The major difference in combat is that in Brother Against Brother you don't designate targets, the AI does that. Your job is to maneuver your troops into an advantageous position, and then let the AI fire on each other. So, there are AI targeting routines in this game that are almost certainly better than in the Tiller ACW games, because they really, really need to be - it's central to the game.
I also like the morale system in Brother Against Brother - which isn't surprising, since it's really pretty close to how fatigue works in Tiller's games. Beyond the unit level, though, there are morale effects on the army as a whole and that's something I think that's sorely missing from the Tiller engine. I need to dig into the morale system more and see if there are brigade/division/corps effects, which would be very cool. It frustrates me not to be able to rout a brigade or division in the HPS/JTS games.
I revisited Mill Springs, only this time took some positioning advice from RoBear (from GWJ)..
@Robear, I followed your plan as best I could, with cav holding the treeline, with the 10th Indiana, and brought my Arty up into the corn fields, and one of top of the hill, and I did really quite well. On Lt Col difficulty, I managed to knock the Reb's morale down past breaking point just past 10am in the morning! With a 5 star victory!!!
Here's the lie of the land at the end of the game..
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRSleARJ.png&hash=7d39d013bea882c69eaa4e5b1e361132a7ffea7f) (http://imgur.com/RSleARJ)
And here's the scores on the doors.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJXWBYUP.png&hash=e59bf7bae68026c0ee87b87f8cb927d8278fe7cb) (http://imgur.com/JXWBYUP)
Amazing just how effective a few key units, in cover, holding with skirmishers can be, backed up by Arty. I had to pull the Cav back a little, they started to take too much punishment early on, but I swapped a line infantry unit in its place when I could, and we held the line. The AI seemed to be lining them up a little on the right hand side this time.
Nicely done, Spelk! My 1st Manassas game is heating up. The AI actually seems to be trying to scout!
We have a new public beta update available today, which we expect to go official early next week:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3848446
Aside from bug fixes, the most noteworthy items are improvements for the AI (especially for the Blackburn's Ford scenario where we found some bugs, but will help all scenarios) and some performance improvements.
Regards,
- Erik
Looks like some good changes. Grabbing and will try tonight.
I don't see any graphics quality options. Does the game run at native screen resolution automatically?
I couldn't find any .ini files where you could change the screen resolution so I'm thinking so.
" I don't see any graphics quality options. Does the game run at native screen resolution automatically?"
Yes
Great, thanks.
I think there was some confusion, because in a read.me file or the manual from years ago it was listed as how to change the resolution.
I think Gil said it was changed four years ago or so.
I played tested this one for so long it is almost like one of my children.
So everyone go out and buy BAB1 and all the following BABs until I can get my Franco-Prussian or Austro-Prussian battles.
Everyone has pleaded for a new " Age of rifles ", well here it is.
Catching up on a week's worth of posts...
Panzerde,
Thank you for your comments on the game. I'm glad you enjoyed Blackburn's Ford -- especially since one player pointed out an AI problem that led to discoveries both of a bug that was making the AI hold back in certain situations and to a scripting error I'd made. It should be more challenging now (for the CSA player). (I see that Erik Rutins has mentioned this. I'll add that the beta-patch also has a change that should make the CSA AI at Manassas better.) Also, you mentioned the choppiness of the scrolling, so I'm wondering if by now you've tried the beta-patch, which fixes that.
Miceck,
Regarding resolution, the game plays at any resolution, with the caveat that we seem to be having some problems in some scenarios with 4K displays -- though with those you can still play the game in lower resolutions. I believe the 1366 resolution is all fixed.
Quote from: Gil R. on April 26, 2015, 01:42:35 PM
Catching up on a week's worth of posts...
Panzerde,
Thank you for your comments on the game. I'm glad you enjoyed Blackburn's Ford -- especially since one player pointed out an AI problem that led to discoveries both of a bug that was making the AI hold back in certain situations and to a scripting error I'd made. It should be more challenging now (for the CSA player). (I see that Erik Rutins has mentioned this. I'll add that the beta-patch also has a change that should make the CSA AI at Manassas better.) Also, you mentioned the choppiness of the scrolling, so I'm wondering if by now you've tried the beta-patch, which fixes that.
Yep, tried the beta patch and scrolling in much, much smoother. I may restart my 1st Manassas game to see how the AI changes play out. The CSA moves in the game I started pre-patch seem kind of tentative and not well directed - though CSA units certainly seem to inflict more casualties in fire combat than my Union regiments are inflicting.
I am still really impressed with the system. I'd love to see this applied to other ACW and 19th Century battles. Someone was mentioning Six Week War and Franco-Prussian War scenarios - I'd buy those in a heartbeat!
The CSA's higher casualties are probably a function of difficulty level.
It may be worth restarting. In addition to that bug Eric found that inhibited the AI in some situations, there was a miscommunication/misunderstanding whereby my AI scripting of some key brigades, including Stonewall Jackson's, did not lead to their being as aggressive as I had intended. So now they should be suitably aggressive.
I forgot to respond to this comment: "I am still really impressed with the system. I'd love to see this applied to other ACW and 19th Century battles. Someone was mentioning Six Week War and Franco-Prussian War scenarios - I'd buy those in a heartbeat!"
That's good to hear. We would certainly like to be able to use this game engine for other wars and periods, but we are limited to having a single programmer, a singel map/scenario-designer, and a single artist/map-creator. So no promises just yet.
Quote from: Gil R. on April 26, 2015, 02:36:40 PM
I forgot to respond to this comment: "I am still really impressed with the system. I'd love to see this applied to other ACW and 19th Century battles. Someone was mentioning Six Week War and Franco-Prussian War scenarios - I'd buy those in a heartbeat!"
That's good to hear. We would certainly like to be able to use this game engine for other wars and periods, but we are limited to having a single programmer, a singel map/scenario-designer, and a single artist/map-creator. So no promises just yet.
The time has come. You must clone Eric. ^-^
Yep, Franco-Prussian and 7 week war would do it for me.
Quote from: bob48 on April 26, 2015, 03:17:33 PM
Yep, Franco-Prussian and 7 week war would do it for me.
Yes. "War of German Unification" Franco-Austrian, Franco Prussian and those Danish wars I don't know anything about
I'm having a hell of a time trying to make any progress on Blackburn's ford. Playing as the Union, I've not managed to get anywhere with it, if I push over the ford, I flounder with my back at the bridge, if I try and push my initial forces past the ford, and round the other bridge far South, I get bogged down just getting them across that. I wanted to sweep under, and lay the reinforcements across the original bridge, again they hit the choke point and start to rout.
I think I must be doing something fundamentally wrong. Would be interesting to hear other folks attempts and just what is the key to performing an effective line advance, with artillery support. In defensive positions, I'm ok. But pushing hard forward, covering distance, and getting across bridge chokepoints in tact, I suck the big one!
P.S. Anglo Zulu War for the engine.
Are there any other wargames, that rely totally on positioning to play out AI fire? I suppose the only other one I can think of is the Command Ops stuff (oh and Scourge of War, and maybe Total War - hmmm more than I imagined).
Gil,
Any plans for this to make its way to Steam? Or is there a reason they decided to not put this release on Steam?
Spelk -
At what level are you playing?
Having won the intro scenario at the sergeant level today, my next plan is to re-read the manual now that I have a better understanding of the game systems, and tackling Blackburn's Ford at the First Sergeant difficulty level.
I'm trying to avoid the larger scenarios until I feel a lot more confident.
Quote from: vyshka on April 26, 2015, 11:32:18 PM
Gil,
Any plans for this to make its way to Steam? Or is there a reason they decided to not put this release on Steam?
Erik Rutins said:
"There are no current plans for a Steam release, however if we do one in the future, purchasing from our store now will still get you a free Steam key in the future. "
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3843173
Quote from: tgb on April 26, 2015, 11:44:23 PM
Spelk -
At what level are you playing?
Lt. Col. difficulty.
Quote from: tgb on April 26, 2015, 11:44:23 PM
Having won the intro scenario at the sergeant level today, my next plan is to re-read the manual now that I have a better understanding of the game systems, and tackling Blackburn's Ford at the First Sergeant difficulty level.
I'm trying to avoid the larger scenarios until I feel a lot more confident.
Yeah, I'm the same, I like to get a handle on the mechanics and see the nuances play out with a small number of units in a terrain I can become familiar with easily.
I notched it up to Lt.Col difficulty because certain historical aspects of the game come into play at that level. Things like order misinterpretation. I've played the Mill Springs (must stop calling it Mills Creek for some reason) scenario on this difficulty and I managed to secure a victory with my current knowledge and interpretation of the mechanics (also with a little help from other forum members).
This Blackburn's Ford scenario is quite a small one, but I just seem to struggle with putting enough clout across the bridge in good time. Once they get onto the other side, they're out of command, and are being pelted from established Rebel units, when they take sustained fire, a number of units just rout. It seems a bridge (either Blackburn's ford, or the one in the South) becomes a serious barrier that can be held by one or two enemy units, no matter how much I push at it.
Once routing I don't really know how to rally them back, short of setting the Brigade orders to Rally. But when I have other units engaged in Assaulting, I don't really want to toggle them back to Rally and incur penalties. I've tried urging the routing units, but that doesn't seem to make a significant morale shift, to stop them routing. I've tried putting commander units near them, again that doesn't seem to have any effect. Independant routing units, I've been able to put into Rally orders and they usually pull out of it, but if they're part of an assaulting Brigade thats it, I've more or less lost them.
I'm currently scouring the manual for inspiration. :)
Sound like you're getting a very historical result. The Union historically got a bloody nose at Blackburn's Ford with some serious routing just as you (and I) have experienced. I suspect given the fidelity of BABs simulation that a historical scenario of Blackburn's Ford as the Union is pretty tough to win at higher difficulty levels. I'll never say "impossible" but it'd be damn tough.
Blackburn's Ford is deceptive in that it looks like a nice, small scenario - but you're putting outnumbered and mediocre Union troops against twice as many well-led Confederates. Tyler is a complete loser and he's up against the likes of Longstreet and Early here. It is no easy task as the Union. Different story playing as the CSA - then it's not a bad learning scenario and you're unlikely to lose unless you just have no idea how to defend.
Thanks for the reassurance panzerde, I tried it on Sergeant level and managed to secure a Union win, just by forcing a line through the corn field beyond the ford. I didn't have to chase any other Victory Hexes, just push through and hold the two just behind the ford.
New beta patch out
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3848446&mpage=1�
Quote
Our newest Brother against Brother patch is available for testing here. Below is the change list for this update.
V1.0.3beta – March 1, 2015
Fixes
• Add PBEM challenge password support
• Add an option not to zoom out during combat resolution
• Add a small flag representing the side the unit is on right before the unit's name in combat
reports.
• Allow OOB and game to be active at the same time; highlight selected unit in OOB
• Add cycle to next unit buttons.
• Chit graphics now show line/column and skirmishers. Chits also show units that are
disordered, routing, or below -2 morale.
• Combat arrow graphic now has multiple heads along its length to show direction of attack
better
• Don't allow commanders to change formation - don't display their formation along with
brigade orders.
• Includes new 1st Manassas alternate history scenario (#3)
• Various scenario tweaks
Fixes
Fix no smoke on save file load issue
Fix 1366 resolution issues
Fix remaining odd issues related to PBEM and window focus (try resigning a game and issuing a challenge with 1.01, on my Windows 7 system that causes some very bizarre issues with which dialog is in front, etc.)
Change: Turn off weather sound when weather graphic is turned off
Reduced chance of finding a leader casualty from 5% to 3% and added requirement that at least 10 casualties have been caused on both sides during the combat phase.
Change to AI to increase aggression (should help w/ Blackburn's Ford)
Fix music playing bug
Change: misinterpret orders rule is now always in effect for pbem games
Now using star chit for commanders
Now showing echelon colors in hierarchy box
Increased the frame rate
Fix: From <http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3844971>
Change: Select higher echelons in OOB with click; show selected unit/echelons in OOB
Change: Longrange move sd be possible even inside move area
Possible fix: History graph buttons being interfered by unit buttons in short resolutions
Oh excellent. Grabbing now to give this a try.
FYI, the first official post-release patch, 1.02, was released today. See here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3854720
If you have already installed the 1.03 public-beta then do not install this, though.
Quote from: Gil R. on May 05, 2015, 09:47:04 PM
FYI, the first official post-release patch, 1.02, was released today. See here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3854720 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3854720)
If you have already installed the 1.03 public-beta then do not install this, though.
I'm really liking the 1.03 beta patch, btw. The formation indicators on the chits is very helpful and I like being able to keep the zoom level constant during combat resolution. I haven't had much chance to play the past couple of evenings (client firewall issues in NC, grr) but this patch seems to have put a lot of the final polish on. I really want to see this system for battles like Antietam and Chancellorsville, as well as some of the more underrepresented actions like South Mountain.
The brigade focus while still using regiments and battalions as individual units really creates a nice feel for the command systems of the day. Question: is their any sort of brigade-wide morale effects at play? One of the downfalls of the Tiller system is the lack of morale effects across high echelon formations, meaning that you can route a battalion or regiment and usually not have much impact on the sister units right adjacent in line. It'd be nice to see overall brigade or even division morale impacted by subunit morale.
Thanks. And those are certainly battles we'd like to do.
In answer to your question, upper echelons (including brigades) break when a majority of their units are broken (with "majority" determined by strength/quality considerations).
Thanks Gil. That was my impression on the morale, but it's good to have it verified.
I start my Video AAR of BAB, going through the Blackburn's Ford scenario on Sergeant difficulty.
http://sugarfreegamer.com/brother-against-brother-video-aar-part-1/
Took me 40 minutes to get to Turn 1, and there wasn't a shot fired... but next one, I think things will kick off! :)
I can certainly babble and waffle on, without actually doing anything in game!
I've got a decent headset now, so there shouldn't be as many farts and whistles as before.
Well done spelk...! I appreciate the effort in putting together these video aar's and reviews. They assist in making game buying decisions; both for and against a purchase. Thanks.
Quote from: Rayfer on May 08, 2015, 06:59:28 AM
Well done spelk...! I appreciate the effort in putting together these video aar's and reviews. They assist in making game buying decisions; both for and against a purchase. Thanks.
Thanks for the kind words Rayfer, its the positive feedback I get for messing about with these things that keeps me going. I watch someone like Das24680 or Agrippa Maxentius and they knock out videos at the drop of a hat, so confident and fast talking - I don't know how they do it. I guess they just get to a point where they can fluently explain what they're doing, whilst they are doing it - and their sleek Oz or American accents seem to make things all smooth and easy to listen to. If I go through my efforts afterwards, I hear every "erm" and deep breaths and fumbling and bumbling words, as well as my rather amateurish effete northern accent. Still, I'm NOT in the business to compete with those "professionals", I just want to get across the interesting and exciting parts to wargaming - and hopefully get new players up and running without having to wade through manuals for hours on end.
I was a bit nervous over doing a game on the American Civil War, because I don't know the conflict all that well, I've dabbled here and there, and I've picked up most of what I know from a few films, or the games I've played. It was never taught to us over here in Blighty as a matter or course, although later on I believe it was part of the history curriculum for some examining boards. So my ACW efforts will be more mechanics and hopefully tactics than any history lessons. But I easily become attached to my units as they take a pounding or seemingly perform heroics on the battlefield.
Should continue the AAR this weekend, and have some more up. Might try and do them in 20 minute stints because 40 minutes seem overly long in one sitting (for the viewer, as opposed to me making them).
Armchair General Review
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/brother-against-brother-pc-game-review.htm
Second part to my Video AAR is up
http://sugarfreegamer.com/brother-against-brother-video-aar-part-2
Its another 40 minutes I'm afraid, but at least we get some action this time :)
Kind of a weak review. The end came awfully abruptly. I wanted to read more on replayability.
A development: I've just posted the full text of the Modder's Guide, with information for modding files and using the scenario-editor, to the BAB forum here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3873728
If this sort of thing interests you please take a look and let me know if you have any questions.
Also, I should mention that a new public beta, 1.06, will be posted later today.
I have not seen any postings about this game on Grogheads lately. What are the opinions about this game at this time? I am trying to make up my mind about buying the game or not.
It has too many Confederate flags to be a legitimate application.
>:D
(I haven't played the game yet.)
Aside from the proliferation of Confederate flags, I found it to be a very playable and interesting game. The AI is better than the AI in JTS games (granted, that's damning with faint praise) and the scenarios have some decent replay value. I didn't get a chance to try MP with it yet, but hopefully will after my current Napoleonics fascination ebbs.
While it doesn't cover a huge number of battles, there are several variants for each and the AI seems to change up it's approach. The maps are very attractive and once I'd turned off the ugly unit graphics and was able to use NATO symbols - which the devs enhanced in a recent patch - I found the game pretty visually appealing.
It is a genuine wargame, with all that entails. If you like being concerned with command and control, supply, formations, and the like, you'll enjoy this. If you don't like that stuff, avoid this.
I would like to see more battles covered, and I think this would make for a great Napoleonics system. If a wider variety of battles and eras were available, this would probably become my go-to solo 19th century wargame engine.
Quote from: panzerde on July 02, 2015, 02:23:55 PM
Aside from the proliferation of Confederate flags, I found it to be a very playable and interesting game. The AI is better than the AI in JTS games (granted, that's damning with faint praise) and the scenarios have some decent replay value. I didn't get a chance to try MP with it yet, but hopefully will after my current Napoleonics fascination ebbs.
While it doesn't cover a huge number of battles, there are several variants for each and the AI seems to change up it's approach. The maps are very attractive and once I'd turned off the ugly unit graphics and was able to use NATO symbols - which the devs enhanced in a recent patch - I found the game pretty visually appealing.
It is a genuine wargame, with all that entails. If you like being concerned with command and control, supply, formations, and the like, you'll enjoy this. If you don't like that stuff, avoid this.
I would like to see more battles covered, and I think this would make for a great Napoleonics system. If a wider variety of battles and eras were available, this would probably become my go-to solo 19th century wargame engine.
Thanks. I think I will wait to buy to see if more battles are added in the future. The use of this system for Napoleonics is an intriguing idea.
I believe the devs have stated they will be releasing expansions to cover more battles as well as an editor at some point so people can add ones they're not interested in pursuing. I'm not sure but there may already be an editor for units but they're holding off on map editor until they get there money back selling expansions. I can't fault them for wanting to pay for the engine development.
If you were looking for a game that might replace Age of Rifles, this is it.
It is a great game,but also has huge possibilities.
Quote from: magnus on July 02, 2015, 07:06:29 PM
If you were looking for a game that might replace Age of Rifles, this is it.
It is a great game,but also has huge possibilities.
I agree. I think there is a lot of potential in this engine. I also agree that it's completely fair for the devs to earn their investment back selling expansions before releasing editors.
Definitely a game that could replace Age of Rifles, but it isn't anywhere near that yet. We'll see...
Quote from: panzerde on July 02, 2015, 07:11:54 PM
Quote from: magnus on July 02, 2015, 07:06:29 PM
If you were looking for a game that might replace Age of Rifles, this is it.
It is a great game,but also has huge possibilities.
I agree. I think there is a lot of potential in this engine. I also agree that it's completely fair for the devs to earn their investment back selling expansions before releasing editors.
I wonder if they could be more mod friendly
and make money.
If they sold new maps as add ons, modders could create battles with those maps and improve re-playability. WCS could then work on full expansions which are more than just a map and OOB. The incentive to buy a WCS made Shiloh, for example, would be a custom ruleset, not the OOB and map.
It took so long for this game to be completed, I'm still on the fence about getting it as I don't want to learn a system and then wait 5 years for the next expansion, or 2 years for a patch. It seems like a great game, and the concept is similar to MMP's series games, but I just can't see anything being delivered for years.
I was a beta tester from the beginning.
I really believe that the development time was, because of WCS also trying to get the " Conflict of Heroes " game and add ons out.
We are talking about a very small designing team.
Now, that BAB is the only game on their plate. I believe you will see a much shorter time until the next BAB battles etc..
Permit me (= a developer) to jump in and say what's what, as well as both what might be what and what will be what.
The first "Brother against Brother" release contains four battles and five battlefields (since for Mill Springs there are two areas that are about ten miles apart). While we will be providing new scenarios for these four battles, we will not be providing new battles freely. So whatever battles we do next -- and in the coming weeks I'll resume work on 2nd Manassas that I began several years ago -- these would go into a separate product that would be sold separately.
The suggestion that we provide maps and let modders work on them underestimates the enormous amount of time and effort that it takes to create a map for these battles; but, at the same time, we certainly appreciate the potential value of modders, and believe that if a strong modding community develops it should be possible to produce new releases more quickly, in addition to there being more scenarios.
"Conflict of Heroes" is indeed the primary reason that BAB took so long, though it was also delayed at times by our original graphics artist's career demands -- he's an architect who had to take on some large loads at his firm -- and by my at times being too busy. Eric of WCS and I recently agreed to a plan with Erik of Matrix that would lead to there being two new BAB releases within a year, and right now I see no reason why we can't meet that.
Have a great 4th!
Quote from: Gil R. on July 04, 2015, 03:20:27 PM
The suggestion that we provide maps and let modders work on them underestimates the enormous amount of time and effort that it takes to create a map for these battles; but, at the same time, we certainly appreciate the potential value of modders, and believe that if a strong modding community develops it should be possible to produce new releases more quickly, in addition to there being more scenarios.
Hi Gil, appreciate the response but to repeat, the suggestion was not that you provide maps to modders, but sell them to owners of the game.
While I fully understand that you deserve to make a ton more money on this product than will ever be possible, finding a way to allow your game to be moddable would dramatically increase re-playability and hopefully grow your base so that your expansions sell more. Easier said than done of course.
Best of luck, I truly hope you are successful and get to use this engine across a bunch of campaigns.
Oh, gotcha. It's an interesting idea.
Right now our immediate plans involve two releases within the next year that are comparable to the first BAB, in terms of our doing maps, scenarios, etc. With that said, we will certainly be paying attention to mods and modders, and if there are any demonstrate that they could make a contribution it would be great to get them involved. Our current division of labor is that Eric does all coding, I do all map research and scenario work, and our graphics artist turns my research into the finished maps. Now that the coding is mostly done, other than improvements to the engine over time, I become the main choke point, since I have a real job and therefore cannot churn out maps and scenarios as quickly as I might like. So I can certainly see the value in encouraging modders.
Speaking of which, as I think I previously mentioned in this thread, the full text of the Modder's Guide has been posted over in the Matrix forum for a few weeks now. Unfortunately, the actual final PDF, which will be made available in-game, isn't released just yet, but will be next time WCS and Matrix have to make a new patch.