Has anyone here played both games enough to compare their systems?
I've tried playing Renaissance a few times and it never really moved me, probably because I was a little too aware that the game engine was built around warmed-over Napoleonics.
I'm toying with the idea of re-installing it and playing a battle that appears in both games for comparison. Shouldn't be difficult to find because Renaissance has a lot more scenarios than Pike and Shot, even with the user-created scenarios and Tercio to Salvo expansion.
Pike and Shot is a lot more polished at or near release than a typical mature Tiller game. What impresses me about Byzantine games is the level of support that they give not only to their game, but to mods that are coming out around it. I think they may even have tested a mod that reduces movement and firing range and adjusted their game engine to accommodate it, which is unheard of.
I have both games and i think Pike and Shot is much better.
Great topic.
Some months ago, Doug and I took on the exercise of comparing the two PBEM. I'm sure he's got his own thoughts, but...
1: Graphically, of course, there's no comparison. Pike and Shot isn't a glorious affair, but is quite lovely in its way. None of the Tiller games will ever rise far beyond serviceable...though one wonders what JIson might have up his sleeve. There's little question, though, that, overall, Pike and Shot feels more "finished".
2: Mechanically, Renaissance is, indeed, of a piece with the Napoleonic games, but Dr. T. did build in a number of functions that make it feel quite a bit different. Block formation, the behavior of set-artillery, morale rules, &c., are well thought on. How well they succeed, of course, will be in the eyes of the beholder. Pike and Shot is built on one of the mighty RBS's rule systems and has much in it to admire. Some have questioned his decisions regarding disruption, rough terrain, &c., but, again, much of that is subjective as we each come to our conclusions about how wars were fought in the era.
There is no question to me, however, that Pike and Shot's omission of leaders was a bad decision. The tabletop version has them and for very good reason. I think digitally iterating that system would have made Pike and Shot the better choice, but, as matter stands, it's not on this score.
3: I prefer the maps in Renaissance. There, I said it. Pike and Shot's terrain is undoubtedly better looking, but, to me, the maps are insufficiently granular and can force rather awkward troop placements...especially those like Pavia which require somewhat unusual setups.
4: In MP, Renaissance wins hands down. Simple e-mail and LAN PBEM without the need for the copy protection scheme that is PBEM++.
5: It certainly bears mention that Matrix/Slitherine have continued to strongly support Pike and Shot with new content and patches. That from JTS for Renaissance has been much more slight. I have no certain knowledge of the future of the system, while that for its younger cousin appears to remain bright. Not an insubstantial matter.
I like them both and have played both fairly extensively. Both have their merits and I'm nigh-flattened that we've got TWO games that we can play in this period.
Anybody wants to play either PBEM, I'm game anytime.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
I played Renaissance briefly and the AI did extremely poorly. It sent units at me one a time and they got slaughtered even though I had the much smaller army. Pike and Shot is sitting in a digital pile with a bunch of other games I haven't played yet.
The AI in Tiller's games is not very strong, so your experience there is not very surprising.
This isn't an issue if your primary interest is PBEM, and the concept of Matrix's PBEM scheme sounds like an annoying and ever-present form of DRM. Having said that I haven't tried it yet and may change my tune when the time comes. But apart from that, thank you very much, I find it slightly insulting to have to jump through hoops for the privilege of picking my own opponents.
The AI in Pike and Shot is another story altogether.
I may be having trouble wrapping my head around how things actually work (less so than in the beginning), but the AI has been giving me a decent fight. Which means I'm going to have to play a lot of games against the AI before I dare humiliate myself in front of a live opponent. Maybe playing against people you don't know has something to recommend it after all.
One thing that I really like about Pike and Shot is the semi-automated firing system.
In Tiller Napoleonic games I really hated the drudgery of giving fire orders and targets to every bloody little skirmisher unit, some of whom could get absurdly small. There aren't really any skirmisher units in Pike and Shot, but even if there were it wouldn't be so bad because there's a Residual Fire phase after your regular turn during which units that forgot to fire shoot at their most obvious targets, and the enemy gets to return fire (if they didn't already engage in opportunity fire). This takes an enormous amount of the tedium out of a battle at this scale.
FWIW...I have been playing lots of Pike and Shot, and I have the difficulty set to medium (three stars). Playing in potluck, very small, skirmish mode, I tend to win maybe 60% of the open battles, 80-90% of the attack battles, and maybe only 30% of the defend battles. I have lost some games based on a single bad decision (moving a unit into a position where I did not have enough movement points to turn towards a possible flank attack), and other games where my entire cavalry flank has been destroyed from flank / rear attacks whilst chasing down routing enemy units.
Believe it or not, I kind of like my win / loss record. Almost all of the games "feel" fair, and I feel that there is enough of a challenge that carefully planning is rewarded as much as lazy or thoughtless planning gets punished. I have had only a few games (maybe 10%) where I have won due to some idiosyncrasy of the AI or terrain (had one battle where my three units of musketeers were concealed in a U-shaped forest which formed a convenient killing zone). I also find that the Italian Wars era has given a number of "easier battles", the 30YW the most balanced, and the English Civil war, the toughest.
I just downloaded the latest patch, and am interesting in trying out the terrain types.
My win loss in PS is around 40% win.
By the way, the AI gets a purchase points boost in Skirmish (even Normal difficulty) but it is a welcome challenge.
Regarding Byzantine Games, I am in contact with Richard (RBS) and he spends some time troubleshooting my mod scripts and is open to sharing the Blender 3D models. :smitten:
The PBEM++ is a blast when it comes to matchmaking. And also no shuffling of files. Disadvantage is that it is server-based so it might go down on very very rare occasions.
I would pretty much agree with what Jim said in comparing the two games. Overall, I found that I enjoyed Renaissance PBEM over P&S. Yes, P&S does have a better AI, but I too often ended up feeling like I was solving a puzzle and not gaming out a historical conflict. In most of the canned battles there's one way to win them, and you'll end up playing them half a dozen times or more to figure that one way out.
I'm also going to be more blunt than Jim about a couple of things: from a historical gamer's perspective, the lack of leaders is largely a show stopper for me, and the maps...suck. No way around it, they don't resemble the historical battlefields these battles were fought on at all. When I read that the battlefields in P&S weren't even scaled correctly, but rather simply sized to allow all of the units to fit appealingly on the field, well that did it for me.
P&S is a nice game with units that evoke a period feel. If you really want to know anything about the historical battles it represents, or understand the specifics of Renaissance and Early Modern warfare, P&S (IMHO) won't get you there.
Renaissance doesn't have a great AI, but the maps are accurate and the units move and fight in ways that are more nearly historically correct. Played against a human it's a good simulation of period warfare. It probably isn't as good a game, however. It's all about what you're looking for.
Now, if someone could use the Scourge of War engine to produce a pike and shot era game...
That's right. P&S should be thought more as a game and not a detailed simulation of the era.
For anyone interested in the period there are two books that make the mechanics of the period easier to grasp.
Oman's Art of War in the Sixteenth Century is dated, but his ability to tell a story and explain things are really good.
W.P. Guthrie's Battles of the Thirty Years War is a really good book on the whole military of the period. A wargamer, he wrote it from a gamer's perspective and the chapters on weaponry and the different armies are really good. Volume II is on the later Thirty Years War when the great personalities were gone and it's not as intriguing. Volume III on the fighting in Italy and Spain is very unique. No one else really covers that.
Both can probably be easiest to find by inter library loan.
Quote from: Cyrano on April 08, 2015, 04:25:06 PM
Great topic.
Some months ago, Doug and I took on the exercise of comparing the two PBEM. I'm sure he's got his own thoughts, but...
1: Graphically, of course, there's no comparison. Pike and Shot isn't a glorious affair, but is quite lovely in its way. None of the Tiller games will ever rise far beyond serviceable...though one wonders what JIson might have up his sleeve. There's little question, though, that, overall, Pike and Shot feels more "finished".
2: Mechanically, Renaissance is, indeed, of a piece with the Napoleonic games, but Dr. T. did build in a number of functions that make it feel quite a bit different. Block formation, the behavior of set-artillery, morale rules, &c., are well thought on. How well they succeed, of course, will be in the eyes of the beholder. Pike and Shot is built on one of the mighty RBS's rule systems and has much in it to admire. Some have questioned his decisions regarding disruption, rough terrain, &c., but, again, much of that is subjective as we each come to our conclusions about how wars were fought in the era.
There is no question to me, however, that Pike and Shot's omission of leaders was a bad decision. The tabletop version has them and for very good reason. I think digitally iterating that system would have made Pike and Shot the better choice, but, as matter stands, it's not on this score.
3: I prefer the maps in Renaissance. There, I said it. Pike and Shot's terrain is undoubtedly better looking, but, to me, the maps are insufficiently granular and can force rather awkward troop placements...especially those like Pavia which require somewhat unusual setups.
4: In MP, Renaissance wins hands down. Simple e-mail and LAN PBEM without the need for the copy protection scheme that is PBEM++.
5: It certainly bears mention that Matrix/Slitherine have continued to strongly support Pike and Shot with new content and patches. That from JTS for Renaissance has been much more slight. I have no certain knowledge of the future of the system, while that for its younger cousin appears to remain bright. Not an insubstantial matter.
I like them both and have played both fairly extensively. Both have their merits and I'm nigh-flattened that we've got TWO games that we can play in this period.
Anybody wants to play either PBEM, I'm game anytime.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
I have both and pretty much agree with Cyrano. I haven't play either MP, so don't have an opinion on that, save that Cyrano is right to say that John Tiller games are extremely easy to play MP. My personal preference is Pike and Shot, as I like the way it plays, plus I love the period graphics which add to the immersion. I wouldn't write off Renaissance either, despite my preference for P&S.
Quote from: Cyrano on April 08, 2015, 04:25:06 PM
Great topic.
Some months ago, Doug and I took on the exercise of comparing the two PBEM. I'm sure he's got his own thoughts, but...
1: Graphically, of course, there's no comparison. Pike and Shot isn't a glorious affair, but is quite lovely in its way. None of the Tiller games will ever rise far beyond serviceable...though one wonders what JIson might have up his sleeve. There's little question, though, that, overall, Pike and Shot feels more "finished".
I am not going to speak for Jan, but he hasn't ever officially put anything out for any of Tiller's grand tactical titles. Consider this though, he is the official art guy for FWWC right now. That leaves very little time for doing mods for fun.
I don't really know that you can really compare the two side by side in the sense that the graphics are constructed in two very different ways. I do find it an interesting development that Frank Mullins put out several map images that were not constructed from tiles for Campaign Antietam recently -while that means nothing necessarily - it does mean that the tile system can be 'translated' into a singular map image from the technical standpoint.
The other thing is that a lot of the JTS material has been 8 bit bmps, and those will gradually be converted. I am not going to say a lot about this. I have done some art myself for JTS, but I am not one of their artists ( I think that maybe they might have included one of my fixes in the Jena updates that came out recently -which was not a huge deal but it was still a fix to unnecessary tiling, I did some work on REN's artwork on one of the updates several years ago (which was my first contribution) -and then you have some of the material in the BPW upgrade candidate.). But then again that is sort of related to what I am talking about - it just isn't entirely what I a talking about ... I am a big one about contextual relevance. Anyway more on that later on.
Quote
2: Mechanically, Renaissance is, indeed, of a piece with the Napoleonic games, but Dr. T. did build in a number of functions that make it feel quite a bit different. Block formation, the behavior of set-artillery, morale rules, &c., are well thought on. How well they succeed, of course, will be in the eyes of the beholder. Pike and Shot is built on one of the mighty RBS's rule systems and has much in it to admire. Some have questioned his decisions regarding disruption, rough terrain, &c., but, again, much of that is subjective as we each come to our conclusions about how wars were fought in the era.
There is no question to me, however, that Pike and Shot's omission of leaders was a bad decision. The tabletop version has them and for very good reason. I think digitally iterating that system would have made Pike and Shot the better choice, but, as matter stands, it's not on this score.
One thing to be wary of is what was the lead scenario designers' interpretation of an engine, and the engine itself. A lead scenario designer gets to design the OOB files, structure, leadership chain of command (as well as ratings), the pdt settings (or modifying them as desired for weapons' effects, weather effects' as well as the usual movement costs, and fire combat/melee combat modifiers, etc....
What you have in REN is exactly that - how the lead scenario designer interpretted the engine's capabilities. That isn't Tiller, but in REN's case, that was Rich White. If one were to get into playing around with the settings (as you are allowed to), I guarantee you that you will come up with a very different playing title. Now, the disclaimer is that I don't have Pike and Shot, but that is, I think from what I have read - what one main designer came up with across a relatively broad period. In other words, you have a single guy making decisions that in the JTS set up can be made by multiple people -a good example of this is the Napoleonic Battles' series: material created by Bill Peters plays differently (even sometimes from one title to the next in the case of Jena it seems) to other titles by other lead scenario designers.This is because the file structures are created differently ... the OOB files are designed differently, etc
I wrote about the leaders in a different thread, and it got no response at all -fair enough, but I guess too that these entities need to have a purpose in game terms as well. I am not arguing this for Pike and Shot -as I have no idea ... but I do know that in JTS' Musket and Pike, it has some practical effects -such as if they were not there - in other words if you ditched the concept of brigade leaders and just went with division leaders -in effect it basically means that all units of the division can stack together and enjoy the same benefits of the unit -and there is no reason to keep them in any smaller formation. Or at least I guess is the theory here. Seriously in some situations there are some 'brigade' leaders that probably do not justify the bonuses that they provide .. so I guess it can go both ways.
Quote
3: I prefer the maps in Renaissance. There, I said it. Pike and Shot's terrain is undoubtedly better looking, but, to me, the maps are insufficiently granular and can force rather awkward troop placements...especially those like Pavia which require somewhat unusual setups.
See 1 above; plus I got over squares when I graduated from Tactics II. I am under the impression that the style will change; and it should probably change to the style used in NB with elevation slopes -but it will probably change some from that too ... I think ...
Quote
4: In MP, Renaissance wins hands down. Simple e-mail and LAN PBEM without the need for the copy protection scheme that is PBEM++.
5: It certainly bears mention that Matrix/Slitherine have continued to strongly support Pike and Shot with new content and patches. That from JTS for Renaissance has been much more slight. I have no certain knowledge of the future of the system, while that for its younger cousin appears to remain bright. Not an insubstantial matter.
Nothing to say about #4 ... but as far as #5 goes- the deal is this - once published a lead scenario designer does not always have time to go back to a title. Sometimes it happens, but most other times it doesn't. As far as futures go ... 8) I'll give you the Australian answer: No worries, mate. ;) I am not a used car salesman.
Quote
I like them both and have played both fairly extensively. Both have their merits and I'm nigh-flattened that we've got TWO games that we can play in this period.
Anybody wants to play either PBEM, I'm game anytime.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
[/quote]
Anyway is it getting late by me - I need to shut off and tune out for the night. ;)
The only thing with which I'd quibble in the above is that most gamers expect to the play the game as given out of the box and not be required to poke about in the .pdt to find an approach to the topic they find satisfactory. If your point is that vagarities of gameplay are more the result of actions by developers than by Dr. T. himself, I'll certainly stipulate, although it's unlikely folks are going to think of them as anything other than "his" games.
Good to see this much discussion of these games going on (here, "Three Moves Ahead", &c.)
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
I definitely was not suggesting that people are required to do that, but rather more to provide that as the basis for my posting that was to support that you can see how and why it is that different titles play differently within the same series. There is no reason to expect the Musket and Pike series to be anything different. In other words, if you don't want to believe me, then feel free to try it out. :)
In REN, I can say this much - that the combined pike and shot units were not part of that title prior to release, and were not tested (naturally) prior to its release. In effect in order to see what they do, you almost have to make them yourself. I don't know that you can simply drop those into a title but adding up the various foot units, because you have just created a unit that can fire and block at the same time ... what is the footprint of this new unit -if you spread it over 2 hexes what are the consequences of that? Ok now it seems like mounted units are significantly weaker- what can be done regarding that? -Basically my point being it is a lot to do in restructuring an oob in this manner not to mention that it might be a good idea to test its impact. Mind you it is interesting that this can (and does) impact how the AI is able to function -sure I doubt you will ever be able to get it to mount an attack across a bridged river, or do much with artillery management -but it is definitely different.
I thought about playing around with an OOB for REN using a restructured OOB in one of the later scenarios but really I am not sure that I am going to bother as I think my efforts might be better directed elsewhere. Those are some of the things I have found.
My point though too was that this situation applies to all of the titles in all of the series, that is the reality despite what people post; the problem being that most of this information is self-perpetuating usually posted by people not in a position to know but they rarely say things that way and then it becomes accepted.
Anyway I have to step back from the discussion -as this is about as close to a 'teaser' as I am going to get. Take that all for what its worth, and it will probably be worth more later on (on several fronts).
More M&P (mainly because Cyrano is correct - most guys don't get into the details, and I understand that). I was going to leave this, but I did get a chance to read through the thread a bit more completely.
There are some significant differences in the engine to the Napoleonic series. The main one is in the OOB file. In this you can assign armor and melee bonuses by unit, as well as individually assign vp per unit -this is not something that can be done in the Napoleonic series.
Also, too, it effectively halves the number of weapons that can be used in Musket and Pike as opposed to the Napoleonics' series because each weapon is rated against armored and unarmored targets.
The interesting thing about these values ( I am not 100% sure about this but I think it even applies to the vp ratings) - you can apply a negative rating. I did find this first mentioned by a poster on Gamesquad and tried it out (and he was entirely correct) -just checked it was the post-er : Lord Valentai and or Grey Mouser.
What would you want to rate as negative vp's? I don't know... maybe something where one side needed to avoid collateral damage. I haven't spent a lot of time on thinking out where that this might apply - but technically you could do this if you wanted.