Pike and Shot

[Bison]

The first few tutorial scenarios done and I've got a pretty meh feeling about the games combat mechanics.  I'm thinking I should have purchased BA2 instead.  Hopefully the remaining tutorial and a campaign play through will change my mind.

Sounds more like a preferential situation to me.

I enjoy the old line formation battle strategy games (Ancients to ACW) more than WW2.  Perhaps you're the opposite?

No I'm finding that there are very few options when it comes to combat also outside of barricades and woods there seems to be very little terrain influence to the battles .  Yay!  I charged my cavalry now I get to wait 4 to 5 turns for the melee to be done and one side to break and rout or not.  Yay!  I can advance my block formation and walk into fire or stand stationary and fire.  It's just meh.  Maybe it's an accurate reflection of the historical battles but there is very little to plan.  Advance your pike and shot up the middle and try to flank with your cavalry.  Anyway like I said maybe it's just the tutorial battles and they change for the better in the campaign.

[Nefaro]

No I'm finding that there are very few options when it comes to combat also outside of barricades and woods there seems to be very little terrain influence to the battles .  Yay!  I charged my cavalry now I get to wait 4 to 5 turns for the melee to be done and one side to break and rout or not.  Yay!  I can advance my block formation and walk into fire or stand stationary and fire.  It's just meh.  Maybe it's an accurate reflection of the historical battles but there is very little to plan.  Advance your pike and shot up the middle and try to flank with your cavalry.  Anyway like I said maybe it's just the tutorial battles and they change for the better in the campaign.

When you boil it down to a move-fire-charge-rout-advance summation, then yeah it may seem like nothing.  The same could be said for Battle Academy and most other wargames.  While the core mechanics may be different for each one, the gameplay still hinges on such staples of wargaming.  I don't see much difference between this and BA2 in those terms other than the setting.

I didn't expect this to be anything deep or mind-blowing.  Just relatively quick and easy to learn & play.  Lite wargaming filler.  Probably the same situation with BA2.  I mean.. they use the same engine and have the same features. *shrug*  Perhaps picking up BA2 would also be a bad idea if you didn't like this one? 

[JasonPratt]

Great summary, Bletchley. Thanks!

+100, though I might add that the same modest increase in aim in the 1800s also increased effective distance (through various forms of rifling).

[Cyrano]

Doug --

Game is up.

It's Pavia.  Password is "nojeeps" :).

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[jomni]

There's more to do in BA like scouting, am bushing,  house to house fighting, promotions and special skills, off map arty and air strikes, cooperative multiplayer.  Victory conditions are varied and not just rout x%.

P&S is just moving blocks is set piece battles. They both have their own flavors but as Nefaro said, good for quick bouts of mindless fun. In fact I am now just doing mostly multiplayer for both BA2 and P&S... just a fwe turns a day.

[Cyrano]

Re: the complexity business.

I have both BA and BA2, but play neither because CM exists.

I play a bit of FoG but yearn for an iteration of the GBoH series on the PC...or even something else from the guys at Western Civilization Software.

As matters stand, P&S is a decent iteration of the tabletop game and is, absent the fierce side-by-side playtest PanzerDe and I are going to give it and HPS' Renaissance, it's the only game in town.  Certainly beats the pants of painting all those armies, building all the terrain, finding all the space, corralling all the opponents, setting aside all the time, all to play one battle instead of dozens.

Although, I will grant, that begs the question that one has a hankering for a game in this era...which I did...

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[Bison]

I think honestly what is most off putting is that everything seems to happen under the hood; dice rolls, combat modifiers, and where your charging unit goes after an attacked unit breaks and runs.  It's also missing the stats of a game like HPS Renaissance.  I know that's not completely fair, but it's just pushing units together.  The maps so far lack size for maneuvers and frankly (I'm not dismissing some semblance of historical accuracy with this game mechanic; I don't really know) there are almost no tactical decisions for the player to make.  HPS maps are huge by comparison, so while the same basic engagement choices exist, the player gets to choose how the overall battlefield develops. 

Also I think they should have called it FoG: Renaissance since that is what the game is with a few adaptions to the tabletop rules based on what I read on the Slitherine forums.  It's the same engine as BA/BA2, but it is the same gameplay as FoG.

Anyway I'm still going to give it a fair shake and hope that it grows on me the more I play it.  And it is entirely possible the game real strength is in multiplayer.

[panzerde]

Doug --

Game is up.

It's Pavia.  Password is "nojeeps" :).

Logged into the game and first turn is yours.

[panzerde]

As matters stand, P&S is a decent iteration of the tabletop game and is, absent the fierce side-by-side playtest PanzerDe and I are going to give it and HPS' Renaissance, it's the only game in town.  Certainly beats the pants of painting all those armies, building all the terrain, finding all the space, corralling all the opponents, setting aside all the time, all to play one battle instead of dozens.

Although, I will grant, that begs the question that one has a hankering for a game in this era...which I did...

Pretty much where I'm at with it, too. It isn't the greatest wargame ever - but it works for what's essentially a computerized miniatures game for the era. Given that I was the kid at the table with unpainted armies and who slapped model airplanes together as quickly as I could so I could play with them, that works for me - in the absence of very many other choices.

Bison, I will say that I'm finding the historical battles and skirmish games to be more challenging and to offer a lot more in the way of maneuver than the tutorials. It's funny though - I can't be bothered with BA or BA2 for many of the same reasons you are having with this. So, I get where you're coming from!

[Nefaro]

I play a bit of FoG but yearn for an iteration of the GBoH series on the PC...or even something else from the guys at Western Civilization Software.

http://www.gog.com/game/great_battles_collectors_edition

O0


I am disappoint if you don't already have this.

[Cyrano]

Hehe...I do have it.  I do, I do.

Now that you mention it, must get 'round to seeing if the MP works at all...

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[Asid]

I play a bit of FoG but yearn for an iteration of the GBoH series on the PC...or even something else from the guys at Western Civilization Software.

http://www.gog.com/game/great_battles_collectors_edition

O0


I am disappoint if you don't already have this.

I also have this and recommend it  O0

[Boggit]

I'll vouch for King and Country as a great M2TW mod though it's been a long time ago I played it and can't remember a lot of detail.

As will I.

I have a couple of campaigns under my belt now, and it is great fun. It's a pity it doesn't run under MTW2 Kingdoms though. I got my copy at twcenter.net if any of you want to try it out. You'll need a copy of MTW2 to run it.

[Bison]

Never a good sign when a thread is derailed and it doesn't involve boobs.

[Bison]

OK.  I've figured out one of the things that was driving me nuts.  For some reason I had (at least I thought had) detailed information being displayed and was underwhelmed with the information.  However I reset the detail information in the options and restarted the game and the amount of detail is significantly better.  Now the engagements and results actually make much more sense.  I might slowly be being won over by the game now.  :D