• Ancients recommendation?

    From Holdit@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 12 00:14:48 2016
    I'm looking at getting into ancients a little deeper than RTW2 (no
    laughing at the back).

    The offerings I'm aware of are:

    - Great Battles series - these seem to be highly thought of but won't
    run on my system

    - HPS Ancient Wars series - looks OK but pricey

    - Matrix Fields of Glory - not outrageously priced and seems to expand
    into Medieval warfare also.

    - Matrix Tin Soldiers - very limited number of scenarios.

    Which is the best of the bunch or are there better offerings I'm not
    aware of?

    Holdit
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From hermanhum@hotmail.com@21:1/5 to Holdit on Wed May 11 16:47:18 2016
    I've always held a special place in my heart for "The Ancient Art of War", published by Broderbund.

    On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 5:14:53 PM UTC-6, Holdit wrote:
    I'm looking at getting into ancients a little deeper than RTW2 (no
    laughing at the back).

    [snip]

    Which is the best of the bunch or are there better offerings I'm not
    aware of?
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From robapol@outlook.com@21:1/5 to Holdit on Wed May 11 16:49:19 2016
    On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 12:14:53 AM UTC+1, Holdit wrote:
    I'm looking at getting into ancients a little deeper than RTW2 (no
    laughing at the back).

    The offerings I'm aware of are:

    - Great Battles series - these seem to be highly thought of but won't
    run on my system

    - HPS Ancient Wars series - looks OK but pricey

    - Matrix Fields of Glory - not outrageously priced and seems to expand
    into Medieval warfare also.

    - Matrix Tin Soldiers - very limited number of scenarios.

    Which is the best of the bunch or are there better offerings I'm not
    aware of?

    Holdit

    I found the original Great Battles series don't run, but the patched versions from GoG.com do. For me, they are the best of the bunch, although the boardgames on which they are based are even better.

    I bought one HPS title, but could never get into it. It looks like it has a ton of detail, but despite numerous attempts to play it, I was always put off by one thing or another.

    Fields of Glory is good fun, but it does seem to generate some really odd results on occasion.

    As for Tin Soldiers really enjoyed both games. I wish they had made more, or at least converted the Alexander one to use the same engine as Caesar. The only downside with this game system is that you units have very limited forward visibility which can
    be frustrating some times.

    I'm tinkering away at my own Ancients simulation, but a lack of time and distractions mean that progress is slower than I'd like. A screenshot of a battle during the orders phase can be seen here:
    https://ancientarmies.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/a3.png with the actual blog at here:
    https://ancientarmies.wordpress.com

    RobP
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Symonds@21:1/5 to robapol@outlook.com on Thu May 12 06:38:21 2016
    On Wed, 11 May 2016 16:49:19 -0700 (PDT), robapol@outlook.com wrote:



    I'm tinkering away at my own Ancients simulation, but a lack of time and distractions mean that progress is slower than I'd like. A screenshot of a battle during the orders phase can be seen here:
    https://ancientarmies.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/a3.png with the actual blog at here:
    https://ancientarmies.wordpress.com

    RobP

    I've been following your blog with interest, I really hope you can
    bring the project to market it's a game I'd love to play. Keep at it !
    :)
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From eddysterckx@hotmail.com@21:1/5 to rob...@outlook.com on Thu May 12 00:15:25 2016
    On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 1:49:19 AM UTC+2, rob...@outlook.com wrote:

    Fields of Glory is good fun, but it does seem to generate some really odd results on occasion.

    Also based on a tabletop rules series of the same name.

    As for Tin Soldiers really enjoyed both games. I wish they had made more, or at least converted the Alexander one to use the same engine as Caesar. The only downside with this game system is that you units have very limited forward visibility which can
    be frustrating some times.

    Camera angle problems were indeed about the only downside of these rather challenging games with an enemy AI which counter-attacked really well.

    I'm tinkering away at my own Ancients simulation, but a lack of time and distractions mean that progress is slower than I'd like. A screenshot of a battle during the orders phase can be seen here:
    https://ancientarmies.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/a3.png with the actual blog at here:
    https://ancientarmies.wordpress.com

    Will keep an eye on it.

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Giftzwerg@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 13 18:37:59 2016
    In article <MPG.319dcd433a744773989710@news-europe.giganews.com>, holditREMOVE@indigoTHECAPS.i says...

    I'm looking at getting into ancients a little deeper than RTW2 (no
    laughing at the back).

    The offerings I'm aware of are:

    - Great Battles series - these seem to be highly thought of but won't
    run on my system

    GOG.com has versions which I run on Win10 all the time. Nice, updated graphics, too.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "BREAKING: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic
    Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting, bible -
    thumping Republican."
    - David Burge
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Giftzwerg@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 13 18:39:29 2016
    In article <41d6a165-ef8f-4906-b262-ab26b9537a9d@googlegroups.com>, robapol@outlook.com says...

    As for Tin Soldiers really enjoyed both games. I wish they had made more, or at least converted the Alexander one to use the same engine as Caesar. The only downside with this game system is that you units have very limited forward visibility which can
    be frustrating some times.

    I was never a TIN SOLDIERS fan. Too "tight," too limited movement
    systems



    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "BREAKING: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic
    Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting, bible -
    thumping Republican."
    - David Burge
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Big Salad@21:1/5 to Holdit on Fri May 13 14:12:02 2016
    On 5/11/2016 7:14 PM, Holdit wrote:

    I'm looking at getting into ancients a little deeper than RTW2 (no
    laughing at the back).

    The offerings I'm aware of are:

    - Great Battles series - these seem to be highly thought of but won't
    run on my system

    - HPS Ancient Wars series - looks OK but pricey

    - Matrix Fields of Glory - not outrageously priced and seems to expand
    into Medieval warfare also.

    - Matrix Tin Soldiers - very limited number of scenarios.

    Which is the best of the bunch or are there better offerings I'm not
    aware of?

    Holdit



    Last summer, I decided to play a whole bunch of games on the Pyrrhic
    War. I had an HPS scenario on one of the battles, a Field of Glory
    scenario, the Alea Jacta Est Birth of Rome module and Europa
    Universalisí Rome, with an appropriate start time.

    Iím playing single player only, and I tend to rank ďimmersionĒ higher
    than innovative and/or challenging game play. This probably skews my preferences, particularly relative to the fan base of these games. Given
    that, hereís are my thoughts in all of their gory detail. My short
    answer is that I think we have to wait for some new developer to get it
    right. Go RobP.

    Like the OP, I had again broken out the Rome Total War, and felt the disappointment. I began digging through the old games, sure that
    somewhere, someone must have done better. HPS battles started off my ďcomparative gamingĒ exercise and, while it pains me to do so, may get
    ranked as the best available ancients tactics option. The modelling of
    the battle seems pretty good. There are lots of scenarios, plus a
    scenario editor. Not to mention, the scenarios take a brutally long time
    to play so that gives you a whole lot of hours within a particular HPS
    module.

    On the downside, the scenarios take a brutally long time to play. Also,
    the AI, while not obviously incompetent, probably will not beat you in
    any of the scenarios (mostly designed for balanced play-by-email).

    The gameplay starts out OK as you close your army towards the enemy and
    need only make minor adjustments to your lines. Mostly you move forward
    using group moves, meaning (for example) you give a single movement
    order to all of one legionís principes (10 counters) together. This
    works until the armies make contact, at which point the group move is
    useless and you have to give orders counter-by-counter. This isnít too
    bad when youíre working on a tactically interesting section of the
    battle field. (Can you break his right wing before he punches a hole in
    your center?) But you pretty much have to visit every counter, every
    turn, whether you want to or not.

    My last HPS complaint is that, while the army detail is simulated to the
    lowest level of detail compared to most other games (for legions, one
    counter represents a maniple), it is still the same mechanics as any
    other hex-and-counter game. That is, the difference between a roman
    legion and allied heavy infantry is in the stats of the units. There is
    no simulation of the manipular system and its unique advantages. Indeed,
    there is no enforcement (or advantage, as far as I can tell) for keeping
    your units in the historical formations and combat roles. This is up to
    you as the player to do for your own satisfaction, often expending a lot
    of on-screen clicks to do so.

    Youíd think, then, that Field of Glory would be a breath of fresh air.
    Counter representative sizes are bigger (although, Iíll note, they are
    set by the scenario designer, so it really could be anything) so micromanagement is less. The AI can give a challenge, particularly in
    scenarios designed for single play - although this too is primarily a play-by-email game. This is the same rule set as Pike and Shot, and I
    LOVE it there, but for some reason FoG doesnít do it for me.

    Similar to my criticism of HPS, there is no game enforcement or
    advantage to historically-correct formations. In fact, optimal gameplay
    seems to involve using the larger scale (and thus, greater
    movement-per-turn) to scurry around to an unexpected attack position. I
    also find the unit stats to give some results that donít match my gut.
    Finally, as Eddy has said in the past, linear combat and hexes just
    donít match. Iíll point out that Pike and Shot used the same rules but a
    grid system.

    The advantages of Field of Glory are many. A huge number of scenarios
    and an active community, especially for multiplayer. The scenario editor
    is simple enough that you can actually throw together your own, plus
    there are army builders to create balanced, hypothetical match-ups. Most importantly, the battles are fairly quick. Even if a particular scenario
    model falls flat, youíve wasted only an evening on it, not a month of
    your life.

    I havenít played Tin Soldiers since around the time of its release. I
    was actually a beta tester for it, and so most of my play time came just
    before release and Iíve not played it much since. As the OP said, the
    number of scenarios are quite limited and thereís no provision for
    sandbox play and no hope that additional content will someday arrive.
    Like Field of Glory, this is really more of a ďtable topĒ simulator than
    a battle simulator. HPS Ancients also, to a lesser extent. But in Tin
    Soldiers it is the most obvious that you are pushing stands of
    miniatures. Not what Iím generally in the mood for, and I suspect a big
    part of the reason the series didnít last.

    When I was testing Tin Soldiers, I broke out my old copy of Great
    Battles, as the gold-standard of its time for ancient battles.
    Unfortunately, the memory of it is a little better than the modern
    replay. It hadnít actually solved many of the problems of some of its
    newer competitors, we just werenít aware back then of what we were
    missing. Plus, the program - even with the best of patches (I havenít
    tried the GOG specifically) - wasnít entirely stable. It was not
    uncommon for me to get well into a battle and then find that all my
    reloads lead to back to the same crash-to-desktop. While I havenít tried
    them back-to-back, I expect that FoG is suitable upgrade to Great
    Battles. One glaring exception - I always thought that the double-width
    phalanx units was a brilliant mechanic, but other games donít use it.

    The combined experience of all of these makes me wonder if the right
    battle simulation isnít the ďGeneral simulator.Ē Rather than simulate
    the board game or tabletop and push all the units around, shouldnít you
    sit in the saddle of the consul and give only the appropriate orders? As
    the few games on other eras that do this demonstrate, this requires a
    level of AI (especially friendly AI) that doesnít exist for ancients.

    Enter Birth of Rome, which simulates the operational level and deals
    with the tactical battles in considerable detail, but outside the
    control of the player. You can set up the size, quality and makeup of
    your armies and, through the commander assignments, control its tactics.
    But once the armies are marching towards each other, there isnít much micromanagement for a general to do - so why not just have the computer
    resolve everything. This game answers that question: itís kind of the
    worst of all worlds.

    Roman Republic games have two interesting aspects. One is the spectacle
    of massive formations of soldiers colliding and the fascinating rock-paper-scissors that actually played out as the army organization of
    the different cultures helped to dictate the fates of their nations. For
    the battles in question, the phalanx vs legion is the obvious, but most
    ancient battles are characterized by an array of unique units. At the
    other end is the political aspects of the Roman Republic. Control of the Senate, control of resources, the ability to install consuls, generals
    or governors. This creates an opportunity to design good games around
    even a nearly-invincible Rome against the world.

    Birth of Rome lands right between these two interesting wings in the
    dull middle. At the strategic level, all the decision are made by the
    scenario designer. At the tactical level, all the decisions are made by
    the computer. Leaving what? A historical account might describe how the
    Romans, upon hearing of Pyrrhusí arrival in Italy, mustered 80,000 men
    and divided them into four armies. Do any of us wish we could
    micromanage the makeup and lower-level command of the Roman response? I
    didnít think so.

    EU Rome is a game that I ignored when it came out. It seemed like easy
    way to capitalize on Rome: Total Warís popularity with their existing
    engine. Last year, I finally picked it up when I saw it for a buck or
    two. In retrospect, it was an intermediate version of the Crusader Kings
    system and does manage to immerse the player in that interesting
    strategic top end of the Roman era. In particular, whereas the RTW
    family system has little connection with historical politics, EUR does
    start to capture the feel of it. Once you stray outside the historical
    bounds of a scenario setup, EUR moves toward the classic 4X gameplay
    with build queues and constructing the right buildings, a mechanic
    without much connection to historical reality. But it is slower to
    silliness than most of its competitors and therefore, in my own Pyrrhic exercise of last summer, actually was the most satisfying attempt to
    play the Roman Republic.
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Giftzwerg@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 13 18:40:09 2016
    In article <be58jbl793mk9mgj3lpg128haj3va37j7i@4ax.com>,
    this@isfalse.com says...

    On Wed, 11 May 2016 16:49:19 -0700 (PDT), robapol@outlook.com wrote:



    I'm tinkering away at my own Ancients simulation, but a lack of time and distractions mean that progress is slower than I'd like. A screenshot of a battle during the orders phase can be seen here:
    https://ancientarmies.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/a3.png with the actual blog at here:
    https://ancientarmies.wordpress.com

    RobP

    I've been following your blog with interest, I really hope you can
    bring the project to market it's a game I'd love to play. Keep at it !
    :)

    +1

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "BREAKING: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic
    Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting, bible -
    thumping Republican."
    - David Burge
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Holdit@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 16 21:16:07 2016
    In article <nh55e4$j8n$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Big.salad@hotmail.com says...


    Thanks for taking the time to post that. Very interesting and
    informative, if a little depressing. :-)

    Holdit
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Giftzwerg@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 13 18:44:49 2016
    In article <nh55e4$j8n$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Big.salad@hotmail.com says...

    When I was testing Tin Soldiers, I broke out my old copy of Great
    Battles, as the gold-standard of its time for ancient battles.
    Unfortunately, the memory of it is a little better than the modern
    replay. It hadn?t actually solved many of the problems of some of its
    newer competitors, we just weren?t aware back then of what we were
    missing. Plus, the program - even with the best of patches (I haven?t
    tried the GOG specifically) - wasn?t entirely stable. It was not
    uncommon for me to get well into a battle and then find that all my
    reloads lead to back to the same crash-to-desktop. While I haven?t tried
    them back-to-back, I expect that FoG is suitable upgrade to Great
    Battles. One glaring exception - I always thought that the double-width phalanx units was a brilliant mechanic, but other games don?t use it.


    If my experience is any guide, the GOG versions are completely stable,
    even on Win10 (YMMV, of course). And at the price - $5.99 for the whole
    smash - it's just a no-brainer. I play these all the time.

    (My only complaint is that I have to jiggery-poke the resolution on my
    Surface Pro 4 to get a reasonable display ... but that's small potatoes
    ...)

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "BREAKING: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic
    Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting, bible -
    thumping Republican."
    - David Burge
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Holdit@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 16 21:22:38 2016
    In article <MPG.31a02155aa95ca3d989a76@news.giganews.com>, giftzwerg999 @hotmail.com says...

    In article <MPG.319dcd433a744773989710@news-europe.giganews.com>, holditREMOVE@indigoTHECAPS.i says...

    I'm looking at getting into ancients a little deeper than RTW2 (no
    laughing at the back).

    The offerings I'm aware of are:

    - Great Battles series - these seem to be highly thought of but won't
    run on my system

    GOG.com has versions which I run on Win10 all the time. Nice, updated graphics, too.

    That'll do for now. I'll give them a try. Thanks.

    Some of the R2TW overhaul mods have made the game a lot better, I think,
    and if can be fun when you don't have a lot of time, but there's seems
    to be no getting away from the 20-unit limit and the thick-as-two-planks
    AI and the real-time play. It's particularly dim on attack, where even
    if outnumbered, if you survive the first attack, you've won, because the
    AI opponent will send rallied units back at you as each one rallies i.e.
    small uncoordinated attacks one after the other.

    It sesm that the same question arises as with Napoleonics: why is it so difficult for PC game designers to get this right?

    Holdit
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Giftzwerg@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 17 09:33:22 2016
    In article <MPG.31a43c6b9536d4a9989712@news-europe.giganews.com>, holditREMOVE@indigoTHECAPS.i says...

    It sesm that the same question arises as with Napoleonics: why is it so difficult for PC game designers to get this right?

    They don't understand what "right" is, and know that actual "right" -
    almost total information hiding (Caesar and Napoleon both didn't even
    know where their own units were), and titanic orders-delay would
    alienate anyone but the most groggy of gamers.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "BREAKING: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic
    Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting, bible -
    thumping Republican."
    - David Burge
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From CaligulasHorse@21:1/5 to Giftzwerg on Thu May 19 05:22:49 2016
    On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 11:03:31 PM UTC+9:30, Giftzwerg wrote:
    In article <MPG.31a43c6b9536d4a9989712@news-europe.giganews.com>, holditREMOVE@indigoTHECAPS.i says...

    It sesm that the same question arises as with Napoleonics: why is it so difficult for PC game designers to get this right?

    They don't understand what "right" is, and know that actual "right" -
    almost total information hiding (Caesar and Napoleon both didn't even
    know where their own units were), and titanic orders-delay would
    alienate anyone but the most groggy of gamers.

    There's a serious argument that the Romans, beyond purely local/tactical sketches, didn't actually have *maps*. That would put a different perspective on a "realistic" game ...
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "BREAKING: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic
    Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting, bible -
    thumping Republican."
    - David Burge
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From CaligulasHorse@21:1/5 to eddys...@hotmail.com on Thu May 19 15:37:34 2016
    On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 4:58:19 AM UTC+9:30, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 2:22:50 PM UTC+2, CaligulasHorse wrote:

    There's a serious argument that the Romans, beyond purely local/tactical sketches, didn't actually have *maps*. That would put a different perspective on a "realistic" game ...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_Peutingeriana

    Most likely 4th century, but I find it hard to believe it came out of nowhere and was the first of its kind

    The argument is more nuanced than my oversimplification. See the "Emperors, Frontiers, and Foreign Relations" chapter in vol 2 in the great collection of Fergus Millar's essay - a pdf here: http://home.lu.lv/~harijs/Macibu_materiali/Gramatas_Seno_Laiku_
    Vesture/Antika_Kultura/Antika%20Kultura/Millar,F.%20Government,%20Society%20and%20Culture%20in%20the%20Roman%20Empire.%20Vol.2.2004.pdf

    (This was Millar's response to Luttwak's "Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire".)

    Eg from p185:

    "But it still leaves a more fundamental question: if the Roman maps of which we can form any clear conception did not provide a realistic projection of land-masses (or still less of seas or the mutual relations of islands in seas), was it in principle
    possible for an emperor, or anyone else, to conceive of the overall military situation in global strategic terms, or to consider for instance whether a frontier on the Elbe might have provided shorter lines of communication than one on the Rhine?

    All that can be said is that our explicit evidence does not seem to provide any clear instances of the use of maps in strategic or tactical planning as opposed to subsequent representations of the terrain of campaigns."

    The Tabula Peutingeriana was a schematic itinerary listing of places and distances. *Maybe* it originally had some kind of map-like representation as well, but Millar would say there's no evidence for that. See p184 of that pdf.

    Or from the Wikipedia entry:

    The table appears to be based on "itineraries", lists of destinations along Roman roads, as the distances between points along the routes are indicated.[9] Travelers would not have possessed anything so sophisticated as a modern map, but they needed to
    know what lay ahead of them on the road and how far. The Peutinger table represents these roads as a series of stepped lines along which destinations have been marked in order of travel. The shape of the parchment pages accounts for the conventional
    rectangular layout. However, a rough similarity to the coordinates of Ptolemy's earth-mapping gives some writers a hope that some terrestrial representation was intended by the unknown compilers
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From eddysterckx@hotmail.com@21:1/5 to CaligulasHorse on Thu May 19 12:28:19 2016
    On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 2:22:50 PM UTC+2, CaligulasHorse wrote:

    There's a serious argument that the Romans, beyond purely local/tactical sketches, didn't actually have *maps*. That would put a different perspective on a "realistic" game ...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_Peutingeriana

    Most likely 4th century, but I find it hard to believe it came out of nowhere and was the first of its kind

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Giftzwerg@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 19 19:23:59 2016
    In article <abef1945-2997-4ed3-8f45-b14e7e8ca6aa@googlegroups.com>, jurisper@gmail.com says...

    It sesm that the same question arises as with Napoleonics: why is it so difficult for PC game designers to get this right?

    They don't understand what "right" is, and know that actual "right" - almost total information hiding (Caesar and Napoleon both didn't even
    know where their own units were), and titanic orders-delay would
    alienate anyone but the most groggy of gamers.

    There's a serious argument that the Romans, beyond purely local/tactical sketches, didn't actually have *maps*. That would put a different perspective on a "realistic" game ...

    I'm not sure is this is all that significant, though.

    To my mind, the main issue is that games like GREAT BATTLES not only
    represent units on a map - how could they not do this - but do so
    accurately not only for friend and foe, and then allow fine control of
    one's own units.

    I'm reminded (paraphrasing) of a scene from HBO's "Rome" about the
    Battle of Philippi, where a nervous and inexperienced Octavian asks Mark
    Antony if he knows what's going on, and Antony replies, "Not a clue."

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "BREAKING: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic
    Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting, bible -
    thumping Republican."
    - David Burge
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From CaligulasHorse@21:1/5 to Giftzwerg on Thu May 19 17:37:51 2016
    On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 8:54:02 AM UTC+9:30, Giftzwerg wrote:


    I'm not sure is this is all that significant, though.

    To my mind, the main issue is that games like GREAT BATTLES not only represent units on a map - how could they not do this - but do so
    accurately not only for friend and foe, and then allow fine control of
    one's own units.


    Yep - I was thinking more in terms of a "strategic" Roman game, which is something I'd like to see done well.
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From robapol@outlook.com@21:1/5 to Giftzwerg on Thu May 19 16:43:00 2016
    On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 12:24:02 AM UTC+1, Giftzwerg wrote:
    In article <abef1945-2997-4ed3-8f45-b14e7e8ca6aa@googlegroups.com>, jurisper@gmail.com says...

    It sesm that the same question arises as with Napoleonics: why is it so
    difficult for PC game designers to get this right?

    They don't understand what "right" is, and know that actual "right" - almost total information hiding (Caesar and Napoleon both didn't even know where their own units were), and titanic orders-delay would alienate anyone but the most groggy of gamers.

    There's a serious argument that the Romans, beyond purely local/tactical sketches, didn't actually have *maps*. That would put a different perspective on a "realistic" game ...

    I'm not sure is this is all that significant, though.

    To my mind, the main issue is that games like GREAT BATTLES not only represent units on a map - how could they not do this - but do so
    accurately not only for friend and foe, and then allow fine control of
    one's own units.

    I'm reminded (paraphrasing) of a scene from HBO's "Rome" about the
    Battle of Philippi, where a nervous and inexperienced Octavian asks Mark Antony if he knows what's going on, and Antony replies, "Not a clue."

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "BREAKING: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic
    Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting, bible -
    thumping Republican."
    - David Burge


    This aspect always concerned me about the current crop of games. An ancient battle should be about trying to manage the unknown chaos of battle. It's one of the reasons why the Line-Of-Sight system I have put into Ancient Armies is Leader based on max
    realism - i.e. you are going to have trouble tracking your own units, let alone the enemy ones. The system even simulates units screening other units and the height of the commander above ground :)

    For a full briefing on Ancient Armies Line of Sight modelling I have knocked up a video which can be viewed here:
    https://youtu.be/UTo1viy2UOM?list=PLAWNvkDrHeDHNiw2YnT-p5mFwKZ7dOukb

    RobP
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Giftzwerg@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 19 21:12:01 2016
    In article <d2d4e5c5-4812-4506-b5ee-97ac9e6a6c8b@googlegroups.com>, robapol@outlook.com says...

    I'm reminded (paraphrasing) of a scene from HBO's "Rome" about the
    Battle of Philippi, where a nervous and inexperienced Octavian asks Mark Antony if he knows what's going on, and Antony replies, "Not a clue."

    This aspect always concerned me about the current crop of games. An ancient battle should be about trying to manage the unknown chaos of battle. It's one of the reasons why the Line-Of-Sight system I have put into Ancient Armies is Leader based on max
    realism - i.e. you are going to have trouble tracking your own units, let alone the enemy ones. The system even simulates units screening other units and the height of the commander above ground :)

    For a full briefing on Ancient Armies Line of Sight modelling I have knocked up a video which can be viewed here:
    https://youtu.be/UTo1viy2UOM?list=PLAWNvkDrHeDHNiw2YnT-p5mFwKZ7dOukb

    I'm pretty psyched about this. And I like that there's a, "lesser
    realism mode."

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "BREAKING: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic
    Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting, bible -
    thumping Republican."
    - David Burge
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Holdit@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 20 08:27:46 2016
    In article <MPG.31a82e6de01dcfdd989a7d@news.giganews.com>, giftzwerg999 @hotmail.com says...

    In article <d2d4e5c5-4812-4506-b5ee-97ac9e6a6c8b@googlegroups.com>, robapol@outlook.com says...

    I'm reminded (paraphrasing) of a scene from HBO's "Rome" about the
    Battle of Philippi, where a nervous and inexperienced Octavian
    asks Mark Antony if he knows what's going on, and Antony replies,
    "Not a clue."

    This aspect always concerned me about the current crop of games. An
    ancient battle should be about trying to manage the unknown chaos of battle. It's one of the reasons why the Line-Of-Sight system I have
    put into Ancient Armies is Leader based on max realism - i.e. you
    are going to have trouble tracking your own units, let alone the
    enemy ones. The system even simulates units screening other units
    and the height of the commander above ground :)

    For a full briefing on Ancient Armies Line of Sight modelling I have knocked up a video which can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/UTo1viy2UOM?list=PLAWNvkDrHeDHNiw2YnT-p5mFwKZ7dOuk
    b

    I'm pretty psyched about this. And I like that there's a, "lesser
    realism mode."

    Agreed. I like grogginess(?) but it should always be scaleable. One
    reason I don't understand why some developers dumb down games in order
    not to alienate some players. Just make the hard modes optional.

    Holdit
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Giftzwerg@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 19 21:13:31 2016
    In article <caef4c40-1bf4-44be-9038-055d22332a42@googlegroups.com>, jurisper@gmail.com says...

    I'm not sure is this is all that significant, though.

    To my mind, the main issue is that games like GREAT BATTLES not only represent units on a map - how could they not do this - but do so accurately not only for friend and foe, and then allow fine control of one's own units.


    Yep - I was thinking more in terms of a "strategic" Roman game, which is something I'd like to see done well.

    So would we all. And not that friggin' "factions" nonsense of RTWx.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "BREAKING: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic
    Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting, bible -
    thumping Republican."
    - David Burge
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Holdit@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 20 08:54:09 2016
    In article <d2d4e5c5-4812-4506-b5ee-97ac9e6a6c8b@googlegroups.com>, robapol@outlook.com says...

    On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 12:24:02 AM UTC+1, Giftzwerg wrote:
    In article <abef1945-2997-4ed3-8f45-b14e7e8ca6aa@googlegroups.com>, jurisper@gmail.com says...

    It sesm that the same question arises as with Napoleonics: why
    is it so difficult for PC game designers to get this right?

    They don't understand what "right" is, and know that actual
    "right" - almost total information hiding (Caesar and Napoleon
    both didn't even know where their own units were), and titanic orders-delay would alienate anyone but the most groggy of
    gamers.

    There's a serious argument that the Romans, beyond purely
    local/tactical sketches, didn't actually have *maps*. That would
    put a different perspective on a "realistic" game ...

    I'm not sure is this is all that significant, though.

    To my mind, the main issue is that games like GREAT BATTLES not only represent units on a map - how could they not do this - but do so accurately not only for friend and foe, and then allow fine control
    of one's own units.

    I'm reminded (paraphrasing) of a scene from HBO's "Rome" about the
    Battle of Philippi, where a nervous and inexperienced Octavian asks
    Mark Antony if he knows what's going on, and Antony replies, "Not a
    clue."

    --
    Giftzwerg *** "BREAKING: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic
    Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting, bible - thumping
    Republican." - David Burge


    This aspect always concerned me about the current crop of games. An
    ancient battle should be about trying to manage the unknown chaos of
    battle. It's one of the reasons why the Line-Of-Sight system I have
    put into Ancient Armies is Leader based on max realism - i.e. you are
    going to have trouble tracking your own units, let alone the enemy
    ones. The system even simulates units screening other units and the
    height of the commander above ground :)

    For a full briefing on Ancient Armies Line of Sight modelling I have
    knocked up a video which can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/UTo1viy2UOM?list=PLAWNvkDrHeDHNiw2YnT-p5mFwKZ7dOukb

    Stop messing about on Usenet and get back to work then... :-)

    (Looking forward to seeing this released)

    Holdit
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From eddysterckx@hotmail.com@21:1/5 to CaligulasHorse on Fri May 20 02:58:05 2016
    On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 12:37:35 AM UTC+2, CaligulasHorse wrote:

    (This was Millar's response to Luttwak's "Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire".)

    pdf downloaded - adding it to my summer holiday iPad reading list - mighty interesting - thanks

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From CaligulasHorse@21:1/5 to eddys...@hotmail.com on Fri May 20 04:43:43 2016
    On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 7:28:06 PM UTC+9:30, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 12:37:35 AM UTC+2, CaligulasHorse wrote:

    (This was Millar's response to Luttwak's "Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire".)

    pdf downloaded - adding it to my summer holiday iPad reading list - mighty interesting - thanks

    Millar is great. His best thing is stripping away all the layers of stories that people have made up over the decades, to get to the tiny nuggets of information in which it's possible to have some confidence. Then sometimes building back up, very
    tentatively, to suggest what is anyway consistent with those nuggets.

    The results can be surprising. The maps thing. He thinks there's almost no evidence for a "Silk Route" in Roman times. He thinks the view that the late Republic was a full-blown oligarchy is rubbish. If you're looking for consistency with what we know
    about life in Palestine the first century, then you'll pick John as likely the most authentic Gospel. No evidence that legends about Zoroaster, Mithras etc have a real "Oriental" basis; they're probably Greek stories. A vast range of insights; well worth
    the effort of wading through long, complex sentences.
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From eddysterckx@hotmail.com@21:1/5 to CaligulasHorse on Fri May 20 05:07:25 2016
    On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 1:43:44 PM UTC+2, CaligulasHorse wrote:
    On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 7:28:06 PM UTC+9:30, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 12:37:35 AM UTC+2, CaligulasHorse wrote:

    (This was Millar's response to Luttwak's "Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire".)

    pdf downloaded - adding it to my summer holiday iPad reading list - mighty interesting - thanks

    Millar is great. His best thing is stripping away all the layers of stories that people have made up over the decades, to get to the tiny nuggets of information in which it's possible to have some confidence. Then sometimes building back up, very
    tentatively, to suggest what is anyway consistent with those nuggets.

    The results can be surprising. The maps thing. He thinks there's almost no evidence for a "Silk Route" in Roman times. He thinks the view that the late Republic was a full-blown oligarchy is rubbish. If you're looking for consistency with what we know
    about life in Palestine the first century, then you'll pick John as likely the most authentic Gospel. No evidence that legends about Zoroaster, Mithras etc have a real "Oriental" basis; they're probably Greek stories. A vast range of insights; well worth
    the effort of wading through long, complex sentences.

    That's exactly the type of history book I can sink my teeth into : dogma-challenging, fact-based and detailed.

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Giftzwerg@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 20 18:15:23 2016
    In article <MPG.31a8ccd1ba522013989713@news-europe.giganews.com>, holditREMOVE@indigoTHECAPS.i says...

    I'm pretty psyched about this. And I like that there's a, "lesser
    realism mode."

    Agreed. I like grogginess(?) but it should always be scaleable. One
    reason I don't understand why some developers dumb down games in order
    not to alienate some players. Just make the hard modes optional.

    Exactly. It's like the "Realism" slider in COMMAND OPS. I've always
    played in "Painfully Realistic," but understand that might not be every player's cuppa tea, and am pleased they included the facility for a more chess-like game.

    And (most) all games have this feature. I think one of the FALLOUTs
    had, "Easy, Normal, Hard, and Impossible."

    Look at a game like IL-2: STURMOVIK; you can custom-configure virtually
    all the settings. Want to set fuel mixtures and propeller pitch? Sure!
    Want to give yourself unlimited ammo? Sure!

    I'm a casual player on flight sims, not a hardcore grog. I kinda just
    like to fly around and shoot at enemy planes. On other games - mostly
    wargames - I want as much detail and realism as I can get



    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "BREAKING: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic
    Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting, bible -
    thumping Republican."
    - David Burge
    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)