I'm looking at getting into ancients a little deeper than RTW2 (no
laughing at the back).
Which is the best of the bunch or are there better offerings I'm not--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
aware of?
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'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
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 canbe 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
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
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 canbe frustrating some times.
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
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 !
:)
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.
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.
It sesm that the same question arises as with Napoleonics: why is it so difficult for PC game designers to get this right?
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--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
***
"BREAKING: Treasury throws founder of the Democratic
Party off $20 bill, replaces with gun-toting, bible -
thumping Republican."
- David Burge
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
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 ...
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.
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
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 :)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
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
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."
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.
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
(This was Millar's response to Luttwak's "Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire".)
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
On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 7:28:06 PM UTC+9:30, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:tentatively, to suggest what is anyway consistent with those nuggets.
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
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 knowabout 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
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 82:28:30 |
Calls: | 6,658 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,203 |
Messages: | 5,333,433 |
Posted today: | 1 |