Verdict on the Series

[Old_Warrior]

Here are my findings on the P&S series engine and the scenarios:

1. Historical research was weak on the units. The cavalry for the 30YW period is incorrect and needs to be changed. One wonders who did the research and what books they were reading. In ALL of my games the Imperial cavalry rules the earth while the Swedish cavalry must cower or gang up on them. Totally and I mean TOTALLY unhistorical.

2. The manual does not give the players enough information on the game. For instance: the fall back comment I made is not documented to where the player knows what to expect from the game. Result: too much having to ask questions to the design team. A good manual gives the designer more time to do other things than to answer the same question over and over again.

3. The pursuit of units is bogus. Pursuing units suddenly become uncontrollable balls of flame that ignite into the flanks of units 5 tiles away.

4. Unwillingness of the designer to change the series for the better. Instead what the customer ($$$$$$$) gets is a game where units fly all over the place with no sense of historical feel on wild rout movement and pursuits.

Here is how you win in this series folks ... just put one unit out as bait - get the enemy to rout it and then gang up on the pursuers. Wow - that is historical. Sheesh, please change the game for the better. All you have to do is reduce the rout movement by 2 tiles for cavalry and 1 for infantry. Do NOT allow cavalry (or infantry for that matter) to suddenly make flank charges on units while they are pursuing other units.

Once my games are over I am done playing the game until the next update. If some of this has been corrected I might come back.

I also am going to suggest to my friends that are on the fence on this game to hold off buying it as well. I am currently working on a series that has the wild rout movement problem, cant do anything about it. I am designing a series where none of this bogus movement will take place.

The pursuit movement is a great idea. I love how the cavalry run off the map in wild pursuit of the enemy. I love how the cavalry can reemerge later. All of things that the Field of Glory PC game is missing.

I hope that others put in their 2 cents worth on these issues as well. I realize I may be the voice of one crying in the wilderness on this but I cant believe I am alone.

[KiwiWarlord]

Here are my findings on the P&S series engine and the scenarios:

All you have to do is reduce the rout movement by 2 tiles for cavalry and 1 for infantry. Do NOT allow cavalry (or infantry for that matter) to suddenly make flank charges on units while they are pursuing other units.

Would this bold suggestion be easy to implement ?
If so go for it.
Chargers pursuing evaders do not divert into other enemy so units pursuing routers could be given the same instructions ?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Personally, I very much like the game the way it is, and wouldn't have it any other way; you are of course entitled to your own opinion, but I don't think the game needs fixing.

[Paul59]

Chargers pursuing evaders do not divert into other enemy so units pursuing routers could be given the same instructions ?

Are you sure about this? I think I have seen this happen.

Anyway I am happy with the current pursuit logic, it recreates how armies often would collapse suddenly when under pressure. I agree with the Imperial/Swedish Cavalry issue though, it really surprised me when I played the 30 Years War scenarios.

[TheGrayMouser]

Here are my findings on the P&S series engine and the scenarios:

1. Historical research was weak on the units. The cavalry for the 30YW period is incorrect and needs to be changed. One wonders who did the research and what books they were reading. In ALL of my games the Imperial cavalry rules the earth while the Swedish cavalry must cower or gang up on them. Totally and I mean TOTALLY unhistorical.

2. The manual does not give the players enough information on the game. For instance: the fall back comment I made is not documented to where the player knows what to expect from the game. Result: too much having to ask questions to the design team. A good manual gives the designer more time to do other things than to answer the same question over and over again.

3. The pursuit of units is bogus. Pursuing units suddenly become uncontrollable balls of flame that ignite into the flanks of units 5 tiles away.

4. Unwillingness of the designer to change the series for the better. Instead what the customer ($$$$$$$) gets is a game where units fly all over the place with no sense of historical feel on wild rout movement and pursuits.

Here is how you win in this series folks ... just put one unit out as bait - get the enemy to rout it and then gang up on the pursuers. Wow - that is historical. Sheesh, please change the game for the better. All you have to do is reduce the rout movement by 2 tiles for cavalry and 1 for infantry. Do NOT allow cavalry (or infantry for that matter) to suddenly make flank charges on units while they are pursuing other units.

Once my games are over I am done playing the game until the next update. If some of this has been corrected I might come back.

I also am going to suggest to my friends that are on the fence on this game to hold off buying it as well. I am currently working on a series that has the wild rout movement problem, cant do anything about it. I am designing a series where none of this bogus movement will take place.

The pursuit movement is a great idea. I love how the cavalry run off the map in wild pursuit of the enemy. I love how the cavalry can reemerge later. All of things that the Field of Glory PC game is missing.

I hope that others put in their 2 cents worth on these issues as well. I realize I may be the voice of one crying in the wilderness on this but I cant believe I am alone.

Quite a change after your quite positive review a few weeks ago, eh?
#'s 1-3 of your points are really just subjective opinion and or historical conclusions you've made, 4 is just ludicrous.

Why don't you mod some of the changes you would like to see and share the results versus quitting the game and convincing your friends to "boycott it"?

BTW, I agree that pursuers having other units spend a few turns vectoring in on them while they are helpless IS frustrating, but then again the game (it is turn based)is an abstraction so its not so big a leap of faith that such units are actually dispersed over multiple grids and the flank attacks merely reflect that...("that" being formed attackers are mopping up out of control pursuers which are spread out and vulnerable)

It could help , perhaps if routers and pursuers moved FASTER, making it all but futile to use formed units to chase them down for flank hits. Infantry should never be allowed to attack pursuing cavalry ( just assume the speed differential is too great for them to even try, despite the odd "windows of opportunity" that turn based games seem to imply are there .he he))
These are just minor quibbles though , they don't break the game by any means.

[Doyley50]

At the end of the day Pike and Shot is a game and not a simulation. I have been playing it since its release and I am very happy with it. Pike and Shot reminds me of tabletop wargames using miniatures, something fairly unique for a computer wargame. Its not broke and it doesn't need mending.

[KateMicucci]

That's a pretty rough review.

I love the game and it's what got me into researching early modern warfare.

However, the way pursuit/flanking is implemented is extremely frustrating and often makes me ragequit for months at a time.

If we accept that it's a game, an abstraction and not a simulation, then it shouldn't be controversial to change pursuit rules to be less random and frustrating.

[KiwiWarlord]

At the end of the day Pike and Shot is a game and not a simulation. I have been playing it since its release and I am very happy with it. Pike and Shot reminds me of tabletop wargames using miniatures, something fairly unique for a computer wargame. Its not broke and it doesn't need mending.

I agree, best table top PC game that I have ever seen. I too have played the game constantly since its release and now have all three versions.

[fogman]

It's ok for a while until you can't stand

yes, the crazy pursuit routine
the frustrating flanking routine
the square grid (give me hexagons anytime)
no hot seat mode!!!!
the squad leader like shooting tactics
artillery sitting on a hill behind the lines and spraying the battlefield like modern heavy artillery.
artillery shooting at point blank range and causing no casualties!
tercios walking into big woods and fighting it out.
commando light troops.
scenarios designed as glorified skirmish games (seminara is the poster child of that, no relation to the actual battle whatsoever)

It's decent if you want quick entertainment but it could be much much more.

I don't know how well they are selling but there has been no campaign or tournament play for 6 months. FoG still have that going after 6 years.

[Miletus]

My original comments deleted, with apologies to Fogman.

[fogman]

thanks for the personal attack.

fyi, I contributed 6 scenarios to P&S, massive amount of work and research went into them;

organized 2 tournaments.

what have you done?

the funny thing is RBS is responsible for the design of both games!

[Miletus]

My original comments deleted, with apologies to Fogman.

[fogman]

I've enjoyed the game. I aim to continue with that. I did contribute one scenario, but in truth it was pretty basic.

Maybe if you didn't come across as so pompous and up yourself, you wouldn't get people's backs up. I mean WTF is this:

"Here are my findings on the P&S series engine and the scenarios"

They're your views, pal, not the results of some scientific investigation. Get over yourself.

learn to read correctly, "here are my findings on the P&S series engine and the scenarios" is not my post! WTF!

[Miletus]

Fair comment. I've deleted my previous comments. I apologise.

[Old_Warrior]

Alright ... did not just plunge into this with no thoughts over it all.

First, I have been playing wargames since I was 14. Miniature rules, boardgames, you name it. So I am not some guy who hasn't been playing these games for long.

Second, I have 9 of my own pc titles under my belt, have taken my own fair amount of criticism and frankly when a customer brings things up I listen. If I could change the code to the series I worked on I would have. I also was the person responsible for most of the changes to the series too. New ideas and comments to the programmer resulted in the series becoming one that has been around since 1999. And still getting updates.

I worked on the Campaign Metz module so I have done my time in coding and scenario design. I also built at least eight scenarios for the FoG modules. Caught some flak on my research for some of those as well. Did I just come off with "if it isnt broken, dont fix it." No, I did not. It bothers me that something as basic as the 30YW cavalry issue is just being brushed under the rug. Customers being told "fix it yourself" essentially. If I had historical errors in my scenarios and it was in my power to fix it .. I did. I didn't tell Joe Customer to go make up his own mod.

But when I can open up a Wiki article and in under 5 mins. spot errors in the historical research, without even considering myself to be as up on the era as many of you .. well someone didnt do their homework.

Second, watching units get fragmented from distance by artillery is a bit much. This happened to my OPPONENT so its not like I am whining over it happening to me. Just an observation. My point is ... hey you guys that playtested this ... werent you taking notice that some medium gun section was Fragmenting your units from distance? Was there any feedback on it?

Here is a good point I didnt even bring up before ... a pike and shot unit usually only move 2 tiles - right? Ok ... so they move, the unit they hit breaks and then that same pike unit pursues for 2-3 more tiles... Saw it in my Lutzen or 2nd Breitenfeld game and my mouth dropped open. This was not during the melee phase either. All during my opponents player phase.

My main issue with the game is the pursuit .... the units should pursue the unit they are after. Not run off after some other "target of opportunity."

Yup - I know its not a serious simulation - its a game - but that should mean even more than it should PLAY well and not have gamey things like this pursuit business.

Based on the responses I am thinking I am correct in saying that the jury is still out on the series. And yes, why should I recommend a game that has these kinds of flaws. At least ONE person responding here said he left off on playing the game for a month over frustration. If the game is so good ... why is this so?

So I will continue to monitor the updates. If the game gets corrected in the areas of historical accuracy for the 30YW cav units AND the pursuit mechanism is corrected then look for me to play again AND recommend the game. For now I give the game a thumbs down.

Add in that the Japanese game artwork is so hard to look at ... and so different from the P&S game .... why should the CUSTOMER fix what was obviously someone's idea of a graphical twist?

[Old_Warrior]

Here are my findings on the P&S series engine and the scenarios:

1. Historical research was weak on the units. The cavalry for the 30YW period is incorrect and needs to be changed. One wonders who did the research and what books they were reading. In ALL of my games the Imperial cavalry rules the earth while the Swedish cavalry must cower or gang up on them. Totally and I mean TOTALLY unhistorical.

2. The manual does not give the players enough information on the game. For instance: the fall back comment I made is not documented to where the player knows what to expect from the game. Result: too much having to ask questions to the design team. A good manual gives the designer more time to do other things than to answer the same question over and over again.

3. The pursuit of units is bogus. Pursuing units suddenly become uncontrollable balls of flame that ignite into the flanks of units 5 tiles away.

4. Unwillingness of the designer to change the series for the better. Instead what the customer ($$$$$$$) gets is a game where units fly all over the place with no sense of historical feel on wild rout movement and pursuits.

Here is how you win in this series folks ... just put one unit out as bait - get the enemy to rout it and then gang up on the pursuers. Wow - that is historical. Sheesh, please change the game for the better. All you have to do is reduce the rout movement by 2 tiles for cavalry and 1 for infantry. Do NOT allow cavalry (or infantry for that matter) to suddenly make flank charges on units while they are pursuing other units.

Once my games are over I am done playing the game until the next update. If some of this has been corrected I might come back.

I also am going to suggest to my friends that are on the fence on this game to hold off buying it as well. I am currently working on a series that has the wild rout movement problem, cant do anything about it. I am designing a series where none of this bogus movement will take place.

The pursuit movement is a great idea. I love how the cavalry run off the map in wild pursuit of the enemy. I love how the cavalry can reemerge later. All of things that the Field of Glory PC game is missing.

I hope that others put in their 2 cents worth on these issues as well. I realize I may be the voice of one crying in the wilderness on this but I cant believe I am alone.

Quite a change after your quite positive review a few weeks ago, eh?
#'s 1-3 of your points are really just subjective opinion and or historical conclusions you've made, 4 is just ludicrous.

Why don't you mod some of the changes you would like to see and share the results versus quitting the game and convincing your friends to "boycott it"?

BTW, I agree that pursuers having other units spend a few turns vectoring in on them while they are helpless IS frustrating, but then again the game (it is turn based)is an abstraction so its not so big a leap of faith that such units are actually dispersed over multiple grids and the flank attacks merely reflect that...("that" being formed attackers are mopping up out of control pursuers which are spread out and vulnerable)

It could help , perhaps if routers and pursuers moved FASTER, making it all but futile to use formed units to chase them down for flank hits. Infantry should never be allowed to attack pursuing cavalry ( just assume the speed differential is too great for them to even try, despite the odd "windows of opportunity" that turn based games seem to imply are there .he he))
These are just minor quibbles though , they don't break the game by any means.

Gray - sure I agree, if you dont like how a design was put together do your own. However, having a ton of game design work to do right now I just dont have the time. And I HAVE modded a lot of scenarios in my time too.

Here is a good example: in one of my Napoleonic designs someone mentioned to me an inaccuracy in the unit ratings so I went back and fixed it myself for the next update. I didnt just tell them "well that is your viewpoint on things" and write them off. Well yes, I have done that some times with customers because I have a read a lot on Napoleonic warfare and some of the customers were coming at it from a PURELY subjective viewpoint.

I am looking at it objectively. My opponent suffered a Fragmented condition from long range fire - more than once. So it wasnt poor little ole me have a unit shatter.

Item #4 is valid. Most of the responses I keep on getting here are "its fine, no need to do anything about it."

In Battle Academy we found errors but we also found the game to be a blast. I do enjoy the P&S game to a large degree but once units start breaking the game becomes far too chaotic. I am not a control freak either. I am talking about where a wall of friendly units causes a cavalry unit to "graze along the front" then there "veer around a corner" as it routs. All of us know that the unit would CRASH through the first opening it found. And these units dont present a solid front of men with no gaps. There were always gaps in the lines. The cavalry would crash through the front. Same with light units.

So yes, my initial view of the game was very favorable. The idea you can play so many fine battles. Once into the heart of things, after almost 30 MP games and several solo games my opinion is that there is still some minor changes to make to correct the pursuit issue and also the artillery fire as well.

Love the graphics, enjoy the historical period very much, just find the pursuit part of the game out of touch with historical record. If cavalry took off on a hunt they were after the unit they bounced and would not veer off and hit some "target of opportunity." Change that much and yes, I could mod my own 30YW scenarios to correct the cavalry issues.

[TheGrayMouser]

I guess I dont understand or agree with some of your historical interpretations, especially if Wikipedia is used. For example I see no glaringly obvious defect in the Kuriassier Swede issue you keep mentioning. I don't think anyone believes that the Kuirassiers were "caracoling". Swords were NOT effective against men in 3/4 armour, hence pistol tactics at point blank range remained the best option. It was only later when armour was abandoned that some cavalry forgot they could be shock troops, and it took a "reinvention" of charging in swiftly "sword in hand" that oohed and ahhed people again. (thinking aloud, what does "charging" alone have to do with beating a better armoured cavalry opponent that doesn't flinch? The Lancers of a century before charged into the pistoleers that held there fire point blank, and lost handily, why would men , with much less armour, do better with much shorter swords?) I have no idea how lacking native Swedes were in th e# of pistols they carried, but wasn't a significant amount of Swedish horse, German mercs anyhow?
The only "flaw" I see in the game is likely when Polish Husaria meet Kuriassier, they are up a POA. Impact beating Pistol, which seems odd as Heavy lances beat impact but lose to pistol.... However, I'm not aware of Imperial Kuirrasseirs ever fighting the Hussaria so who know?

The swedes needed the fire power of the shot intermingled not merely between their squadrons of horse, but within the squadrons themselves. This is what disordered the Kuriassiers. Timely controlled charges then drove em off. I dont know if you have played any of the GMT tactical 30 YW games, but they are pretty historically minded folk, and they even note that Pappenheims troops could have been using three ranks, similar to the Swedes, and had flexible tactics which included charging home either w pistol in had or sword.
I think the Swedish cavalry in game is likely TOO GOOD. It would be nice to see the commanded shot do more and , like the TT, the cavalry adjacent to them should be "protected " w a POA bonus as well.

I get what you mean by th epursuit but that is truly a manner of opinion on whether ( I you must agree abstractly can represent all kinds of things) its a fun and or valid mechanic. I like it as it is dynamic an dout of your control, for good or bad. Not sure about th eartillery concundrum, my only beaf w artillery is changing tagets shoudle be very easy or , to encourage pickin a target and contine firing you get a bonus or something, but again thi sis minor.

Cheers man.

[Old_Warrior]

"especially if Wiki was used" .. .well excuse me but all I had to to was check the easiest place on earth to find data - Wiki ... yes, some of their articles are not accurate. In this case their references/sources are spot on.

And sheesh, the Swedes were low on pistols so they DID use the sword. Read your history. Again, just dismiss my comment with an insulting "you didnt do your homework" type comment. YOU obviously dont know how the Swedes defeated the Imperial cavalry. Yes, along with the shot units which may I point out do "diddly squat" to stop the Imperial cavalry. They get run over by them. Thanks for bringing that out. Another glaring issue with the game. I have YET to Disrupt a Kuirassier unit with fire from a shot unit attached to the cavalry. They get run down. Even in disruptive terrain. I saw Hussars run them off the map even when in cover.

Again, I like the idea of "lack of control" but the units should be veering wildly to one side. In my last replay today I saw a Kuirassier unit do TWO turns on a pursuit. In one of my games my opponent lost almost purely because my charge ended up in his rear based on one unit I routed and THEN plowed into TWO more units and routed them too in one turn after they had turned TWICE.

Another point - cavalry should be DISRUPTED during the pursuit. Not in P&S. The unit is still considered Steady. Again, another glaring error.

Here is an image I posted of the Scot's Greys charge .. mainly meant for Richard who used them as a historical example but also for your info:



Note how the historical charge path is straight. I added in red lines to show what a typical P&S pursuit would look like if units were in the way of the routing unit and it had to veer wildly off to the side.

If Richard would allow for "break through" by routed unit this issue would be solved. The unit that is broken through would suffer one level of cohesion loss (Steady to Disrupted, etc). That would solve the problem of the routing units moving all over the place.

[TheGrayMouser]

"especially if Wiki was used" .. .well excuse me but all I had to to was check the easiest place on earth to find data - Wiki ... yes, some of their articles are not accurate. In this case their references/sources are spot on.

And sheesh, the Swedes were low on pistols so they DID use the sword. Read your history. Again, just dismiss my comment with an insulting "you didnt do your homework" type comment. YOU obviously dont know how the Swedes defeated the Imperial cavalry. Yes, along with the shot units which may I point out do "diddly squat" to stop the Imperial cavalry. They get run over by them. Thanks for bringing that out. Another glaring issue with the game. I have YET to Disrupt a Kuirassier unit with fire from a shot unit attached to the cavalry. They get run down. Even in disruptive terrain. I saw Hussars run them off the map even when in cover.

Easy there, no insult was meant, but I thought you indicated you wernt familiar w the 30 yw in another post and thus used wiki, which is not really a source at all! So what if the swedes were low on pistols, what effect does a sword have vs 3/4 plate? BTW when did I say they didn't use swords? Not having enough pistols would have been a detriment not an advantage, which perhaps they made up for by targeting the Kurissaer horses although how effective smacking a horse with a sword ( Richard Sharpe novels aside) would be is up for debate haha ... My undertsanding it was the combined arms of muskets and short quick charges against the disordered Kurissaiers ( from said muskets) that defeated the imperial left wing cavalry... and it wasn't easy either.
Unless I misunderstand you, you seem to think a Swedish horse unit should be able to defeat Kurrasier on its own. I just doudt that could be true, outlined in what i thought was a reasonable logical way.

Too bad this conversation went sour, but good news for you that I have found another thing you hate about the game.

[Old_Warrior]

No, I have been saying all along that I am not an expert on the period but I have ready a LOT on the 30YW ... I happened to turn to the Wiki article and lo and behold it had a good analysis of how the cavalry was used at Breitenfeld.

Look - its obvious that the Imperial side decided that they needed to change the way they were fighting. Not only do they change their infantry pike formations to model the Swedes but their cavalry changed too. If what we see in the early battles of Breitenfeld and Lutzen were to display the "superiority" of the Imperial Kuirassiers then why did the Catholic side change their way of fighting?

Its obvious why? Gustavus and Horn had a better way of doing things. Its why the Catholics were finally losing!

You dont change if what you have is working - and this comment has two meanings... what P&S is offering is not working. The rout/pursuit sequence is off. You are losing me as a customer .. and anyone else that might follow my lead based on my review.

What I find really funny here is that I offer up some comments and am getting the "Ye Olde Gun Club" answer. Well we have been using shotguns for years old boy ... we dont plan on changing. Yes, if the prey is geese go for it but we are talking about deer at 200 meters.