Slitherine

After downloading the game, i went right into the scenarios to have a look since this is of utmost interest to me, especially since I have designed, or on the verge to, most of the battles in this campaign. Haven't played them yet but will write about them here. First impression is rather beer and pretzels, ie " 'you' are so and so and this is your mission" kind of introduction... Looks nice although wrong for gendarmes who deployed 'en haie' rather than shallow columns, one of the reason why reiters deplolyed in deep columns were so dangerous to them.

If you take a look at any contemporary illustration of gendarmes, you will see that they do not appear to have been deployed in a single line. Even if this is artistic convention rather than reflecting reality, our aim is to depict units as they were depicted in contemporary illustrations, not necessarily as they might have been in reality. (However, if you take a look at the Reiters in the Gravelines scenario, you will see that Reiters are indeed depicted in much deeper formations than Gendarmes in the game, as they were historically.)

Some gendarmes:

other graphical observations:

1. the arquebusiers and crossbowmen units (representing, open order, light infantry) look as or more substantial than the rodoleros units (representing close order, heavy infantry)

2. the same can be said with respect to gendarmes and light cavalry units.

3. it is not very evident whether a unit is infantry or cavalry.

If you apply the mod to increase zoom limits given in the Scenario Design section, you can zoom right in and see the gee-gees quite easily. That is if the unit designation doesn't give it away.

AndyR

1. What is the rationale behind allowing players to choose a portion of their units in historical scenarios? Don't historical scenarios, by definition, have firm orders of battle already?

2. Regarding Seminara, where are the calabrese militia units? What is the rationale for not including them? Or are they supposed to be represented by the light crossbowmen on the far left of the spanish line?

fogman wrote:1. What is the rationale behind allowing players to choose a portion of their units in historical scenarios? Don't historical scenarios, by definition, have firm orders of battle already?

The difficulty levels in many of the scenarios are governed by the size of the selectable forces available, so there have to be some to allow for the different difficulty settings. Also, the historical sources are seldom if ever completely accurate, so there is usually some doubt about the exact OOBs anyway. Also, subjective decisions have had to be made at how to classify each unit under the game system, so we can never be sure that the OOBs are 100% accurately represented anyway. Also it is a game, but some of the historical battles were essentially unwinnable, so some leeway has to be allowed for those who want a fighting chance. Also many players like to have a bit of choice.

Any that are familiar with the historical OOBs and want to use them can select the options closest to the historical OOBs.

2. Regarding Seminara, where are the calabrese militia units? What is the rationale for not including them? Or are they supposed to be represented by the light crossbowmen on the far left of the spanish line?

They are represented by the light crossbowmen on the left of the Spanish line.

i understand that oobs are not an exact science but it is the job of the scenario designer, who had researched the battle, to make those decisions, not the players, who had not, because you're blurring the line between a historical scenario and a 'skirmish' game. or may be that's what you want.

also, why is it not possible to play hot seat? it seems like a basic requirement. I like recreating events and playing against myself allows me to do that.

and thanks for fielding all the questions quickly.

fogman wrote:also, why is it not possible to play hot seat? it seems like a basic requirement. I like recreating events and playing against myself allows me to do that.

You can play hotseat. Just create an MP challenge and then accept it yourself. The first time you do this you will get a warning in case you did it by mistake. After that the program will assume you meant to do it.

ok, that works. just a few things:

1. you cannot play offline.
2. the french oob is fixed, unlike the spanish one.
3. the map perspective doesn't change when you play the french side. (isn't there something like the 'R' hotkey as in FoG?)

fogman wrote:ok, that works. just a few things:

1. you cannot play offline.

True.

2. the french oob is fixed, unlike the spanish one.

Also true. The French already have a massive advantage without getting to choose their forces.

3. the map perspective doesn't change when you play the french side. (isn't there something like the 'R' hotkey as in FoG?)

The engine does not currently allow this, but we have a request in to the engine team for that feature.

I've been playing against myself on mp and every time I switch side I have to sit through the replay. Is there a way to turn that off?

fogman wrote:I've been playing against myself on mp and every time I switch side I have to sit through the replay. Is there a way to turn that off?

Sadly not. I will add it to the wishlist.

The only issue would be if two people were using hotseat mode in its traditional sense of both playing on the same computer, as opposed to its more common use for playing both sides solo.