Slitherine

You'll all probably be glad to hear that this is my last post on this part of the forum.

I was convinced to give a 'random map' game a go.

No, this game has no redeeming factors for me.

* Turns take to long to play whilst you're sitting by as a witness.
* Turns get interrupted by enemy shooting (understand the concept, but it's frustrating when you're trying to move your piece and every step you get 'oh, stop, you're being shot at, oh stop you're being shot at, oh stop you're being shot at,oh, stop, you're being shot at, oh stop you're being shot at, oh stop you're being shot at, and all I've moved is three units.)
* Evades are painful. I had one totally fresh unit of dragoons evade off table. There's a perfectly good wood for them to go into (DIRECTLY BEHIND THEM), but no, they'll not go STRAIGHT, the'll evade off table by turning 45 degrees for no reason that I can see.
* Routs are painful. The unit routs then turns 45 degrees routs again and turns 45 degrees. Why did he turn 90 degrees? Nothing between him and home, but he's gonna sway all over the map.
* Early Tercios are too hard for their points (I can't clarrify this, but it seems that they are... or to put it another way, 3 units - 1 P&S and 2 later tercios didn't manage to dent one)
* It takes forever to get anywhere.

Now, I did give this the one more try as requested by my regular opponent (who, by the way will probably disagree with me) but I am so totally out of here it's not funny.

While I'm ok with most of the rules I totally agree with you concerning evades. While it's reasonable for light cavalry, for Dragoons (especially in good cover) it's nonsense IMO.

Worrisome is your first point: The lenght of the AI's turns is in fact the reason I don't play this game very often. "You're sitting by as a witness" does exactly describe my experience. It's simply off-putting having to watch the AI for 5 minutes through all the phases just to be able to move a few units a few squares afterwards. Often I've got the feeling the AI plays the game most of the time and not me.

BTW: Never had a game before with such a cumbersome way of scenario creation. That's really a pity.

Perhaps real time games are your only option here. 5 minutes of waiting would be extreme unless you are playing super large battles. I'd suggest playing medium or small battles but you have clearly made your decision. From my perspective as somene whom enjoys HPS titles, the turn waits are nothing. Try playing Boradino or Leipzieg at the battlion level, you might be waiting 20+ minutes for the AI to move

True, smaller battles are more handy. My problem with the game is not that the AI turns are that boring to me (in fact there's a lot of things going on) but that the time span I actually can DO anything (move troops, attack, make actual tactical decisions etc.) is so limited compared to all the phases that follow afterwards (fire, melee, AI turn, fire, melee) . And when half of your army is in melee or pursuit there's less to do ...

I really try to like the game, there are so much good things in it, but this important detail is putting me off. Sorry, would love to say otherwise.

(Concerning the HPS Napoleonic games: I always play them hotseat. The AI sucks seriously. IMHO. And I hate RTS BTW. )

ravenflight wrote:You'll all probably be glad to hear that this is my last post on this part of the forum.

I was convinced to give a 'random map' game a go.

No, this game has no redeeming factors for me.

* Turns take to long to play whilst you're sitting by as a witness.
* Turns get interrupted by enemy shooting (understand the concept, but it's frustrating when you're trying to move your piece and every step you get 'oh, stop, you're being shot at, oh stop you're being shot at, oh stop you're being shot at,oh, stop, you're being shot at, oh stop you're being shot at, oh stop you're being shot at, and all I've moved is three units.)
* Evades are painful. I had one totally fresh unit of dragoons evade off table. There's a perfectly good wood for them to go into (DIRECTLY BEHIND THEM), but no, they'll not go STRAIGHT, the'll evade off table by turning 45 degrees for no reason that I can see.
* Routs are painful. The unit routs then turns 45 degrees routs again and turns 45 degrees. Why did he turn 90 degrees? Nothing between him and home, but he's gonna sway all over the map.
* Early Tercios are too hard for their points (I can't clarrify this, but it seems that they are... or to put it another way, 3 units - 1 P&S and 2 later tercios didn't manage to dent one)
* It takes forever to get anywhere.

Now, I did give this the one more try as requested by my regular opponent (who, by the way will probably disagree with me) but I am so totally out of here it's not funny.

I'm sure I won't change your mind, Ravenflight, but I'd like to respond to your post as I think it could put people off what I believe is a very fine game.
Taking each point in turn:

i) Turns take to long to play whilst you're sitting by as a witness.

Compared to what? If waiting a little longer for the AI to make its move is the price we pay for having a decent AI, then I think most of us would settle for that. In any case, the turnover time is comparable to that in similar games. Personally, I find it reassuring that the AI is having to think!!! Playing smaller games is one way to speed things up, if it's a real bugbear for you, as others have pointed out.
It might be worth comparing the time frame to what would be happening in a face to face tabletop game. In any case, as a Windows game you can always leave the AI to do its thing while you do a bit of online period research...or whatever! Bottom line is, we're talking about a few minutes at most!

ii)Turns get interrupted by enemy shooting

I really don't see what's wrong with this. At least you can see what's happening, rather than just be presented with a damaged unit and not know why. Seeing what's happening helps the learning process.

iii) Evades are painful.

Firstly, this is a matter of perception - some have an issue with it, some don't. Secondly, it's something that is being actively addressed by the design team anyway to tighten it up!

iv) Routs are painful.

See (iii) above.

v) Early Tercios are too hard for their points

You're admitting that you can't 'clarify' this, i.e. you just have a feeling it's wrong but can't make a case in support of that. TBH I think this is about learning how to play the game - understanding relative strengths of different units/formations and how to combat them with combined arms,and so on. Any decent simulation of warfare will have a learning curve attached to it. In that it's no different from a tabletop wargame.

vi) It takes forever to get anywhere.

I'm not even sure what this means! Like someone else suggested, maybe a 'real time' game would be more to your taste?

When you say '...this game has no redeeming factors for me', I wonder what computer games would work for you? Because - AFAIK - the only other Renaissance computer game on the market is the John Tiller game. And trust me, you'd find that an awful lot harder to work with!

Pike & Shot has many 'redeeming factors' IMHO, for example:

- it models a much neglected period
- it's based on very solid historical research
- it's got a good AI
- it also facilitates multi-player games
- it's got a main developer who engages with his customer base and listens to people
- it can be customised to whatever level the user wishes to drill down to (including production of new army lists and scenarios)
- it's got great expansion potential (e.g. one user is currently working on a Samurai mod that's looking really good)
- Skirmish mode, with random maps and random or user-selected armies, means that you never need refight the same battle twice if you don't want to

Even if you don't like certain aspects of the game play as it currently stands, to say it has 'no redeeming factors' seems really over the top. Again, what are you comparing it to?!?

Of course everyone's entitled to their view. I'm not going to change your mind, Ravenflight, any more than you're going to change mine. But I think there's a difference between simply saying the game isn't for you, and more or less trashing it!

Cheers,
Miletus.

Not directing this towards Raven...but am enjoying some of the discussion here...putting in my two-cents.

I kind of like how the AI takes control as units get "stuck in". A fundamental problem with wargaming is the player is never really in a specific role. The player functions across multiple layers of command and control. I kind of like how the Pike & Shot engine sort of "takes over" the game after players have committed troops. It better simulates how senior-level commanders lose control as units engage. Even in modern combat this happens to an extent.

Routs/pursuits might be a bit overdone -- but from the reading I've done of the period Pike & Shot captures the period flavor. I'm sure it needs some tuning, but I like it -- mostly.

As for enemy units reacting -- I think that is entirely realistic. That the unit halts "for further orders" is completely realistic. To be able to complete moves with no enemy reaction would be unrealistic and is a limitation of non-computer games. Enabling enemy units to engage in "opportunity fire" is accurate. Once hit, a commander can decide to halt or continue the advance. Seems appropriate, to me.

I like the game. I like it a lot.

John

As I said in my original post, I understand the concept of the interrupted moves, but I want to move (for example) 3 squares forward. I click to activate the unit, and move it to where I want it to go. I am stopped at square 1 and am shot at. Ok, I've been shot at. I expected it. Just move forward. I reactivate the unit and move another square forward. ANOTHER unit shoots at me. OH FFS I KNOW ALREADY, JUST MOVE THE EFFING UNIT FORWARD TO WHERE I COMMANDED IT TO EFFING MOVE! I probably wouldn't feel that bad about it if it was only one or two inits, but if you're playing with 10 units (not a particularly bug battle) that's a crap load of 'doing the same thing' to get to where you wanted to.

Or to put it another way, you're wanting to go to the shop, so you pick up your keys, open your door, get in your car. Each step of the way your wife stops you and says 'you sure you want to go to the shop'. Not only once, but every effing thing you do.

Now, if (by shooting) I was disrupted or something 'real' changed, sure, I can understand a confirmation required, but to stip my movement for just being shot at... painful. Each to their own, if people like it, great. I don't. I'm not asking people to boycott the game... I'm explaining why I don't like it.

Re Tercios, similar to the work I was going to do with 'proving my point' about extreme 'dice rolls' I don't feel a need to do the homework. My gut is telling me Tercios are costed badly. Since I'm not going to play this any longer Why would I waste my time working out if I'm right? From memory I had 2 Early Tercios rout 2 later Tercios and Frag a third, with 1 P&S and another early Tercio locked in combat (and no doubt about to lose that combat too). I never found out because (thank God) the game ended and put me out of my misery.

So, if anyone wants to do the costing, does 2 Early Tercios cost more than 4 Later Tercios and a P&S?

Actually, I haven't gotten very good mileage out of Early Tercios at all -- except for one game.

They don't shoot worth a darn and I haven't had very good melee performance out of them, either. I love the concept since theoretically you don't have to protect their flanks or rears. But it's sort of like my experience with elephants in ancients play -- every time I play an elly, she wets herself at first enemy contact and flees the field. My tercios haven't done much better...

John

ravenflight wrote:As I said in my original post, I understand the concept of the interrupted moves, but I want to move (for example) 3 squares forward. I click to activate the unit, and move it to where I want it to go. I am stopped at square 1 and am shot at. Ok, I've been shot at. I expected it. Just move forward. I reactivate the unit and move another square forward. ANOTHER unit shoots at me. OH FFS I KNOW ALREADY, JUST MOVE THE EFFING UNIT FORWARD TO WHERE I COMMANDED IT TO EFFING MOVE! I probably wouldn't feel that bad about it if it was only one or two inits, but if you're playing with 10 units (not a particularly bug battle) that's a crap load of 'doing the same thing' to get to where you wanted to.

haha, I personally havnt found that to be frustrating, but as I think you indicated in other posts, you dont play too many (any?) tactical PC games. This is pretty much a standard feature in games that have "opportunity fire" during you own turn, so its not a "pecularity" only found in P&S. If continuous movement while taking fire when moving was programmed, we would have scores of players angry they couldnt halt their now fragemented troops from getting even closer to certain doom

Good point. If Pike & Shot is annoying -- you damn sure don't want to play "Lock n Load Heroes of Stalingrad"...

TheGrayMouser wrote: haha, I personally havnt found that to be frustrating, but as I think you indicated in other posts, you dont play too many (any?) tactical PC games. This is pretty much a standard feature in games that have "opportunity fire" during you own turn, so its not a "pecularity" only found in P&S. If continuous movement while taking fire when moving was programmed, we would have scores of players angry they couldnt halt their now fragemented troops from getting even closer to certain doom

what about "Now, if (by shooting) I was disrupted or something 'real' changed, sure, I can understand a confirmation required" didn't you understand?

It's the 'I'm a formed body of troops, and nothing has changed. I expected to be shot at AND lo and behold I WAS shot at, I didn't disrupt OR fragment, but I'm still going to stop moving forward and await confirmation.

Honestly, troops EXPECT to be shot at. It's what happens. Can you imagine it at Omaha Beach?

Sir, we're being shot at.

Oh, crap. Just wait here guys, I'll get on the blower to Ike.

Excuse me general. We're 200m off the beach in our landing craft. We're sustaining fire. How would you like us to proceed.

Oh, no, we're still in fighting order sir.

Oh yes, we can proceed.

Yes sir, we'll continue.

Sir, we're being shot at.

Oh, crap. Just wait here guys, I'll get on the blower to Ike.

Sir, we're now 100m from the beach and sustaining fire.

Yes sir, we're still in fighting order.

Yes sir, we'll continue.

Now, multiply this by EVERY landing craft at Omaha beach!

right BUT for something to have changed AND or for something to not have changed implies something has to be calulated by the engine and thus things need to stop. So even if your unit didnt disrupt moving a grid, it might have had to test to drop, plus it still changed, ie it now has less men and the display will change. I think , not sure, to have a continues flow of movement and processing for gameplay mechanics, as simple as we might think they are, really arnt that simple. Anyways, it is interesting to hear your opinion on something that turn based PC gamers likley never think about, and possibly developers, coders and designers either!

Gameplay is actually real fast and smooth for a turn based strategy, so I don`t understand complain here.
Only drawback is PBEM system that slow down multiplay a lot and somehow I feel player is losing immersion with it.
But single player is fast and smooth indeed.

Alma69 wrote:Gameplay is actually real fast and smooth for a turn based strategy, so I don`t understand complain here.
Only drawback is PBEM system that slow down multiplay a lot and somehow I feel player is losing immersion with it.
But single player is fast and smooth indeed.

Well, my expectations are high then. To me the turns are glacial.