Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New HPS operational/strategic game and Napoleonic title

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:28:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I just dropped by Chips 'n' Bits' web site (www.chipsbits.com) and
discovered, on the front page, blurbs for two new titles. One,
Napoleonic Battles: Campaign Waterloo
(http://www.chipsbits.com/itemdesc.asp?CartId={EVEREST259B45F3-34AB-4A92-8763-6E8788B39330}&ic=NAPOBCW%2EIR&eq=&Tp=)
is one I'd heard of before, but the other, World War II: The First
Blitzkrieg
(http://www.chipsbits.com/itemdesc.asp?CartId={EVEREST259B45F3-34AB-4A92-8763-6E8788B39330}&ic=WORLWIIFB%2EIR&eq=&Tp=)
is apparently the first game in a new series (I wonder if this is the
"War in Europe"-like game that Tiller has supposedly been working on?).
Both are due to ship May 13th. Anyone have any more details on these?
(There is some blurbage on the Chips website.)

Scott
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 6:30:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

<splusmer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115666917.597242.118460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I just dropped by Chips 'n' Bits' web site (www.chipsbits.com) and
>
> Both are due to ship May 13th. Anyone have any more details on these?
> (There is some blurbage on the Chips website.)
>
> Scott
>
Rich Hamilton's site had this on Campaign Waterloo:

http://hist-sdc.com/waterloo/
May 9, 2005 8:22:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

<splusmer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115666917.597242.118460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I just dropped by Chips 'n' Bits' web site (www.chipsbits.com) and
> discovered, on the front page, blurbs for two new titles. One,
> Napoleonic Battles: Campaign Waterloo
>
(http://www.chipsbits.com/itemdesc.asp?CartId={EVEREST259B45F3-34AB-4A92-876
3-6E8788B39330}&ic=NAPOBCW%2EIR&eq=&Tp=)
> is one I'd heard of before, but the other, World War II: The First
> Blitzkrieg
>
(http://www.chipsbits.com/itemdesc.asp?CartId={EVEREST259B45F3-34AB-4A92-876
3-6E8788B39330}&ic=WORLWIIFB%2EIR&eq=&Tp=)
> is apparently the first game in a new series (I wonder if this is the
> "War in Europe"-like game that Tiller has supposedly been working on?).
> Both are due to ship May 13th. Anyone have any more details on these?
> (There is some blurbage on the Chips website.)
>
> Scott
>


<sound of golf clap>
Related resources
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:49:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

<splusmer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115666917.597242.118460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I just dropped by Chips 'n' Bits' web site (www.chipsbits.com) and
> discovered, on the front page, blurbs for two new titles. One,
> Napoleonic Battles: Campaign Waterloo
> (http://www.chipsbits.com/itemdesc.asp?CartId={EVEREST259B45F3-34AB-4A92-8763-6E8788B39330}&ic=NAPOBCW%2EIR&eq=&Tp=)
> is one I'd heard of before, but the other, World War II: The First
> Blitzkrieg
> (http://www.chipsbits.com/itemdesc.asp?CartId={EVEREST259B45F3-34AB-4A92-8763-6E8788B39330}&ic=WORLWIIFB%2EIR&eq=&Tp=)
> is apparently the first game in a new series (I wonder if this is the
> "War in Europe"-like game that Tiller has supposedly been working on?).
> Both are due to ship May 13th. Anyone have any more details on these?
> (There is some blurbage on the Chips website.)
>
> Scott
>
Primary unit is division,2 turns per day, supply is much more important.
Interface seems the usual. First game cover 9/30 - 7/40 (may go to Sealion,
not sure). More later.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 11:58:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

splusmer@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1115666917.597242.118460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> I just dropped by Chips 'n' Bits' web site (www.chipsbits.com) and
> discovered, on the front page, blurbs for two new titles. One,
> Napoleonic Battles: Campaign Waterloo
> (http://www.chipsbits.com/itemdesc.asp?CartId={EVEREST259B45F3-34AB-4A9
> 2-8763-6E8788B39330}&ic=NAPOBCW%2EIR&eq=&Tp=) is one I'd heard of
> before, but the other, World War II: The First Blitzkrieg
> (http://www.chipsbits.com/itemdesc.asp?CartId={EVEREST259B45F3-34AB-4A9
> 2-8763-6E8788B39330}&ic=WORLWIIFB%2EIR&eq=&Tp=) is apparently the
> first game in a new series (I wonder if this is the "War in
> Europe"-like game that Tiller has supposedly been working on?).
> Both are due to ship May 13th. Anyone have any more details on
> these?
> (There is some blurbage on the Chips website.)

Glenn Saunders posted this over in the WarefareHQ forum yesterday :

"Another New Panzer Campaign is MASTERED - This title will be released on
the TILLERCON Weekend in Richmond Virginia - Friday June 17th. Hope to see
anyone who can make it there.

Also - with any luck HPS will have something new up next Friday. All I can
say for now is that it is NOT a Panzer Campaign, but it covers a World War
II topic, and is the start of something new, with additional titles to
follow.

....but there are still more PzCs coming too - we're actively working on
another title that has been in the works since PzC #3. Lots of good games
to come if you like John Tiller Wargames."

- - - -

Seems like there's still some life in the Battleground engine :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:00:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"James Cobb" <bismarck71@charter.net> wrote in message
news:bORfe.155$RP2.72@fe04.lga...
>
> Primary unit is division,2 turns per day, supply is much more important.
> Interface seems the usual. First game cover 9/30 - 7/40 (may go to
> Sealion, not sure). More later.
>

I've never bought any of Tiller's WWII games, even though the subject
appeals to me greatly. The scale (6 bazillion turns, 12 bazillion units)
turned me off completely. This game I will almost certainly buy.

tbob
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:00:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"tbob" <tbob@home.com> wrote in message
news:cYRfe.67249$r53.66284@attbi_s21...
>
> "James Cobb" <bismarck71@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:bORfe.155$RP2.72@fe04.lga...
>>
>> Primary unit is division,2 turns per day, supply is much more important.
>> Interface seems the usual. First game cover 9/30 - 7/40 (may go to
>> Sealion, not sure). More later.
>>
>
> I've never bought any of Tiller's WWII games, even though the subject
> appeals to me greatly. The scale (6 bazillion turns, 12 bazillion units)
> turned me off completely. This game I will almost certainly buy.
>
> tbob
>
Many hypotheticals; good tie in to the France 40 thread.
May 11, 2005 10:34:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Looks like Talonsoft's old game.


"Mike Cox" <NoSpamThanks_sch-michael@vom.com> wrote in message
news:117vl7dt4ncli79@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <splusmer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1115666917.597242.118460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> I just dropped by Chips 'n' Bits' web site (www.chipsbits.com) and
>>
>> Both are due to ship May 13th. Anyone have any more details on these?
>> (There is some blurbage on the Chips website.)
>>
>> Scott
>>
> Rich Hamilton's site had this on Campaign Waterloo:
>
> http://hist-sdc.com/waterloo/
>
>
May 11, 2005 10:53:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

That's because they basically are.


"Bill" <wlambrukos@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:guKdnTcuk-75FR_fRVn-tQ@giganews.com...
> Looks like Talonsoft's old game.
>
>
> "Mike Cox" <NoSpamThanks_sch-michael@vom.com> wrote in message
> news:117vl7dt4ncli79@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > <splusmer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1115666917.597242.118460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> I just dropped by Chips 'n' Bits' web site (www.chipsbits.com) and
> >>
> >> Both are due to ship May 13th. Anyone have any more details on these?
> >> (There is some blurbage on the Chips website.)
> >>
> >> Scott
> >>
> > Rich Hamilton's site had this on Campaign Waterloo:
> >
> > http://hist-sdc.com/waterloo/
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:49:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <IXwge.611$Q15.6230@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com
says...
> That's because they basically are.
>
>
> "Bill" <wlambrukos@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:guKdnTcuk-75FR_fRVn-tQ@giganews.com...
> > Looks like Talonsoft's old game.
> >
> >
> > "Mike Cox" <NoSpamThanks_sch-michael@vom.com> wrote in message
> > news:117vl7dt4ncli79@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > <splusmer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1115666917.597242.118460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >> I just dropped by Chips 'n' Bits' web site (www.chipsbits.com) and
> > >>
> > >> Both are due to ship May 13th. Anyone have any more details on these?
> > >> (There is some blurbage on the Chips website.)
> > >>
> > >> Scott
> > >>
> > > Rich Hamilton's site had this on Campaign Waterloo:
> > >
> > > http://hist-sdc.com/waterloo/

Heh heh, as they say: "Some things never change."
--

Epi

------------
I perceive that smoking
cigarettes is very healthy for me.
Perception is reality.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 6:03:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <guKdnTcuk-75FR_fRVn-tQ@giganews.com>,
wlambrukos@comcast.net
> says...
>
> > Looks like Talonsoft's old game.
>
> Fancy that. <g>

You guys crack me up. From "The story of S.S.I." by JACK POWELL, Antic
Technical Editor, VOL. 4, NO. 3, July 1985, p28:

"WAR PAYS!

Most SSI games are written in BASIC then compiled for speed. Almost all
their games are written by outside contributors. Of the 12 games
published last year, six were by regular contibutors-such as the
prolific and popular Gary Grigsby-but six were by complete newcomers.

'There's a decent amount of money to be made. A war game may bring in
$10-20,000 for the programmer.'....

SSI has developed in-house graphics tools-Graph-Pak and
Square-Pak-which speed map design and handle special algorithms...
Utilities such as these simplify transfer between computers and 'allow
us to crank these games out.'

Billings referred to some of their games as 'clone games.' By keeping
the core system and changing the weapons and the map, a new game is
created. Gary Grigsby is their most prolific author partly because he's
mastered their utility tools and the concept of clone games. 'New math,
new database, and you've got a whole new game.' "

Fancy that! Tiller isn't the master of "crank and clone" afterall? Nor
it seems is "clone and conquer" such a unique term? You mean there's
money to be made out of a stable game engine? Why didn't they think of
this 10 years before Talonsoft's Battleground? Why isn't Matrix's "War
in the Pacific" uncannily like Talonsoft's "Battle of Britain"? Oh you
mean they tweaked the interface and certain aspects like... turn
sequencing... combat routines and... rules? You mean these could be
different games afterall? Kudos to Grigsby, Billings, Koger, Tiller et
al. Especially Al. What a guy.

Adam.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:27:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Golf clap. Prolific comeback my esteemed fellow poster! Psst. Now don't
fret that you'll also this year or next see a game that looks just like
The Operational Art of War.
May 12, 2005 8:34:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Adam Parker" <joadpar@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1115931820.166195.124770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Giftzwerg wrote:
> > In article <guKdnTcuk-75FR_fRVn-tQ@giganews.com>,
> wlambrukos@comcast.net
> > says...
> >
> > > Looks like Talonsoft's old game.
> >
> > Fancy that. <g>
>
> You guys crack me up. From "The story of S.S.I." by JACK POWELL, Antic
> Technical Editor, VOL. 4, NO. 3, July 1985, p28:
>
> "WAR PAYS!
>
> Most SSI games are written in BASIC then compiled for speed. Almost all
> their games are written by outside contributors. Of the 12 games
> published last year, six were by regular contibutors-such as the
> prolific and popular Gary Grigsby-but six were by complete newcomers.
>
> 'There's a decent amount of money to be made. A war game may bring in
> $10-20,000 for the programmer.'....
>
> SSI has developed in-house graphics tools-Graph-Pak and
> Square-Pak-which speed map design and handle special algorithms...
> Utilities such as these simplify transfer between computers and 'allow
> us to crank these games out.'
>
> Billings referred to some of their games as 'clone games.' By keeping
> the core system and changing the weapons and the map, a new game is
> created. Gary Grigsby is their most prolific author partly because he's
> mastered their utility tools and the concept of clone games. 'New math,
> new database, and you've got a whole new game.' "
>
> Fancy that! Tiller isn't the master of "crank and clone" afterall? Nor
> it seems is "clone and conquer" such a unique term? You mean there's
> money to be made out of a stable game engine? Why didn't they think of
> this 10 years before Talonsoft's Battleground? Why isn't Matrix's "War
> in the Pacific" uncannily like Talonsoft's "Battle of Britain"? Oh you
> mean they tweaked the interface and certain aspects like... turn
> sequencing... combat routines and... rules? You mean these could be
> different games afterall? Kudos to Grigsby, Billings, Koger, Tiller et
> al. Especially Al. What a guy.
>
> Adam.


Fancy that; an article from *1985*, used as a defense for the "Tiller CD
Pressing Company" style. Pretty much proves the point. And yes, Tiller IS
the master of "crank and clone."

A dubious distinction to be sure, but if the shoe fits........







>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 11:38:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

JP wrote:

> My, a bit sensitive on the subject, eh ? Looks like you need to
worry
> more about yourself fretting, rather than me. Interesting, but
hardly
> surprising.

LOL! Not at all! Picture these posts being written with a smile.
Anything I can do to make the ignorant wiser :-D

As for the TOAW look alike - it's not an HPS or Tiller game. I thought
you were up to speed on our hobby?

Anyway as I once long ago wrote, some people just can't understand why
a game of Kharkov 42 would be played on the same map as Kharkov 43.
Geez World War 2 was such a cookie cutter affair!

In future wars may we please conquer something and just move on - to
preferably something with new palette?
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:11:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Nah, the actual title is:

"War Game Player".

Shhh! I'm (whipser) multi-developer ;-)
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 12:11:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Nah, the actual title is:

"War Game Player".

Shhh! I'm (whipser) multi-developer ;-)
May 13, 2005 12:56:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Adam Parker" <joadpar@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1115936841.867115.70670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Golf clap. Prolific comeback my esteemed fellow poster! Psst. Now don't
> fret that you'll also this year or next see a game that looks just like
> The Operational Art of War.


My, a bit sensitive on the subject, eh ? Looks like you need to worry
more about yourself fretting, rather than me. Interesting, but hardly
surprising.

As to your rhetorical TAOW example, what does The Tiller Clone Company now
have control over Kroger's work too ? Nah, can't be. Afterall, it's been
what, seven years since TAOW was released, whereas we all know, The TCC
likes to work in weeks at most between <wink> new releases.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:36:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Adam Parker schreef:
> Psst. Now don't
> fret that you'll also this year or next see a game that looks just
like
> The Operational Art of War.

Hi,

ok - I'll bite - is there anything more you care to divulge about this
game ?

The only game in development I know about that comes close is "Combined
Arms : World War II" in development at Matrix Games.

Unless it's an HPS game of course in which case we'll find the game for
sale at NWS before it's even mentioned on the website ...

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 5:28:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I wish I looked like Omar Sharif... (Lawrence of Arabia circa).
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 6:55:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Adam Parker schreef:
> I wish I looked like Omar Sharif... (Lawrence of Arabia circa).

Unless you accidentily crossposted this from
alt.celebrities.lookalikewannabees the above line could be seen as what
rocket scientists call a "clue"

hm, as my brain default setting is "pretty clueless" this will be a
hard one to crack. - Google to the rescue !

An 'Omar Sharif' designed a board wargame called 'Quo Vadis' -> TOAW -
a Century of Warfare will get an add-on : A Millenium or 2 of Warfare ?

Some Lebanese politician is said to "look like Omar Sharif" ->
Operational game on the Arab/Israeli wars. Something like "The Star and
the Crescent : The Arab/Israeli Wars 1956 to 2009" from Shrapnel ?

Meta meaning of "looked like" as in wish you could gaze across the
desert -> operational Rommel game ?

Ok - by now you've seen how stupid my guesses are. You could either
give me another clue - hereby prolonging the torture - or stop giving
those bloody clues and just tell us :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:01:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> The scale (6 bazillion turns, 12 bazillion units)
> turned me off completely. This game I will almost certainly buy.
>
> tbob

Have you played the Panzer Campaigns games? All of them have numerous
scenarios that are much smaller and playable than the full-blown campaigns.
I've been playing them from the start, and just now began a campaign -
Market Garden. I'm on turn 35 of 90 and it takes only about 20 minutes per
turn (e-mail). I picked that campaign to play because of the small size. I
haven't got time for the big campaigns either. You just need to pick the
right one.

Dirk
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 8:03:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

No no no. "Schreef" = Omar Sharif???

Your mention of Battlefields is right Eddy.

When seeing the first screen shots of B'fields (now CA:WW2) my first
impression was "so here's what's happened to TOAW" - same look graphics
set, map and map labels. Uncanny. But by the interface screen shots
I've seen since, definitely promising a different user experience from
Norm's earlier efforts. Pretty graphics, pretty similar in look to TOAW
even to the point of label fonting and floating names. Hence its ref in
this thread.

Obviously Cookie Cutter Company stuff, them folks borrowing this
look...
Not.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 8:16:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Adam Parker schreef:
> No no no. "Schreef" = Omar Sharif???

Google groups insists on "internationalizing". My pc's regional setting
is set to Dutch so instead of getting "Adam Parker wrote" you get "Adam
Parker schreef" - you can recognize the latin "scribe" in there of
which derivatives are still used in English. And no, I'm not Dutch - at
least not in the sence the Anglo-Saxons interpret it.

> Your mention of Battlefields is right Eddy.

Lucky guess :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 8:34:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

LOL - I actually looked schreef up in my O***** dictionary too <G>
May 13, 2005 6:26:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Adam Parker" <joadpar@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1115953861.040661.40760@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Nah, the actual title is:
>
> "War Game Player".
>
> Shhh! I'm (whipser) multi-developer ;-)


Hehe, ah, the usual TS, er, HPS, fanbois line, heard over and over ad
nauseam; " I'm just a wargame player, just like you guys......etc., etc. "
First heard it from basically the same group, on the old TS forums, when
East Front came out.

Over and over again; someone would be having problems/a comment about the
game, and fanbois X would spew forth the "I'm just a wargame player, just
like you guys, ....etc., etc.", usually while stating he never had/never had
seen the problems numerous posters were mentioning, the game was perfect,
the best, etc. (of course, that would change upon the next release, when the
same group would state that that game was perfect, was the best, etc.)

Now they do it with HPS titles. They could sell snow to an eskimo, have
to give them credit. I wonder who'll they'll latch onto when they're done
at HPS.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 4:53:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Talonsoft! You mean Tiller, Grisgsby, Brors, Koger? You turkey!

Btw I'm still waiting for TS to patch my Divided Ground, those
bastards! TOAW a game where every single rifle and truck goes into
combat. East/West Front et al., games where rules for armor facing
exist but you can change facing at the end of every turn without
penalty? Battle of Britain where you're encouraged to join a weight
loss class and can lose 12 pounds before the AI finshes both yours and
the enemy's turns?

You're a complete and utter buffoon JP!

(No offense to anyone who worked on those games. That was many years
ago. They were a valiant effort but in those days SSI roamed the world
better imo).

Even TS "Battleground Napoleonics" and ACW - beautiful maps with 3D
icons so small in useful zoom, I to this day can't play them. The only
game I did like was Battleground Bulge - but its AI succumbed.

Yeah, I'm a fanbois alright. For a rock stable, bug free war gaming
engine, an AI with challenge and rules without typos.

>" I'm just a wargame player, just like you guys......etc., etc. "

Nah you even got it wrong there. I'm nothing like you ;-) You lost this
battle with my first post! You gotta read Sun Tzu and flee to fight
another day :-D

Cheers,
Adam.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:07:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <d64oci$4nh$1@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp>, okra_
> 552NOSPAM@hotmail.com says...

> But jeezum crow, guys, build something *new*. Enough of selling the
old
> wine in new bottles[1].
>
> [1] Yeah, yeah, I know, it's all "built from scratch, and not a
single
> one or zero from the original binary is included in the current
title."
> Uh-huh. Gotcha. It'll just *look* - and play - suspiciously like
the
> last series.

Let me give you my take FWIW. LOL. The last time I did this you bought
War Over Vietnam. This time, read first.

1. I had nothing to do with this title.

2. I've already modded the 2d icons to something that I like.

3. The game can best be described IMO as operational war gaming
semi-lite. Not Panzer General by any means but definitely an imported
variety beer and pretzels. It's focus is on force utilization not C&C.
Supply is there but highly abstracted and to contradict that statement
of mine, with quite a complex supply line maths system viz PzC (all
under the hood). It is definitely a much faster play than PzC. No enemy
defensive fire here for example.

4. It's strength is teaching the art of Blitzkrieg. Of concentration
and exploitation. Land forces are either mech, inf, static or arty with
a wide variety of types in between and - with combat and rail engineers
thrown in. Amphib and naval landing operations are there. Rail is
there. Air is highly expanded over PzC in allowing for air superiority,
ground support, port and troop interdiction missions. Missions are
still conducted via a dialog box but I found its interface
counter-intuitive at first over PzC. After a while it does begin to
feel ok but it could be finessed in future titles. At the start of each
turn, a player is asked to assign squadrons based on core plane types
to air superiority or attack roles. The relative air superiority ratio
then results in a pre-turn match-up whose outcome determines each
side's ability to wage counter-air during the enemy's turn.

5. Combat occurs within each hex. Artillery joins this in-hex foray.
Whilst FOW denies knowledge of enemy strength, upon initiation of
combat, an indicator reflects the probability of overrun, superiority,
advantage or disadvantage. A player then proceeds or cancels the battle
at hand. Stacking limits both regulate the total strength of land and
air able to be brought into a hex for each combat type (ie: maneuver vs
air support). A fairly (to me) elongated math system then determines
outcomes (again under the hood).

6. Units (being divs or regts) if successful in overrun, may continue
overrunning ad nauseam up to the limit their movement allows. Mech
units on the other hand may exploit without further combat, again based
on movement allowance remaining. A successful attacker moves into an
hex retreated by the enemy. Artillery, remains in place.

7. Success is based on destruction of the enemy and the ownership of
objectives that generate points rewarding tenure of possession and or
the surrender of enemy nations.

8. The game therefore forces the player ot think strategically and
aggressively, in terms of air, suppression, schwerpunkt and
breakthrough.

9. The AI has shown smarts in using its air better than moi and
coordinating the 1-2-3 punch. On the offense it choses its objectives
and works a path of least resistance to them. Which objectives it
choses is another matter. On defense it is adequate, falling back and
protecting hexes of value but I easily out-defended the AI using my
nouce and interior lines - and on the attack - maybe due to the paucity
of the historical enemy in some scenarios, I easily won. But I've yet
to finish Poland or attempt the huger France or Sealion games. I
believe that with a stronger OOB, the AI should provide some steady
defensive entertainment. Having not spoken to the testers on this I
just can't confirm.

10. Awkward things that made me see the game as a little quirky? The
turn number sequence is very ummm "unique". Keep an eye on your dates
folks - there's no "turn 1 of 10" here for whatever reason. The air
mission dialog as I've mentioned is different to PzC's but I feel,
that's because it's in larger use and its benefit is that here, it may
remain on screen for as long as desired. Again, it does become
comfortable after a while. Then there's the question of the Panzer V on
the cover of a 1940's game...

I'd recommend this game to those looking for an introduction to war
gaming. For the experienced player, it's operations are huge and its
potential for more to come immense. Head to head it will be a
quick-playing blast. It's a much more comfortable play than unfurling a
map of Europe on the carpet. It's quickness of play makes for a
comfortable gaming session but without the graphical bells and whistles
of say GG's World at War (different game and level altogther - but
useful as a contemporary analogy). This game has been made with
attention to the eye but not to overt beauty imo. The interface is
straightforward, with its highlight movement spans and on-map labels
the equivalent of - and as obtrusive as PzC's. It's 2d icons
(especially rail heads) I found very bland. I think the modded 2d icon
set I made will soon at Glenn Saunder's Panzer Campaigns site
http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/welcome.html

To basically attempt to answer your fair question, that's it Giftz.

Adam.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 1:41:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Adam Parker" <joadpar@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1116079636.946885.55130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Giftzwerg wrote:
>> In article <d64oci$4nh$1@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp>, okra_
>> 552NOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
>
>> But jeezum crow, guys, build something *new*. Enough of selling the
> old
>> wine in new bottles[1].
>>
>> [1] Yeah, yeah, I know, it's all "built from scratch, and not a
> single
>> one or zero from the original binary is included in the current
> title."
>> Uh-huh. Gotcha. It'll just *look* - and play - suspiciously like
> the
>> last series.
>
> Let me give you my take FWIW. LOL. The last time I did this you bought
> War Over Vietnam. This time, read first.
>
> 1. I had nothing to do with this title.
>
> 2. I've already modded the 2d icons to something that I like.
>
> 3. The game can best be described IMO as operational war gaming
> semi-lite. Not Panzer General by any means but definitely an imported
> variety beer and pretzels. It's focus is on force utilization not C&C.
> Supply is there but highly abstracted and to contradict that statement
> of mine, with quite a complex supply line maths system viz PzC (all
> under the hood). It is definitely a much faster play than PzC. No enemy
> defensive fire here for example.
>
> 4. It's strength is teaching the art of Blitzkrieg. Of concentration
> and exploitation. Land forces are either mech, inf, static or arty with
> a wide variety of types in between and - with combat and rail engineers
> thrown in. Amphib and naval landing operations are there. Rail is
> there. Air is highly expanded over PzC in allowing for air superiority,
> ground support, port and troop interdiction missions. Missions are
> still conducted via a dialog box but I found its interface
> counter-intuitive at first over PzC. After a while it does begin to
> feel ok but it could be finessed in future titles. At the start of each
> turn, a player is asked to assign squadrons based on core plane types
> to air superiority or attack roles. The relative air superiority ratio
> then results in a pre-turn match-up whose outcome determines each
> side's ability to wage counter-air during the enemy's turn.
>
> 5. Combat occurs within each hex. Artillery joins this in-hex foray.
> Whilst FOW denies knowledge of enemy strength, upon initiation of
> combat, an indicator reflects the probability of overrun, superiority,
> advantage or disadvantage. A player then proceeds or cancels the battle
> at hand. Stacking limits both regulate the total strength of land and
> air able to be brought into a hex for each combat type (ie: maneuver vs
> air support). A fairly (to me) elongated math system then determines
> outcomes (again under the hood).
>
> 6. Units (being divs or regts) if successful in overrun, may continue
> overrunning ad nauseam up to the limit their movement allows. Mech
> units on the other hand may exploit without further combat, again based
> on movement allowance remaining. A successful attacker moves into an
> hex retreated by the enemy. Artillery, remains in place.
>
> 7. Success is based on destruction of the enemy and the ownership of
> objectives that generate points rewarding tenure of possession and or
> the surrender of enemy nations.
>
> 8. The game therefore forces the player ot think strategically and
> aggressively, in terms of air, suppression, schwerpunkt and
> breakthrough.
>
> 9. The AI has shown smarts in using its air better than moi and
> coordinating the 1-2-3 punch. On the offense it choses its objectives
> and works a path of least resistance to them. Which objectives it
> choses is another matter. On defense it is adequate, falling back and
> protecting hexes of value but I easily out-defended the AI using my
> nouce and interior lines - and on the attack - maybe due to the paucity
> of the historical enemy in some scenarios, I easily won. But I've yet
> to finish Poland or attempt the huger France or Sealion games. I
> believe that with a stronger OOB, the AI should provide some steady
> defensive entertainment. Having not spoken to the testers on this I
> just can't confirm.
>
> 10. Awkward things that made me see the game as a little quirky? The
> turn number sequence is very ummm "unique". Keep an eye on your dates
> folks - there's no "turn 1 of 10" here for whatever reason. The air
> mission dialog as I've mentioned is different to PzC's but I feel,
> that's because it's in larger use and its benefit is that here, it may
> remain on screen for as long as desired. Again, it does become
> comfortable after a while. Then there's the question of the Panzer V on
> the cover of a 1940's game...
>
> I'd recommend this game to those looking for an introduction to war
> gaming. For the experienced player, it's operations are huge and its
> potential for more to come immense. Head to head it will be a
> quick-playing blast. It's a much more comfortable play than unfurling a
> map of Europe on the carpet. It's quickness of play makes for a
> comfortable gaming session but without the graphical bells and whistles
> of say GG's World at War (different game and level altogther - but
> useful as a contemporary analogy). This game has been made with
> attention to the eye but not to overt beauty imo. The interface is
> straightforward, with its highlight movement spans and on-map labels
> the equivalent of - and as obtrusive as PzC's. It's 2d icons
> (especially rail heads) I found very bland. I think the modded 2d icon
> set I made will soon at Glenn Saunder's Panzer Campaigns site
> http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/welcome.html
>
> To basically attempt to answer your fair question, that's it Giftz.
>
> Adam.
>

Another "quirk" that could throw veteran Tiller gamers off is that Objective
points are not shown in the terrain info box; those are Surrender points, a
new animal. Objective points can be viewed only from the Info menu.
May 14, 2005 1:42:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Based on that description, it sounds like a game I'd like. Count me
in.
May 14, 2005 6:52:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Adam Parker" <joadpar@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1116057195.312601.258670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Talonsoft! You mean Tiller, Grisgsby, Brors, Koger? You turkey!
>
> Btw I'm still waiting for TS to patch my Divided Ground, those
> bastards! TOAW a game where every single rifle and truck goes into
> combat. East/West Front et al., games where rules for armor facing
> exist but you can change facing at the end of every turn without
> penalty? Battle of Britain where you're encouraged to join a weight
> loss class and can lose 12 pounds before the AI finshes both yours and
> the enemy's turns?
>
> You're a complete and utter buffoon JP!
>
> (No offense to anyone who worked on those games. That was many years
> ago. They were a valiant effort but in those days SSI roamed the world
> better imo).
>
> Even TS "Battleground Napoleonics" and ACW - beautiful maps with 3D
> icons so small in useful zoom, I to this day can't play them. The only
> game I did like was Battleground Bulge - but its AI succumbed.
>
> Yeah, I'm a fanbois alright. For a rock stable, bug free war gaming
> engine, an AI with challenge and rules without typos.
>
> >" I'm just a wargame player, just like you guys......etc., etc. "
>
> Nah you even got it wrong there. I'm nothing like you ;-) You lost this
> battle with my first post! You gotta read Sun Tzu and flee to fight
> another day :-D
>
> Cheers,
> Adam.


Hehe, who's fighting ? Like I said, same 'ole fanbois crowd (+/-) that
infested the TS scene, hitched up with HPS, and the only thing that's
changed in their spiels are the substiution of HPS for TS.

Just because you're a latecomer to that crowd, don't blame me :-D








>
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 9:00:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Adam Parker" <joadpar@bigpond.com> wrote in news:1116079636.946885.55130
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

<best little game preview this year>

Thanks for this little preview - a good read - contains *a lot* more
usefull info than the blurb at :

http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/TWIE/Blitz/blitz....

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:54:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

OK, so I read elsewhere that this new Tiller HPS game is not just PzC at a
different scale, but completely new code and AI routines written from the
ground up. It supposedly plays much faster than PzC.

Great, it sounds very tempting, but then a quick look at the paltry few
screen shots available, and there we are, that same old interface and
graphics again. What a great way to turn people off what just might be a
good game. It's almost as if they don't actually want to attract any new
customers beyond the confines of the PzC faithful, a view which is
reinforced by the lack of information about the title - no list of
scenarios, only the vaguest details of gameplay....
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:54:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Dirk Gross" <a@a.com> wrote in
news:7dohe.29240$9n1.23174@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:

> It's silly for you guys to discredit a game that isn't released yet.
> However, it's obvious that you don't like Tiller STYLE of games and
> because of that you'd hate it just because of the graphics, interface,
> turns, (but maybe not AI this time). Given your record with Tiller's
> games, Gifty, I'd suggest passing on this one too.

eh, maybe I'm wrong but I think Mr. Giftzwerg just mentioned that he
bought *every* first game of *every* "new" series HPS ever published.
That's a very solid indication that he tried to like the games - that he
desperately wanted them to be good, and has given them the benefit of
the doubt (and his money) every time.

> But let's wait to
> give the game a chance to see if it actually plays well for those of
> us who aren't bothered by the interface.

Only fair - waiting for a couple of reviews to come in.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:54:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1cefa85defd174e898a319@news-east.giganews.com:

> I'm sorry, but there are a few too many sausages coming out of the
> machine on a continuous basis

Apparantly the folks at HPS have lost count of the amount of sausages
too :

Wagram was the 3rd installment in the Napoleonic series (after the
Russian Campaign and Eckmuhl) and it's mentioned as such at the website

http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/NapBat/Wagram/wag...

Now they've released Waterloo and they've again called it the 3rd
installment :) 

http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/NapBat/waterloo/w...

Now, with my weird sense of humour *that's* what I call funny (at least
the guys of Friday the 13th Part xxx didn't mess up the numbering)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:54:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <Xns9656C0911E7E9eddysterckxhotmailco@67.98.68.37>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
> "Dirk Gross" <a@a.com> wrote in
> news:7dohe.29240$9n1.23174@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
>
> > It's silly for you guys to discredit a game that isn't released yet.
> > However, it's obvious that you don't like Tiller STYLE of games and
> > because of that you'd hate it just because of the graphics, interface,
> > turns, (but maybe not AI this time). Given your record with Tiller's
> > games, Gifty, I'd suggest passing on this one too.
>
> eh, maybe I'm wrong but I think Mr. Giftzwerg just mentioned that he
> bought *every* first game of *every* "new" series HPS ever published.
> That's a very solid indication that he tried to like the games - that he
> desperately wanted them to be good, and has given them the benefit of
> the doubt (and his money) every time.

I think he meant his record of liking them, not buying.
--

Epi

------------
Some people enjoy the things that money can buy.
Others just like the money itself.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 11:54:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Epi <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1cf00a52e504a3eb9896d8@news.east.earthlink.net:

> In article <Xns9656C0911E7E9eddysterckxhotmailco@67.98.68.37>,
> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>> "Dirk Gross" <a@a.com> wrote in
>> news:7dohe.29240$9n1.23174@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
>>
>> > It's silly for you guys to discredit a game that isn't released
>> > yet. However, it's obvious that you don't like Tiller STYLE of
>> > games and because of that you'd hate it just because of the
>> > graphics, interface, turns, (but maybe not AI this time). Given
>> > your record with Tiller's games, Gifty, I'd suggest passing on this
>> > one too.
>>
>> eh, maybe I'm wrong but I think Mr. Giftzwerg just mentioned that he
>> bought *every* first game of *every* "new" series HPS ever published.
>> That's a very solid indication that he tried to like the games - that
>> he desperately wanted them to be good, and has given them the benefit
>> of the doubt (and his money) every time.
>
> I think he meant his record of liking them, not buying.

Ok - my bad if that's the case.

As a side note : I did try Campaign Corinth in the ACW series and must
say that I liked it - somehow I think the BattleGround engine is better
suited to 19th century warfare simulation.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 2:38:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1cf03e5ca8699f6a98a31d@news-east.giganews.com:

>
> I think we should at least stir into our calculations the effort
> that's put into new titles in the same system. Panther, for example,
> has been working on the next title in the AIRBORNE ASSAULT series for
> almost *two years*. A sausage? Or two solid years of effort? My
> suspicion is that we'll see that two years of effort.

On top of that Dave O'Connor keeps everyone informed of what he's working
on in the public forum. This is the "progress" thread in which new stuff is
revealed as it is getting programmed. Input is welcomed and more than 1
good user suggestion has made it into the specs.

http://www.matrixgames.com/default.asp?URL=http%
3A//www.matrixgames.com/forums/m.asp%3Fm%3D845309

Compare this style to the latest HPS Blitzkrieg release : it became known
that this game was in development because some other company put it on
their "for sale" webpage too early. Zero user input, zero info, zero pr. If
Mr. Parker hadn't typed up a preview our total information on this game
would be "turn-based regt-div level operational game set in WWII".

If something irks me about the HPS style it's the zero user input. In
another recent post it became clear that the Crown of Glory developers re-
thought their no-pbem strategy after user input on the forum. Who's
correcting Mr. Tiller's mistakes ?

> HPS, in sharp contrast, whelps another "Tiller" sausage every ... I
> dunno what the chronology here is, but I'm almost sure they're
> released *three other titles* while we were all talking about FRANCE
> '40!

4 games so far this year - all Tiller games :

Panzer Campaigns - France '40
Campaign Peninsula
Napoleonic Battles : Campaign Waterloo
World War 2 in Europe : The First Blitzkrieg

Given that Matrix Games has released 3 this year (all by different
developers) I'd say that they've been pretty busy :) 

Flashpoint Germany
Gary Grigsby's World at War
Tin Soldiers : Julius Caesar

> Cause he's been selling $50 scenario packs for the same game for a
> decade now. We dislike this. Sorry.

There's a type of gamer who likes this : they've got busy schedules and
don't have the time or patience to learn a new system to get their wargame
fix. For them the ability to visit every theather in the war within the
same game system is bliss. And the price tag is irrelevant for most
wargamers I know in my age bracket.

> Well, go ahead and call me The Dog In The Manger. But the ur-prolific
> nature of HPS's meat factory ensures you'll hear some barking three to
> five times every year.

*Very* conservative estimate - at this rate it'll be 10 games.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 3:31:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <Xns9657519B73D7eddysterckxhotmailco@216.143.170.11>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
> Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1cf03e5ca8699f6a98a31d@news-east.giganews.com:
>
> 4 games so far this year - all Tiller games :
>
> Panzer Campaigns - France '40
> Campaign Peninsula
> Napoleonic Battles : Campaign Waterloo
> World War 2 in Europe : The First Blitzkrieg

I might actually end up getting campaign Peninsula. In one of the
screenshots you can actually see the farm I grew up on. It's easy to
spot because it's a peninsula on the James River.
--

Epi

------------
Some people enjoy the things that money can buy.
Others just like the money itself.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 11:15:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Epi <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in news:MPG.1cf0546cbbac99f09896d9
@news.east.earthlink.net:

> In article <Xns9657519B73D7eddysterckxhotmailco@216.143.170.11>,
> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>> Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1cf03e5ca8699f6a98a31d@news-east.giganews.com:
>>
>> 4 games so far this year - all Tiller games :
>>
>> Panzer Campaigns - France '40
>> Campaign Peninsula
>> Napoleonic Battles : Campaign Waterloo
>> World War 2 in Europe : The First Blitzkrieg
>
> I might actually end up getting campaign Peninsula. In one of the
> screenshots you can actually see the farm I grew up on. It's easy to
> spot because it's a peninsula on the James River.

I'll give you another good reason to buy it : you can actually add or
modify the text on the map quite easily with notepad. You could (re)name
that farm to "Epi's Ranch" :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 9:32:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Eric Whitfield wrote:
> OK, so I read elsewhere that this new Tiller HPS game is not just PzC
at a
> different scale, but completely new code and AI routines written from
the
> ground up. It supposedly plays much faster than PzC.
<snip>

FWIW, the game start-up lists a second gentleman as "AI Programmer"
(apologies--I forgot his name, and don't have the game handy). This is
the first time I can recall seeing a second programmer (versus
"designer") given credit on a John Tiller game?

Can't actually comment on the quality of the AI, as I've only played
one turn of the tutorial.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 1:38:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Eddy Sterckx" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9657519B73D7eddysterckxhotmailco@216.143.170.11...
be "turn-based regt-div level operational game set in WWII".
>
> If something irks me about the HPS style it's the zero user input. In
> another recent post it became clear that the Crown of Glory developers re-
> thought their no-pbem strategy after user input on the forum. Who's
> correcting Mr. Tiller's mistakes ?

While Tiller may be a gaming recluse, HPS does rely heavily on teams of
playtesters. I believe there are 2 for PzCamp, 2 for Nappy, and 2 for ACW.
I have no idea about the other series. Some of the scenario
designers/playtest coordinators solicit feedback regularly from people who
play the games.



Mike - not a play tester, don't know JT, never seen Scott Hamilton, or
received a check from HPS - Cox
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 5:58:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Mike Cox wrote:
> "Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Something about this post smells fishy. I'm not sure if I buy this
last
> > part.
>
> That's fine. I only mentioned it because elsewhere it was claimed
that HPS
> people showed up in disguise to shill the various titles.

In here ? LOL - hell, if I wouldn't mention HPS once in a while when a
patch is out or it gets known - purely by accident - that they're
selling a new game (great pr btw) you wouldn't know the company existed
by reading this ng.

Come to think of it : a complete stranger wandering into this ng and
asked to point out the obvious HPS shill would almost certainly point
to me :) 

> If you search,
> you will see that I am involved in the PBEM clubs, but that is the
limit of
> my affiliation with HPS.

Don't let it get to you - this ng is neutral territory - or actually :
multi-publisher territory. Nobody cares who you're "affiliated" with or
not, it's what you post in here that counts. Some publishers/developers
keep a close eye on this ng and post occasionally, some don't - their
loss.

If someone "affiliated" (what a word !) with HPS cares to keep us up to
date with what's going on over there I personally would be very happy.
Glenn Saunders used to post here but I think I've scared him away
[which was obviously just a ruse to get me some street credibility in
here as I'm the company shill - remember]

Anyway, I'm counting on you to provide us with juicy HPS rumours from
now on :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 6:11:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <Xns9657519B73D7eddysterckxhotmailco@216.143.170.11>,
> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > Cause he's been selling $50 scenario packs for the same game for
a
> > > decade now. We dislike this. Sorry.
> >
> > There's a type of gamer who likes this : they've got busy schedules
and
> > don't have the time or patience to learn a new system to get their
wargame
> > fix. For them the ability to visit every theather in the war within
the
> > same game system is bliss.
>
> Yeah, but this is perilously close to observing that there's
something
> to be said for being a fan of Harlequin Romances; you're never left
with
> a painful wait for the next wretchedly formulaic literary treat - and

> it's never a hard read when it arrives.

Exactly :) 

This ng isn't the wargame equivalent of some "Litary Journal & Review"
where only 1000-page tomes get mentioned. There's room in here for
everything, even for (H)arlequin (P)acks of (S)cenario's.

> [Us James Clavell fans, on the other hand, only got six books out of
the
> bugger before he passed on, and all of them were monstrous tomes.
And
> heaven save the J. D. Salinger aficionados...]

Counting myself lucky to be a Donald Duck comic fan - a new one coming
out every week :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:04:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Epi schreef:

> I for one do mind if someone is affiliated with a company that they
say
> they're not affiliated with. That would be somewhat dishonest.

It would, but what's affiliated ? if you have a fan website, or if you
make user scenario's for some favourite game, or if you playtested some
game, or if you get a review copy of some game, or run a pbem ladder,
or ...

Under some of these definitions I would be "affiliated" with Matrix
Games, but I would also deny being "affiliated" with them as I find it
a truly ugly word bordering on bribed/paid for.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 8:58:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <118hipv56mf06c0@corp.supernews.com>, NoSpamThanks_sch-
michael@vom.com says...
>
> "Eddy Sterckx" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9657519B73D7eddysterckxhotmailco@216.143.170.11...
> be "turn-based regt-div level operational game set in WWII".
> >
> > If something irks me about the HPS style it's the zero user input. In
> > another recent post it became clear that the Crown of Glory developers re-
> > thought their no-pbem strategy after user input on the forum. Who's
> > correcting Mr. Tiller's mistakes ?
>
> While Tiller may be a gaming recluse, HPS does rely heavily on teams of
> playtesters. I believe there are 2 for PzCamp, 2 for Nappy, and 2 for ACW.
> I have no idea about the other series. Some of the scenario
> designers/playtest coordinators solicit feedback regularly from people who
> play the games.
>
>
>
> Mike - not a play tester, don't know JT, never seen Scott Hamilton, or
> received a check from HPS - Cox

They rely heavily on 2 people per game series? I think recluse might be
a good word for HPS as well.

--

Epi

------------
Some people enjoy the things that money can buy.
Others just like the money itself.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
May 16, 2005 9:40:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf29b1f957f142d9896dc@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <118hipv56mf06c0@corp.supernews.com>, NoSpamThanks_sch-
> michael@vom.com says...
> >
> > "Eddy Sterckx" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9657519B73D7eddysterckxhotmailco@216.143.170.11...
> > be "turn-based regt-div level operational game set in WWII".
> > >
> > > If something irks me about the HPS style it's the zero user input. In
> > > another recent post it became clear that the Crown of Glory developers
re-
> > > thought their no-pbem strategy after user input on the forum. Who's
> > > correcting Mr. Tiller's mistakes ?
> >
> > While Tiller may be a gaming recluse, HPS does rely heavily on teams of
> > playtesters. I believe there are 2 for PzCamp, 2 for Nappy, and 2 for
ACW.
> > I have no idea about the other series. Some of the scenario
> > designers/playtest coordinators solicit feedback regularly from people
who
> > play the games.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike - not a play tester, don't know JT, never seen Scott Hamilton, or
> > received a check from HPS - Cox
>
> They rely heavily on 2 people per game series? I think recluse might be
> a good word for HPS as well.
>
> --
>
> Epi
>
> ------------
> Some people enjoy the things that money can buy.
> Others just like the money itself.
> ------------
> http://www.curlesneck.com


Especially since it's +/- the same two fanbois over and over and
over......
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:29:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Mike Cox" <NoSpamThanks_sch-michael@vom.com> wrote in
news:118hipv56mf06c0@corp.supernews.com:

>
> "Eddy Sterckx" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9657519B73D7eddysterckxhotmailco@216.143.170.11...
> be "turn-based regt-div level operational game set in WWII".
>>
>> If something irks me about the HPS style it's the zero user input. In
>> another recent post it became clear that the Crown of Glory
>> developers re- thought their no-pbem strategy after user input on the
>> forum. Who's correcting Mr. Tiller's mistakes ?
>
> While Tiller may be a gaming recluse, HPS does rely heavily on teams
> of playtesters. I believe there are 2 for PzCamp, 2 for Nappy, and 2
> for ACW. I have no idea about the other series. Some of the scenario
> designers/playtest coordinators solicit feedback regularly from people
> who play the games.

That might be the case, but given the glacial pace at which these game
engines evolve I don't think they've got any say in the features aspects
and are just scenario playtesters (balance, historicity, fun, ..) While
this is a worthwile thing and certainly a job that needs to be done
well, it's not what I call participation like the Crown of Glory example
I mentioned or any dozen other I can think off of the top of my head.

> Mike - not a play tester, don't know JT, never seen Scott Hamilton, or
> received a check from HPS - Cox

Eddy - playtester of COTA - knows more folk than he can remember - will
accept a check from anyone dumb enough to send me one - Sterckx


--
"Ceterum censeo Belgicam delendam."
(Cato, 'Pro Gerolphe')
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:52:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <Xns9658CF53B16B3eddysterckxhotmailco@67.99.235.174>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
> "Mike Cox" <NoSpamThanks_sch-michael@vom.com> wrote in
> news:118hipv56mf06c0@corp.supernews.com:
>
> >
> > "Eddy Sterckx" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9657519B73D7eddysterckxhotmailco@216.143.170.11...
> > be "turn-based regt-div level operational game set in WWII".
> >>
> >> If something irks me about the HPS style it's the zero user input. In
> > Mike - not a play tester, don't know JT, never seen Scott Hamilton, or
> > received a check from HPS - Cox

Something about this post smells fishy. I'm not sure if I buy this last
part.

Epi

------------
Imagine that there is clothing that can be seen
through by anyone wearing some special glasses.
It was all on the up-and-up. People who bought
the clothing knew what it was. Someone could be
walking the downtown of some major metropolis fully
nude to anyone wearing the glasses, but they would
seem fully clothed to everyone else.
How would the law view this?
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:52:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Something about this post smells fishy. I'm not sure if I buy this last
> part.

That's fine. I only mentioned it because elsewhere it was claimed that HPS
people showed up in disguise to shill the various titles. If you search,
you will see that I am involved in the PBEM clubs, but that is the limit of
my affiliation with HPS.

As to the two lead designers per title, Bill Peters leads one Nap group
(Eckmuhl, Wagram, ???) and Charlie Cutshall(sic?) the other (Russian
Campaign, Waterloo). In PzCamp, I think it is mostly Glenn Saunders and one
other (though David Guegan did France 40). ACW is Rich Walker (?)and Drew
Wegenhofer and Doug Strickler, now that I think of it. This is just stuff
gleaned off the internet and could be completely wrong.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:54:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <MPG.1cf2b5f2931c8519896dd@news.east.earthlink.net>,
epicat1212@hotmail.com says...
> In article <Xns9658CF53B16B3eddysterckxhotmailco@67.99.235.174>,
> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
> > "Mike Cox" <NoSpamThanks_sch-michael@vom.com> wrote in
> > news:118hipv56mf06c0@corp.supernews.com:
> >
> > >
> > > "Eddy Sterckx" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns9657519B73D7eddysterckxhotmailco@216.143.170.11...
> > > be "turn-based regt-div level operational game set in WWII".
> > >>
> > >> If something irks me about the HPS style it's the zero user input. In
> > > Mike - not a play tester, don't know JT, never seen Scott Hamilton, or
> > > received a check from HPS - Cox
>
> Something about this post smells fishy. I'm not sure if I buy this last
> part.
>
> Epi
>
> ------------
> Imagine that there is clothing that can be seen
> through by anyone wearing some special glasses.
> It was all on the up-and-up. People who bought
> the clothing knew what it was. Someone could be
> walking the downtown of some major metropolis fully
> nude to anyone wearing the glasses, but they would
> seem fully clothed to everyone else.
> How would the law view this?
> ------------
> http://www.curlesneck.com

I quoted the wrong part. I meant about the OP not being connected.
--

Epi

------------
Imagine that there is clothing that can be seen
through by anyone wearing some special glasses.
It was all on the up-and-up. People who bought
the clothing knew what it was. Someone could be
walking the downtown of some major metropolis fully
nude to anyone wearing the glasses, but they would
seem fully clothed to everyone else.
How would the law view this?
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
!