HPS 1st Blitzkrieg: played/comments?

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

All,

I know there have been a few previous threads about this new game; has
anyone actually bought/played the game since?

No reviews yet and the HPS website offers few details (to put it
succintly): 3 screenshots of which 2 are the same, no scenario list, no
overview of game elements...

I am not too fond of the grand-tactical PzC series, which seems to
force operational scenarios into a tactical system; leading to counter
overkill and odd tactics.
However, 1st BK looks like a proper operational effort and rumours
have that this time an AI may be included.

And there is always space in my cupboard for a WW2 operational game
besides BIN/BII and the upcoming Anglo-German War.

So, any news?

Thx,

von Schmidt
8 answers Last reply
More about blitzkrieg played comments
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Here are my comments from a few days ago. No one responed to them, which
    reveals a general lack of interest in my opinion, a lack of interest in
    First Blitzkrieg, or both.

    ---------------------

    I've been playing First Blitzkrieg for about a week. My copy is almost
    certain to hit
    eBay within another week. It is basically a 1970's monster wargame (War in
    Europe, Europa, etc.) with a more complicated combat calculation, fog of
    war, and little else. There's no command & control. There are only two
    states of supply: IN and OUT OF. There are no formations -- each unit is an
    entity all to itself. There's no historical "chrome" -- for example: there
    are no rules to prevent French, Belgian, and British units from all stacking
    and fighting in the same hex. Other than slightly different strength
    ratings, the only difference between nationalities is the color of the icon.

    Folks who are old hands at HPS games will probably have no problem with the
    graphics but the tiny units drive me nuts. I got tired of having to
    constantly look over to the left side of the screen for any info on the tiny
    units I had selected. About 2/3 of the units on the map are support units --
    engineers, arty, MGs, rail repair, etc. It's hard to tell some of them
    apart, especially the arty, without checking them out constantly in the unit
    box, which requires more looking back and forth, back and forth. Would it
    kill HPS to make the counters bigger and put some numbers on the counters?
    The map is bland with very few terrain types but it is serviceable.


    Don't believe anything HPS is saying about improved AI. It may be a
    different AI but it's no better. This game is strictly PBEM only. It's
    ridiculously easy to win as the Axis against the AI and just as easy to win
    as the Allies against an Axis AI. To give one an idea of how pathetic the AI
    is, I set up an AI vs AI game of the invasion of France. By the end of the
    game, the Germans had managed to get three units all of 1 hex (10 KM) into
    France, nor had they taken Belgium out of the war. The other German units
    were all stacked up in southern Belgium and Luxem. With a human (me) playing
    the Allies, the German AI didn't even do that well.


    Some of the scenarios are goofy. I took out all of Norway's "surrender
    objectives" by turn 5 or 6. However, the scenario went on for many more
    turns as tiny French and British units made pathetic attempts to land in
    hexes that I controlled. Mostly I just hit the "end turn" button over and
    over.


    On the plus side, it's relatively bug free and plays quickly. But there are
    much, much better operational games out there.


    tbob

    "von Schmidt" <von_schmidt@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:1117727590.860862.124030@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > All,
    >
    > I know there have been a few previous threads about this new game; has
    > anyone actually bought/played the game since?
    >
    > No reviews yet and the HPS website offers few details (to put it
    > succintly): 3 screenshots of which 2 are the same, no scenario list, no
    > overview of game elements...
    >
    > I am not too fond of the grand-tactical PzC series, which seems to
    > force operational scenarios into a tactical system; leading to counter
    > overkill and odd tactics.
    > However, 1st BK looks like a proper operational effort and rumours
    > have that this time an AI may be included.
    >
    > And there is always space in my cupboard for a WW2 operational game
    > besides BIN/BII and the upcoming Anglo-German War.
    >
    > So, any news?
    >
    > Thx,
    >
    > von Schmidt
    >
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "tbob" <tbob@home.com> wrote in message
    news:MSLne.5646$x96.4461@attbi_s72...
    > Here are my comments from a few days ago. No one responed to them, which
    > reveals a general lack of interest in my opinion, a lack of interest in
    > First Blitzkrieg, or both.
    >
    > ---------------------
    >
    > I've been playing First Blitzkrieg for about a week. My copy is almost
    > certain to hit
    > eBay within another week. It is basically a 1970's monster wargame (War in
    > Europe, Europa, etc.) with a more complicated combat calculation, fog of
    > war, and little else. There's no command & control. There are only two
    > states of supply: IN and OUT OF. There are no formations -- each unit is
    an
    > entity all to itself. There's no historical "chrome" -- for example: there
    > are no rules to prevent French, Belgian, and British units from all
    stacking
    > and fighting in the same hex. Other than slightly different strength
    > ratings, the only difference between nationalities is the color of the
    icon.
    >
    > Folks who are old hands at HPS games will probably have no problem with
    the
    > graphics but the tiny units drive me nuts. I got tired of having to
    > constantly look over to the left side of the screen for any info on the
    tiny
    > units I had selected. About 2/3 of the units on the map are support
    units --
    > engineers, arty, MGs, rail repair, etc. It's hard to tell some of them
    > apart, especially the arty, without checking them out constantly in the
    unit
    > box, which requires more looking back and forth, back and forth. Would it
    > kill HPS to make the counters bigger and put some numbers on the counters?
    > The map is bland with very few terrain types but it is serviceable.
    >
    >
    > Don't believe anything HPS is saying about improved AI. It may be a
    > different AI but it's no better. This game is strictly PBEM only. It's
    > ridiculously easy to win as the Axis against the AI and just as easy to
    win
    > as the Allies against an Axis AI. To give one an idea of how pathetic the
    AI
    > is, I set up an AI vs AI game of the invasion of France. By the end of the
    > game, the Germans had managed to get three units all of 1 hex (10 KM) into
    > France, nor had they taken Belgium out of the war. The other German units
    > were all stacked up in southern Belgium and Luxem. With a human (me)
    playing
    > the Allies, the German AI didn't even do that well.
    >
    >
    > Some of the scenarios are goofy. I took out all of Norway's "surrender
    > objectives" by turn 5 or 6. However, the scenario went on for many more
    > turns as tiny French and British units made pathetic attempts to land in
    > hexes that I controlled. Mostly I just hit the "end turn" button over and
    > over.
    >
    >
    > On the plus side, it's relatively bug free and plays quickly. But there
    are
    > much, much better operational games out there.
    >
    >
    >
    > tbob


    Most likely there was no responses because you've hit the standard
    Talonsoft, er, HPS cookie-cutter game description perfectly. No need to
    respond to something already well known <g>

    Good write up imo.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:37:32 GMT, "tbob" <tbob@home.com> wrote:

    >Here are my comments from a few days ago. No one responed to them, which
    >reveals a general lack of interest in my opinion, a lack of interest in
    >First Blitzkrieg, or both.

    More lack of interest in the game, at least for me. I thought you did
    a good job describing the main points of the game.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    tbob schreef:
    > Here are my comments from a few days ago. No one responed to them, which
    > reveals a general lack of interest in my opinion, a lack of interest in
    > First Blitzkrieg, or both.

    Not really - it triggered a "first non-hps view on the game reveals
    it's an old-fashioned crummy design - which sadly was to be expected"
    reaction.

    General rule in here : people tend to react when they disagree, not
    when they agree :)

    Greetz,

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

    Hi Tbob,

    If you are considering selling FBK on Ebay, might you want to consider
    swapping it with me for another game? I have Korsun Pocket and Uncommon
    Valor available.

    Regards,

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

    "James D Burns" <jamesburns@charter.net> wrote in message
    news:WdOne.46451$rt1.5899@fe04.lga...
    > John Tiller has been selling us basically the same game engine since
    > Battleground Ardennes was released back in 1995.

    <snip>

    Spot on James. Generally I don't like "me too" posts, but this comment
    is 100% true IMO, so much that I feel I had to endorse it.

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

    >
    > Wow! That's pretty strong, especially since you've generally endorsed
    > these games for a while (at least I seem to recall that you have), but
    > I don't disagree.

    I used to design scenarios for Talonsofts TOAW series of games. As a
    semi-Talonsoft representative I chose not to speak out against or for any
    games they produced (except TOAW of course which was a game I loved). I have
    never publicly endorsed the Battleground engine (at least as far as my hazy
    memory can recall) but I did enjoy the Civil War and Napoleon titles
    produced using the engine and played them frequently. I feel the engine is
    suited for this era of combat and have no real complaints regarding the
    titles and actually enjoyed playing those games.

    It's the more modern applications where I find fault. For years I have hoped
    in vain that there would be improvements to the engine to make it more
    playable as a game, but I have finally come to the conclusion we will never
    see any real work done on a design level to improve the major flaws that
    exist. With over 10 cloned Pz Campaign titles and now a "new" series
    announced, I have finally become disgusted with the process and decided to
    speak out since I no longer have ties to any wargame companies. In my view
    they simply view the engine as a cash cow and don't ever intend to make any
    significant changes to actually improve the faulty gameplay.

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

    "James D Burns" <jamesburns@charter.net> wrote in message
    news:sn9oe.47620$rt1.44778@fe04.lga...
    > For years I have hoped in vain that there would be improvements to the
    > engine to make it more playable as a game, but I have finally come to the
    > conclusion we will never see any real work done on a design level to
    > improve the major flaws that exist. With over 10 cloned Pz Campaign titles
    > and now a "new" series announced, I have finally become disgusted with the
    > process and decided to speak out since I no longer have ties to any
    > wargame companies. In my view they simply view the engine as a cash cow
    > and don't ever intend to make any significant changes to actually improve
    > the faulty gameplay.

    So let me get this right James
    - your speaking out against The First Blitzkreig, (a game I don't think
    you've played), because the developer has made over 10 titles of another
    series and over a period begining in 1999 and that during that time the 114
    things that were added to the first title (see the changes.txt file at:
    http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/updates/up_PZC/up_smolensk/Smolensk41_112.txt
    .... didn't met up with your expectation.)

    - on the other hand, TOAW, the TOAW add-ons, TOAWII, ACOW, and all the other
    iterations of Krogers game is OK with you.

    Just so were clear that what you object to is not really how TFB plays -
    because on that point you really don't know what your talking about -
    correct?
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Reviews Games IBM Video Games