Llyranor
Liturgist
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2004
- Messages
- 348
Let's get it out of the way first. The game features pretty primitive 3D, blah blah blah. For those interested in an in-depth grand tactical wargame featuring high-level gameplay at the helm of a Napoleonic army, that may not matter. HistWar: Les Grognards is an indie game being made by French designer Jean-Michel Mathé and published by Battlefront (the developers of Combat Mission). Expected in Q3 2009 (end-September?).
For a fairly comprehensive preview, check this thread http://www.napoleonic.commandersatwar.com/...?f=26&t=149 (which I will be quoting quite a bit in here)
The game is being advertised as being "one of the first - if not the first - FPC (First Person commander) game". But what does that actually mean? FPC is one of the game modes (you have a good variety of options re: the amount of realism you want - and you can play it with a bird's eye view scrolling through the map as well) which attempts to recreate the player's role as the Commander-in-Chief in a Napoleonic battle as realistically as possible. Why does it matter? Realism isn't necessarily fun, but it certainly can be in the proper context. The implications of realism in a strategy/tactics game is that the focus of the gameplay would be heavily aimed at decisions that an actual *commander* would have to do. This means not being able to jump in and micromanage every single unit in the battlefield at once, not being able to issue orders and have them carried out instantaneously; limiting game abstraction as much as possible (but again, the balance needs to be such that it isn't detrimental to fun).
So, again, how does this work? The player is the C-in-C, as in the actual person. Your HQ actually moves around the map, situating itself in positions from which to better view the battlefield. There are 3 levels of AI: "Grand-Tactical (GT),Tactical AI and Regimental AI." As the C-in-C, you replace the Grand-Tactical AI. You issue orders to your corps and divisional commanders, who then issue orders to the subordinates (regimental commander --> brigades, and so on). You can also step in and give orders to regiments if that's what you want. How do you issue orders? With couriers, aides de camp - of which you have a finite number of.
Aides de camp
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=85171
This feature is the one that has me the most excited. It sounds like a really neat gameplay feature. Could lead to pretty tense scenarios of information warfare. To issue orders to another commander, you take an aide de camp and send him off to the commander. This takes TIME. If you've sent a commander a long way off, it will take a lot of time to carry new orders there, and it will also take a lot of time for info/intel (corps status/strength/morale, enemy and friendly positions) to get back from there. Furthermore, couriers aren't just abstracted. If they get caught by the enemy (eg. there is an actual enemy unit between you and the commander you wanted to send a message to), that message will never get sent, and the enemy will actually get the message/intel that was being sent.
This actually also works in multiplayer - where it may take quite a while for a message sent by one player to reach another. This can make for some pretty tense co-op/adversarial sessions.
So, in summary, aides de camp are how you issue orders, get situational updates on the battle and the fog of war (info for which can be outdated depending on when aides de camp get to you, if they do at all). Furthermore, they require time to carry out their missions, and can also get captured if they run into enemy formations (and thus provide information to the enemy).
Orders
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83211
The video in that thread shows off how ridiculously easy it is to issue out orders. Now, the graphics may not be pretty, but look at how massive the battlefield actually is. Yet, a few clicks, and you're done issuing orders (including the extent of the frontage - very cool). The bulk of the gameplay lies in the actual decision-making and high-level command, rather than constantly interacting with the interface in order to carry out your plan.
Now, just because orders are easy to do issue doesn't mean they're easy to carried. Not only does it take time to SEND out your orders by couriers, but it also takes time to carry them out.
Doctrine Editor
Want your corps and divisions to act a certain way under certain conditions? Implement it into your doctrine!
Order of Battle
So there's no in-game base/unit building. Yet, your army is extremely customization. Your entire Order of Battle can be adjusted to fit your needs.
Multiplayer
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=85868
8 players. PvP or co-op. Can be split any way. 1 v 7. Players vs AI. Units can be split out any way (eg. one C-in-C, one player controls 2 corps, another 1 corps, or mix-and-match. Units can also be shared between multiple players).
Example of messages in multiplayer:
Screenshots
Seriously! The game almost looks as bad as Age of Decadence!
I'm really excited about this game. Sure, it's low-budget indie, but the gameplay features impress me far beyond that of any conventional RTS. The multiplayer sounds particularly awesome (especially sending couriers between players).
* I am not Jean-Michel Mathé
For a fairly comprehensive preview, check this thread http://www.napoleonic.commandersatwar.com/...?f=26&t=149 (which I will be quoting quite a bit in here)
The game is being advertised as being "one of the first - if not the first - FPC (First Person commander) game". But what does that actually mean? FPC is one of the game modes (you have a good variety of options re: the amount of realism you want - and you can play it with a bird's eye view scrolling through the map as well) which attempts to recreate the player's role as the Commander-in-Chief in a Napoleonic battle as realistically as possible. Why does it matter? Realism isn't necessarily fun, but it certainly can be in the proper context. The implications of realism in a strategy/tactics game is that the focus of the gameplay would be heavily aimed at decisions that an actual *commander* would have to do. This means not being able to jump in and micromanage every single unit in the battlefield at once, not being able to issue orders and have them carried out instantaneously; limiting game abstraction as much as possible (but again, the balance needs to be such that it isn't detrimental to fun).
So, again, how does this work? The player is the C-in-C, as in the actual person. Your HQ actually moves around the map, situating itself in positions from which to better view the battlefield. There are 3 levels of AI: "Grand-Tactical (GT),Tactical AI and Regimental AI." As the C-in-C, you replace the Grand-Tactical AI. You issue orders to your corps and divisional commanders, who then issue orders to the subordinates (regimental commander --> brigades, and so on). You can also step in and give orders to regiments if that's what you want. How do you issue orders? With couriers, aides de camp - of which you have a finite number of.
Aides de camp
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=85171
This feature is the one that has me the most excited. It sounds like a really neat gameplay feature. Could lead to pretty tense scenarios of information warfare. To issue orders to another commander, you take an aide de camp and send him off to the commander. This takes TIME. If you've sent a commander a long way off, it will take a lot of time to carry new orders there, and it will also take a lot of time for info/intel (corps status/strength/morale, enemy and friendly positions) to get back from there. Furthermore, couriers aren't just abstracted. If they get caught by the enemy (eg. there is an actual enemy unit between you and the commander you wanted to send a message to), that message will never get sent, and the enemy will actually get the message/intel that was being sent.
This actually also works in multiplayer - where it may take quite a while for a message sent by one player to reach another. This can make for some pretty tense co-op/adversarial sessions.
So, in summary, aides de camp are how you issue orders, get situational updates on the battle and the fog of war (info for which can be outdated depending on when aides de camp get to you, if they do at all). Furthermore, they require time to carry out their missions, and can also get captured if they run into enemy formations (and thus provide information to the enemy).
Orders
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83211
The video in that thread shows off how ridiculously easy it is to issue out orders. Now, the graphics may not be pretty, but look at how massive the battlefield actually is. Yet, a few clicks, and you're done issuing orders (including the extent of the frontage - very cool). The bulk of the gameplay lies in the actual decision-making and high-level command, rather than constantly interacting with the interface in order to carry out your plan.
Which only takes a few seconds to order - very very cool.
Now, just because orders are easy to do issue doesn't mean they're easy to carried. Not only does it take time to SEND out your orders by couriers, but it also takes time to carry them out.
This isn't a battle of clicks-per-minute, nor is a matter of rapid micro or memorizing queues. It is a battle of wits. Using limited information, and limited means through which you can act upon that information - given the amount of time it may take to react upon an enemy's action - you as the C-in-C need to out-plan, out-wit, and predict your opponent's moves. You CAN'T just improvise and queue in new counter-units in your build list. You need to anticipate your opponent, defend your vulnerable areas, set your reserves, and so on - IN ADVANCE.
Doctrine Editor
Want your corps and divisions to act a certain way under certain conditions? Implement it into your doctrine!
More info and examples/screenshots here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84817
Order of Battle
So there's no in-game base/unit building. Yet, your army is extremely customization. Your entire Order of Battle can be adjusted to fit your needs.
Multiplayer
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=85868
8 players. PvP or co-op. Can be split any way. 1 v 7. Players vs AI. Units can be split out any way (eg. one C-in-C, one player controls 2 corps, another 1 corps, or mix-and-match. Units can also be shared between multiple players).
Example of messages in multiplayer:
Screenshots
Seriously! The game almost looks as bad as Age of Decadence!
I'm really excited about this game. Sure, it's low-budget indie, but the gameplay features impress me far beyond that of any conventional RTS. The multiplayer sounds particularly awesome (especially sending couriers between players).
* I am not Jean-Michel Mathé
