HPS games?

[Panzer VI]

I have the Matrix Battleground Civil War game, is the the HPS games better?I might get the HPS battles that are not covered in Battleground Civil War, but would it be worth it get Campaign Gettysburg since I have Battleground version of Gettysburg?

[U124IXB]

HPS' Gettysburg is entirely different game individual soldier loss' etc..much better.

[Havoc]

Overall much better, though I was a sceptic when I played my first game. HPS has larger maps, making the battles more about manuver and suprise than forming a line of stacks from one map edge to the other. Also, the tactic of making stacks every other hex is no longer necessary as zoc's are 'weak', so you won't necessarly lose them if surrounded by zoc's.

HPS is superior in all except there can be a tendency for 'blitzkrieg' like tactics in HPS. Players can attack in 'waves' to penetrate your line and exploit. You can guard against this by defense-in-depthToo much power is in the hands of the attacker because of the move-shoot-melee turns where you can do it in any order desired. Sure the defender will shoot as you do this, but they are at a disadvantage in firepower penalties (though they can fire multiple times). Also, the larger the regiment, the more effective it's firepower in the defense, as defenders fire individually, not as a stack. So the side with smaller regiments will come out the worse in a firefight. I would always play with the optional rule of final full def fire for the defender prior to the melee to try to off set some of the attacker's advantage.

I know some will disagree that the attacker's have the advantage, but in the Civil War, the defender always had the advantage, so rightfully, it should remain so to keep the historical feel.

They are worth getting, but you have to adjust to the changes in tactics.

Havoc

[SnowBlue]

I believe that with optional rules after you melee you cannot move or shoot. Moving also makes shooting less effective and shooting makes melee less effective. But I am new to the series.

[The SNAFU]

All,

Does anyone have any additional views on the question of BG vs HPS Civil War games? One thing I noticed was the 3D maps and unit graphics of BG games appear far better but perhaps that's just the quality of the screenshots.

Game play is what's most important and any other comments on the BG vs HPS games is appreciated. I have the BGCW package but am considering trying one of the HPS ACW games if they are truely superior particularly with respect to PBEM.

Thanks

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

I'd highly recommend the HPS games. There was a new addition in the Antietam game I think that allows you to play single phase turns but makes you wait and do melees at the end of the turn rather then when you want and slows down the blitzkrieg tactics considerably. It will be included in future patches for all the other games. Otherwise I much prefer the single man losses, large maps with room for maneuver, and defensive fire as the attacker moves rather then watching the march in full view only to disappear in the last hex moved into. Also, the games do provide the campaign aspect, though some do a better job then others.

[rahamy]

some of this is already mentioned, but here's my two cents:

- Game turns can be played in single turns, with movement, fire & melee all taking place in a single segment - with the defender taking "opportunity fire" as the offensive player is moving. This gives the game a bit more of a "real time" feel without requiring the players to both be on-line at the same time. It is still possible to play in phases too, if you select that option. The single turn mode radically reduces the amount of file transfers needed to play a PBEM game as well.

- Losses are now handled in single man increments rather than in 25 man segments.

- Fatigue is now handled in single points too, rather than huge blocks - though some things can really make the fatigue rack up, such as loosing a melee.

- Campaigns. There is now a feature which allows you to play through a series of battles, making a decision before each which will directly impact the positioning of your forces for that battle. Losses are also carried over from battle to battle in most cases, stragglers can return to units, and if a short amount of time passes in between actions fatigue will also carry over.

- Maps...the format of maps have changed from a single bitmap image to a "tiled" approach. This allows MUCH bigger maps to be used, and also allows many more maps to be included with each game.

- Content - tieing into the map comment above, there is also a significantly larger amount of content included with each title now compared to the Battleground games. For example Campaign Gettysburg includes more scenarios & maps then all five of the BG ACW games combined - really, not joking, its a huge title covering the opening actions at Brandy Station through Gettysburg and then the retreat. You get a good portion of Northern Virginia mapped, Maryland & southern Pennsylvania.

- There are many more engine enhancements as well, which you can read about by checking the "Changes.txt" file from one of the games on our site. Here's the one for Corinth, which was the first title released with HPS - http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/updates/up_...th_108.txt - these games are still supported as well, with new content being released for the entire series as new games are published, for free.

http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/updates/up_...ivWar.html

The series also is well on its way to cover the entire scope of the Civil War, where the BG series never will. So, all in all it is a far better value, and will continue to be, over the older games.

[The SNAFU]

Thanks all for the info on the HPS ACW vs BGCW question. Lots of very helpful details. Sounds like aside from the 3d map and unit graphics the HPS games are much deeper and more detailed in terms of losses etc. Looks like I will be picking up my first HPS ACW title soon.