|
Comparison of 'The Renaissance' and 'Pike & Shot'
A Comparison of HPS Games “Musket and Pike: The Renaissance” and Byzantine Productions “Pike and Shot”
Certain periods of history have very poor coverage when it comes to military games. The Renaissance and early modern Europe is one of those periods. Coming after the flood of medieval games and fantasy based interpretations and before the 19th century it is a period often neglected.
This comparison is so that those curious in one or the other can get an idea of the key differences between them.
The two games being discussed here are HPS Games’ “The Renaissance” from their “Musket and Pike” series. Currently there is only one game in this series. The other game is Byzantine Productions’ “Pike and Shot”, a game based on their Battle Academy engine.
Rather than be a traditional review of either game, this piece will briefly discuss both games’ strengths and weaknesses compared to each other. Both games are excellent in their own way, but other than being turn-based games set in roughly the same period they do many things very differently.
Pike and Shot will be abbreviated P&S and The Renaissance as Ren.
The Renaissance:
HPS games has been making quality strategy games for many years now, with a great variety in settings being accomplished by modifying a basic engine considerably. This is a list of things the game does well and/or better than the other.
• Command and control: P&S has no representation of leaders or higher level formations at all. The brigade/division/corps structure in Ren gives a realistic feel to command and control, and it gives a greater feel of realism by dealing with the leaders involved.
• Supply and ammunition: Likewise P&S has no representation of supply or artillery ammunition. This adds a strategic feel to the battlefields as one must conserve artillery ammunition at times and must ensure that one’s infantry and cavalry are properly supplied.
• Size and detail of maps: The maps in Ren can be massive, sometimes covering thousands of hexes. This turns larger battles into a mix of strategic and tactical command in where to offer battle.
• Scenario Historical Accuracy: Although P&S has the historical size and composition of armies, it lacks the detailed organisation, unit and leader names of Ren. The ability to start units as routed, fixed etc also helps make the scenarios appear more historical in structure.
• 2D View: Having always used only 2D view in Ren, not having it in P&S took getting used to. The 2D view helps give a superior overview of the battle, the unit types and terrain. It’s excellent for planning and for getting an idea of the terrain.
• Formations: Having the tactical choice of column or line formation, when to change from column into block adds considerably to the strategy of the game.
• Historical Detail: Though it only covers the 16th century, Ren covers a wide array of battles, from the Ottoman campaigns to the Scottish wars with England, with hundreds of historical scenarios.
Pike and Shot:
Being a relative newcomer to this company and their games, I came across this title mostly from chance. As I have not been playing it for anywhere near as long as the HPS titles I hope I am not making any inaccurate comments here. This is a list of things this game does well and/or better than the other.
• AI: AI in HPS games, especially Napoleonic and Musket and Pike series is pretty bad. The AI constantly trips over itself, fails to understand the formations and unit types, making single player a very uneven prospect. In contrast, P&S has a very strong AI, capable of challenging the player and greatly extending single player playtime.
• Skirmish Mode: Being able to randomly create skirmishes using a side variety of armies chosen before battle makes the game almost endlessly replayable, especially if future DLC or modding adds to the armies. This is something Ren simply does not have.
• Mechanics - Melee: Mechanics is where P&S shines brightest. The locking of melee units together until one side breaks or is forced back is a necessary step to represent the hard fighting of that era.
• Mechanics – Light Troops: The ability of light units to evade charges is the realisation of a historical reality. This greatly adds to the game’s historical flavour.
• Mechanics – Routing and Pursuit: Units broken in battle are pursued by their enemies, and routed units can sometimes disperse and scatter. This is a great advantage over the HPS system which can have units with 10% strength return to annoy the player until they are wiped out fully.
• Victory Conditions: P&S has victory conditions, usually routing a percentage of the enemy army, which can trigger the end of the battle when achieved. This is greatly improved over Ren where the battle continues to the end or a termination is put in place, it adds an urgency to the battle.
• Graphics: The 3D unit counters and graphics of P&S are vastly superior to Ren, partly offsetting the lack of a 2D view. Though not great by AAA game standards, for a turn based wargame they are well above average.
• Modding: Whilst HPS games and Ren in particular offers the ability to design scenarios and create army lists, it does not allow the creation of maps. This is something P&S allows, in addition to the rest. The other modding capabilities I have not looked at, but I’ve been assured they are superior.
• Shorter timeframe: Battles of a decent size generally take less time to play out, meaning a single player game can generally be finished in one sitting.
• Greater historical range: P&S covers the English Civil War as well as the 16th century’s big campaigns.
Overall, both games are very good in their own ways. I believe Ren is superior for historical battles, strategic multiplayer and detailed historical settings. However, P&S offers a superior tactical and single player experience. The result is two games covering the same general era in different ways and with different strengths. Both are recommended.
|
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
Comparison of 'The Renaissance' and 'Pike & Shot'
){kind=link}