From: Scott Udell Subject: Re: COMP: Battleground..... At 09:01 AM 6/9/97 +0000, matt.deaville@GECM.COM wrote: >I have heard good things about the 'Battleground..........' series of games. > >Can anyone tell me if there is any major differences between the games [snip] I've played (to some extent or another) all the TalonSoft games. The "Battleground" series breaks down into three classes: one WW II game (Ardennes/Bulge), four U.S. Civil War (Gettysburg, Shiloh, Antietam, & Bull Run), and two Napoleonic (Waterloo & "Napoleon in Russia" [aka Borodino]). The other TalonSoft game, Age of Sail, is really not part of the Battleground series but the first in a new series (they're also talking about Age of Ironclads and Age of Oars). I've hardly touched Ardennes (their first game) or it's remake Bulge, so can't really comment on them. It is the only WW II game in the series and is more a platoon scale; it's also the only one of the Battleground games with a scenario editor. The Napoleonic games and the Civil War games are much closer in style, but the two categories do have differences (Napoleonics, for examples, represents skirmishers, units going into squares, and has cavalry charge and--now--countercharge phases). With each new game in the series TalonSoft updates the previous games, so as long as you have the patches the games--technology-wise--are pretty much the same, and differences seem to boil down to the battles represented (or TalonSoft's interpretation of them). The AI, as in most computer wargames, leaves something to be desired, but it has been getting better, especially at the tactical level. I just finished playing Second Bull Run in their latest Civil War game, and the computer rarely did stupid moves like charging forward with limbered artillery, or immediately retreating its lines (and it even kept lines). Still, I whupped it soundly, but this may have been because I took out many high-level leaders early on (Lee, Longstreet, just to name a few) and because a unit--which had routed *behind* enemy lines--was able to rally and capture four computer supply units (i.e., almost all of the supply for the computer/Confederate units on the Western edge of the map). Nevertheless, I did completely clean it from the map--how realistic is this?--so the operational-level AI has some ways to go. My favorite of the series has been Shiloh, but that's because it adds Wilson's Creek as an extra; I've had fun with all the Civil War ones and with Waterloo (barely touched NiR/Borodino). >Also does anyone have any opinions on 'Age of Rifles'? Would this be a better >buy? I have heard about how you can design your own battles and armies and buy >scanario packs but how well do the battles play? I was disappointed by AoR personally because I felt the system tried to cover too broad a range of warfare, and in doing so everything felt generic. Like I said in a review, if you weren't looking at graphics you couldn't tell if you were playing Zulus, Apaches, or very fatigued Confederates--there was no representation of tactics/doctrine. On the otherhand, some of the formations were much more involved than those in the Battleground games from the same era. Also, some of my ill will was generated by grumblings over the interface, map scale, and inaccuracies in the scenarios (Washington D.C.'s on WHAT side of the Potomac?), some of which have been fixed in the patches (or so I'm told; I haven't looked at them). Also, the game has a much better reputation with other folks than with me, so a lot of it may be a matter of taste -- I prefer the TalonSoft games, others AoR. All of the titles have demos, and that's what you really need to check out. Scott Udell sudell@cdmag.com