In SoW there arent any vital Flaws like in HW. HW always had probs with collision issues, unit passiveness, ballistics in context with terrain, unit cooperation like Arty-protection or its self-protection either, by falling back in time or redeploying with the main body. In SP I remember big shortcomings of the AI on strategic level, altough this matter doesnt really harm MP.
To understand HW and to compare the two projects, we have to see certain major facts:
- HW hasnt been completed yet and I am not at least 80 % sure, if it ever will be. But nevertheless I have confidence in the ambition and the long term big efforts of the developer.
Thinking about a purchase, I recommend to wait for future versions and corresponding feedbacks.
- HW is meant to be conducted on larger scale with less micromanaging, although it still provides functions to take over command on small levels. But according my experience its problematic to intervene the AI too much.
- HW is running with 2 paralell but seperately operating engines. The major engine simulates the battle by calculating numerous parametres, but only displaying this in the 2D-map-view, while the second engine more or less displays the results in the 3D-view, but lacking to do so in every detail and accuracy. That means, what you see in 3D sometimes reflects only roughly what happens in the simulated battle.
That said, to judge HW it is vital to recognize the performance of the inner engine propperly.
Features and lackings:
In HW units/formations arent able to make use and benefit from using roads like in SoW.
In HW, other than SoW, its possible to transfer untis to other formations/players.
SoW is much more friendly in letting the player intervene micromanaging, while HW actually isnt meant to do so.
Although HW appears running RT there are 1-minute-intervalls for micro-outcome-calculations, while SoW calculates each second.
HW implements different weather and climate conditions and their effect on troops and terrain and also displays those graphically. Here SoW is lacking very much.
In SoW the smallest unit is always the battaillon, while in HW the total number of units is limited to 110, so that in bigger battles the smallest cmd level is the regiment. Here IMO we see a bigger disadvantage for HW, cos formation-building cannot be performed in detail for each battailon seperatly and also routing then effects more troops than in case of more detailed scaled OOBs.
According the documentation, HW claims to be more realistic in battle mechanisms by considering more parametres for outcome calculations as SoW.
Also in MP HW can display the troops in 1:2 ratio and it was announced to perform a 1:1 ratio in an upcoming version. HW also claims to implement a campaign function. A version displaying all sprites in 3D is expected to be almost completed.
HW avoids overlapping of units or let those move "through" each other, which realistically would cause a lot of disporder and the requirement of wasteful reorganizations. For purists this bad habit of SoW is a PitA. If routing units in HW collide with following ones, they sometimes make them rout too or at least cause disorder making them much less effective.
To me final calculations of losses and captives in HW sometimes didnt appear to be adequately plausible regarding the concrete observations in a battle.
IMO both games sometimes dont work pausible, when generating surrenders of units, although a majority of surrounding units are friendlies.
IMO HW on realism settings performs the delay of order implementation a bit more realistic than SoW. For exemple, when an order reaches the smallest level of accessible hierarchy, it still needs time to forward it to the lower officers and theri troops to keep the whole body synchronized. Another creteria is the limitation of available couries.
At this time, I think that the AI on BDE level of SoW is very crafty in comparison to most other wargames on the market. To make use of its AI on divisional and corps level, I think it is very important to understand the mechanics to know about what it can afford or not in certain battle constellations.
Regarding HW the so called GTAI (Grand tactical AI) IMO is also performing well, but sometimes fails in a number of situtations. But as already mentioned, it is still in development.
HW provides a function to build and maintain a defence line letting the AI rebuild it dynamicly, while SoW fails in that discipline, cos the AI wont check to hold certain postions or terrain, but attacks the adjacent enemy more or less depending on the given stance, without returning to the intial position. To hold a static line it needs intensive miromanaging, except when selecting the "hold to the last" stance, which on the other hand is much too passive, making the whole line too vulnerable and easy to fight.
While SoW only reflects Napoleon´s last campaign, HW provides almost all important campaigns/scenarios.
Both games are moddable, while HW provides an original map/oob/scenario builder.
I surely didnt discuss all aspects worth to be mentioned and I refer on the last official versions of HW, not the latest BETAs. All in all I think many important points have been described.
The essential conclusion is, that we still have to watch the progress of HW.
Translations for our friends around the world.
Topic: HistWar new GUI (Read 13859 times)
Similar topics (2)
November 22, 2020, 03:26:55 AM