Pike & Shot is now available!

[rbodleyscott]

Hello, i bought the game yesterday on steam and is very good, but i have to get used to the differences with the tabletop game (Infantry pursuing shock mounted?).

Infantry have a 20% chance of pursuing mounted, and will never do so if they were defending an obstacle against mounted. Not only that, but mounted are likely to break off from foot before they actually break, and breakers off are never pursued. So infantry pursuing mounted is a very rare event in practice.

[Vichyssoise]

I bought the game today. I've had time to play only two tutorials but I had a blast.
I'm really looking forward to playing the campaigns.

Thansk for this great game.

[crowan1978]

And this game is released just as I was redoing my Pike and Shot figures. Guess my figures are taking a vacation.

[VegasOZ]

Great Game.

The Cannon Ripple Fire is what sold me on it.

Enjoying it very much.

[JosephM]

Hello All,

Just to let those know who are asking about a Mac version, the normal procedure is that when we release a Mac version of a game we create a Master Installer, which then contains the other OS formats, so if you buy the PC version then you will be able to get the Mac version when it releases. Although we do not officially support the use of emulated or virtual systems, some users do things this way: they buy the PC version on release, then use Parallels or Bootcamp to run the game, before switching to the Mac version on release of the Mac version. And often we will match the release discount when the Mac version is released, as to not disadvantage those who use alternate systems.

[babyshark]

Hello All,

Just to let those know who are asking about a Mac version, the normal procedure is that when we release a Mac version of a game we create a Master Installer, which then contains the other OS formats, so if you buy the PC version then you will be able to get the Mac version when it releases. Although we do not officially support the use of emulated or virtual systems, some users do things this way: they buy the PC version on release, then use Parallels or Bootcamp to run the game, before switching to the Mac version on release of the Mac version. And often we will match the release discount when the Mac version is released, as to not disadvantage those who use alternate systems.

Thanks for the update.

Marc

[ravenflight]

The funny thing is that my download says it's going to take 3 hours.

To which I'm being less than hospitable.

Then I think... hang on a minute, how long would I have to travel to have a game? At least an hour. Then I have setup time. By the time I'm playing my first game I'm probably going to be close to the same as a ftf game

[vicco]

Hello All,

Just to let those know who are asking about a Mac version, the normal procedure is that when we release a Mac version of a game we create a Master Installer, which then contains the other OS formats, so if you buy the PC version then you will be able to get the Mac version when it releases. Although we do not officially support the use of emulated or virtual systems, some users do things this way: they buy the PC version on release, then use Parallels or Bootcamp to run the game, before switching to the Mac version on release of the Mac version. And often we will match the release discount when the Mac version is released, as to not disadvantage those who use alternate systems.

Good to know! What's a possible release date for the Mac version?

[verulam_slith]

I bought this last week and I must admit that this is really growing on me. Almost back to basics wargaming. The battles are first rate as is the historic accuracy ( as far as I know of course). It just has this well, a feel that they have nailed it.

Now this tactical game allied to a campaign style Total War title would be a real winner.

Already I'm thinking seven Years war, Napoleonic's etc.

So well done chaps

[ravenflight]

I've gotta say, I mostly do not like it.

There have been too many weird things happening. It's most likely in the probabilities, but for example

my Royalist Cavaliers deciding to not pursue when they just happened to be directly in front of enemy P&S.
my Royalist Cavaliers fighting for about 5 turns 'massively advantaged' against Parliamentary horse and losing every single combat. I admit by only a little bit, but still, I'm massively advantaged and LOSING!
Two battle groups of Royalist musketeers attacking an artillery battery and being advantaged losing every single combat. BOTH of them.

It certainly doesn't strike me as a great game.

Hope everyone else likes it, but I wish I could get my money back.

[rbodleyscott]

There have been too many weird things happening. It's most likely in the probabilities, but for example

my Royalist Cavaliers deciding to not pursue when they just happened to be directly in front of enemy P&S.
my Royalist Cavaliers fighting for about 5 turns 'massively advantaged' against Parliamentary horse and losing every single combat. I admit by only a little bit, but still, I'm massively advantaged and LOSING!

As you say, those are in the probabilities. As they say "**** happens".

However, the overall chances of winning, drawing or losing the combats are as stated in the tooltips. These figures are estimated by running through the actual combat resolution code, and running the random part of it 1000 times.

As "massively advantaged" means that the advantaged unit has at least a 75% chance of winning each combat, 24-25% chance of a draw (in which you might lose slightly more casualties than the enemy), and 0-1% chance of "losing" the combat by enough to actually trigger a cohesion test, you were indeed astonishingly unlucky on that occasion.

In fact there was almost no chance at all (or possibly no chance at all) of your unit actually losing the overall combat and being put to flight, it just took a lot longer than it normally would to finally defeat the enemy unit.

Having to deal with this sort of thing is part of the simulation - things seldom go exactly according to plan in warfare. Obviously players differ in how much of this sort of uncertainty they like in a game. Sorry it does not match your preferences.

Two battle groups of Royalist musketeers attacking an artillery battery and being advantaged losing every single combat. BOTH of them.

We agree that artillery in the open are too resilient, and this will be tweaked in the first patch.

[ravenflight]

Well, I am going to persist, if for no other reason that I've paid my money, but the biggest reason is that a mate & I bought it not a small part so we could PBEM.

I'm curious about the AI though. My experience with AI is that for the most part it's crap. I remember (a while ago, so times may have changed) where I was playing Civilization and if you put it up to the hardest AI levels the computer basically cheated. You would be sailing along in your Trireme and along would come 70 Battleships... in 2000 B.C. - something impossible to accomplish if you 'played by the rules'. It was then that I realised that programmers lack the capability to make things more difficult. The AI can't become smarter, so they make the game tougher by increasing the odds that the computer will win.

I hope this isn't the case with Pike and Shot, but if it is it probably doesn't matter too much as most of my games will be PBEM against human opponents.

[rbodleyscott]

I'm curious about the AI though. My experience with AI is that for the most part it's crap. I remember (a while ago, so times may have changed) where I was playing Civilization and if you put it up to the hardest AI levels the computer basically cheated. You would be sailing along in your Trireme and along would come 70 Battleships... in 2000 B.C. - something impossible to accomplish if you 'played by the rules'. It was then that I realised that programmers lack the capability to make things more difficult. The AI can't become smarter, so they make the game tougher by increasing the odds that the computer will win.

I hope this isn't the case with Pike and Shot, but if it is it probably doesn't matter too much as most of my games will be PBEM against human opponents.

The AI doesn't use any hidden cheats. The total forces are usually balanced somewhat in the AI's favour, but all that is up front. At levels 1 and 5, the unit qualities are tweaked a little one way or the other, but once again that is up front and you can see it by mousing over the units.

The AI uses exactly the same combat resolution and random factors as the player.

Obviously the AI has to be given some advantage at higher difficulties or they wouldn't be more difficult, but this is purely on the basis of the relative size of the two armies at the start of the game, and in most scenarios and all skirmishes, takes the form of adjusting the spendable player force points.

We wanted the AI to be equally competent at all difficulty levels - the difficulty level does not affect the quality of the AI but the overall difficult of the scenario. (No historical battle started with "equal points".)

[ravenflight]

I'm curious about the AI though. My experience with AI is that for the most part it's crap. I remember (a while ago, so times may have changed) where I was playing Civilization and if you put it up to the hardest AI levels the computer basically cheated. You would be sailing along in your Trireme and along would come 70 Battleships... in 2000 B.C. - something impossible to accomplish if you 'played by the rules'. It was then that I realised that programmers lack the capability to make things more difficult. The AI can't become smarter, so they make the game tougher by increasing the odds that the computer will win.

I hope this isn't the case with Pike and Shot, but if it is it probably doesn't matter too much as most of my games will be PBEM against human opponents.

The AI doesn't use any hidden cheats. The total forces are usually balanced somewhat in the AI's favour, but all that is up front. At levels 1 and 5, the unit qualities are tweaked a little one way or the other, but once again that is up front and you can see it by mousing over the units.

The AI uses exactly the same combat resolution and random factors as the player.

Obviously the AI has to be given some advantage at higher difficulties or they wouldn't be more difficult, but this is purely on the basis of the relative size of the two armies at the start of the game, and in most scenarios and all skirmishes, takes the form of adjusting the spendable player force points.

We wanted the AI to be equally competent at all difficulty levels - the difficulty level does not affect the quality of the AI but the overall difficult of the scenario. (No historical battle started with "equal points".)

I have no problem with what you've explained. You can see, however, how my previous experience where it was an OBVIOUS AI cheat and my experience of the game where I lost continual combats even though I was heavily advantaged I may have thought the 'better AI' made 'Cavaliers lose against light foot caught in the rear' a solution to 'we can't program the AI better' problem. Glad to see that is not the case.

[IanB3406]

Will this run on IPAD 2 when released for OS?

[ravenflight]

Just a few questions:

Why are pikemen slightly advantaged when fighting musketeers both of which are in an enclosed field?
Why are cavaliers slightly advantaged when fighting musketeers both of which are in an enclosed field?

A few things that I think could improve game play:

Being able to easily (at a glace) see troops that you haven't used this turn. Perhaps if they greyed out or something on the tiny map once you had expended a unit? Several times I forget troops that I can move... the AI never does, and whilst it's my fault for not moving them I don't think the 'general on the battlefield' would go 'oh, we haven't received command from on high... we'd better stay here and not react to those troops moving onto my flank.

[GKChesterton1976]

Being able to easily (at a glace) see troops that you haven't used this turn. Perhaps if they greyed out or something on the tiny map once you had expended a unit? Several times I forget troops that I can move... the AI never does, and whilst it's my fault for not moving them I don't think the 'general on the battlefield' would go 'oh, we haven't received command from on high... we'd better stay here and not react to those troops moving onto my flank.

There is a way of doing this.

Go to the top right of the screen where there is a plus sign. Press it, and it opens up some more buttons. One of them will take you to and through the units you have not yet used that turn. I always use it before submitting a turn.

And stop being so negative. The PBEM games against me will be awesome!

Adrian

[rbodleyscott]

Just a few questions:

Why are pikemen slightly advantaged when fighting musketeers both of which are in an enclosed field?
Why are cavaliers slightly advantaged when fighting musketeers both of which are in an enclosed field?

These and other similar questions can be answered by turning on detailed close combat reports.

I presume you are talking about the Adwalton moor scenario.

Unlike in FOGR the musketeers do not automatically count as "Protected" by being in an enclosed field. They have to actually be defending one of the hedges to count "Protected".

The pikemen are advantaged because they are keils (this is one of the differences from FOGR) - this has no effect in an enclosed field at impact, but does in melee.

The cavaliers are avantaged in an enclosed field at impact because they are of superior quality, and in melee because they are of superior quality and have poas for melee pistol.

Note that Pike and Shot makes no claims to be an exact rendition of FOGR, it uses the same system but opportunities have been taken to tweak that system using the the computer's capabilities.

A few things that I think could improve game play:

Being able to easily (at a glace) see troops that you haven't used this turn. Perhaps if they greyed out or something on the tiny map once you had expended a unit? Several times I forget troops that I can move... the AI never does, and whilst it's my fault for not moving them I don't think the 'general on the battlefield' would go 'oh, we haven't received command from on high... we'd better stay here and not react to those troops moving onto my flank.

Pressing the L key will give you a list of units with those that have moved greyed out. It also reminds you which ones can still shoot.