Rommel in Normandy: Initial Assessment

[bjarmson]

First attempt, hardest settings, the last three scenarios (Holding the Heights, Death from Above, and the escape from the trap one) were all easily accomplished. The HtH and DfA scenarios, I was able to run units right up to the Allied edge of the map. The final escape scenario ended of its own accord after I exited enough units, and though I did lose a number of damaged/exhausted units (mostly weak armor) and a few Panthers, it was all accomplished relatively easily. The only significant casualties were from artillery bombardments (even killed a Jagpanther in DfA) and destruction of some of the damaged/exhausted forces in the last two scenarios (despite this limitation the King Tiger in the last scenario still managed enough damage to become elite). All in all, much too easy for a first play. So what do I do to make these scenarios interesting? Take the weakest units available (no Jagpanthers), play stupidly, set up like an idiot. Sort of takes the fun out of the game. I really think we need a RiN revamp. It's too badly flawed as is.

[LandMarine47]

personally I think RiN was Sliths answer to the many requests on the forums for better German tank destroyers. Of course these units would be very powerful! Now you tell me, how do we make a hard campaign without making it over the top unfair? The only possible way to make this hard will be to give the AI ridiculous amounts of tanks! Now when the AI does overwhelm you you wont have anything to combat them and this forum would change from "too easy" to "AI has too many tanks". RiN was in my opinion a chance for players to use these new tanks and enjoy them! Now I cant mention ANYTHING on this matter but in the next expansion expect to be on the receiving end of these tanks
So yes this was an easy run but it was in the end lots of fun using these tanks!

[Browncoat]

I was able to get all achievements on my first run through on four of the scenarios, and 3 out of 4 achievements on another four. And couple of those were just shy of all 4. Indeed part of it was the fact I got bored and got sloppy. The most challenging by far is 'Counter Attack' and 'Holding the fortress'. Most of the scenarios felt like a cake walk and were not fun. This was most evident in 'Escaping the Pocket' and 'Holding the Heights'. I honestly could not believe how easy they were. I have no doubt that they were beta tested. However I sincerely don't know how these scenarios got past that testing.

I love Battle Academy and thank all those involved in bringing it to life for the iPad. It was such an exciting treat discovering last year. So much fun. To my mind at least the last two releases have not been up to par of those that came before. I have played through them numerous times. Can't say the same for the last two.

I look forward to the next release and of course BA2. Both of which I know I will buy. Panzer Corp is also eagerly awaited.

Thanks again for supporting wargamimg. Especially on the iPad.

[bjarmson]

Better German tank destroyers are nice, but the real problem is the AI is simply unable to handle large offensives against strong, entrenched troops. What to do? Cutting back on the numbers of German armor available might help. This would tend to correspond closer to the actual realities of Normandy, where German armor and munitions were usually in short supply. The last two scenarios try to model this, but don't really go far enough. Giving the Allies more artillery barrages and airstrikes (what happened to airstrikes in RiN?), would also be truer to the reality of the Normandy situation. Interdiction airstrikes, where Allied tactical fighters harassed German armor moving to the front during daylight hours, could significantly toughen the later scenarios. Both these things could be easily accomplished without changes to the maps. Both model the actual combat situation in Normandy

[LandMarine47]

Yes that is one of my only true complaints here. Where was Allied Air forces and Naval Artillery? Personally there should have been less AP like in the final 2 scenarios due to supply shortages. But as you said the AI cant handle massive operations (due to them using Artillery as tanks). There should have been less Panthers which made it easy and replaced them with some Jagdpanzers or Panzer IVGs. Maybe in the next update the Allies can get more of everything which will greatly assist the AI.

Im not sure about Naval Arty because the AI will always know where you are so it could be a very devastating effect on the player!

[leci]

That last point with regard to the AI and naval artillery is very pertinent (as it is also with regard to air interdiction). The AI knows where your units are!

If anything, this debate highlights the strength of MP ie against human opponents!

Talking of which, pity that MP cannot incorporate multiple players eg each round has 1...n phases ie Phase 1 Axis player 1, Phase 2 Allied player 1, Phase 3 Axis player 3 and Phase 4 Allied player 4......and so on. Of course the technical trick would be based on four individual players where only the next player in the process gets access to their Phase. At some level would mimic real life changes of leadership at a tactical day-to-day, skirmish-by-skirmish circumstance basis.

Gilles

[pipfromslitherine]

Just to note that we made a conscious decision not to have tons of Allied air and artillery support. It would probably have been more historically accurate, but we didn't feel just being pounded every few turns with "fists from the sky" was going to either be fun for the player, nor allow their skill to play enough of a part.

Cheers

Pip

[LandMarine47]

Yes but no air power at all? I can see no aircraft in the beginning scenarios but through out the whole thing? The least you could do is give the AI some airstrikes and limit them to attack every 4 or 5 turns? I want to see some form of Air power in the final 3 Scenarios, especially in escaping the pocket.

[bjarmson]

The conscious decision not to include Allied artillery and airstrikes means boring games vs the AI and is historically inaccurate (Allied artillery and airstrikes were probably the crucial point in allowing the US and Brits to gain the upper hand in the west).Why bother making historical scenarios if they are nothing but Nazi fantasies? Besides it's been an integral part of the game for a long time, why suddenly change?

[pipfromslitherine]

It's fun using bonuses - but generally not fun having the AI use them on you. Generally we will err on the side of what is a fun experience for the majority of players. That said, we are going to see whether there is anything simple we could do to provide the Elite players with tougher versions of scenarios should they desire it. No promises though!

Cheers

Pip

[bjarmson]

So pip, what you're saying is that a fun experience, which hopefully translates to more sales, is more important than being historically accurate. I'll keep that in mind when buying future games or scenarios.

[pipfromslitherine]

Well, there's a discussion going on over at the Matrix forums on that very balancing act. But it will obviously vary game by game, and in terms of BA I think we have pitched the balance about right. I'm not sure it's an either/or proposition though. And definitely not about sales - it's about making the best game we can. You obviously disagree with some of the decisions we made on RiN but the process was the same as for all the other BA campaigns.

Cheers

Pip

[acarhj]

Just to note that we made a conscious decision not to have tons of Allied air and artillery support. It would probably have been more historically accurate, but we didn't feel just being pounded every few turns with "fists from the sky" was going to either be fun for the player, nor allow their skill to play enough of a part.

Cheers

Pip

I think this was a mistake. If you wanted to make the scenario hard, having the Germans be constantly dogged by artillery and air support was the way to go.

I will agree with what other said about this pack. It was easy. Though it was probably not as easy as you might assume. The scenarios are about on par with the Normandy scenarios of the original game.

Also I've noticed that the computer does not attack very well unless it is very carefully scripted. More than once I saw the Allied tanks achieve superiority on one flank, only to doddle around and allow me to reinforce and consolidate. The AI also does not seem to use its artillery well. In the "Hold the Hill" scenario, there were two M7s that were advancing much more than they were supporting. They had plenty of targets to shoot at. I was able to dispatch both of them as they got too close to the lines. In this particular scenario, the Cromwells achieved a breakthrough and could have easily cause me much problems. They could have driven deep into the back field capturing several objectives along the way. But they didn't.

So was it fun? In a word, yes. It was fun to be able to play with some panthers and tigers for a change. It satisfies the "heavy metal" itch that some gamers get. Unfortunatly, there really wasn't one scenario I could pick out that i could say I'd play over and over again. I have favorites in all the other scenario sets.

John

[sherman619]

What you guys are describing is exactly why Slitherine does not want to do these DLC's. Lets face it the AI is not exactly the greatest player and if you can bleed it out it won't pose much of a threat. These late war tanks are very strong and adding them would make the game very easy. This is why Slith isn't going to give us a late war German Campaign in BA 2 as well. The only way we are getting a German DLC is if the Allies have superior armor. That's it. So if you want a hard campaign once again head back to the first 3 but this one was made so people could finally enjoy a late war German view. If you wanted it to be difficult then don't buy the tough units. That ought to make thing though.

The only problem here is in perception. Late war German tanks were more of a liability than a strength for a very depleted and watered down German army towards the end of the war. On average a panther was in the field 3 outta 10 days due to mechanical failures a tiger one 2 outta 10 days, and tiger two was even worse. Towards the end the most dependable afvs the Germans had were stugs and panzer IV. During the bulge campaign tigers were left behind due to fuel shortages, because they couldn't cross bridges, and constant breakdown. Late war German tanks required resources that the Germans simply lacked by that point. Not the least of which were qualified crews. Due to shortages of fuel and ammunition and coupled with crippling losses on the eastern front, crew training was cut by as much as 70 %. A panther required new tracks after the odometer read 100 miles, and a complete transmission replacement after 250 miles. In the hands a an experienced crew a well supported and maintained panther could be deadly to allied vehicles. But it still needed to be moved close to the front by rail to avoid wear and tear and it also had to be moved by night or during times allied planes were grounded due to weather. There were also very few of them in the field. In order for the game to be more realistic a panther needs to cost around 500 points and a sherman 50. Then you need to make fuel a action point option so that the panther actually could run out of gas if moved too much. Then you need to accurately reflect the mechanical issues and poor late war crews. Perhaps break down the tank by commander, driver, loader, and gunner. If the driver is experienced you get less breakdowns, a more experienced commander increases everyone's rating a little, and an inexperienced gunner is not accurate. Then you have to try and reflect the fact that allied troops could call down air and artillery support almost at will. Overall the rarity of these machines, their poor crews, the mechanical un reliability, and their vulnerability to artillery and air attacks is simply just not reflected in the game.

[IainMcNeil]

This is all true but not really possible to represent in a tactical game like BA. While strategically they may well have been a bad idea, if you were unfortunate enough to be there on one of day's when the Panther was working you were going to suffer.

Making the game harder without being annoying is difficult when you have all the cool stuff on a tactical level. You can give the AI bombardments and air strikes but then it becomes a lottery and more about whether the bombardment takes out a tank or not. We didn't find it a good mechanism as there was no skill involved and it was too binary. It misses and the mission is easy, it hits and the mission is hard or impossible.

We need to find another way to make it challenging. Maybe by limiting fuel or ammo?

[Uncle_Joe]

Making the game harder without being annoying is difficult when you have all the cool stuff on a tactical level. You can give the AI bombardments and air strikes but then it becomes a lottery and more about whether the bombardment takes out a tank or not. We didn't find it a good mechanism as there was no skill involved and it was too binary. It misses and the mission is easy, it hits and the mission is hard or impossible.

We need to find another way to make it challenging. Maybe by limiting fuel or ammo?

Granted that getting 'zapped from the heavens' isn't a whole lot of 'fun', but if that's the conditions they had to fight under then it should be reflected in some manner in the game. If someone chooses to play the French at Agincourt, they better get used to arrows lol. It's the same here IMO...the Allies should have access to a fair amount of air support and arty in Normandy just as the English used longbows at Agincourt.

Honestly I would imagine that a vast majority of the people who play this game are history buffs to one degree or another. So I don't think being bombed would come as a major surprise. And people would have to start taking precautions such as not massing up. It makes for a differing tactical situation which can be a good thing.

That said, I wouldn't want to see massive quantities of off-board support but it's presence should plague the Germans. As to it being 'binary', while that is true, the same can be said of many other interactions in the game (ie, if your Panther moves up and a luck shot takes it out, it's still just as dead whether it 'should' have happened or not).

In the end, the Germans lost in Normandy (and realistically, had little actual chance of really repulsing the overall landing) so any game depicting that conflict will have to be tweaked to allow the Germans to succeed in some way. But I would rather those tweaks not dramatically alter the historical conditions or else it really doesn't feel like 'Rommel in Normandy' at all...just 'Rommel fighting the Allies somewhere on the Western Front (who seemed to have outrun their air/arty support)'.

[LandMarine47]

We need to find another way to make it challenging. Maybe by limiting fuel or ammo?

I suggested this some time ago. BA with Ammo and Fuel would make things so much realistic but there is always the question, how can we resupply? I was thinking everytime you arrive at a VP you get some form of supplies. Or like in JCB's Supply Depot you must return to a specific point in the map. Resupply would be a MAJOR advantage. Also why not use Enric's immobilization? That would be a lot better than an instant death all the time. So for the time being you have to add this to the BA 2 wish list. Or a BA remake with all the new features from the Expansions.

[bjarmson]

There needs to be some measure of artillery fire and airstrikes in the later scenarios (particularly Holding the Heights and Escaping the Pocket). Without airstrikes the scenarios play out much too easily as Nazi supremacist fantasies and are easy wins, even played at the most difficult settings. Allied artillery and airstrikes tore huge gaps in German troop dispositions, while limiting supplies, troops and equipment from reaching the front. This is modeled a bit in Counter Attack and Death from Above (though not enough to make either of these scenarios particularly difficult to win). In Holding the Heights, the artillery fire is never more than a minor hindrance (suppressing a unit or two, and occasionally destroying a unit, though never enough to make a difference). It really needs to be upped by about 50% in both quantity and occurrence, and airstrikes added specifically targeting armor units (rather than veering off to attack infantry targets). Both need to be added to Escaping the Pocket (where I've managed to play two games with only minimal damage to my Panther/Waffen units).

It may appear too binary, but that's sort of what actually happened in WWII. Rommel was severely wounded in a chance airstrike. The Bulge offensive worked for the Germans at first because Allied air reconnaissance, resupply, and airstrikes were severely limited due to bad weather. Once it cleared the Germans had no chance to keep their offensive going.

[LandMarine47]

Well then I think Slith is going to have to add Airpower with all these arguments. But there is a reason why Slith didn't add them in the first place
What's the difference between Allied Airpower and Axis Airpower?
Axis- Airstrikes don't cause any significant damage as they will only target your infantry and Light Vehicles. They might give you a scare but they won't be a force to be reckoned with.
Allies-You must constantly live in fear of Allied Airpower. Airstrikes are extremely deadly, especially the Typhoon, and they will cause you a headache when they hit you. American Airstrikes are like Stukas and FW 190s, they will mostly target infantry and light armor but the Typhoon is where you start to get scared. The Typhoon is one heavy hitter and can cause heavy damage to Infantry, and Light Vehicles. They also have a major chance of knocking out Medium Tanks and in Some cases even Heavy Tanks. I've seen them destroy Panthers and even a Tiger once. Stugs and Panzer IVGs don't stand a chance. I'm not even telling you what they can do to infantry and light armor.
Like Pip said Slith doesn't want the player have to deal with these "Ariel Fists" all the time. And I haven't even gotten to the Bombing Runs. A B-26 will hurt you to the point of no recovery but a B-17!? You will not survive. Basically RiN isn't historically accurate in some parts but do you really want to deal with all of this? As for Artillery they should make more appearances instead of M7 Priests. The AI seems to use their Artillery as Tanks.
I say add arty barrages to Holding the Fortress and The Critical Hours. And the mission in the Cornfields. That should be enough to keep the player on his toes.

[sherman619]

This is all true but not really possible to represent in a tactical game like BA. While strategically they may well have been a bad idea, if you were unfortunate enough to be there on one of day's when the Panther was working you were going to suffer.

Making the game harder without being annoying is difficult when you have all the cool stuff on a tactical level. You can give the AI bombardments and air strikes but then it becomes a lottery and more about whether the bombardment takes out a tank or not. We didn't find it a good mechanism as there was no skill involved and it was too binary. It misses and the mission is easy, it hits and the mission is hard or impossible.

We need to find another way to make it challenging. Maybe by limiting fuel or ammo?

I think it is possible with a little tweaking. Right off the heavy tanks need to be incredibly expensive, enough that you will get one or two tops per map. Then limit their movement points so that they run out of gas if moved too much, then have a threshold where if they've moved x number of squares the probability of breakdown goes through the roof. Refueling by truck can also be made possible but will be maybe only available once every 5 or so turns and maybe limited To 2-3 times per mission. Then to represent ammo shortages even a heavy that has been used to maximum effect will run out of bullets after x number of rounds with some missions having a re up in ammo and some not. Increase heavy tank endurance to air and arty strikes by 25%-50% to allow for the inclusion of historical accuracy.