Suggestions for BotB

[Yojimbo252]

16 - BotB Version 1.0.3: Unit in Echternach despite being surrounded, still in supply.

The Allies can trace a line of supply to the Northern, Western and Southern map edges. Axis just the Eastern edge.

So the Allied unit in Echternach is in supply.

[Tankarush]

16 - BotB Version 1.0.3: Unit in Echternach despite being surrounded, still in supply.

The Allies can trace a line of supply to the Northern, Western and Southern map edges. Axis just the Eastern edge.

So the Allied unit in Echternach is in supply.

Thanks for the info. I always thought that it has to have a road leaving the screen, to be a supply route. That would be another thing to be better explained in the rules.

[Yojimbo252]

16 - BotB Version 1.0.3: Unit in Echternach despite being surrounded, still in supply.

The Allies can trace a line of supply to the Northern, Western and Southern map edges. Axis just the Eastern edge.

So the Allied unit in Echternach is in supply.

Thanks for the info. I always thought that it has to have a road leaving the screen, to be a supply route. That would be another thing to be better explained in the rules.

Well the Supply rules make no mention of roads in supply determinationin in either the summary or full rules so I think it's clear in that respect.

However in your defence the Reinforcement delay rules only mention the road criteria in the full rules and not the summary so I can appreciate how that may lead to confusion and inaccurate assumptions being drawn.

While we're on the subject I'm questioning the value of the Summary Rules. Whilst I appreciate their purpose is simply to provide a rules summary, I've seen a number of posts concerning rules clarifications or false statements made where I believe the player has only consulted the summary rules and drawn the wrong conclusion because they only have part of the picture.

Personally I don't bother with the Summary and drill straight into Full rules. If I need clarification on a certain area and there are conditions or exceptions to that rule I need to be aware of all of them.

Perhaps for El Almein the developers might consider just including one set of rules to avoid any confusion.

[Yojimbo252]

The VP thresholds you see in that particular screen apply at the end of that given day.

So the Axis have until the end of the 21st to get themselves above 18VP.

edit: was the post I was responding to deleted?

[Tankarush]

Yes I deleted it, because I couldn't believe that I'm the only one affected or noticing this. But I tried it several times and yes, version 1.0.3 is broke (for me at least).

Created a new Face to Face game an rushed all the Axis to death. End of first day VP was -6, i tapped at double pass to end the day and ... The next day begun?!?

So it either really is broke or I finally should get this voices in my head checked ... but one is humming Tetris ...

[Yojimbo252]

Yes I deleted it, because I couldn't believe that I'm the only one affected or noticing this. But I tried it several times and yes, version 1.0.3 is broke (for me at least).

Created a new Face to Face game an rushed all the Axis to death. End of first day VP was -6, i tapped at double pass to end the day and ... The next day begun?!?

So it either really is broke or I finally should get this voices in my head checked ... but one is humming Tetris ...

Hmm ok that doesn't sound quite right. I haven't come across the situation but I was under the impression if the net VPs were negative at the end of a day that would be an automatic victory for the Allies.

I suggest you file a bug report.

[Tankarush]

Since no one else reported anything similar, my best guess is, that BotB doesn' evaluate VP the first day (16'th) and SNAFU my Ipad is.

[Yojimbo252]

Just performed a quick test and can confirm that VP victory conditions aren't assessed at the end of the 16th, in the case of Axis going negative that is.

The check was made at the end of the 17th and the Allies were given the win.

Not sure whether that is intended or not but you have confirmation that the behaviour isn't limited to your iPad.

[daviddunham]

17 - BotB V 1.0.3: Rendering error at Bouillion

1. What are the numbers?
2. So that our team can address bugs (not only reproduce them, but verify that they are fixed), please report them from inside the game (see the FAQ for details), which sends us a save file.

[daviddunham]

Since no one else reported anything similar, my best guess is, that BotB doesn' evaluate VP the first day (16'th) and SNAFU my Ipad is.

I don’t recall the details, but I do recall we had to change things so VP weren’t checked in the first day or two (otherwise games could end very prematurely). Don’t know if this got back into the rules.

[Yojimbo252]

Since no one else reported anything similar, my best guess is, that BotB doesn' evaluate VP the first day (16'th) and SNAFU my Ipad is.

I don’t recall the details, but I do recall we had to change things so VP weren’t checked in the first day or two (otherwise games could end very prematurely). Don’t know if this got back into the rules.

I dont think it has.

The way the rules read it states "At the end of each day, the game can end immediately if...." And it makes no mention of any exclusions for certain days.

The VP chart also supports this by setting a net threshold for the 16th, 17th and 18th of zero.

So it implies if the net score is zero or below at the end of any one of those days it's an automatic Allied win.

Based on the tests so far it looks like BotB doesn't evaluate VP on the 16th but does on the 17th.

[BoardgamesToGo]

I absolutely LOVE the quantity & quality of supplemental historic information Shenandoah put into this app. None of it is necessary to play the game, but it is a great help for anyone wanting to understand what it's all about. The grognards know all of this already, but there's hope that the app & platform will bring new people to the hobby, and they may not be as familiar with the history. Even some of us oldtimers still appreciate re-learning this material.

With that in mind, I'd love to see an ability for play the game out automatically, almost like AI vs AI, but scripted so that it follows the actual sequence of events. This would be very educational and fun to see.

-Mark


P.S. Double-kudos to whoever was responsible for the swirling snow effects, accompanying wind noise, and sound effects in general throughout the game. Very evocative!

[s_Mylo]

1). AI that doesn't make moves that are going to easily put it out of supply.
2). No terrain hit absorbtion for armoured units.
3). Attack/defence penalty for armoured units in cities and heavy woods.
NOTE on points 2 and 3: Armour is not well suited to combat in dense woods or urban environments, the game should reflect this.
4). In the battle screen, have a bomb graphic/sound effect for Germans when they have artillary support and an airplane graphic/sound effect for Allies when they have air support.
5). Ambient sound effects based on weather conditions. Stormy or calm (no storm sound).
6). A slightly darker shade to the map when the weather is stormy.
7. When Allied infantry units are making a 3 space move, have their graphic change to a truck with 'truck' sounds.
Option of adding a unit to a space where a battle is already going on, and not having to conduct combat (on their own against the entire enemy force).
9). Have a chance that the weather clears a day sooner or a day later than usual.
10) Option of playing out game to the end with variable levels of victory/defeat. eg. Total victory, tactical victory, draw, tactical defeat, total defeat.

I've really enjoyed playing this game, fantastic job. I look forward to more in the series.

Mylo

[Yojimbo252]

2). No terrain hit absorbtion for armoured units.
3). Attack/defence penalty for armoured units in cities and heavy woods.
NOTE on points 2 and 3: Armour is not well suited to combat in dense woods or urban environments, the game should reflect this.

Armoured units are not well suited assaulting woods or urban environments but when entrenched as a defender in these types of terrain they were formidable.

I don't see why they shouldn't get the defensive bonus. It's not like armour as a defender needs mobility to hunt down the attacking units, the attacker has to come to you.

[s_Mylo]

Yoj,

I would have to argue to the contrary. Armour's greatest strength lies in it's mobility, to put massive firepower at a certain location quickly. While being more evident on attack,it also applies to it's ability to defend itself. ....fire...move...fire...move. The Germans in particular understood this, even when defending.....case in point Wittmann in the battle of Villers Bocage, where he was 'on the defence' against the British 7th Armoured. He used mobility and did not 'dig in to heavy woods' in defence of his position. Granted, Wittmann was an exceptional tank commander, but the practice of mobile warfare was part of German and Allied doctrine (ask Patton how he would feel about digging in his tanks). VERY rarely did the Germans or Allies use their tanks as fortified pillboxes, entrenched as you put it, in defence. This says nothing of the time required to 'entrench' an armoured unit.....the Russians, that's a different story. While it is true, there are circumstances where a tank might have a particularly advantagous tactical position, and wish to sit tight while the enemy comes to them, it VERY likely got there because it was able to move and have sufficient lines of fire in the open, and not be trundling along through dense trees or confined to a narrow street. With armoured unit receiving the same advantage as infantry with terrain absorbtion in the game, it takes away from real world tactics.

In short, a tank or armoured unit that has it's mobility restricted (heavy woods/urban/marsh etc.) has it's ability to defend itself reduced.....it CERTAINLY doesn't benefit from any advantage (terrain absorbtion). In real combat, Infantry would have the advantage over tanks in heavily wooded terrain or city.

Mylo

[Yojimbo252]

VERY rarely did the Germans or Allies use their tanks as fortified pillboxes, entrenched as you put it, in defence.

I disagree.

During the latter stages of the war that Bulge covers, the Germans relied quite heavily on Self Propelled Guns (Tank Destroyers) due to their faster rate of production through having a fixed gun mounting (no turret).

I'm not suggesting these were squeezed into a pillboxes but such 'Tank Hunters' were very effective when hidden in Bocage (Hedgerows) and other such terrain like Woods which offered a good degree of camouflage especially combined with their lower profile through being turretless.

Other 'entrenched' positions also included defilade which placed the defending tank in a hull down situation (as do stone walls and the like) and urban settings (tanks were sometimes driven into buildings and structures with barrel facing outwards down streets that acted as kill zones as they funneled advancing troops and vehicles, not to mention reducing the likelihood of flank and rear shots on the defending tank).

While it is true, there are circumstances where a tank might have a particularly advantageous tactical position, and wish to sit tight while the enemy comes to them, it VERY likely got there because it was able to move and have sufficient lines of fire in the open, and not be trundling along through dense trees or confined to a narrow street.

I think you're picturing a more fluid defence than actually existed in most instances in Western Europe from '44 onwards (if we were talking about the North African Desert or the Soviet Steppes then I might be more inclined to agree with you).

A defender might have hours, even days in which to setup an entrenched defence. When a force controls a town or area of wood uncontested it's not that difficult to get armour into defensive positions to cover the likely approaches. The problem lies with the attacker that has to negotiate these obstacles under fire where every second counts.

That's why I think BotB recognising that defending armour ought to be granted defensive advantages from the terrain is quite reasonable.

[s_Mylo]

Yoj,

Points well presented and taken. I would have to concede that yes, armour in BotB can benefit from being in a defensive posture based on it's ability to camaflage / occupy buildings / defilade / hull down / etc as you mention and that yes, perhaps they should receive the terrain absorbtion bonus in terrain, ...with the exception ... of heavy woods and cities. I simply feel that armour/tanks are at too great a mobile disadvantage in these two terrain types in order for them to receive the terrain absorbtion advantage. A player in BotB should have to decide where armoured units are best used according to armour strengths...and that thought process should include trying to keep them OUT of heavy woods/cities because if they do put them there, an attacking infantry unit had a 'better than normal' chance of inflicting damage on them.

Basically, I'm saying that BotB needs to portray the weakness (or at the very least, reduced effectiveness) of armour when in such terrain. As it stands now, armoured units are better than infantry in every way and in every terrain type. Currently, attacking an armoured unit in a city/heavy woods with infantry is suicidal....it should almost be the other way around.

Good discussion,

Mylo

[Yojimbo252]

Basically, I'm saying that BotB needs to portray the weakness (or at the very least, reduced effectiveness) of armour when in such terrain. As it stands now, armoured units are better than infantry in every way and in every terrain type. Currently, attacking an armoured unit in a city/heavy woods with infantry is suicidal....it should almost be the other way around.

Just one thing I should point out in case this may influence your view.

When we talk about an armoured division we're not just talking about tanks. Taking a German Panzer Division for example, it will certainly include one or more armoured regiments but it also included motorised infantry brigades, anti tank battalions, regimental artillery, etc.

So when defending with this combined arms approach, I would suggest an armoured division should be no less effective than an Infantry based division because if a certain tank can't make use of a particular piece of cover, non armoured elements of the division surely will.

I do accept that when used offensively, armoured divisions should not be as effective in city/heavy woods as they would be in clearer terrain but I think that is considered via the breakthrough rules.

I will however concede that there is an argument that some breakthrough restrictions ought to apply for cities as well but perhaps that's an added complication Shenandoah decided not to introduce.

In any case yes, interesting discussion.

[jeffd]

Same thing applied in the American army. Each Combat Command had a TOE strength of one battalion of light tanks, one of medium, and one of halftracked-mounted "armored infantry". Actual mileage varied, of course, but the point was that everybody's armor units had an integral infantry component and by that time in the war everybody had gotten the message about coordinating tanks and infantry. Usually the hard way. I was amazed when I found out early in the research phase of Bulge that the dreaded German panzer divisions had "only" a regiment of tanks, as opposed to two of mechanized infantry.

[BoardgamesToGo]

It was my experience playing BotB that led to this thread on BGG about infantry versus tanks (really combined arms units in different proportions versus each other).

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/914641/ ... nks-in-ww2