Slitherine

Granfali wrote:.A more detailed damage system on tanks.
-Gun damaged
-Mg damaged
-Vehicle inmobilized

.ATGs, AAGs and IGs move 1 tile per turn

.Pivot movements cost APs for vehicles. It gives turret tanks a real advantage vs non turret vehicles.

.Infantry receiving fire by side or rear caught extra morale drop.

.Once spent 2 shots of reaction fire phase, give defending unit some chance to fire again (although very little, 5%, 10%, 15%... just to prevent the enemy from moving blithely with 100% possibility that anybody can't shot it).

More incoming... let me think

+1 also.
With crew for vehicules.

Ah, and multi-story/level buildings!

I know it will be difficult to find a way to allow in-house fights, but I trust you guys completely - say this each morning in front of the mirror: 'Yes, we can!'

Is this going to have the mods from BA built into this version?
Such as swap and merge units?

Please, consider differentiate turret and hull in tank models, or upper and lower hull in non-turreted vehicles (stugs, hetzers, jagdpanzers...).

Hull down positions were decisive during tank vs tank combat. So we need different heights and real walls to achieve that advantage position.

Granfali makes a really good point about "hull down" armour models...

And, theoretically, it's quite easy to do with BA...
If a panzer is waiting on one side of a shallow slope, it should enjoy some sort of defence advantage versus an enemy on top of that slope, in the open...
However, it should also have a shorter LOS and less firing range than the enemy on higher ground...
That would be great!

- swap and merge, I think that we will definitely be including these.

- multi-level buildings. It's not something currently in the plan, but then again we might need it to do interesting street-fighting. I think it is more likely we have buildings which can act as hills, so you only fight on one level, but you gain height advantage when in them.

- hull and turret. I think that we might well add in some modelling of this. It could definitely help to give people more of an idea of what we currently model using stats. I also like the idea of making turns cost for non-turreted units, but we would need to make sure it didn't hurt their utility too much.

Thanks for all the good ideas .

Cheers

Pip

pipfromslitherine wrote:- swap and merge, I think that we will definitely be including these.

Yay!! Strike one for rf900. Will be awesome to have this in for BA2 core.

pipfromslitherine wrote:- multi-level buildings. It's not something currently in the plan, but then again we might need it to do interesting street-fighting. I think it is more likely we have buildings which can act as hills, so you only fight on one level, but you gain height advantage when in them.

Hmm, interesting. Treating certain buildings as different types of hills is a really smart way to give towered buildings extra functionality. Greater LOS. Greater range. Defence advantages. Love it!

pipfromslitherine wrote:- hull and turret. I think that we might well add in some modelling of this. It could definitely help to give people more of an idea of what we currently model using stats. I also like the idea of making turns cost for non-turreted units, but we would need to make sure it didn't hurt their utility too much.

Hull down could be modelled into accuracy modifiers for defenders (or for avoiding reaction fire), after all, it's a defence advantage. The hard part is going to be the LOS analysis to calculate when something is "hull down" to its target (way beyond me, for sure, but probably a walk in the park for you guys! ). Making StuGs spend AP to turn sounds fair. Maybe 2 points per turn, rather than the 4 points for a regular move?

pipfromslitherine wrote:Thanks for all the good ideas .

Cheers

Pip

Thanks for keeping us in the loop, Pip... We're pretty much addicted to most things that you guys do... and, yup, we have our hard earned cash ready for BA2!!

Excellent news .Can't wait to buy one copy

Trenches, tunnels and foxholes would be great.

Ability to model Tanks with more than one turret. ie M3 General Lee & Grant, would also be great. Then we could have battleships etc

robert1025 wrote:Hello.
Great news. BA2 will be released at the same time on the pc and ipad?

Almost certainly be released together, yes.

Cheers

Pip

pipfromslitherine wrote:
Almost certainly be released together, yes.

Cheers

Pip

Yes, yes, yes.

thanks for the reply Pip

Robert

Glad that you guys decided to take the plunge. Eastern Front is actually MORE popular with most tank vs. tank folks. The matchups are more interesting for the most part.

While my fav. theater remains Western Europe 1944 and Afrika Korps 40-43, the Eastern Front is by far the more impressive for recreating tank duels ....

Being a gunner myself, I'd like to see some artillery effects.

It's great you are including artillery spotters (a job I loved) to provide accurate artillery fire. Might I suggest 'loosening' up the current fire, it seems way to accurate for just regular infantry to call in. Predictive fire would also fall into that 'loose' category (ie. no spotters, gunners just firing off a map...tends to fall a little less accurate).

I'd love to see 'registered targets'. These would be selected by the player at the time of deployment and would be guessed fire zones (ie. a crossroad is a good choice thinking the enemy might be coming through there at some point). A few of these spots could be selected. Then, if the player calls down any on or off-board artillery the reaction time would be reduced by a turn as the guns would be able to quickly swing on to the target having already recorded the spot.

I'd also like to see a bit of a delay in firing with on board artillery in an indirect role. It takes a bit of time to calculate where to shoot when you can't see the enemy (again, spotters would have more accurate fire, but it would still take time...the 'recorded target' above would be the only thing to speed that up).

I think these additions could go a long way to making artillery more reflective of how they actually work. While they would still be deadly (most casualties in the war were a result of artillery) they won't be as crazy deadly as they currently are.

Brummbar44 wrote:Being a gunner myself, I'd like to see some artillery effects.

It's great you are including artillery spotters (a job I loved) to provide accurate artillery fire. Might I suggest 'loosening' up the current fire, it seems way to accurate for just regular infantry to call in. Predictive fire would also fall into that 'loose' category (ie. no spotters, gunners just firing off a map...tends to fall a little less accurate).

I'd love to see 'registered targets'. These would be selected by the player at the time of deployment and would be guessed fire zones (ie. a crossroad is a good choice thinking the enemy might be coming through there at some point). A few of these spots could be selected. Then, if the player calls down any on or off-board artillery the reaction time would be reduced by a turn as the guns would be able to quickly swing on to the target having already recorded the spot.

I'd also like to see a bit of a delay in firing with on board artillery in an indirect role. It takes a bit of time to calculate where to shoot when you can't see the enemy (again, spotters would have more accurate fire, but it would still take time...the 'recorded target' above would be the only thing to speed that up).

I think these additions could go a long way to making artillery more reflective of how they actually work. While they would still be deadly (most casualties in the war were a result of artillery) they won't be as crazy deadly as they currently are.

I second the motion. Some sort of smoke animation with ground parts flying up, tree splinters for woods hits, that would be nice!

Brummbar44 wrote:Being a gunner myself, I'd like to see some artillery effects.

It's great you are including artillery spotters (a job I loved) to provide accurate artillery fire. Might I suggest 'loosening' up the current fire, it seems way to accurate for just regular infantry to call in. Predictive fire would also fall into that 'loose' category (ie. no spotters, gunners just firing off a map...tends to fall a little less accurate).

I'd love to see 'registered targets'. These would be selected by the player at the time of deployment and would be guessed fire zones (ie. a crossroad is a good choice thinking the enemy might be coming through there at some point). A few of these spots could be selected. Then, if the player calls down any on or off-board artillery the reaction time would be reduced by a turn as the guns would be able to quickly swing on to the target having already recorded the spot.

I'd also like to see a bit of a delay in firing with on board artillery in an indirect role. It takes a bit of time to calculate where to shoot when you can't see the enemy (again, spotters would have more accurate fire, but it would still take time...the 'recorded target' above would be the only thing to speed that up).

I think these additions could go a long way to making artillery more reflective of how they actually work. While they would still be deadly (most casualties in the war were a result of artillery) they won't be as crazy deadly as they currently are.

Nice ideas. I think having the ability to perhaps turn them on and off would be good, as less knowledgeable players might have a steep learning curve on all the various ins and outs. But it would definitely add a layer of realism.

Cheers

Pip

I do like the suggestions of using some type of AP to turn a turret-less armor unit and modeling hull-down positions for tanks.

In the main forum there was a proposal to re-use enemy equipment (eg captured machine guns, mortars).

This may be an option to upgrade infantry's firepower (like German paratroopers in the first "Operation Mercury" scenario), making partisans more deadly (eg ambush transports).

Bailed-out tank crews could take over enemy tanks. Personally I don't like this, so... you could have a bailed-out crew become a dismounted infantry squad and (if they survive the scenario), carried over into a subsequent scenario when they're given a replacement tank. Sort of how losses are "carried over" in the Market Garden scenario, but in reverse (you get to replace some strength).

johntindall wrote: Bailed-out tank crews could take over enemy tanks. Personally I don't like this, so... you could have a bailed-out crew become a dismounted infantry squad and (if they survive the scenario), carried over into a subsequent scenario when they're given a replacement tank. Sort of how losses are "carried over" in the Market Garden scenario, but in reverse (you get to replace some strength).

I struggle with this one too, not in favor of captured units really, again unless they get captured and show up next scenario as a carry-over?
But I like the idea for bailed-out crews only objective is to get away so they can carry-over to a replacement tank, if the crew survives or, maybe, if they reach some reorg flag objective in your rear before turns ends.

Speaking of which, how about an HQ unit on the map? Then it could be, Get back to HQ to get a replacement tank.. next turn or this turn depending on progression/scenarios. I was thinking about Russian conscripts showing up to battles without any rifles, that will be a downer lol.

A more precise Hold Fire

Range to begin fire
Kind of target to ignore
etc.