Slitherine

arcticpost wrote:No technicality my man, just a beatdown. Maybe you're confusing our Hillman for our ME Redux?

Yup, methinks our Aussie mate is too modest after giving us both a beasting!!

arcticpost wrote:Evidently I need to try this whole "swap" thing.

Hey Arctic, Try a BA forum search for "swap places".

Unit "swap" and "merge" are two commands created by modder par excellence rf900.
You'll find it in rf900's Saving Private Brian, GJS'44, Amaris' Ortona, Fast & Sneaky, etc.

Select one of your units, then point the cursor over another adjacent friendly unit.
You'll see a new swap icon. Click it and your two units will swap positions.

Nope, you can't make illegal moves, like swapping panzers into forests or houses, lol!
But it's really handy if you want to squeeze around other troops between obstacles, on bridges, etc, to get multiple shots on a target (like JT's invincible StuGs! ).

I think Slith is considering include swap and merge in the coming update to BA...

PS. Merge is awesome too, but we didn't include it in GJS'44 because merging confuses BA's KIA count, which we use as the check for unit carryover for the full campaign... Sorry.

Thanks for the info Jon. jt and I started an Ortona last night (what a lovely map) so I'll look more closely at the "swap" option there and in Hillman. I've noticed the icon but not been ready to try it, but its time to begin adding something new to my development.

Does "swap" affect AP?

I think a swap move consumes AP as if it were a normal move over a single square... It's definitely not for free, sorry...

Thanks. Didn't expect it to be....

arcticpost wrote:Thanks. Didn't expect it to be....

Game started: arcticpost (Allies) vs jcb989 (Germans)
Game started: jcb989 (Allies) vs arcticpost (Germans)

arcticpost wrote:Does "swap" affect AP?

Yes it does. And, the AP cost is proportional to the units.
e.g., with full starting AP points, I accidentally swapped a scout and a sherman, lo and behold the sherman was done moving that turn.
I guess the 5-man crew all got out and helped the poor 4-man scout squad.

p-u-u-u-u-u-sh!!

Gotcha. Thanks for the example; that makes sense. If its our game I'll gladly send some of the boys to help. They're a little clumsy so the Sherman might have a few dings, a couple scrapes, a missing track or two when done....

LMAO... Yes, Arctic's vehicle service chaps have a bit of a reputation...
Hadn't realised "swap" move cost was proportional tho?... Thought it was always approximately 8 AP... Will have to keep an eye on that next time I use it...
Btw Jcb, your swapping an 88 over the river in our Buron game was a total masterstroke!! Huge ouch for me (and for my 2 Cromwells, M5 and a Bren sadly).

Gents, now that most of us have started >5 Hillman battles, please let me know your vote in a quick player poll...

PLAYER POLL: Do you prefer larger force pools (eg. 38 units from the Hillman tourney map; +ve Multiple attack/defence strategies on single map, +ve Realistically balanced forces with lots of infantry, -ve Easy to forget what's going on, -ve Painful to deploy everything at the start) or smaller force pools (eg. 20-25 units each from the typical GJS'44 campaign maps; +ve/-ve Simpler strategies, +ve Easy/fast to deploy, -ve Harder to balance realistically with enough infantry for all of the various support troops)

THANK YOU... I'll use your feedback to build into our Carpiquet and Caen maps...

I'm partial to the idea of my having 38 and you having 20-25....

My preference is for quantities being matched closely to how they actually were, so a massive, for example, German force in Caen and a smaller Allied one, would be met with the same thing in the scenario. If a scenario calls for 30 Allied units and 40 German units then it calls for 30 and 40, etc., if Carpiquet calls for 15-20 on each side then it'd be 15-20 each side. I have no idea how difficult that is for you as the creator, so if its better to say large force or small force, I go with large force.

Thank you for asking.

Two games finished.

1. Allies (johntindall) defeated by Germans (joncorcuera).

Knowing the Germans need to spread out, I tried a mass infantry assault on the Watchtowers, with most of my armour going up the right flank.

Jon's mortars and bunkers decimated the infantry and 88s stopped the armour at the River Crossing. His swift repositioning and counterattack was another key factor.

2. Allies (johntindall) surrendered to Germans (jcb989). Outgunned as usual. Took the River Crossing but had insufficient force to get another flag and hold onto it.

After several games as Allies and no wins, am really looking forward to restoring some self-esteem as Germans!

GottaLove88s wrote:Gents, now that most of us have started >5 Hillman battles, please let me know your vote in a quick player poll...

PLAYER POLL: Do you prefer larger force pools (eg. 38 units from the Hillman tourney map; +ve Multiple attack/defence strategies on single map, +ve Realistically balanced forces with lots of infantry, -ve Easy to forget what's going on, -ve Painful to deploy everything at the start) or smaller force pools (eg. 20-25 units each from the typical GJS'44 campaign maps; +ve/-ve Simpler strategies, +ve Easy/fast to deploy, -ve Harder to balance realistically with enough infantry for all of the various support troops)

THANK YOU... I'll use your feedback to build into our Carpiquet and Caen maps...

From a gameplay perspective, with so many players in this tournament, smaller forces are easier to remember what's going on. From a historical perspective, am happy to go with what represents actual forces best. In summary, I don't mind.

GottaLove88s wrote:LMAO... Yes, Arctic's vehicle service chaps have a bit of a reputation...
Hadn't realised "swap" move cost was proportional tho?... Thought it was always approximately 8 AP... Will have to keep an eye on that next time I use it...
Btw Jcb, your swapping an 88 over the river in our Buron game was a total masterstroke!! Huge ouch for me (and for my 2 Cromwells, M5 and a Bren sadly).

Yes, it was tragic, wasn't it. What's worse is, the German commander made sure it was Volkspeople that did the hard labor.
Will no one come to the aide of German people?

Maybe "proportional" is too strong a word, but there is some effect from having lesser men in a unit get out and push. lol.

GottaLove88s wrote:Gents, now that most of us have started >5 Hillman battles, please let me know your vote in a quick player poll...

PLAYER POLL: Do you prefer larger force pools (eg. 38 units from the Hillman tourney map; +ve Multiple attack/defence strategies on single map, +ve Realistically balanced forces with lots of infantry, -ve Easy to forget what's going on, -ve Painful to deploy everything at the start) or smaller force pools (eg. 20-25 units each from the typical GJS'44 campaign maps; +ve/-ve Simpler strategies, +ve Easy/fast to deploy, -ve Harder to balance realistically with enough infantry for all of the various support troops)

THANK YOU... I'll use your feedback to build into our Carpiquet and Caen maps...

I prefer some sort of historical context for force selection and total sizing, followed by gameplay balancing via your discretion as tourney master.
If I had to choose between LARGE and SMALL force sizes outright, though, I would pick LARGE, as the smaller force games I find tend to end in stalemates of sorts and more linear strategic approaches on both sides, as they try to limit loss of critical unit counts.

jcb989 wrote: I prefer some sort of historical context for force selection and total sizing, followed by gameplay balancing via your discretion as tourney master.
If I had to choose between LARGE and SMALL force sizes outright, though, I would pick LARGE, as the smaller force games I find tend to end in stalemates of sorts and more linear strategic approaches on both sides, as they try to limit loss of critical unit counts.

Well put.

As BA focuses on the granular, tactical, battle level (i.e. as opposed to War in the East, War in the Pacific and so on), my initial view would lean towards forces based on historical context on a per historical battle/BA map basis. However, such a view needs to be tempered.
The Allies had, after the first 24 hours, ‘sustainable mass’, in the main motivated forces but most importantly had air superiority. Air superiority enabled an armour-air partnership (long before pioneered by the Germans as part of the Blitzkrieg, combined arms, model) that allowed the ‘taxi rank’ of Allied fighter bombers (Jabo) to be vectored onto German armour and units in real time – from 6 June onwards. In fact, following experiences in the Italian campaign, Allied tanks were equipped with relevant comms in order to act as FACs – in essence providing Allied tanks (for example) with a virtual second/third main gun. This ability not only destroyed/disrupted spotted German units but also disrupted/stalled German movement and impacted German morale.

Allied air superiority also allowed real time recon – as part of interdiction, vectored missions and or roaming missions.

So, firstly, if we were to adopt an ‘historical context model, Allied BA forces would have 1...n air missions available per BA battle map, i.e. deployed and engaging within the turn. Accurate in terms of historical context, but would probably reduce ‘playability’.

Secondly, German forces were demoralised, short of supply and had limited daylight movement – therefore adopting a historical context would reduce German unit morale unit values (except for ‘elite units’) and limit ammunition supply. Historically correct, but again playability compromised. The only German strengths lay in defence or counterattack.

In summary, I would suggest a compromise between small and large force pools (on a per side basis) to promote playability, but logically (upwardly) based on the historical context of the particular BA battle/map. But, I still think the Allied air superiority capabilities should be available – conversely, the values of German elite units (e.g. 88’s, panzers, Waffen SS – and their historical commanders) should also be raised to reflect their historical battle/map successes.

Allies (JohnTindall) accepted surrender of Germans (leci).

'Too many breaches', the German commander confessed. As the surrender happened just before 15:00, the surprised (but grateful) Allied commander then invited his counterpart to tea and scones.

(proves that even a Burnsides like me can get lucky sometimes)

Thanks for your feedback guys...

So, in order of preference, you'd like your battles designed...
1. Keep it real (as historically accurate as possible)
2. Mismatched forces are ok, so long as it doesn't harm playability
3. You like strategic complexity/tactical flexibility (larger forces with more options)

In which case, you're going to love Carpiquet... it's a smaller German force, but they're mostly SS elites... In reality, they defeated wave after wave of Canadians, until there was nobody left to pop shells in their 88s... The airfield itself is mostly open ground (good for 88s) but there isn't much cover in the centre (HMS Rodney provides naval bombardment)... And although the periphery has few good access points, there's a lot of it to defend...

Different challenges for both sides... but should be a lot of fun...

arcticpost wrote:I'm partial to the idea of my having 38 and you having 20-25....

LMAO... You will get your wish (or something similar) in Carpiquet...