Mech transport veh vs infantry in buildings

[ERommel]

After playing against humans in the past few weeks my enjoyment of the game has dropped a bit when some of the game mechanics (unit characteristics that can be used to win) have become apparent. The one that stands out the most to me and the topic of this posting is the ridiculous ability of the mech transport vehicles to force a surrender of suppressed infantry in buildings.

This ability is unrealistic and I hope the game developers will consider fixing it.

Description

Suppress enemy infantry
Move a mech transport vehicle (half track) next to the suppressed enemy infantry
Shoot and voila they surrender
Move your vehicle away to where it was hiding

Characteristics such as these were effectively dealt with by games such as Spwaw by giving moving points to units. Basically the more you move the less you can shoot and vice versa. Movement also impacts accuracy. The lack of this realism in this game leads to tricks like the one I address in this posting.

3 issuers
Full movement and full shooting (steel panthers game was great for addressing these)
Suppressed Infantry in buildings surrenders too easily to mech transport vehicles with high movement capability.
Buildings should have a stronger defensive factor vs mech transport vehicles.

If the lite nature of this game does not allow for the usage of a movement point system so that mech transport vehicles are not used in the manner described above which is very disappointing and unrealistic then perhaps a simpler fix of not having infantry surrender so easily to mech transport vehicles is worth consideration. Of course this does not fix the issue of mech vehicles flying in, taking their shots of destruction, and then flying off again with no movement penalty...

For the next upgrade at least try to address this by not having infantry in buildings so easily surrender to mech transport vehicles.

Mech transport vehicles were not the norm in ww2. They were costly and reserved for elite troops. People don't realize that the majority of the German troops were on foot but when lucky in trucks of any kind. Barbarossa troops were primarily on foot and or used horse and wagon which was a primary transport in the early part of the war. Half tracks were used primarily as transport for rough terrain and in a supporting role and not as amazing flying saucers flying down streets forcing surrender to weaping yanks....

This issue results in experienced players placing their units behind a building rather than inside it. This is especially true in city scenarios. Placing your infantry in buildings will surely result in the trick described above. Buildings are treated more like walls rather than buildings which takes away from the game experience if you are interested in a game that simulates realism.

Perhaps giving buildings a stronger defense value would be another way to give this issue a quick fix.


Thank you

[pipfromslitherine]

I'll take a look at the specifics, but I think that a unit has to be quite heavily suppressed to surrender. It could be that we need to increase how the 'strength' of the adjacent unit factors into the surrender too.

On the other hand, if the enemy can march right up to a suppressed unit without being attacked, then it would need to be pretty much out on its own I imagine.

You might want to post as a query in the main forum to get more feedback from other players.

Cheers

Pip

[enric]

When I began to play BA I felt like you (ERommel) I found a lot of "features" not realistic.

After a while, I understood, BA is a funny game, with a lot of strategy, but it's not a "simulation", it's not a Squad Leader or a Steel Panther WW. So, don't play thinking in a real simulation of the WWII. Think like Chess, you have a rules, a features, and these are the same for both sides, learn the rules, the abilities, and have fun.

This, (Mech transport veh vs infantry in buildings) that for you is annoying, think at it as a feature of the game: low the morale near zero and then attack again from adjacent, and you'll get a surrender for sure. Half track are perfect for this, you're right, it's not real, but is an ability for both sides.

Games so much realistic tens to be for minorities, and if so, maybe Slitherine will drop the project and that will be the worse.
And don't forget de mods, you can change building protection, half track fire, etc...

[kingt]

Hey ERommel,

I agree with you that this is a feature that is not faithful to reality but that's how the game is played and it's not like you can't do the same.

I'll tell you why you took such a beating in the initial turns of that particular scenario, Town Fight I believe it was:

a) you didn't deploy the forces as fast as I did and did not scout areas around the flags when I did
b) because of a) you didn't take more flags and me and were forced to attack
c) I had scouts everywhere and was able to see all your infantry units
d) your attacking units were running not hunting and in certain instances fell under ambush fire
e) I was able to freely move all the transports to take shots mainly because I knew 90-95% where your units were, therefore a), and that's why I didn't take penalties
f) I moved in hunt mode as much as possible with fast units to get more damage in
g) I had troops in all buildings and others waiting to take their place so in theory I could have suppressed more with transports and take surrenders with infantry.
h) I planned my moves in such a way that I made sure I can freely advance with fast units to take on additional targets and make the most possible number of kills per turn with the shots I had. That mean making sure I don't get surprised by what's in your buildings and so on.
i) your Pumas/forward units went a long way beyond where they should have gone and were damaged if not killed by units in buildings. While in open terrain the Pumas are a great advantage, you can't really blitz a city. If I'm not mistaken you quit when one of your Pumas got ambushed. You didn't lose just infantry in those rounds, but plenty of Pumas and transports of your own, which you weren't able to utilize as I did.

I played that scenario numerous times on both sides so I know it can be won by both sides. All you have to do is use the rules of the game in your advantage. Just like in chess, whatever works for your opponent, works for you too.

What should be changed in a future update is showing the morale of the units. Instead of showing a number, show us a color, green-yellow-red, so we don't know when the unit is below 0 at which point it would surrender to a dog barking at the house. Or don't show us what happens with it after it's suppressed.

[ERommel]

At my age I'm not looking to boost my ego and tend to not be impressed with those that go out of their way to promote their own. Comments like "you can do the same" is not the sort of feedback that is helpful to the game developers that may consider the issue I raise.

I am interested in seeing this game improve in quality as I see much potential in it. A fix to correct the issue I described above would improve the game and increase the realism in my opinion. It will also make scenarios of infantry only vs mech infantry more fairly playable.

I appreciate feedback on this issue. Hopefully the developers will consider it.

[kingt]

At my age I'm not looking to boost my ego and tend to not be impressed with those that go out of their way to promote their own. Comments like "you can do the same" is not the sort of feedback that is helpful to the game developers that may consider the issue I raise.

I am interested in seeing this game improve in quality as I see much potential in it. A fix to correct the issue I described above would improve the game and increase the realism in my opinion. It will also make scenarios of infantry only vs mech infantry more fairly playable.

I appreciate feedback on this issue. Hopefully the developers will consider it.

At my age, I really don't care if I win or lose at BA or anything else for that matter. And I've lost quite a few battles myself but because of my mistakes. There are a lot of very good BA players out there, but everyone is playing by the same rules.

I just don't like it when players leave the game because of "game mechanics." That's not the first game we played, and the game mechanics you describe are certainly not at fault for you losing 15 mechanized units out of the 26 that you lost in three turns.

[ERommel]

Just a few minutes ago I completed my turn and purposefully pulled off the trick I describe in this forum to demonstrate the issue to my opponent.

Defense of the bridge scenario
I'm USA, he's Germany attacking

He assaulted and destroyed one of my tanks the previous turn using a German infantry squad
His unit most likely received a promotion for that kill but I'm not sure
That German unit had not been suppressed, totally fresh so most likely had a moral of 120
Full moral plus one kill to boot

I fired on that German squad with a single American infantry squad. 2 shots
I lowered his moral enough to see "suppressed". Wow
I moved my mechanized transport at full speed (not at hunting like the dude above claims is necessary) to the square next to the German infantry squad and fired my first shot. Voila. The German squad that had a moral of 125 points the turn before and had just destroyed a tank surrendered. There was no other suppression of any type. No mortar or arti.

I Returned the mech vehicle halftrack to where it was before.

I hope that the developers will address this issue as believe that it will turn people off this game. A quick fix would be to to improve the defense power of buildings. Buildings especially destroyed ones posed a serious challenge to attacking forces. Indeed destroyed buildings were credited as one of the contributing factors in the failure of German forces to take Stalingrad...for those of you interested in history.

King, no need to feel defensive. No one is talking about quitting this game....just improving the playability.

[kingt]

That German unit had not been suppressed, totally fresh so most likely had a moral of 120
Full moral plus one kill to boot

That would be 125. You get 25 with your first bonus if you are at 100 to start, assuming it's regular infantry.

I fired on that German squad with a single American infantry squad. 2 shots
I lowered his moral enough to see "suppressed". Wow
I moved my mechanized transport at full speed (not at hunting like the dude above claims is necessary) to the square next to the German infantry squad and fired my first shot. Voila. The American squad that was over 100 moral points the turn before and had just destroyed a tank surrendered. There was no other suppression of any type. No mortar or arti.

That dude doesn't claim that it's necessary. He hunts in cities to make the most of the two available shots (more damage when hunting) which allows him to engage two enemies, especially when he knows what's in almost every single building in front.

Surrenders takes place when morale is under 0. Can that be achieved with three shots? Yes. Will the unit surrender? Yes. Tanks also surrender when under 0. Even if a dog would bark at them from a neighboring tile. So then if the "infantry in buildings surrendering to mech" bug should be fixed then I guess "tanks surrendering under 0" are next?

I hope that the developers will address this. As mentioned a quick fix would be to improve the defense power of buildings.

Making buildings stronger would not solve it.

The real problem is that the unit is showing the morale value for the enemy. The dude above would not go after surrender in case he didn't know the value. He'd still fire from the distance until the unit gets at -100 in such a city scenario.

King, no need to feel defensive. No one is talking about quitting this game....just improving the playability.

I'm not actually, I'm just saying you aren't getting the game yet. But once you learn how to coordinate attacks in MP games, you'll find ways to cope with the way surrenders are played, both when you're attacking and when you're defending.

[ERommel]

The issue of the morale number being displayed is also an issue but not the one I raised in my posting which it seems you are making your home.

I described how I was able to force a surrender of a fully moralled infantry unit in a building that had just destroyed my tank. All it took was 3 shots. 2 shots from my German infantry 3 squares away plus a single shot from the halftrack I moved adjacent to the German squad (which was not assaulted because my 2 shots from infantry managed to suppress) wow.

This is totally ridiculous and should be corrected in my opinion. What I am interested in is to improve playability and to get opinions from many players. I agree with you that the showing of the enemy morale should be done away with. I'm also hoping that some improvement can be added to buildings. I would like for buildings to provide better protection to infantry so that infantry hiding in buildings, even when suppressed do not easily surrender. The lite version of this game may not allow it but it would be cool, for example, if only when there are no escape squares do units in buildings surrender. Just a thought.

You've given your opinion now go and play with your game.

[IainMcNeil]

Hi ERommel. I understand the issues you are seeing and can see why you think it is gamey. We did have the game working as you suggested where action points were shared between movement and shooting. The issue was it made attacking almost impossible as you have to advance a few tiles a turn to save shots to fire and made the game very dull.

I can see why you might like to change the way this works but the reality is the game ends up being much less interesting and fun if you make these changes and we definitely wont be changing this back.

One option might be to say that infantry in cover don't surrender to vehicles when their morale drops to 0, but instead they have to drop to -100 as if they were in a bunker. That for me would be a much better fix that would not break any of the playability but would avoid these odd situations.

This would dramatically change the way the game plays. If anyone want to mod their files and have a play and see how this feels I'd be interested to know.

[ERommel]

Hi ERommel. I understand the issues you are seeing and can see why you think it is gamey. We did have the game working as you suggested where action points were shared between movement and shooting. The issue was it made attacking almost impossible as you have to advance a few tiles a turn to save shots to fire and made the game very dull.

I can see why you might like to change the way this works but the reality is the game ends up being much less interesting and fun if you make these changes and we definitely wont be changing this back.

One option might be to say that infantry in cover don't surrender to vehicles when their morale drops to 0, but instead they have to drop to -100 as if they were in a bunker. That for me would be a much better fix that would not break any of the playability but would avoid these odd situations.

This would dramatically change the way the game plays. If anyone want to mod their files and have a play and see how this feels I'd be interested to know.

Thank you for the prompt response and I appreciate you considering the issue I raised. A bunker should be stronger than a building though so if a building is -100 then a bunker could be -150 or -200 for example. Would it be possible to reduce the movement capability of half tracks as well? Considering that the maps are relatively small to begin with there is no need for them to have a large movement capability. This would not cause to much issue with tactics but it would definitely reduce the usage of halftracks being used the way I described.

I suggest

1) Reducing the movement of halftracks
2) increasing the number required for a surrender to -100 in buildings and further increasing the number for bunkers to -150 or -200 to ensure that bunkers maintain their status vs buildings.

Another member above suggested doing away with the displaying of the morality score of enemy units. I Agee with him. It would add to the fog of war which will increase realism.

Once again thank you for considering my suggestions. I really like what you have done with the game. I purchased all steel panthers games when they were first released in the 1990s and then switched over to Spwaw. I now play the windows version which I bought a few years ago. It is because of iPad that I decided to purchase your game. In the 80s I played board games including squad leader and even entered a few competitions of miniatures, half the fun was painting those things and designing the diorama.....those were the days.

[IainMcNeil]

Hiding the morale is maybe something to add as an option as it dramatically changes the game play and you get sound cues anyway so it would just make it really important to listen which could be frustrating.

We're looking at the surrender issue and seeing if we can make it better without breaking the gameplay elsewhere.

[pomakli]

Hello Ian,

would be there a possibility "for free to choose" before the game starts, a "hiding morale"-chance?

"On demand"!

İf you don't want to see, push the button!

[pipfromslitherine]

To keep you guys informed, we have just implemented a change to the surrender mechanics. This change means that a unit's chance to surrender is based on both their morale and the strength of the unit adjacent. This means that surrendering to a heavy tank is very likely, but surrendering to a halftrack or other light vehicle will be much more a gamble for the attacking player, unless they are will to spend the additional time and resources to further reduce their morale.

Cheers

Pip

[johntindall]

Makes sense. Becomes effective in the next update, I presume?

[pipfromslitherine]

Correct, will go live as part of the next update. We are hoping to get a beta test going for the next expansion just after Xmas.

Cheers

Pip

[Interstate40]

Here's a thought - remove the giveaways that units being fired upon are actually suppressed. Would the firing side know whether the units they are firing upon are actually suppressed? Probably not. Similarly, while its kinda fun to hear cries of 'the blood!' and 'we're doomed!" as a sign that the receiving units are screwed, its totally unrealistic and allows the other side to assault with impunity.

How about offering the option to hide the opposition morale count and suppression alerts within the game? That way each side would have to think carefully about sliding that half track up to the house that's suddenly gone quiet...

[pipfromslitherine]

I think it works reasonably at the moment from a gameplay point of view. It is frustrating to not see any effects from your actions for sure. But as you say, we also don't give you absolute knowledge of (e.g.) hidden units, so it's a balance.

Cheers

Pip