Slitherine

Would it be reasonable to assume that if a side wanted to reinforce it's units currently engaged in a space, that this reinforcing unit would NOT be subjected to the total brunt of the opposing units defences ? Example, If I attack 'Space A' with two units, and then decide on my next impulse, based on the outcome of that battle, that I would like to reinforce that space with a 2VG, is it right that this 2VG take on the entire defending force ? ....doesn't seem right to me. MAYBE...being attacked with 1/2 strength of opposing force...maybe.

Would it be resonable to assume that if I decide to withdraw 1 unit from 'Space A', that my remaining units are not FORCED into engaging the opposing force that is in that space ? Should I not be given the option to attack with my remaining forces ? If the opposing force wants to attack on his impulse, that's his business, but I shouldn't be forced to on the attack when all I want to do is withdraw a unit. I understand that it would take some fighting in order to withdraw, but a full on battle between forces ?? Perhaps an opposing force getting one crack at the WITHDRAWING unit using 1/2 strength would be reasonable.

....or am I venturing into 'too complicated' territory again ?

Mylo

I raised a similar point in anther thread regarding being able to withdraw a unit from battle without the remaining units having to engage the enemy.

This was the response:

We didn't want a special exception for "withdrawing with cover". If active units end up in a space with enemy units they have to fight. Otherwise you either make it easy to reinforce a defense (where 1 unit stays, one unit leaves, and another unit comes in) or start dealing with exceptions to exceptions. Tidily swapping units in and out of line was too big an advantage to the defender, and felt wrong.

I think that's reasonable not from an advantage point of view as I think that could be of benefit to either side but of not having to deal with exceptions to the rule.

It is a good point, Mylo. You can be sure we'll continue to refine the fluidity with which units and enter and leave engagements, for future games in the series. What we don't want is have each side just keep on cycling units in and out of a critical space, creating a nasty, static tar baby. And we want to keep it simple.

nkarp wrote:You can be sure we'll continue to refine the fluidity with which units and enter and leave engagements, for future games in the series.

For leaving engagements I think the easiest way to refine it for future games in the series is to not automatically activate every unit in an area when one is selected.

For entering engagements I think it's right that units should have to battle their way in.

I can understand the need to make sure players don't get 'gamey', by cycling units in and out of a space at their liesure, taking advantage of 'exceptions to the rule' ....nobody wants that, except gamey players.

I can live with an entire space being activated by a retreating unit. I would prefer something a little more realistic, but I understand the constraints and can accept them in this circumstance.

The biggest problem I have is when a space has already been battled upon, and I decide to add a little reinforcement. ...that little 2VG has to contend with the entire opposing force again, in defensive positions no less, the same force that has ALREADY battled that day. It leans a little too far on the playability side for me, and not enough on 'what could be considered reasonable'. ....are my guys who already battled in that space sitting around having coffee while my little 2VG guy is getting a full on beating, standing basically no chance of surviving, when all they wanted to do was help bolster the ranks of friendly units, and not engage in a full on assault ? I feel that this situation would better be resolved by; ...if a unit enters a space that has NOT battled that day, that it triggers the engagement, just like the game currently treats it. ...if a unit enters a space that has ALREADY battled that day, the entering of that space constitutes the entire action for that unit, and no fighting takes place. This would simulate the fact that units entering an already contested area, would need a certain amount of time to coordinate their attack with other friendly units, and opens up the option for the player to use that unit as reinforcement in defense of the space, not as a new assaulting force. Granted, this would take away from a player's ability to attack the same space from multiple different spaces in the same day, BUT, it would also resolve the issue of *why* does a defending unit get to fight on repeatedly, with it's full force, in the same day, when attacking units do not, an aspect I've never been too fond of either. The method I mention is not perfect, but a better system keeping in line with simplicity, playability, and what we could expect to be reasonable....in my opinion.

Mylo

Mylo wrote:Granted, this would take away from a player's ability to attack the same space from multiple different spaces in the same day...

That's the problem. There are often times where I want that 'reinforcing' unit to attack what's left of the enemy force.

Yoj,

....me too. Ultimately, I would like the option of being able to attack or not, when I enter a space with a unit. I was trying to suggest something that was inline with what the game designers are leaning towards, that being simplicity, playability...and such. Personally, I feel an "Attack Yes/No" button upon entering a space is a good resolve. If "Yes", then the unit is subjected to the full defense of the space, just like the game currently does. If "No", the unit is allowed to enter the space, but no combat happens.

Mylo

I'm not against the concept but I think introducing 'confirm' actions is something the developers and a lot of players want to avoid.

It also creates some added complexity where sometimes a player will be offered the choice and other times where it will be automatic. I'm not saying it would be a difficult concept to grasp but it does increase the learning curve for non wargamers which I don't think is part of Shenandoah's philosophy on this title.

I would say the Reinforcing aspect might be a little difficult to incorporate for the reasons above, but Withdrawing ought to be considered, at least for the next title especially if VPs are awarded only on elimination of the division and not on loss of strength.

I'm not big on confirm buttons either quite honestly as I like games that continue to flow with as few clicks as possible. I was thinking the "Yes/No" was the lesser of all evils, and a fairly quick and easy decision to make without stumping new players on just what it means. It would only take a new player one game to realize the value in attacking/not attacking in a particular situation, and that's without reading any rules about it.

My comments are probably not relevant to a game that is directed towards attracting players completely new to any kind of wargaming......I did that 30 years ago and so have lost that perspective....apparently.

Mylo

Mylo, your comments are relevant. You, Yojimbo and a host of others are putting forward a lot of really good ideas, are presenting some well thought out insights into the game and we appreciate and listen to them all.

It amazes me that a game that's had nearly 400,000 completed games has stood up. Certainly many paper wargames don't survive half that number without flaws or obvious fun-destroying strategies being pointed out and people losing interest. That's a testament to Johns design and the teams efforts and decisions. But theres always room for improvement and as we go along we will improve the system and adapt it to the requirements of the different battles. You and everyone else on this forum and the Geek, CSM and where ever else can and do have a direct baring on how we achieve that and I don't think we always thank you all enough.

The game is not directed towards attracting players completely new to any kind of wargaming. If you’re thinking of my line in the interview

We want to make an accessible game, one you can play with a significant other who isn’t necessarily a gamer.

this is a secondary goal. You can play with a non-gamer. Emphasis on both “you” and “can.” Making games for non-gamers is a challenge I for one don’t want to take on.

I do want to make games that actually get played, and not just admired. It’s always hard to draw the line on complexity, and no answer will be optimal for all players.

What makes 'Mylo'.....

43 years old, Professional, upper-middle class.
30+ year wargamer.
25 year computer wargamer.
WWII enthusiast, primarily Eastern Front.
Enjoy 'grognard' type games but prefer ones of 'mid-level' complexity as they move at a better pace.
Have spent untold fortunes on board and computer wargames and will continue to do so.

That's the perspective that my comments come from. ...not sure that's the designers target demographic or not but, BOtB is a game I enjoy. Minor tweaks is all BOtB needs in my opinion.

Mylo

Mylo wrote:What makes 'Mylo'.....

43 years old, Professional, upper-middle class.
30+ year wargamer.
25 year computer wargamer.
WWII enthusiast, primarily Eastern Front.
Enjoy 'grognard' type games but prefer ones of 'mid-level' complexity as they move at a better pace.
Have spent untold fortunes on board and computer wargames and will continue to do so.

That's the perspective that my comments come from. ...not sure that's the designers target demographic or not but, BOtB is a game I enjoy. Minor tweaks is all BOtB needs in my opinion.

Mylo

Kinda funny...that's my profile also...

'What's your demographic ?' would make for an interesting poll.

I'm fairly confident in saying that it will be the older crowd that gives games like BOtB staying power, or a CiC series any staying power. There are times when I wished I still had my Apple IIe to play GeoPolitique 1990 (a 'futuristic' game no less, with a good 'ol Cold War theme) on. I loved that game, wish I could find a retro version for my MacPro, my point being, dated technology means nothing to me if the game is fun. I see myself digging out BOtB years from now and playing it....if the AI is tweaked a bit...or if there are still a few 'old guys' kicking around online to play with....if my iPad still exists. The Twenty-somethings are probably onto something new by now. If I were a game designer/developer, it is my demographic that I would be trying to sell my games to. I will be buying the next in the CiC series....$10 for a game ??....seriously, that's a joke, ...couple gallons of gas where I'm from. I'd spend much more then that for a game of BOtB's quality.

Mylo

I played more hours of Panzer General than I should admit (same with xcom and Civilization). I've played about 40 or 50 BotB games so far, and am nowhere near tired of it. I'm also looking forward to future CiC games and I suspect I'll buy all of them as long as the quality level is maintained.

Ron, you added to my point very nicely.

I don't like admitting how much time I've spent playing games in my life

..... I could have REALLY ammounted to something if I would have spent that time trying to better myself.

Mylo

I like to think by having played these types of games I have bettered myself.

Yoj,

I like that comment. I have actually learned a ton by playing wargames, history only being part of that. Playing games and learning rules taught me how to study.....school certainly didn't. I taught myself BASIC computer programming just to develop a data base type of program for one of my board games.

In reflection, yes, I do agree with you......starting to be a trend.

Not sure what this has to do with retreating units but..........

Mylo

Mylo wrote:In reflection, yes, I do agree with you....
Not sure what this has to do with retreating units

Units? I thought you were retreating from your original statement.

Let me see.......let me see...original post,...oh, there it is..

Yes, I suppose I am retreating back from that statement,but it's a fighting withdraw and not an all out route.

Mylo