Suggestions for BotB

[s_Mylo]

Yoj,

Yes, I was making an effort to keep clear in my mind that we are talking about armoured units and not just tanks. ....however... it is the tanks / SP guns / AT Gun / motorized units in particular within the armoured units that would suffer drastically from a heavy woods/city terrain type and I would have to say that the entire unit would suffer as a result to the point of being at a disadvantage in the event of combat vs an infantry unit. The armoured unit wouldn't be totally ineffective (as a result of the 'non tank' units), which is why they would still be able to defend in a BotB game, just not defend with any bonuses, such as, terrain absorbtion from heavy woods/city.

Again, the main reason why I would like to see some sort of change in this area is to provide an armoured unit with 'some' sort of weakness instead of being omni powerful in game.

Mylo

[Yojimbo252]

Again, the main reason why I would like to see some sort of change in this area is to provide an armoured unit with 'some' sort of weakness instead of being omni powerful in game.

The thing is historically Armoured divisions were extremely powerful. Far more powerful than Infantry divisions on the offensive and no less effective when defending.

About the only circumstances where armoured divisions were less effective were during amphibious landings or in mountainous regions (and they naturally couldn't participate in airbourne operations) but now we're talking about marginal situations that usually call for specialist troop types and tactics.

I mean no disrespect but if you're looking for some sort of rock/paper/scissors within the game as we might see with say infantry/cavalry/archers in a game that represents the ancient period, I just don't think that would fit WWII. Generally speaking Armoured divisions were superior to Infantry divisions in virtually every respect.

[daviddunham]

I would like to … provide an armoured unit with 'some' sort of weakness instead of being omni powerful in game.

I’m not going to claim to be a WW2 expert, but it occurs to me that the weakness is actually out of the game. Armor is more expensive to create. But in the context of Bulge, the creation has already been done. So some pieces really are better than others (much as a chess queen is better than a bishop). That’s just the historical reality of this particular situation (since Bulge is not an abstract game like chess).

[s_Mylo]

It could be the definition of 'Heavy Woods' that leads us to differing opinions. When I think of heavy woods, I think of forested areas that are impossible for armour to traverse except for roads/clearings, the bulk of their forces simply not able to move around enough to defend themselves effectively. There has to be a reason why commanders were very hesitant to commit their armoured units to heavily wooded/city terrain types IRL, I'm thinking it's due to substantial decrease in mobility, being confined primarily to roads, it is why an offensive through the Ardennes was considered 'impossible' by Allied command, and one of the reasons the Offensive came as such a surprise. German units pulled it off because they were able to use the limited road network in a non combat situation...and even then, it was plagued with road jam problems, imagine what it would have been like under fire. I would suggest that commanders would not have concern for committing their armoured units to heavy woods if their units were better to infantry in every way. By 'committed', I'm talking about having to defend the area.

As for cities, I do think that commanders would prefer to have infantry both attack and defend this terrain type, again for mobility reasons, leading me to believe that they feel their armoured units are not better in every way then their infantry units. I am suggesting that there are terrain circumstances, heavy woods and cities, where armoured units are not better, in every way, then infantry units, but that the BotB game does not reflect this.

I am not looking for 'rock/paper/scissors/' gameplay in BotB just for the sake of a ....rock/paper/scissors game. I would say though, that in heavy woods/cities, an infantry unit just might become the 'rock' and the armour the 'scissors' if the armour unit couldn't move around well enough.

The point was made that the 'strenth/weakness' of armour vs. infantry lies in the production of the unit, and in that I mostly agree, and perhaps it is true, that both the Allies and Germans, if presented with the option, would commit armoured units to heavy woods/cities if they in fact had the armoured units to do it with, I'm not sure I can argue this. If a commander could pick any type of unit he wanted to defend a heavy woods/city terrain type, ....would it be an armoured unit ??? I can say what MY decision would be, but I suppose the BotB game shouldn't be catered to the way I think it should be.

After much enjoyed banter back and forth on this topic, I would like to retract my comment about armour not receiving terrain absorbtion bonus in the BotB game. When it comes right down to it, armour might very well be the unit of choice in defending these areas, I wasn't there, was never in command of an army, and therefor can not say for certain. I can only express my opinion, and like I said, my opinion shouldn't be what determines game play in BotB. Thanks for the discussion.

Mylo

[Yojimbo252]

The point was made that the 'strenth/weakness' of armour vs. infantry lies in the production of the unit, and in that I mostly agree, and perhaps it is true, that both the Allies and Germans, if presented with the option, would commit armoured units to heavy woods/cities if they in fact had the armoured units to do it with, I'm not sure I can argue this. If a commander could pick any type of unit he wanted to defend a heavy woods/city terrain type, ....would it be an armoured unit ??? I can say what MY decision would be, but I suppose the BotB game shouldn't be catered to the way I think it should be.

You raise a very valid point here that strikes upon tactics within BotB.

Obviously if a commander has unlimited resources at their disposal, it's very likely they would choose to defend with armour rather than infantry and that's irrespective of the terrain. But with fixed orders of battle and resource constraints they must decide how to make the most of the forces they have.

Let's look at the main differences between Armour and Infantry from a combat perspective and how this influences their ability to defend (all +X% expressed as percentage points):

Armour have a base chance to hit of 40% whereas Infantry have 30%. So a +10% chance to inflict more casualties. However this doesn't have a direct influence on whether the defender will hold the area that impulse or not through being eliminated or forced to retreat.

(Ok you could say indirectly it might decrease the attacking strength for subsequent days or allow the attacker to counter attack during their impulse to repulse the invading force but that's also dependent on whether the attacker has fresh troops that can follow up etc. So for the sake of argument let's just say that the +10% firepower doesn't significantly influence the ability of the defender to hold the area at that point in time).

Troops receive a -10% penalty attacking Armour. This does directly influence the defenders ability to hold the area but the bonus can be conferred to any friendly Infantry defending in the same area. So it only takes 1 Armoured unit to trigger the bonus which Infantry will also benefit from.

The breakthrough ability is not applicable when defending.

The increased movement speed of Armour is irrelevant when defending.

Elite status for Armour confers no bonus when defending.

Elite status for Infantry confers a bonus when defending (if at least half the defending force is elite).

So what does all this mean?

Generally speaking...

1) Armour is more effective when used on the offence rather than defence as they can utilise more of their benefits. (I think we probably already guessed that).

2) Infantry is more effective when defending rather than attacking especially when occupying terrain that offers cover bonuses.

3) A combined force of at least 1 Armoured unit and 1-2 Infantry units is more 'cost effective' when defending than a purely Infantry or Armoured force, and especially so where at least half the Inf are elite.

So going back to your original question "If a commander could pick any type of unit he wanted to defend a heavy woods/city terrain type, ....would it be an armoured unit" I would answer "yes" if we were looking at just the defence of that area in isolation.

But when considering the bigger picture and how best to utilise the forces you have to compliment your overall strategy the decision is less straight forward.

[s_Mylo]

....and to that, I agree 100%. It took this discussion for me to realize that armour deserves the terrain absorbtion benefits....because at the end of the day, a player only has so many armoured units, and do you really prefer to have them sitting around defending ??? ....I think not.

Mylo

[boone737]

Ok, here's a topical suggestion, but one off from the current discussion.

Instead of an on-off switch for in-game sounds, can it be a volume slider?

I love the sound effects, but my family hates winter and they say the wind noise makes them feel cold (how's that for an endorsement for how well you nailed it!) if I could just lower the volume within the game, I could still keep the volume high enough on the iPad to hear the tank tracks from across the room when an opponent makes a move. (My family is also calling me Pavlov's dog, since every time I hear the message center alert, I run to the iPad. Another endorsement, perhaps?)

Thanks.

[blahblah3502]

I love the winter sounds. they're even more intense through earphones