Slitherine

Hi!
Would you consider adding non-historical scenarios in an update?
The reason I ask is because I feel the game system is great but is not properly demonstrated by the two historical scenarios. Some units are simply irrelevant because of their initial placement relative to the objectives and the time constraints. Also, the game is very asymmetrical: Allies must hold and pass most of the time, which can get a bit boring.
I have just been playing for one day so correct me if my analysis is wrong.

There is a world of difference between playing the AI and playing against other gamers, and the two scenarios are also very different in feel. If defending bores you, then switch sides and attack! But the longer scenario asks both players to play both roles as initially the Axis attacks and the Allies defend, but gradually, and dramatically, the situation and the initiative changes, and the Axis must defend against powerful Allied counteroffensives. Learning the game first requires a player to master the steps in establishing a solid defense, and on the flip side, the roller coaster ride that is the attacker's lot. You will witness a range of results as the "dice" are rolled, so sometimes solid play goes awry, and desperate moves sometimes pay off. There are some very stuble, but significant game effects built into the way the map areas are jig-sawed together, and in the terrain effects that are layered thereover.

Thanks for sharing that. Indeed, I have not had the opportunity to play against someone else yet.
Also I couldn't experience the late turns of the longer scenario because the AI just wasn't smart enough to resist that long.

Actually I would love to be able to continue after the final deadline to see how long it does take to meet the objectives. A simple "Continue?" Request would be great, but accept this may not be possible due to the timelines.

There is actually a whole book of alternative history variants on the Battle -- we are looking it over to see if any make sense as additional scenarios:

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Bulge-Hitl ... lternative

But mostly we're focused on real history and real battles. El Alamein is "on deck"!

That would be awesome. Thanks!

El Alamein sounds excellent, operation market garden and battle of Kursk would also suit the game system. Excellent game, hope texts scenarios are available sometime soon, historical or alternative.

Stalingrad, Stalingrad, Stalingrad!

Yes more scenarios please! The game is beautiful and addictive but I've already burned through both scenarios. I understand how much work was involved in creating the first game ... developing the engine, AI, and UI from scratch but now that the foundation is so strong I hope future games will offer more scenarios.

Even using the existing maps but having random objective points or troop starting locations would add more replay. A lot of games these days have a weekly challenge. You could use the same maps and units from the core missions but change them slightly each week. Then we could compete to see who gets the most VP in a new mission variant each week.

Mermuse wrote:Even using the existing maps but having random objective points or troop starting locations would add more replay. A lot of games these days have a weekly challenge. You could use the same maps and units from the core missions but change them slightly each week. Then we could compete to see who gets the most VP in a new mission variant each week.

Great idea! I wonder if the AI can easily be adapted to new scenarios, though, or - even more difficult - random scenarios.

Mermuse wrote:Yes more scenarios please! The game is beautiful and addictive but I've already burned through both scenarios. I understand how much work was involved in creating the first game ... developing the engine, AI, and UI from scratch but now that the foundation is so strong I hope future games will offer more scenarios.

Even using the existing maps but having random objective points or troop starting locations would add more replay. A lot of games these days have a weekly challenge. You could use the same maps and units from the core missions but change them slightly each week. Then we could compete to see who gets the most VP in a new mission variant each week.

+1 on Mermuse's suggestion. After learning the general strategy for both Axis and Allies, replay-ability is starting to drop. Multi-player is helping, but the general strategy stays the same. Looking forward to new scenarios!

Also +1

By the way. Many thanks for this great game. I really really love it. The game engine seems great for more battles. I hope it can be easily adapted for other battles. Especially the AI. I don't have the time (to difficult to plan) to play multiplayer so a good AI is a must.

Regards,

Hapshott

We'll see. Our next move is to figure out how much more effort we want to put into Bulge versus El Alamein and some other exciting games we have on deck. Still might be interesting to do.

One scenario I really wanted to game out was: what if Patton had been given his head and allowed to attack the base of the Bulge in concert with Hodges from the north? You'd have the Allied counteroffensive in the north starting later, as the units have to be moved further west, but if it comes off there's a chance to entrap and destroy all the German forces in the Bulge. Sadly, while adding new scenarios is relatively easy with our architecture it's far from free, especially if you want the AI to play well in those scenarios.

Jeff -

No offense intended, but the AI doesn't "play well" with the scenarios that already exist. I'd like to experiment with some non-historical scenarios (or even tweaks of the historical ones) just to increase the difficulty level. For example, how about a variant where units that are surrounded do not automatically get frozen, but just have a chance of doing so, like say 50-50? Once they were out of gas they'd stay that way, but to get them into the unsupplied state in the first place might take more than one turn. This would go a long way towards addressing the AI's proclivity for getting itself surrounded (or even advancing ino a surrounded state!) which is ruining the single-player game for me.

nkarp wrote:There is actually a whole book of alternative history variants on the Battle -- we are looking it over to see if any make sense as additional scenarios:

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Bulge-Hitl ... lternative

But mostly we're focused on real history and real battles. El Alamein is "on deck"!

Wow! There is actually a book regarding alternate path scenarios? Interesting indeed.

Regarding you guys interested in real history only.
Have you guys considered making new boards/maps reflecting other areas of the war?
I know the game is titled battle of the bulge - does not mean we cannot venture outside of the Bulge to reenact other history in the same war.

Concerning the alternate path scenarios' maybe you can create a new mode title it for example: Tactics & Training Grounds. Within this mode place any made up alternate scenarios. This I feel, would not impede on your authenticity while simultaneously allowing us the players to venture outside of the box so to say. A co existing of historical accounts & alternates scenarios - but a huge playground of strategy estates.

jeffd wrote:We'll see. Our next move is to figure out how much more effort we want to put into Bulge versus El Alamein and some other exciting games we have on deck. Still might be interesting to do.

One scenario I really wanted to game out was: what if Patton had been given his head and allowed to attack the base of the Bulge in concert with Hodges from the north? You'd have the Allied counteroffensive in the north starting later, as the units have to be moved further west, but if it comes off there's a chance to entrap and destroy all the German forces in the Bulge. Sadly, while adding new scenarios is relatively easy with our architecture it's far from free, especially if you want the AI to play well in those scenarios.

Personally, I'd like to see El Alamein before major reworking of BotB.

I'm ok with non-historical scenarios, but I prefer the historical ones.

I'd focus on additional scenarios in general over AI development. I'd be happy with new scenarios that had a fairly easy to beat AI, but with Game Center support so I can play other people (which is what I'll do anyway after I learn the scenario basics against the AI).

Also, I'm fine with paying for any new scenarios. To be honest, I'm not sure how you guys are gonna survive charging only $10 for a game of this quality...unless there are a lot more real strategy gamers out there than I realize (which would be great).

ron42na wrote: I'd focus on additional scenarios in general over AI development. I'd be happy with new scenarios that had a fairly easy to beat AI, but with Game Center support so I can play other people (which is what I'll do anyway after I learn the scenario basics against the AI).

Also, I'm fine with paying for any new scenarios. To be honest, I'm not sure how you guys are gonna survive charging only $10 for a game of this quality...unless there are a lot more real strategy gamers out there than I realize (which would be great).

I'm fine with paying for new scenarios too but not at $10 a pop. While the game quality is high the scenarios are way too short to be worth $10. BothB is like one medium scale Panzer General scenario. $10 is kinda borderline. Is this game really worth 1/5 of Hearts of Iron or Panzer General when they were new at $50? After 2 days of casual play I'm close to done. Is it the same quality and scope as other $10 iOS games?

$10 for the core game + $2 for new scenarios would get me to buy more. 20 scenarios gets you pretty much to that $50 mark of a AAA strat game title.

I pitched in on Kickstarter just to have more games in the genre but this is going to be a $4.99 or $2.99 game next year.

jeffd wrote:We'll see. Our next move is to figure out how much more effort we want to put into Bulge versus El Alamein and some other exciting games we have on deck. Still might be interesting to do.

One scenario I really wanted to game out was: what if Patton had been given his head and allowed to attack the base of the Bulge in concert with Hodges from the north? You'd have the Allied counteroffensive in the north starting later, as the units have to be moved further west, but if it comes off there's a chance to entrap and destroy all the German forces in the Bulge. Sadly, while adding new scenarios is relatively easy with our architecture it's far from free, especially if you want the AI to play well in those scenarios.

Jeff, if you provided the ability to import the starting location and strength of units, the reinforcement/replacement schedule and VP values of areas then users could generate some of these alternate scenarios. Could be as simple as a CSV file. You guys can have a contest for user generated scenarios.

The AI does what the AI does...you can probably tweak the starting forces and locations enough for moderately decent play from the AI but expectations here is typically pretty low anyway.

nkarp wrote:El Alamein is "on deck"!

Excellent to hear!

I was actually going to suggest North Africa as a good fit for the game system. Plus it hasn't been done to death.

nigel_ht wrote:Jeff, if you provided the ability to import the starting location and strength of units, the reinforcement/replacement schedule and VP values of areas then users could generate some of these alternate scenarios. Could be as simple as a CSV file. You guys can have a contest for user generated scenarios.

As fantastic as that sounds, is that even possible on the iOS platform? I mean in terms of the heavy file management restrictions that Apple place over the iOS.

How would such user generated scenario files be shared between players and imported into BotB?