The Battle for Normandy -battalion level GMT games

Discussion relating to Battlefront

Moderators: AlexS, Run5 Staff, SSG Staff

The Battle for Normandy -battalion level GMT games

Postby J Campbell » Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:40 pm

Hi Guys,

I just preordered the battle for Normandy Game from GMT-it is a monster but looks very good-see the discussion on consimworld forum withscreenshots etc. it hit p500 a few days back and is already at like 300 or so.

That being said, we already have a battlion level game in Battlefront that can handle all the supply combat resolutions and such. I found myself replaying market Garden just a few days back.

If i recall the map size was increased with the battlefront engine but was still limited in height width ( I forget max X x X size). Nevertheless, if we only had a 1 - 2 map equivilant battle add on like across the dnepr was (still one of my all time faovrites) we would be in business.

Is it not cost justified for SSG to create add on scenarios for battlefront-as the user community has not been as successful with this as the other engine?

On an sort of off topic-who preferred the older model's way of handling tac air and artillery to the new? I was thinking it over yesterday and prefer the older-combat shift based on attacker and defender artillery support rather than individually targeting units. i also always liked the local commander shift modifier-wish that would come back .

weigh in wth your thoughts.
thanks,
john
J Campbell
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: MI

Postby Spuddy64 » Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:54 am

I myself have wondered why there isnt enough customer support to justify add on scenarios. ( I know SSG well enough, if thye thought it would sell enough they would make it )
I love this game, and enjoy more than any other game I have played, just too hard to find opponents and a shortage of scenarios.

Mike
Spuddy64
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Michigan

Re: The Battle for Normandy -battalion level GMT games

Postby Joe » Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:41 am

J Campbell wrote:the discussion on consimworld forum withscreenshots etc.



What is the web address.

Is it a board game or a PC game?


J Campbell wrote: it hit p500 a few days back and is already at like 300 or so.


It's popularity is quickly declining??????
Joe
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:32 pm

Postby J Campbell » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:13 am

hi Joe,

no once a game is accepted for publishing it goes into whats called P500 -when they get 500 preorders fo the game (to justify going to printers) they charge all the credit cards for those that preordered-generally at a discounted price.
Gmt website is:
www.gmtgames.com

the consim world link is under www.consimworld.com then go to forum- boardgames, individual game- world war 2 - western front- the battle for normandy.

My point earlier si that SSG could have accomplished this already if they wanted to. They have the engine- have already done a Normandy game at regimental level so they would just need to pick abattalion level battle to do-Normandy still seems to hold alot of interest for WW2 gamers as the GMT shows.

I think it had 300 preorders in a week or so. For a game that retails at over 100 USD that is pretty impressive-i think maybe i am wrong -i am not in business.

Still, if SSG charged 15-20 USD for an add on expansion for battlefront i think it would sell well. Personally, i would like a korsun pocket one or another Smolensk battle. Perhaps a drive on Leningrad or the subsequent efforts to relieve the siege.

i love SSG's land combat games but it just seems to me that we are left in the dark about what is in store for the future.

I like the battalion level aspect but only wish we kept the older combat model for arty and air and tactical commanders-i liked that.

cheers,
john
J Campbell
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: MI

Postby stevel40831 » Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:25 pm

Hi John,

I've been debating about pre-ordering that one myself. The only thing that keeps stopping me is the size of it. I don't mind playing a game of that size, but I just don't have the room for it. Knowing me, I'll buy it anyway and tell my wife I need to "borrow" her hobby room for a few months!

Regarding your question on artillery and air-support, I also prefer the method used in the pre-Battlefront games.

Steve

"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in ... And how many want out."

ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
stevel40831
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
 
Posts: 735
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 5:21 am
Location: Berwick, ME

Postby J Campbell » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:12 am

hi steve,

i will never be bale to play the campaign game unless i find a "friend" who has that kinda space. I play 15mm miniatures on a 4 x 6 table and that is about my max capacity unless i could complete it in under a day.

i'll probably stick to the one map scenarios. it looks great though. I hope down the road Dan does an east front battle with this system.

While i am at it I am hoping SSG does more with battlefront or has somethng new in the pipeline to feed my addiction.

cheers,
john
J Campbell
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: MI

Postby Bertram » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:30 am

In the "old style" artillery, I didnt like that you could not target units without attacking them. Seems a bit silly when you have 4 +3 artillery units, and you need to send in a suicide unit just to use them.

So I like the ability to use the artillery without actuallyattacking, I like the counter artillery option, and I like the way you have to think about when to use the heavies.

In the new system on the other hand, there is no defensive artilley. No FPF at all. Attacking units only get plastered AFTER having attacked. That is totally not how I think artillery was used.

And a canny player can (especially in high movement scenario's as Gazala) advance a few hexes and fall back, dig in in "own terrain" and advance again the next turn. Then he can spot which units can be overwhelmed, do a local high speed attack, and disappear before the artillery can respond. This makes for a rather odd "dance" around the front line.

And finally the recon and tank units are the units most vulnarable to the artillery. Because the tank/recon units are mostly two steps, and the infantry units four steps, the tank/recon units are usually killed when spotted and in range of heavy artillery. The infantry losses two steps (in Gazala, the max artillery in a hex) can dig in and reorganize, the tank/recon unit is destroyed. This also is counter to what I have understood of the WW2 artillery, where the infantry, especially on the move, was very vulnarable, while recon units, and certainly tanks, were mostly safe, with an occassionally single victim of an unlucky hit.

So what would i like? I think the new system has more potential, but there must be some way to build in defensive fire (dedicating units to it, and letting them fire how often? Use how many bullets? with the attacker losing steps before the attack is resolved). The defender should be able to set artillery units to defensive fire, and set how quick they fire (only when the attacker has greater odds then 1-1/5-1/10-1 for example). More to do for the defender though, and quite a bit of work when defending with loads of artillery.

Another, and easier to implement, feature: I think the tank and recon units should have an modifier when under artillery fire and when not dug in. For example a +1 for slower and ligh armored verhicles (mech infantry for example), a +2 for medium armored or fast verhicles (tanks, fast recon units), and a +3 for heavy armored tank (heavy tanks). Value could be scenario determined. Would go a long way to repairing the artillery as indirect fire anti-tank weapon.

An other thing (and
Bertram

ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
Bertram
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:50 am
Location: Netherlands

Postby Brubaker » Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:02 am

J Campbell wrote:
i love SSG's land combat games but it just seems to me that we are left in the dark about what is in store for the future.



Hi John

I think much of what you have said is quite valid, however the comment above is perhaps the most pertinent. It is probably fair to say however that many game designers do not like to discuss future projects until they are at least near final beta stage.

I have always found SSG very approachable - consider the number of posts made on these forums by their team over the years. My advice would be to place a sensible and polite request upon SSG via the forums for a hint of future release(s). You may well be surprised and delighted at the response :)

Looking at the game you have discussed above, and doing a little testing and stuff for SSG on the side, I think 2008 is going to be an excellent year...

Brubaker
User avatar
Brubaker
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:57 am

Postby Doggie3 » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:16 pm

I also prefer the artillery option presented in Battlefront, for the very reason that Bertram mentioned - in the other scenarios, you can have a unit defend a critical point such as a bridge crossing and not be able to be attacked from the ground. Meanwhile, you have dozens of artillery units sitting idle - units that could be used to bombard the defender - as they would have been used IRL.

I don't particularly like the Eastern Front scenario shipped with BF, and I hope that there are Eastern Front scenarios for BF in the pipeline. I did take a look at making an Operation Mars scenario, but was lost in the editor from the start :?

Cheers,
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Doggie3
Major
Major
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:38 pm


Return to Battlefront Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron