Combat

[wodin]

So far so good. However for me to buy into the game combat will have to be more detailed than it is in KP etc etc.

I see it still is step losses. One step is a company I suppose. A company killed in one turn seems quite high casualties.

Still it looks promising.

[Awac835]

Have been discussed before. Some prefer it like it is in TOAW with acutal materiel loss but then some say that such detal is of no use when your dealing with it at this lvl. But then again Battlefront is smaller scale then BiI was.
 
I cant remember how the arguments went but i remember that someone came up with some logic to it [:)]
 
But i prefer the step lose to the TOAW model where you can see you lost 5 squads etc. Makes no sence to me.

[pvthudson01]

I prefer step loss
 
I dont want another TOAW really. It is just too much. I really wish they hadnt done a new system but I have faith in SSG

[JSS]

ORIGINAL: wodin

...I see it still is step losses. One step is a company I suppose. A company killed in one turn seems quite high casualties.

Still it looks promising.

Something to keep in mind is that a step represents combat power (vice only numbers of men & equipment).

Losing a step can also represent loss of morale, organization, leadership, and/or communication with next higher HQs in addition to losses of men & equipment. It can also represent the difficulty of maintaining boundries between adjacent units (companies within the battalion or even the battalion taking the step loss and its neighboring battalion).

So if you were to lose a step in battalion sized unit, this could represent:

- a single company being mauled/becoming disorganized or

- a platoon from each company in the battalion being hit hard or

- it could represent that a tactical seam between the left platoon of company A and the right platoon of company B was hit hard and the company boundries exploited.

[Capitaine]

I am excited about "Battlefront" and the apparent move to a uniform time and distance scale (1km/hex and 2 turns/day). The "combat power" measure of unit strength remains just as valid as other measures, but I confess that the move to smaller unit sizes begins to make specific numbers of afv's, at least, a little more relevant. Moreso with the addition of the "direct fire" combat added to Battlefront. Still, I have confidence that the system will be intriguing and will await more word from SSG about the nuances of tactical combat in the new engine. [8D]

[Awac835]

ORIGINAL: pvthudson01

I prefer step loss

I dont want another TOAW really. It is just too much. I really wish they hadnt done a new system but I have faith in SSG

If you look at the screen shots i think its clear that BattleFront is still using the DB system it is just a big upgrade from the old DB system. And to me it sound like its a nice upgrade with alot of new features.

[sol_invictus]

Well I'm excited about this game. I always had some reservations about the DB engine and this new game seems to address most of them.

[Rob Gjessing]

If you look at the screen shots i think its clear that BattleFront is still using the DB system it is just a big upgrade from the old DB system. And to me it sound like its a nice upgrade with alot of new features.

There is some truth in that statement.. that is that BF and DB do look very similar (and why wouldnt they - they are from the same design team (SSG) and why would they necessarily want to mess with something which has won alot of awards and 'works'.

But the truth is - BF _is_ a completely new gaming system. It looks and feels alot like DW did.. but its been rewritten from the ground up and there are quite a few differences (but as I said also similarities). The fact that SSG have been working on this product for well over 12 months now is because BF has been rewritten from the ground up.

So technically BF isnt using the DB system - but of course SSG have drawn from it. And the fact that SSG work exclusively with Steve Ford (their artists) means that these games are very much going to look similar. And why wouldnt they Steve is a top notch artist and is the reason that SSG's eye candy sets it apart from many of the other Turn Based Strategy games out there..

[hank]

IMHO the user interface for SSG's games (Korsun, BiN, and BiI) are the best there is.  ... and I've played many of the competing games.
 
Its my choice for a user interface over all the competition.
 
hank
 

[sol_invictus]

I agree, SSG has the smoothest interface on the market today.

[Montbrun]

I think the solution to this would be more step losses - now we usually have 2-4 - I would like to see 8-12 step losses per unit, with the system adjusted accordingly...

Just a thought.

Brad

[JSS]

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

I think the solution to this would be more step losses - now we usually have 2-4 - I would like to see 8-12 step losses per unit, with the system adjusted accordingly...

Just a thought.

Brad

BF (& DB) can give you 13 steps per unit (4 combat steps and 9 auto timed replacements). While this still presents combat power in 4 discreet levels, with a short autoreplacement time (1 or 2 turns) you can have substantially tougher combat forces.

All depends on what the scenario designer builds into the design... This is something I'm looking at putting into my BF scenarios... kinda like how its working in development scenarios so far[:D]