Comparison with Battle Academy 1

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: nim8or

Appreciate the responses. I hope it isn't a case of an underwhelming release in terms of content where you have to purchase scores of DLC extras or expansions. I suppose I'm getting old and cheap.

My overall impression:

1. Improved gameplay and some interesting new tactical options with smoke etc.
2. East Front focus - my personal area of interest.
3. Disappointing number of campaigns (many of the key operations are simply missing - no Stalingrad, no Kursk etc.)
4. Too many odd little scenarios featuring partisans etc. Leave those to the modders and focus on the major battles IMHO.
5. Overall, worth having but I expected more from the game.

[IainMcNeil]

Kursk is being worked on at the moment but required more special attention than we had time for in the base game. Stalingrad is also something we'd like to do but needs some careful thought about how to handle a city based campaign. So these are will be filled in later but it was too much for the initial release. It already has 33% more campaigns than the original Battle Academy, includes campaigns from both sides (a big request from payers), plus skirmish mode and random map generator so contains vastly more content.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

Kursk is being worked on at the moment but required more special attention than we had time for in the base game. Stalingrad is also something we'd like to do but needs some careful thought about how to handle a city based campaign. So these are will be filled in later but it was too much for the initial release. It already has 33% more campaigns than the original Battle Academy, includes campaigns from both sides (a big request from payers), plus skirmish mode and random map generator so contains vastly more content.

That's great to hear, Iain.

Perhaps the Stalingrad campaign could be structured as two separate campaigns, as follows:

1. Axis - Large battlefields covering the initial Axis advance (Recce, Break-in, Break through and exploitation).

2. Axis - Smaller scenarios covering specific urban fights (grain silos, Pavlov's house, etc.)

3. Soviet - Back to large for the Soviet counter offensive, as above.

4. Soviet - A couple of battles covering Manstein's failed rescue effort.

5. Soviet - A final Stalingrad Pocket one

[IainMcNeil]

It is the urban fighting we really need to focus on to do Stalingrad right. We think we need multi story buildings and that's pretty hard to get right so is the stumbling block right now.

It woudl be easy to do the setting int eh engine but we didn't think it would feel right without some additional mechanics and we haven't got consensus on how they would work right now.

[Redmarkus5]

Yes, I can see your point. If you're looking at a multi-story solution, will you also consider cellars and sewers, which were very important...?

[Gerry4321]

Very exciting that you are thinking about multi-story buildings. Most tactical wargames today do not address this and I do not see how you can do city fighting without it.

Good luck with this development.

Gerry

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

It is the urban fighting we really need to focus on to do Stalingrad right. We think we need multi story buildings and that's pretty hard to get right so is the stumbling block right now.

It woudl be easy to do the setting int eh engine but we didn't think it would feel right without some additional mechanics and we haven't got consensus on how they would work right now.

[IainMcNeil]

I think we'd have to keep it to one unit per tile as this would completely break the system and massively complicate the UI for players, but we might allow them to shoot and be shot at from different levels.

Maybe we let you select which level you want them to be on and each level has different benefits and penalties. E.g. high up gives you better viewing distance and inflicts more damage but maybe more exposed to things like heavy weapons/tanks. It all needs to be thought through and play tested along side the existing rules but its a fairly complex set of issues.

[gdrover]

Sounds like you just solved it, and very well:
A unit in a building enters on the ground floor, but could spend extra AP to 'move upstairs'. This would give them better vision as well as a plus to hit, and a defensive bonus against assaults.
Simple and elegant.

Cellars and sewers could be handled in a separate scenario.

[MrsWargamer]

Thinking about the multi story problem.

I think the solution might be to make the location type able to be selected different. I think if a unit enters a location with an additional level existing, it might only allow the option to occupy effectively more terrain and in the process be more dispersed and in the process able to be more able to see more terrain. But leave it maybe as a single unit in the location still.

I have no knowledge of the game code so I am not sure if the above ramble is even doable. I just know that I unit can move though a location at speed or in hunt mode, so it follows that I unit can move in varying ways, so maybe moving through a multi story location needs to be given a choice option at the moment of entry. Going from lower to encompassing all levels might be codable the way you can tell a unit to go from active to pass mode (the one with the hand symbol).

[Redmarkus5]

One characteristic of the Stalingrad battle was the frequent presence of opposing units on different floors of the same building; Axis on the 1st floor and Soviets on the 2nd. This situation could last a while and it had important tactical effects.

[Gerry4321]

I think this is very important. Also if BA2 gets something working in this regard it will be very popular as many tactical WW II games just have single-story buildings.

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

One characteristic of the Stalingrad battle was the frequent presence of opposing units on different floors of the same building; Axis on the 1st floor and Soviets on the 2nd. This situation could last a while and it had important tactical effects.

[AEWHistory]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: jglazier

Yes, I understand the vehicle can still move with its gun knocked out. I was wondering what use modeling this has in the game.

But, thinking about it, you could still use the vehicle to take a victory location. Other than that, it is useless. That was my point. What is the use of a vehicle with its gun knocked out?

Enemy units still waste AP firing on the damaged vehicle - they don't know that the gun is knocked out. This can be very useful indeed!

I'm surprised no one has noted that a tank with a disabled gun is still completely effective for running over and just squishing infantry. Am I the only one who loves doing this? Maybe I need professional help.....

But seriously, just use supporting units to suppress enemy infantry in the open and then send your impotent tank to smoosh the suppressed infantry. Even better if the tank draws a bit of fire since it will allow your own armor to follow up greater survivability. Frankly, I like this aspect of the game modeling quite a bit, although it royally sucks having a good tank partially disabled. I wonder if it would be possible to voluntarily abandon your tank and get an infantry unit composed of the tank crew? That would be a really neat feature. In fact, that would be an awesome feature for destroyed tanks as well--allowing for the odd crewman to survive and have to get out and go into combat. After all, these crews were usually equipped with small arms, let's give them a chance to use them!

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: AEWHistory

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: jglazier

Yes, I understand the vehicle can still move with its gun knocked out. I was wondering what use modeling this has in the game.

But, thinking about it, you could still use the vehicle to take a victory location. Other than that, it is useless. That was my point. What is the use of a vehicle with its gun knocked out?

Enemy units still waste AP firing on the damaged vehicle - they don't know that the gun is knocked out. This can be very useful indeed!

I'm surprised no one has noted that a tank with a disabled gun is still completely effective for running over and just squishing infantry. Am I the only one who loves doing this? Maybe I need professional help.....

But seriously, just use supporting units to suppress enemy infantry in the open and then send your impotent tank to smoosh the suppressed infantry. Even better if the tank draws a bit of fire since it will allow your own armor to follow up greater survivability. Frankly, I like this aspect of the game modeling quite a bit, although it royally sucks having a good tank partially disabled. I wonder if it would be possible to voluntarily abandon your tank and get an infantry unit composed of the tank crew? That would be a really neat feature. In fact, that would be an awesome feature for destroyed tanks as well--allowing for the odd crewman to survive and have to get out and go into combat. After all, these crews were usually equipped with small arms, let's give them a chance to use them!

Yeah I bet that's fun n all but Henry Fonda will sneak up on that tank and throw a grenade down the hull opening and then you'll be ded. [:D]

[demyansk]

When on Sale???

[TheGreatRadish]

So, according to this Battle Academy is no more?

[DerfMan63]

Hi all! Sorry if i posted this in the wrong place..
i have ba1 with all the dlc, and have had a great time with the game! i bought ba2 with the kursk dlc on steam. i have been looking and looking on how do i play the axis..can some one help me out please? [&:]

Derf

[athineos]

Any Official Expansions planned for Battle Academy 2 in the Near Future? I Would like to see more content for this great game that could also supplement the random mission (skirmish) generator (e.g. Rising sun-Japan campaign)