Chuck "Magnum" Ankenbauer reviews the mobile app Battle Academy.

http://SimHQ.com/_mobile/mobile_004a.html

Nice write-up, Chuck!

I've played that capture the crossing mission about six times now and I'm pretty sure the problem was with me rather than the sides, LOL!

I LOVE THIS GAME!!!!

I was surprised at how addictive this was on the oldfashioned, retro, 20th Century, large, heavy, expensive, accessorized, wife-head-shaking-inducer PC. As in the old Panzer General days, except on a highly tactical level. Demo is worth the download and the time spent playing the missions.

Grabbed this for my iPad when I saw the original preview. It is a great time waster, though the pricing model is just over the top, and the enemy AI is just plain dumb, so I have to respectfully disagree with this statement:

"...after some serious time with Battle Academy on iPad they deserve every dollar. Battle Academy is not some "dumbed-down" mobile version of the PC and Mac versions, it is a full version with all the add-ons and updates.


Pricing and add ons

Not sure what add ons and updates you are referring to here, as I don't own the PC version. All I can say is that your 19.99 gets you three campaigns, and there are three add-on campaigns which you have to pay for as in-app purchases, and their price is ridiculous.

I burned through the first couple of campaigns in one flight EU/US return. I don't think I would bother replaying them with different strategies because the maps are too small and non dynamic, so the enemy is always placed in the same place on the map - no surprises the second time around. These campaigns are strictly a one shot deal. So having exhausted the gameplay and not yet happy I'd got my money's worth, I discovered the last 3 campaigns in the game menu have to be purchased.

A professional ipad game like this, on apple store, is usually 2.5 - 8 Euros (9.99 USD). This one is 16 Euros/bucks (19.99 USD)!

But if you want the add-on campaigns, you have to pay extra. A lot extra[/b]. Half the original game cost, again, or 8 Euros (9.99 USD) ie nearly the same price as a full priced iPad optimised APP from a quality dev!

This is on top of what you already point out, is an expensive app to start with.

So I won't be buying any of the add on campaigns, for a game that was already at the expensive end for an app.

It is a matter of opinion of course, but I don't think the app as it stands justifies the high startup cost, when the add on campaigns you can purchase in-app are also incredible expensive.

You can get an EA Sports game for iPad at less than half the cost, which has infinite replayability. You can get great strategy games for 8 Euro/9.99 USD full price, nothing more to pay.

This game, at twice the price, holds about 15 hours of gameplay (maybe 5 hours per campaign), and to extend that, the devs want you to shell out half the price again for another 5 hours?

That dog don't hunt, sorry.

Dumb AI

I don't play online against other people, because I usually fire up games like this on long haul flights, so my second gripe is the AI, and this is the deal buster for me, and why I definitely would not recommend it.

You capture a victory point from the enemy after a hard won battle. There is an enemy unit however still near by. If it was a human opponent, or even a half competent AI opponent, you would have to leave one of your units behind to guard your newly won victory point.

Not in this game. The enemy will sit two squares away from an unoccupied, undefended victory point, and not try to take it back. The enemy AI does not maneouvre or flank, and the only challenges you really face are with enemy tanks or AT guns which have been strategically placed out of line of sight and sit there trying to kill anything that goes past, until you take them out.

If an enemy tank column does rush you, it will usually just advance until contact and then just sit there firing, letting you flank it, kill it with air support, or take it out with troops with AT charges.

In that sense it is more like a slightly more advanced tower defence game, than a true war game or strategy game.

This criticism wouldn't apply to a player to player game though, I grant that.

My own rating for this game would be:

Gfx: 4/5
Gameplay (offline): 2/5
Value for money: 2/5
Overall: 3/5

Recommend to buy? Meh...

H

ahh, yes... you are correct on the in game purchase... think I messed that up with the final cut and review of the review. And again I agree that the price is steep, too steep, and the AI has issues... and can see your point if you only play single player... but after the initial couple of campaigns I played, I guess I spend all my time on MP with friends... usually 3 to 5 games a week with different people at the same time, so for me... and many who I play with it is well worth it. IMO (which is what a review is, but I should of been a little clearer on all that...lesson learned.)

Thx for the feedback.

Totally get that. My comments apply mostly to the offline experience...

H

Heinkill, thanks for the feedback. AI balance is something we have worked hard on. Obviously you find it a little too easy, but we have a lot of feedback from people saying exactly the opposite, that it is too hard . So we have toned its aggressiveness down. Having said that, we are looking at a 'hardcore' mode for our next expansion which would turn the AI lose entirely. We might be able to enable this for all missions I guess - it would make them pretty tough though!

One thing I would check is, have you grabbed all the free single player content you can download? You can download it onto your iPad directly from ingame using the folder icon top left on the Campaign Screen. There are many great mods, some with newly created units and tilesets (e.g. the WW1 campaigns or LRDG one). Once downloaded you don't need to be online to play them, so all good for those longhaul flights.

Cheers

Pip

Thx Pip

Ah, the wonder of dialogue on the world wide web! I would never have found that little user content download button there! Thanks!! That will help me get my 20 bucks worth...miser that I am.

As to the AI, I think the map designs play to the dumbness of the AI, with well sited 88mm, MG nests and armour lurking behind hedges or hills - so yes, that does make it tough to win, but it doesn't make it tough AI. Just tough map design which makes it akin to a Tower Defence game more than a squad level war game.

As I said, the AI just seems to advance to contact (if it moves at all), and sit and fire until it gets knocked out or retreats (1 square or 2 max). It is also very common to take out enough units at a victory point to capture the flag, but the other enemy units at or near the victory point which could or should try to take the flag back, just sit in position without moving, turn after turn, even if the flag is left undefended.

Good maneouvering makes for good AI in a land combat sim, so it is a shame if you have toned this element down. I appreciate you do have to listen to the feedback of the majority if that is the case though. Maybe you took the pendulum a little too far in the non-aggressive direction?

Anyone that picks it up...look for games with us. I'm addicted. Password is always SimHQ

I'm airdrop

There is also Kludger and Rends and magnum50 that I know of....

Anyone else?

has anyone won against Rends yet? He kicks my ass all the time, but have also learned alot from him.

also a guy named ozzy something.

Dude, I got lucky first time against him in, I think, "vital village." Since then he's smoked me every time. Guy is good.

As awesome as this looks - won't entice me to buy an Apple device.

Put this out for Android and conquer the world.

Looking forward to it.

An Android version is in the works. The wide variation in devices will probably add some time to the development process though. I do wish Google would move the slider a little the other way in terms of trying to standardise the devices. There has to be a middle path between walled garden and anarchy .

Cheers

Pip

Thats me

Definitely been enjoying the MP aspect of it. On some maps I do feel that the balance is bad in favour of one side over the other.

My games are under ozzy1981

Just thought Id add, for the benefit of Pip - there are some really stupid things like tanks missing at point blank ranges. A flat trajectory gun like the 88, 17lber or the panther's 75 should not miss at the ranges it does in the game.

Re: suppression, also ridiculous to have a heavy tank running from a bunch of light tanks because they fired more at it.

Makes the game more like WW2 chess.

Thanks for the feedback!

With regard to point blank, one thing to bear in mind is that with the abstracted ranges it is still in the order of 100 yards. Also, your units can be suffering from various penalties depending on movement, the target unit size or agility, and so on.

Suppressed armour can definitely do some odd things sometimes. They will return fire on occasion though, to try and prevent light tanks chasing King Tigers around, so it shouldn't be a tactic which can be exploited extensively.

Cheers

Pip

Man, I did that the other day thinking the guy wouldn't return fire but sure as you know what, he did fire back and killed my M3 or M5 or whatever it was (don't remember!).

Well, I thought perhaps I had been a bit tough on the game AI in offline mode, so I revisited using the DDay campaign.

No. I would describe it as 'dumb as a box of hammers'.

The level designers have clearly used map design and placement of static units (or mobile units parked in static positions) to make it hard on players - not the ability of AI to maneouvre to achieve an objective. Between you and any given objective will inevitably be a hedge, a hill and a hidden AT gun or Panther/PanzerIV/Tiger. That's not AI.

And there is a play balance issue, maybe particular to that campaign, that drove me to delete the app this time. Puma light recon vs Sherman 76mm tank. Loser at least half of the time is the Sherman. Say what?

Puma: "50mm KwK 39/1 L/60...engagement was strictly discouraged due to its thin armor."

Sherman: "76mm...The 76 mm gun could penetrate roughly 88 mm of armor at 1000 m. This was enough to reliably penetrate a PzIV's glacis. However, the 76 mm was not powerful enough against the frontal armor of a Panther."

So, the Sherman 76mm could take out a PzIV in real life, but it can't take out a light recon Puma in this game.

Yes yes, each shot is a mixture of chance to hit, chance to penetrate, wind direction, proximity to the solstice and alignment of the chakras...sorry, no. Puma light recon vehicles should not be as big a threat on the battlefield to a Sherman as a Panther tank.

In a flight sim, this would be the equivalent of a Bolton Paul Defiant knocking down a Bf109E 50% of the time, or a Mig 21 taking down an F16 half the time.

Had to get that off my chest because I just gave up on a mission in the campaign where my two Shermans managed to take down a Panzer IV, without meaningful damage to their armour or morale because they killed the Panzer IV from behind very quickly, but then both got wiped out by a lone Puma (parked behind a hedge). He took two side armour hits from the Shermans, and then returned fire and killed them both with his first shot.

Wacky play balance stuff like that just makes me "Delete APP", which I have now done.

But maybe there is a tip here for the online players - if you are playing German side, swarm your enemy with Pumas!! You can't lose.

H

Pumas do well on flank shots but I lose them always frontally.

Lol Magnum, no i'm not that good. I've lost a couple of matches online.
The game has it flaws unbalanced missions are one of them. But overall the pros outwheight the cons by far at least in multiplayer.
I don't know about the Puma but in one mission i could'nt destroy a Sherman with shots from a Tiger Panther and PzIV. I got him retreating but that was all after 6 shots.

Did the two Sherman shots actually HIT the Puma? I'm going to guess not (for the reasons you put forward, the chance of a 76mm shell deflecting from a Puma's side armour are very very low, although it might be possible). More likely the Shermans just missed. Your chance to hit is affected greatly by whether you move normally, or whether you hunt (which is slower, but avoids the to-hit penalty).

In fact (looks it up in game) even from 4 tiles out you have a 100% chance to penetrate the side armour of a Puma. But even at 2 tiles out you have at best a 45% chance to hit (that's without any movement penalties, which would halve the chance to hit).

Watching your chance to hit (and the combined chance to kill) is very important. You can't run around the battlefield at full speed picking off things from 500 yards in a 1944 Sherman. Just as a note, if you get a hit, but the armour saves the unit you will see DEFLECTED float up over the target unit. I'm pretty sure this can't happen Sherman -v- Puma though.

So while it may be fair to question the AI and how it behaves (although it does a lot of things like flanking and other threat assessment), it's not really fair to say that Pumas can take multiple side hits from Shermans, cos it just ain't true .

Cheers

Pip

We'd love to hear about what mission you think might be imbalanced, although I have to warn you that we've had a number of people on our forums assert passionately that scenario X was entirely biased towards side Y and nobody playing anything other than side Y could ever win. This would usually be followed by some posts where they had been offered a game by another player who handily beat them with the erstwhile handicapped side, often with handy hints on how to do it .

Cheers

Pip

Well Pip,i can't remember the mission names and i can't check them because my MP list of completed games is empty since a week or so for unknown reasons.
But the last one i played against Airdrop is one of them. it's called "Wichtiges Dorf" in german (importand village?) and if you start as british paratroopers you got a couple of Jeeps only. If you now try to atteck the nearby german held CPs you will be blown of by german armour within a few rounds. So in the match against Airdrop i tried a different tactic and sneaked around the village and placed my paratroopers in good position at the other end of the town so i could start to attack the germans from two sides. Everything worked well this time but with ten rounds left i loosed by a dubios point rule ( germans had reached more than 50 points). I'm pretty sure Airdrop will agree that i would have won without this point rule.
So this point rule force the british to attack and capture the CPs earlier even if your paratroopers are still split in 2 small groups not even close to each other to support one of them.

Oh i'm sure that there are players out there who can win playing the british side but i'm sure they had played the map a couple of times before and know everything of the map.
But it should be winnable if you don't know everything about the map and enemy units.

Hi Pip

I figured you would reply with..."each shot is a mixture of chance to hit, chance to penetrate, wind direction, proximity to the solstice and alignment of the chakras".

My point remains, a Puma should not be a meaningful threat to two Shermans (play balance is wrong), and should definitely not stay and try to duke it out with them if it is attacked (AI is poor). On that map the player loses more Shermans to Pumas and half-tracks than he does to Panzers, and that is just plain silly. If it had been reality, Germany would never have bothered producing Panzer IVs, Panthers or Tigers!

Look, don't get me wrong. I can hear people are having a ball with Battle Academy online. Congratulations for that.

But in offline mode, Battle Academy is a simplistic WWII themed tower defense style game, where the player has to try to get past or knock out the mostly stationary enemy 'towers' (tanks, AT guns) and can call in the occasional arty or air strike.

For this, it is grossly overpriced, even for the base game.

Players looking for a real strategic turn based war game for iPad with good AI should rather look at apps like:

Great Little War Game (better AI, very challenging maps), or
Battle for Wesnoth (fantastic maps, highly varied units, challenging missions and hundreds of free add on campaign missions)

Both of these offer great gameplay, challenging AI, and well designed levels, all at 1/3 of the price of Battle Academy.

I respect your opinion, but the AI in BA is far from static. It's definitely cautious, but then, that's the best way to stay alive. On the Normandy missions the Allies are attacking entrenched German defenses, so the AI will tend to be mostly static unless there is a reason not to.

A Puma generally will not stand and fight, but sometimes it might. It will only fire if it has a good chance of killing the target, and in this case the chances of being killed by return fire were obviously slim. So the AI punished you for incautious play (I think in your first post you stated the AI wasn't aggressive enough?). Why would the Puma run away when it saw its chances were good?

As I said, feel free to point out where you feel the AI could be better, and it's possible you want a more free flowing game whereas BA tends to reward combined arms and caution, but to call it a tower defense game is a pretty unfair exaggeration.

Cheers

Pip

Thanks for all the detail, it's really useful. I'm not sure of the expectations on a given map (I'm not the designer), but in this case I imagine that such a small force would tend to warrant caution from the outset. I guess there is always going to be an element of evolution to tactics on a given map - I imagine if you played Airdrop a few times you would see his tactics adapt to yours and so on.

I'll pass on your feedback to the designers though. It's always good for us to keep tweaking things to make it as fun as possible.

Cheers

Pip

PIP... just wanted to say thanks for signing up at SimHQ and answering our questions and concerns... that in itself ALMOST deserves the price of game. IMO

That said... I understand the balance issues and the poor AI statements from others, I often wonder how a certain unit can take 2 shots each from 3 panthers and nothing happen...and other incidence's like that... and my god how the British Home Guard can break so easy, almost not worth having them, lol... a number of balance issues and AI complaints... but still, a damn fine iPad game, one that I play more then anything else on my iPad, probably the only APP I use more is you tube. lol

Now I do hope those features on your forum page for the PC 2.0 beta make it to iPad... that would be great, especially the force selection for MP.

Also, pass on ability to pause or maybe even save a turn replay... please. Sometimes I like to see it again from different angles or positions.

Thx again... now give us Panzer Corp!

You say such sweet things, and then bring up that floozie Panzer Corps! It's coming is all I can say...

We've tried to add more feedback to the combat model, as we know that some of the issues people have come from not being able to necessarily see what is going on under the hood with regard to accuracy and so on. All the feedback is definitely useful, and helps us with our constant improvements to the game.

All our versions have to stay in sync, so every feature that you see on the PC and Mac (editor nonwithstanding) you'll see on the iPad. We are just in beta for 2.0 and we have people playing iPad force selection missions as we speak . If you have suggestions for 2.1 then please let us know!

Cheers

Pip

Re: Magnum's point, having driven Tigers and Panthers in tank sims - you really need to be a moron to miss at under 800yards with those flat trajectory guns.

The thing to remember is that it is abstracted - when you move a unit and then stop and leisurely turn to fire, you aren't doing exactly that. The model models the move and fire all as one action, so you are basically doing a snap shot from top speed at times, and the target you are firing at may still be 'moving' even though it is stationary onscreen. Not even German optics can offset that. The discussion of exactly how accurate a given tank should be are well outside my pay grade, but we were given advice by various professors and so on during development, so I think we are pretty close.

The chance to hit from a Tiger or Panther without any movement penalties verses a large stationary target is pretty high, it just falls off once you start getting things moving.

Cheers

Pip

I love the game... but I still question some "calculations" in this bad boy... of course if I was on the other side, I would like it... IE: current battle with Airdrop is coming to a end, been one hell of a battle, and i really thought I had it till the last couple of turns... last 2 turns it took 12 shots, 2 shots from 6 tanks, 2 different directions, frontal and flank to finally kill one Panzer tank, the frontal chance to hit was just under 50% while the flank was over 50%, but yet none did anything, 11th scared him, 12th finished him finally... and he still has a KingTiger out there, lol... but one of the things I don't understand is why infantry can't sneak... in the below screenshot, I'm trying to sneak my infantry along the bush wall and a tank still see's me from the other side... come on! lol



Needless to say it has been a costly battle for both sides, lol.

Well, most of my missions would probably end with my men fragging me and then deserting, given my poor leadership .

The hedgerow thing is a known issue. It's not working as we would like, but we're having to be very careful with a solution as the LOS code has gotten pretty complex. But you are right that it isn't ideal.

Remember that if you have a 50% chance to hit, that means that one time in 16 you will miss 4 times in a row, which can definitely be frustrating. The German tanks are also pretty tough, even from the flanks, compared to the poor Shermans. I'll try and get Iain to pop his head into the thread, he is the designer on the game and so probably has more insight into the specifics than I - I just work away at the codeface and am happy when tanks only explode when they are supposed to .

Thanks for the feedback, it is all useful!

Cheers

Pip

Same here. I still havn't understand yet when soldiers or tanks are hidden behind Hedgerows and when not.
If you ask me i would say enemies are hidden and my poor guys are always viewable,lol ;-)

Btw: why does MP games always end in silence? What i mean is that you don't get a message of won/lost . The game switch from active to the finished game list without notice.
You need to click and replay the last round to find out how it ended.

And at last: you made this game realistic as possible but why do i have no idea at the mission start that there will be reinforcement in later rounds?
A commander should be informed that there is something on the way?

And at very last: have i told you that i realy realy hate this dubios point system that exsist in some missions?
Win or loose if you capture specific locations (command posts). Yep that makes battles.
Win or loose if you destroy all or specific numbers of enemies. Yep that makes battles.
Win or loose because one side has reached a number Of points. No that's a nogo. That is not a soccer or football game!

You already include the round limitations as a timer.i can live with that because in real life specific operation has to be done within a time frame.
This point system destroys so much of the gameplay. When in battle i always check how many rounds are left. Then i try to bring my units into position if i'm the attacker. This will take some time (rounds). Once done i start one or multiple attack of the command post(s). This counter system destroys the tactical part of the game. You don't have the time to bring the troops into the right position and attack when youbhave prepared your troops to attack. This is the weakest part of the game when playing multiplayer if you ask me.
Thx for reading,
Rends

us complaining shows were playing... so don't take all this wrong.

I would just like to know if I'm hiding or not seen from the enemy, infantry should be able to use terrain to mask there movements, but i also understand theirs a grid play system that needs to be honored, it's how it works.

Magnum, how come that you have shadows?

that was a PC screen... i have both.

The Victory Points scoring maps are definitely a gameplay contrivance for sure. We wanted to have something to force people to be mobile, while also being easy to understand. Note that only some of the MP maps available use VPs at all, some are meeting engagements, some have other victory conditions. So if you don't like the points maps you can start up some challenges on maps with setups you prefer .

Cheers

Pip

I've been doing this long enough to accept that any feedback is useful - if something isn't gelling with people then it's something to put on our radar!

The hedgerow thing is definitely something we need to fix. There is just a such a complex set of LOS logic from initial development (incorporating hills etc) that it needs careful planning. We don't want to unbalance lots of missions or maps, etc. But I think the time has probably come .

Cheers

PIp

Hi guys,

Phil asked me to stop by and answer any design issues/questions you might have. Are there any outstanding queries?

I see some comment about the %'s. One thing to bear in mind is you are looking at the chance to kill and not chance to hit. Chance to hit is then modified by chance to penetrate to generate chance to kill. If you are looking at hit chances then you are not getting the full picture.

Cheers

Iain

Thx Lian for stopping by... guess you explained my King Tiger problem over at Slitherine's own forum... We got a pretty good iPad following over here for the game Battle Academy, heck I've got 3 to 5 games going every week... I think, us playing, had a big concern about mission balance.. alot of them seem to be one sided... but after playing almost all of them, I think I'll just be waiting for that new update that allows us to select our own forces... and then when could have a gentleman's agreement... IE: No King Tiger's... since in my last game that thing destroyed 90% of my force. lol

Concerns are... scenario balance on some, infantry not being about to move or hide behind brush, and hit/ki;; percentage questions... IE: I had that KT surrounded with 6 tanks and an AT, and yet all those rounds going at one target and nothing... if percentage is 0, then we shouldn't even bother? just run away? (like you answered in your forum.)

It tends to vary - when I played the same map as Allies against Magnum's King Tiger - I was able to keep it panicked and ineffectual. And with the huge number of allied tanks I could swarm the rest of his armor.

Playing the same map against Mag as the Germans, roles reversed - he couldn't panic my KT sufficiently to force it to break. This made it impossible for his tanks to overwhelm mine.

That aside, the KT broke down in 5 turns to say the least. A ratio that's just ridiculously high.

I think once you get more familiar with the game you'll find the balance switches.

New players find the Germans easy to use because of the big tanks and head on they destroy the Allies. At this stage the Germans have an advantage.

Intermediate players start to avoid the German heavy tanks and just screen them with enough to keep them honest but stay out of contact. They then hit the Germans with numbers somewhere they dont have heavy tanks and punch through to the weaker 2nd line and support units. At this stage I think Allies have the advantage.

Expert German players have a tough job to do to use their heavy tanks aggressively without letting them get cut off and need to hold the Allied attacks to their weak points with very limited forces. Its about trying to use your heavy tanks without getting them knocked out. Push too hard and you get exposed and too slow and your supports will be overrun before your heavy tanks can dominate. At this stage I think its a really even fight.

Obviously every scenario has a slightly different balance.

One of the things you can do is play paired games. Play the scenario from both sides and combined the results to get a winner. This can be really interesting as find very different strategies being used by the same forces on the same terrain and can often pick up interesting ideas.

Just to let you all know, the 2.0 update is now live with multiplayer force selection. I think there will definitely be some back and forth as people learn how to deal with the German heavies, but they aren't invincible!

Solves some iPad memory/crash issues too, plus a number of other improvements.

Cheers

Pip

Nice.

You guys need to fix that town fight map. I lost two games on it as the French without knowing that if my opponent snuck in and grabbed my first flag, I'd lose. Kind of irritating because both times I had more flags and the second game I was creaming him, almost all his armor was gone and mine was by and large intact. On a real battlefield something like that would be really stupid.

Please fix conditions or make it clear in the conditions that certain flags will lose you the game. I had no clue why I lost till he told me.

So if they take a specific flag, you lose? Or do you need to defend a given number of flags to prevent a loss and that drops you below that number? I will take a look at the map, but the more details you can give the better I can find out what is going on.

Cheers

Pip

Thanks for looking into this, as the French I owned the flags up to the church. One of the enemy squads got in and took my first flag on the left side and game over.

I think I have spotted the issue - thanks for the detailed information. We are looking to do a quick update to incorporate balance feedback (as we were expecting) on the new force selection missions and so it should be fixed very soon.

Cheers

Pip

VK, not so fast. You were creaming me numbers wise but, I had more flags than you and if you look at the conditions, it is what I said (has nothing to do with the specific flag).

Here are the shots from the last turn showing it (I can't replay the whole thing but you get the idea). Still, you killed way more of me than I of you but I got a couple three infantry and a few trucks back there to distract you from the infantry.

It was strictly speaking correctly working - there was a 'get 5 VPs to win' condition for side 1 which shouldn't have been turned on. Made it a little one-sided

Cheers

Pip

Hi guys, just wanted to let you know. This fixes the Town Fight issue, and also has some balance changes to the Force Selection missions.

the official announcements will be going out tomorrow as there is too much PR in the queue!

However the latest update for Battle Academy on PC, Mac and iOS is now available!

Fixes and changes in v2.05 (12th July 2012)
Balance fixes and updates to multiplayer maps
Bug fixes and improved feedback
Bug fixes for server messages on all platforms.
Fixed bug when cancelling force selection upload causing premature game end
Fixed MP version login bug on iPad
Added information on redownloading expansions on iPad

Get the update here :
http://slitherine.com/ba_extras

'Twas a good fight.

Only thing was that my screen didn't have the victory condition (which as Pip mentioned as been fixed) on it so I was unaware. Otherwise I'd have sent more forces to cut you off.

Thanks! The Redux maps needed a little tweaking. I remember throwing 6 panthers and 2 tigers at someone and there was really nothing the poor guy could do. This fixes that.

Thumbs up for a great little wargame!

http://www.slitherine.com/news/item533

Expansions half price... Got me back in...