Second Front - From the maker of HexDraw

[tomchick]

@Pedro

I suspect the AT guns (ringed) were flagged as top priority for the AI. The troops coming from the northwest tried to flank it using cover, and the armour at the top of screen stopped until both the gun and the ATR in the centre foxholes were disabled (screenshot taken just after that team has broken). The troops coming from the northeast went after the ATR (which was incredibly ineffective in any case), while the northen armour stayed back and eventually disabled my mortars. Then reinforcements from the east made a beeline for the VP location (and the other AT gun).

Yep, I just played this scenario and saw the exact same thing. I hesitate to infer too much about the AI since I’m just a guy sitting outside the black box looking in. But as you suggest, it seems like a unit gets plopped into a scenario with a single objective, which it makes a beeline for until circumstances interfere (i.e. your fire breaks it and has to run for cover). Otherwise, it’s told where to sit until there are no enemies, like the armor to the north in “Hasty Defense”.

And this is definitely a weakness of the game if you’re looking to play a head-to-head wargame. But as a canned challenge, it’s entertaining enough. When I played Hasty Defense, my 37mm guns and two ATR squads (man, you’re not kidding; what rinky-dink AT weapons!) had a leisurely shoot-out with the armored car when it parked itself on a hill in the distance. We all traded potshots for six turns until my farthest gun finally scored the kill. It was almost like it’s own theater. Also, I finally got to see a bad-ass sniper in action; the Russian sniper parked in the building with the forward trenches managed to take out a German leader and a German hero! He won’t be paying for any drinks tonight!

(Speaking of, I love the veterancy and hero mechanics in Second Front! I take it that’s from ASL?)

But what about replay value? Is there any if it’s all so canned? Sure, if you care about the score chase! I could replay to see if I’ll do better, which I probably will since it’s all canned and I can anticipate everything after a first playthrough. Although I know that some scenarios have variable starting set-ups, as you can tell when you try to reload a scenario that isn’t going well; hey, what are these numbered scenario files? Which one should I load to restart? Well, roll a die, I suppose. I’ve seen a couple of scenarios with two load files, and at least one with three or four load files. As far as wargaming tricks, that one’s as old as the hills; I remember how SSG’s Carriers at War randomized a handful of starting positions when you loaded a scenario by simply having different start-up files. Boom, replayability.

However, for this to work in Second Front, I wish they’d do more with the scoring system. How good is 807th place? Is there really no way to see how many entries are on the leaderboard short of paging through the entire list one screen at a time? And is there really no way to filter by friends? C’mon guys. And there’s no way to look at it at any time other than the precise moment I finish a scenario, at which point I can only see the score for that scenario?

Jeebus frickin’ Palamino, why do so many game developers have no clue how to do leaderboards? Or do I just have unreasonable expectations by trying to play their games as score chases? I would have thought I was being helpful by offloading expectations from the AI to the leaderboards, but I can’t do that if your leaderboards suck so bad!

@Pedro

So that all gave the illusion of competent AI

Ah, the feel of the wind in my hair as I ride that precipitous dip in the Chick Parabola again! Everyone put your hands in the air! No holding the bar! Here we go! Wheeeeeee!

[Pedro]

@tomchick

And this is definitely a weakness of the game if you’re looking to play a head-to-head wargame. But as a canned challenge, it’s entertaining enough. When I played Hasty Defense, my 37mm guns and two ATR squads (man, you’re not kidding; what rinky-dink AT weapons!) had a leisurely shoot-out with the armored car when it parked itself on a hill in the distance. We all traded potshots for six turns until my farthest gun finally scored the kill. It was almost like it’s own theater. Also, I finally got to see a bad-ass sniper in action; the Russian sniper parked in the building with the forward trenches managed to take out a German leader and a German hero! He won’t be paying for any drinks tonight!

I’m new to the genre so I’m definitely in it for the entertainment value rather than worrying too much about the minutae at the moment. For example, I’ve been playing some of the (digital) Lock’n’Load modules, and they are sometimes a little buggy, but I’m at the point where I’m not questioning an enemy machine gun crew abandoning their eminently defensible position for seemingly no reason. I expect the point will come when I am annoyed at that rather than relieved ;)

As a newbie, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts above, thanks! It fills in a lot of the background I am lacking in.

@Ironsight

@Pedro I also lost this one on the last turn. Haven’t replayed it yet, but it was a lot of fun and a nail biter to the end.

I’m having a great time with it. On to the two-star scenarios today! :)

[tomchick]

@Pedro

On to the two-star scenarios today!

Post here if you find a fun one! I really enjoyed playing Hasty Defense after reading your comments on it. The lame leaderboards might not let us compare scores, but at least we can compare notes. :)

[Juan_Raigada]

Finally got some more time and played a bunch on the Steam Deck. Configured a control layout that works well. I sort of wish the devs would implement game pad controls (it would work frictionlessly, I think, given the current UI), but what I have now is really playable.

Two star German scenarios have A LOT of vehicles. I think I prefer more infantry focused ones.

Anybody tried a campaign yet?

[Pedro]

Haven’t tried a campaign yet and am suffering from a lack of playtime generally. I’ve done The Ford scenario which was good, but I abandoned the second German two-starrer after a couple of turns due to the overwhelming amount of vehicles - I will get back to it but it seems like it will take a long time to play.

[TheWombat]

A lot of these very worm’s-eye view tactical games have issues with balancing infantry and vehicles. A system that works really well with small units of foot soldiers, often runs into trouble when you try to shoehorn modeling of significant numbers of vehicles. The games are usually at their best when you have maybe one or two vehicles as fire support, and at their worst when trying to simulate armor-heavy clashes.

It might be that you should handle tank battles in one game system, and infantry battles in another, or develop a system specifically built around combined arms maybe.

[Juan_Raigada]

This is based on ASL, and it’s mainly an infantry game (with complex vehicle rules, but the core is infantry). There are exceptions (and hundreds of different vehicle counters) but in general infantry with vehicular support it’s where it’s at.

I think there are a lot of vehicle scenarios because they are easier to handle here than in cardboard, but I’m liking the infantry focused ones more.

[TheWombat]

Yeah, ASL though usually has a handful of vehicles to manage, IIRC, and even a single assault gun or tank is a Big Deal in a battle. The system works well with that mix. For large tank on tank battles, you need a different game though.

[tomchick]

I don’t know if this is true of ASL – I sincerely hope it isn’t! – but when I play Second Front, the vehicles are pretty much the only way I get any sense for which nationality I’m playing. :(

Because Second Front has zero interest in orders of battle and therefore all the infantry are identical, and because there’s no “hardware porn” outside the vehicles that I can see – Are there unique sounds for small arms fire? If so I haven’t noticed. – when I’m controlling infantry, it might as well be French or Chinese or Italian for all I care. The only time I have a sense for being German, American, or Russian is when there are vehicles tagging along. It seems the only thing that distinguishes one side’s infantry from another are with those fatigue and ammo markers baked into each scenario. Which seems to be strictly under the hood stuff (I keep meaning to look these up in the manual).

Also, I like the vehicle “handling” where you have to distinguish between stopping and moving when you spend a vehicle’s movement points. I can’t think of any other turn-based games where I had a hard time keeping a tank on the road while driving up a switchback. :)

[Juan_Raigada]

@tomchick

Because Second Front has zero interest in orders of battle and therefore all the infantry are identical, and because there’s no “hardware porn” outside the vehicles that I can see

Aaaah, documentation raises it’s ugly head yet again. Meaning I don’t know what to tell you, because I don’t know how much it’s in there.

Infantry squads are different. Different range and FP, for starters (that’s in the unit “counter” but it’s hard to see), plus different morale (chances to break when passing a morale test) plus different morale when broken. A lot of this is in the game. But it’s not very frontloaded. You need to look at the unit “counter” and can’t tell at a glance.

Other stuff I think it’s in there but I’m not 100% sure, since I haven’t played these. For example, US units in ASL have higher morale when broken than when unbroken. They break easily, but they recover fast with a competent leader. That makes them different to play.

Some other nationality distintions for infantry, like human waves or Panzerfausts seem not to be implemented, but those break the simplification from ASL the game is attempting (human wave breaks infantry movement, Panzerfausts need a “chance to use” implemented). British and Japanese have very specific nationality rules that can be ported into this easily and if they are released via DLC I’ll expect them to be.

[tomchick]

@Juan_Raigada

Aaaah, documentation raises it’s ugly head yet again. Meaning I don’t know what to tell you, because I don’t know how much it’s in there.

According to the manual, none of what you’re talking about is in there! At least not in the form you’re describing here:

@Juan_Raigada

Infantry squads are different. Different range and FP, for starters (that’s in the unit “counter” but it’s hard to see), plus different morale (chances to break when passing a morale test) plus different morale when broken. A lot of this is in the game. But it’s not very frontloaded. You need to look at the unit “counter” and can’t tell at a glance.

Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say I “need to look at the unit counter”? As far as I know, I understand all the symbology on the infantry counters. What am I looking for?

The documentation doesn’t say anything about asymmetric nationalities or infantry differences other than veterancy (called “quality” in the manual). In fact, the manual’s section on Troop Units – I can’t provide a page number since the manual doesn’t have page numbers, but in my PDF reader it’s the 48th page – says differences in nationality are implemented within the game’s veterancy system:

The [veterancy] values range from (lowest to highest quality) Green, Regular,
Veteran, and Elite. There may be some other [veterancy] levels present
if a nationality had different troop types that warrant it. For
example, German infantry includes 2 types of Elite troops differing
in their firepower and range, and Para infantry that have another
set of range/firepower/SMG ability.

Italics mine. So rather than create a fallschirmjager unit, or an SS grenadier, or a US Marine rifleman, or whatever, Second Front just varies the stats of its generic infantry without even telling the player it’s doing it. And as I mentioned earlier, unit values might be furthermore tweaked under the hood by the scenario’s fatigue and supply values (the effects of which aren’t documented, by the way, unless it’s buried somewhere in the section on the scenario editor), but that’s even deeper under the hood and it’s not implemented in most of the early scenarios!

It just seems so out of sorts with the other For Serious wargames I’ve played.

@Juan_Raigada

British and Japanese have very specific nationality rules that can be ported into this easily and if they are released via DLC I’ll expect them to be.

Why do you say it can be “ported in easily”? Seems to me without any framework for different nationalities in place – right now it’s just veterancy – they’ve got their work cut out for them.

In fact, it seems to me Second Front’s design mandate is pretty squarely “let’s make infantry really generic”, as if that were an intentional decision early on. Maybe I just haven’t been playing the right scenarios, but one of my complaints/observations/criticisms about Second Front is that unless a vehicle figures prominently into the scripting, I have no sense for which nation I’m playing, and the generic scenario maps aren’t any help, either. The German scenarios feel just like the American scenarios which feel just like the Russian scenarios. Seems to me that’s not very fertile ground for a lot of DLC based on different nationalities, at least not without reworking some of the presentation and interface. But this is one of those situations where I hope I’m wrong and you’re right, because I’d love to take this engine into conflicts that don’t feel quite so generic. :(

[Juan_Raigada]

Ah, but see (again), the manual doesn’t say everything.

For example, the Elite, Veteran, etc value of a unit drives some rules, but doesn’t determine stats. Different nationalities have different stats for their Elite, etc units, and many nationalities have many units of the same type.

As you can see, American infantry types in Second Front have the same values as ASL:

In the case of the Americans each counter represents different equipped troops (their experience at a formation level driving equipment) with the two elite counters being the most obvious. But I understand you being baffled because the manual doesn’t tell.

Other Nationalities unit values (range firepower) at same experience value are going to be different. fallschirmjages, SS grenadiers, and US Marine riflemen (well, there are no marines in SF since you need Japanese to give them a foe) are represented by different unit counters (different Elite, etc statuses).

Same with support weapons, a German HMG has different stats to an American one:

So while it might feel generic, in SF, for example, first line America units are breaking significantly easier that first line German units, but they are recovering easier than their German units (because their broken morale is higher), supposedly giving you a different flow under good scenario design.

There’s some stuff that I don’t know if it’s there that further differentiates units, like underlined fire (light bonus to fire-after-move) and underlined morale (no quality reduction). Because the manual doesn’t say, but as we are seeing, the manual not saying doesn’t mean it’s not there…

@tomchick

Why do you say it can be “ported in easily”? Seems to me without any framework for different nationalities in place – right now it’s just veterancy – they’ve got their work cut out for them.

Right now some infantry stuff is not there because, I think, it complicates game flow/ui. Some of that stuff is used for nationality differences in the board game. Of those, smoke availability, panzerfausts and human waves are the most prominent missing mechanics the would have further differentiated the available infantry armies.

But some other nationality differences in yet-to-come combatants are not on the player-input side, but modifications to die resolutions. So they can be implemented without significant UI/flow changes.

[tomchick]

@Juan_Raigada

Other Nationalities unit values (range firepower) at same experience value are going to be different.

Okay, then can you show me? Where are the sheets for the Russian and German infantry? How are their stats different from the Americans?

@Juan_Raigada

Same with support weapons, a German HMG has different stats to an American one:

Yes, it is. I promise you I’ve played the game and I can read the information available on screen. :)

[Juan_Raigada]

@tomchick

Okay, then can you show me? Where are the sheets for the Russian and German infantry? How are their stats different from the Americans?

Big Edit, because sometimes the manual delivers.

Types of units in the game, per the manual:

As you can see the OOB are quite different and represent different things.

Per the ASL Manual, Germans black Elite are early war elite units, while The paratrooper type in SF represents both paratroopers and mid-late war elite units. The “non-black” Elite unit represents combat engineers. SS troops (here would be 6 firepower, 10 range) are not in SF, apparently. All Russian and American (not Pacific) infantry types are in.

Support weapons are different too, with a very specific nationality distinction other than stats (also per the SF game manual): German MMG and HMG function as LMG while dismantled.

So basically they are implementing the distinctions in ASL that fit the current systems. The full set of distinctions do make for different feels in the boardgame. Here it might not be enough, because the more distinct rules for these armies are not compatible with the modified gameflow, but if, for example, Japanese make it, they are going to play VERY differently. The most you are going to see, other than front unit stats, is that US troops are going to rally significantly faster than other nationalities (or break easier, depending on how you look at it).

You also need scenarios made to bring these differences to the forefront, and so far the early scenarios I’ve tried are a little bit bland.

[TheWombat]

For me one of the challenges with this game is the visual representation of units. With a board game, there are usually ways to make different units and capabilities stand out to the eye. Here, I found it very hard because what I was looking at on the mapboard needed to be correlated to the unit card on far edges of my 1404p 32" screen. The two things were far enough apart that I found it jarring and hard to connect them.

I think a roll-over or right-click pop-up window with the cards, or moveable windows, or something like that would be very helpful here. I also think having an option for unit “bases” around the figures would be useful too.

[tomchick]

I would ask you what page number that is, but there aren’t page numbers. Anyway, that’s helpful! Here’s what I had been looking at, which is two pages earlier:

But again, even with the differing stats in the image you posted, they’re literally all generic! They’re identified by only a nationality and a quality level. They have no names, no identifying organizations, nothing to add any sort of flavor. They might as well have the word “CHIT” emblazoned across the top. So weirdly different from other wargames and it leaches atmosphere from the gameplay.

@Juan_Raigada

if, for example, Japanese make it, they are going to play VERY differently.

If you say so. :) My feeling is that Second Front is going to need a lot more work before that’s true.

@Juan_Raigada

You also need scenarios made to bring these differences to the forefront, and so far the early scenarios I’ve tried are a little bit bland.

Are you saying there are later scenarios that better highlight national differences? If so, can you recommend one? I’m pretty much done with Second Front, but if you’re seeing later scenarios that better feature infantry differences – or even that are less bland! – I’d be interested in trying them before I move on.

[Juan_Raigada]

No, I’m saying I’ve played cardboard scenarios that do so :)

Anyway, a lot of the lack of flavor there is weird, but perhaps done to avoid copyright? As I mentioned, those squad types are explained in the ASL manual to represent different troop types, including equipment and training (range doesn’t mean the weapons themselves have longer range, for example, but that the troops are better trained at marksmanship sometimes).

But yeah, SF, despite using the same numbers does not provide the flavor. I agree there.

[tomchick]

@Juan_Raigada

No, I’m saying I’ve played cardboard scenarios that do so :)

If nothing else, Second Front has made me appreciate what I might be missing by knowing so little about ASL!

[LeeAbe]

Aren’t you a big board gamer? How have you not played ASL?

(Just curious, seems like this is one of the biggest names for us older guys. I had it. Barely remember it though.)

[tomchick]

@LeeAbe

Aren’t you a big board gamer? How have you not played ASL?

Right? But I think it’s just that I haven’t been a wargamer for a very long time, and when I was, it was almost entirely on the Apple II, mainly with SSI and SSG stuff. From there, as videogames developed, I mainly followed the developing genres: 4Xs, shooters, RTSs. And in terms of tabletop games, my time as a kid was spent with D&D.

It wasn’t until around 2010 that I started getting heavily into boardgames, and by that time, I’d missed the window for ASL because there were just so many other kinds of games to play, and none of the folks in my boardgaming circle were wargamers. Besides, ASL had become a sort of running joke between me and some of my friends, including some of them who had been ASL players! It never even occurred to me that it would be a cool system worth looking into. I just assumed it was a funky relic of the 70s, like Warhammer minis and disco. So it’s kind of cool that Second Front is showing me a distilled version of how ASL would work.

Because, yeah, if I’d run into this stuff earlier, I probably would have dug it. I coulda been a contender, @LeeAbe!