Hi Alexey and thanks for your kind words! It is far too early to say. We are still in early development phase, working primarily on documentation and new 3D engine. If you wish to stay in the loop, subscribe to our newsletter or follow our progress on any of our social platforms.

This is fantastic! Thanks for your AAR, it was exciting to read it ❤️ May I share it with others on our social networks?

I can't wait to see how will you deal with Tobruk Easter Battle. It will be very difficult but don't despair. If you lose Easter Battle and win Battleaxe, you can win during Crusader (providing you play your cards right). And that would increase your chances of campaign victory. And if you happen to win at Easter Battle and take Tobruk early, that would be something to brag about. I wish you many interesting gameplays! 😉

Cheers von bearenstein! Sounds like an exciting development. Remember, though, that there are no good solutions for the Allies in that first battle. It's mostly a matter of time before you rout all his forces if you are quick and aggressive. Now, regarding the AI settings. I don't want to share too much, as I feel that a veil of mystery around the AI algorithms is always good, as it leaves more to the player's imagination. But in short - AI has certain properties that are tweaked based on those settings, like response time, advanced calculations, and combat effectiveness.. stuff like that. I wish you an interesting campaign. And if you happen to have some interesting fights, do share your after-action battle maps for the world to see 😉

Great idea, to make it a part of Tutorial 👍🏻 I wish we thought of it a year ago, when we designed it. Give editor a go if you find time, hope you'll find it interesting. Especially after you read a Barrie Pitt's book and the story of "Barba elettrica" and his troops.

Cheers and thanks for your very kind words! The book you bought is one of the best covering the campaing. Fine, exciting read with a lot of information. Regarding operation Compass, here's the thing. You'll see that the entire game has been developed in a tabletop wargame style. That means that each battle and operation was designed with two players in mind (as you would when you design a tabletop wargame). Usually computer strategy games are designed differently - with only one player in mind, playing solo against a computer. They are one-sided deals, in which you play campaign as a German in offensive with timed victory goals, with no option to play the other side. We could have designed Operation Compass only for British side. That would have made for an interesting gaming experience. But that same campaing would have been very boring and frustrating if you played it as an Italian. Shitty troops with low mobility .. tough luck for you, mate. Because of that great imbalance between two sides in Operation Compass, that big difference in troop quality and mobility, we can't make it interesting for both players. And that is the main condition for a scenario in AaD and the reason we couldn't create it. I wish you many exciting and fun gaming experiences! And see you on the desert sand 😀

Sure, here it is: - Div/Brig - name of the group (division or brigade) this unit belongs to - Unit Name - name of the unit - Cty - unit country - Type - unit type - As - unit's soft attack factor - Ah - unit's hard attack factor - Df - unit's defence factor - Mv - unit's movement value - Str (troops) - unit's strength (in companies) and number of troops - Losses - unit's strength losses (in companies) - Kills - enemy's strength losses (in companies)

Cheers sirallan! That design decision was made as we wanted to keep the core version of the game tight and to the point. We didn't want to include any system that would make the core game unnecessarily big or cumbersome. We believe in creating a solid base and building from it. The functionality you describe is what we call Reinforcements & Equipment which will be included in our General Staff DLC. In that segment of the DLC we will track arrival of troops, guns, tanks and other vehicles and equipment. The player will be able to manage the reinforcements and will be influenced by the situation in the Med (Malta status and actions of navies and airforces in that area). We haven't yed defined those functionalities in detail, but I evisage it as a core segment of our future Grand Campaign logistics system. How deep will we go into details? We'll see. I always try to strike the balance between fun, historical immersion and mental challenge 🙂 Thanks for suggesting, and I wish you many interesting game sessions! Cheers! Tom

Hi sirvainglory! You can find the list for the source material used at the bottom of each historical article/map in the News section: https://www.attackatdawn.com/news/categories/blog Those were my main sources for scenario making, although my entire reading list is much bigger. I tried to be as accurate as possible, while maintaining the fun in playing the game. Basically I stuck to the historical orders of battle and dispositions, and tried to mimic the actual combat values of the troops. The factors I tweaked were usually morale and effectiveness of troops, but those I adjusted only within certain limits, not to break the historical validity of the scenarios. That's why some scenarios will be very hard for certain sides, as they historically were. You will not have a balanced scenario, if it wasn't the case historically.

You have a good point there, Ebn! I'll add to the task list to add some options for the player to change the length of the We-Go mode.. Thanks for suggesting!

Glad to be of assistance. Again, if you happen to have any questions or suggestions, feel free to drop by and ask. Have fun and good hunting! 🙂

Cheers once more! I've sifted through the forums, reviews and YouTube videos and I think I understand your question. It seems that these are all mistakes made by players as they try to learn the game system. The features they encounter seem illogical at first, and since this is a kind of novel system (real-time hex-and-counter), they need some explanation of how it works. I tried to explain the reasoning behind it and I hope that will enable them to play the game with more grip on the situation. Here I will bring you full explanation that I gave them on their comments. If you happen to have some questions, fire away! Here we go ... ____________________________________________________________ Explanation to The Strategy Wargamer (YT video: https://youtu.be/JGkd3fw7Du4) Hey again, I've finally caught some time to sit down and watch the whole video. This game launch really is stressful business. First of all Jean, thanks again for checking out the game and supporting it all this time. Without people like you, small indie companies wouldn't stand a chance in this global market. Thanks! Now about the game. I've seen you wondering about some game features and I'll be happy to explain what's happening. Everything should be explained in Manual and Tutorial, but hey - who has the time to read all that. I know I don't 1. You can't stack two units from different divisions/brigades/groups - I've seen you struggling throughout the video trying to halt a unit on a hex where a unit from a different brigade was already halted. That isn't allowed, and if you try to do that - the unit you're trying to stop will move to a random adjacent hex. Why did we make that design decision? Early on in the game development process we allowed that. But we had a lot of issues with selecting and ordering groups. You see, when you select a group (either by clicking on a group button in the bottom of the screen, or by CTRL+clicking on one of group's units) - all of the units from the group are selected. But what if one of those units was stacked with a unit from other group? If you select it, the other unit from the same stack would be selected as well, and it is from a different group. Maybe we could split them automatically? But I don't want them to split, just to select. Damn, we have a tough call there .. Not only that, it became clear during playtesting that keeping units from different groups in separate hexes made more sense. 2. Routed units don't respond to commands - when a unit loses all morale, it becomes routed and will not respond to your commands any more. It will try to run away from the enemy, trying to figure out what's the best way to go base on its point of view. This algoritm is ambiguos for a reason, as we tried to represent a non-controllable unit running frantically from the fight. So it will sometimes run in unexpected way, as the unit on the ground doesn't have the overview of the battlefield as you have. 3. There is a limit of 2 active units per hex (plus 1 routed) - you can't have more than 2 active (non-routed) units in a hex, plus 1 routed unit at any moment. If there are 2 units in a hex, you cant order a third one to pass through there. You can have 1 routed unit passing through 2 stacked units and that's that. If you try to move a unit through a 2-unit stack, it will either bypass the stack or halt, depending on the situation (if it can find the way around the halted stack). 4. Formation movement - a unit will move in formation until it reaches an obsticle which forces it to stop. That happens in following cases: - if the unit in front of it stops and the unit can't bypass it - if a unit spends all of its fuel - if a unit bumps into an enemy unit - if a unit tries to move from one enemy ZoC to another 5. you suggested that units can be unrouted during the day - we had that implemented in old versions of the game. The morale was recovering much faster that it does now. But it became unrealistic - the units just went up and down throughout the day. Several times a day they would attack, rout, attack again. It didn't resemble the actual historical account. Think of it like this - you are a soldier in a unit which fought and lost significant amount of forces. You rout and move away from the battlefield to recover. When will you be put into the combat again? The same day? Not likely. Tomorrow? Maybe, but with reduced morale. In a couple of days? Probably, with fully recovered morale (hopefully). And that's how the morale and routing works in this game. 6. refuelling during the day (before the estimated arrival of supplies) - supplies are refilled periodically, as shown in Supply view (from several hours to more than 10 hours, depending on the distance from nearest supply depot). This battle you're playing - Sonnenblume is an extreme example - motorised units moving far inland with very distant supply sources. And since this is the first battle in campaign, players may become bogged down in the desert, not understanding why. Because you're hundreds of kilometres away from the road (Via Balbia), your supply trucks take too long to reach you (let's say 10 hours for one trip). And a tank batallion can spend its allotment of fuel in 3-4 hours (depending on the ground traversed). So they move and then stop. You are suggesting to speed the supply availability somehow. We tested various options for that in older versions of the game - we had supply priority allocation, number of available supply trucks, even supply boost command in place. But it was very complex to use and it was very, very rarely used. Basically, a complex mechanism that added rarely used feature to the game. That's why we pulled it back from the game. I always try to make a clean design, not to leave anything overly complex and rarely used in the system. That's why for instance anti-air defence is automatic (shown as AA fire while striking the unit) and we don't have naval units. Those features were tested but were all proven as to cumbersome for the ground combat we wanted to portray in a clean way. I advise you to check the tutorial if you want to learn more details about the game. The game might seem simple at first, as we tried to make the UI as clar as possible, but there are a lot of moving parts under the hood.Cheers mate and I wish you many interesting game sessions! Tom ____________________________________________________________ Explanation to DatWalrus (game Steam review: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198057924928/recommended/1383640/#developer_response) Cheers DatWalrus! I usually don't write responses for player reviews, as I consider that inappropriate. But a fellow player called my attention to the issues you were having while playing the game and I wanted to check with you to find out about the details. First of all, sorry if you had bad time playing the game. Games should be fun and engaging experience, and I strive to make this one as smooth and user-friendly as possible. And if there are still some nagging issues, I would very much appreciate to find them out and eliminate them for good 🙂 Now about the formation movement - a unit will move in formation until it reaches an obsticle which forces it to stop. That happens in following cases: - if the unit in front of it stops and the unit can't bypass it - if a unit spends all of its fuel - if a unit bumps into an enemy unit - if a unit tries to move from one enemy ZoC to another If you were playing Sonnenblume, maybe you've had your units stopping for the lack of fuel? That would explain those issues, with units going over desert road being halted each day for lack of fuel and breaking formation. In that case, I would suggest you play other scenarios apart from Sonnenblume and 2nd Offensive, and you will see that these things happen rarely, and that game will be much more enjoyable. But if this was not the issue, then we could possible have some bug in the algorithm. This game has been extensivelly playtested, both in-house and by demo players. But those pesky bugs can always lurk in the dark 😈 In that case I would ask for your help. If you find time to tell me what precisely happens in the game that you find problematic - I will try to reproduce that behaviour and make it go away. But in order to do that, I need more details, and having a short video showing that behaviour would be the best. Or maybe an explanation what you were doing when those issues happened. If you have time for that, I would be grateful. Anyway.. thanks for trying out the game and I hope we'll resolve these issues for good. Have a great day and good hunting! 🖐️😀 -Tom

Cheers Ulrik! I must say I haven't seen those issues you're referring to in the forums I follow. Can you please point me to the forums where you've seen those issues being talked about and I'll look into it asap. Also, if you can explain what you've experienced, please share your issues with me. Without the explanation from players I am unable to adress the issue.

It's too early to say. At this moment we haven't yed decided on the details for the DLC mechanics. I'll have more information when we start the development of that segment.

Thanks, it's been my favourite too for many decades! Not at the moment - Long Range Desert Group will come later on, in a General Staff DLC. They will be used within a dynamic Grand Campaign as a special services unit to conduct behind enemy lines operations. Currently you see before you a core system, centered around ground combat. Later on we'll add staff operations to bind these battles and operations into a coherent mix. I'm looking forward to that addition.

Thanks for the unit swap suggestion - it seems interesting and maybe I'll put it into the game. Could be tricky to implement, though .. we'll see how it goes. And about those Aussies in the First Alamein - I already have a task in the To-Do list to move those reinforcements away from the enemy units, if they happen to be around their spawning points. We'll get to that in some of the future versions. Cheers!

Cheers Sean, what a fantastic AAR! Thanks for sharing, I think there's a lot of people out there who will find it interesting and helpful. Yes, First Alamein is a tough one for the Axis. You've changed the historical result, but many things were going against them at that moment, as you've experienced yourself. Now for the answers to your questions/suggestions: 1. good to hear, I'm excited for the full release as well 2. in most of the scenarios you're allowed to reposition the units (as offensive player), but not in First Alamein as it was an attack executed from the movement. I could put some message notifying the player if repositioning is available for that scenario. 3. you could split the stack, move one unit backwards (but not towards the fully-stacked hex) and put another unit in its place from the adjacent hex. I know it's a lot of shuffling, but congested narrow frontline should have similar effect. I don't know .. let's see how it goes with the full game. 4. artillery in the game represents higher-level units (artillery regiments usually), which are around 3 times the size of other, battalion-sized units. So they need to have more anti-air resistance. Playtesting has shown that if we don't implement this factor, the player would use the airforce to destroy artillery too easily. 5. that's it for now regarding the Intel. My design practice is (as the great Jim Dunnigan suggests) to "keep it simple", at least at the first version of the game. Keep concepts clean, easy to understand and quick to learn. FoW in other similar real-time games is modelled on the same principles, so I use those mechanics for this game as well. But we'll probably change it in DLC, when we introduce Intelligence section of the General Staff and its effects. 6. you change the formation direction based on your drawing direction - draw from left-to-right and you'll see different orientation than when you draw right-to-left. That's why you have reverse ordering of artillery and frontline troops. Yes, those formations are something that will be further improved. It's one of the more complex parts of the game, as AI must behave rationally, while also responding to the enemies and obstacles in the way. Once again, thanks for your suggestions and a great AAR. Have fun and see you in the desert battlefield!

In First Alamein I chose to set the objectives which produced historical-like behaviour. You need to get beyond El Alamein, so that you can capture Alexandria and Cairo in the following scenarios. And you need to take El Alamein as well, as it cannot be left to stand behind your lines while you move forward. Any other objective package would have produced non-historical operational plans. As with determining force composition for the scenario, choosing the right objectives is one of the harder parts of the design. Objectives drive the game dynamics, and you need to strike the balance between historicity and entertainment. I lean a bit more towards historicity though, as I think a historical wargame should. Thanks, I do my best to express my thoughts as clearly as possible. 😊 Writing a wargame rulebook had taught me that every word can be interpreted in many ways. So precision and clarity is what I aim for during communication. Thanks for your offer, I'll have it in mind if the need arises.

Thank you for your kind words, and your wishes! May they come true 🙂 Regarding the balance of the scenarios, here I have the same dilemma as in any other wargame - computer or tabletop alike. How much do I want to be able to reproduce the historical account, and how much will I enable the players to make their own fortunes. The answer is - it depends on the scenario in question. Some scenarios give both sides rather equal chances to win, while other's are heavily leaning to one side. Take Second Alamein for instance - an extreme example. Should I reduce the Allied force composition and experience and increase the Axis one until I reach the intended victory/defeat ratio? And if so - how much? The designers do extensive playtesting and refining until we're satisfied with the result, but it's up to us to say how much is too much. I personally don't want the game to be too "gamey" and to artificially shift the balance so that each player can have equal chance to win. So some scenarios will be very difficult to win, as their historical situation was too much inclined to the winning side. The scenario you mention - First Alamein - is tough for the Axis, that's for sure. But if Allied player plays badly, Axis still has the chance to win. I haven't done thousands of automated tests, so I'm not able to give you the exact percentage. But the game is as close as I can make it to the historical OOBs, and is being playtested and designed using the best tabletop game design principles (DAK II and Afrika, I'm looking at you 😉 ). So if it was historically hard - it will be for you as well, providing the opponent doesn't do many mistakes. In the full game you will have many different scenarios, each one telling different story. After playing them, you'll get a better sense of what the game has to offer. Demo is good to give you a taste, but it lacks the volume and depth of the full game. And when I finally get to the DLC which will implement The Grand Campaign - there you will be able to write your own history. Not in a series of connected scenarios, but you will deploy your forces wherever and whenever you like. That will probably be the most interesting way to play this game (if you have enough time at your disposal to play the game for so long). Thanks for your support and have fun! Tom

Well those are fantastic ideas, and thanks for suggesting! We thought about similar mechanics, and even considered using something similar to what Harpoon (and probably Command Modern Operation) has - slowly dimming out the unit when it falls out of the recon range. Now the thing with that mechanics is that it gives the player less things to remenber ... but it can produce a lot of clutter, especially when there are so many units and they change positions constantly. We'll add your suggestions to the list, and think about it. It's a great suggestion, thanks a lot! 😀