Burma Road campaign issues

Order of Battle is a series of operational WW2 games starting with the Pacific War and then on to Europe!

Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators

Ichthyic
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 10:55 pm

Burma Road campaign issues

Post by Ichthyic » Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:06 pm

This is a fun little campaign, but has several minor bugs and missing items.

Several units have bad or missing values, wrong dates of entry, etc. The Gloster Meteor is missing, and actually even though you can take advanced aeronautics as a specialization, there is NO associated plane! Obviously, the meteor was supposed to be the plane you would get if you took that specialization... but it is missing in the data file.

The Churchill tanks you can get with Hobart's Funnies are unmodified heavy tanks. they SHOULD be: AVRE - standard fire, plus mortar launcher option that does much more shock and assault damage, and minesweeping. Crocodile - Heavy long range flamethrowing tank. Plus, the dates of acquisition are wrong, and you actually can't even get them in the campaign, even if you take the special, unless you change the dates.

Mission 8 appears to have a problem with the AI not attacking units during its turn. especially noticeable in the latter half of the map. It's just not at all aggressive, which is a total shift from the previous maps.

again, all these are minor issues, but I noticed them, so others probably did as well.

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: Long Island

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by bru888 » Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:40 pm

Ichthyic wrote:Mission 8 appears to have a problem with the AI not attacking units during its turn. especially noticeable in the latter half of the map. It's just not at all aggressive, which is a total shift from the previous maps.
If you are talking about Operation Cannibal, which is marked as #7 in the campaign folder but actually is the 8th scenario because the count starts with 0, then I believe the answer is that the Japanese are on the defensive throughout this one. All AI teams are marked as either local or static defense and there are no triggers to stir any of them up into counterattacking. In short, I believe this is by design; you need to slog your way through them and conquer all VP's by the end of the scenario.

I don't have the expertise to comment on your historical unit criticisms.
- Bru

Ichthyic
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by Ichthyic » Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:55 am

bru888 wrote:
Ichthyic wrote:Mission 8 appears to have a problem with the AI not attacking units during its turn. especially noticeable in the latter half of the map. It's just not at all aggressive, which is a total shift from the previous maps.
If you are talking about Operation Cannibal, which is marked as #7 in the campaign folder but actually is the 8th scenario because the count starts with 0, then I believe the answer is that the Japanese are on the defensive throughout this one. All AI teams are marked as either local or static defense and there are no triggers to stir any of them up into counterattacking. In short, I believe this is by design; you need to slog your way through them and conquer all VP's by the end of the scenario.

I don't have the expertise to comment on your historical unit criticisms.
yup, that explains it (the AI behavior). But there are plenty of other bugs noticed that have nothing to do with historical unit criticisms. Example, there is a typo in the csv file where the churchill tanks which are supposed to be heavyTREADED have "heavyThreaded" instead. lots of little things like this that go unnoticed if you don't look at the CSV and realize the units are not behaving as they even intended because of typos and whatnot.

another bug:

the next map (the guerilla warfare map) is supposed to award you a commander if you destroy both grounded aircraft. I did that, the notice I did it came up, but it did not award the commander, nor did he appear in the next scenario. I even tried removing him from his unit before ending the scenario, but he still did not appear to be used on the next map.

EDIT: actually he DID show up... 3 days after the next map started. weird.



this also happened with an air commander award in Panzerkrieg (was supposed to award an air commander in one of the middle scenarios, but did not). I have not figured out what causes this bug.
Last edited by Ichthyic on Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Horst
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1221
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by Horst » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:41 am

I hope the Brits will get more love in the upcoming North African campaign that also benefits the Burma campaign.

What’s also strange that thinly armoured Japanese light tanks require 5 supply but all somewhat better armoured and armed British Crusader and Valentine tanks require only 4 supply. The Matilda I tank, that is basically similar like a Valentine infantry tank, already requires 6 supply then...

In general, the supply requirements, especially the ground vehicle units, of the game don’t seem very consistent. At least I can’t always make a rhyme of the used rule there. For example, it makes not much sense if thinly armoured German Marder and Nashorn tank destroyers requires the same 5 supply like a monstrously armoured Ferdinand/Elefant tank destroyer, while a Tiger tank requires 7. Makes no sense from a historical and game-balancing point.

Ichthyic
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by Ichthyic » Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:10 am

Horst wrote:I hope the Brits will get more love in the upcoming North African campaign that also benefits the Burma campaign.

What’s also strange that thinly armoured Japanese light tanks require 5 supply but all somewhat better armoured and armed British Crusader and Valentine tanks require only 4 supply. The Matilda I tank, that is basically similar like a Valentine infantry tank, already requires 6 supply then...

In general, the supply requirements, especially the ground vehicle units, of the game don’t seem very consistent. At least I can’t always make a rhyme of the used rule there. For example, it makes not much sense if thinly armoured German Marder and Nashorn tank destroyers requires the same 5 supply like a monstrously armoured Ferdinand/Elefant tank destroyer, while a Tiger tank requires 7. Makes no sense from a historical and game-balancing point.
it's all about the classification of tank. Tanks designated "heavy" always use at least 6 supply, medium tanks 5, and light tanks 4. ultra heavies like tigers take 7. there are only a couple of units like that in the game. classifications are pretty much based on their actual weights during the time period they were made, and mostly the weight is due to the amount of armor it had. so a matilda, while about the same weight as a more modern medium tank (or even lighter), was a very heavy tank in its day. I think it would be less confusing if they hadn't munted the "heavy treaded" trait that heavy tanks are supposed to have (there's a uniform typo in the CSV file that's an easy fix, but they still haven't fixed in yet). if it was working properly, as it is in my modded version, heavy tanks all get the heavy tread trait, and it's visible right on the trait screen when you go to buy one. heavy tanks can't go over mountains or a few other special tile types. Now the ANTI tank weapons, OTOH, appear to be classified strictly on their attack value against armor and their mobility. the nashorn, while lightly armored, uses a 90mm gun which gives it superior anti-armor firepower. it's the "weakest" of the 90mm gun AT class, and the elefant, which uses the same gun but is a much more stable shooting platform, thus does more damage via accuracy, and has a metric FkTon of armor, but still costs 5 supply because it uses the same gun as the Nashorn. the difference is adjusted by unit and repair costs, instead of supply, within a particular class, so an Elefant costs more than a Nashorn, and a Tiger costs (A LOT) more than other heavy tanks of the same period. it's actually consistent, even if it doesn't seem like it.



as to North Africa.. what I would like to see is the campaign BEFORE Rommel showed up; where the Italians tried to take NA from the British, and failed miserably. I want to play both sides of that conflict.

there should be an Italian campaign IMO. It would be Mussolini's campaign to "rebuild the Roman Empire", and would be extremely difficult as you would have a bunch of inexperienced raw troops against combat vets on multiple fronts, both land and sea. you would have to pick your battles very carefully for a long while.

Horst
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1221
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by Horst » Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:11 pm

Ichthyic, I get it with the classification but please explain why all "light" Japanese tanks have 5 supply then which the Brit "light" cruiser/infantry tanks of supply 4 could beat any day. Only the Type 94 Tankette has supply 4. I guess the oil-reserve of each country also seems be a factor to come up with these values. :)
Btw, the Chi-Ha tank was historically classified as medium tank, but it also has supply 5 like a tiny Ha-Go tank instead of the usual 6 like plenty other "medium" tanks.

Whatever, I still think the vanilla supply values are a mess, but doesn’t matter.
I’m using my own judgement too to modify these values: caliber-ranges and armor are my main factors how light, medium, heavy, and super categories are defined. Just sticking with classes is simpler with naval units than with ground units. Naturally, I have to stick somewhat close to vanilla, otherwise I cause too much imbalance to vanilla scenarios.
I like to put a damper on powerful units and also introduce organisation classes like with artillery. Either you have many light units or few heavy ones – both is interesting to play in the long run. For example, if you keep the supply of lightly armoured TDs lower compared to heavily armoured TDs, they could possibly still fit into your core in late-war scenarios, otherwise players wouldn’t really bother about lightly armoured units during campaigns anymore where you can usually pile up plenty RPs.

Ichthyic
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by Ichthyic » Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:01 am

New issue:

Burma Road scenario 11 (Imphal '44)

There are 2 big waves of Japanese forces in the middle. One you are fighting right at the start, the other is sitting in reserve on the other side of the map (has a Tiger tank sitting in the middle of it).

I finished off the first wave by about turn 7... but the second wave never started.

If it means anything, I completed both secondary objectives by turn 9.

Then the map ends on the next turn with victory conditions.

It's too bad, as I spent several turns setting up a good line of defense in the middle, and was looking forward to taking on the second wave.

Perhaps just change it so that it doesn't end even if you do both secondary objectives, but instead only when a certain percentage of total Japanese forces on the map are destroyed? I'm thinking 90% would do.

oh, and maybe trigger the second wave on whatever timer it is on, OR if all of wave one is completely destroyed?

here's a screenshot:
Screenshot 17.jpg
Screenshot 17.jpg (688.22 KiB) Viewed 1495 times

GabeKnight
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by GabeKnight » Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:10 pm

Ichthyic wrote:New issue:

Burma Road scenario 11 (Imphal '44)
All of the above points are valid, but it's not new. Always been like this. I wondered about the same things myself.
"If you wait, they will come" ... just don't take one of the secondary towns, then at some point, they'll attack. I tried it once, because like you, I didn't want to waste a perfectly set up defensive perimeter :)

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by Kerensky » Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:38 pm

Imphal 44 can be approached more than one way.

If someone has a very strong and well maintained force in their campaign, as you appear to have, it's entirely possible to go on the counter-offensive and smash the Japanese prematurely. A perfectly valid scenario outcome, just a very aggressive approach. I like alternative tactics, IE going on the offensive in a defensive scenario. If it can be pulled it off, why not reward them, why punish them? I could easily give the Japanese unlimited supply and ultra thick supply borders, but that would only serve to give the scenario less ways of being played. So..
The second wave triggers are definitely there, you just totally outraced it.

However if someone has had a rougher overall campaign on a very high difficulty setting, they probably don't have the overwhelming force required to be able to pull off such a stunning and rapid aggressive victory, and they are going to need to dig in and turtle up, which will drag out the battle to the point where the second wave is something that must be contended with.

On higher difficulties, that Indian front line gets absolutely crushed by the Japanese. But you have your hands too full on the flanks to deal with the central conflict, just have to let those Indians do their job and delay as long as they can. The second line of Indian defense at Imphal itself is a very tough nut though, and thankfully strong enough to resist the remaining Japanese attackers mostly on its own, with just a little air support.

The last time I played I opted to defend the southern VH and counterattack in the northern VH sector. Control of the Indian forces meant I had all kinds of extra auxiliaries to help me out. I don't think such an aggressive strategy would work if you didn't directly control them, but it's fine. Managed to hold the south and completely drive back the north flank. Then it's just a race to capture those 2 major depots before the sleeping behemoth of that final attack wave wakes up!

Andy2012
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 1554
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:55 pm

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by Andy2012 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:10 pm

Kerensky wrote:Imphal 44 can be approached more than one way.

If someone has a very strong and well maintained force in their campaign, as you appear to have, it's entirely possible to go on the counter-offensive and smash the Japanese prematurely. A perfectly valid scenario outcome, just a very aggressive approach. I like alternative tactics, IE going on the offensive in a defensive scenario. If it can be pulled it off, why not reward them, why punish them? I could easily give the Japanese unlimited supply and ultra thick supply borders, but that would only serve to give the scenario less ways of being played. So..
The second wave triggers are definitely there, you just totally outraced it.

However if someone has had a rougher overall campaign on a very high difficulty setting, they probably don't have the overwhelming force required to be able to pull off such a stunning and rapid aggressive victory, and they are going to need to dig in and turtle up, which will drag out the battle to the point where the second wave is something that must be contended with.

On higher difficulties, that Indian front line gets absolutely crushed by the Japanese. But you have your hands too full on the flanks to deal with the central conflict, just have to let those Indians do their job and delay as long as they can. The second line of Indian defense at Imphal itself is a very tough nut though, and thankfully strong enough to resist the remaining Japanese attackers mostly on its own, with just a little air support.

The last time I played I opted to defend the southern VH and counterattack in the northern VH sector. Control of the Indian forces meant I had all kinds of extra auxiliaries to help me out. I don't think such an aggressive strategy would work if you didn't directly control them, but it's fine. Managed to hold the south and completely drive back the north flank. Then it's just a race to capture those 2 major depots before the sleeping behemoth of that final attack wave wakes up!
Still great to have you around. :D

GabeKnight
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by GabeKnight » Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:02 pm

Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense, haven't played Burma Road in level 5 yet. And don't get me wrong, I really liked that scenario with the huge battle. I think it's that I wanted the action to last longer...and there was the thrill of anticipation... :)

Shards
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:05 am

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by Shards » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:07 am

GabeKnight wrote:Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense, haven't played Burma Road in level 5 yet. And don't get me wrong, I really liked that scenario with the huge battle. I think it's that I wanted the action to last longer...and there was the thrill of anticipation... :)
Antici..........

Ichthyic
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by Ichthyic » Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:29 am

Kerensky wrote:Imphal 44 can be approached more than one way.

If someone has a very strong and well maintained force in their campaign, as you appear to have, it's entirely possible to go on the counter-offensive and smash the Japanese prematurely. A perfectly valid scenario outcome, just a very aggressive approach. I like alternative tactics, IE going on the offensive in a defensive scenario. If it can be pulled it off, why not reward them, why punish them? I could easily give the Japanese unlimited supply and ultra thick supply borders, but that would only serve to give the scenario less ways of being played. So..
The second wave triggers are definitely there, you just totally outraced it.

However if someone has had a rougher overall campaign on a very high difficulty setting, they probably don't have the overwhelming force required to be able to pull off such a stunning and rapid aggressive victory, and they are going to need to dig in and turtle up, which will drag out the battle to the point where the second wave is something that must be contended with.

On higher difficulties, that Indian front line gets absolutely crushed by the Japanese. But you have your hands too full on the flanks to deal with the central conflict, just have to let those Indians do their job and delay as long as they can. The second line of Indian defense at Imphal itself is a very tough nut though, and thankfully strong enough to resist the remaining Japanese attackers mostly on its own, with just a little air support.

The last time I played I opted to defend the southern VH and counterattack in the northern VH sector. Control of the Indian forces meant I had all kinds of extra auxiliaries to help me out. I don't think such an aggressive strategy would work if you didn't directly control them, but it's fine. Managed to hold the south and completely drive back the north flank. Then it's just a race to capture those 2 major depots before the sleeping behemoth of that final attack wave wakes up!
good explanation, thanks.

lt1956_slith
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by lt1956_slith » Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:14 am

I know this isn't an "Issue" but I wonder why the developer didn't include the Fall of Hongkong? The British lost that colony and I would have loved to try to defend it.

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 5462
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by Erik2 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:19 am

You mean something like this scenario? :D
Attachments
Hong Kong.png
Hong Kong.png (351.72 KiB) Viewed 1171 times

Shards
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:05 am

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by Shards » Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:24 am

Shards wrote:
GabeKnight wrote:Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense, haven't played Burma Road in level 5 yet. And don't get me wrong, I really liked that scenario with the huge battle. I think it's that I wanted the action to last longer...and there was the thrill of anticipation... :)
Antici..........
-pation!!!!

13obo
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:01 am

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by 13obo » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:29 pm

That was a legendary wait.

lt1956_slith
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by lt1956_slith » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:01 pm

Hello Erik2,

Yes where is that SP map? Is it MP only? I looked in the SP section and didn't find anything for HK.

Thanks!

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 5462
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by Erik2 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:13 pm

lt1956_slith wrote:Hello Erik2,

Yes where is that SP map? Is it MP only? I looked in the SP section and didn't find anything for HK.

Thanks!
That scenario has a history.
Almost 2 years ago I started work on a British Malaya/Burma campaign.
I have about 15 scenarios that are about finished (not tested though).
Publishing a custom parallell campaign to the official one is a bit daft. So I may rewrite the AI and eventually publish a Japanese Malaya/Burma campaign.
We'll see.
Right now I'm working on rwo naval campaigns...

lt1956_slith
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:58 am

Re: Burma Road campaign issues

Post by lt1956_slith » Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:37 am

well I would love to play your version, it may be a lot more detailed and even better. Why throw it out, I am sure others would love to play it!

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle Series”