Bru's Scenarios

Moderators: Order of Battle Moderators, The Artistocrats

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by bru888 » Thu Jul 23, 2020 10:54 pm

Shards, per your suggestion. The "Visit the port of Montevideo" mission now reads as:

"For diplomatic and supply reasons, the Graf Spee is ordered to pay a visit to the port of Montevideo. It may take some persuasion to convince Uruguay to offer hospitality to us. If successful, we will be afforded a one-time opportunity to resupply (restore the Graf Spee to full strength)."

Whether the visit is by force or by stealth, the successful event popup message says:

"The Graf Spee has docked in Montevideo. She enjoys diplomatic immunity for as long she remains in port. The Uruguay government is actually quite accommodating, welcoming Captain Langsdorff and assuring him that the Graf Spee will be resupplied (restored to full strength) once, upon his request."

In the "Montevideo Hospitality" folder, which is activated when the "Visit the port of Montevideo" mission is completed, the repeating "Withdraw Task Force G" and "Reactivate Task Force G" triggers are changed. They only handle this now: As long as the Graf Spee stays in Montevideo, British Task Force G is ordered to loiter on the east side of Isla Martín García. If the Graf Spee moves just one hex away from the docks, Task Force G is back on the offensive.

The resupply effect is handled by a separate trigger (Another dialog! Please get it fixed! :) ). Each turn that the Graf Spee is at Montivideo, the player will be asked a question whether he wants to use the one-time full strength option.

Version 2.4 of the Battle of the River Plate has been uploaded. Here are the revised triggers, in case you are interested:

Screenshot 1.jpg
Screenshot 1.jpg (279.88 KiB) Viewed 354 times
Screenshot 2.jpg
Screenshot 2.jpg (237.23 KiB) Viewed 354 times
Screenshot 3.jpg
Screenshot 3.jpg (236.56 KiB) Viewed 354 times
Screenshot 4.jpg
Screenshot 4.jpg (248.46 KiB) Viewed 354 times
Screenshot 5.jpg
Screenshot 5.jpg (274.1 KiB) Viewed 354 times
Screenshot 6.jpg
Screenshot 6.jpg (265.83 KiB) Viewed 354 times
Screenshot 7.jpg
Screenshot 7.jpg (282.61 KiB) Viewed 354 times
Screenshot 8.jpg
Screenshot 8.jpg (266.12 KiB) Viewed 354 times
Screenshot 9.jpg
Screenshot 9.jpg (143.42 KiB) Viewed 354 times
- Bru

Shards
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 3102
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:05 am

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by Shards » Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:36 am

bru888 wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:50 pm
Shards wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:46 pm
I'm intrigued as to what the reporters on the quayside in Montevideo at the time would have been drinking? I'm guessing not that many would have converted to Mate?
You got me, mate. :wink:
Had to just go back and scroll through Battle of the River Plate (1956) to see what they were drinking in the cafe/bar scenes there. Of course, this is an American movie from the 50's, so they're all drinking Coca Cola :D

Shards
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 3102
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:05 am

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by Shards » Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:37 am

And 2.4 sounds like a good gameplay change Bru!

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by bru888 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:20 pm

Shards wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 9:37 am
And 2.4 sounds like a good gameplay change Bru!
Thanks. I know you are considering River Plate for Community Crate status, pending the fix of the dialog box priority. Instead, you are talking about using the Raid on Turku. First, please make sure you are looking at version 2.2 of Turku; the screen shot that you posted in another thread had the VP flags outside of the proper hexes which, as you pointed out, looked awkward although I did that for a reason. Now it looks like this:

Screenshot 1.jpg
Screenshot 1.jpg (289.41 KiB) Viewed 328 times

But there is another problem, I just realized . . .
- Bru

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by bru888 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:31 pm

bru888 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:20 pm
But there is another problem, I just realized . . .
Shards, (or Erik, Gabe, whoever), please take a look at the garrison at the top right in the above image. I had been testing the other scenario on Difficulty 1 which was fortunate in that, when I started Turku, the garrison appears at strength 6. The garrison is allied to the human player, but because it is a non-human faction, the game lowers its strength to 6 which is, of course, detrimental to the player on the lower difficulty level.

Screenshot 3.jpg
Screenshot 3.jpg (421.04 KiB) Viewed 324 times

So here is where I would like your opinion. As you saw with River Plate, I sometimes overlook the effects of various difficulty settings for trigger conditions like this:

Screenshot 4.jpg
Screenshot 4.jpg (437.04 KiB) Viewed 324 times

Should I set the "Difficulty bonus compensation" for this condition or, and this is the way I am tending, should I redesign this verdammt garrison module which has never worked properly?
- Bru

Shards
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 3102
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:05 am

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by Shards » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:38 pm

Hi,

Yeah. Following Gabe's logic from the other chat, I think ticking the Difficulty Bonus box essentially turns it into a percentage rather than a hard value.

So it would be testing that this unit was a Less Than 3 health on Diff 1.

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by bru888 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:44 pm

Shards wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:38 pm
Hi,

Yeah. Following Gabe's logic from the other chat, I think ticking the Difficulty Bonus box essentially turns it into a percentage rather than a hard value.

So it would be testing that this unit was a Less Than 3 health on Diff 1.
Do you think, then, that it would be sufficient to just tick that "Difficulty bonus compensation" for this condition? Because it would take a two or three hits to reduce the garrison from 6 to 2, which perhaps is comparable to reducing it from 10 to 4 on middle difficulty?
- Bru

Shards
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 3102
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:05 am

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by Shards » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:51 pm

Yes, I think that's a sensible compromise

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by bru888 » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:56 pm

Alright, thanks muchly for the prompt responses and advice. Rather than going back to the well, the garrison module will work well for the most part as designed if I tick that setting. Rather than ripping the thing apart, that is what I will do. Please look for the Raid on Turku version 2.3 in a few minutes.

EDIT: Version 2.3 of the Raid on Turku has been uploaded.
- Bru

GabeKnight
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3108
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by GabeKnight » Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:06 am

Shards wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:51 pm
Yes, I think that's a sensible compromise
Agree, if the "Difficulty bonus compensation" really works percentage-wise.

And BTW, those garrison troops will have 13HP with higher difficulties; it's always a trade-off assigning (AI) aux. factions to the player.

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by bru888 » Sat Jul 25, 2020 1:12 am

GabeKnight wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 12:06 am
Shards wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:51 pm
Yes, I think that's a sensible compromise
Agree, if the "Difficulty bonus compensation" really works percentage-wise.

And BTW, those garrison troops will have 13HP with higher difficulties; it's always a trade-off assigning (AI) aux. factions to the player.
It's not a bug but I would call it an oversight. The difficulty unit strength adjustment should not apply to AI alliances on the same team as the human player; i.e., "on the same side."
- Bru

Shards
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 3102
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:05 am

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by Shards » Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:07 am

If we started again, I'd say that was the right decision, but changing that now would potentially affect so many scenarios and campaigns

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by bru888 » Sat Jul 25, 2020 3:00 pm

Shards wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:07 am
If we started again, I'd say that was the right decision, but changing that now would potentially affect so many scenarios and campaigns
Agreed. We live with it. (And retain memory of it, for the future.)
- Bru

Shards
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 3102
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:05 am

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by Shards » Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:18 pm

FYI, I've just played a new test build and the messages popups in River Plate are appearing in the appropriate order now :)

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm
Location: United States

Re: Bru's Scenarios

Post by bru888 » Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:01 pm

Shards wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:18 pm
FYI, I've just played a new test build and the messages popups in River Plate are appearing in the appropriate order now :)
That's great news! I was just thinking of using a dialog box in something that I am working on but shied away from it due to this issue.
- Bru

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle : World War II - Scenario Design”