Slitherine

Bru/Gabe

Would this be the best way for 'do not lose more than x core units' triggers?
The obj is checked at scenario start.
Check turn is last turn

Erik2 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:04 am

Let's wait until the devs create an official Canadian campaign and add all the proper unit types (don't hold your breath...).

This reminds me something...

Ok, fine.

Erik2 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:30 pm

Bru/Gabe

Would this be the best way for 'do not lose more than x core units' triggers?
The obj is checked at scenario start.
Check turn is last turn

Yes, I think so. As a matter of fact, I believe I used this arrangement - this pairing of these triggers - in one of my fixes, only the Amount was > 0.

GabeKnight wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:45 pm

bru888 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:02 pm

Using aux units is a no-brainer but I thought I would test and demonstrate the use of “Kills & Casualties” and “Check Last Kill” conditions. Please view the following images and comments.

Yeah, that were my suggestions, too. Although I did not think of the "check last kill", but rather the "unit killed/removed" condition.

The "unit killed/removed" condition works great for specific units already placed on the map (I used it for the Royal Tank Regiment and Hobart's Funnies modules, using aux units) but it does not lend itself to units that the player purchases and places himself.

GabeKnight wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:45 pm

Ahem....Bruce....concerning the "destroyed core units carryover" issue.... are you....by any chance....also....maybe....at some point....going over your CSI sweeps of Erik's campaigns again?

I will do so if Erik requests. One thing I wish to avoid is the two of us working on the same campaigns independently even if it is just that I am sweeping and he is editing non-studio productions at the same time. His question above leads me to think that he may be planning to do it himself. What I could do is to prepare a table for each campaign as I did for this one, showing where I encountered the problem and what I would recommend doing; then he could do the editing.

bru888 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:17 pm

Erik2 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:30 pm

Bru/Gabe

Would this be the best way for 'do not lose more than x core units' triggers?
The obj is checked at scenario start.
Check turn is last turn

Yes, I think so. As a matter of fact, I believe I used this arrangement - this pairing of these triggers - in one of my fixes, only the Amount was > 0.

GabeKnight wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:45 pm

bru888 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:02 pm

Using aux units is a no-brainer but I thought I would test and demonstrate the use of “Kills & Casualties” and “Check Last Kill” conditions. Please view the following images and comments.

Yeah, that were my suggestions, too. Although I did not think of the "check last kill", but rather the "unit killed/removed" condition.

Ahem....Bruce....concerning the "destroyed core units carryover" issue.... are you....by any chance....also....maybe....at some point....going over your CSI sweeps of Erik's campaigns again?

I will do so if Erik requests. One thing I wish to avoid is the two of us working on the same campaigns independently even if it is just that I am sweeping and he is editing non-studio productions at the same time. His question above leads me to think that he may be planning to do it himself. What I could do is to prepare a table for each campaign as I did for this one, showing where I encountered the problem and what I would recommend doing; then he could do the editing.

Bru

I would prefer it if you started on our next project. You will be even more useful there
I will go through the old campaigns (checking the objectives in the scenario txt files is actually quite fast)
You do know I'm 2 campaigns ahead of you (just kidding)

Edit: If/when I'm stuck, I'll humbly ask for help

Erik2 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:30 pm

Would this be the best way for 'do not lose more than x core units' triggers?
The obj is checked at scenario start.
Check turn is last turn

Yep. I've even tested it right now to be sure. Previous kills are not counted.

The "fail" trigger is alright, just remember that the "win" setup will only work on scens where all turns have to be played. An early victory would not award the sec. reward then. For an early victory trigger you can use "check obj. state" with the prim. objective instead of the "check turn" condition.

bru888 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:17 pm

I will do so if Erik requests. One thing I wish to avoid is the two of us working on the same campaigns independently even if it is just that I am sweeping and he is editing non-studio productions at the same time. [...]

&

Erik2 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:41 pm

I will go through the old campaigns (checking the objectives in the scenario txt files is actually quite fast)

OK. Thanks, guys, much appreciated!

Regarding Candaian units...

There is an issue with "advance to Cristot". I have 6 AirCp available to the Canadians however, having started at Gold Beach, I have no Canadian Air units available, nor can I purchase any. Was I supposed to have picked some up along the way? I'm playing v1.7.

kverdon wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:56 am

Regarding Candaian units...

There is an issue with "advance to Cristot". I have 6 AirCp available to the Canadians however, having started at Gold Beach, I have no Canadian Air units available, nor can I purchase any. Was I supposed to have picked some up along the way? I'm playing v1.7.

Mascarenhas and Bobster66 brought this up in the beta thread. At that time, it was only 3 Canadian air CPs. I said, "Juno is a Canadian affair but Gold and Sword are British and those are the two beach scenarios that lead into Villiers. The Canadian faction suddenly has 3 air CP's in Villiers" with not enough RPs to do anything with them. Erik replied, "Villiers: Added Canadian air unit" which presumably could be carried forward (if it survives) to Cristot.

Looking at Villiers now, though, I see that the Canadian air CP's now at 6 but again there are not enough RP's to use them. Plus, there are no Canadian air unit(s) in the scenario, so apparently Erik made a change in the meantime and caused this bug to regress.

What I proposed back then probably still applies now: Move the air CP's to the British faction. The Canadian faction looks out of place in Villier-le-Sec and Advance to Cristot in the editor and no Canadian aux units appear in those scenarios. Adding a Canadian plane or two to justify the air CP's seems odd, particularly since the Canadian faction is missing from any of the ensuing scenarios in the Gold/Sword branches until the merger at Goodwood/Atlantic.


But don't delete the Canadian faction in Villier-le-Sec and Advance to Cristot! As we know, this could be a fatal error. Just zero them out and give the British more air support, is my advice.

Thanks Bru,

That’s what I did, just add the 6 AirCP to the Brits

13Caumont - Still have the missing "Queens Own" units. Looking at the scenario design, there are supposed to be 4 units deploy but they are all have the designation "Missing Unit". Boy are they EVER! . Not sure what units are supposed to be there but I've added RP to buy 4 British inf units (and adjusted landcp to match which probably also needs to be done in the scenario.

kverdon wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:40 am

13Caumont - Still have the missing "Queens Own" units. Looking at the scenario design, there are supposed to be 4 units deploy but they are all have the designation "Missing Unit". Boy are they EVER! . Not sure what units are supposed to be there but I've added RP to buy 4 British inf units (and adjusted landcp to match which probably also needs to be done in the scenario.

Yep. What happened was, Erik originally designed this campaign with historical Allied core units. Many of the objectives and triggers were tied to those units. Then, the campaign was converted to traditional campaign play; i.e., the player gets a certain amount of resources and buys his own units. The unfortunate result of this is the loss of the historical unit names but I agree with him that it's more fun to play a campaign in that manner.

However, converting the campaign meant removing most of the core Allied units that he had previously included (some Canadian units were left in because they were actually based on British units - the game does not include their Canadian counterparts - and this is a procedure the player cannot replicate in the unit purchasing process). This broke a number of objectives and triggers and apparently we are still dealing with the ramifications of this change.

I'm not sure whether these missing units have anything to do with your "Queens Own" units; i.e., whether they were the units to be deployed. My guess is that these triggers will be removed because you are now supposed to be buying your own "Queens Own" units and renaming them accordingly if you wish:

Cristot:
I added the Can air because they participated in this battle.
But I agree with you guys, better to transfer the ACPs to the British.
Done.

Caumont:
I'll replace the broken deploy triggers with additional 16 British LCPs and enough resources to purchase the historical units.

...sometimes I work too fast for my own good...
Sorry about the extra hazzle.

Hey no worries Erik, You guys are putting together a bang up campaign. This one's an easy fix with the Cheat Codes mid game.

Kevin

kverdon wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:19 am

Hey no worries Erik, You guys are putting together a bang up campaign.

Well, here's another one, perhaps.

[Incidentally, by no means are we cutting off commentary on UK & Canada Normandy 1944. We welcome continued comments, suggestions, and bug reports on that one as we move ahead with our next project.]

Winter War 1939

The campaign (minus the scenarios subfolder) is in the "Back to Erik" folder. Nothing major done to it; just some tweaks to wording and graphics. I entered country names on the map and I adjusted the flags for The Battle of Petsamo because you had them appearing like the Finns were making an amphibious landing.

I noticed that the Crossroads had four choices and unfortunately all of them are in the same area. So I added, "Click on each of the four location rings to view the choices. With your choice in focus, click the Start Scenario button to continue" to this popup message.


By my figuring, the player will play 15 of the 20 scenarios in a complete playthrough. In 14 of them (not the final one), they earn 2 specialisation points upon completion. That's an accumulation of 28 specialisation points when there are only 4 specialisations available for a total cost of 20 SPs. Of course, there is an incentive to getting those specialisations sooner but I believe I will be pointing attention to an excess of SPs if many scenario objectives also award them.

I was concerned to see that the only way to play Hevossalmi is to lose Tolvajärvi-1. Is that right? It's unfortunate if so, because Hevossalmi looks interesting. I assume you have your reasons for this arrangement.

Are you using all of those mask.tga files? Because, if not, deleting them would reduce the size of the file download.

I added a "Soviet Invasion!" introductory message:


Also, on 14 December 1939, just before the Soumussalmi2 scenario:

bru888 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:19 am

By my figuring, the player will play 15 of the 20 scenarios in a complete playthrough. In 14 of them (not the final one), they earn 2 specialisation points upon completion. That's an accumulation of 28 specialisation points when there are only 4 specialisations available for a total cost of 20 SPs. Of course, there is an incentive to getting those specialisations sooner but I believe I will be pointing attention to an excess of SPs if many scenario objectives also award them.

So it turns out, upon inspection, that 19 out of 20 scenarios also award 1 specialisation point for completed objectives (only the final Kiantajärvi scenario lacks one). Along with the 28 to be earned normally, that's 47 SPs chasing 4 specialisations costing a total of 20 points.


Thus, the deal: You've heard the "You are editor-in-chief" speech but that does not prohibit me from making suggested changes as long as I inform you of them. Once you are aware of them, you can always revert back to the original status or do something else.

That said, then, I will be looking to replace many of these "+1 specialisation point" rewards with a modest boost in resources, an additional unit, or . . . maybe nothing at all! Not every secondary objective needs to have a reward. Some are there just to give the player an extra challenge or to provide flavoring.

Excellent start Bruce. Just what the doctor ordered.
You are free to dust your magic over the creations

I know there are too many spec awards. Deal with them how you like (remove/replace).
Another way to deal with this would be not adding the usual 1 point pr scenario...?
The commander awards need to stay in as is, there's an extremely complicated system behind these (not really )

Erik2 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:36 am

I know there are too many spec awards. Deal with them how you like (remove/replace).
Another way to deal with this would be not adding the usual 1 point pr scenario...?
The commander awards need to stay in as is, there's an extremely complicated system behind these (not really )

I figure thusly: At 2 SPs per scenario, the player ought to have been able to purchase all of those basic specialisations by the beginning of the 11th scenario, which seems right. Giving merely 1 SP per scenario means never being able to get them all and not being able to purchase any until the 6th scenario, which seems wrong.

So my proposal is as follows:
1) Shut off the SP revenue stream after the 10th scenario, because the player simply will not need any more after that.
2) Provide only the first four or five +1 SP bonus opportunities "up front" according to this schedule (follow the color coding as to how each SP purchase is accelerated):


Any more +1 SP bonus opportunities after that are meaningless. I'll go to five +1 SP bonus opportunities in case the player misses one early on.

Incidentally, I thought of 0 SPs per scenario, and having secondary objectives award +5 SPs so that each objective meant a specialisation prize, but that would take away from the natural progression of technological and materiel improvements that both sides would experience as the war progressed. Also, missing just one secondary objective would significantly handicap the player for the rest of the campaign.

I'll post the revised campaign with the new 2 SPs per scenario cut-off schedule later on today. I will not touch the commander awards in the scenarios.

So, will Hevossalmi see the light of day or is there a reason to suppress it as an offshoot of Tolvajärvi-1 defeat? I have not read through the scripting yet to see if that is the case.

Watch out, guys!

This cooperative is evolving dangerously professional...

You're offering way faster updates as the devs. Your scens/campaigns are beginning to work flawlessly. And since you even begin to take the spec system into consideration (in conjunction with the whole campaign / sec. obj. rewards), your work may become serious competition to the Artistocrats...

A great idea with an alternative WinterWar campaign. Can't wait.
(Also a good opportunity to test the new Finnish units in my mod and/or add a few...)

GabeKnight wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 7:09 pm

Watch out, guys!

This cooperative is evolving dangerously professional...

You're offering way faster updates as the devs. Your scens/campaigns are beginning to work flawlessly. And since you even begin to take the spec system into consideration (in conjunction with the whole campaign / sec. obj. rewards), your work may become serious competition to the Artistocrats...

A great idea with an alternative WinterWar campaign. Can't wait.
(Also a good opportunity to test the new Finnish units in my mod and/or add a few...)

Yes, we (I in particular, having started from much further behind) continue to learn about OOB and refine our skills. (Thanks again for your help on that "destroyed core units carryover" issue.) SPs are yet another aspect suitable for spreadsheet analysis and management.

This appears to be an expanded treatment of the Winter War in that there is yet another campaign on the drawing board, Winter War 1940. You may find these campaigns to be more to your likely in that, using Erik's words, "The scenarios are mostly small to medium map- and unit-wise and also quite simple. Should be considerably less work than Normandy."

Winter War 1939

The 10th SP is awarded for completing Koukkuniemi, just before the Crossroad. The 12th SP is earned for any of the crossroad options - Tolvajärvi-1, Hevossalmi, Kotisaari, Tolvajärvi-2, Uomaa, Kotajärvi - so I left all of those with 2 SPs each. Resuming with Lemetti, the 20th SP is earned after Petsamo. Therefore, I removed SPs from Raate, Kelja-1, Patoniemi, Kelja-2, and Kiantajärvi.

There is now a folder in the "Back to Erik" folder, named "Revised Campaign File - SP cut-off after Petsamo." It contains the revised campaign.cmz file. Please move this to your Winter War 1939 folder and use it if you choose to bring Hevossalmi forward (that is, if you wish to make Hevossalmi part of the mainline campaign tree).

Karelian Isthmus - Winterhorde Onward Ride

You may not be happy with this but I could not see any way in which the Soviets would be attacking from the north and seeking to exit to the southeast - back to Leningrad? (And I really want to believe that up is always North on our maps.)

I scoured the internet for detailed battle maps of this area but could not find any. The more general ones that I did find, like below, all show the Soviets attacking from the southeast and east.


So I took the liberty of flipping the opening Soviet positions; specifically doing the following:
- Extended a road along the northern bank of the river to the southeastern map edge.
- Relocated the Soviet supply hexes to this spot and another one on the southern bank.
- Moved the Soviet columns to these two roads, just entering the map and keeping them in order.
- Moved the "1905," "1910," and "1915" spawns to these two roads, keeping AI teams together.
- Tweaked the Soviet activation triggers to have AI teams move south to north (also, see below*).
- Placed two Soviet exit hexes on roads at the top of the map. Removed the previous exit hex.
- Pointed the "Prevent any Soviet units from exiting the map" objective to these hexes.
- Restored northern areas to Finnish ownership.
- Added a few more Finnish deployment hexes to deal with the enemy's changed positioning.
- Sprinkled some more +5 supply points in Finnish territory (they only had 20 to begin with which is insufficient for 52 land CPs).
- Generated a new map preview image.

BEFORE


AFTER


Other changes:
- Made Terijoki a primary VP even though it's a secondary objective, "Hold Terijoki at scenario end."
- Moved the "Get 1 commander" to that objective.
- Named the capture point in the southeast (Finnish: Kellomäki) that is close to the Soviet incursion.
- Renamed the three objectives in the west with Finnish (instead of Russian) versions of local village names.
- *I detect a tough scenario; the Finns are greatly outnumbered especially with Soviet spawns (approximately 15 units vs. 36). However, in a test run against no opposition, I found that the Soviets could not make it across the map in 16 turns regardless (the same would have been true in the reverse direction) so in fairness, I bumped the number of turns to 18.

(By the way, now I'm in the opposite seat: If you need to address the gameplay balance a bit, my preference would be to add to the Finnish CP's and RP's rather than removing enemy units because triggers are tied to them.)

This is the tack that I am taking with briefings in this campaign. No, I am not trying for Finnish-accented English; that was hard enough with the Scots! Instead, I have researched some Finnish phrases and will use them occasionally (along with translations which, by the way, are somewhat imprecise according to the source; I tried to use the versions verified by Google Translate):


I threw this in as an introduction, Turn 1. It looks cool in juxtaposition with the commander waiting to be assigned:


This scenario has been uploaded to the "Back to Erik" folder.