Need evaluators for a new campaign

Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Wed May 27, 2020 6:00 pm

With regard to the duration of this scenario, it should of course be increased in order to give us the time to deal with this future new German counter-attack.

So increased (from 21) maybe to 26 or even 28 turns, but no more to 30 turns anyway, because it's no longer question of going much westwards than Mt San Nicola, which should be crystalclear with this new version of the brief. 8)

conboy
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:18 pm
Location: Lower Alabama

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by conboy » Wed May 27, 2020 6:20 pm

copy all --thanks!

conboy

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 7730
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by Erik2 » Wed May 27, 2020 7:02 pm

Re the rice at Salerno.
If you want to prevent the US from going there; you could use 'normal' terrain and just fence it in with a line of Impassable Area hexes.
Add some flags at the road junctions and players should notice.

conboy
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:18 pm
Location: Lower Alabama

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by conboy » Wed May 27, 2020 7:17 pm

Yeah,
I had serious misgivings about the rice paddies. I think I fixed it with some mountainous terrain and bad roads.

I think I will eventually have to resort to what you are recommending.

Thanks!

conboy

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Wed May 27, 2020 7:52 pm

Oh, and another thing related to 6 Volt:

The Germans now completely lack any AA-support and thus can't counter at all our bombers... So, perhaps consider as well the possibility to add one or two German AA units at some strategic location(s). :idea:

Navman2854
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:09 pm
Location: Wilmington DE USA

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by Navman2854 » Thu May 28, 2020 3:55 am

conboy, the campaign introductory scenario was pretty cool, WELL DONE! I just played 1-Casablanca .... Pretty much agree with prior evaluations. LOVE the briefings, just too lazy to write them down, probably better from now on :lol: . One suggestion would be the US air for the carrier. I would have done a typical 1 Wildcat 1 Dauntless 1 Avenger or maybe 2 Wildcat and 1 Dauntless. Just IMHO.

terminator
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4217
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm
Location: the loveliest country in the world

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by terminator » Thu May 28, 2020 6:56 am

I think that third is not usually written in English in this way (?)

conboy(10).jpg
conboy(10).jpg (275.75 KiB) Viewed 445 times

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Thu May 28, 2020 9:03 am

Navman2854 wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 3:55 am
[...] One suggestion would be the US air for the carrier. I would have done a typical 1 Wildcat 1 Dauntless 1 Avenger or maybe 2 Wildcat and 1 Dauntless. [...]
Good suggestion. :D

I will vote for 2 Wildcat and 1 Dauntless! :wink:

:arrow: So, sticking closer to the original scenario with mainly dogfighters & still allowing to use a bomber able to help as well dealing with enemy naval force; thus like this it's no more question of an eventual extra US destroyer (it was if really required to balance the "Jean Bart" becoming a true battleship and the addition of a German sub, possibly named "Amazone").

terminator
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4217
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm
Location: the loveliest country in the world

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by terminator » Thu May 28, 2020 9:51 am

ColonelY wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 9:03 am
Navman2854 wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 3:55 am
[...] One suggestion would be the US air for the carrier. I would have done a typical 1 Wildcat 1 Dauntless 1 Avenger or maybe 2 Wildcat and 1 Dauntless. [...]
Good suggestion. :D

I will vote for 2 Wildcat and 1 Dauntless! :wink:

:arrow: So, sticking closer to the original scenario with mainly dogfighters & still allowing to use a bomber able to help as well dealing with enemy naval force; thus like this it's no more question of an eventual extra US destroyer (it was if really required to balance the "Jean Bart" becoming a true battleship and the addition of a German sub, possibly named "Amazone").
I think it’s always more interesting to have different units than 3 identical planes(Wildcat) in a scenario.

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Thu May 28, 2020 10:39 am

Yes, it gives us a lot more tactical flexibility... 8)

conboy
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:18 pm
Location: Lower Alabama

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by conboy » Thu May 28, 2020 12:53 pm

Ok on the planes. Especially with the Battleship in the harbor. (I used an Italian ship flagged as French. I like the stripe-edy deck)

Terminator, I thought it was too, but:
3d Infantry division.png
3d Infantry division.png (388.08 KiB) Viewed 422 times
You see it the other way too but the main source I used from Center for Military History abbreviated this way.

Thanks for noticing!

conboy
Last edited by conboy on Thu May 28, 2020 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

terminator
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4217
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm
Location: the loveliest country in the world

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by terminator » Thu May 28, 2020 1:00 pm

conboy wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 12:53 pm
Ok on the planes.

Terminator, I thought it was too, but:

3d Infantry division.png

You see it the other way too but the main source I used from Center for Military History abbreviated this way.

Thanks for noticing!

conboy
1572px-Kaysersberg-Libération_1944.jpg
1572px-Kaysersberg-Libération_1944.jpg (596.83 KiB) Viewed 420 times

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Thu May 28, 2020 1:28 pm

So I’ve now tested as well the scenario 7 Barb. I find it on overall more challenging (especially towards the end) than the previous one. :D

Well, I won’t write about what I’ve found awesome here, but more about what should be modified in my opinion - let's save time!

Ok, we can indeed recognize (almost) the same map. Therefore, some comments will as well concern the previous scenario (6 Volt) – I’ll try to be somehow crystalclear, but no guarantee. :lol:

Well, I won’t write it every time, for each and every single scenario, but I do think that unlocking the “Drop Tank” spec in most of them would be nice and useful… :wink:
*******
:idea: About the Mt San Nicola sector: 8)

7 Barb:
1. Remove the 2 MG-foxholes (for they have in principle been destroyed during the previous scenario)
2. Remove the AT-gun (useless anyway -> can’t cover inf on Mt because tanks can’t attack on mountain & no more MG-foxhole to cover) and put back a mountain in this hex
3. Replace the regular German infantry on the Mt itself by a Gebirgsjäger unit (more likely to climb on a mountain to retake it during a night or something than a “basic” regular inf)
4. Can let the two minefields (as in the previous scenario), BUT please remove this flag with this name over one of them (“Pietravairano”, if I’m not mistaken)… definitely not needed, I think, AND not on the previous scenario, so…
5. Instead of "M. San Nicola", probably better like (as within the previous scenario): "Mt San Nicola"

6 Volt:
1. Add the 2 MG-foxholes that were put on the next scenario
2. Put a flag with the name on the correct original location of Mt San Nicola
3. Maybe put some Concrete Bunker on this very same hex (so this one has to be destroyed to achieve a Major Victory – and on the next scenario it’s “just” an infantry unit that has taken its place… ‘plausible!)
4. Fine to let a (simple) Bunker on the second one
5. Then let as they stand now the two minefields just South to it
*******
7 Barb:

-> Some cleaning on air deploy hexes: I suggest removing the 2 far away on the right of the map and all the others just over the initial frontline… indeed the 3 hexes “behind” our recon plane and next to our new “construction group” will optimally do the job! 8)

-> The first part is too easy to take, so add some defenses: :twisted:
1. Put something on Mt Caievola and San Angelo (two obj. to capture), either a MG-foxhole, a (simple) bunker or a (regular) German infantry unit…
2. Install a nasty MG-foxhole at the entrance of the forest, somewhere along the road… (in the South of the map)
3. A minefield at a crossroad, let us say maybe the one which stands just 2 hexes south of Mt San Angelo…
4. Hide 1 regular German infantry or 1 Gebirgsjäger in each of the two pine trees about 6 hexes south to Presenzano… those, ready to move either up or down to surprise our most advanced units on these roads may increase the challenge!

-> This scenario may be already relatively costly in terms of “non-colored” US RPs… And now I’ve just suggested several little additions to increase the challenge. So, to stay coherent, I suggest as well: :wink:
1. Add 2 turns (as “safety”)
2. Increase the “non-colored” income from 20 to at least 24 RPs/turn (i.e. put at least the same income for this scenario than for the previous scenario, the 6 Volt, which was an easier scenario)
(No need to change the income from the Blue or Red regiments, as they should at that time have each several hundreds of RPs in reserve.)

-> Nice use of cliffs towards the end, but PLEASE remove the two WALLS! :shock: Or at least put them elsewhere…
You have a wall inside a dense forest (?) and another on a mountain. Plus a bunker exactly over the same hexes, i.e. over these walls!
With this configuration, no infantry unit can take a direct shot at these bunkers (which are obj.!)… these bunkers can be destroyed by bombers and arty, but even then there is no single infantry unit able to move on this hex to actually capture it and therefore achieve this part of the obj…

-> About the town of Mignano:D
First, I’ve seen the garrison from Mignano (thanks to our aux recon plane) leaving it’s place and moving straight west, along the road!?
Later, this unit makes all sort of displacements along roads on the top left portion of the map…
I already find this quite weird and was about to mention it. Then I’ve understood:
On turn 17, there is the event “Mignano Abandoned” (garrison evacuates this place, unable to properly defend it anyway)… that’s just great!
But then this should be improved a little bit. On turn 17, this town was already flying an American flag for several turns…
So, in terms of triggers:
1. What’s relevant, here, it’s WHEN there is an American LAND unit nearby ( < XYZ hexes!)… and NOT a plane like our recon plane.
2. And THAT VERY MOMENT, then (and ONLY then) should the Pop-up appear and the regular German infantry start to move…
By the way, to make it a little more immersive, this famous infantry unit could wear a “name”, couldn’t it? Maybe like “Mignano’s Garrison” or something. :wink:

-> On the map, because you’ve already made some adaptations, there should be no more “… (Phase II)” within the names, because there is no more real phases now (the phase I was like the previous scenario and the second one more like this one, if I’ve got it correctly).
So, for example, the bracket of “Mt Caievola (Phase II)” must disappear… 8)

-> Ah, it’s “Pietramelara” that appear within the brief and on the map… (For the small issue within the previous scenario. Shall the other prevail on the previous scenario that it should be modified accordingly on this scenario as well, of course!) :wink:

-> Briefing: Now it’s the letter “G” that is used instead of the previous “S”?! :?
*******
About maps and compass:

In the briefing we can read: “With the capture of Pietramelara, we have breached the Barbara Line [...] Now we finish off the Winter line and continue to drive them North (East on your battle map...)”

:!: Now, changing the orientation of the maps may be VERY, VERY confusing! :!:

Well, in my texts, I’ve never made the difference: the North is up, the South down, the West to the left and the East to the right. So, when I’ve written this thing at X hexes north to this point, it’s that… well, I think (and hope) you’ve got it! :lol:

Yet, “drive them North”… “them” represent certainly “the Germans”. But, roughly, in this scenario, we start from the middle of the map and move towards the left part of it… so our units and some of the remaining Germans will more or less all end (up) in the top left of the map, so in the West of it…
So, now, should it be indeed “West on your battle map” or still “East on your battle map” for some reason that I haven’t understood right now? :x

But it becomes worse when thinking back to the previous scenario… Remember what I’ve then said?
ColonelY wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 8:35 am
[…]
-> :!: Coherence issue between briefing and names on map! :?

Brief: "15th Attack Avellino from the north and 7th attack from the east" -> well, the very first time "attack" shall be written with a lowercase, but that's a detail! :wink:

The main point is that it is exactly the opposite :shock: on the map, looking at the roads where the names "7th Reg Route" and "15th Regt Route" stand! :?

So, which regiment by where? (Okay, they have anyway the same kind of units, but still...)

By the way, another very little detail: once at it, I would vote for two times "Reg" on the map within the names (and thus no longer "Regt" there).
[…]
So, indeed, “Which regiment by where”!? :?

Actually, I may have :idea: an (very) easy answer/solution:

:arrow: You could simply put this in the brief (of 6 Volt) to replace this (portion of) sentence: “Our 7th and 15th Regiments have been ordered to attack Avellino from two different directions:D

This, together with the names on two different roads, should be crystalclear.

(Without forgetting about the Reg/(Regt) of the names on map! :wink: )
*******
Well, better checking again the counters: :?

1. “Secure all pri. obj.” shows “0/10” when we’ve already one spot under control?! (I mean the red arrow near the 15th deploying zone.)
Later, it has shown “6/10” correctly… so are there some locations “wrongly” indicated by red arrows, or what? I don’t know, but it must be verified in detail, that’s sure!
Finally, there was the Major Victory achieved even if “Hill 368” (I’m not really sure now) was not taken… So 10/10 = Major Victory. 10 visible red arrows, but one still not flying US flag…
So, are there more than 10 objectives, are some red arrow not exactly well put, I don’t know like this. I think I’ll just let you check this.

2. “Sec. obj.” was validated when I’d taken only 3 of the 4 locations to capture according to the red arrows on map… (At that time, Mt Friello wasn’t taken yet, but…)
*******
Cheers up, although there are indeed several things to rework a little, there is truly an awesome potential within this campaign so far! :D

Phew!

Next step will be Anzio! 8)
Last edited by ColonelY on Thu May 28, 2020 9:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.

conboy
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:18 pm
Location: Lower Alabama

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by conboy » Thu May 28, 2020 3:39 pm

ColonelY,
Thanks for the excellent detailed review!
Lots of things to fix/tweak, but all are excellent recommendations.

I hope you are enjoying the campaign. I sure appreciate you sticking with it!

conboy

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Thu May 28, 2020 3:50 pm

You're welcome. 8)


Yes, no worries, I am enjoying this campaign. :D

Well, you know, as I've offered you my help about this, I'll stick with it until the end! It may probably take me some time, but I'll test all scenarios of this first version of the campaign one after another. :wink:

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 7730
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by Erik2 » Fri May 29, 2020 8:54 am

5 Sale:

The 'Secure Caserta... obj is checked when the US captures Incrocio.
There is still 10 turns left of the scenario. I think it would be better if the US is 'forced' to capture those last two primary objs.

The 'block Germans Acerno' never got the green checkmark and the scenario ran all 32 turns, even when all objs should be met.
So I only got a draw...

Another fine medium difficulty scenario.
end.jpg
end.jpg (535.36 KiB) Viewed 365 times
Edit: a draw forces you to replay the scenario. I nuked my way to Volturno.

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Fri May 29, 2020 9:37 am

I had captured the "NE corner" before taking Acerno itself, using some flanking tactics exploiting the roads... :wink:

Maybe you've captured Acerno* before this point (the "NE corner", I mean)? It could perhaps explain why this obj hasn't been validated... :?


*I changed this post, because I inverted two city names here - sorry!
Last edited by ColonelY on Fri May 29, 2020 12:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Fri May 29, 2020 10:05 am

:!: Trying to test 8 AnzB but can't actually load it... :?

It starts to load as usual (I mean the red portion filling the bar from left to right) but stops before the end (~1.5-2 cm before) and nothing's happening any more... :(

I've tried again many times, have waited several minutes (just to be sure, who knows?) then reloaded a save file near the end of the previous scenario to finish it again and try again from there, then re-started the whole campaign and nuked my way up through this scenario... 'Can't load it, damn! :evil:

In the "Load Game" section, it appears like this: "scenario_name - Turn 1" as file name.
Down, on the big white box, Under "Campaign" there is "(No Campaign)", Under "Scenario" -> "scenario_name" and Under "Current Turn" -> "1/13"...

If I try to open this scenario, 8 AnzB, in my Scenario Editor, it's not even beginning to actually load it (no red bar even appearing to fill).

So, then I've tried to open the NEXT scenario, 9 AnzS, in my Scenario Editor. This one loads correctly and I can launch it from there... But then, there is of course not ANY single text (like briefs, objs, etc.) nor any of the core units nor remaining RPs. :? In short - really difficult, if not impossible, to make tests effectively from there. But at least this one would load correctly!


Now, it could of course eventually be some problem within my own OoB...

8 AnzB, it's about a landing, which includes the Brits as well... There could be that specializations are the problem, for one can set only 8 specializations... If it's the case, erasing the others will make the scenario loadable. There was once an issue as well with the "British Pacific Fleet" spec (but should have been corrected and don't know if it still exists or if you've unlocked it or...) Well, I don't know!


:arrow: Can you actually load properly "8 AnzB" during a campaign on your own computer? Or is this a real issue with this campaign, like some files corrupted or something? :?:

I'm sorry, but if I can't manage to load this next scenario properly, I won't be of much help any longer...

conboy
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:18 pm
Location: Lower Alabama

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by conboy » Fri May 29, 2020 11:04 am

Ok, Mine loaded fine, so there's somehow a difference between your file(s) and mine.

I'm troubleshooting now. I may need you to check some files in a little while.

conboy

conboy
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:18 pm
Location: Lower Alabama

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by conboy » Fri May 29, 2020 11:26 am

ColonelY, mine loaded just fine from the previous file.
So I downloaded it again and copied the directories for those two scenarios.
Can you check the date on your .txt file for each of your scenarios against these that I just downloaded from the link?
8 AnzB Directory.PNG
8 AnzB Directory.PNG (44.5 KiB) Viewed 340 times
9 AnzS Directory.PNG
9 AnzS Directory.PNG (36.47 KiB) Viewed 340 times
If they don't match date/time hack, let me know.

Also, look in the 9 AnzS .txt file and see if there is any text. Mine has lots of text that I just downloaded.

If this doesn't show an error, I'll download campaign and restart. But what I uploaded to y'all was what I am working from now.

we'll get it -- sorry for the delay. Hope it's just a data glitch!

conboy

Post Reply

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