Need evaluators for a new campaign

Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators

Post Reply
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 2:56 pm

by ColonelY » 29 May 2020 08:53
Erik2 wrote: ↑29 May 2020 08:49
[...] One additional game functionality that would really come in handy in these kind of scenarios is an option to open the scenario briefing during play. [...]
Oh, yeah, that would come in very handy. :D As for all the scenarios, by the way. :wink:
I requested this a very very long time ago!

conboy

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 » Fri May 29, 2020 3:46 pm

conboy wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 2:56 pm
by ColonelY » 29 May 2020 08:53
Erik2 wrote: ↑29 May 2020 08:49
[...] One additional game functionality that would really come in handy in these kind of scenarios is an option to open the scenario briefing during play. [...]
Oh, yeah, that would come in very handy. :D As for all the scenarios, by the way. :wink:
I requested this a very very long time ago!

conboy
Very much needed.

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 » Fri May 29, 2020 4:54 pm

Casablanca

Several US units should not yet be available:

conboy(11).jpg
conboy(11).jpg (536.55 KiB) Viewed 498 times

conboy(12).jpg
conboy(12).jpg (497.42 KiB) Viewed 498 times

conboy(13).jpg
conboy(13).jpg (618.88 KiB) Viewed 498 times
Last edited by terminator on Fri May 29, 2020 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Fri May 29, 2020 6:18 pm

conboy, just finished 2-Licata. Took me a couple tries to get Palermo in time. Thought there was going to another nasty surprise there along that last stretch LOL.

1) After I air exited the P-38s (I hadn't built the airfield yet), I went to deploy them back on board. The hex directly north of Aragona was an air deployment hex. No airfield there so that probably needs to be removed. 2) The 3 Italian arty units that are truckin on up to be deployed get massacred pretty easily by the US air. Don't know if that is historical but maybe keep them deployed elsewhere so therefore more useful? 3) Achieved the secondary obj, made sure all location were taken, did not show as achieved. No reward so nothing lost but....

Fun scenario, enjoyed it very much. Like Eric, I also disobeyed orders and landed the 2 AA units to help kill the Axis air. worked for me :)

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 7:01 pm

So, more feedbacks on the next scenarios (based on the txt files! :roll: ); these are mainly details, but may still be worth noticing.

8 AnzB: 8)

Brief:
-> Could replace the "1SSF" by the "1SSF (namely the 1st Special Service Force, also known as "The Devil’s Brigade")" :wink:
-> “The British 1 Division, 2 and 3 Brigades” or maybe “The British 1st Division, 2nd and 3rd Brigades”?
-> “by 1 Division” or maybe “by British 1st Division”?

Unit name:
-> ”3d BN, 504th PIR” -> the “BN” becomes “Bn” (as usual)
-> “1SSFArty (2)” -> “1SSF Arty (2)” (space!; as for the previous unit on txt file)
-> “spawn_name_482 =” and “spawn_name_548 =” with nothing after on txt file!?
Could it be that one of those (maybe the first) is actually the “3rd Bn 6651 Rangers”? :idea: (This one being mentioned in the event “Rangers Ambushed”!)
And no “2nd Bn 6651 Rangers” right now? (the 1st and 4th are named on map, the 3rd shall as well ‘cause event, so…)

Map:
“hex_1589 = 7th next objective” -> “hex_1589 = 7th Next Objective” (by coherence with the other names; by the way, 2nd time a “7th Next Objective” will appear on map – but two hexes can have exactly the same name, right?)

Minor & Major Victories text:
“3d ID salvaged the beachhead” -> a space can be removed after “salvaged”
*******
9 AnzS: 8)

Well, add the briefings…

Map:
“hex_1589 = 7th next objective” -> “hex_1589 = 7th Next Objective” (as before)

Event:
In Ressuply, “British 1 Brigade” or “British 1st Brigade”?
Next titles could be a little long, therefore there is always these options:
“45th Division Committed” -> “45th Div Committed”
“E Flank Roads Are Secure” -> “E Flank Roads Secured”

Endings:
-> Minor Defeat: “Beachhead saved, offensive stalled” -> put the first letter of each of these words as uppercase (as for all the other possibilities)
-> Minor Victory: “VI Corps salvaged the” -> a double space not required…
*******
10 AnzBO: 8)

Briefs:
-> Brief parts -> “S-1”, then “s-2” (small “s”?), then only “Gs” (like “G-2 (Cont)”, etc.) -> maybe only (big) S…
-> “3d ID and 1st Armored divisions” -> some “divisional” redundancy… what about either “Our 3d Infantry and the 1st Armored divisions” or “Our 3d ID and the 1st Armored Division”?
-> “along Highway 6 (Valmonte t0 Finocchio on your battle maps.)” -> t0 (“zero“) like “to“ of course; why a plural for “map(s)”?; close the bracket before putting the “.”

Map:
“hex_1223 = GiulIanello” -> should be (according to the texts of two events at least) “= Giulianello” (or it may be – less likely - the opposite, but write the same thing everywhere anyway)
“hex_908 = Galllicana” -> there should be one “l” too much…
“hex_1591 = via Cassino” or rather “=Via Cassino“?

hex_583 = 3rd Div Left Boundary; hex_867 = 3rd Div; hex_926 = 3rd Div; hex_984 = 3rd Div; hex_1147 = 3rd Div Right Boundary; hex_1386 = 3rd Division
-> Well, it should be about our “3d ID”, right? Then why not putting each time our “classical” terminology, the “3d ID” instead of “3rd Div” or even “3rd Division”?
Same consideration of the text of the events “Task Force Howze” and “Attack Plans Change”. (The next event talks again about our “3d ID”.)

On various locations, there is (for example) as names the “7th" or the “7th Regt”. Well (although the “t” is optional and should more likely be removed according to the previous scenarios), what about putting the same form every time?

Names:
“spawn_name_13 = 10th Army escapees” vs “spawn_name_15 = 10th Army Escapees” -> “Escapees” with or without uppercase? Both time the same…

Event: “Attack Plans Change!”
Text begins like: “Gen Mark Clark has directed that the main attack be redirected northwest toward the Alban Hills.”
-> Directed, redirected… Maybe “[…] has decided […]” or “[…] has ordered […]”
-> There is no hex named “Alban Hills” on this map… :? Is it normal (like too far away, as a general direction of assault) or should it be added for “crystalclearness” :lol: sakes?


'Hope it helps a little. Those scenarios look awesome! :D

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 7:29 pm

1) After I air exited the P-38s (I hadn't built the airfield yet), I went to deploy them back on board. The hex directly north of Aragona was an air deployment hex. No airfield there so that probably needs to be removed. 2) The 3 Italian arty units that are truckin on up to be deployed get massacred pretty easily by the US air. Don't know if that is historical but maybe keep them deployed elsewhere so therefore more useful? 3) Achieved the secondary obj, made sure all location were taken, did not show as achieved. No reward so nothing lost but....
Navman, great to have you on-board!
1) Thanks for pointing that out. there were also some sea deployment hexes for air that I took out. I never could figure out why those hexes were glowing ... now I know!
2) If that's how you want to use your air, your prerogative. I tried many different combinations of use for those guns, that's where I ended up. They were present and only marginally effective.
3) I had one secondary objective, Bolognetta, unmarked with the arrows. Thanks for catching that. My (rhetorical) question is, how in blazes did you get to Palermo without passing through it? It is ding-nigh impossible to get to Palermo without taking it. Only thing I can think of is you bypassed it because there was no arrow there. If that's not the problem, maybe someone else behind you will encounter this issue but Erik and ColonelY ahead of you were okay on the secondaries. ColonelY, Erik, can you verify (from memory)? Anyway the only issue I saw was that Bolognetta was not marked with a secondary objectives arrow, so if that was the problem, it is now fixed.

This scenario has 21 secondary objectives, each called out individually in the trigger. I have since been instructed, and have demonstrated, that a far better method is to simply count the silver flags using a secondary objective counter.

Gee whillickers, Miz McGillicuddy!

Thanks for the review -- your set of eyes are badly needed, hombre.
Thanks again, keep awn keepen awwwn!

conboy
Attachments
Screenshot 45.jpg
Screenshot 45.jpg (351.86 KiB) Viewed 480 times

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 » Fri May 29, 2020 7:52 pm

conboy wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 7:29 pm
1) After I air exited the P-38s (I hadn't built the airfield yet), I went to deploy them back on board. The hex directly north of Aragona was an air deployment hex. No airfield there so that probably needs to be removed. 2) The 3 Italian arty units that are truckin on up to be deployed get massacred pretty easily by the US air. Don't know if that is historical but maybe keep them deployed elsewhere so therefore more useful? 3) Achieved the secondary obj, made sure all location were taken, did not show as achieved. No reward so nothing lost but....
Navman, great to have you on-board!
1) Thanks for pointing that out. there were also some sea deployment hexes for air that I took out. I never could figure out why those hexes were glowing ... now I know!
2) If that's how you want to use your air, your prerogative. I tried many different combinations of use for those guns, that's where I ended up. They were present and only marginally effective.
3) I had one secondary objective, Bolognetta, unmarked with the arrows. Thanks for catching that. My (rhetorical) question is, how in blazes did you get to Palermo without passing through it? It is ding-nigh impossible to get to Palermo without taking it. Only thing I can think of is you bypassed it because there was no arrow there. If that's not the problem, maybe someone else behind you will encounter this issue but Erik and ColonelY ahead of you were okay on the secondaries. ColonelY, Erik, can you verify (from memory)? Anyway the only issue I saw was that Bolognetta was not marked with a secondary objectives arrow, so if that was the problem, it is now fixed.

This scenario has 21 secondary objectives, each called out individually in the trigger. I have since been instructed, and have demonstrated, that a far better method is to simply count the silver flags using a secondary objective counter.

Gee whillickers, Miz McGillicuddy!

Thanks for the review -- your set of eyes are badly needed, hombre.
Thanks again, keep awn keepen awwwn!

conboy
Thanks conboy!

1) I forgot to mention the single air deployment hex to the south of the 3 exit hexes at sea, that's the one I used and assume that's why it's there. That location makes perfect sense.
2) Cool, I just killed them very easily.
3) VERY strange because I definitely took Bolognetta. Don't have a clue there dude.

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 8:12 pm

ColonelY, this passage is from CMH Pub 100-10, Anzio Beachhead

"Enemy intelligence noted that, while Allied units, especially the British 1 Division and U.S. 3d Division, had suffered heavy losses, the morale of VI Corps was good and the Allies could be expected to defend their positions stubbornly. ... The arrival of the 167 Brigade permitted VI Corps to complete the relief of the 1 Division, which then passed into Corps reserve. On the night of 14 February the 167 Brigade took over the short sector of the Moletta River line held by the 3d Battalion, 157th Infantry. The following night, on the eve of the German attack, the sector held by the 1 Division was divided between the 56 and the 45th Divisions. The left position was taken over by the 56 Division, ..."

I didn't want to run afoul of a savvy Brit because I violated their noun-naming conventions, instead I get called down by Frenchmen for my US noun-naming practice and my Brit noun-naming practice. I probably will end up changing it to your recommendation, because a savvy Brit would just write it off to American chauvinistic ignorance...

thanks for all you are doing -- your comments are great. I hope you can find the error so you can restart with your battle critiques because they are very illuminating.

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 » Fri May 29, 2020 8:22 pm

:D

GabeKnight
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3180
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by GabeKnight » Sat May 30, 2020 1:25 am

Colonel, conboy, I've downloaded and tested the 08Anzio scen (outside the campaign) as custom single scen, and it did start up just fine in the editor and in my mod.

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 » Sat May 30, 2020 6:01 am

Naval Battle of Casablanca

Casablanca.JPG
Casablanca.JPG (23.59 KiB) Viewed 430 times

Link: https://www.thoughtco.com/naval-battle- ... ca-2360516

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 » Sat May 30, 2020 7:32 am

So, the French themselves had several submarines there as well (and indeed a cruiser). :D

Well, well, then don't forget about the other fleet (according to the same link you've provided): :wink:

Allies
Rear Admiral Henry Kent Hewitt
1 aircraft carrier
1 escort carrier
1 battleship
3 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
14 destroyers

But now there comes a question:
:?: As our main focus is on our 3d ID, a much bigger naval battle, won't it distract too much attention from our Division? :?

This is already (if I'm not mistaken) why the "US 2nd Armored Division" as well as the "US 9th Infantry Division" have been a little put aside...

It is as well question of the batteries on El Hank at the western end of the harbor on the article you've found. 8)


:arrow: So, seeing all this, here is what I propose for this scenario: :idea:
1. Add indeed several ships from both sides (but not too much - I think no one would really like to see, for example, about 20 destroyers on this map!), maybe not right near the coast but a little northern;
2. Add one French coastal gun named "El Hank" (in the western part of the harbor or something), for historical sakes;
3. Spawn (maybe on turn 3 or 4, i.e. once all of our guys have landed) some aux US units in the NE of the coast or near a road: maybe 1 light tank from "US 2nd Armored Division" (with some related name) as well as maybe 2 regular infantry units of the "US 9th Infantry Division" (with names as well to identify quickly all these aux troops, belonging to other divisions)... with some supply output, of course;
4. Add a Pop-up informing the player about this, that some elements of these two other US Divisions, which have landed nearby, have come to help taking Casablanca. (And of course highlight then the area where they spawn.)
5. Add several French land troops around Casablanca in order to avoid unbalancing the scenario by possibly increasing too much the US forces. :wink:
6. Consider the possibility of eventually adding few turns...

I believe that'll do it. What do you think about these suggestions?
Last edited by ColonelY on Sat May 30, 2020 9:20 am, edited 7 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 » Sat May 30, 2020 8:06 am

terminator wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 4:54 pm
[...] Several US units should not yet be available [...]
That's perfectly right. 8)

But in principle no player should notice it because you have to do some research for that. :wink:

1 Casa begins the 8th November 1942, 2 Lica the 10th July 1943...

So for scenario Licata, the Hellcat and the Greyhound are perfectly fine, but the M12 is still "ahead of its time"... And it's clear that for the scenario Casablance these 3 units are "ahead of their time" :?

Actually, modifying this could easily become a "little" annoying. :roll: It means at least:
1. Modifying the introduction scenario (and what would replace the M12, for example? - there was not many options at that time);
2. Checking all LCPs again until you could come back to having again ALL these units at our disposal;
3. Modifying the Licata scenario (add the Hellcat and the Greyhound in our core forces, maybe make the player disbanding some recon Willys);
4. Adding as well the M12 either in the Licata but still "ahead of its time" or later, which means more changes...

Phew!, so quite a lot of things actually. :?

Therefore, I'm wondering if it would be really worth it. :wink:


:arrow: Another (much, much easier) way to solve this issue could be the following:

:idea: In short, just adding in the Casablanca briefing something like "in our division, we've had the luck to receive some very modern equipment and even some vehicles actually nowadays prototypes" (without more precisions*). And that's it! 8)

Yes, it's a small twist on historical reality... But adding some extra "prototypes" has sometimes happened (as from time to time within the awesome Winter War trilogy :wink: ) and is always pretty much fun.

*If this option shall prevail, then it's even possible :idea: to add a sec obj about dealing at least a certain amount of damages with only the M12 155mm (the most "ahead of its time", so the most "prototype-like unit"), as obj descr that "it's about testing this prototype unit" (already as core unit - but, like this, why not?) and as reward maybe +100 RPs (only for the "non-colored" US)...
Last edited by ColonelY on Sat May 30, 2020 9:22 am, edited 9 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 » Sat May 30, 2020 8:16 am

So now that I've checked when the very first scenarios do actually begin, I've spotted a very little detail to adapt:

1 Casa: 8th November 1942 at the beginning
0 OoB: 11th November 1942 & +1day/turn...

The introduction scenario must of course be played before the first battle!

:idea: So, I think it would be better to:
1. Begin 0 OoB not later than the 7th November 1942;
2. Make this scenario just last (max) one day. (Thus changing the length of the day within this scenario to (min) the actual number of turns it contains. :wink: )
Last edited by ColonelY on Sat May 30, 2020 10:00 am, edited 2 times 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 » Sat May 30, 2020 9:03 am

ColonelY wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 8:06 am
terminator wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 4:54 pm
[...] Several US units should not yet be available [...]
That's perfectly right. 8)

But in principle no player should notice it because you have to do some research for that. :wink:
I noted the problem of US unit availability at that time:

conboy(14).jpg
conboy(14).jpg (604.97 KiB) Viewed 402 times

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 » Sat May 30, 2020 9:35 am

ColonelY wrote:
Sat May 30, 2020 7:32 am
So, the French themselves had several submarines there as well (and indeed a cruiser). :D

Well, well, then don't forget about the other fleet (according to the same link you've provided): :wink:

Allies
Rear Admiral Henry Kent Hewitt
1 aircraft carrier
1 escort carrier
1 battleship
3 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
14 destroyers

But now there comes a question:
:?: As our main focus is on our 3d ID, a much bigger naval battle, won't it distract too much attention from our Division? :?
I have not yet tested the following scenarios but it seems to me that this scenario(Casablanca) is the only opportunity to have a naval battle in the campaign ?

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 » Sat May 30, 2020 9:38 am

Yes, I believe so, indeed.

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 » Sat May 30, 2020 9:42 am

This is one of the reasons why I am proposing to increase the number of ships on this map. :wink:

But, at the same time, this should not make land operations seem "anecdotal" (question of proportions, of number of units involved)...

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 » Sat May 30, 2020 11:13 am

7 Barb

No specific issues.
Medium to hard difficulty. Quite intense end-game.
end.jpg
end.jpg (101.9 KiB) Viewed 374 times

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 » Sat May 30, 2020 12:24 pm

Gabe, Erik,
Thanks for your comments. So happy to have you engaged, thanks for the input/validation.

ColonelY, Terminator,
Thanks for your input regarding the Naval battle -- but this is all that I am trying to convey:
3d Division Torch.png
3d Division Torch.png (452.48 KiB) Viewed 369 times
Note the 3d ID 15th, 7th, and 30th regiments that are here identified as Regimental Landing Groups. As you can see, I have already gone outside historical bounds with the action inland of Fedala, which started out as simply securing the inland left flank of the 3d. Then when I did the first playthrough, I was struck by the simplicity of the ground battle, of which most of it was moving the division across the desert from Fedala to Casablanca. (Which is why I have paved roads, to facilitate that movement so the players don't have to take so many turns to get there...)

I expanded the naval battle a little by adding all 4 destroyers Erik recommended, replacing the cruiser with an Italian battleship, and adding the Swanee with a Dauntless. Hopefully you'll still be interested when I release it (maybe for more beta) after this go-round. So this is about as far as I want to go with this. It conveys the ground battle (with a little embellishment) and puts it in the context of a naval operation.

Please don't consider me ungracious -- I truly appreciate the input regarding the Naval combat, but that is not my interest here or the focus of the effort at hand. If you guys want to make another scenario that truly reflects the complexity of naval and naval air operations during this episode, which are far more interesting than the ground action, I will be the first to sign up as a player or Beta helper.

Terminator,
I think I can accommodate some of your comments about my anachronistic units. I thought about using long-toms to start with but ... but... but...

thanks, all!

This whole review process is very enlightening and rewarding and thank you all for helping!

conboy

Post Reply

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