Need evaluators for a new campaign

Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators

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 Jun 05, 2020 2:14 pm

conboy wrote:
Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:27 pm
Erik, ColonelY,
I understand all -- thanks!

Navman, re:anzio beachhead
Not to overdo this, but (as ColonelY mentioned) you should have two TDs, two towed antitank, plus two weak GM15 that can do antitank fires. Also, the Airborne/SSF units have 3-inch guns that can be used direct fire antitank weapons. Also, for arty you should have 3 priests, 1 SP 155 (M12), and a Chemical Mortar Battalion and combined divisional cannon companies that can provide indirect fire. Also, the Airborne/SSF units have 3-inch guns that can be used as artillery.

I think tactics come in to play here -- don't run units way out front unless they are recon (they tip enemy off to your main force intentions), try to keep units contiguous (at least RCTs), concentrate artillery fire on the most immediate threat, try to rest units and rotate (except for units that are heavily dug in), use terrain to your advantage, don't leave gaps for the enemy to hit your flanks, use air recon to determine enemy disposition and assess intent, use air to keep powerful units suppressed after artillery does its job on the preceding turn. All these are very important, especially the last few, when going over to defense.

I will send you a link with a playthrough. It's challenging but definitely doable using the forces available -- there are many effective combinations to whip the counterattackers but they are all based on fundamentals.

thanks for playing and commenting - your perspective is very important!

conboy
Thanks guys but I got it resolved. Not sure why it happened though. When I completed 7-Barb with major victory I had all units I was supposed to. When 8-Anzio loaded, quite a few were gone, most noticeably the AT. When I play I usually save the deployment phase of each scen in case I need/want to play again. So I deleted 8-Anzio, I loaded 7-Barb up, nuked through and loaded 8-Anzio again. Voila :shock: There were the missing units. I have no idea why, a corrupted loading of Anzio seems most likely but I could have sworn I deleted the original deployment. Maybe not :|

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 Jun 05, 2020 5:47 pm

8 - AnzB = Achieved objs under time limit and was able to hold them. Due to corrupt scen loading (I think), the first couple times through I was playing with less than 50% of my force. The taking of the objs isn't too hard, you just have to be fast. Holding them, you better build a good defensive line fairly quickly. I think a very good scen but if the German counterattack was much more aggressive it would roll over the Allies. However conboy, I think you balanced it well so that doesn't happen if you play it right. One thing I noticed and someone may have mentioned it already, normally we can deploy our whole core (minus the airfield). This time the QM and MP units were left; fortunately not really needed.

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:25 am

:D Chips: War Dog Hero of the 3rd Infantry Division :D

Have a look here: https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/sto ... -division/

So, it happened during Operation Husky; :arrow: this fact is worth adding a superb historical event on the campaign, isn't it? :idea:

Probably after the very first few turns of the scenario 2 Lica. :wink:

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:09 am

An idea about the German trucks on 11 Dragoon: :D
conboy wrote:
Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:30 pm
Thanks guys, having the trucks vanish is achieved is a good idea. Maybe I can find a way to set up the trigger to make it happen.
Indeed, it can be a little tricky to set up the trigger to make it actually happen.

But there is an alternative, some very, very easy way to achieve the same result (or almost :roll: ):
:idea: Just spawn a little less German trucks, and that's all*! :wink:


We need to inflict 55 casualties to them, so 6 trucks only shall do the trick (6x10 = 60 potential casualties + some more if the AI does replenish these trucks).

Right now, you spawn 12 trucks in total :shock: - that's a lot! So even with several of them destroyed, with the sec obj achieved, there are still many of them moving around...

Right now, you spawn 12 trucks as actually 4 waves of 3 trucks each.


:arrow: *Here is what I suggest in this case: Just remove 1 truck per wave and don't change anything else! :idea:

Like this: 4x2=8 trucks so largely enough to offer the 55 possible casualties (out of 80+maybe some replenishment) and still enough as well to give the feeling of a massive German retreat! :D

And, like this, no need to search how to handle triggers in a more or less complex way or such things in this case. :wink:


That's the easy way out, isn't it?

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 » Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:12 pm

9 - AnzS = Yeah, that was a humdinger of a counter attack for sure. The Brits took the brunt of it, the US was never really seriously threatened. Good scen conboy, it really tests your defensive skills. TAC air deployment looks good, didn't see any issues other than in the southern sea it looks like Allied and Axis exit hexes adjacent to each other. I think there were already Axis exits on the west map side so the southern ones could be removed. One thing is the RPs by this time in the campaign. I have a crap load, over 3000. And that's with using nothing but elite replacements. I know the US industrial complex cranked out the goods but maybe a little generous? I'm NOT complaining mind you.... :D

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Sun Jun 07, 2020 2:14 pm

Well, let's wait until the end of this whole campaign before we say whether we've got on overall too much RPs or finally not too much. :wink:


16 Colm: 8)

One more excellent scenario with great action! :D

So, let’s debrief, shall we?
*******
Sec obj (Mittlach):

1. :!: Validation issue:
I’ve taken all flags following instructions but only achieved a simple Minor Victory, only because this sec obj stayed as “open” (the blue “?”)… :shock:
In the triggers, I think setting this sec obj for <19 :idea: (there is 18 turns in this scenario!) instead of end of game (i.e. “Scenario Turn Limit”) should fix it. :wink:

2. Texts:
By the way, the obj itself may look a little long: “Take Mittlach before all primary objectives are taken.” -> well, maybe a simple “Take Mittlach” will do the trick? :D
If the rest is important, then in can just be precised in this obj descry, so from the actual “Allows for Major Victory.” to maybe “Allows for Major Victory. |Warning: Mittlach must be under control before all primary objectives are taken!:wink:

3. Garrison:
And another point: what about putting at least some Bautruppe as garrison in Mittlach? Right now it’s empty, which looks a little weird. Of course, one don’t want to add there a too strong unit (otherwise it can become maybe too difficult to achieve this part… maybe…), but seeing nothing at all in there…
*******
-> Remove the “1.1” of the scen name (of course, as already indicated)

-> Specs: only the “Scrambling” is unlocked, also please unlock as well “Drop Tank” and “Pilot Rotation” :D (Both available in previous scenarios, the first always helpful and the second as well when it’s about replenishing planes units… and you’ve warned us in this one that “there are going to be a lot of TacAir casualties”!)

-> The NE bunker flies an US flag, but it’s more on the FR sector (there is a boundary indicated by a flag between the US and FR sectors)… :? So, shouldn’t it instead be flying a Free French flag, should it?

-> It’s a little strange to see no XP at all for the French in the North… some of these units have seen combat before… but adding too much XP may unbalance this fight on the woods…
Ok, so what about adding just 1 star XP for the old “BM 4” and 2 stars XP for the “B1/13e DBLE” and the “B2/13e DBLE” :idea: (some of the famous units of “Légion Étrangère”)?
*******
Event “French TacAir”. Its text must be adapted! :|
Now: “Weather has cleared in the South. French Air is now available. CPs have been added. Aircraft are in the Reserve Box, deploy then in the hexes southeast of Mullhouse at map bottom center. |French RP Income increased by 15 per turn.”
Right now, there are 2 units of French “A-20C Havoc” incoming… directly on the map, one over the South and the other more over the center. That’s perfect!
But then there is no point in talking about “Reserve Box”, “deploy” and even “CPs”… :?
So, as text, what about something like:
:idea:Weather has finally cleared in the South, so from now on French Air is available:|Two fearsome A-20C Havoc are flying over the battlefield, ready to drop mats of bombs at designated locations.|(French RP Income increased by 15 per turn.)
*******
Brief.:
1. “[…] will attack simultaneously along the […] -> there is a double space before the “the”…
2. “S1 - S-1 - The 254th […]” -> a little redundant at the beginning… probably use “S-1 - The 254th […]” to have the same form everywhere on this brief…
3. Here it’s about the “751st" Armored… considering a previous interrogation about this, it it was really this number for this tank unit or not (when upgrading our tank in the scenario “5 Sale”)… just in case… :wink:
4. “Guemar” -> “Guémar”
5. “s3 - Start your mission” -> probably “S-3 - Start your mission” (again, same form everywhere)…
6. “French Colonial Divsions” -> “French Colonial Divisions”
7. “Chalampe” -> “Chalampé
8. “|we don't trust any other division” -> double uppercase: “|We don't trust any other Division”…
*******
Unit names:
“unit_79 = 109/28th Div” -> probably “unit_79 = 109th/28th Div” (comparing with n° 78 & 80)
“unit_262 = B2/DBLE” -> maybe “unit_262 = B2/13e DBLE” (based on n° 261)
“unit_309 = 4 AT” & “unit_310 = 4/AT” -> better use always identical… so rather “4 AT” or “4/AT”? Your choice! :wink:
*******
Names on map:
“St Die” -> “St Dié
“Guemar” -> “Guémar” (2 times on map according to txt file)
“Chalampe” -> “Chalampé
*******
:!: By the way, a crushing Victory at the Colmar Pocket, although a step probably required to enter Germany on a massive scale, doesn’t mean really that “the Germans have been expelled from France!”

Historically it was more complex, with the many – but not well-known, it’s true – Atlantic Pockets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_pockets)... Of course, we’re focusing on the US 3d ID in this campaign.

I think there is just a part within the texts that is a little too explicit about this and should therefore be adapted a little:

Minor Victory: “You have expelled the Germans from France! […]” -> maybe “Apart from several Atlantic Pockets, you have expelled the Germans from France! […]” :wink:

Then, even if we focus mainly on the US 3d ID, one could perhaps :idea: add a campaign event mentioning these Atlantic Pockets before the next scenario
**************
In the same vein, a bit earlier (ok, much earlier in fact :lol: ), we could add another campaign event with a title like "Italy Surrender!" or "Italy joins the Allies".

This is historical and allows us to briefly say/remind that from now on there should not be any Italian soldiers in front of us during this campaign, but only Germans occupying the Italian boot to (try to) stop us. :wink:

One of our tasks from now on, as leader of the 3d ID, is (at that time) to contribute to liberate Italy... :D

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Sun Jun 07, 2020 2:45 pm

17 Sieg: 8)

Cool, this time we’re entering Germany… :D

ButI’m sorry, I have to say that I find this scenario now somehow disappointing. :(
Look:
There is no event at all, the specs are messed up, we’re restraint on a little portion of the map (which in itself may be fine, because we’re probably going to use other parts of this same map on the next scenarios, but then write it somewhere in the brief, let us KNOW it’s normal, it’s on purpose), there is no flag on the biggest cities “far” away (even if it’s for later, it would be nice for figuring out a little better where we are/fight - it would be good for immersion), there are big portions of the map with roads leading literraly nowhere (like in the north of our starting area), there is no railroad at all (although we can see some German big cities), it’s right now too easy to take all objectives, there is no Phasis so no real timing by step to respect, there is only two sets of obj to achieve in the entire scenario, there is now an issue which unable us right now to do better than a draw, there is no unit with some nice historical name, there is no “special” text to go along with the Major Victory, Minor Victory, Draw, etc., etc.

:arrow: Well, in short, I’m sorry but this scenario gives me a feeling of emptiness, therefore of disappointment!

So, I think this scenario requires some additional work. :wink:

Come on, cheer up, here are some suggestions to keep helping: :D
*******
-> Validation pri obj:
The counter indicates 16 locations and we see 16 “Red Arrows” on map, that’s fine.
But on map we see only 14 flags with a “golden star”… indeed, these two don’t have any: “Zweibrücken” and “Key Route Marker 1”. By the way, does the latter bring us anything? It’s the single of this “kind”, if I may say so, on this map… If it brings us nothing, maybe consider simply removing it. :wink:
That’s strange: during the scenario, my counter shows 15/16 when I had taken ALL the flags (turn 16 out of 22)… but when the scenario was finished, it shows 15/14. And with a test at “>15” (which would be correct for the 16 locations), then all’s said! :shock:
Now, as we’ve 14 “Golden star” flags, I don’t really get from where does this 15th counted comes from? :?

Anyway, first, I suggest: :idea:
1. Adding the Golden star above the flag “Zweibrücken” (because it has to be taken);
2. Removing the flag at the apparently useless “Key Route Marker 1”;
3. Putting the test condition to “>14” instead of “>15” (because we’ve removed one and have “only” 15 locations to capture);
4. Checking again to see if there is still another problem related to this… :wink:
*******
-> Validation sec obj:
Watch out, now in the triggers it’s checked at “<19” (turns) whereas we have 22 turns on this scenario! Maybe putting a “<23” instead would be better!? :wink:
*******
-> Specs:
We don’t care about landing specs here! :shock: What about, instead, letting us have our “usual” 3 specs related to TacAir? There is no point to change this here anyway, so…
*******
-> Tactical suggestions to strengthen this Siegfried Line: :idea:

1. Replace all “simple” Bunkers by Concrete Bunkers
2. Remove the minefield the most in the north, inside the forest
3. Move the MG-fox inside the forest, like in its center right now, closer to the road to make it potentially useful by shooting on this road inside the forest
4. For the flavor, add one minefield and one Concrete Bunker just near the road, East to this little forest… because it has to be a real line of defenses, even if we’re not supposed to attack from there or won’t necessarily see it… at the other extremity, after the (now strange-looking) bridges , then we have a huge forest (which could be less defended, that’s fine) and then we’re out of “our zone of action for this scenario” anyway… but not exactly in the NW of this little forest…
5. Add an AT-gun to cover both infantry units near “S. Zweibrücken”, as well as some arty just behind them
6. Add another (and last) arty just behind the heavies at the second flag, more in the center
7. Add another MG-fox near the initial border, just between the US Blue and Red deploy flags
8. Add few minefields in the center and western part of this Line
9. ‘Could move north (or NW) the second fortress… right now, it can’t even fire on the road to Frankenthal. This whole eastern section is somehow too easy to bypass because not a pain anyway if the player do like this. The first fortress, in the North, will likely be destroyed by the player, but there is absolutely no need to bother about the second one right now. Let’s change this by putting simply this 2nd fortress 2 hexes NW, following the diagonal, i.e. on the actual crossroad (the other possibility would have to exchange place with a minefield, to put this fortress one hex north – but like this expose its rear to attacks)… Like this, this fortress will be able to take some shots, thus being a little annoying (so meaningful from a German point of view)… but it will still be possible to simply bypass it, so it shouldn’t be a problem anyway.

All this bunch of elements have a single goal:
Let’s add a little more challenge for the player and don’t give him (or her) the immediate “hint” to push north (really less defended now) and to bypass the eastern part… let him (or her) think about it. That’s truly part of the immersion/flavor! 8)
*******
-> Other suggestion on the German side:
Put some light garrison around and/or on South Crossroad :idea: (maybe even just a simple Bunker on it?)
*******
-> Then, to stay fair, it would be nice to add few units as well to the US side, to avoid unbalancing the scenario. :wink:

What is our main goal? To break through the Siegfried Line? There are tons of mines and fortifications, so let’s give us some of the best units to counter these: :idea:

1. First, put at our disposal 1 or 2 aux unit(s) of US Engineers (from another Division or from the XYZth US Corps? – to add maybe some name to them)…
2. And finally, what about even adding for once an aux flame-tank unit? :D It would be really cool to be able to use one of them, it would add a lot in terms of variety of units and on overall flavor…

US: choice between the old “M3 Satan” or the “Zippo M4A3R3”… I would vote for 1 unit of Zippo! :wink:

About the Engineers, adding few words in the briefing will be perfect! :D
For the flame-tank unit, instead of few words as well in the briefing, I think it would be better and much more immersive to spawn this units directly at the commencement of the first turn, with an event, a Pop-up, informing the player of the presence of such a little unusual unit at his (or her) disposal. I suggest spawning this unit more on our eastern side/deploy zone… maybe few hex East of our Construction Group? :wink:

As picture? :D Well, there is the choice, really; here are few examples of pictures of flame-tank Zippo M4A3R3:
https://www.google.ch/imgres?imgurl=htt ... 1476698017
Or the same with colors:
https://www.google.ch/imgres?imgurl=htt ... 1476618137
Or a close-up:
https://www.google.ch/imgres?imgurl=htt ... 1476678304
Or another colored:
https://www.google.ch/imgres?imgurl=htt ... 1476642167

Title? Maybe something like: “It'll heat up!:lol:

Text? Maybe something like: “One of the technological innovations of the battle of Iwo Jima, these medium tanks have proven to be very effective against enemy fortification and for their terrifying psychological impact.|A powerful unit of flame-tank Zippo M4A3R3 has been put at our disposal to help us breaking through the German Siegfried Line.”

Historical? Yes or at least almost, because the US had flame-tanks indeed against the Japanese, but not only. They lacked of them during the D-Day in Normandy (which would have helped them a lot at least on the Omaha Beach side)… Later, in Europe, they’ve improvised some flame-tanks and were very happy about the results (Gen Patton, at least). They’ve modified some of their M4 Sherman tanks, sometimes as well used some British Crocodile tanks (which were really flame-throwers, even though this isn’t represented yet in OoB!).
So, either a “could have been/happened” situation or a “has happened but at relatively small scale” situation. According to OoB, the Zippo was available from the 15th February 1945, so there is no date issue in this case, so it’s perfectly possible to have some of them reaching the battlefield at the time of this scenario.
Other options? The US “M3 Satan” are too outdated, the British “Churchill Crocodile” aren’t real flame-tanks in OoB… well, the US “Zippo” stays the best candidate for this!

If one flame-tank must make a short apparition on this campaign, it’s almost now or never!

It would offer more variety, more fun, add some flavor for sure, help liven this scenario, offer us the possibility to add a (first) event in this scenario, and it is (at least) plausible… so, well, why not? :wink:
*******
:idea: Then, in the same vein, to liven a little more this scenario, what about adding another little aerial battle as well?

In a way that, in one hand, makes a little wink to previous scenarios and, in another hand, add more fun by the apparition of some powerful units, never seen so far within this campaign.

For example, what about something like this:

On turn 5 or 6 (i.e. once the German Siegfried Line is broken or about to be broken), there can be the first event:

Picture? The radioman already seen few times... (a wink to different previous scenario, a certain common thread that runs through)
Title? Maybe something like: "Darkening sky!"
Text? Maybe something like: "Warning! |Some unusual German air activity has been detected not far from our sector. |Just in case, HQ has sent in emergency several dogfighters to cover your advance. They have been put under your direct command, so use them wisely."
Effect? Spawn directly 3 units in V-formation not really, really far away: 1 "P61B Black Widow", 1 "P51D Mustang" and 1 "P47N Thunderbolt".
(Of course, no Lightning interceptor for two obvious reasons! :wink: )
Highlighting/moving our point of view? Over the spot where these 3 aux planes have just spawned.

It is then up to the player to bring them closer to the current front line... that these planes shouldn’t in principle reach this turn…

At the end of the very same turn, German planes (which spawned somewhere out of sight) move closer to the front line, and even maybe over it, so that they become (clearly) visible to the player... They must be set on an aggressive mod, even if they don't necessarily shot directly.

We're entering Germany, but the Germans aren't down yet. They still have several tricks up their sleeve - or should have, at least!

Which German planes? I think of 2 units of the famous jet, the "Me 262 Schwalbe"... :D So, 2 German jets vs 3 US aux planes, maybe helped by our 2 interceptors, that should be an interesting side battle while our ground troops continue their advance in a more conventional, usual manner... Besides, maybe it will allow us to use a little our two M15 CGMC as AA support units.

Then, therefore, at the beginning of the next turn, a new event, a new Pop-up:

Picture? Maybe this one: https://www.google.ch/imgres?imgurl=htt ... 1476968178
Title? Maybe something like: "German jets!"
Text? Maybe something like: "Damn it, it wasn't a false alarm! |Guys, let's get these wonders out of the way. |Geronimo! ||NEW OBJECTIVE ADDED!
Effect? Add a new sec obj: “Destroy all German air units” (with a counter)
Reward? Maybe an extra +100 RPs for the US “non-colored” (to compensate eventual damages done to our core air units) -> this should then be added in the description of this sec obj…

Again, it’s plausible and will add fun as well as flavor, so why not? 8)
*******
Then, by coherence, there should be another modification… :idea:
About the description of the sec obj “Secure Southern Crossroad”. Remove this “generic” version: “Enables possibility of Major Victory.” With 2 different sec obj, this sentence isn’t any longer relevant… Instead put something to enhance the immersion! Basically, why do we care about this crossroad? We can take all the other locations without sending units this way anyway…
So, instead of this generic version, maybe something like: “Important for a next step, this key crossroad will indeed open the road to the city of Stuttgart, in the South.” :wink:
*******
:arrow: So, I suggest to add a total of 3 new events (1 informing about the exceptional presence of an US flame-tank unit and 2, a little later, related to planes), several units so far not yet seen within this campaign (mainly an flame-tank and German jets) as well as a nice little aerial side battle…

Thus, this scenario can no longer be felt as "empty" by the player, guaranteed! :D
*******
Adding named flags:
Okay, we don’t need to see ALL flags throughout the entire map, but what about adding at least one German flag over Stuttgart (South to the Southern Crossroad), over Frankfurt (in the North) and over Nuremberg (in the East), for these are the 3 closest big German cities.

Is it Strasbourg, the big city in the South, directly under our control? A named flag here as well would be welcome!

According to the txt file, there are much more hexes that actually have a name (like Ulm, Prague, and many more), but as the map is big and as basically we don’t know where to look (no flag!), we don’t see them, which is a pity… Basically, you’ve already made this work, so what about just making it explicit? :wink:
*******
-> Various:

1. Scen descr: “US 3d Div Breaks through” -> lowercase: “US 3d Div breaks through”

2. Pri obj: “Capture all 16 […]” -> maybe this this addition (according to its descr) “Capture and hold all 16 […]” :!: AND should be modified of course if it becomes more 15 than 16 locations… :wink:

3. ‘Can safely remove the 4th air deploy hex

4. South (as on map) or Southern (as on obj) Crossroad? Same form everywhere please.

5. Bridges, visual aspect:
A) You have 2 times bridges over two hexes which present a huge hole, which are discontinuous… This must be changed, maybe simply be putting the road a little differently so that each bridge is actually over a single hex? (Both are not far away from the 2nd fortress, from the fortress in the SE.)
B) There is no bridge at all on the crossroad East of Frankenthal… well, it’s about to be blown anyway, but only later!



Cheers up! Keep up the good work :D

conboy
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:18 pm
Location: Lower Alabama

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by conboy » Sun Jun 07, 2020 3:12 pm

ColonelY, Navman --
Thanks, guys, these comments are really going to improve the campaign.

Keep awn keepen awwn!

Although, ColonelY, I dread an escalation of experience on non-core and enemy units. It's a good suggestion, I just dread implementing it over all the late scenarios. But you are right, it adds historical depth and realism. I should have already done it...

And Navman, the RPeez have been a worry to me for a long time. Everytime I tried to adjust, I had to restart the campaign for other reasons and lost track of how many were available and needed for the heavy-casualty scenarios. The campaign replays to figure them out take me about as long as it takes you guys, and I had to restart so many times, I despaired of getting it right without some help. You got cho fanger awn it -- I don't want a resource-starved campaign, but you are correct in pointing out that 3K is a "little" over the top. Hopefully I can figure this out at the end with the benefit of some recommendations.

conboy

conboy
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:18 pm
Location: Lower Alabama

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by conboy » Sun Jun 07, 2020 3:22 pm

ColonelY,
17 Sieg: 8)
I was leery of these scenarios in Germany, so your comments are extremely helpful. :oops:

It'll take some work but with your suggestions I think it's fixable. The next one has the same issues, but spare no mercy in your comments.

I think I was running out of steam on these, so accept my gratitude for pointing out the deficiencies. I like the combat sequences, the next two need some work and your comments will help a great deal.

I'm disappointed that there's a draw issue! I'm sure I played this one about 10 times and always got a clear victory. :? C'est la vie, c'est la guerre...

conboy

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:35 pm

18 Rhin: 8)

According to me, this scenario is much better than the previous. :D

The map looks smaller (or at least the portion on which we're playing looks bigger), there is an interesting German counterattack with several units, there is as well a serious reason to play it cool and to avoid pushing right now towards Nuremberg…

I don’t think you really need to add any unit in this scenario, except just one :wink: (we’ll come back to it later). You can easily liven it up :idea: by adding two events using just elements you have already implemented (idem).

So, let’s go a little more into details, shall we?
*******
Well, first, as scen name: “Rhine to Nuremburg” -> as it’s “Nuremberg”, it should rather be “Rhine to Nuremberg”… (Later, on the txt file you use the spelling “Nuremberg” and only this one as well during the entire next scenario.)
*******
Then, add directly some flags with the names of the main locations on map, like Bad Kissingen (a flag already but no name), then of course Nuremberg (very important for the next one), then others like Frankfurt, maybe even Prague once, etc.

Don’t need to be all of them, but the more relevant, yes! The more relevant, i.e. the big town/cities, the closer from action or locations that have been visited within previous scenarios or that are about to be seen later… :wink:
*******
During the briefing, “move the cam”, highlight some areas, like “Bad Kissingen” on part 1, then “Nuremberg” on part 2 and finally our deploy area on part 3… :idea: Thus, make us “discover” the map on the same time, better for understanding and immersion than having to move manually (especially without the main locations named)!
*******
Then there is some sort of issue :? with “Red Arrows” when clicking on the different “?” to gather some info…

1. For the obj “Clear AoR South <6 hex” (or something), there are TWO Red Arrows. :shock: I would have expected there a single one, the one associated with the flag “Clear AoR”, but there is another one, just one hex south to the blown bridge near our deploy area…
2. For the “Build Pontoon Bridge at Bamberg”, same thing: I see one Red Arrow over the correct location and another on the very same hex than before?! :shock:

The others Red Arrows point correctly. For example, about the other bridge, the “Build Pontoon Bridge North of Worth”, there is only a single Red Arrow pointing correctly at this location…
*******
I’ve seen strange things as obj validation. I’ve taken a look in the triggers… sometimes you’ve written as condition “<19” and sometimes “<20” :? (the later being probably the best version, if I’ve understood well, because this scenario lasts 19 turns)… I think it would be better to use the same form everywhere. :wink:

:!: The capture of the Chemical Plant let this sec obj as “open” (blue “?”), whereas taken the 6th and last of the “x objectives” make this obj as “failed” (red “x”)… And these two elements haven’t changed at the end of the scenario. But what has changed is the following: the obj “Build Pontoon Bridge North of Worth”, which was considered as “achieved” (green check) changed to “failed” at the very end of the scenario. :shock:

Therefore another “Draw”, although all was achieved (several turns) before the time limit. I’ve no idea why. :? I’ve taken a quick look at the triggers, they seem correct to me, but I’m not an expert of course… I can see in the Editor the two time these double “Red Arrows” as well… I’ve reloaded this scen, nuked my way to be able to test soon the next scenarios. :wink:
*******
In the triggers, I’ve seen that you’d prepared once a trigger “Luftwaffe”, about spawning a German plane :D when there is some of our units “on” a certain hex (“Distance 0”)…

Well, it’s a good idea, so why not actually using it? :|

So, I think that simply putting some number instead of 0, let’s say maybe 3 or 4, and precising which plane is about to spawn will do the trick. :wink:

At that time, more likely our planes are about to refuel on our airstrip… As plane, what about a German bomber like one unit of :idea: Ar 234 or even of Hs 129?
*******
Then, add two events :idea: to liven it up:

1. Use the counterattack you have already prepared… once they move in, just add an event, a Pop-up saying few well immersive words about it!

2. Once getting closer to Erlangen (or simply once the German plane has been spawn :wink: ), add another event, a Pop-up saying (Intel!) few words about a tremendous German artillery barrage south of Nuremberg, thus remembering the orders to focus only on obj and not push south right now… This would as well be a nice wink, a cool intro for the next scen. Possible as well to say a word about the German plane that has just spawned… So, stick to the orders, take the last objectives, capture the towns of Erlangen and Heroldsberg and then wait for further orders. Something like this shall do the trick. :D
*******
Various:
Brief.: “G-4:” becomes of course (same format) “S-4:”

Texts of obj.:
1. “Secure all x objectives by scenario end” -> Why this “x” there? (x = 6) It can easily be removed, can’t it? :wink:
2. Clear surroundings of “Bad Kissingen”, description: “Clear the area of the VIctory Flag near […]” -> well, lowercase of course for the second letter of “Victory”

Texts for Major Victory, Minor Victory, etc.:
Add something well immersive there... "We're finally at the doors of apparently well-defended city of Nuremberg; we've already got a taste of it!", etc.!

-> Same thing, by the way, for the previous scenario, for the "17 Sieg", because breaking the Siegfried Line, it's not nothing! Therefore it deserves few nice and immersive words as well once the scenario has ended! :idea:
*******

:arrow: So basically, use what you already have. Add several flags with names to allow the player to see more clearly, “move the cam” during the briefing again for “crystalclearness” sakes, carry on with your initial idea to spawn some German plane and just add these 2 events (or similar ones)… It will immediately be much more lively, much more immersive! :D

Then check as well these stories of “Red Arrows” and obj validation, modify several details here and there, and it should be awesome!

terminator
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4234
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 » Sun Jun 07, 2020 9:48 pm

Casablanca AI

conboy(18).jpg
conboy(18).jpg (233.68 KiB) Viewed 621 times

Air Seek & Destroy: you should adjust the Distance to the size of the map

conboy(19).jpg
conboy(19).jpg (277.57 KiB) Viewed 621 times

conboy
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:18 pm
Location: Lower Alabama

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by conboy » Sun Jun 07, 2020 9:51 pm

Colonel,
I must say I am relieved!

I was afraid the last three scenarios before berchtesgaden we're going to be a wreck.

So it seems I have a lot of work to do on Siegfried line but Rhine to Nuremberg needs some enhancements and it's good to go.

I hope you enjoy the next two. I think there is a lot of depth. But! The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we shall see.

Again, I don't know what happened to the objective objectives. Maybe I think I changed a little bit and then forgot to verify. I don't know but I apologize.

Again, thank you!

conboy

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Mon Jun 08, 2020 10:26 am

You're welcome! :D


19 Nure: 8)

Yes, this one is another awesome scenario with great content and nice event. :D

Major Victory in 14 turns out of 20! (So no issue here in terms of obj or obj validation.)

When reading "Russians" in the scenario description, I was like "What? Oh, my!" :lol: Then it's clearly explained during the briefing, so it's splendid. That does add for sure to the flavor! :wink:

So, let’s dive a little into more details, shall we?
*******
First, some various elements:

-> Highlight the entire Nuremberg when the brief begins (i.e. move “cam” above its center or something) :wink:

-> Add several flags here and there: at least Munich (the city in the NE, it would be meaningful and as well a new potential target to capture – we’ll come back to this later), maybe Bad Kissingen (as a nice reminder of where we’ve fought previously), and maybe few others as well (amongst the most relevant of them)… :D

-> Strange looking :? of the double-hex bridge E from our DZ & of the long bridges W of our DZ (with even 1 hex of bridge actually missing)…
*******
Tactical suggestions:

Nuremberg:
I think there is now a too easy possibility to send armored units around Nuremberg, mainly following the roads, to strike the town from the flank and rear (especially from the right side of the map). This way, it’s really easy to severely damage the enemy artillery covering the town for afar… :wink:

Therefore, to increase a little the challenge by slowing the units eventually sent that way, I suggest :idea: adding few minefields on these roads (at least in the East of Nur but maybe as well one somewhere on the the West of it). And maybe add 1 AT-gun unit as well somewhere around the Fire Brigade, ready to help dealing with such a maneuver, ready to cover the big arty pieces (a key element of the whole defense :wink: ).

Augsburg:
No AT nor AA support for these defenders? Is it on purpose? ‘Could maybe add one unit of each kind (1 AT, 1 AA - some lights, I mean)…
*******
I do really like the event with an US unit never seen so far in this campaign! :D All works nice and smooth.

Well, this unit will have really slight issue in term of supply (supply output at 6 although a minimum of 7 is required by this unit)… but I wouldn’t change this, for it gives the player some pressure, some feeling of emergency, which is perfectly coherent with this event. :wink: So, simply great! 8)
*******
According to Wiki, when the 3rd US Div has taken Augsburg, it has liberated thousands of forced laborers

:idea: This could be represented by adding another event, a Pop-up showing up once Augsburg has been taken!?
*******
:idea: What could be added towards the end:
(But the "end" of what? This scenario or even this campaign? :wink: )

MAYBE* another event once the last counterattack is triggered (‘could happen a little sooner by changing the Distance there from 2 to 3 for a slightly bigger challenge), something saying nicely immersive thinks like “they want some more, then let them get some!” which can go with maybe another obj to destroy all units “<XYZ Hexes” of the Munich flag (to add on map with name, yes!) OR even with another obj to simply capture Munich as well… :wink:

*”Maybe” because, if there is of course the possibility as well to change nothing at all related to this :wink: , i.e. to let it as it is now, there is still another possibility:

:arrow: ADDING A NEW SCENARIO – THE BATTLE OF MUNICH :idea: with almost “only” the town/city covering the entire map…

In this case, it’s out of question, of course, to capture and hold Munich already during this scenario… Although it would still be conceivable to clear this area from visible units! :wink:

(The very last scenario not really being much of a brawl right now anyway, like this, with this new scenario, the campaign would contain the very first, the intro, as a “special” scenario, then 20 scen with actual battles and then a very last and “special”, “unusual” as well.)


But this is definitely your choice! 8)

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 7757
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by Erik2 » Mon Jun 08, 2020 11:39 am

13 VosL

There are a couple of panzers deployed on mountain hexes south of Le Tholy. Shouldn't happen as they are unable to move onto the mountain.

No other issues found other than the very variable unit experiences.

Well-balanced, nice scenario.
end.jpg
end.jpg (99.1 KiB) Viewed 593 times

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:45 pm

Battle of Munich

As I've just read on the brief of the very last scenario that "The main part of the 3rd ID is in Munich, after a (generally) peacefull surrender." :? Well, if it was like this, then it may not be worth to add a scenario about this Battle, because apparently there was no real Battle anyway...

So, I think we can directly forget about it :oops: ; it was (just) an idea! :wink:

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:29 pm

In 8 AnzB, another sec obj could be added: :idea: "Destroy at least one (or two) enemy plane(s)" and, as reward, one could maybe have some American ace unlocked to conduct/help conducting our TacAir... This new obj appearing when the time come, of course! :wink:
*******
Another idea: :idea: What about adding from start, together with a Medical Jeep unit (as already mentioned/explained :wink: ), another Jeep: 1 “Willys MB .50Cal” with as name something like “3d ID Commander” or maybe "3d ID HQ"? :D

Even if of course absolutely not required at all for the battles themselves, it may be nice for immersion.

(These two units together, it means to plan a +2 LCPs for US “non-colored” for each and every scenario.)

Besides, if a player decides for some reason not to use at all these two Jeep units :roll: , he (or she) can just not deploy them and that’s all. On the other hand, for a player who would wish to play with them as well for the immersion… it would be somehow difficult if they are not directly made available! :wink:

conboy
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:18 pm
Location: Lower Alabama

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by conboy » Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:36 pm

ColonelY

From WIKI (I know it's not a good source, but it's handy),
  • The final battle for Munich began on 29 April 1945, when the US 20th Armored Division, US 3rd Infantry Division, US 42nd Infantry Division and US 45th Infantry Division assaulted through the outskirts of the city, also liberating Dachau concentration camp in the process. Some sectors were well defended against this opening push. However, the city itself was captured rather easily, as the German defenders there offered only light resistance, on 30 April 1945.[2]
I like your other ideas but I am having a hard time keeping up with CPs as it is now. Extra jeeps... There is plenty of room though in the 8 AnzB secondary objectives for the Ace, though. If I can set it up easily, I'll go ahead and do it.

Erik, Navman,
Thanks for helping with the playthrough. Please continue, so I can evaluate your comments. You can nuke through the 17 Sieg scenario if you want to. I musta been tired for the two weeks I worked on it.

Terminator,
Thank you for your continuing thorough review of Casablanca. I have incorporated most of your comments into the new version.

conboy

ColonelY
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:46 am

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by ColonelY » Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:59 pm

conboy wrote:
Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:36 pm
[...] I am having a hard time keeping up with CPs as it is now. Extra jeeps... [...]
A hard time keeping up with CPs? :o

Come one, these CPs are right now already almost perfect. :D
1. There are only TWO scenarios where you need to add each time exactly 2 LCPs for the "non-colored" US, due to the upgrading of regular infantry with trucks... and that's all.
2. And about ACPs, it's basically just about going from 10 to 9 within several scenarios (and removing all ACPs in the very last scenario), thus not a big deal.

And about the 2 extra jeeps, it would "just" mean:
1. Adding these core units in 0 OoB (under the "non-colored" US) with a nice name and few words in the briefing about it...
2. Then just adding 2 LCPs in each scenario (again for the "non-colored" US)...
And, basically, that's it! :wink:

But it's up to you, of course!
**********************************

20 Bercht: 8)

A nice and completely “unusual” scenario. :D

Nice animation, nice traffic jam! Poor Leclerc! :lol:

So, let’s write some words as well for a last feedback of mine on this version of the campaign, shall we?
*******
Map:

1. We recognize the previous map, so add the main (now) American flags over locations where we’ve been, such as Nuremberg, Augsburg, Munich, but as well Bad Kissingen and several other relevant locations for us in the context of this campaign…

2. Adapt the area controlled by us on map, the colored borders, I mean, for we control at that time at least almost all the NW part of the map… All is more or less under control, so it shouldn’t look like a “little island” in the middle of nowhere, our starting zone…

3. The flag on a bridge (south of Nuremberg) can be removed (for it will anyway be replaced by more relevant flags with names for the main locations)… Remove as well the old “30th RCT Route” in the woods SW to Bad Kissingen and the 3 green/yellow nearby exit hexes for they are now completely useless…
*******
Our 7th Regiment has to seize Salzburg (amongst others)… but it would be considered right now as achieved as well even if one has sent the 15th Regiment instead, wouldn’t it? :wink:
*******
Various:

-> No more income is required here…
-> Remove the useless 9 US ACPs…

-> We don’t need 20 turns, but the scenario can anyway end earlier if all obj are taken and like this the player may delay the capture of the last of them if he (or she) wants to observe for a little while this traffic jam, so it’s perfectly fine as it is! :D

-> Two new flags on map with our usual “7th RCT Route” and “15th RCT Route” could be added not far away from our starting area… :idea: Yes, I know, it’s already clearly said within the briefing, but for “crystalclearness” sakes, why not?
*******
Moving cam/highlighting:

Brief. part 1: at Munich (which is already what you’ve planned, but apparently the “Check Turn” as “<1” doesn’t work that fine here)
Brief. part 2: between Salzburg and Berchtesgaden (so that we clearly see the two of them)
Brief. part 4: at Traounstein (or even Munich again, so more where the initial action is about to take place)
******
Now, we recognize our units without recognizing them:wink:

Thus, either:

1. Add them their actual name, put the 2 corresponding commanders on each of the heavy inf (the choice that the player probably did), give them a max of XP (5 stars)…

Or:

2. Remove them, add instead exactly 6 deploy hexes and two of our usual “deploy flag” (1 Blue, 1 Red), give us just enough Red and Blue LCPs to deploy all our 6 inf units, say something in the brief about deploying only the infantry of these two regiments (not any M7 Priest on this one!)…

Actually, I would vote for option 2. Like this, we do keep really our own units, maybe even depleted if they were so at the end of the previous scenario…
*******
You said not to shoot at Allies… Possibility to add another sec obj: :idea: not any single shot fired, not any single damage done – basically just an immersive wink to the race for Messina that has been won against the British… :wink:
*******
Brief.: “15 RCT advance” -> “15th RCT advance”; “15th to the South.” -> a double space to remove, just before “South”

Obj.: “7th Infantry Seize Salzburg <Turn 7” & “Seize Secondary Objectives <End”, as in other places…

Texts in events:
“The Salzburg StadtKomandant has” -> “The Salzburg Stadtkomandant has”
“don't shoot any allies” -> “don't shoot any Allies”
“Le Clerc Agonistes” (title) -> it’s the famous French Gen. “Leclerc”… and I have to admit that I just don’t understand (at all) the meaning of “Agonistes” :?
“French 2nd Armored Divsion Commander” -> “French 2nd Armored Division Commander” (the "i")
“he French 2nd Armored and US 101st Airborne” -> “The French 2nd Armored and US 101st Airborne”
“and Obersalzburg are are secured” -> well, it’s obvious…
“Regiment Battalion Commander” or just simply “Regiment Commander”?
“Note the 3d Division logos on the helmets.” -> Well, we accept to believe you, but I find it a little difficult to actually see them on this picture (and with the size of this one :wink: )… Therefore, I’m wondering if this sentence shouldn’t simply be removed… Or at the very least put between brackets. :idea: Anyway, if someone decides not to believe you, he could always try to argue that this was in another location, or something. :roll:


And that’s it for this scenario!
:D
*************

As for the question of the historical accuracy of this version, that could be a little debatable! :wink:

As the Frenchies were involved, by looking at the French version in Wiki and by (roughly) translating it, it gives us:
“British Lancasters bombed Obersalzberg on April 25, 1945. The Berghof was partially destroyed in this raid. On May 4, four days after Hitler's suicide and in the face of the advance of Allied troops into the region, the SS set fire to the villa. A few hours later, the 3rd American Infantry Division arrived in Berchtesgaden with a unit of the 2nd French Armoured Division.

As the Americans had invested only the town of Berchtesgaden, the French took the opportunity to attack Obersalzberg where the Berghof was located. In their Jeep, Captain Laurent Touyeras and his driver, Brigadier François Borg, overtook the caterpillars of the 2nd AD which were struggling to climb the slope. They were thus the first allied soldiers to reach the chalet which was still burning down. The French discovered miles of underground bunkers containing art objects looted from all over Europe, but also thousands of bottles of fine wines, tons of food and more unusual items, such as a collection of brassieres collected by Göring.”

Whereas the English version of the “same” webpage in Wiki tells us:
“The Obersalzberg was bombed by hundreds of British RAF Lancaster heavy bombers, including aircraft from No. 617 Squadron RAF (the "Dambusters"), which attacked Obersalzberg on 25 April 1945. At least two bombs struck the Berghof and did considerable damage to the building. Retreating SS troops set fire to the villa on 4 May, four days after Hitler's suicide in Berlin. Only hours later, the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division arrived at Berchtesgaden along with the French 2nd Armored Division. Herman Louis Finnell of the 3rd Division stated that he and Private Fungerburg were the first to enter Berghof and the secret passages below the structure. Finnell stated that the hallway below the structure had rooms on either side filled with destroyed paintings and evening gowns, as well as destroyed medical equipment and a wine cellar. The American troops reportedly confused Berchtesgaden with the Berghof, and a French Army captain and his driver were the first Allied military personnel to reach the still-smoldering chalet. A French tank crew soon joined them, and Allied soldiers thoroughly looted and stripped the house over the next few days.”

Hem! :wink:

So, we know that there was at least several Frenchies as well during this last phasis (thus they haven’t all been blocked at some bridge! :wink: ) and that they were almost certainly the very first to enter Hitler’s home, the Berghof…

:arrow: But it doesn’t really matter here. This last scenario of the campaign presents a nice and anyway plausible version of these final events, so it’s perfectly fine as it is! :D
*************

By the way, there is now no picture for Campaign Victory! :? Something more to add.



Throughout all the campaign, I think another quick test :idea: that should be made is the following:

On few scenarios, we’ve “seen” minefields from very too far away, even in the fog of war, for a simple reason: the colored borders, when there is a hex strangely with as “white” (or something) border a circle, one know for sure that there is some mine in there… This should be changed. Avoid giving this pointless hint to the player, let him (or her) have the surprise!
Easy test: open a scenario, see if there is some “strange circle”, if yes write its name (of the scen) before, in all cases, “nuking” your way through it, loading the next one, doing the same once more, etc.
Then, in the Editor, solve this little visual aspect for each and every scenario where it does happen.
Well, I won’t do this test myself, I think I’ve done already quite a lot. But you’ve the idea, at least. 8)



:idea: On overall, I think you should change the text of sec obj each time it’s simply something like “Enables Major Victory”… :| because, basically, we don’t care, it’s obvious, we know how to play, how it works.

Instead, write down some (short) immersive comment: why is this obj meaningful, relevant? What will it bring to us or our Allies? :D
And, to make it more immersive and somehow more “interesting”, put, maybe not each time but often at least, a reward of 50 to 100 RPs (the 100 would be better to that purpose)… for the US “non-colored” mainly, but maybe from time to time for the other (Blue, Red) as well. :D

To avoid “messing up” completely the amount of RPs by maybe over-increasing the available RPs, you can directly adapt the income…

Like this: Let’s say you have a scenario which lasts 19 turns and you want/have to add an extra reward of 100 RPs for the completion of some sec obj. Do it directly and decrease the corresponding income by 5 (-> 19x5 = 95… on overall we only “gain” 5 RPs, i.e. “nothing”, in this case but we HAVE to make an effort to be able to use some of our RPs).



:idea: I suggest not to really bother right now about the overall amount of RPs. (I think it’s reasonable towards the end for there are some relatively costly scenarios and considering that:) There are indeed several suggestions that have been made to increase the difficulty here and there by adding some enemy units… but adding them will imply more casualties, therefore more RPs actually used…
I think it would be better to wait until you are in the mood to say that you have considered all suggestions you consider as worth of interest, that all’s working nice and smooth, and that you have a “final” version of the campaign ready… Then “only”, play it entirely (you and/or Beta Testers) to see, finally, how many RPs are left at the end and once all units have been fully replenished. Then, you’ll know for sure if it shall be adapted and have a good idea how to do it, where to do it, and how much to do it.



:arrow: On overall an AWESOME campaign, even if still about to be improved a little by several modifications, adaptations, slight corrections, or something, here and there.

By the way, I hope I haven't been too much of a bother :roll: , going often deep into many, many details, possibly even maybe too many from time to time...

All I can say now is: “Thanks! Congrats! Keep up the good work!:D


Et voilà!
Last edited by ColonelY on Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

conboy
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:18 pm
Location: Lower Alabama

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by conboy » Mon Jun 08, 2020 6:30 pm

ColonelY,
You have not been a bother at all!
Your comments have been spot-on, illuminating, and otherwise extremely helpful.

Good luck and thanks for the detailed review. I owe you a big favor - please call it in whenever you like!

Please accept my sincere gratitude for your time and insight.

conboy

GabeKnight
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3191
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Need evaluators for a new campaign

Post by GabeKnight » Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:25 am

ColonelY wrote:
Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:59 pm
By the way, I hope I haven't been too much of a bother :roll: , going often deep into many, many details, possibly even maybe too many from time to time...
Don't be silly, your detailed feedback is invaluable to anyone designing stuff. And I'm grateful, too, as I'll benefit from a polished campaign... :D
Thanks for taking so much time and writing all of this!

Post Reply

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