Need evaluators for a new campaign

[ColonelY]

Come on, conboy, you don't have anything to apologize for, don't worry. It's a great campaign, which must for sure take a lot of work, therefore it's completely normal that there are several few details to solve/complete here and there... that's why there are Beta Testers.

Thanks, ColonelY. Your comments are extremely helpful, as always. I don't see the double flag at Monte Arrestino -- there's a silver one there [...]

You're welcome.


Well, it's not a real double flag, of course...

So, here is what I've seen:

It's about this useful tool, when displaying the different objectives, when one can click on each and every single "?" to have more info and see these useful and nice "Red Arrows" (if there are any, of course!)...

Doing so, I've been surprized to see a "Red Arrow" appearing at Monte Arrestino for the sec obj AND for one of the pri obj (namely the last one, the final set of pri obj).

So, it's "just" this: seeing a red Arrow at Monte Arrestino for two different sets of obj...

[conboy]

Navman,
Glad you whipped it.
Keep awn keepen awwn... and thanks for participating!
conboy

ColonelY,
I get it now. The arrows in the mission statement are beshat - the Primary and Secondary both have arrows that point to Arrestino.

ok thanks!

conboy

[Navman2854]

3-San Fratello = Done in 40 turns! Yay! Very good and tough scen. Once I learned where to punch through for Phase II, the rest wasn't as bad. Agree with prior evals: 1) AA at Phase I obj needs to cover ART. 2) The "mystery" hex is kind of a dead giveaway. I know you want to keep the surprise, not sure how you can fix it so it's not obvious. 3) Recon plane deployed at least at forward ground units.

4- Messina = Easy peasy! Done on first try in 8 turns. Nice change of pace after SanF. Some units get lucky with a relative walk in the park sometimes. I'm torn between making it harder or leaving as is. Lean toward as is after SanF.

[ColonelY]

11 Dragoon:

Another excellent scenario, with great action and events!

Noooo, we wanted Betty... Awesome, I’m still laughing about it!


So, let’s get to work, shall we?
*******
-> First, let’s keep it highly immersive:

IN SHORT: Remove the version which appear on the name of some of the scenarios (for they were custom single scenario before) & consider the experience that our units have already gained!


IN LESS SHORT:

1. When playing the campaign, the scenarios follow one after the other… All of them have required a lot of work and several of them have certainly been built here first as custom single scenario.
But the player should not be distracted by finding out which version of these custom single scenarios is being played... He plays by moving seamlessly from one scenario to the next... What would information about such a scenario version bring him during his campaign?
Therefore, the name of this scenario shall, instead of the actual “Operation Dragoon v1.1.1”, simply become “Operation Dragoon”.
Same consideration in these 3 other scenarios: “13 VosL”, “14 VosS”, “16 Colm”. Same modification everywhere, of course. No longer “vXYZ” in the middle of a campaign, please!


2. This time we command a complete Corps instead of our Division, that’s perfectly fine! This scaling change implies that we have no core unit available and that all the units we need are already on map and considered all as “aux”, that’s perfectly fine as well!
BUT I think there is a point that might somehow “kill” the immersion: We’ll find again our three Regiments (as 3 US Infantry units in total)… but WITHOUT any experience , with NO STAR(s) at all! And THAT, that may have a psychological impact on the player…
Indeed, the scale has changed, okay, but the experience hasn't vanished! (Or shouldn’t have, at least. )
At this stage of the campaign, after having battled through already 10 scenarios, all my core infantry units (regular or heavy) have either 3,5 stars or 4 stars, all arty have from 2 to 2,5 stars (except the “big-gun”, the M12, which has 4 stars!)…
So, I think it would be better (in terms of immersion!) to keep roughly the same XP for the units of this map as well.
So, for the US 3rd:
1. Add 3,5 stars to some of the inf units and 4 stars to the others (some at 3,5; some at 4… you choose!, but these slight changes will make it seem more “plausible”)
2. Add 2 stars for some of the arty units and 2,5 stars for the others…

Then, one should do the same for the US 36th, 45th and 1SSF. Or maybe adding them a little less XP, for we wish to somehow focus on our 3rd, which has fought a lot of battles… At the end of the war, more battles/casualties than the others, but at that time of Operation Dragoon?

To avoid unbalancing the scenario, then one should increase/give some experience as well to the Germans that are about to face the US troops (and those only, not the same thing for those what are about to face the French!)…

Considering the French/German battle, maybe you could simply add here a single star on several infantry units, because some of these Frenchies had at that time a lot of combat experience – but that’s an almost entirely different story and there we focus anyway on the Americans.
A slight boost in XP for some of the Frenchies would be nice and historical… and thus maybe a slight XP boost as well for the Germans that are about to face those Frenchies (again, to avoid unbalancing).
*******
SUGGESTIONS RELATED TO UNITS ON MAP:

-> Add a regular German infantry unit as garrison in “Nice” (for our 1SSF!) and “La Londe” (on the French Route)

-> Add a second unit for the “Task Force Butler” directly from start (i.e. when its very first unit spawns):
Well, it’s written in the brief that “When Draugignan is secured, Task Force Butler will be released for reconnaissance in force.” -> Once achieved, we receive a nice “M5A1 Stuart”, so “in force” indeed but the “recon” is a little less obvious… Certainly, of course, a real recon unit won’t be able to “take some ground”, to “capture flags” on its way (which must be made by this Task Force).
This Task Force will count more units later anyway, so why not directly adding, together with our “M5A1 Stuart”, an unity not yet encountered in this campaign: 1 “M20 Scout Car” (with some XPs!)…
Both units can have the same name, this shouldn’t be an issue. Then they’ll move together… and this M20 will then help as well around Montélimar while waiting for other Divisions to join the battle!
What can become a little tricky at that time, it’s these famous German trucks, because even depleted they’ll try to pursue their travel up north (even once the sec obj is achieved, which is perfectly fine!). But while trying to escape northwards, they can from time to time outsupply several of our units. So, at that time some extra “light” unit helping to clean little targets and to block their way may help.

-> About our warships, I’ll suggest adding some names on them and few little modifications as well:
1. Candidates for the 3 US CAs: “Quincy”, “Tuscaloosa”, “Augusta”
2. Candidates for 3 of the 4 US DDs (only, yes!): “Carmick”, “Forrest”, “Parker”
3. Change the flag of one of these destroyers from US to Free French, with the name “Le Terrible” (one of the DDs that will stays during the entire scenario!)
4. Add a (Free) French light cruiser named either “Gloire” or “Montcalm” (deployed near the bunch of French units and let it stay during the entire scenario as well!)
There was many more ships, of course, even French, but we’ve to choose between all their names anyway…
(If there is a need for a source, we can already take a look at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... val_forces)

-> To offer a little more variety in the French side, one could replace 1 of the many regular French Infantry units by actually a special unit, called “Commandos d’Afrique” and maybe based on the 3D model of one the (British) “SAS”!
(These guys have been trained partly on Britain anyway, were almost 800 men, acted “somewhere” around ‘cause they were presents as well!)
This unit may appear directly with 1 or 2 stars of XPs as well…
(The previous link does mention them as well…)

-> A second aux recon plane may be nice (so like this one can end the scenario North to Nice with the 1SSF units pursuing the armored German units while there can be a second one above Montélimar and its battle)
*******
NOW SOME LITTLE DETAILS:
-> Sometimes one can read “Marseille” and sometimes “Marseilles”. Well, it’s better to use the same form everywhere and, although it is also spelled in English as Marseilles, I think it’s better to take the French version of it, i.e. “Marseille” everywhere!
(In appears now with a “s” in a pri obj (clear <4 hexes), on one Free French partisan unit name, and in events (1 time in a title, 2 times in the texts).)

-> Brief.:
1. “[…] comprises 3rd, 36th, and 45th infantry divisions. Supporting these divisions is […]” -> Because it’s as part of their names, maybe “Infantry Divisions” with uppercase? Then, by coherence – although less important here – maybe the “these Divisions” as well with an uppercase?
2. “LXII Corp HQ” -> “Corp” or more likely “Corps”?
3. Its penultimate part: very too much empty space (right now as “||||” in the txt file).

-> I suggest using on map the same form everywhere, therefore the “Nice, Phase I, 1SSF” more like “Nice (Phase I, 1SSF)”.
*******

I really like this scenario, and all the events, the units spawning, disappearing, etc. Just great!

[conboy]

ColonelY,

You are a better editor than most of these I have to work with!

I like all your comments, and will implement them in some fashion.

thanks again,

your input and encouragement are invaluable!

conboy

[Navman2854]

5 - Salerno and Acerno = Accomplished all objs in time constraints. A couple "surprises" which keep it from getting boring. Overall, another fun scen, not as tough as SanF but not too easy either. Only suggestion I have is since the construction group is deployed, don't make the TAC air available until airfield is built? Just a thought.

[terminator]

Casablanca


Rough Desert makes me crazy, impossible to distinguish on the battlefield

Rough Desert.jpg (489.37 KiB) Viewed 1607 times

tintin-4d.jpg (15.91 KiB) Viewed 1607 times

[Erik2]

10 AnzBO

The 'Netherlands' units and Canadians all have zero unit exp.
My core units have up to 7 exp.
Same issue with TF Howze.
To compensate for an increase of these, maybe add some more exp to German units.

I think Brit airborne is a better substitute for the Canadian SSF unit(s) than US airborne.
I would also use the Australian commandos as a sub for the Can 1SSF Commandos instead of the US Marine Raider.

The sec obj did not get a check-mark after capture.

Good easy to medium difficulty scenario.

end.jpg (96.61 KiB) Viewed 1592 times

[ColonelY]

Nice picture; poor little Milou!
**************

10 AnzBO

[...]
I think Brit airborne is a better substitute for the Canadian SSF unit(s) than US airborne.
I would also use the Australian commandos as a sub for the Can 1SSF Commandos instead of the US Marine Raider. [...]

To use as 3D Models rather "Brit airborne" and "Australian commandos"? 'Sounds good to me.

But then, by coherence, it must be made the same way each and every time that our "1SSF" units do appear, i.e. in these four scenarios: 8 AnzB, 9 AnzS, 10 AnzBO, 11 Dragoon.
**************
Two more suggestions related to the scenario “11 Dragoon”:

1. Add a sentence in the brief to shortly say/explain why there is no British on this map and that it’s normal… Maybe around where you talk about the 1SSF because this makes, precisely, a little wink to the task of the 1SSF on our right flank! Perhaps something like:
“The British who have already fought alongside us won’t join us here, as they are now busy pushing the Germans back to northern Italy.”
(So yes, indeed, there are still Germans in northern Italy, Germans possibly able to threaten the flank of our whole operation!)

2. On the naval side, ‘could even add even more variety, so more tactical flexibility, thus somehow more flavor by upgrading one of the three US heavy cruisers into an US battleship (with its nice long-range battery guns). Maybe the one in the middle? Possibly named “Texas”, “Nevada” or “Arkansas”. (Again, according to the previous link.)
**************
Between the two “Dragoon” scenarios:

1. Campaign event “Dragoon Phase II” -> Well, it’s “Montélimar” instead of “Montemilar”…

2. Then the empty campaign event: “My Event” (an old test?) should of course be removed.

[ColonelY]

12 DraII:

A relatively small map, but a nice and easy scenario… maybe too easy right now, I think.


So, time for some feedback again, right?
*******
The main attack direction goes from Besançon to Vesoul, therefore I suggest , on one hand, to add the name “Besançon” on the (two) corresponding flags on the map and, on another hand, to put some resistance/defense in Vesoul itself as well…

We’ve 20 turns to succeed; I’ve entirely cleared the map in 14 turns… but I wouldn’t reduce the amount of turns available, for I think it would be better instead to put some extra defenders here and there (and I think we must do this anyway, at least around Vesoul).
*******
I’ve found an “ISSUE” with the obj to destroy the “Fleeing Units”, the 3 Trucks… the thing is that the Germans can now replenish them (which is a little weird considering they are just evacuating and not supporting any actual fight)!

So, even with 35/30 damages done to these Trucks which have been finally completely destroyed during their trip, so even with not any of them able to escape, this pri obj stays on “?” (and was not even displayed as failed with the red X).

The point is that, on your trigger, the “Unit Damage Done”, you test if “= 30”…

So, to fix this, I think that it's possible to either:
1. give no RP at all to the Germans during this scenario (thus no more truck replenishment), or
2. change the condition to “> 29” (thus truck replenishment allowed), or even
3. put these Trucks under another flag with no RP at all (although I don’t really like this option).

The second option would mean that it’s possible to achieve this condition even with a really depleted truck actually escaping… BUT that’s not what is wanted with our obj as “Destroy all Fleeing Units before they Exit”.

So, I would vote for the first option: let the trigger as it is now (although check if it can actually been failed, with the “X” displayed) & NO MORE RP for Germans…

Anyway, why not? We’ve supply problems (well presented! ), the Germans can have some as well, especially with parts of their Army having been crushed, others having surrendered, others still being full on retreat…

By the way, what about actually giving the name “Fleeing Units” to each one of these three German Trucks?
*******
There are 2 different villages on the map with the name “Ormemans”; it can be a little confusing, especially because there is an obj about the correct timing to capture “Ormemans” (the one on the West)…

Well, we have already 2 times “Devecey”, we have “Aubertans” nearby as well…

So, I think a choice must be taken between either:

1. Modifying the obj to make the player capture these 2 spots (which can then keep the same name – this will slightly increase the difficulty of the scenario), or

2. Change the name of the one at the East, which could then perhaps be called as well “Aubertans” (same difficulty than before in terms of obj., then there will be 2x “Devecey” relatively close on map and 2x “Aubertans” then relatively close on map as well).
*******
SUGGESTIONS ABOUT GERMAN UNITS:

1. Around Vesoul and its surroundings:
-> Move the actual 7,5cm arty just 1 hex up (so in the woods and no longer sitting at the crossroad);
-> Put a nasty MG-foxhole in these woods (SW from Vesoul), just at the wooded hex between the two roads (thus being able to fire on both roads if it has an opportunity);
-> As garrison, at (the very) least 1 Heavy inf (or maybe 2 ), 1 regular inf and 1 AT-gun covering all of them…

2. Add a regular Infantry to protect the bridge at Devecey (this one will be hidden there, as the one at the western bridge!)

3. The SE part of the map looks now empty… So, what about adding some German recon unit somewhere on the eastern part of the “Route 36”? After having stayed put for maybe 2 or 3 turns*, this unit can then move westwards to try taking some good shots of opportunity on the flank or rear of our Division (maybe targeting our arty or something).
It’s more like another little surprise instead of a real threat because such unit can’t recapture some ground or flags anyway.

*If detected too soon, this unit will be crushed pointlessly (for the Germans) and with no real flavor (for us).

*******
Some little issues with FRENCH NAMES on this one:

“Montemilar” -> “Montélimar” (scen descr)
“Vesoun” -> “Vesoul” (scen descr)
“Besancon” -> “Besançon” (several times on briefing, once as obj name, and an event – title + text, and two times on map as well – probably about to be added!)
“Marseilles” -> “Marseille” (briefing)
*******
BRIEF.:

1. “S-3 (Cont) We” -> maybe “S-3 (Cont): We”
2. “[…] The are some desperate holdouts in […]” -> maybe “[…] There are […]”?
3. “briefing_2_4 =” with nothing more on the txt file?! Maybe simply remove this? Otherwise, the last part of the briefing appears simply empty before playing the scenario… Or write something down? Something to increase immersion...

[ColonelY]

And now a very little detail:

Once checking where does the "1SSF" appear, I've found that there is now 2 .scz files in the "4 NewM" folder.

One of them must soon or later be deleted, of course.

[Navman2854]

6 - VOLT = Accomplished all objs in time constraints. Another good scenario, maybe could be a little tougher getting the bridges done? Also once again, construction group deployed, hold off on TAC air availability?

BTW, I'm not going into great detail like ColonelY, he's pretty much covering everything down to the nitty gritty. I'm just trying to give general impressions of game play that would affect the more casual game player. Overall, good job conboy!

[ColonelY]

5 - Salerno and Acerno [...] Only suggestion I have is since the construction group is deployed, don't make the TAC air available until airfield is built? Just a thought.

Well, it's an idea but honestly I'm not convinced at all.

If this is done in this scenario, then it should be done in all the next scenarios (by coherence), which implies always delaying your air support... I don't think one really wish this during tough scenarios.

Moreover, like this one would somehow loose the strategical consideration on actually where to build our airstrip (safe position, but advanced and central).

At least 3 turns lost (building time) + either the time to move the Construction Group to a meaningful spot (several turns lost) or building it were it starts (but then with longer trips for refueling - so several turns lost as well) =

All our units appear from "somewhere else" when a scenario start, so why not our planes as well?

So, I think that I would vote no in this case!

[ColonelY]

Furthermore, there is another element: I believe that in every scenario where we have the TacAir, there are some air exit hexes as well as some air redeploy hexes. And they are working as they should, well, at least the one I've tested on few scenarios...

But, it means that when playing, the planes can go out of the map before coming back (refuelled, replenished)... directly from "somewhere else". If it's like this, why can't it be the same at the commencement of the scenario? So, starting directly with our TacAir and then (only) preparing an alternative to gain time, to avoid sending them all the way back to the air exit hexes, that should be perfectly fine.

[conboy]

ColonelY, Navman

I always have the Construction Group follow behind the troops until 3 turns before they run out then I start the construction, that way there is an airstrip near the forward line of troops. The thing that caught me a couple of times was not watching the fuel on the planes and starting late to build the airstrip.

So I tried to put an airfield somewhere on the map to keep the players from losing their planes.

Some scenarios have the air start late for various reasons. But I think I should put a note in somewhere for the players to watch their fuel and start construction of the airstrip no later than 3 turns from running out of fuel. I don't have any RPs budgeted for airplane repair. (RP budget, or lack thereof, is a whole nother issue...)

I don't really want to adjust the start turns for air support, but I do want to prevent the players from having crashed planes because they were late getting the airfield set up. They will have to fly back, a long way in some cases, and do without some planes till they get refueled if they don't have the airstrip set up.

Concur with your other points. I will make the bridge reconstruction a little more challenging. So point well taken, along with the rest.

Erik, I am getting your message as well. Thanks -- keep awn keepen awwwn!

conboy

[ColonelY]

[...] But I think I should put a note in somewhere for the players to watch their fuel and start construction of the airstrip no later than 3 turns from running out of fuel. [...]

'Sounds good.

This "somewhere", it may be in the briefing of 2 Lica, where you introduce the Construction Group to the player, i.e. just after this sentence: "[...] Also, the construction battalion has caught up with us so they'll need to provide an airstrip (your call where)."

[Navman2854]

[...] But I think I should put a note in somewhere for the players to watch their fuel and start construction of the airstrip no later than 3 turns from running out of fuel. [...]

'Sounds good.

This "somewhere", it may be in the briefing of 2 Lica, where you introduce the Construction Group to the player, i.e. just after this sentence: "[...] Also, the construction battalion has caught up with us so they'll need to provide an airstrip (your call where)."

Okay, agree with the TAC air reasons. Leave as is works for me. I tend to build the strip a little early to make sure my air has a field to land on before fuel problems. One compromise suggestion though and correct me if I'm wrong, a few times the air exit hexes were a good ways away from the air deployment hexes. Maybe make those fairly close together? The reasoning being if air is coming from somewhere, they usually head back home roughly the same way. Anyway, back to the eval.

7 - BARB = Accomplished all objs in time constraints. I think this was my fav scen so far. Lots of "little" and "big" surprises. I have to say I like the way you mix minefields, bunkers and other obstacles from scen to scen. In other words, not always the same amounts of each and sometimes none at all. Also, not always Phase deadlines to be met. Although, deadlines do put the pressure on

[ColonelY]

[..] a few times the air exit hexes were a good ways away from the air deployment hexes. Maybe make those fairly close together? The reasoning being if air is coming from somewhere, they usually head back home roughly the same way. [...]

Indeed, that's perfectly right. Therefore, I'll vote yes in this case.

Navman, do you remember which scenarios this could to be changed in?

[ColonelY]

13 VosL:

Ahh, it's time to cross the first Mountains and to meet the very first SS men on the way...

Another very good, well-balanced, and interessant scenario.

No big issue found, it’s much more like a bunch a very little details.
*******
Various:

-> So, remove the “v 1.0” of the scen name.
-> US ACPs from 10 -> 9
-> Event title nice but too long: “Secondary Objectives Achieved!”
-> Maybe few German/SS commander can be added (as Manfred Eisenberger for example), because they’ve had the time to prepare themselves here…
*******
Deploy hexes:

-> Could remove one of the 4 air deploy hexes (we've 3 planes to deploy anyway)
-> It may be nice to be able to deploy our 15th Regiment (RED) a little further north…
*******
Brief.:

1. “Vosges mountains” -> uppercase: “Vosges Mountains”
2. “[…] Sieze the Moselle crossings and […]” -> probably “Seize”
3. “[…] 15th RCT:Advance […]” -> add a space before “Advance”
4. “[…] Use it toseize Remiremont […]” -> a space of course, “to seize”
5. At two times you have superfluous space (number of lines) when ending parts of brief, with “|||” on txt file -> so either remove it or compose a little more according to your inspiration, to enhance immersion…
*******
Well, of course French accents can become really annoying… Let’s take a good look at some of the names on map:

“Plombieres” -> “Plombières”
“Bruyeres” -> “Bruyères” (+ appears once in an event)
“Le Chene” -> “Le Chêne”
“St Ame” -> “St Amé” (+ appears once in an event)
“Champe” -> “ Champé ”
“Chateau Lambert” -> “Château Lambert”

And, again, some French accents in the texts for Minor/Major Victory:
“St Die” -> “St Dié” (2 times)


'getting ready to continue through these Mountains!

[ColonelY]

'Forgotten one, sorry: "Jarmenil" -> "Jarménil" (on map & in text of an event)