To whoever did mission design for US '42

PC : Turn based WW2 goodness in the mold of Panzer General. This promises to be a true classic!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Design, Panzer Corps Moderators

MikeAP
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:14 pm

To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by MikeAP » Fri May 27, 2016 6:00 pm

Image

Sorry, but its not fun nor challenging. It's pretty unenjoyable, in fact.

A massive blob of the enemy does NOT equal a challenge - it's just tedious and lazy mission design.

Rosseau
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:27 am

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by Rosseau » Sat May 28, 2016 1:28 am

Hope that changes as campaign goes on...

I am repeating myself, but here is a wonderful mod. The broken English in the briefings just adds to the realism.

viewtopic.php?f=147&t=50342

MikeAP
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:14 pm

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by MikeAP » Sat May 28, 2016 2:03 am

Rosseau wrote:Hope that changes as campaign goes on...

I am repeating myself, but here is a wonderful mod. The broken English in the briefings just adds to the realism.

viewtopic.php?f=147&t=50342

I really enjoyed Deductors mod for the early Wehrmacht Grand Campaigns- he reworked values for combat. Things like Kubelwagon or Motorcycle infantry destroying Sherman tanks is something that wouldn't happen. In the mission above, I lost at least one sherman to Saharan Infantry (Kubelwagon). That shouldnt be possible.

Radoye
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by Radoye » Sat May 28, 2016 2:42 am

MikeAP wrote:Things like Kubelwagon or Motorcycle infantry destroying Sherman tanks is something that wouldn't happen. In the mission above, I lost at least one sherman to Saharan Infantry (Kubelwagon). That shouldnt be possible.
I haven't played the US'42 yet, but if those Saharans were Italians, then that was no Kubelwagen but rather one of these bad boys:

Image



Camioneta AS.42 Sahariana

BJGeary
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:37 pm

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by BJGeary » Sat May 28, 2016 3:08 am

That still shouldn't be able to destroy a Sherman. Best they could get is a mobility kill, if they got a track hit.

BJGeary
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:37 pm

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by BJGeary » Sat May 28, 2016 3:24 am

On a different issue, but still on the subject of mission design for US '42, I have to wonder if changes were made to the DLC after playtest, or did everyone testing it just not read the pre-mission briefings? After the Tebourba mission the briefing presents you with a choice of 'Operation Spring Wind" or "Operation Morning Air" (neither of which when Googled yield any results, so I'm curious as to whether these represent real WW2 ops), but gives you absolutely no clue what the difference is between these choices.

Oh, and one more major issue regarding these DLCs: the Library contains no information on the US Corps campaign, so players have absolutely no way to know without multiple playthroughs what the consequences of victory levels or branching choices are.

Rosseau
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:27 am

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by Rosseau » Sat May 28, 2016 3:40 am

They did mention something about "what if" scenarios. The library issue, I don't know?

Dragoon.
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:50 am

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by Dragoon. » Sat May 28, 2016 5:36 am

BJGeary wrote:On a different issue, but still on the subject of mission design for US '42, I have to wonder if changes were made to the DLC after playtest, or did everyone testing it just not read the pre-mission briefings? After the Tebourba mission the briefing presents you with a choice of 'Operation Spring Wind" or "Operation Morning Air" (neither of which when Googled yield any results, so I'm curious as to whether these represent real WW2 ops), but gives you absolutely no clue what the difference is between these choices.

Oh, and one more major issue regarding these DLCs: the Library contains no information on the US Corps campaign, so players have absolutely no way to know without multiple playthroughs what the consequences of victory levels or branching choices are.
This is a good example why you usually avoid to translate proper names.
The person who wrote/translated the briefing should have avoid to translate German operations names.

I hope got all all fact straight as I write this out of my memory.

Spring Wind (Frühlingswind) was the German codename for the offensive of the 5th Panzer army (lead by General Arnim) aimed at the American 1. Army at Kasserine Pass towards the city of Tebessa in the North. Also know as the Battle of Kassarine Pass. Googling Frühlingswind along with the term WW2 should definitive have produced a result.

While Morgenluft (Morning Air) was the German operation conducted at the same time by the Africa Corps lead by Rommel aimed at the southern flank of the US 2nd Corps in support of operation Frühlingswind.

So to answer your question. So yeah they really happened and they are one of most important battles during the North Africa campaign, and quite a bloody lesson for the US forces as they lost around 200 tanks and 6000 soldiers.

But the whole case shows how little value the Internet or Wikipedia can have, when you are looking for serious or in-depth information. It can't replace to study and read a researched book written by a experienced and renowned historian.

kverdon
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:38 am

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by kverdon » Sat May 28, 2016 5:43 am

Hi MikeAP,

I have to say that contrary to your experience I did find it rather winable and enjoyable at General Level Difficulty but then again, I tend to enjoy a good defense in depth scenario. I think your Core Corps is a bit lacking in Artillery and that could explain your difficulty. I entered "Spring Wind" with the following Core units:

3x M4A3
1X M10
2x M12
1x M7
1x Heavy Inf (Ranger)
1x Regular Inf (Ranger)
1x Engineer
1x Airborne (Elite)
1x Hv Infantry (elite)
1x P47D (Elite)
1x P47

When I was given the "Retreat and Defend" order I fell back to a line running from the Hills at 5,7 to the hills at 7,3 and 6,3. I placed my Infantry in Sebeitla and the surrounding hills with my armor in front. Most of my unis were backed up by my 3 Art units. My P47's and the scenario D520 provided Air support. I then let them come to me. The AI attacked and stacked up against my solid line allowing me to concentrate attacks with units backed up by arty. Since the AI units were stacked in this led to an number of AI units surrendering. My Arty units (which I kept CAP'd by my Air Units) kept my losses to AI attacks down. Sure I got beat up pretty bad. I finished with no Air unit over 4 strength points and lost most, if not all of the Free French Units (which I used like pawns to slow the AI units) but in the end I held Sebeitla without the loss of any core units. It did take all my prestige to bring them back to full strength for the next scenario but I did enjoy the challenge. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment but I tend to enjoy scenarios where you hang on by your fingernails to eek out a victory by having a layered defense.

Kevin

BJGeary
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:37 pm

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by BJGeary » Sat May 28, 2016 6:10 am

Dragoon wrote:
BJGeary wrote:On a different issue, but still on the subject of mission design for US '42, I have to wonder if changes were made to the DLC after playtest, or did everyone testing it just not read the pre-mission briefings? After the Tebourba mission the briefing presents you with a choice of 'Operation Spring Wind" or "Operation Morning Air" (neither of which when Googled yield any results, so I'm curious as to whether these represent real WW2 ops), but gives you absolutely no clue what the difference is between these choices.

Oh, and one more major issue regarding these DLCs: the Library contains no information on the US Corps campaign, so players have absolutely no way to know without multiple playthroughs what the consequences of victory levels or branching choices are.
This is a good example why you usually avoid to translate proper names.
The person who wrote/translated the briefing should have avoid to translate German operations names.

I hope got all all fact straight as I write this out of my memory.

Spring Wind (Frühlingswind) was the German codename for the offensive of the 5th Panzer army (lead by General Arnim) aimed at the American 1. Army at Kasserine Pass towards the city of Tebessa in the North. Also know as the Battle of Kassarine Pass. Googling Frühlingswind along with the term WW2 should definitive have produced a result.

While Morgenluft (Morning Air) was the German operation conducted at the same time by the Africa Corps lead by Rommel aimed at the southern flank of the US 2nd Corps in support of operation Frühlingswind.

So to answer your question. So yeah they really happened and they are one of most important battles during the North Africa campaign, and quite a bloody lesson for the US forces as they lost around 200 tanks and 6000 soldiers.

But the whole case shows how little value the Internet or Wikipedia can have, when you are looking for serious or in-depth information. It can't replace to study and read a researched book written by a experienced and renowned historian.
You have an awesome memory. Thank you for a very informative reply.

I chose to play Morgenluft, based on looking at the maps and objectives. The choice would have been easier to make if Slitherine hadn't converted the German op names into English (or better yet, put the English translations within parentheses next to the German names), and if they had spent a few extra minutes writing something similar to the explanation in your post.

captainjack
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1660
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:42 am

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by captainjack » Sat May 28, 2016 6:24 am

BJGeary wrote:That still shouldn't be able to destroy a Sherman.
While most of the vehicle mounted weapons are MGs and 20mm cannon they also had some 47mm guns (it looks there's at least one in the film in the link). Bear in mind the Russian front experience that a high volume of 14.7mm AT rifle rounds can cause a lot of damage to vision ports, gun barrels, radios, tracks etc and have potential to jam turrets, so you have a lot of damage that might not destroy a tank but which could require it pulling out of combat or scaring a rookie driver. Plus the 47mm AT guns were about as good as the Czech ones used on Panzerjager 1 and would have the ability to cause some real damage.

Used by special forces against relatively inexperienced crews and you can start to see how they could spoil the day for the Shermans, even if much of the damage could be fixed in a day or two.

BJGeary
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:37 pm

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by BJGeary » Sat May 28, 2016 7:48 am

captainjack wrote:
BJGeary wrote:That still shouldn't be able to destroy a Sherman.
While most of the vehicle mounted weapons are MGs and 20mm cannon they also had some 47mm guns (it looks there's at least one in the film in the link). Bear in mind the Russian front experience that a high volume of 14.7mm AT rifle rounds can cause a lot of damage to vision ports, gun barrels, radios, tracks etc and have potential to jam turrets, so you have a lot of damage that might not destroy a tank but which could require it pulling out of combat or scaring a rookie driver. Plus the 47mm AT guns were about as good as the Czech ones used on Panzerjager 1 and would have the ability to cause some real damage.

Used by special forces against relatively inexperienced crews and you can start to see how they could spoil the day for the Shermans, even if much of the damage could be fixed in a day or two.
I didn't view the film. I was just going by what looks to be a 20mm Breda AA gun on the AS 42. If the AS 42 has LOS on a Sherman it is also very likely that Sherman also has LOS on the AS 42, and a single HE round from the Sherman would take care of such a nuisance quite nicely. In game terms, probably 2-3 points, at best, inflicted on the Sherman while the Sherman should get at least 7-8 on return fire. It would probably require inexperienced, stupid, and outright cowardly Sherman crews to succumb to Italian scout cars, even if those Italians are 'elites'. I agree with MikeAP: losing Shermans as he did shouldn't happen.

nikivdd
Panzer Corps Map Designer
Panzer Corps Map Designer
Posts: 4165
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:21 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by nikivdd » Sat May 28, 2016 9:25 am

Hello guys,

The release version is the result of excellent feedback from the beta testers. I tried to implement suggested changes as much as possible and i was commended for actual listening.
This version gives a fair chance to mount a defense along the El Fekka river, which in beta 1 was not the case. Engaging Axis armor head-on is a very costily affair, more than ever using terrain to one's advantage is important. There are no KV-1s to field, but excellent US bombers and (mobile) artillery (with a fair amount of ammo).
In the attachment you can find my replay of the release version of Spring Wind.
US42 - 6 - Spring Wind, Turn 16.rar
(44.42 KiB) Downloaded 117 times
https://www.facebook.com/NikivddPanzerCorps/
https://www.youtube.com/user/Nikivdd1/videos?shelf_id=0&view=0&sort=dd

MikeAP
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:14 pm

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by MikeAP » Sat May 28, 2016 12:19 pm

kverdon wrote: I think your Core Corps is a bit lacking in Artillery and that could explain your difficulty.
I can't deploy anything else in the scenario. I'm limited to a few a units, but honestly, I dont see how artillery would make a difference with all the tanks/vehicles that get thrown at the player.

The Saharan infantry / motorcycle spam is too much in this scenario. Why on earth are motorcycle troops listed as regular infantry (similar stats) - these should be considered recon units and shouldnt be able to tangle with tanks.

simcc
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 6:29 am

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by simcc » Sat May 28, 2016 12:24 pm

MikeAP, I do hope you can give more specific details as why mission design is bad?

My opinion as a gamer on the scenario for US corps
1. There is fresh stuff even for an old game. You get salvage gear from destroying enemy units rather than just capturing far away flags

2. Scenario design is very challenging more like GC 44-45 west style as you are on defensive during the early war so it is very challenging. Sacrificing correct unit at a correct time get your job done without major lost

3. A lot of auxiliary units and it makes you decide get the experience and risk suffering huge lost or save your precious core but gain less experience. I find this the hardest part as I am very much into getting fast experience so your unit is solid hard.

4. Mission objective changes and force you to 'lose' (ie didn't need to capture all flag) well this got me into hot soup a lot as I am those players that try to rush all flags which I admit it's near impossible on this campaign.

5. AI will punish you hard if you took huge risk or make silly mistake.

Overall I find it very fun to play, I am doing field Marshall at the moment and it's really fun and fresh. My favorite is the Rangers with AT car than can be turn into artilery. Also not if you go tank heavy you will suffer hahahaha it's the Germans that have best tanks not US so keep that in mind and for history fact Sherman is a lousy tank that die in drove fighting Panzers.

On the note you say a motorcycle can kill Sherman well what terrain your tank in on? And it is possible in real life as infantry have anti tank weapons which is why tank in close terrain die to infantry attack.

For the developer great job and might be too much to ask but I hope you guys can work on soviet GC before I finish US GC hahahaha

simcc
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 6:29 am

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by simcc » Sat May 28, 2016 12:26 pm

Also FYI Saharan is one of the best infantry unit, without it I can never win African Korps challenge of using italian unit only. They are a force to be feared.

simcc
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 6:29 am

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by simcc » Sat May 28, 2016 12:32 pm

Also a tips for the mission you print screen, sacrificing correct french troops at certain time is the best way to beat it. I just finished that mission yesterday so it is still very fresh (FM level). River and flank is the key to ultimate victory I did manage to gain a lot of prestige and also the final german starting point flag hahaha. They come in tight packs = best use to force surrender and you gain a lot of prestige. I use only 2 tanks in that scenario fyi

MikeAP
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:14 pm

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by MikeAP » Sat May 28, 2016 12:33 pm

simcc wrote:MikeAP, I do hope you can give more specific details as why mission design is bad?

2. Scenario design is very challenging more like GC 44-45 west style as you are on defensive during the early war so it is very challenging. Sacrificing correct unit at a correct time get your job done without major lost
I draw a line between 'Challenging' (fun, but difficult) and 'Tedious' (difficult, but boring). The giant blob of enemy units is lazy design, in my opinion.

I'm given limited prestige and have a ridiculous cap on my core units. If the point is for the player to lose, then why even have a scenario in the first place?

BJGeary
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:37 pm

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42

Post by BJGeary » Sat May 28, 2016 10:20 pm

There is some strange behavior in the El Guettar ('42) mission. You receive a captured Panzer IIIN at some point (I won't say when to avoid further spoiling). This unit, unlike those in previous campaign DLCs, or even captured units earlier in the US '42 DLC (such as the SdKfz 234/2), while being carried over from mission to mission does not become a part of your core. When you receive this unit it says it will remain with you throughout the North Africa campaign. Am I correct in guessing that the reason it does not become a regular core unit is because it will disappear once you move on to Sicily?

I'd like to respectfully ask if one of the devs would explain why this particular unit is treated differently than most other captured units (excepting same-scenario-only captured units like all but one of the Polish artillery on the Warsaw map)? It would be nice if this panzer became a normal core unit so that players who wished to could disband it and obtain its prestige value. Granted, it's a bonus unit that doesn't count against your core total, but I really don't see why it should be treated differently than the (rather nice and very useful) captured SdKfz 234/2 you get in an earlier mission.

kverdon
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:38 am

Re: To whoever did mission design for US '42..

Post by kverdon » Sun May 29, 2016 2:43 am

I replayed this as "Morning Sun" Scenario and again found it it fun and interesting without being overwhelming. I did with the force composition from above. The key was having the correct core force composition for the scenario. The key is having good Arty backup. With my 3 Arty with the 4th FF unit I was able to backup every unit with 1 to 2 Arty unit which meant that those "Shahara" units never dared attack any of my Armor units that had an Arty backup. In the end I was not only able to defend the primary objective but was able to capture the 3 near secondary objectives with no problem.

Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps”