BrucErik CSD Studio

[bru888]

I've got 01Tanegashima-3, thanks. This arrangement is working out well.

I assume that you still need the Deployment Phase even though you haven't set it up yet. That is, the Allied units are not meant to start in these positions.

I see the light AA in addition to the 88mm gun; good for variety and for covering that southern coastal gun, as you said. "But [you] scrapped the garrison idea"? There's an infantry unit in town, yet it doesn't harm anything. I was afraid it would make the objective harder by forcing the player to destroy it by aerial bombardment. This is not the case, as I found out; supply is damaged (part of the objective) along with the unit, as these screen prints show:

Screenshot 1.jpg (812.47 KiB) Viewed 1574 times

Screenshot 2.jpg (479.64 KiB) Viewed 1574 times

Screenshot 3.jpg (550.47 KiB) Viewed 1574 times

Screenshot 4.jpg (486.42 KiB) Viewed 1574 times

Interesting: the heavy AA did move closer to the action, even though it's set for Local Defense, Distance 0. To encourage this behavior, I will bump that up to 1. Still, one unit to cover everything is not enough, so why not leave the light AA there as well?

If the player decides to invade even though he doesn't have to (as you know, designers must anticipate players not doing as expected or ordered ) there should be some token resistance. Long story made short, Mageshima looks good, I think.

[bru888]

I agree that "The three Jap kamikaze and 3 fighter units are spent early." We talked about having an occasional kamikaze plane spawn (every 3 turns?) and a patched-up fighter spawn (every 4 turns?) after the initial wave until the airstrip is destroyed - would that be alright? Not as an objective, but a popup message will inform the player that taking the airstrip will stop kamikazes and fighters from appearing.

[Erik2]

I forgot to remove the garrison But it is ok to keep it in.

We shouldn't make too much of Jap fighter/kamikaze ability at this point.
My OOB-template does not mention any Jap air at all for this scenario.
So I think we should leave this token air involvement (maybe move the kamikazes closer to the US vessels).
The Ariake landing will include a number of airstrips, a few fighters and a larger number of kamikazes.

[bru888]

Roger on that; will leave Jap air force alone, then.

Would you mind me garrisoning these five locations? The three red rings are secondary "consolidate conquest" objectives; I don't think they should be just "walk-ins." The two green rings are important victory points that should be guarded with infantry. Five more Jap infantry units and that's it, OK?

Screenshot 6.jpg (687.51 KiB) Viewed 1565 times

[Erik2]

That is fine.
My wife wants us to watch Succession, over and out...

[bru888]

And my wife wants me to hang Christmas ornaments on the tree. I will be back later with more stuff, but this is enough to work on for now. Enjoy the boob tube!

[bru888]

Norway: "Honey, never mind that American moron. You're missing Succession. Get in here!"

United States: "Honey, I don't care if that Norwegian fellow is handsome, debonair, and devilishly clever. It's almost Christmas. Do you want to help me put up the tree or not?!"

[bru888]

Yes, I intended the four primary VP flags around Nishinoomote since the city wraps around the bay and I thought the player should be required to take the entire city. If you think it looks too much like the World's Fair, though, I will take three of them out.

There already is a counter for Jap coastal gun units. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Screenshot 7.jpg (232.37 KiB) Viewed 1555 times

By the way, I see you already had provided for land bomber off-map air supply and exit hexes in 01Tanegashima-2, so that was my oversight. You said "landbased bombers, they are only available for one mission" so it's just as a one-shot deal. I think redeploy over two days is not unrealistic, but if it's one-shot, we had better inform the player. I will put in a message.

Okay with making the lighthouse into a radar station. It makes more sense to have one on each tip of the island anyway, and I can consolidate the two objectives into one: "Capture the radars and fuel depot." But no, in general I see a concrete bunker standing in as a lighthouse much more than a radar station. Will remove one of the fortresses up there, while I am at it, and replace it with an infantry unit.

You are the expert on gameplay balance and enjoyment, which is why people flock to your offerings, so giving US commanders up front is a good idea. Just so you know, I give another land and a naval commander for completing secondary objectives — I assume that is satisfactory.

I will keep track on a spreadsheet how and when the U.S. commanders appear as we go along. I would rather keep this "one and done," meaning if the player does not convert the opportunity, he doesn't get a second chance for that commander later on. Theoretically it could be programmed, I guess, but it would get really complicated later on with nested "Check Commander" conditions. Can you imagine? Several scenarios in, and we are still asking: "Did you ever unlock Jimmy Chapman? If no, unlock him now. If yes, did you ever unlock Pete Simpson?, If no, unlock him now. If yes, did you ever unlock ..." My gosh.

You had said you wanted "a Japanese airstrip unit to prevent the US from using the airfield it after destroyment/capture" but now you provide for a construction group when the airstrip is gone. That's good if it's in accordance with your grand vision and thus is another good idea. I will put in an announcement message.

Jap specialisations will be the same in each scenario, correct? U.S. specialisations will be earned after certain basics are awarded up front - that's done in the campaign editor, correct? Also, remember to include every core faction (I am guessing US and Marine) in every scenario even if it's not used — you know why this is so; it's just a reminder.

Say, I forgot something: Another spreadsheet to track spec points (per turn and earned) versus purchases. How many scenarios in this campaign? And why not give a spec point now (say, for the Consolidate Conquest objective)? Or did you want to offer only commanders for now?

As promised, I will bring back the briefing and reduce/rearrange the introductory messages.

[bru888]

I am also looking to work this logo into the campaign. Possibly an angle on Norwegian war correspondents assigned to covering Operation Olympic. ( )

Norsk-rikskringkasting-Logo.jpg (13.39 KiB) Viewed 1545 times

[bru888]

Heh, I took this (which is authentic Tanegashima):

tanegashima-japan-beaches-hamada-beach-picture-1_jpg.jpg (141.4 KiB) Viewed 1528 times

and spliced in this (authentic WW2 era radar):

radar.jpg (162.02 KiB) Viewed 1528 times

and came up with this, an image for when the Nishino southern radar changes hands:

Nishino_Point.png (165.01 KiB) Viewed 1528 times

Not bad, eh?

[bru888]

Similarly, this:

Kagoshima-Japan-KPVB.jpg (173.81 KiB) Viewed 1522 times

became this:

Kagoshima_Strait.png (188.87 KiB) Viewed 1522 times

[bru888]

Nice Marine Corps flag to use in this campaign, Erik! Perfect, exact sizing as well. I see we can now switch between Marine and U.S. victory outcome flags as necessary depending on the scenario.

outcome_2_1.png (239.61 KiB) Viewed 1512 times

Umm, except for one thing. You had the Marine Corps flag as the victory flag here. In 01Tanegashima, it's U.S. Army units at work; the Marine faction is neutral, unused. So I switched these file names accordingly:

Image0688.jpg (146.9 KiB) Viewed 1496 times

[bru888]

01Tanegashima-4 has been uploaded to the _Back to Erik folder. Changes:

- Restored the primary VP count to 6 (unless you really don't like the 4 flags in Nishinoomote).
- Gave the usual 3 or 4 experience to bunkers and foxholes.
- Included one more small-caliber AA gun to guard the Fuel Depot. Makes sense, I think. "Major Najima. What is the sense of placing two AA guns on Mageshima and leaving our Fuel Depot defenseless against air attack?" "Well, sir, I own a vacation home on Mageshima and ..."
- Bumped up the Local Defense distance for AA guns from 0 to 1.
- Added 5 infantry units at the locations shown above. Removed one of the fortresses at Kishigasaki.
- Relabeled AI Team 18 as "Static Garrisons" and assigned three of the new units to their own AI teams. (Feel free to review and edit garrison unit names, if you want to follow your "IMB" nomenclature.)
- Converted 14/5/109 IMB, near Nishino and the southern radar, into heavy infantry and added it to AI Team 18.
- Took a guess and relabeled this guy (one of your unit placements) "12/4/109 IMB" which fits in with its neighbors:

Screenshot 1.jpg (293.27 KiB) Viewed 1505 times

- Replaced the lighthouse with a radar. Changed the name of both radars to "Kishigasaki Radar" and "Nishino Radar."
- Deleted the "Capture the lighthouse at Kishigasaki" objective.
- Changed the other objective to "Capture the radars and fuel depot."
- Altered associated objective triggers accordingly.
- Renamed the Fuel Depot as "Nippon Oil" (which is real, by the way).
- Came up with this message when the Fuel Depot is "destroyed" by a land unit (a new US fuel depot spawns in that location):

Screenshot 2.jpg (140.75 KiB) Viewed 1505 times

- Created a briefing, as promised. You were right about that.
- The introduction messages have been moved back to Turn 1 instead of Scenario Start and the other messages edited and rearranged.
- Revised this message:

Screenshot 3.jpg (124.7 KiB) Viewed 1505 times

- and included this message if land-based bombers cannot redeploy:

Screenshot 4.jpg (146.41 KiB) Viewed 1505 times

- Removed the "Evacuate enemy aircraft" trigger and exit hexes, based on what you have decided for Japanese air units.
- Provided for this message to pop up when the enemy airstrip is destroyed and the construction group spawns:

Screenshot 5.jpg (171.79 KiB) Viewed 1505 times

- Placed a factory as "HQ 109 Ind Mix Bde" so that the military police have something to guard. No real significance; just something to blow up.
- Wrote a series of triggers that will:
1) Make damaged garrison units (with four exceptions in AI Team 18 - Static Garrisons) join the defenses of nearby population centers, and
2) When those population centers are lost, will make these units to over to Seek & Destroy.

Please detail any changes that you make to this version.

[Erik2]

Great. I'll do a play-through to the bitter end.
Would you like me to put the next scenario in your folder now or would you rather wait a bit?

[Erik2]

I've put 01Tanegashima-5 in your folder.

Reduced US resource income from 4 to 3 pr unit pr turn. It should be high enough to allow elite repair of all core units. This is important as most core units (including naval) will be used in the next 3 main invasion scenarios.

Some of the core units are freely deployable.

Reduced number of turns from 48 to 38 (I got a major victory on turn 37 first try).

Moved US construction grp spawn to Jap airstrip location.

[Erik2]

I've put 02Ariake-1 in your folder.

Added various objectives.

This scenario includes an airborne option to deploy the 6 battalions of the 187 & 188 glider regiments. The next two invasion scenarios will probably include the same option. So we need a campaign variable to remove the option in the later scenarios if the player selects 'yes' in the previous scenario.

The template for this scenario does not include any naval mines (unlike the first scenario). I may add some at a later point.

[ColonelY]

Ahh, some airborne options, very nice!


If this option is only available once (hence probably the need to remove the question), then of course the player must know about this, must be aware of it...
And, for the last scenario where paratroopers could be involved, there is no need for a question at all: if they have not been used at this point (if I'm not mistaken about the "one time use" concept here), then there is no reason to ask the question - just add them, because then it would be like "now or never", so.

[bru888]

Colonel, we were just talking about you as a possible beta tester when some of our material is ready. Would you honor us by performing in that capacity? If you are busy or have other time commitments, just say so. Your occasional commentary is still quite valuable.

[Erik2]

I may add the same airborne option to the later 'inland' scenarios.
But it should only be used once.

If my templates reveal additional AB formations for the later scenarios, these will be added in additon the the 187/188 glider regiments.

[ColonelY]

Colonel, we were just talking about you as a possible beta tester when some of our material is ready. Would you honor us by performing in that capacity? If you are busy or have other time commitments, just say so. Your occasional commentary is still quite valuable.

Wow, I am honored by this proposal!

I would have been very pleased, but for the moment, well, I'm sorry but I can't make a formal commitment (as I try to keep my word).

On the other hand, I will certainly try to continue to help you, but cannot guarantee for the moment neither the regularity nor the intensity of my efforts...

So, the easiest thing for you right now, in my opinion, is to continue "as usual" posting your excellent work as it comes in; there will inevitably be good comments and suggestions on the forum... and probably some of mine from time to time.

I'm sorry guys, but I can't promise much more at this point.


Come on, cheer up! Keep it up, you're doing an awesome job and providing many hours of fun to many players around the world.