Erik's campaigns & mods

[Erik2]

Referring to the Afrika Korp campaign, in particular the amphibious landing in East Africa later in the campaign, I find this nearly impossible without any supply ships. I guess I do not understand the supply mechanics well enough, but I do not see how to resuppy my assets after landing.

There are 8 Italian supply ships available which you should be able to deploy at start.

[Dwightd]

US Corps 1943-44

This campaign continues where US Corps 1942-43 left off.
You should be able to import your core units from the previous campaign.

As always, a big thank you to CSI surgeon Bru for his contribution.

Download link in first post.

Erik, you are an evil man! I have been waiting for more US Corps content and you have done it It looks like I won't be getting much sleep over the next week or so. Thanks again for everything you do with the custom content.

[unitlost]

Now I feel like a dope. I should have looked to my Italian compatriots for supply ships. Thanks for your quick reply. And thanks for all the new content!

[impossible]

hello, germany west 41-43 messina has a few problems:

- you write you need to evacuate 18 units to the right side of the map which is not necessary, the only condition that is required i think is to keep 18 units alive which is good because it is impossible to clear the ships from the channel
- the bombers you mention never show up and because of the crushing allied air superiority (10+ fighters.......) my own bombers are useless too (there is no escape hex for them e.g.)

did you intend the italian maps these hard? i think they are like us corps 41-43 x500 or germany west 39-40 x300

[impossible]

germany west 41-43 messina

apparently i was wrong you need to evacuate the 18 units otherwise it ends in draw which also ends the campaign for me with failure. (i gave the campaign up at salerno anyway, run out of resources and willpower, brutal campaign)

the bombers never show up though.

[impossible]

us corps 43-44 - mission 1 gela

not sure if intended but if you dont land on the west side of the river at all only on the right side the ai doesnt attack with any forces from the north except the lone tiger. i did the mission in 7 turns because of this. if i land forces on the left near the marine raiders the ai attacks with all northern units.

[Erik2]

us corps 43-44 - mission 1 gela

not sure if intended but if you dont land on the west side of the river at all only on the right side the ai doesnt attack with any forces from the north except the lone tiger. i did the mission in 7 turns because of this. if i land forces on the left near the marine raiders the ai attacks with all northern units.

Added to my list

[Dwightd]

US CORPS 43-44 - Mission 2 Gela Defense

I think there needs to be an air unit exit hex at the bottom of the map. The airport behind the german lines is too hard to defend from the beginning, and the one that is controlled by the US is way too close to the front line. The Goering division quickly sets up heavy artillery within range of the airport, and shells any aircraft that lands there. Add on top of that, you need to soon occupy that airport to defend it, which eliminates any landing. By turn 9-10, what few fighters are left start falling out of the sky from fuel starvation.

I certainly could be missing something, but I have not figured it out yet. My first impression is this scenario is quite out of balance toward the Axis side playing at level III.

But, I have not yet begun to fight!

[impossible]

US CORPS 43-44 - Mission 2 Gela Defense

there is a trick that makes this map super fun: put 5 seabees around the right airport at deployment , lay minefields on turn 1 - you will have enough time to put the 6th mine before that german onslaught arrives. in the meantime annihilate the italians on the left and cut off the german units from the supply - you can do it by turn 8-9. nothing better than wiping the floor with tons of zero efficiency enemy units that othewise would obliterate anything in its path. without this trick its clusterf**k i agree.

im about to start salerno and i think all maps in this campaign have a trick that make them easy otherwise most of them are nigh impossible or very hard at least. e.g. at messina the only way to capture messina itself is by dropping a single paratrooper in the city in the last turn, there is no way you can get there on the ground and fight your way through those units in 14 turns.

[Dwightd]

US Corps 43-44 - Mission Palermo

Just a small text thing. The briefing states the hex is marked A, but it is really marked POW

[wrongplanet67]

I don't know if it's a bug, but after a major victory at Coral Sea, I receive the following message about choices and a fictional Hawaii scenario. After a draw in this fictional Hawaii scenario I would be able to replay Midway, after a major or minor victory I would be able to continue the campaign.

In reality the next scenario is Midway.

Also, maybe a reminder of the fact that the fictional Rainbow 5 scenario is really slow. I had to bypass it with an instant victory cheat.

Thanks for your continued effort!

Coral_Sea_to_Midway.jpg (151.89 KiB) Viewed 3004 times

[Erik2]

wrongplanet

Looks like a glitch.

A draw and any win at Coral should take you to Midway.
Any loss at Midway should take you to the fictional Hawaii scenario. Any win takes you to Guadalcanal.
Any loss at Hawaii takes you to the last scenario, Coral Sea '46. Any win takes you back into the main branch (from Santa Cruz etc).

[WarHomer]

US Corps 43-44 gameplay experiences. Hardest difficulty.

Mission 2: Very hard, but doable. Maybe make it a bit easier for allround gamefun.

Mission 3: you need a few more turns. 2-3.

Mission 4: No chance to get all 5 prisoners of war to the stockade.

Mission 5: I did south, as only this mission granted any RP and they were sorely needed.

Mission 6: you need a few more turns. 3-4.

Mission 7: Seems impossible. The Germans just keep coming and you never get a fighting chance. Maybe let them send less at first, so you can at least establish a few defendable beachheads.

Overall: a bit more RP´s between missions. Maybe 200 for a major and 100 for a minor. I had to give myself 400 so far and I´m not sporting all the best units.

Spec points: at mission 7 I got 44 but nothing to use it on. Bought all available specs at mission 3.

[Erik2]

warhomer

Thanks for the feedback.
It is good to see that most scenarios are winnable, even at the hardest level.
Other players have had some difficulties.

[WarHomer]

US Corps 43-44 gameplay experiences. Hardest difficulty.

Mission 2: Very hard, but doable. Maybe make it a bit easier for allround gamefun.

Mission 3: you need a few more turns. 2-3.

Mission 4: No chance to get all 5 prisoners of war to the stockade.

Mission 5: I did south, as only this mission granted any RP and they were sorely needed.

Mission 6: you need a few more turns. 3-4.

Mission 7: Seems impossible. The Germans just keep coming and you never get a fighting chance. Maybe let them send less at first, so you can at least establish a few defendable beachheads.

Overall: a bit more RP´s between missions. Maybe 200 for a major and 100 for a minor. I had to give myself 400 so far and I´m not sporting all the best units.

Spec points: at mission 7 I got 44 but nothing to use it on. Bought all available specs at mission 3.

UPDATE

Finally managed to win mission 7, but I had to cheat and add 800 RP and 5 turns.

Mission 8: I start with a massive amount of ekstra core units (around 32) predeployed on top of my own 112 CP. I think these need to be auxillary to keep the balance and core proudness. Also I start with only 116 RP, despite my win on mission 7 and some hefty losses.

UPDATE for mission 8: You only have 8 supply on top of all the predeployed units, so something is definitely wrong here. It´s like I´ve been given an entire extra core army and now can´t use my own. I cant even disband it, as it just adds massive CP.

PS. I LOVE the tiger tank you get in mission 6, as captured units are usually crap that I never use.

[impossible]

i gave us corps 43-44 a break but my experiences were (default difficulty):

mission 2: with the 6 mine trick i wrote above its easy and fun on any difficulty level otherwise it must be a real pain. in fact with the mine trick its the funniest scenario ever
messina: can be completed easy with a single paratrooper dropped on the victory point last turn after obliterating german air defense otherwise at least 2 more turns needed

not sure if mission 7 is salerno but if yes i can confirm that on default difficulty there is not enough time. with good RNG and landing only on the south and most german units swarmed me i managed to do it in 18 turns by using 2 paratroopers. in any other cases too many german units remained in the northwest for the paratroopers+close air support or got obliterated if i split my forces or landed elsewhere.

the RP situation is better than in germany west 41-43 which i think is impossible by salerno but i reckon i would ran out of rp`s here too (while finishing germany 39-40 with 3800rp plus).

[gunny]

Overall it is an immense blessing having all of these Erik's Campaigns; however, to many of the scenarios within the campaigns are impossible to win on Medium Difficulty Captain the one in the center. And playing them on a lower difficulty takes away from it cause the enemy units have a lower strength. Take the US Corps 42 - 43 Scenario 04 ORAN the instructions let you know you have two para units that are assigned to attack the airfields and it tells you which one to attack first. You land near the assigned airfield to attack and are met with 4 infantry units and a tank which counter attacks you what a joke.

This pathetic concept is applied to many many of the scenarios. So ya have to do cheats which take away from everything actually the instructions you get you should not obey most all of the time its a waste to read them in addition you simply do the add turns cheat this takes away too from the ambiance. So basically the scenarios in the campaign are thrown together and many cheats must be applied to get through them ending up with a silly feeling for even playing them.

[bru888]

Hmmm, gunny. A bit too harsh with your comments, I'd say.

Erik depends on the community for feedback. I try to provide it to him by sweeping for bugs in the editors but just as important, if not more so, are comments from people who play his scenarios and campaigns. He needs their detailed feedback on such things as game balance to improve his work; really, all of his stuff is constantly under review and subject to revision and improvement.

Post your complaints, by all means, but please realize what an incredible amount of work he does and be patient. Just to give you some perspective, to date he has created 16 campaigns (I'm looking at a 17th for him now), 22 single-player scenarios, and 57 multi-player scenarios. He always invites comments in his threads and he responds to them.

And it's all free! So let's help Erik in a positive manner, shall we?

[JustJeff88]

Hmmm, gunny. A bit too harsh with your comments, I'd say.

Erik depends on the community for feedback. I try to provide it to him by sweeping for bugs in the editors but just as important, if not more so, are comments from people who play his scenarios and campaigns. He needs their detailed feedback on such things as game balance to improve his work; really, all of his stuff is constantly under review and subject to revision and improvement.

Post your complaints, by all means, but please realize what an incredible amount of work he does and be patient. Just to give you some perspective, to date he has created 16 campaigns (I'm looking at a 17th for him now), 22 single-player scenarios, and 57 multi-player scenarios. He always invites comments in his threads and he responds to them.

And it's all free! So let's help Erik in a positive manner, shall we?

I don't want to belittle Erik's many contributions and I agree that gunny is being far too caustic, especially that second paragraph, there is a very real possibility that someone who knows the game as well as Erik can make things quite hard for the "average" player without necessarily wanting to do so. The expertise that it takes to make campaigns implies a mastery of the base game that can make what is a stiff challenge to most seem like the proverbial piece of cake to the modder. I have not really contributed anything into playtesting as I am a very casual player who dabbles in a number of strategy games, so I feel even less qualified to comment than the aforementioned average player. All I am saying is that we need to keep in mind that a mod made by an expert player and tested by other expert players can very well be, despite all of the best intentions in the world, brutal for the average fan.

I must also confess that I agree with gunny in that I hate turning the difficulty up or down in this game due to the way it works - it's my only serious complaint in an otherwise excellent hex-based light strategy game. Turning down the difficulty feels like cheating, frankly. I know that this seems odd but I also know that I'm not alone in saying it. I personally wish that the devs had either changed the quantity, quality and/or location of enemy units as a balancing mechanism or had implemented an invisible bonus to the player and/or malus to the enemy. Coming up against nothing but enemies with a 20 or 40% health penalty makes me feel like someone already shot their bums off before I got there, which feels frankly patronising.

[bru888]

I have noticed that Erik - hey Erik, you don't mind if we talk about you in your own thread, eh? - usually gives the enemy all sorts of unearned advantages in his scenarios. The enemy will begin with all possible specialisations already awarded, will have all their commanders assigned to units, and often will enjoy significant numerical superiority. If he is doing this to ratchet up the difficulty, then that is his choice and prerogative.

I agree that the "sweet spot" of single-player scenario design is when the battle could go either way on medium difficulty for an average player. That balance is what I tried to reach in my own scenarios but it is hard to do.

But two things:

1) When some particularly difficult situation is brought to Erik's attention, he considers it and will make changes as he sees fit. That is why he needs civil, constructive feedback, hence my point above.

2) These scenarios and campaigns are not locked; indeed, they are fluid. If you don't like the balance even after Erik's editing, you can easily address the matter yourself in the editor. You can remove specialisations, commanders, and even units (albeit with care) but the most obvious solution is usually to increase the player's resources and command points.