Erik's campaigns, mods and multiplayer scenarios

[Erik2]

2v2 Hungary 1944 1.5

https://jottacloud.com/s/4576228e0b8570 ... 85768d65ab

Added Luftwaffe reinforcement bomber units (He 111).
Reduced Axis pri objs to just Budapest.
Reduced Axis sec objs from 5 to 2.
Increased Waffen SS unit experience from 3 to 4.
Increased Waffen SS RP income.
Increased Hungarian Ersatz unit experience from 1 to 2.
Changed start positions for a number of Soviet units (basically moving them back 1 hex from the frontline).
Added a few Soviet and Romanian bridge units (free deployment).

[KarisFraMauro]

Surely a step in the right direction. It's a map with potential of course, just needs some adjustment. Well that's what us playtesters are for after all.

Any thoughts on future maps with core rather than auxilliary units? Been a while since I've seen one of yours with that, possibly going all the way back (a personal favourite of mine as I've said previously ) that Pacific War one. Maybe it's a bias of mine but I do like having the flexibility to replace lost units provided I've got the requisition points for it. Predetermined starting unit numbers, types and positions are all quite reasonable of course, it's just what happens next that's interesting so to speak.

[Erik2]

I think you are the only one of my playtesters that like core units in multiplayer games
So I do not have plans for core scenarios.
Sorry.

[KarisFraMauro]

Ha no worries! Bit surprising to learn others prefer auxiliary but takes all kinds. Non-core but in a counterfactual type scenario then... Although now that I think of it, my ideal situation where the U.S. allies with Japan against Germany and the Soviets (Hitler choked on a pretzel and Rommel decided Operation Barbarossa might not be the best plan in the world, while Tojo accidentally fell on his katana before ending the Taisho democracy) might not even be possible if the actual game mechanics don't allow for it.

[stevefprice]

Ha no worries! Bit surprising to learn others prefer auxiliary but takes all kinds.

In a campaign I'm invested in seeing my units get better. In multiplayer games I don't want the objective becoming a spawn location I have to repeatedly wade through.

There is also the historical issue of just raising a new unit. If Aux are badly damaged I withdraw them from the line and they get R&R and recruits, but with core I can just respawn them or buy new so do not care. The former adds a sense of realism in a 'battle'. the latter is just fantasy

[Erik2]

Core units in multiplayer might work if only certain locations/objectives way behind the frontline may be used for spawning. The editor allows you block other locations...

[KarisFraMauro]

It depends how the map is designed, like Erik says. Unless you have a very substantial amount of resources you're always going to prioritize preserving units as opposed to letting them get destroyed and simply buying more. If you reach a point where you're relying on purchasing new units could be you've already lost after all. One way to approach that is with a large starting pool of requisition points but only a small amount per turn. While it's true that it's unrealistic to simply wave a magic wand and have units appear out of nowhere, it can also be viewed as existing ones being diverted from other theatres and the cost being one of transport rather than outright creation.

[NorrisFByrd]

I lean the same way as Karis on this one. In a campaign I get attached to my core units and want to see them improve from one scenario to the next, even if keeping them alive takes extra care. I once kept a battered infantry unit going through a whole campaign simply because it had survived since the first scenario, even though replacing it would probably have been cheaper. In multiplayer, though, I can see Erik's point about fresh units making more sense, since the focus is on the battle in front of you rather than a story carried across scenarios.