Bru's Scenarios and Campaigns

[bru888]

Arracourt new version 2.0 uploaded:

- Both sides now have resource points to start with and income per turn.
- I altered the OOB and expanded it to include armored infantry and recon units. All units now have historical names.
- Forces are more logically arranged at scenario start. Americans are halted in a salient but with coherent organization and Germans are approaching along roads.
- U.S. airpower is now included but without being overwhelming and ruining the challenge for the U.S. player. The German side was provided with mobile AA guns to balance.
- Corrected the error in talking about short-barreled Sherman tanks in the briefing while using only a later long-barreled version. Now there are three types of Sherman tanks in the scenario but most of them are still the short-barreled M4A2 which is historically correct.
- Provided supply in all towns across the map to discourage behind the lines excursions just to cut off supply from a main base.
- Adjusted secondary objectives to correspond with the amounts of German armored units in the scenario.
- Created a secondary mission to kill Gen. Hasso von Manteuffel to break German morale (eliminate resource income).

Now what I need help on is gameplay balance and proper number of turns. Any suggestions on those would be appreciated.

[bru888]

Heh, this reminds me of what happens at work. As soon as I hit "Send" on an e-mail message, I see a typo or I remember something that I left out.

In this case, I remembered what Erik had said about this situation:

Capture760.jpg (302.81 KiB) Viewed 4973 times

A road must cross a river "cleanly" for a bridge to form, else the bridge is out. I rearranged the scenery accordingly:

Capture761.jpg (286.04 KiB) Viewed 4973 times

Then, as I am taking a last look around, I discovered the reason for the hashtag (#) in objective descriptions. Being the neatnik that I am, I would erase these if there was nothing to be said but that would make the blue question mark and "no reward for this objective" appear. The hashtag is a placeholder so that no blue question mark appears, which is, well, neater.

Arracourt new version 2.1 uploaded:

- Corrected bridge crossings outside of Arracourt and in two other places on the map.
- Used hashtag (#) to indicate there are no descriptions for several secondary objectives.

[bru888]

"Bruce."

"Yes, Bruce?"

"I played through your Arracourt version 2.1 and I have some suggestions."

"Sure, go ahead. Shoot. Heh."

"Your Germans are too weak now that the U.S. has resources. You gave the Germans less than half the amount that you gave the Germans. The U.S. has too much of an advantage now. Equalize them."

"Yes, Bruce. Anything else?"

"Yeah. Your Germans are also a bit on the passive side. The only chance they have is to overwhelm the U.S. forces before the Americans can get consolidated and organized. Ratchet up German aggression!"

"Jawohl. Thanks for the suggestions."

"I'm not done yet, dummy. Those 88 Flak AT guns you gave the Germans? They're worthless. Swap them out for some legitimate long-range artillery to match the Americans' Long Toms."

"Done. I'll get on this right away. Uh, you are done, yes?"

"For the moment. Bruce. I expect improvements or I will be back!"

"Yes, Bruce." [Mumbles something under his breath.]

"What was that? I can hear you, you know."

--------------------------------------------

Arracourt new version 2.2 uploaded:

- Increased and equalized resources on both sides: 500 to start, 25 per turn.
- Maximized German AI aggression.
- Swapped three 15cm sFH18 artillery for three 88 Flak 37 AT guns.

[Erik2]

Restarting Arracourt for the third time...

[Erik2]

Went shopping, but the armor shop was all out of armor.

[bru888]

No shopping permitted in this scenario.

[Erik2]

I see. The devs need to replace that ugly Trump slab of concrete thought.
It looks like a bug and it stayed put during the whole AI turn as well.

[bru888]

I see. The devs need to replace that ugly Trump slab of concrete thought.
It looks like a bug and it stayed put during the whole AI turn as well.

Yes, I think you know what I mean. A couple of versions ago, they put in the option box on the right of the Alliances window so that, if you uncheck it, an alliance will not be able to purchase new units with available resources. The human player will see a blank box, as you showed above. It's a design decision for the scenario creator to shut off unit purchasing, as I intended with this one.

Capture875.jpg (134.1 KiB) Viewed 4933 times

[GabeKnight]

I see. The devs need to replace that ugly Trump slab of concrete thought.
It looks like a bug and it stayed put during the whole AI turn as well.

You can turn that off with the "P" hotkey, even during AI's turn.

[bru888]

Arracourt new version 2.3 uploaded:

- Three German artillery units were not assigned to an AI team when 2.2 was first uploaded; this was fixed a little later and is definitely good in 2.3.
- Provided more redeploy exit hexes for P47d Thunderbolts and moved their spawning hexes off those exit hexes in case they are not moved and thus exit immediately.
- Fixed two more river crossings in which bridges did not form because the road did not intersect the river cleanly; i.e., two road segments and a river in the same hex.

[bru888]

Arracourt new version 2.4 uploaded.

The consensus seems to be that 2.3 was a bit too easy and ended too early after a frenzied battle royal. So I went ahead and did the following:

- Increased German experience from 4 to 5. This alone should make the challenge more difficult.
- Dialed AI aggressiveness from 99 back to 50. This will make the Germans hang back a bit, plan the battle better, and take more advantage of their resource income.
- Gave the Germans recon units. I did not give them free rein, however, because they just charge into battle and get slaughtered. Instead they are guarding key points.
- Moved the P47s appearance up a few turns. Three to be exact, the equivalent of one day in the scenario (three turns per day).
- As compensation, gave the Germans two more SdKfz 7/1 anti-aircraft guns.
- Included several contemporaneous historical events.

This is now the scenario order of battle:

UNITED STATES

84th Fighter Wing

365th/405th Fighter Groups, each with three squadrons (386th/387th/388th / 509th/510th/511th), each with:
1 P-47D Thunderbolt (6 total)

4th Armored Division

35th/37th Tank Battalions, each with three companies (A/B/C), each with:
3 Sherman M4A2 (18 total)
1 Sherman M4A3 76(W) (6 total)
1 Sherman M4A3E2 Jumbo (6 total)
1 M5A1 Stuart (6 total)

10th/53rd Armored Infantry Battalions, each with three companies (A/B/C), each with:
1 Heavy Infantry '44 (6 total)
1 M3A1 Halftrack (transport)

704th Tank Destroyer Battalion with three companies (A/B/C), each with:
2 M18 Hellcat (6 total)

66th/94th Armored Artillery Battalions, each with:
3 M7 Priest (6 total)

191st Field Artillery Battalion with:
3 155mm M1 Long Tom (3 total)
3 Studebaker Truck (transport)

2nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron with:
6 M20 Scout Car (6 total)

Willys MB .50 Cal (1 total)
Major General John S. Wood (assigned)

GERMANY

5th Panzer Army

11th Panzer Division with six battalions (I/II/III/IV/V/VI), each with:
1 PzKw V Panther G (6 total)
1 PzKw IV H (6 total)
1 StuG III G (6 total)
1 Nashorn (6 total)
1 Hummel (6 total)
1 SdKfz 7/1 (6 total)

25th Panzergrenadier Division with six battalions (I/II/III/IV/V/VI), each with:
1 Heavy Infantry '44 (6 total)
1 SdKfz 251 (transport)

111th/113th Panzer Brigades, each with three battalions (I/II/III), each with:
1 PzKw V Panther G (6 total)
1 PzKw IV H (6 total)
1 StuG III G (6 total)
1 SdKfz 7/1 (per brigade) (2 total)

638th Heavy Artillery Battalion with:
3 15cm sFH18 (3 total)
3 SdKfz 7 (transport)

5th Panzer Reconnaissance Squadron with:
8 Panzerspähwagen P204 (8 total)

SdKfz 222 (1 total)
Gen. Hasso von Manteuffel (assigned)

[edward77]

Bru, Sorry again for the trouble I caused you, but it did lead to a tutorial and inspired you to design a much better method from which everyone will benefit.
Just got around to playing your Oahu scenario. Wow very impressive! Quite the best scenario I have played so far. Looking at it in the editor the accuracy and details of the map are quite astonishing.
I managed to win in 30 turns at the level you set by carefully following the orders for blowing bridges, laying mines and setting up defensive positions along the Western Schofield-Wahiawa and Eastern Fort Shafter lines. The Harbour and Honolulu were never really threatened. However, I did not get a single enemy carrier partly because I was too successful with destroying their planes (Did not ease up) and also because I kept too many Naval units close to Kaneohe in case the enemy first chose to go for the airfield at Mokapu Pt. As a result the reinforcements on Turn 28 became superfluous. So different strategies, different outcomes which is the mark of a great scenario. One strange occurence. On Turn 14 Three adjacent Zeros in a line arrived on the West Coast, 3 hexes above Halewia, where they remained stationary, in line of sight for several turns and did not move even when subsequently attacked. Checking in the editor this is the same location for the 3 Zeros that were spawned after the Japanese took the Airfield.
All in all a superb scenario which I will play again and get the Carriers!

[bru888]

Marshalls-Gilbert Mutiny v1.0 is released. It began as a conversation in another thread. Apologies and compliments to the designer of the original Marshalls-Gilberts Raid.

This one is hard. I may have to adjust it somehow although I did pull out a minor victory in the end, by the skin of my teeth (middle difficulty):

Screenshot 1.jpg (349.04 KiB) Viewed 4494 times

If you want to see how I did it, look at this replay:

Marshalls-Gilberts Mutiny.zip

(19.33 KiB) Downloaded 113 times

Suggestions are welcome, as always.

[Erik2]

Long time since I played a naval scenario. Excellent.

There's a US Marine unit in reserve, but no land command points. Maybe add this unit later when the pop-up dealing with this arrives? The location names doe not display when the pop-up is active. This makes it difficult to choose between Wotje or Milli unless you know where they are located.

The golden flags on various Japanese atolls, are they just sing posts for where to find the targets? If you need to flags just to display on-map location names I would have used standard flags and restricted the gold flags to the Marine objetives.

I like the inter-service rivalry and the game messages. Good Bru-stuff.

I bought a Gato and it is capable of moving next to a Japanese airfield and shell it.
Maybe add shallow water around certain targets?

The two free (surfaced) Gatos torpedoed the Japanese transport. Next turn the transport shelled one sub. Never seen that before, but it is fine. They usually had a deck-gun installed.

Maybe add a message when the B24s reach Ellice Islands for a refuel but disappears?

The 'don't sink US ships' objective is interesting when said ships are steaming full ahead towards you itching for a fight. At least your forces are allowed to damage them severely.

It looks like the red faction is teamed with the Japanese, at least they showed no interest in taking on the 'real' enemy. This kind of broke my strategy of trying to put the Japanese between my forces and the mad admiral.
Also a Japanese supply ship served as a look-out for the reds, spotting one of my nearby subs for a red cruiser. That should not happen.

Sinking the required number of Japanese ships was quite easy. Done by turn 19.

The cat and mouse play in the latter half of the scenario was the difficult part.
Not easy to do repairs in port with the mad dog knocking on your door. Interesting tactical situation.

The surrender touch was a nice one, but the surrendered ships are not removed.
It is a bit confusing when you have a numbered of surrendered ships among the active ones. And they are so tempting targets...

The sea hexes outside ports should be deep. Otherwise it is not possible to repair ships larger than destroyers.

A really good scenario, solid production as always. Quite fun and varied. I lost one carrier, hard to avoid with the red menace closing on several sides.

The only objective I question is the 'apprehend the admiral'. I had run out of red ships to disable, at least no more were coming forward. I had only seven turns left to look for the admiral. Tried to look for any active reds, but had to search all the way back to the original red deployment area on the other side of the map before I found the carrier. I managed to reduce the carrier damage to 5 on the last turn.
Maybe move the carrier closer to the action, add more turns or move the apprehend objective to secondary?

In the end I only managed a draw due to my lost carrier. But it was close with only one more damage point missing...

draw.jpg (332.65 KiB) Viewed 4464 times

[bru888]

Erik, these are great points that you make, some of them having occurred to me as I was designing but was thwarted/diverted for various reasons. I will work on them later today and report. Thanks for the feedback.

By the way, this scenario makes use of the otherwise defunct U.S. Red and Blue secondary teams which are so useful in this regard. You and I advocated that they should be restored to the editor, along with some other secondary AI teams which were removed for some reason. Fortunately, with a simple hack they can still be used for new design and they work in ordinary gameplay as we see here.

[bru888]

First things first: As you surely realized, this scenario was adapted from the Marshalls-Gilberts Raid in U.S. Pacific. I was reluctant to touch anything in it that did not need to be changed, but that fell by the wayside here and there. The last inviolable thing was the map but this is my scenario now and yes, the map does need some improvement.

So I don't know why he used Primary VPs in the original scenario; there are none to conquer in that the only primary objective is "Do not lose any Carriers." There are no Primary VPs in my scenario either so I have removed and replaced them with standard flags.

Next, you're right about the shallow water hexes; I don't know why he placed some of them where he did (there are three in the middle of the ocean - theoretically possible, I guess) but especially where they are blocking ports. Even if the Marines gambit worked on Wotje (more on that later), the port itself is blocked so I would not be able to repair my cruisers there anyway! So I "unblocked" two ports and I "de-reefed" those three hexes out at sea.

But I also thought a bit about shallow water. Just some shallow thoughts, mind you, but my thinking is this and I have done this in my other scenarios: Whether islands are volcanic, reef, or sand, it is unlikely that deep water would be found right next to a coastline so that one may park a battleship adjacent to land . . . unless the spot has been artificially dredged to accomodate this as in building a port. So, I went ahead and placed shallow water around all islands except where deep water is needed to provide access to a port. That may be giving too much credit as a "port" to the likes of Kwajelin, Wotje, and Mali, but it fits the design of the scenario, so be it.

Interesting in that while I was placing shallow water, I "discovered" a fourth port, Jabor, which was hidden because a supply ship was sitting on it. The good guys definitely need a port in which to do repairs - the scenario is too tough without it - and since I am still trying to adhere to what was originally on the map for strategic purposes, I am definitely going to look into using it somehow. [And another one - Butaritari. Hmmm.]

Alright, that's it for version 1.1 which I just posted. Just cosmetic stuff so far. Version 1.1 may not be around long, however, because I am still working on this today and, using my usual rule of thumb, when changes are about the basic working of the scenario and not just cosmetics and bug fixes, I go for the next base version number. With what I have in mind, that calls for version 2.0.

But for now, Marshalls-Gilberts Mutiny v1.1 is uploaded:

- Took out Primary VP flags which were not needed, replacing them with standard flags.
- Unblocked ports by providing deep water as needed while placing shallow water where realistic.

[bru888]

Well, I learn something new everyday about OOB, or so it seems. I could never figure out how to spawn a unit directly into reserve. If somebody knows an easier way than the following, please let me know!

What you can do, I found out, is to spawn the unit to an out-of-the-way spot on the map (even on water, which is better because then you don't need to worry about changing hex ownership). Then you can, in the same trigger but in the correct effect order, immediately remove and Undeploy the unit:

Screenshot 2.jpg (154.44 KiB) Viewed 4424 times

Screenshot 3.jpg (164.1 KiB) Viewed 4424 times

Screenshot 1.jpg (40.51 KiB) Viewed 4424 times

This is going to change how the Marines gambit in this scenario is handled, I believe. More about that later.

[bru888]

I heeded your comment about the Japs and the "Red Americans" being on the same team. Believe it or not, I was feeling sorry for the Reds when I did that; I thought they would be over-matched if they had to fight the Japs and me. One playthrough fixed that idea!

Now, it's dog eat dog eat dog. The Reds will get no free passes from the Japanese anymore. Which does indeed affect strategy; maybe it's better to hang back a bit once the "Red Menace" becomes known, recoup losses, and let them deal with the Japs for a while if possible. I had extended the turns from the original 25 to 40 in version 1.0 anyway.

Separate teams make sense anyway; if the Reds were in collusion with the Japs (a thought in the back of my mind), then why hang back from cowardice? Just paint your decks red and they won't bother you! Which is silly, because the rival admiral goes off the deep edge and mutinies only when he learns he is to be relieved of command. No, they should face Jap counterattacks just like me.

How then to avoid the Reds from taking away my thunder, so to speak (that is, stealing my primary objectives)? By setting their AI Team Target Definitions to prioritize Destroyer, Cruiser, and Carrier (my ship types). The Japanese have only a couple of destroyers and one cruiser and they are out of the way. Besides, I kept the number of required Japanese ship kills to 10 even though I added a few, so that should still be an achievable objective. So if the Reds take down a Jap ship or two, that probably makes it better for gameplay balance anyway.

So this is the alliance lineup now. Notice that I changed the Japanese to another color, which I probably should have done in the first place; it would have made some triggers easier to handle. I like the "Red Menace" idea for the other guys.

Screenshot 2.jpg (105.22 KiB) Viewed 4415 times

By the way, please bear with me as I "think out loud" here. It helps me to organize my thoughts.

[GabeKnight]

Mutiny, v1.1

Laughed out loud several times as the story continued. Great! The traitor had it coming anyways...
Just a few thoughts before I continue tomorrow:

- The Red carrier should accompany the attack. I had to cross the whole map to get to it (did it luckily on the last turn!)
- I took a different port (than the two pointed out) and wasn't awarded the sec. objective. I had to return with my Marines and take the original one...

Screenshot 588.jpg (286.92 KiB) Viewed 4395 times

[bru888]

Thanks, Gabe.

Now, as I said previously, when changes are about the basic working of the scenario and not just cosmetics and bug fixes, I go for the next base version number. With that in mind, I've gone to version 2.0.

First, some notes. In the beginning, the resources and command points for the Green Task Force were set to cover one of two scenarios that I had in mind:

1) Create a Green Task Force that had the same exact units as the Blue/Red Task Force, or
2) Allow going with another carrier and three more planes (at the cost of two destroyers) which is what I did in my own playthrough.

Of course there are a million other combinations that you could come up with in deployment, but those are the two equalizing situations that I had in mind when I calculated resources and command points. I hesitate to provide more of either to the Green Task Force, at least not yet. What they need is a way to use their resource points to repair their ships because they are the only team that has any RPs. That alone should tip the advantage to the Greens but how to give them the opportunity to repair? (The support ship can only do so much and the AI usually shoots at it first.)

That's where the Marine mission to seize a port comes in. And now you will have the chance to choose you own port (not just the two in the former dialogue popup) by looking at the map and assessing which port would be the best choice given the tactical situation. I was able to facilitate this by using the spawn/remove/undeploy trigger that I talked about previously. So no more confusing Marines in reserve from the beginning of the scenario with no land CP to deploy them and no explanation.

This change, and the realignment of alliance teams, call for this version to be 2.0. So, Marshalls-Gilberts Mutiny v2.0 is uploaded:

- Separated the Japanese and the Red Americans to different Alliance teams for more realistic and balanced game play. Also, the Japs will no longer "spot" for the Reds. Changed the Japanese team to a different color, accordingly.
- Since Blue/Red Task Force may now do battle with the Japanese, changed the fuel depot, ships, and aircraft objectives from Kills & Casualties (with Team 1 as killer) to Unit Count/Destroyed (does not matter who the killer is).
- Redesigned the Marines episode, spawning the unit and putting it in reserve when scheduled. The dialogue popup was removed and event popups are now used to explain.
- Standardized the placement of AA guns and engineers so that no one port island would be an obvious choice for a Marines landing.
- The five ports are now Secondary VPs so that capturing any one of them will fulfill the secondary mission of seizing a port, an easier trigger to design.
- The rebel carrier will now advance to the middle of the map.
- Added a message when the B24s go back to the Ellice Islands (an intentional map distortion with a notation that they are actually more than 900 miles away) to remind the player that the bombers are on the map for only one sortie due to distance.

The only thing that is still on the drawing board at this time is this: "The surrender touch was a nice one, but the surrendered ships are not removed. It is a bit confusing when you have a numbered of surrendered ships among the active ones. And they are so tempting targets..." I have been wrestling with this but cannot figure a good way to flag them. I don't want to just remove them altogether. You cannot flip them back to Blue Task Force ships because they would still need to be removed and replaced but the problem is, where to place them where it looks like a realistic continuation of gameplay? You don't want to have them suddenly move someplace else from one turn to the next. There are no flags or signs to hang on them. Any ideas? Maybe I should remove them if nothing else?

[If I am not responsive for a couple of days, given any more feedback from you guys - thanks again for what you gave so far - it's because I am going to be dealing with a family medical issue. I'll be back - see you then.]