Bru's Scenarios and Campaigns

[Turtler]

Bru you magnificent B@stard; I've played your scenarios! And while I've long admired them, this latest one had me rolling in laughter from everything. Brings a new meaning to "Insane Admiral", and it's a great twist to the whole Gilbert Islands boondoggle that comes from teaching new players how things go. A great comparison with the Aleutian Islands.

And since a few people have talked about if you'll revisit it, and this has been talk about "reds"..


What's the over/under on Admiral Ronnie somehow escaping the brig and the firing squad he richly deserved to join the Soviets and try to spark a revolution to overthrow the government that he is oh so sure slighted him? : P

[GabeKnight]

(Mutiny v1.1)

Bruce, there's not much to add from my part. Thanks for a fabulous scen and a good time! You delivered as promised . Actually quite more that that: The whole story you've made up was hilarious, and still solid. GREAT!
(The arriving Catalina plane to "check-up" on the inactive, lazy Admiral was a superb funny idea! But I don't want to get into the story too deep - wouldn't want to spoil it for the other players)

Screenshot 589.jpg (409.85 KiB) Viewed 4713 times

I know the vanilla version of this scen by heart, so I've chosen the "usual" deployment with a carrier, dogfighter, two tac. bombers (best against DD and cruisers) and some destroyers and cruisers. Sometimes when playing inside the campaign, I've treated myself with an "early" battleship here already, maybe I'll try that on my next playthrough with version 2.0

Then divided my forces into two groups, one circling to the south and west, the other one going more or less northwest, with both groups converging near the final objective at "Kwajalein Atoll" in the far west. That's the port I've chosen to invade with my Marines instead of the two you've proposed, BTW. Seemed a better choice for my planned strategy: let the enemy come to you...
The Jap forces were effectively wiped out (except the island's garrison units) around turn 20, exactly at the same time as the Admiral's renegade force's vanguard planes arrived. Great timing!
Around turn 30 the renegade fleet was defeated/surrendered and I was quite lucky to arrive on the other side of the map on time to apprehend the traitorous Admiral and win me a "Major Victory"

Screenshot 590.jpg (538.33 KiB) Viewed 4713 times

You've already addressed and fixed both problems in the scen, that struck me a bit odd, like the carrier being inactive on the east border or the ports sec. obj. being "unclear defined".

I agree on the issue with the surrendered ships (and their ZOC) clogging the waters being a bit annoying... but honestly it's not a real deal-breaker! Give them a few exit hexes in the far east with the "exit the map"/"ignore enemy" orders, and that should work just fine, don't you think?

Screenshot 591.jpg (594.24 KiB) Viewed 4713 times

Now onto version two...

[bru888]

Now onto version two...

Thanks, Turtler and Gabe. You guys and Erik made this all worthwhile and I thank you for playing and commenting. I think version 2.0 is a big improvement on 1.1 (hence the jump in the base version number) so you may want to give that a try someday. Meanwhile, this is me:

[Turtler]

Thanks, I'm flattered.

And I had already downloaded 2.0 by the time I posted that, though I haven't gotten all the way through it yet. But I am looking forward to it. Though one idea that did came to mind: Secondary Objective where you have to destroy more Japanese units than Parker? After all, that's what I would think envy or the like would lead to: competition.

And you didn't exactly answer with the over/under on Parker going Communist....

Cheers!

[GabeKnight]

Mutiny v2.0 plays flawlessly for me.

I'm sorry, but I have no good solution to the surrendered-ships-problem. I've tried the "Exit Map" AI task, but there's no "ignore enemy" setting, so the supposedly surrendered ships keep firing at me!
Anyways, heavily damaged as they are, they keep moving slowly and still clog the whole area around them. It's even annoying to get to the carrier that way... while suppressing the urge to just kill 'em all and be done with it...
That means, that probably all "move to hex" orders would be a bad idea. Your "idle" solution was better. Removing them from the map like the bombers could work, too.
Well, I'm no real help here You'll have to decide for yourself if you want to change it or leave it as it is.

If you want some improvement ideas, I've got two:
- the three arriving aux. bombers can be "abused" to fight until their fuel runs out and they crash. I think their loss should be punished within the sec. objectives
- I've actually missed a "boss-fight"... Why not assign the Parker avatar to some heavy cruiser or battleship that appears after all the renegades surrendered? And I'm sure you'd come up with some plausible explanation for that...

One very minor thing I've noticed, though, looking through the scen with the editor, was the "difficulty bonus compensation" being set within the "Rebel CA/DD retires" triggers. You sure those don't mess things up? Also I'd set the strength to "<4" (try it, you'll see it works).

EDIT: FYI, I've made a quick "surrender" test: For level1 difficulty it's HP<3, for lvl5 it's HP<7. Again, decide for yourself how to handle it.

Thanks again for this, well done!!!

[bru888]

EDIT: FYI, I've made a quick "surrender" test: For level1 difficulty it's HP<3, for lvl5 it's HP<7. Again, decide for yourself how to handle it.

Good work, Gabe, I was wondering about that and you saved me the time and effort of finding out. I would say, then, that is working perfectly, as designed.* It's set for anything below 5 but that's on middle difficulty where all enemy units are at default 10 strength. You should have to hit the enemy a couple of times to force a surrender.

Now, if one is playing baby level, he may get that "one and done" effect but I would prefer that he too need to hit an enemy twice. If I don't set that trigger for allowing for difficulty level, he's facing units that start with strength 6. What is that, a love tap if I leave it at <5 for him? Analogous to swinging his purse? No, let the craven fellow fight it out a bit more than that. He's getting a break by facing strength 6 units to begin with.

And what about the Übermensch who prefer level 5 and enemy units of strength 13? Well, I respect them a lot more and salute them (while smirking behind the other hand all the while). So if their enemy gives up below strength 7, I would think that these alpha males have already proven themselves and deserve the courtesy.

Good stuff to know, thanks.

*EDIT: All that said, I think maybe I should take out the difficulty level adjustment. The baby levelers are going to have a very hard time NOT sinking a ship if they have to get it down to 1-2 strength without destroying it. They want an easy time, anyway. The Übermensch will absorb the additional challenge because they are men. Men!

Besides, look at it this way, without the difficulty adjustment:
Level 1: Enemy units strength 6; surrender reduction needed (to 4) = 2
Level 3: Enemy units strength 10; surrender reduction needed (to 4) = 6
Level 5: Enemy units strength 13: surrender reduction needed (to 4) = 9

Seems about right, come to think of it. People playing at level 5 should not be getting the same break as me at level 3, needing to reduce by only 6 to force a surrender. They should need to pound away and reduce by 9 to prove they are men!

I'll change it tonight.

[GabeKnight]

*EDIT: The baby levelers are going to have a very hard time NOT sinking a ship if they have to get it down to 1-2 strength without destroying it. They want an easy time, anyway. The Übermensch will absorb the additional challenge because they are men. Men!

Exactly my thinking. You seriously have to watch out not sinking them at level 1 difficulty.
(But why would someone want to play like that anyways? 10:6? No fun... )

Screenshot 592.jpg (358.02 KiB) Viewed 4627 times

Endgame at my last playthrough: although you lack in numbers, a battleship rules this scen...

[bru888]

I'll change it tonight.

Marshalls-Gilberts Mutiny v2.1 is uploaded:

- Removed the Difficulty Bonus Compensation from all rebel ship surrender triggers per the above discussion.
- Created a secondary objective to prevent the B-24 bombers from being "abused to fight until their fuel runs out and they crash."

Screenshot 1.jpg (298.19 KiB) Viewed 4608 times

[GabeKnight]

Bruce, I didn't think of it earlier, but FYI: you could've saved yourself a whole lot of time using the "AI team split" effect with the \Mutiny\"Rebel ... retires" triggers. Super useful if you want to split weakened units from one AI team to another. No "condition" needed and you can put multiple effects into one "turn start" event trigger. And I think it could even work right with the popups... next time...

[bru888]

Bruce, I didn't think of it earlier, but FYI: you could've saved yourself a whole lot of time using the "AI team split" effect with the \Mutiny\"Rebel ... retires" triggers. Super useful if you want to split weakened units from one AI team to another. No "condition" needed and you can put multiple effects into one "turn start" event trigger. And I think it could even work right with the popups... next time...

Eh, I've become so jaded that even if I do see something that may be awry, I don't even bother reporting it anymore. I wait for others to do so and then, if motivated, I lend my support.

My point is this: I tried using AI Team Split and IT DID NOT WORK (6.1.9). Have you tried using it for something and do you see something that may be awry? I hope you will bother reporting it. I will wait for you to do so and then, if motivated, I will lend my support.

By the way, now that you dragged this sorry thread out of the vault, I am working on something interesting using triggers in which I still have confidence.

[GabeKnight]

My point is this: I tried using AI Team Split and IT DID NOT WORK (6.1.9). Have you tried using it for something and do you see something that may be awry? I hope you will bother reporting it. I will wait for you to do so and then, if motivated, I will lend my support.

With many things that have been programmed, sometimes you have to "think like a computer" to understand them right.
I've used it within the "St. Tropez Incident" and it woked like a charm. The cowards ran for the exits as soon as their HP went down...
(That's when I remembered your scen and suggested it. It worked in a previous scen of mine also)

Screenshot 610.jpg (693.42 KiB) Viewed 4525 times

By the way, now that you dragged this sorry thread out of the vault, I am working on something interesting using triggers in which I still have confidence.

Yeah, right... it's been collecting dust there for a long time... one whole week or so since "Mutiny"...

[bru888]

With many things that have been programmed, sometimes you have to "think like a computer" to understand them right.
I've used it within the "St. Tropez Incident" and it woked like a charm. The cowards ran for the exits as soon as their HP went down...
(That's when I remembered your scen and suggested it. It worked in a previous scen of mine also)

Glad to hear it. My problem with it, I believe, was that it was not always instantaneous. That is, if a unit is in close contact with the enemy, I think they have the AI override such commands at least temporarily so as to be realistic, I guess. I mean, it's not like we were in the schoolyard when, if we were losing badly at stickball, we would merely thrown down the "bat" (ex-broom handle), say "I quit," and walk away.

That's the real reason why I hesitate to report "bugs" (one of the reasons, anyway) in that many times I am not sure whether something is working as intended or not. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing hermitage of the chief game designer, who does not document his game at all anymore and does not answer questions, all of us are left to speculate upon such nuances and come up with our own explanations and theories.

In this particular case, the AI Team Split trigger did not reliably force a rebel ship to run up the white flag before being destroyed. Instead, it would say, "Yeah, yeah, I'll surrender when I get around to it. For now, though, I'm in a fire fight, so beat it! " That is, it would not retire but continue to fight until disengagement. Besides, I needed the effect to be instantaneous and a signal to be sent so that the player would stop shooting at it with his other ships in the same turn or shooting at it again in his next turn. That's why I designed the surrender triggers the way that I did.

[GabeKnight]

In this particular case, the AI Team Split trigger did not reliably force a rebel ship to run up the white flag before being destroyed. Instead, it would say, "Yeah, yeah, I'll surrender when I get around to it. For now, though, I'm in a fire fight, so beat it! " That is, it would not retire but continue to fight until disengagement. Besides, I needed the effect to be instantaneous and a signal to be sent so that the player would stop shooting at it with his other ships in the same turn or shooting at it again in his next turn. That's why I designed the surrender triggers the way that I did.

Yep, you're right, I see it now. Your solution is rather elaborate but works exactly as intended. It's like you said, the "AI team split" does work, but even when set on "combat event" it looked more as it only worked on turn start, and not immediately (or maybe I'm setting them up wrong, too, who knows )

Okay, forget what I said, you've got clearly more expertise in designing the scens.

I mean, it's not like we were in the schoolyard when, if we were losing badly at stickball, we would merely thrown down the "bat" (ex-broom handle), say "I quit," and walk away.

The funny thing is, within my test (tanks), it DID happen exactly like this when using the "exit map" team setting. They turned around and ran. True, it's not an "ignore enemy" order and they might still fight if they encountered enemy units on the retreat path. And naval assets are basically mobile arty units, so yeah, they would also fire on the way...

[bru888]

Gabe, your comments, questions, and suggestions are always welcome. Take this latest conversation, for instance. Yes, I came away from my experiment with AI Team Split in this situation with the impression that the effect may not have been working properly but since you brought it up and made me think further upon it, and as a result of our discussion, I now have a more clear understanding of how it works.

[Duplex]

Hey bru!

I played Arracourt the other day. It's really fun! And challenging too. I was gonna pull back my units to use the river as defense, but then something went wrong in my head and I squandered large amounts of tanks outright trying to do....something. So I had to give a lot of ground and re-consolidate. Still managed to win however, but it was really tough. The balance was really nice.

[bru888]

Hey bru!

I played Arracourt the other day. It's really fun! And challenging too. I was gonna pull back my units to use the river as defense, but then something went wrong in my head and I squandered large amounts of tanks outright trying to do....something. So I had to give a lot of ground and re-consolidate. Still managed to win however, but it was really tough. The balance was really nice.

Thanks, Duplex. I work really hard at trying to balance things and when a player like you is complimentary in that regard, I feel good.

[Duplex]

Hey bru!

I played Arracourt the other day. It's really fun! And challenging too. I was gonna pull back my units to use the river as defense, but then something went wrong in my head and I squandered large amounts of tanks outright trying to do....something. So I had to give a lot of ground and re-consolidate. Still managed to win however, but it was really tough. The balance was really nice.

Thanks, Duplex. I work really hard at trying to balance things and when a player like you is complimentary in that regard, I feel good.

Well you balanced it really well! I didn't finish with all the secondary objectives completed (that sneaky German general escaped my grasp ), but I probably could've completed it had I not lost so many units in the beginning.
Arracourt kept my interest throughout the whole scenario, the German attack was relentless. But it never completely overwhelmed my forces. That is hard to do in scenario creation. It was really fun.

[bru888]

Ploesti Revisited v1.0 is released.

B-24 flying over a burning oil refinery at Ploesti, Rumania.jpg (87.65 KiB) Viewed 4334 times

This scenario is semi-fictional in that it attempts to accomplish in one day what actually was a lengthy campaign to destroy the oil refineries near Ploesti in 1944. According to one source, "It was an effort that comprised 5,446 bomber sorties and 3,498 protective fighter sorties, spread over twenty-four missions and several months." I have compressed it all into one day, April 5, 1944, the day the campaign started.

Given that, Ploesti Revisited is based on historical fact as to map, targets, and units as much as I was able to learn. "Fortress Ploesti - The Campaign" by Jay A. Stout was a good source and was available for $3.82 on Google Play. A bargain, indeed.

Officially, the city name is spelled "Ploiesti" (and the "s" has a tail on it; an "s-cedilla"). However, during the war it was invariably spelled "Ploesti" by English-speakers and that is how it has come down through history as the "Ploesti Raid" and the "Ploesti Campaign." This is the spelling that I chose to use.

On the other hand I am a bit concerned about some of the letters with"diacritics" in the Romanian alphabet that I did use, showing up as "?" in your display. If so, please let me know and I will think about taking them out, replacing them with standard letters. Sure, it's just showing off but I do like to include realistic detail whenever I can.

As always, the basic issue with this scenario is going to be gameplay balance. This one went from way too hard to way too easy. I think I have it balanced now (middle difficulty) but I will await any comments that you may wish to make. The most obvious things to adjust are the experience of the Axis fighters and the strength of their AA guns. You will see what I mean as you play.

There are two vignettes in here that I encourage you to play "straight up," meaning don't try to cheat/abuse and ignore the associated objectives. I think they will be more challenging and fun if you play them as intended.

[Erik2]

Another excellent Bru-creation.
Great production with several nice surprises. Very innovative.
I really liked this scenario.

Some random ramblings below:

The fighters are useful for adding some damage to the depots/pumps.
It is also tempting to use the paras to damage primary objectives on their way to their secondary one.
Maybe increase the difficulty by restricting damage done by bombers only (if possible)?

Altogether this means destroying the depots and pumps is fairly easy. This original mission was concluded on turn 16/40 using only the first 2 waves.
The mission extension was very welcome.
Destroyed the rest of the objectives by turn 26/40, but only got a minor victory.
The mission extension should trigger a 'scenario end' condition to allow the player to finish any remaining secondary objectives.

Maybe add an objective setting a limit of number of fighters lost. Currently you may use them until they are shot down or run out fuel.

A funny thing. The para objectives kept on exploding at the end of the rest of the AI turns.
Even after a restart of OOB.
Also note that the marshalling yard objective displays 3/2.

The OSS unit guarding the airstrip was a bit passive. It didn't act until the paras reached the airstrip.

The C47 should be escorted by a (player-controlled) fighter.
The air-transport reached the airstrip at 4-strength. The paras were already waiting next to the strip, but the evacuation still failed even though the objective is marked as 3/3.
So it looks like there is an issue with the evacuation trigger.

Axis fighters often preferred to attack US fighters rather than the bombers.

The 'Here They Come' message should appear at the airmen location. Also, the objective could benefit from a map marker displaying the exit location.
Maybe use a para unit for the aircrew. There's no supply and the original unit will only move 1 hex pr turn after a couple of turns.
The air-crew was obviously destroyed while I was not looking (I blame it on the two pizza slices being devoured downstairs during the AI turn)

ploesti.jpg (318.34 KiB) Viewed 4317 times

Added the replay

Ploesti.zip

(20.75 KiB) Downloaded 101 times

[bru888]

Erik, thanks for the response and recommendations. I am working on it now. I advise anybody else who is interested in playing this scenario to wait until version 1.1 is released which should be very soon.