CSI Sweep: US Navy Campaign 1941-1946

[bru888]

Leyte Gulf v. 3.0

No AI objectives means human Defeat is not possible.

There is just a slight difference between scenario date in the Scenario Editor (22-10-1944) and in the Campaign Editor (23-10-1944).

I recommend moving the important victory hex names to the flags so that they show in the game:

Screenshot 4.jpg (255.78 KiB) Viewed 1616 times

Did you mean "Carrier" here? (Which would cover the one true Japanese carrier in the scenario, Zuikaku.) Because, the way you have it, sinking any destroyer in any of the Japanese battle groups would trigger the carrier groups exit:

Screenshot 7.jpg (208.81 KiB) Viewed 1616 times

Two more flyers to whom you have given untimely R&R. I see where the problem is now. It's YOU! What kind of commander are you to allow this? You are too soft. "This is a disaster, Commander! You are obviously not made of the right stuff for this position. Dismissed!"

Screenshot 5.jpg (220.04 KiB) Viewed 1616 times

Screenshot 6.jpg (220.49 KiB) Viewed 1616 times

[No, never mind that. We need you to continue designing enjoyable scenarios and campaigns. Just try to be more firm with your men. They respect strength and respond favorably to strict discipline!]

Now that I am aware of it, and fairly sure of it, I will again mention the situation described in the Rabaul posts about carrier-based planes not being deployed. Either air unit deployment hexes or including the planes in the CV-X random keys is called for, I believe.

[bru888]

Side note: I was wondering about the BCV Ise and Hyuga and was rewarded for my search for knowledge with this in Wikipedia:

The loss of four Japanese aircraft carriers during the Battle of Midway in June severely limited the ability of the IJN to conduct operations and alternatives were sought. Plans for full conversions of battleships into aircraft carriers were rejected on the grounds of expense and, most critically, time, so the IJN settled on removing the rear pair of turrets from the Ise-class ships and replacing them with a flight deck equipped with two rotating catapults . . . The ship's air group was intended to consist of a dozen each Yokosuka D4Y Suisei dive bombers (Allied reporting name "Judy"), modified for catapult launching, and Aichi E16A reconnaissance aircraft (Allied reporting name "Paul"). The former had to land either on a conventional carrier or on land bases, whereas the E16A could be hoisted back aboard using a crane, after landing on the water near the ship.

Ise1944.png (239.97 KiB) Viewed 1611 times

[bru888]

Coral Sea '46 v. 3.0

No AI objectives means human Defeat is not possible.

Scenario Name: "Coral Sea '46 Hypothetical"

Briefing: "Naval Forces gathered together from the US, Britain and Australia for Exercise Coral Sea . . ."

Briefing: "The Japanese will be looking for the one big victory and it's up to us to stop them."

Air supply for both sides is starting off in the red:

Screenshot 8.jpg (231.64 KiB) Viewed 1609 times

All of the added resource points for the Melville and Noumea transports are going to the Neutral faction instead of Japan:

Screenshot 9.jpg (212.27 KiB) Viewed 1609 times

Also, you have the Melville triggers as Any Event and the Noumea triggers as Move Event. If you think Move Event works, why not use that for the Melville triggers and save some AI "thinking" time?

The description for the Primary Objective "Protect your main base at Noumea" says "Not a single transport must enter port." Yet, the trigger requires 3 transports to enter in order to fail the objective?:

Screenshot 10.jpg (221.86 KiB) Viewed 1609 times

[bru888]

Coral Sea '46 v. 3.0 (continued)

There are a couple of things wrong with this trigger, I believe. 1) Not so important but would be nice to have (yellow highlight): An image to go along with the Event Popup. 2) Very important (red boxes): Enabling the Primary Objective "Protect your main base at Noumea" depends on the Green Alliance sighting a member of the Japanese AI Team "[9] Invasion 2-1" but there are no units assigned to that team and I see no "Set Unit AI Team" triggers that would assign any units to it:

Screenshot 11.jpg (237.02 KiB) Viewed 1605 times

Screenshot 12.jpg (212.35 KiB) Viewed 1605 times

The Secondary Objectives say "Do not lose more than 1 carrier" and "Do not lose more than 1 battleship" but the triggers fail these objectives when only one of each is destroyed. It should be "Amount >1":

Screenshot 13.jpg (216.29 KiB) Viewed 1605 times

Screenshot 14.jpg (214.57 KiB) Viewed 1605 times

These two triggers seem vestigial; i.e., left over. AI Team "[7] Melville Invasion-1" also has no units and the second trigger could cause trouble if you do decide to use AI Team "[9] Invasion 2-1" because it says any 7 merchant ships sunk from either team will cause AI Team "[9] Invasion 2-1" to exit. Best to delete them if you are not using them, I think:

Screenshot 15.jpg (206.1 KiB) Viewed 1605 times

Screenshot 17.jpg (215.05 KiB) Viewed 1605 times

Now that I am aware of it, and fairly sure of it, I will again mention the situation described in the Rabaul posts about carrier-based planes not being deployed. Either air unit deployment hexes or including the planes in the CV-X random keys is called for, I believe.

[bru888]

Coral Sea '46 v. 3.0 (continued)

AAAIIIIEEEEEEE! I knew it, I knew it, I KNEW IT! The crisis that has been building throughout this thread has come to full fruition. Now NONE of your commanders has reported for duty! Here is your Rogue's Gallery:

Rogue's Gallery.jpg (349 KiB) Viewed 1600 times

What are we going to do?!? We are leaderless! We are DOOMED!

Alas, I should have relieved you of command when I had a chance but I, too, was soft-hearted. Well my friend, this war was lost anyway. We might as well retire to our quarters and enjoy some sake. And no, I'm not interested in that thing with the sword. If that's what you have in mind, forget about it.

This concludes this CSI Sweep. I had fun, as you may have noticed here and there. I will await word from you as to if and when you would like another sweep performed and which campaign you would prefer it to be.

[Erik2]

Thanks, Bru. Excellent work as usual and a very good read too inbetween chastising (sp?) the scenario creator.
Budding scenario designers could pick up a trick or two of how-to-do or maybe how-not-to-do things

I'm not sure which of my campaigns are still lacking the Bru treatment. You can pick anyone if you still have the energy.
Appreciate it.

Erik