Erik's campaigns, mods and multiplayer scenarios

[Erik2]

Kolaris, would you like to see some replays? There are cheat codes to increase turns, command points, and RP if you are getting frustrated.

Erik, I remember some talk long ago about converting Soviet Corps over. Is that still in the works?

Soviet Corps campaign(s) are on the list. I'll wait until new Soviet units are in place, ie after the an official Soviet campaign has been published.
Currently working on a Germany East 1944.

[JustJeff88]

Erik, could I be of any use in helping work on Sea Lion? When I asked you to repost it a few weeks ago, you said that you had pulled it due to it needing a proper going over. I'm very much a dilettante at this game, but I wanted to offer to make myself useful. If it needs to be done by someone more experienced, I understand.

[Bobster66]

US Navy Campaign 3.1

Added new (hypothetical) scenario, Rainbow-5.

<snip>

Note that several of these scenarios, especially the later ones, are quite large (both map and number of units). I have already removed abut 1/2 of all historical destroyers and light cruisers.
The AI will take some time finishing its turns. Grab a beer and enjoy some R&R while you wait.

Just got through Rainbow, this is the biggest scenario I've seen.

Noticed on the 2nd turn that the Primary Obj, "Do not Lose more then one Battleship" had already Failed even though I hadn't even engaged the Japanese yet. All my transport were destroyed by turn 19 and they were only half way to Wake Island. Is it even mathematically possible to complete the first Primary Obj just based on the movement rate of the transports?

This scenario was something else. Almost packed it in by turn 9 because the computer takes 25 minutes per turn. I would say that it is probably too big. Although I eventually got through it, don't think I'd do it again and if the following scenarios are this big, might need to move on to another campaign.

[Erik2]

Erik, could I be of any use in helping work on Sea Lion? When I asked you to repost it a few weeks ago, you said that you had pulled it due to it needing a proper going over. I'm very much a dilettante at this game, but I wanted to offer to make myself useful. If it needs to be done by someone more experienced, I understand.

I need to check each and every scenario (and there are quite a lot) before publishing a new version.
Whenever I get to this stage it would be nice to have a dedicated tester

[Erik2]

Bobster66

Rainbow has been reduced in scope a couple of times, probably another major revision is needed.
There's a reason I left it out first time around

[JustJeff88]

I need to check each and every scenario (and there are quite a lot) before publishing a new version.
Whenever I get to this stage it would be nice to have a dedicated tester

Well, when you get to that point, I'm willing to give it a go. I can't promise a great deal of skill at the game or a profound knowledge of the tools, but I am thorough and take very good notes.

[DeletedUser1750956457]

US Navy Campaign 3.1

Added new (hypothetical) scenario, Rainbow-5.

<snip>

Note that several of these scenarios, especially the later ones, are quite large (both map and number of units). I have already removed abut 1/2 of all historical destroyers and light cruisers.
The AI will take some time finishing its turns. Grab a beer and enjoy some R&R while you wait.

Just got through Rainbow, this is the biggest scenario I've seen.

Noticed on the 2nd turn that the Primary Obj, "Do not Lose more then one Battleship" had already Failed even though I hadn't even engaged the Japanese yet. All my transport were destroyed by turn 19 and they were only half way to Wake Island. Is it even mathematically possible to complete the first Primary Obj just based on the movement rate of the transports?

This scenario was something else. Almost packed it in by turn 9 because the computer takes 25 minutes per turn. I would say that it is probably too big. Although I eventually got through it, don't think I'd do it again and if the following scenarios are this big, might need to move on to another campaign.

I also started Rainbow 5 and have to concur: the AI is thinking way too long to complete its turn. I fear you'll have to prune more units.

[JB72]

Africa Corps - Battleaxe scenario dont run ! Minor victory from the start !

[Erik2]

Fixed Battleaxe scenario.
Link updated in first post.

[JB72]

Thank you - now it runs !

[Bobster66]

I've managed to work my way through to the Rabaul Scenario. Fortunately no other scenario has been as painful as Rainbow so far, as the computer seems to finish it's turn in a few minutes.

Just one question about Rabaul. The first 3 transports moved immediately into the port, no problem. However, the next three transports just sat around doing nothing but getting bombed by the Japanese. I sort of cheated for awhile by surrounding a transport with a single point of strength remaining, with seven air units so that no enemy bomber could reach it. Eventually that tactic was foiled by a Japanese sub. Once that transport was sunk, the other two then made the move to the port. Is this delayed action by the transports intended, or a bug?

[bru888]

I should let Erik answer but I want to maximize his time and energy on his future great works! Heh.

Well, let's see if he agrees with this answer. I would imagine that, even with transports, an aggression factor of 50 could cause the AI to hang back somewhat, waiting for "the coast to clear." It's up to the designer, but if this should be a "do or die" task, then perhaps he may want to dial up the aggression here:

Screenshot 1.jpg (236.44 KiB) Viewed 6882 times

[Erik2]

I wonder if the naval capture task may be blamed. If the first transport captures the location, the AI maybe does not quite know what to to with the rest of the transports since the task is fulfilled?

[bru888]

I wonder if the naval capture task may be blamed. If the first transport captures the location, the AI maybe does not quite know what to to with the rest of the transports since the task is fulfilled?

I think such tasks apply to all units in the team, don't you? As evidenced by, in the end, "the other two [transports] then made the move to the port."

Also, think of this: There is no corresponding "Move to Hex" for naval units (would that work, if tried?), so "Naval Capture Hex" might be its equivalent. It could be just a matter of labels; when land units "Move to Hex," they of course will "Capture Hex" as well and for naval units, in order to "Capture Hex," they must "Move to Hex."

No, I'm thinking that at Aggression 50 the AI will seek to preserve the transports rather than send them in harm's way, based on its analysis of the situation. Only at 99, perhaps, would they charge ahead blindly. Your choice, of course, depending on what you intended.

[Erik2]

Sea Lion 1940-42 v4.0

Link added in first post.

This is a complete overhaul of the old campaign.
But our resident CSI executor Bru has not sweeped this campaign, so there are probably some issues...

Campaign:
Changed handling of specialisations a bit
Added events to branches
Added dates to scenarios
Added the Italians as core units

General all scenarios:
Added Allied specialisations
Consolidated British units into one faction
Simplified pri objs
Removed non-objective flags
Better supply handling
Added Allied commanders
Adjusted experience for most units
Increased German land and air Command Points (and reduced aux units)

[Horst]

Move to Hex is garbage anyway. Defend Hex also works nicely for naval units.
I've modified my test-map in less than 3 minutes to let three AI transports park along the coast. For each one I've set a defensive position.

Defend Hex for Ships 1.jpg (360.93 KiB) Viewed 6828 times

Defend Hex for Ships 0.jpg (366.02 KiB) Viewed 6828 times

More in-game testing, guys!

[Erik2]

Move to hex works nicely for land teams. Especially with a check ownership (objective) condition. That way you can lead a formation by the nose around the map.
If several formations include the same check ownership condition, you can simulate some randomness to the these formation's orders. If formation-1 is first to capture the objective, formation-2 moves to the next scripted order etc.

[Horst]

You can see on my first example how miserably the AI won't capture flags that are even unoccupied adjacent to them.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 74&t=91926
Defend Hex is way superior as move order as you can also nicely define where the defenders should position themselves, should that be necessary. See also my Naval Defend Hex example above. In particular the lack of capturing flags/supply on the move disqualifies Move to Hex for flexibility and smart/versatile maneuvering.
With Move to Hex you only produce silly pole-dancing around flags with too many units that won't entrench themselves.
Honestly, the aggression setting also often doesn't help at all if the AI only does dumb kamikaze attacks. That can be neglected as long as you don't plan to do that for Japanese units.
Don't trust so much in the names of these behaviors, as there is more bang behind them as it seems.

[Erik2]

A few major changes and many minor ones for most of the scenarios.
Link updated in first post.

[jpkaraffa]

First off thanks so much for all the mods you have made. I have spent wayyy to much time playing them. I was curious about the Grand Campaign you had made and will it ever be returning?