CSI Sweep: US Corps 1944-45

[bru888]

Torgau v. 0.91

Orphan, but not the only one; it's hard to see the other two aircraft in this screenshot because they coincide with land units but this plane, the two others in this shot, and three others elsewhere (total 6 air units) all lack assignments to AI teams.

Screenshot 9.jpg (39.42 KiB) Viewed 1004 times

As a matter of fact, there aren't any AI teams specified for air units yet:

Screenshot 11.jpg (104.45 KiB) Viewed 1004 times

You might get complaints about this:

Screenshot 12.jpg (223.62 KiB) Viewed 1004 times

Screenshot 13.jpg (101.52 KiB) Viewed 1004 times

About two-thirds through the scenario, Soviet forces suddenly appear on the doorsteps of Torgau and Dresden with orders to march. Although one group is directed to Leipzig, the AI being as it is, I would not be surprised if on their way they took Torgau which appears weakly defended. Thus victory is snatched from the jaws of the human player. I would suggest at least a third briefing line mentioning the impending Soviet advance to the Elbe and the need for the U.S. to get to Leipzig, Torgau, and Dresden before the Soviets.

Heh, I just thought of something. The Soviets are on the same team as the U.S. What does it mean if the Soviet AI wins its objective while its U.S. ally loses his? Here's the legendary Defeat, Draw, Victory Conditions table:

Defeat, Draw, Victory Conditions.jpg (115.32 KiB) Viewed 1004 times

The U.S. is victorious just by achieving its "Capture all 5 objectives" objective; i.e., "ALL primary objectives met." The U.S. loses if "NOT all primary objectives met" AND "hostile alliance has achieved all primary objectives." If the Germans hold a primary VP at the end, that's Defeat for sure. However, if the Soviets take a primary VP at any time, I don't think that will actually be a Defeat for the U.S. Reason: The Soviets are not in a hostile alliance. The Germans are the hostile alliance and they could not achieve their objective until scenario-end. I think the result is actually a Draw in this case.

Which in turn is moot because a Draw leads to the "Hot War? / Cold War?" crossroads just like a Victory:

Screenshot 14.jpg (76.5 KiB) Viewed 1004 times

Nevertheless, with the "Sov 1 obj" trigger, I would suggest an Event Popup message to the effect of "The Soviets have crossed the Elbe and have taken one of our critical objectives. It was extremely important that the U.S. be in possession of all five cities. The Soviets are our allies, of course, but this outcome cannot be considered a victory for us. Indeed, our failure to get there in time will have strategic consequences in the postwar era."

There is no such image in the folder (sorry, I have nothing handy to offer this time):

Screenshot 17.jpg (105.8 KiB) Viewed 1004 times

Last, but certainly not least, is the fact that there are no triggers dealing with these secondary objectives:

Screenshot 16.jpg (71.67 KiB) Viewed 1004 times

Screenshot 19.jpg (71.06 KiB) Viewed 1004 times

The finish line is in sight. Only two more scenarios to go.

Thread to be continued . . .

[bru888]

Whaddayasay (American for "What do you say") we wrap things up? The public is waiting for this masterpiece to be released!

Wargames v. 0.91

Two orphans, highlighted and circled:

Screenshot 2.jpg (129.81 KiB) Viewed 978 times

The Soviets start off significantly short on land supply in this southern pocket:

Screenshot 3.jpg (329.16 KiB) Viewed 978 times

but then again, the Soviets in other pockets have NO supply but neutral supply points are nearby for the grabbing:

Screenshot 8.jpg (543.66 KiB) Viewed 978 times

and they start doing so on the very first turn:

Screenshot 7.jpg (491.4 KiB) Viewed 978 times

Now, the Americans start in a northern pocket with 20 less supply (180) than the Soviet southern pocket (200):

Screenshot 6.jpg (374.67 KiB) Viewed 978 times

and speaking latitudinally, the Soviets already have units advanced north beyond eight neutral supply points of 25 each. The Americans, if they scramble quickly enough, can grab only four supply points of 25 each without a struggle. So, prior to significant battle, it is likely that the Soviets will end up with 400 supply while the Americans suffer with only 280.

Is all of this your intention, oh evil one?

[bru888]

Wargames v. 0.91 (continued)

Briefing: "Let's have a drink first Comrade General, nazdorowje." (that sounds like a good idea, considering below)

Indeed, as I continue to wonder at this, the U.S. pocket has only about 40 deployment hexes, just about enough to accommodate half of the over 80 Soviet land units on the map:

Screenshot 9.jpg (138.83 KiB) Viewed 969 times

Moreover, U.S. land command point of 165, when divided by an arbitrary estimate of 3.5 CP per unit, yields only 47 units so it's not a matter of a "rolling thunder" of successive waves of U.S. deployment on the same 40 hexes. But, you're the doctor!

We have the same issue here as we have seen in earlier scenarios; a key point that cannot be lost (and another to be taken) are marked as primary VP's. These two, plus the 12 others on the map, total 14. So while the objective is "Capture at least 7 objectives" it really is Capture at least 6 additional objectives" because one is in the bag already:

Screenshot 10.jpg (61.54 KiB) Viewed 969 times

Let's say you leave this arrangement as it is; i.e., if and when the U.S. captures its sixth additional primary VP, the player wins. That means, for the player to lose, the Soviets must end up with 8 primary VP's (their own HQ plus 7 others). That means the Soviet objective should be "8 objs" this trigger should be "Value > 7":

Screenshot 11.jpg (104.62 KiB) Viewed 969 times

But there is another issue with this trigger. Should it not be evaluated at the end of the scenario to at least give the U.S. player any chance at all?

The way this is now, as soon as the Soviets capture their additional sixth primary VP, they win immediately. As I pointed out above, within a turn or two and prior to significant combat, the Soviets stand a chance to be holding nine primary VP's in the early going.

So let's compare spawns, keeping in mind the already unlevel playing field I described above:

U.S.
Scenario Start - 3 paras

Soviet Union
Scenario Start - 11 paras

U.S.
27 air command points = 9 planes total

Soviet Union
17 planes on the map to start
Turn 5, spawn 5 more planes
Turn 10, spawn 5 more planes
Turn 15, spawn 3 more planes
Final Soviet air force = 30 planes total

Say, the U.S. player must be getting a hell of a lot of resource points to make up for this, yes? Well, yes and no. He does enjoy a 400 "down payment" at the beginning of the scenario, but for 30 turns, he earns four less per turn than the Soviet AI. This means that the U.S. player must repair losses from previous scenarios, upgrade existing units, and purchase new units with a net bank account of 280 resource points, everything else as the scenario plays out being equal. It's not going to be enough to make up for such a discrepancy in air strength.

I believe you once said that these force levels, at least for the enemy AI, come from the original PC campaigns. It's understandable to be reluctant to change anything, if so. It also would stand to reason that this lopsided comparison of human and AI strengths may have been fine for Panzer Corps but OOB is a different game. I'm no great war sim player, so take that into consideration, but I do have some experience playing this game and I just cannot see even the best players in our community overcoming these odds and enjoying this scenario.

Well, that's what you need player feedback for, I am sure.

[bru888]

Operation Unthinkable v. 0.91

I don't know. Fresh from Wargames, I was aghast at this map, particularly the inset at the top right. "My gosh, here we go again," I thought:

Screenshot 13.jpg (496.1 KiB) Viewed 958 times

But the difference here is that you provide the U.S. player three dozen aux units whereas he has only three in Wargames. Even though he has less land command points for his core than in Wargames (149 vs. 165), he starts out with a "down payment" of 1,000 resource points and earns 74 per turn while the USSR earns none! Well, the U.S. player may have a chance in this one after all.

Rhetorical questions: Why the difference in setup between these two scenarios? Is this the way they were in PC and did it work? (Remember, a rhetorical question is "a statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered.")

[bru888]

Operation Unthinkable v. 0.91 (continued)

Those aux units that I mentioned, many of them are British, German (now on our side) and Polish, I see. Nice touch.

However, an objection: The human player is going to want very much to play those armies. I can feel the itch myself, just looking at the scenario. Yet, the AI is in control of them. For one thing, coordinated attacks will not be possible. The human U.S. player goes first, engages the enemy and resolves combat. Only then do the Allies move and do the same, always coming in second and following in American footsteps rather than lending their strength at the times and places most needed. Moreover, the player has no control whatsoever over the secondary objectives of "Do not lose more than X German/British/Pole units."

Heh, this mixing in of AI allies makes the hunt for orphans a bit difficult. (What I did was to temporarily remove the U.S. faction along with its units). The AI allies were fine but here are two orphans on the other side of the front lines, highlighted and circled:

Screenshot 17.jpg (124.84 KiB) Viewed 950 times

and there is this lonely fellow here:

Screenshot 18.jpg (123.08 KiB) Viewed 950 times

and this one here:

Screenshot 19.jpg (119.76 KiB) Viewed 950 times

Contrary to the previous scenario, the supply situation looks not only adequate for both sides but reasonably apportioned. However, we have once again the same issue that has persisted throughout this campaign. You may want to look back at previous posts and scenarios to see how you can resolve this:

Screenshot 20.jpg (102.94 KiB) Viewed 950 times

You obviously mean the 9 primary VP's to the east of the Elbe River. Unfortunately, holding the primary VP's of Schwerin, Magdeburg, Leipzig, and Karlovy Vary all qualify for that objective, so the Allies must actually take only five of those 9 eastern primary VP's to complete this objective:

Screenshot 21.jpg (70.39 KiB) Viewed 950 times

Let's see, the previous alternatives were to make such "Hold X at all times" into ordinary capture points but that takes away from their importance. You could relabel the mission to be "Capture/hold all 13 objectives" and change the trigger accordingly. You could write a bunch of individual conditions - nine "Check Hex Owner conditions - for the trigger. In this case, however, since you are not using secondary objectives, you could merely designate Schwerin, Magdeburg, Leipzig, and Karlovy Vary as secondary VP's.

Here's a subtle one. I'm not sure, but I would guess that multiple condition settings work as an "AND" situation. That is, by selecting the green U.S. alliance and the blue Polish paratrooper AI team, these will cancel each other out and the trigger will not fire at all:

Screenshot 22.jpg (102.87 KiB) Viewed 950 times

Lastly, Erik, I have a personal problem with this scenario. I've been playing Red Star and those Russkies out there . . . they are my friends. I feel like I know many of them personally. That's the truly "unthinkable" part of Operation Unthinkable. How can I pick up a rifle and shoot at the men with whom I have shared my vodka? With whom I have stood against the German hordes, some of those unspeakables being now my . . . my . . . allies? No, no, NO!!! I cannot do it. What would SHE think of me now?

Screenshot 23.jpg (19.46 KiB) Viewed 950 times

[That's all right. I'll be done playing Red Star soon, the Soviets and I will part ways, and my one-sided love affair will be over. I will be ready and able to switch sides once US Corps 1944-1945 is released! ]