CSI Sweep: Germany West 1944

[bru888]

Falaise v. 0.91

I'm sorry, but these made me chuckle: "A hopeless German counterattack marks the end of the Normandy Campaign . . . Should you fail to return from this venture, I will say that it has been my honor to serve with you. Good luck Herr General, you're going to need it." Not exactly confidence-inspiring!

"Ach, my gout is acting up again. I am afraid I must leave the field. You are in charge, Herr Oberst. Nein, nein! There will be no way to get in touch with me. The army is yours to command. Auf Wiedersehen!"

So. Here is the first instance of the new "What does 'Scenario turn limit' mean, exactly?" rule:

Screenshot 4.jpg (203.75 KiB) Viewed 1521 times

Unless somebody comes along to negate what I showed in that thread and what Gabe confirmed, we need to keep this in mind: To use Gabe's words, "awarding secondary objectives at scen turn limit without the primaries being awarded only at the end also, makes no sense." Thinking positively about this "hopeless scenario," "The scenario will end when 8 objectives are on German hands." Unless that happens on the very last turn, this "Units survive" trigger will never fire because it is set for "Scenario turn limit" which is literally "Turn = 20."

Wow, how many times have you used this sort of secondary objective design using "Scenario turn limit" with early-ending scenarios? Well, the question is moot. At least we will know what to look for in the future.

So how to design this type of thing where a condition must persist until the scenario ends, whenever it does, so that a reward may be given? Here's a suggestion; remember it's based on the objective being marked as competed to begin with, only to fail if more than 3 units are destroyed:

Screenshot 8.jpg (218.08 KiB) Viewed 1521 times

Screenshot 9.jpg (208.32 KiB) Viewed 1521 times

First, the fail trigger turns off the rewards trigger.
Second, the rewards trigger checks for the primary objective being completed.
Third, the rewards trigger is set for the same event that triggers the primary objective and ends the scenario; in this case, "Capture VP Event."

Let me post this now and go back over the previous scenarios to see if this situation has occurred therein.

[bru888]

Let me post this now and go back over the previous scenarios to see if this situation has occurred therein.

Here's the report:

Anzio - The "Dumps survive" trigger has a "Check Turn / Scenario turn limit" condition but fortunately, so does the primary objective.

Cassino - No problem.

Monte Cassino - I mentioned previously that the "FJs" trigger should be "Failed" as the effect. Now I realize that I missed something; that trigger should be named "FJs killed." There should be another trigger called "FJs survive" which should be designed like this so that the bonus can be awarded (the primary objective is also "Scenario turn limit"):

Screenshot 1.jpg (223.28 KiB) Viewed 1518 times

Screenshot 2.jpg (205.9 KiB) Viewed 1518 times

Normandy Beaches - No problem.

Bayeux - The "KM survive" trigger has a "Check Turn / Scenario turn limit" condition but fortunately, so does the primary objective.

Villers-Bocage - No problem.

Caen - No problem.

Toulon - No problem.

Montelimar - No problem.

St. Lo - No problem, as there was no secondary objective.

So, not bad. Just some work to do on Monte Cassino and Falaise in this regard.

[bru888]

Falaise v. 0.91 (continued)

Orphan here, hiding in the woods:

Screenshot 3.jpg (97.94 KiB) Viewed 1514 times

Considering what we were saying in the "Sluggish AI" thread, I am going to play this one a bit and observe these two large AI teams in action (Zone-2 is told to Seek & Destroy when the Germans have 6 primary VP's):

Screenshot 4.jpg (189.85 KiB) Viewed 1514 times

[EDIT - I ran it for 5 turns twice, both times triggering Zone-2 to Seek & Destroy. The first time, I had just a few German units on the map and the game ran fine. The second time, I put a full complement of German units in there and the turns took significantly longer because the computer had more possibilities to analyze. However, there was no significantly long "Thinking . . ." interlude. This is a new-ish laptop with 16 GB RAM, but who the heck ever knows with this game? ]

[bru888]

Arnhem v. 0.91

It's hard to see in this screenshot but look at the land supply surpluses in the main deployment and village deployment areas. That's +90 in the main area and +10 x 2 = +20 for the two village areas:

Screenshot 4.jpg (294.14 KiB) Viewed 1499 times

The player will probably want to anyway, but are you trying to force deployment in Arnhem itself? Let's say so. That makes +110 in total land supply available. That's still not enough when you factor in additional land command CP's from specialisations: 83 +26 + 8 = 117.

"Destroy the Arnhem bridge" objective description: "But not before you have moved the neccessary units across to the south end..."

The "Capture Driel and Oosterbeck" objective should point to both towns.

Look, far be it from me to be irritating but you might as well hear it from me first rather than from your paying clientele : 8 turns is not enough, not nearly enough. Maybe it's a typo, and you meant "18" at least? According to the "Exit at least 5 ground units to Nijmegen" objective, the player must move 5 units from the top of the map to a single Exit Hex at the bottom. He must clear a path through a dozen British units blocking his way before he can get there. Then, it will take 5 turns just to exit the units alone, one by one. It's not possible even on baby difficulty.

The effects are missing from this trigger - "Set Objective State" and "Add Specialisation Point(s)":

Screenshot 5.jpg (207.06 KiB) Viewed 1499 times

Aha! A campaign variable, at last. [strokes chin in a habit that started when hair was allowed to grow there] Three things:
1) This trigger will work only because at least one of your primary objectives is also going to wait until "Scenario turn limit."
2) Whatever this campaign variable is going to do in a future trigger, it must be named exactly "Arnhem Bridge" with a value of "1."
3) In official DLC, they usually use an underscore ("_") to stand for a space between words. I wonder if that is actually required.

Screenshot 6.jpg (199.9 KiB) Viewed 1499 times

Comments 1) and 2) apply to this campaign variable as well, only it's "Arnhem" and a value of "3" for some reason:

Screenshot 7.jpg (220.35 KiB) Viewed 1499 times

I would say that I can't wait to see what these campaign variables are going to do but I will not because the fact is, I can wait. I'm tired and I don't want to do this anymore, at least until tomorrow! ( )

Thread to be continued . . .

[bru888]

Nijmegen v. 0.91

Well, see my comments in the post above as to why I don't think even 10 turns is enough to "Exit at least 5 units to Eindhoven." At least there are more than one Exit Hex in this one, but still. Incidentally, the objective does not point to these three hexes but to a swamp in between them.

No briefing and no mission outcomes. Don't forget your usual 0-0-1-1-1 outcome numbering:

Screenshot 1.jpg (154.33 KiB) Viewed 1463 times

The British and US "Airstrip-X" triggers - Do you intend to build airstrips with them or just construction groups? Because, you are spawning construction groups and as far as I know, the AI does nothing with them and there is no trigger to make them begin building. I tested one in AI control, nothing. Building an airstrip with a construction group seems to be only a human player option - this is an example that I placed on the map under human control:

Screenshot 3.jpg (386.78 KiB) Viewed 1463 times

This image is not in the folder:

Screenshot 4.jpg (224.5 KiB) Viewed 1463 times

Your usual practice is to increase resources per turn by +1 for each new unit. Here, instead of increasing income by +6 (18 CP's / 3 = 6 units), you bump it up +12:

Screenshot 5.jpg (187.21 KiB) Viewed 1463 times

Screenshot 6.jpg (203.47 KiB) Viewed 1463 times

One more comment about those "Airstrip-X" triggers: You may want to double-check the hexes involved. The British are directed to Nijmegen and the US to Grave. I don't see any changes of assignment that take them near to where they fulfill the "Check Hex Owner" conditions of those triggers.

[bru888]

Nijmegen v. 0.91 (continued)

One more comment about those "Airstrip-X" triggers: You may want to double-check the hexes involved. The British are directed to Nijmegen and the US to Grave. I don't see any changes of assignment that take them near to where they fulfill the "Check Hex Owner" conditions of those triggers.

This is the trigger that prompted me to go back and look at those "Airstrip-X" triggers:

Screenshot 2.jpg (212.75 KiB) Viewed 1461 times

The Poles are directed to move directly south to Nijmagen. It is probable that they will not occupy that hex to the northeast:

Screenshot 1.jpg (99.09 KiB) Viewed 1461 times

The "Paras at Nijmegen/Grave-X" triggers are fine, but their effect is redundant. Indeed, they can appear "back-to-back" in one turn, depending on how fast Allied forces move into Bridge Access/Town of Nijmegen and Bridge Access/Town of Grave. The triggers in each pair has identical effects so what I would do is, when one of each pair fires, shut off the other one:

Screenshot 3.jpg (223.83 KiB) Viewed 1461 times

Okay, so let's tackle these "Bridges at start" triggers. Recall that, in Arnhem, you set this campaign variable:

Screenshot 4.jpg (203.53 KiB) Viewed 1461 times

If the bridge was blown in Arnhem, it starts off blown here in Nijmagen. Good:

Screenshot 5.jpg (212.2 KiB) Viewed 1461 times

But what are these other triggers doing? There were no campaign variables set for the bridges at Nijmagen or Grave. Those bridges were not even on the map of Arnhem:

Screenshot 6.jpg (217.17 KiB) Viewed 1461 times

Screenshot 7.jpg (216.77 KiB) Viewed 1461 times

These triggers may be vestigial, in fact. The bridges would not be blown yet, as implied by the "Paras" Event Popup messages: "Allied forces have seized control of the access to the Nijmegen/Grave bridges. We have no choice but to sabotage it ourselves." The triggers are not doing anything harmful but I point them out in case you had something else in mind.

As for the "Bridges at end" triggers, they are fine but remember that they only work because at least one of your primary objectives is also set for "Scenario turn limit." Else you would need a "Check [Primary] Objective State" condition instead. Same with the "Objs at end" triggers.

[bru888]

Nijmegen (alternate) v. 0.91

At first glance, this appears to be the same scenario as Nijmegen but I know there must be some differences, hence why "alternate"? So I will list what I see in this one that I saw in the last one. I will be more explicit with anything new.

And immediately, I see something new; it was fine in Nijmegen but German land supply in this alternate will be short by around -12, given scenario CP's and CP's earned with specialisations (83+26+8=117):

Screenshot 8.jpg (262.98 KiB) Viewed 1448 times

Again, I don't think even 10 turns is enough to "Exit at least 5 units to Eindhoven" and you are still pointing to a swamp hex instead of the three Exit Hexes.

No briefing and no mission outcomes here, either. Don't forget your usual 0-0-1-1-1 outcome numbering.

Please read the comments about the "Airstrip-X" triggers in the previous posts, specifically about Target Hexes and Construction Groups.

The image file named "air" is missing from this folder as well. Also, for the "T3 air" trigger, there is that discrepancy between "Add Command Points" and "Change Income" wherein I believe "Change Income" should be +6.

Now, in this alternate scenario, the Poles and British are headed back to Arnhem. Now the Target Hex in the "Poles" trigger makes sense. I still cannot say the same about the "Airstrip-X" triggers.

The "Paras at Arnhem/Nijmegen/Grave-X" triggers are redundant here as well, and the same recommendation is made: when one of each pair of triggers fires, shut off the other one.

I have the same objections about the "Bridges at start" triggers and campaign variables. I studied the Campaign Tree again and cannot see where variables named "Nijmegen Bridge" and "Grave Bridge" could have been introduced leading into this scenario. They would have had to be set in Arnhem, which leads to both Nijmegen and Nijmegen (alternate).

Now here is something that is very different in this alternate scenario. In the "Objs at end" folder of Arnhem, there are triggers that provide for "Nijmegen secure" and "Grave secure." Same with the "Objectives at end" folder in Nijmegen (alternate) but this folder also includes "Arnhem secure." Recall this effect from Arnhem where you named the campaign variable as just plain "Arnhem":

Screenshot 9.jpg (206.46 KiB) Viewed 1456 times

In Nijmegen (alternate), the name is now "Arnhem secure":

Screenshot 10.jpg (214.31 KiB) Viewed 1442 times

I don't know where these "Arnhem/Nijmegen/Grave secure" campaign variables are leading - we'll find out in Eindhoven, I presume - but we need to be aware that there are two campaign variables for Arnhem active in play now: "Arnhem" and "Arnhem secured," both with a value of 3.

I'm looking to finish the last two scenarios tomorrow.

Thread to be continued . . .

[bru888]

Eindhoven v. 0.91

Definite supply problems in this one, I'd say. Short -1 on air supply and -58 on land supply:

Screenshot 1.jpg (257.3 KiB) Viewed 1425 times

Screenshot 2.jpg (239.91 KiB) Viewed 1425 times

I had to stick German flags on the map to identify the supply points (the front lines are a bit convoluted to being with in this scenario). Which leads to a recommendation to identify Arnhem, Nijmegen, and Grave with at least capture point flags. The names are on the map but cannot be seen without the flags.

Secondary objective description: "The exit locations must be clear of enemy units in a 4-hex radius at all times."

Whoa, this is obviously a typo; it should be "Value > 6" [I peeked at Eindhoven (alternate) and I realized what happened. There, it's 13 primary objectives but here it's only 7]:

Screenshot 3.jpg (229.82 KiB) Viewed 1425 times

Well, after all that, the "Arnhem/Nijmegen/Grave secure" campaign variables are never used at all. Moot!

[bru888]

Eindhoven (alternate) v. 0.91

At first glance, this appears to be the same scenario as Eindhoven but I know there must be some differences, hence why "alternate"? So I will list what I see in this one that I saw in the last one. I will be more explicit with anything new.

Scenario Name: "Eindhoven (alternate)"

Same supply shortages as noted above.

Secondary objective description: "The exit locations must be clear of enemy units in a 4-hex radius at all times."

Three things about this trigger:

Screenshot 6.jpg (247.06 KiB) Viewed 1422 times

1) The image named "alliedobj" is not in the folder.
2) "The Allies . . ." (lower case "h").
3) The Allies already control 7 primary VP's in the beginning. This means the trigger will fire when the first primary VP changes hands, either way. Which is fine, as long as you didn't have something more complicated in mind.

The oversights with the "(alternate)" missing from this scenario name and the wrong number of primary objectives in the previous scenario, and the completeness of the AI teams in this one versus the spotty AI team roster in the previous scenario, tell me that the order was reversed compared to the Nijmegen scenarios. That is, this alternate scenario was first and the previous Eindhoven was copied from this one and edited. That prompts a final piece of advice to go back to the previous Eindhoven to make sure that the AI teams in that one fully account for all necessary enemy movements.

That's it for this one. It's been a pleasure, as usual.