Winter War 1939 Beta Test

[bru888]

Back to Erik: 04Soumussalmi

Yes, the snipers were being spawned too close to the action and one was actually behind lines to begin with. I moved them west so that they can spawn in peace and quiet in the woods, and when ready, creep forth to do their nasty jobs:

Screenshot 1.jpg (467.64 KiB) Viewed 3004 times

[bru888]

Back to Erik: 05Koukkuniemi

Colonel, here is what you said earlier:

1. What about adding in the 3rd part of the briefing, something like: "[... entrenched machine gun positions] and through our minefields. [Such...]"
It is indeed an important part of our defenses and mentionning it could maybe avoid us some unlucky moves, for one can't already see our own mines, so...

2. Display objectives:
-> Primaries: I would find it more comfortable to see "in real time" how many capture points are still under control... Of course this condition is evaluated at the end of the scenario, but seeing always "8/4"...
-> Secondaries: Why not letting the counter run for the "decimate Soviet forces" one, after completion of this objective? At the end, the one related to tanks shows in my scenario "6/2" (which I like!), but the last one stays at "12/12" despite the slaughter of (so) many Russians!

Let me deal with #2 first. You may have noticed from my remake of 03Linnasalmi how much time it took to revise the objectives for this purpose. This scenario would be worse in one respect: I don't know why one continues to count and one does not! They seem to be much the same trigger:

Screenshot 2.jpg (224.35 KiB) Viewed 2999 times

Screenshot 3.jpg (221.72 KiB) Viewed 2999 times

Yours was a good suggestion and it was worth the time and effort for 03Linnasalmi's "Bonus Kill" feature but here, the payback isn't enough to invest an equivalent amount of time and effort (or more, considering two triggers and one unknown situation are involved). As a designer, I need to make decisions on how much work to put into each project. As it is, you can see that I am falling behind in this thread much less my work on Winter War 1940. So I think we will pass on this one, thanks.

However, I did adopt your first suggestion, #1. I think it probably should be a standard practice for one side or the other to "own" the land mines. They weren't placed by a third party; based on the scenario's situation, it's usually easy to assume that one side did so and that side should know where they are.

So I made the change here, transferring 24 mines from neutral to Finnish ownership. You can see that the player can now see his own mines and avoid stumbling into them:

Screenshot 4.jpg (524.82 KiB) Viewed 2999 times

Screenshot 5.jpg (350.3 KiB) Viewed 2999 times

[bru888]

Choice at crossroad - 06Tolvajarvi1:
1. Please add 4 turns!
In order to keep a still challenging major victory achievable; it's a big map and only 18 turns...

I tend to agree but as you point out below, the enemy is concentrated in the middle of the map so 18 turns are probably enough.

Choice at crossroad - 06Tolvajarvi1:
2. Really too much LCP!
92 at the beginning plus 60 as reinforcements appearing in waves along the scenario so a total of 152 LCP! (Even without the +2 of the "War Economy".)
-> Maybe remove 30 of them (so reduce those reinforcements by half - but the sooner they are available, the better, of course ).
Otherwise there is the risk to waist RP to buy more units, which will take long before seing action in this scenario and, more importantly, won't even probably be deployed within its following scenarios, wich do contain much less LCP.

This could be a post-production issue or a diversion of designing preferences because in my copy, the Finns start with 36 land CP's. As always, I default to Erik concerning the official versions of studio work, especially on gameplay balance decisions.

Choice at crossroad - 06Tolvajarvi1:
3. Secondary objective description (the texts):
-> For the Hotel, what about increasing the effect like this: "[...] These barbarians have even turned [the beautiful hotel gardens...]"
-> For the supply dumps, what about talking here of capture instead of destruction? (Appears 3 times.) It would correspond more to what actually happen to these supply dumps and would be coherent as well with the primary objective of the scenario 07Hevossalmi, where they are to be captured.

Sorry, I prefer my interpretations for the "barbarians" text and "destroying" enemy supply dumps. Regarding the latter, on all three supply dumps (and the fuel depot), there are static Soviet units to destroy (trucks, construction group, and fuel depot).

Choice at crossroad - 06Tolvajarvi1:
4. Could actually be surprising to realize that there is no enemy at all in the Strait itself nor in the eastern part of the map...
So, what about adding few words within the scenario description, to tell that one expect the Soviet division to stand only on and around roughly the diagonal part of this road?
Like this, the player would be less likely to waist time and manpower searching the enemy elsewhere "just in case"...

"Tough!" on the player. Just kidding, but as we mentioned, the enemy is readily accessible and there is an objective counter for "Eliminate all enemy units (starts at 25). So if the player goes for the supply dumps, fuel depot, and HQ, he is going to encounter the enemy quite readily. There are no AI team orders that direct enemy units to go very far from where they are initially placed.

Choice at crossroad - 06Tolvajarvi1:
5. If one fails the secondary objectives, they are not marked as failed at the end of the scenario... Doesn't really matter anyway, for it's the primary objective which is the more likely to be failed within this scenario. (For this test, I've just deployed units then let turns pass without even moving them.)

The standard practice is to not mark secondary objectives as failed unless the situation calls for it. This situation does not. The player would not fail objectives like "Destroy Soviet supply dumps" and "Capture the HQ and nearby fuel depot" until the end of the scenario anyway. Usually the designer just leaves these open, rewards unearned, and not having them achieved merely makes the difference between Major or Minor Victory/Defeat.

[bru888]

07Hevossalmi:

Very nice , and this time the battle reaches the sky as well...

1. Maybe add just ONE turn...
For as it is, it's rather difficult to rush for the escaping cargo trucks without losing any auxiliary unit (and our right flank is mainly composed by them).

2. This time, why can't we use our own fighter? You know, the one bought during the second scenario and never used again since...
(And, because of the presence of planes within this scenario, I was going to write again about the recon plane from "War Economy", but it's now no longer required. )

1. Bah. ( )

2. When Erik laid this one out, he provided for aux aircraft as well as aux infantry. It's balanced with Soviet aircraft, so no harm done. I guess he wanted to equalize the air war in this scenario.

11Kotajarvi:

Another awesome scenario, with nice counterattacks and great events around tanks!

I would just suggest at least adding some reward for the secondary objective about destroying enemy artillery. What about 50 to 100 RP bonus?

This was not an oversight. There are only so many specialisation points, resource points, and units to award before they become useless (extra specialisation points) or they throw the campaign balance out of whack. Some secondary objectives are in here just as a challenge, or for interest, or both.

08Kotisaari:

First few little points:
1. Briefing 2/5: "[...] to secure the the road [...]" -> One is to be deleted.
2. Name on map: "Artilley Park" for the "Artillery Park" -> A letter yet to be added.
3. Secondary objective: What about highlighting this Artillery Park once clicked on the blue "?"?

1. and 2. - thanks for the good eyes! Erik, below is the revised text file but please see the note near the end of the next post:

text_english.zip

(2.45 KiB) Downloaded 84 times

3. Agreed. Erik, please see the note near the end of the next post:

Screenshot 6.jpg (242.63 KiB) Viewed 2972 times

[bru888]

Back to Erik: 08Kotisaari

Then a bigger issue:
Impossible for me within this map to move heavies or engineers inside the dense forest! (Already just after the deployment.)
Indeed, they can't go from dense forest (pine trees) to dense forest, nor from open terrain to (enter into) a dense forest hex...
Never seen this!

But I have, it's been reported for about a year now and still not fixed. Same goes for the engineers BTW. You can test it yourself in the Endsieg/Huertgenwald scen.

Colonel, you have come up with some good stuff and this one is at or near the top of the list.

No purchasable tank is available for Finland until October 1942 but we do award a core T-26 tank in 05Koukkuniemi so that is a problem. As for the engineers: , but we must work around that for now, it seems.

So, to that end, view this; it's the original deployment scheme:

Screenshot 1.jpg (540.93 KiB) Viewed 2967 times

I "cleared some land," expanded Finnish ownership, and rearranged initial deployment hexes to allow deployment on four non-dense forest hexes. I also deleted the single in-game deployment hex (Turns 1-20) in dense forest (could not be seen) and instead placed two of them on either side of the island (yellow circles) where they can be seen better:

Screenshot 2.jpg (741.13 KiB) Viewed 2967 times

Now the initial deployment looks like this:

Screenshot 3.jpg (469.6 KiB) Viewed 2967 times

and there is a pop-up message at scenario start, before deployment even begins, warning the player thusly:

Screenshot 4.jpg (381.11 KiB) Viewed 2967 times

Now heavy units and engineers (up to 4) can be deployed to the sides:

Screenshot 5.jpg (258.45 KiB) Viewed 2967 times

and they have no problem moving away:

Screenshot 6.jpg (478.03 KiB) Viewed 2967 times

Erik, based on timing, and to make up some time, I took an educated chance and worked with version 1.5 of this scenario. I looked at it carefully and saw no differences to what I have on file here. 08Kotisaari has been uploaded to the "Back to Erik" folder.

Gabe, your contributions are appreciated as well. Know that I re-posted that engineers in dense forest issue in the Red Steel Beta forum, in the Order of Battle 8.3.6 thread. And yes, it's only in winter. In default climate, the engineers can move one hex through dense forest.

Image0223.jpg (396.91 KiB) Viewed 2961 times

[bru888]

Hello Guys,

After almost finishing Canada´s Normandy scenarios with no major issues to report, I think I´m ready to tackle Winter War. Should I wait for some new revised beta version after so many suggestions and observations?

Regards,

Yes, I would. Version 1.5 is out there but see the next post.

[bru888]

Erik, here is a recap of what went on today. The first two scenarios, 01Terijoki and 02Kollaa, you received and moved to the official campaign earlier today, I believe.

These are now in the "Back to Erik" folder, awaiting processing - read above for what happened to them:

Image0224.jpg (69.73 KiB) Viewed 2955 times

Please load official copies of these scenarios in the "Ready for Bru" folder so I can look into possible issues mentioned by ColonelY:

09Tolvajarvi2

10Uomaa

12Uomaa2

Your call as to whether you want to issue a version 1.6 with the changes up to and including 08Kotisaari or hold off until I look at these three scenarios.

[ColonelY]

Phew, you did a great job. Thanks for taking the time managing all this and explaining all point after point.

[ColonelY]

Choice at crossroad - 06Tolvajarvi1:
1. Please add 4 turns!
In order to keep a still challenging major victory achievable; it's a big map and only 18 turns...

I tend to agree but as you point out below, the enemy is concentrated in the middle of the map so 18 turns are probably enough.

Indeed, the enemy is mainly concentrated in the middle of the map, but I think that the most difficult units to get (timewise ) are the ones in the South-eastern part...

[ColonelY]

13Soumussalmi2:

Very nice and immersive scenario. I do like this briefing, as well as the first direct event...

BUT the two (first) events around tanks should definitely come sooner:
1. Indeed, I was warned of the presence of Soviet tanks when they had only one tank left to be destroyed...
2. And my bombers had launched few bombs ONLY because I was delaying the cleaning up of the last Russian units (disorganized, out of supply and depleted) until ALL mines have been removed (in order to complete this nice secondary objective as well )...

Otherwise, it's a really great scenario, with this new BT-42 and this nice air support which could for sure be handy.

[ColonelY]

07Hevossalmi:

Very nice , and this time the battle reaches the sky as well...

1. Maybe add just ONE turn...
For as it is, it's rather difficult to rush for the escaping cargo trucks without losing any auxiliary unit (and our right flank is mainly composed by them).

2. This time, why can't we use our own fighter? You know, the one bought during the second scenario and never used again since...
(And, because of the presence of planes within this scenario, I was going to write again about the recon plane from "War Economy", but it's now no longer required. )

1. Bah. ( )

2. When Erik laid this one out, he provided for aux aircraft as well as aux infantry. It's balanced with Soviet aircraft, so no harm done. I guess he wanted to equalize the air war in this scenario.

2. -> Yeah, which means three fighters for each side on this battle.

Soon we will anyway be able to deploy some aircraft as well, at least the recon plane (from "War Economy"; should come if I've understood well with the next version).
So,what about having 2 aux fighters and beeing able to deploy our core one as the third fighter on the Finnish side? Thus using our ace as well and having another opportunity to gain some experience for our first core fighter.

[terminator]

So I made the change here, transferring 24 mines from neutral to Finnish ownership. You can see that the player can now see his own mines and avoid stumbling into them:

Mines should always be neutral. If you want the player to see the mines, just reveal their position at the beginning of the scenario(Scenario Start) once and for all. It is like this in the official scenarios. If you put the mines on the side of the player then the player can walk on the mines without any damage

[ColonelY]

14Kemijarvi:

Definitely a very interessant scenario, for sure!

Although there, these poor Russians lack some manpower, I think. In my playtest, only one of their tanks barely got anywhere near a Roadblock (the C) and it was already fully red and out of supply... Ski troops and partisans can do wonders within this scenario; that’s just great!
-------
1. What about offering the possibility to highlight the 3 main objectives/bunkers to defend?
So, as usual, I mean. It would be nice for someone who must continue its battle another day or something.
-------
2. Aerial perspective:
Like this, it may be very, very difficult to shot down the two enemy bombers… The map is big, our two fighters must fly far away before seeing any action, there is only a single air-exit for two fighters…

Indeed, during my playtest, none of the bombers has gone enough westward to even reach a “vertical” line passing by the Roadblock C (the most eastern one)… Maybe the delaying actions of my partisans and ski troops have delayed not only land troops?

Well, as it is, important fuel issues and/or secondary objective failed almost guaranteed!

So, what about changing the way our fighters reach the battlefield? As in a previous scenario, what about just spawning two airstrips instead of those two air entry points?

I think a perfect place would be just “behind” the Roadblock B (by behind, I mean of course, westward from this bunker). Like this, our fighters will spare themselves at least 2 turns in terms of fuel and thus will actually become efficient!

Or, alternatively, what about keeping those air-entry (and exit) as they are and just spawn a SINGLE airstrip behind the Roadblock B? Like this, the player will have to manage a little more the fuelling aspect than with my first suggestion, but the fighters will still become more efficient than now!

And a last thing about aircrafts, about the counter of enemy bombers... so finally I haven't shoot them down. It was always question of 2 enemy bombers (Tupolev or something) - if I'm not mistaken - but having failed to shot down any of them leaves the final count at FOUR bombers!? Is there another issue? It's as if, having left the map but without coming back, they were counted twice...
-------
3. Oh, and by the way... the name "Kemijarvi", which appears three times (1x in scenario name, then 2x in scenario descr), shouldn't it be more like "Kemijärvi"? This kind of names appears always with the " ¨ " at the end, I believe... At least it was so everywhere else within this campaign (so far, at least). No, no, I'm not learning Finnish!

[Erik2]

... My only suggestion would be to reveal (at least some of) the mines to the player. You could use the reveal/hidden units trigger at scen start.
...

I'm thinking about adding flags with 'Danger Mines!' labels on "friendly" mine locations.
Would that work ok?
There may of course be a large number of mines in some scenarios.

[ColonelY]

14Kemijarvi:

Or, alternatively, what about keeping those air-entry (and exit) as they are and just spawn a SINGLE airstrip behind the Roadblock B? Like this, the player will have to manage a little more the fuelling aspect than with my first suggestion, but the fighters will still become more efficient than now!

Well, maybe a last idea related to this: If this option is chosen, it could even be improved by spawning not directly an airstrip but instead a construction group (maybe near the location of the actual air entry/exit points), so that the player himself will be responsible for the location of the actual airstrip he'll construct!

I think this would even be better.

[Erik2]

....
Your call as to whether you want to issue a version 1.6 with the changes up to and including 08Kotisaari or hold off until I look at these three scenarios.

We'll wait until you've checked those scenarios.

[bru888]

....
Your call as to whether you want to issue a version 1.6 with the changes up to and including 08Kotisaari or hold off until I look at these three scenarios.

We'll wait until you've checked those scenarios.

Thanks. Well, please throw 13Soumussalmi2 and 14Kemijarvi in there, too. The Colonel is on a roll!

[Mascarenhas]

I think I better keep just watching and waiting fore the next version, despite my anxiety to be in on this campaign.

[ColonelY]

14Kemijarvi:

And a last thing about aircrafts, about the counter of enemy bombers... so finally I haven't shoot them down. It was always question of 2 enemy bombers (Tupolev or something) - if I'm not mistaken - but having failed to shot down any of them leaves the final count at FOUR bombers!? Is there another issue? It's as if, having left the map but without coming back, they were counted twice...

Well, I've checked again and seen actually 3 Tupolev... the first 2, then another one coming... so three in total, which seems correct according to the quick look I gave into the triggers of this scenario.

[ColonelY]

The Colonel is on a roll!

Right!


15Petsamo:

Great scenario too , no issue found.