Winter War 1939 Beta Test

[GabeKnight]

WW39 v1.5, lvl3

09Tolvajarvi2:
[...] it's really tempting to only rush for the 4 capture points (it's really easy! ) and win this scenario without bothering about the rest, thus loosing much of the flavor that this scenario contains.
Even a "Minor Victory" count as a victory, no? The challenge here is to capture and keep only 3 victory points, delaying the capture of a fourth one until enough enemy troops have been slaughtered...

Agree. That's really a strange design decision. I got myself a Minor Victory at turn 3... ...and a Major at turn 9.
(Don't ask me for suggestions as I don't have any at this point. Sorry)

08Kotisaari

Those one-hex-moves through the endless dense forest are a bit tedious; and the many turns on the ice to reach the NE objective, too. No real gameplay issues otherwise. Good turn/unit balance; the final counter-attack was nice.

Bruce, I found two popups with errors. But please note, that I did download and update the "_english.txt" files of the v1.5 campaign from your post a few days back; maybe it has something to do with that.

Screenshot 51.jpg (946.13 KiB) Viewed 3290 times

Screenshot 52.jpg (754.7 KiB) Viewed 3290 times

[GabeKnight]

WW39 v1.5, lvl3

10Uomaa

The Colonel said it all...
Great scenario!

11Kotajarvi

Played very nice, too.
Just one point of criticism: The additional sec. objective with the option to capture an enemy tank was a great motivation to go after it. But after the costly battle...now imagine my disappointment: the reward tank is not a core unit. What? I had like 3-4 turns left in the scen and it spawned on the other side of the map. What?
Please do something about that.

[bru888]

WW39 v1.5, lvl3

09Tolvajarvi2:
[...] it's really tempting to only rush for the 4 capture points (it's really easy! ) and win this scenario without bothering about the rest, thus loosing much of the flavor that this scenario contains.
Even a "Minor Victory" count as a victory, no? The challenge here is to capture and keep only 3 victory points, delaying the capture of a fourth one until enough enemy troops have been slaughtered...

Agree. That's really a strange design decision. I got myself a Minor Victory at turn 3... ...and a Major at turn 9.
(Don't ask me for suggestions as I don't have any at this point. Sorry)

08Kotisaari

Those one-hex-moves through the endless dense forest are a bit tedious; and the many turns on the ice to reach the NE objective, too. No real gameplay issues otherwise. Good turn/unit balance; the final counter-attack was nice.

Bruce, I found two popups with errors. But please note, that I did download and update the "_english.txt" files of the v1.5 campaign from your post a few days back; maybe it has something to do with that.

09Tolvajarvi2 - That's been altered for the next update; Erik has it now. I think we will release another one soon but he may now be waiting for me to finish up on the Colonel's suggestions.

08Kotisaari - Still, you did have enough turns to finish, yes? Concerning the island, we could put in roads or open terrain but what that would do would be do funnel the action in those hexes whereas the idea is to secure the entire island including the interior. As far as the turns on the ice, ice is ice.

Now for the popup message errors. We have a hybrid situation here, Gabe!

First, those text files that you downloaded, those were for Erik for when "the forum ate his homework." What I think happened is that the version of text_english.txt that you downloaded for 08Kotisaari was for the next version (1.6?) and that is why you got the error with the aircraft message. I downloaded version 1.5 and was able to portray the message just fine:

Screenshot 5.jpg (423.41 KiB) Viewed 3273 times

I urge all beta players to download and play only the latest version that is available in the first post of this thread.

Now for the other image problem. That is my own production error; the image was untrimmed and still in JPG format:

Image0228.jpg (146.03 KiB) Viewed 3273 times

When I edited it as it should have been, it came out fine:

Screenshot 6.jpg (432.3 KiB) Viewed 3273 times

Thanks for finding this, Gabe.

Erik, I placed a copy of the edited image in the "Back to Erik" folder. It is labeled "outcome_2_1(for 08Kotisaari)" so when you place it in the official scenario folder, please remove the "(for 08Kotisaari)" portion of the file name.

[bru888]

Back to Erik: 13Soumussalmi2

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.

Yes, I don't know why this is - the Soviet tanks arrive on Turns 4 and 5 but the Finnish air support kicks in on Turn 10 and the "Destroy all tanks" objective (and popup message) on Turn 11! I fixed: Tanks objective on Turn 4 and air support on turn 5.

[bru888]

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!

Kemijärvi it is. That's the easy part!

I hear you about the restricted air exiting for the Finns. However, the designer must keep in mind the historical situation. In this case, Finnish air units would not be deploying from behind Soviet lines or really too far to the south and east. That said, I did put in two more sets of air unit exits and redeployment hexes about a third of the way east on the map, on the northern and southern edges of the map. Bear in mind, too, that airstrips shouldn't just materialize in the middle of the battlefield unless there is a special circumstance. The one time we did that in this campaign, it was on the edge of the map anyway.

So, here are the new Finnish air unit hexes (and I moved the original set just a bit north):

Screenshot 3.jpg (751.87 KiB) Viewed 3260 times

As far as "these poor Russians lack some manpower, I think," I leave gameplay balance decisions to Erik. If Erik does decide to adjust this, I strongly recommend that he reduce Finnish land CP's rather than add Soviet units. Those Soviet AI teams are very carefully choreographed.

That said, however, see my next post. I don't think it's a gameplay balance issue after all.

[Zekedia222]

The only way that an airstrip spawn would work is if you had dirt roads laid out as if they were the runway and taxiing lane, and note in the briefing that “an airstrip is under construction at (x location). Within (x number of turns) it will be completed and serviceable.” Perhaps this construction could be spawned from a secondary objective in another scenario, an objective where you capture Soviet supplies, and among the tins and boxes, there is construction equipment.

[bru888]

The only way that an airstrip spawn would work is if you had dirt roads laid out as if they were the runway and taxiing lane, and note in the briefing that “an airstrip is under construction at (x location). Within (x number of turns) it will be completed and serviceable.” Perhaps this construction could be spawned from a secondary objective in another scenario, an objective where you capture Soviet supplies, and among the tins and boxes, there is construction equipment.

Yeah, Zeke, we decided not to do this anyway. The additional air exit/deploy hexes should help.

[bru888]

That said, however, see my next post. I don't think it's a gameplay balance issue after all.

Well, there is a reason why we have beta. In this scenario, there are two big reasons.

First, it's not a gameplay balance issue in 14Kemijarvi. It's bad AI team choreographing. I thought I had fixed this situation, but in testing for the other issue, I saw that it still is a problem:

Screenshot 5.jpg (699.89 KiB) Viewed 3246 times

The AI teams are under orders to move to hexes and they are still rushing past the Finnish foxholes without attacking them. The dense forest funnels them down these roads and, since the foxholes are left alone, they reassert their zones of control and cut off Soviet supply lines. That is why "only one of their tanks barely got anywhere near a Roadblock (the C) and it was already fully red and out of supply." They go low in efficiency when supply is initially cut off and they don't stop to recover so even when they are resupplied, they remain low in efficiency and therefore ineffective. I will need to redesign this choreography altogether.

The other issue is "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." Yes, I was able to reproduce this - only two bombers are supposed to be involved:

Screenshot 2.jpg (560.7 KiB) Viewed 3246 times

Screenshot 3.jpg (614.69 KiB) Viewed 3246 times

The really short story is this: A while back, we noticed that the AI does not redeploy exited air units. I came up with a mechanism to replicate this by spawning new air units for ones that exit, which is a slight advantage to the AI because they spawn at full strength, but at least the human player could get another shot at them. Now, I realize, the air units that are undeployed are technically still "Alive" along with the newly spawned units. So while there are only two enemy bombers on the map, there are actually four in the game once this air redeployment mechanism does its job.

Therefore, I cannot have an objective trigger that looks for "Alive = 0":

Screenshot 4.jpg (226.54 KiB) Viewed 3246 times

Instead, in this situation, it must be "Destroyed > 1" and to be on the safe side, I changed the objective to "Destroy 2 enemy bombers":

Screenshot 6.jpg (230.33 KiB) Viewed 3246 times

I'll look through previous scenarios to see if a similar adjustment needs to be made where this air redeployment mechanism is involved. Now back to that darned AI choreography.

[bru888]

Back to Erik: 14Kemijarvi

I discovered one way in which I erred. Take another look at this screenshot:

Screenshot 5.jpg (699.89 KiB) Viewed 3232 times

Notice how I had placed the foxholes in dense forest. No armored vehicles (including armored cars, I believe) could reach them! No wonder they "ran the gauntlet" only to have their supply lines cut off by the foxholes just sitting there, untouched.

Long story made short:
- Now we have three columns now of 9 Soviet units each (I added one artillery unit to balance the distribution). No more traffic jam at a particular intersection.
- Each column is merely directed to its corresponding roadblock objective, after conquering which, they are to move to their assigned exit. Simpler by far.
- Edited the map a bit to facilitate this movement, including a couple of new roads and replacing another road to the north with river (to discourage Soviet units getting lost; I actually witnessed one Soviet tank going all the way up this road until it realized that it was a dead end, whereupon it turned around and sat).
- Removed two Finnish foxholes (down to a total of 12) and most importantly, moved them out of dense forest and onto the roads.

Now the Soviets are moving and fighting as they should. Much, much better. As a matter of fact, I would recommend playing this again; it should be a lot more enjoyable (give yourself enough resources to buy units with #warbonds, approximately 1200). But of course you will have to wait for the next version to be released.

[bru888]

Back to Erik: 15Petsamo

1. In the 15th scenario (Petsamo), it is very easy to destroy the entire Russian column…
Just put some ski troops in the top/northern part of the map, then rush them westwards and the entire Russian column is directly out of supply! (Because the Russian here can’t handle them by themselves, they are forced to retreat and, if followed, it’s done!)
So, what about adding few (small) supply hex along the road controlled by the Russian at the beginning?
Like this, it would be more difficult to cut them from supply, thus they will be able to defend themselves much better, thus increasing the challenge within this scenario.

I see what you mean. Initial Finnish deployment gives the player an unfair advantage, an exploit, really. I fixed it by carving out a bit of territory for a Soviet supply dump with 40 supply. Also, I put 40 supply at the crossroads and a flag on it for enticement. Either one of these supply sources will sustain the entire column.

Screenshot 2.jpg (404.31 KiB) Viewed 3223 times

Screenshot 3.jpg (382.74 KiB) Viewed 3223 times

You are really coming up with some good stuff, Colonel. Much appreciated.

[bru888]

You are really coming up with some good stuff, Colonel. Much appreciated.

Buuuut, that doesn't mean every idea of yours is great (in this designer's opinion which RULES in these circumstances ).

2. In the 13rd scenario (Soumussalmi2), that anyone will play (because it’s out of any crossroad choice ), we can gain the prototype of a new unit! It is said in the description that, I quote: “They want you to use it, evaluate its performance, and report.”
So, what about adding a secondary objective in one of the following scenarios of this campaign , something like “Hey, do you remember, the new … (I won’t spoil all ) that we have received in order to test it? Now is the time!”, an objective with maybe a certain amount of damage to deal only with this unit or something… And maybe with an event too, so that the player has no excuse what so ever if he forgets to deploy it (as for the demining engineers)!
(It would somehow be a wink to a previous scenario within this campaign as well as maybe about the flame-tank in the Morning Sun dlc.)

That BT-42 was the prize for destroying all enemy tanks. I really shouldn't have used it but I was intrigued . . . The thing is, it's too early for that unit, historically speaking.

That's why I excused myself with this text: In recognition of your prowess in destroying those enemy tanks, Pääesikunta (Defence Command) has entrusted you with a prototype of the new BT-42 assault gun. Still in the design stage, this is the only such unit so far produced. They want you to use it, evaluate its performance, and report. So while the player does get it as a core unit and can use it in subsequent scenarios, it really shouldn't be stressed too much as it is still in "experimental mode."

Besides, if we have a subsequent mission involving this unit, what happens if it has been destroyed in the meantime? It may not be fair to the player to require him to spend resource points to revive this unit especially if he thinks it's not worthwhile.

By the way, if I don't address every comment that you have made, it does not mean I did not read and consider them all.

[bru888]

Great, keep up the good work!


16Raate1, or "The SAUSAGE!"

A superb scenario but - guess what? - there is an issue (or two) with the counter for the secondary objective, the one about killing all the enemies (20 at the beginning, but then come waves of reinforcement).

1. Of course, it would be much more comfortable for the player to see this counter updated "in real time" (and it's not at all a detail within this scenario! )...

2. This counter doesn't count always correctly, not sure why...

I had finished removing all Russian unit that has been spotted, I had few turns left and 3 enemy units still to be killed!? So the brave ski troops went searching through dense forests, but nobody more coming to sight. Being close to the end of the scenario (timewise), I used by curiosity the "#orbitalcommand": NO MORE ENEMY ON MAP AT ALL, WHEREAS THE COUNTER INDICATED 3 LEFT!

Then I've made some tests: (having to reload each time in-between in order to see and check the updated values of the counter & using the "#orbitalcommand" to count all units myself; this cheat should be quite reliable, because then even the Scouts are visible on the map and on the mini-map)

When......... ¦ Counter ¦ My own count
-------------------------------------------------
Begin......... ¦ 20....... ¦ 20.............¦ -> ok!
Later......... ¦ 15....... ¦ 13.............¦ -> problem!
Later + reinf ¦ 17....... ¦ 16.............¦ -> "
Later......... ¦ 13....... ¦ 11.............¦ -> "
Later + reinf ¦ 17....... ¦ 16.............¦ -> "
End(1st time)¦ .3....... ¦ .0 .............¦ -> "

So there is definitely some issue here!

And I have seen a(nother) weird thing as well : the unit of Russian Scouts being replenished MANY TIMES WITHIN A SINGLE TURN, even from 1 up to 10!? And many times within this scenario (at least 2 times, each time I've tried this scenario).
Well, this complicates a little the removal of this unit, but it stays destroyable anyway... Is it possible that this strange behavior could somehow alter our counter?

The counter phenomenon may have something to do with an earlier issue in which a couple of BT-7 tanks were being spawned on the Soviet exit hex. Hence undeployed, but still "Alive," they may be affecting the count somehow. Also, the panicked radio squad will also count toward the original "Eliminate all Soviet units" objective if it succeeds in exiting the map. The BT-7 issue has been fixed so you may be playing with an older version?

Regardless, I am taking no chances.

I changed the mission to "Eliminate at least 20 Soviet units" and the trigger is based on "Destroyed" instead of "Alive":

Screenshot 1.jpg (170.02 KiB) Viewed 3214 times

Screenshot 4.jpg (220.13 KiB) Viewed 3214 times

While I was working on that, I got an idea for enhancing the "Radio Squad Panics!" module, making it into another secondary objective with a reward:

Screenshot 2.jpg (198.07 KiB) Viewed 3214 times

Screenshot 5.jpg (235.09 KiB) Viewed 3214 times

Screenshot 3.jpg (254.43 KiB) Viewed 3214 times

Looks like fun, if I do say so myself!

Regarding the Russian scouts, I don't know what that would be about. There are no special triggers dealing with that unit so if something strange is happening to it, it's the game, not us.

I will resume tomorrow with 17Kelja1. Meanwhile, sir, you "owe" us one last scenario review, 20Kiantajarvi. Let's see you get to it! (Please.)

[Erik2]

Bru

A few files are present in both of our 'personal' folders.
Are you finished with 13-16 (and I may edit stuff in these scenarios?)

scenarios.jpg (26.4 KiB) Viewed 3190 times

[bru888]

Yes, I'm usually tidier than that, deleting what I am done with in the "Ready for Bru" folder to avoid confusion. That's done now.

I am going to work on 17Kelja1 now but I am glad to have had the opportunity to sneak a quick update into 14Kemijarvi in the "Back to Erik" folder; something that occurred to me as I was going to sleep last night. Hmmm, do you think I should see a doctor?

It was a quirk that nobody else would have noticed but, for me, it would always be out there, lurking, lurking. Haunting . . .

[bru888]

Back to Erik: 17Kelja1

17Kelja1:

A good scenario, with a nice briefing as well!

Alas, I do think that it's not enough challenging as it is... Indeed, with an aggressive defense ( ), using the mobility of our ski troops, it's (too) easy to destroy entirely the Russian troops!

In my playtest (level 3 as usual), there was for example no fighting at all around the fort (which we are not really supposed to hold), because there was not a single Russian able to even reach it.

What happened? Well:

1. The Russian heavies came too late - almost when most of their regular infantry units were on the retreat.
2. Their artillery - good and strong, by the way - came into action more or less in the same time than their heavies, so too late to really have an impact on the battle...
Their artillery was able to deal some decent damage (before being entirely whiped out ), but mainly because my troops had counter-attacked heavily and brought the actual fight on the river itself...
3. Their planes stayed put around their deployment zone (so out of action) for quite a long time at the beginning, even if my fighters have reached them to "tease" their bombers...

If the player can destroy about a dozen of regular infantry quickly and without taking much casualties, then all's directly said! Or almost...

Therefore here are my suggestions:

1. Deploy all heavies a little northern, so that they are more likely to stick closer to their regular infantry units and to help them a little;

2. Spawn the artillery sooner (so no longer at turn 3) and/or a little northern as well, so that they can at least support a little their regular infantry in case of fighting near the borders of the river;

3. Make their planes more aggressive - they could fly above their troops (right to the north, maybe) and use theirs bombs to support their assaulting troops;
With the three previous points, the Soviets would be able to launch a better coordinated assault, with more concentrated power... and would then put more of a challenge!

4. Finally, what about increasing the length of this defensive scenario? If they attack more efficiently, then give them some time to obtain results and for the player to counter this stronger threat... So, what about maybe 25 turns instead of 20?


By the way, it's very nice that we could use the "Construction group" to build an airstrip - really useful "fuelwise".
It makes me think again to the option which would be optimal, according to me, for the 14Kemijarvi scenario.

Getting a bit cocky, eh? We'll see about that! ( )

- Added tanks, one per rifle company and AI, total 6. Labeled them as "2/1 Armour," etc. (Go ahead, laugh them off! )

- Increased Soviet income from 34 to 40, following the rule of thumb of +1 for each additional unit.

- Provided transportation to all heavy infantry (although I don't know if it will make any difference on ice) and moved them up to join their companies.

- Moved all Soviet groups much closer to land. Yes, too much ice time (they were reminding me of the Soviet hockey team), and the Finns on skis probably have a big advantage in maneuverability on ice. Plus, less time slip-sliding to the action. Heavy infantry are now behind infantry by only one hex (trucks seem to move 3 hexes on ice while infantry moves 2) and tanks a bit further back (they seem to move normally on ice.)

- While doing that, I positioned AI teams to be more in line with their initial destinations, thus avoiding any criss-crossing confusion.

- Now the action starts no later than Turn 2 but I agree, this is a big map so I increased the turns from 20 to 24.

- Soviet artillery now spawns on Turn 2 instead of 3 and while still on the edge of the map (it is a practice of mine not to spawn arriving units on interior hexes), I did move them east a bit which gets them closer to land.

- Soviet planes seem to move sprightly in my testing; they are already on aggression 75 and I don't want to move them up any further so that they just start wrecking themselves. I did build them another set of exit hexes to the west (and afforded the Finns the same courtesy).

- The enemy air unit redeployment mechanism is in here but there is no objective to down any or all of them, so that is good. Also, there are no initial deployment hexes in dense forests so that, too, is good.

- I did revert the 16 mines to Finnish control, as I figure that this is definitely a defensive battle and the Finns ought to know where there own mines are just as they know where there foxholes are located.

Regarding this: By the way, it's very nice that we could use the "Construction group" to build an airstrip - really useful "fuelwise," what? Oh, no, no, no. (Wags virtual finger at you.) That construction group and the two cargo trucks (along with the two fuel depots) are structures meant to be defended, not used or moved around (such as into the forest to protect them). What an exploit you have uncovered!

Alas, this game lacks stationary infrastructure. Hangars disappear after one turn; radars give unintended visual range; bunkers, fortresses, and coastal guns all fight back; and air strip gives unintended air support. The only other thing for this purpose beside fuel depot is oil pump and that is what I went with as a symbol of industriousness and equipment use in the supply dumps:

Screenshot 1.jpg (310.66 KiB) Viewed 3155 times

So you can look forward to playing this one again with a much greater challenge, methinks. If, that is, Erik approves the changes. He may choose to subsequently edit.

[bru888]

Back to Erik: 18Patoniemi

18Patoniemi:

Just great! One of the most interesting scenarios in this campaign; and some of the tasks to be done are completely different from the usual.

Hem, maybe the Russian artillery is a little late as well , but that's all.

Thanks. Worked hard on that one, trying to get it balanced. For that reason, I'm going to just gently tweak the artillery (they spawn in Turn 2) to come a couple of hexes closer to land before going over to Seek & Destroy. That should get them interested sooner.

I also reverted mine ownership to the Finns in this one, too, clearly a defensive operation. These mines don't play much of a role in this one, at least the way that I played it, but should the human player decide to do something unusual, he shouldn't be stumbling over his own mines.

[GabeKnight]

WW39 v1.5, lvl3

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...

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.

Again about spot on with my impressions, Colonel. But my suggestion would be...

...to leave the initial land CP as they are, do not add any reinforcements CP, do not add that many RP at scen start (it must have been around 800-1000(?)), adjust the RP/turn accordingly and add about 7 turns. The Colonel is right that it makes no sense buying that many infantry units just to fill all command points, as most of them won't be needed in the subsequent scenarios anyway.

I did not buy any new units in this scenario, for example. The 7 turns suggestion may be a bit generous, but I've played out of my mod and there the foxholes do not lose efficiency when cut-off from supply. And you know, allow a bit leeway for casual players. Dense forest battles are similar to jungle missions: much cover, slow movement, efficency loss everywhere and the units are damn hard to kill anyway.

PS: There are two missions leading out of the "Crossroads" that seem favourable to the others. This one awards extremely many RPs and even a few "+1" range arty pieces as core units. The 08Kotisaari scen grants one extra fighter plane for my core. The other three do not. Maybe some equalization would be in order?

Alas, this game lacks stationary infrastructure. Hangars disappear after one turn; radars give unintended visual range; bunkers, fortresses, and coastal guns all fight back; and air strip gives unintended air support. The only other thing for this purpose beside fuel depot is oil pump and that is what I went with as a symbol of industriousness and equipment use in the supply dumps:

Isn't there some other faction you could use as placeholder? And assign them static AI teams.

[bru888]

Back to Erik: 19Kelja2

19Kelja2:

Another top scenario , with great briefing, volunteers fighters from different countries (even historically on airplane as well ), again with a nice rebuilding story...

I would there just suggest maybe the addition of 2 turns.

Why? Well, these damn Cargo trucks are quite slow to move, which could become quickly tricky about the "Supply Dump 2" (far away). And this event is triggered when the 2 first main objectives have been captured, but we don't know at all that this will happen. What is known, it's the presence of tons of mines and MG-foxholes: nothing that makes you want to rush! But on the contrary you do need actually to rush (to trigger this event, to be able to begin to slowly move these Trucks)...

Therefore, in order to help handling this aspect a little tricky right now, I think it would be nice to have either 2 more turns or few words about "not losing time taking the first objectives" within the briefing.

I was pleased to see that the game would not allow me to deploy the core BT-42 in dense forest, where it would be stuck, and that pre-placed engineers could move at least one hex:

Screenshot 2.jpg (433.5 KiB) Viewed 3122 times

Also, when I purchased an engineer and deployed him in dense forest, he too could move. So this scenario is not corrupted in this fashion like 08Kotisaari (which, by the way, will remain that way because it is a mild corruption; its insignificant flaw was worked around and recreating the scenario would be a major undertaking):

Screenshot 3.jpg (453.53 KiB) Viewed 3122 times

Fair is fair: I assigned ownership of the mines to the Soviets who placed them as mentioned in the briefing. Changed the objective trigger to match.

Agree about the slowness of cargo trucks to get to their rebuilding tasks but rather than adding turns, I changed the timing and made some improvements. Now the rebuilding objectives and spawns happen after the first primary objective is taken. The popup message text had to be altered slightly as a result.

Bonus: I cleared out the forest along this road so the cargo trucks can move faster here.* Amazing how the construction groups scoot along but cargo trucks creep, so removing the forest will help:

Screenshot 7.jpg (372.75 KiB) Viewed 3122 times

Bonus 2: The cargo trucks need roads and there was no handy east-west route to travel to the supply dumps. There is now. I even paved it!*

Bonus 3: Moved an aux engineer unit a bit closer to the road so as to be handy when it is needed to clear the mines in the road.

This should now give you the extra time that you need to get them where they are going but it's your responsibility to keep them safe! So I did a "dry run" with no opposition, starting the cargo truck on Turn 6. It is able to reach the far supply dump in 10 turns. So as soon as you take that first primary objective, the sooner you can start the journey:

Screenshot 8.jpg (459.58 KiB) Viewed 3122 times

Instead of spawning hangars on rebuilt supply dumps, substituted oil pumps. This follows suit with the first Kelja scenario.*

Fixed an error that I noticed; both "Fuel depots completed" and "Supply dumps completed" triggers were linked to the same "Rebuild fuel depots" objective. I linked the supply triggers to the "Restock supply dumps" objective.

* Asterisks denote features that were edited for consistency between 17Kelja1 and 19Kelja2.

[bru888]

Back to Erik: Kiantajärvi

I don't think I need anybody to review this scenario because, if you recall from way back when in this thread, I played the heck out of it trying to get the gameplay balance just right. I believe I did so and I had a lot of fun with this scenario despite having misgivings about it at first. It grew on me as quite an enjoyable challenge and I declared it one of my favorites of this campaign.

I did scan it one more time and found just a typo; the name is Lake Kiantajärvi, with that diacritic mark over the "a." It was not spelled consistently as such in the scenario description but now it's been corrected.

----------------------------------------------

So here is the situation. I feel that I have done a CSI sweep on all 20 scenarios, correcting a bunch of bugs, and yet making some good changes here and there to improve gameplay and enjoyability.

When Erik is ready, I think he should issue the next version of Winter War 1939. These are the contents:

Image0231.jpg (117.76 KiB) Viewed 3115 times

Image0230.jpg (204.33 KiB) Viewed 3115 times

I say with all modesty that I have done a ton of work on this campaign but now I want to step away from it and work on Winter War 1940. I will continue to monitor this thread (and the studio thread, now that this one is locked) and, if any more bugs are reported, I will request an official copy be placed in the "Ready for Bru" folder.

Barring that, however, I will leave any further suggestions for improvement, particularly gameplay balance, to Erik. Regarding the latter, I would generally recommend adjusting the Finns rather than the Soviets due to assignments of Soviet units to AI team tasks and subsequent orders.

My personal thanks to everyone who has contributed to this beta so far. I can tell you with utmost assurance that this campaign is quite a bit better due to your participation.

[GabeKnight]

WW39 v1.5, lvl3

12Uomaa2

An experienced and entenchend unit blocking the road, covered by 3 AT-guns hidden in pine trees, what a death trap for Soviet tanks! And all infantry units inside the dense forest, but just at its borders, so that the tanks can't attack them directly (although the opposite is still possible ).

Erik, Bruce, this scen was too easy. Similar to the first scen, the tree-line formed a funnel-like situation, where the enemy armoured units could only enter one hex. One heavy inf. with AT support, some ski inf. in dense forest and the AI units danced around with no point of attack. In my playthrough, only about 5-6 Soviet units did actually perform an attack - during the whole 18 turns. Infantry, of course, the tanks did nothing. My units had experience and the Russians were only few. After taking position, my frontline units did basically nothing the whole time (okay, I got bored and attacked a few times myself). No enemy airforce, no enemy arty, no sneaky flanking attack, nothing. My two Junkers efficiency-bombed the hell outa the Russians.

My suggestion: Scratch the Finnish reinforcements altogether and give the Russians at least one fighter plane (with Bruce's return-mechanic) and/or some light arty.
And how about making it four air deployment hexes at scen start (10 ACP = 3 + recon)?