BrucErik CSD Studio

[bru888]

The most difficult photos to find, however, are "triumphant Soviets in snow" to be used for the opposite purpose. Please keep your eyes peeled for those especially and if you are willing to share them here, I would be most appreciative.

Yes, you are correct. To add the insult they are often of very poor quality. Below you find a few. Maybe you already have some of them (like the one with the flag). The one with the tank is suitable for Honkaniemi and the castle photo for Viipuri (losing the scen).

Great stuff, thanks. Picture quality is not a problem up to a point; in fact, it leads to immersion in my opinion.

For example, Erik had chosen this image for campaign defeat (I had to upload it in JPG format because the PNG version was too large):

defeat (original).jpg (505.53 KiB) Viewed 2695 times

I liked it very much but, after trimming it as I usually do, I also "dumbed it down" a bit to look more contemporaneous:

defeat.png (549.96 KiB) Viewed 2695 times

Regarding your first image, the artwork, ironically Erik had already chosen it for the campaign preview.

[CoolDTA]

For example, Erik had chosen this image for campaign defeat (I had to upload it in JPG format because the PNG version was too large):

It sure is a very fitting image to portray defeat.

Regarding your first image, the artwork, ironically Erik had already chosen it for the campaign preview.

Heh, no wonder, it is a good choice and using art and not only photos adds the immersion.

[CoolDTA]

@Bru: For Tuppura I only have the two maps below to offer. In the lower, larger map you can see the island about in the middle and how it is located in the Viipuri Bay area.

Mt.JR = Motorized infantry regiment
HiihtoP = (Soviet) Ski Battalion (ColonelY's favourite )

map012.jpg (94.14 KiB) Viewed 2678 times

map013.jpg (123.66 KiB) Viewed 2678 times

[CoolDTA]

@Bru: Below two maps for the last scenario, Viipuri. Not sure about the scale you are using, but the upper is useful for large scale and lower for smaller scale (the source points to this). Here's a nice map for looking at things really close: http://www.virtuaaliviipuri.tamk.fi/en/map.

That's it!

map014.jpg (275.69 KiB) Viewed 2639 times

map015.jpg (339.34 KiB) Viewed 2639 times

[bru888]

Maps! MAAAAAAPPPPPSSSS!!!!

[CoolDTA]

Maps! MAAAAAAPPPPPSSSS!!!!

Maps are designer's trusty friends.

[bru888]

Maps! MAAAAAAPPPPPSSSS!!!!

Maps are designer's trusty friends.

So are helpful people like you. Thanks.

[Erik2]

Winter War 1939 campaign added.
Download link in first post.

Have fun

[GabeKnight]

Winter War 1939 campaign added.
Download link in first post.

Have fun

Thanks!

One thing I've wondered about playing the WW39 beta: are there no railways in Finland? Looking at CoolDTA's maps, they DO seem to have arrived in the industrial age, though... and there's nothing except the second scen in the campaign.

There were probably no rails in the maps of the original game, but it's a neat OoB feature to transport some heavy equipment around.
(And I want to deploy my own Armoured Train, finally)

[bru888]

Winter War 1939 campaign added.
Download link in first post.

Have fun

Thanks!

One thing I've wondered about playing the WW39 beta: are there no railways in Finland? Looking at CoolDTA's maps, they DO seem to have arrived in the industrial age, though... and there's nothing except the second scen in the campaign.

There were probably no rails in the maps of the original game, but it's a neat OoB feature to transport some heavy equipment around.
(And I want to deploy my own Armoured Train, finally)

The scope of this campaign is rather local, to the point where some of the scenarios don't even have villages, much less cities that would call for railroad links. In Raate Road, for instance, you are literally looking at a section of road winding through the forest.

[GabeKnight]

The scope of this campaign is rather local, to the point where some of the scenarios don't even have villages, much less cities that would call for railroad links. In Raate Road, for instance, you are literally looking at a section of road winding through the forest.

I thought that much, still, it's a game and you shouldn't be toooooooo historical. Some railroad tracks as well as airstrips should be added to enhance gameplay. I mean all I see in the game are 90x90 hexes, even if it's roughly one sqare-km or a whole country. The speed of my units stays the same (and the trucks are useless in winter). But I get it.

Gabe, that's what I was going to say. You have been making some astute comments but they have been based on version 1.5 and I have been making some significant changes in the meantime. Version 1.6 is a comprehensive overhaul of this campaign which probably has changed the circumstances behind much of your discussion.

Just to be clear, I read all the posts in this forum even if I don't answer them. That said, before I wrote anything on a scen of the WW39 campaign, I did check what the Colonel (or others) said about it, then checked your posts as to what you've changed in the scen and only then I wrote my own feedback.
Some issues may have been addressed (and you didn't write about them), but I'm sure some remained. Please bear that in mind when reading my stuff...and don't dismiss it too fast...

WW39 v1.6 continued

14Kemijarvi
- You've added some new units but forgot to adjust the supply. Add about +10 to the AI, please.
- You still have to be rather lucky or sacrifice some of your dogfighters to kill the two strat. bombers.

15Petsamo
- There's only one air deploy hex for 7ACP = 2 + recon
- The sec. objective text or counter are off, because it says to exit seven units but counts/validates at ten units. Please change to whatever's applicable. I'd suggest 10 units, otherwise it's too easy. A Major Voctory with a Tabula Rasa was achievable. Maybe add a few more Soviets or at least some experience for them. Most of my land units are 5-star by now.

[bru888]

Great!

*******

Finland campaigns – back to the paratroopers!

1. Some history:

On October 1918, an American airborne assault (involving about 12’000 parachutists) against the German stronghold at Metz, in France, was about to be planned… but the armistice stopped it!
Anyway, shortly after the Great War, the officer in charge of the preparation of this plan, now a general, persisted in this line of thinking and six soldiers realized a successful demonstration in front of observers… Although the US observers dismissed the concept, not all of the observers arrived at the same conclusion.

And it’s the USSR that was the first nation to take a serious interest in parachuting to introduce ground forces into battle!

Firstly, static line parachuting was introduced in USSR as a national sport and the population was encouraged to join the Russian Airborne Corps. The German observers eagerly grasped the idea as well and planners worked quickly to develop an effective military parachute organization.

For the first time, in August 1930 at Veronezh (Russia), Soviet paratroopers participated in military maneuvers , and their actions were so effective that a repeat performance was given in Moscow one month later. The Red Army created a test unit in 1931. By 1935, the Red Army was able to employ two battalions of parachute infantry in field exercises. So, by 1935, the Russians were off to a head start on Airborne warfare and made the world's first spectacular use of parachutists!

Beginning in the mid-1930s, several other European nations followed suit. The prewar Soviet example inspired enthusiasm among the Germans, French, and British. (The British organized parachute forces in 1936 and used them continually in their maneuvers - so, as in Normandy . The French organized a parachute battalion in 1938 but inactivated it in 1939. The Germans launched a particularly aggressive program… By 1940 Hitler had 4,500 parachutists at his disposal, organized into six battalions. Another 12,000 men formed an air infantry division designed as an air-landed follow-up to a parachute assault. A force of 700 Ju-52 transport planes was available to carry these troops into combat and each Ju-52 could hold up to 15 men.)

Anyway, back to the Soviets: Despite its early entrance upon the Airborne stage, the USSR made little use of Airborne troops in World War II. But still, the Soviet Union made the first combat use of parachute forces. For example, on 2 December 1939, as part of its initial abortive invasion of Finland, the Red Army dropped several dozen paratroopers near Petsamo behind the opposing lines.

Alas for them, they apparently came down on top of a Finnish unit , which shot many of them before they reached the ground. Subsequent Soviet attempts during the Finnish campaign to employ airborne forces, all rather small in scale, met equally disastrous fates. This bad luck has the consequence that their later activities were principally concerned with the dropping of supplies and individuals for guerrilla activities…

2. The actual scenarios…

Therefore, having seen this historical background, soviet paratroopers must indeed be added (as already suggested). You have large-scale scenarios as well as small-scale ones, which is perfect because it offers many options to this regard.

To be as historically accurate as possible, I suggest adding some Soviet paratroopers (but not much), around the end of 1939 or the beginning of 1940… in a mission to “cut the Finnish supply lines”...

Then there can be an objective (primary or secondary?) to destroy all these paratroopers units… and, as soon as this is achieved, an event with something as “Despite the daring use of Soviet paratroopers, our brave soldiers managed to slaughter or capture them all! Probably the enemy will have learned his lesson and will never try it again...”

Perhaps even with as well an opportunity to intercept them in the air to weaken them already a little before their dropping?

So, it would be historically fine, it would reflect the initial real interest of the USSR for paratroopers… and it would make it clear why one wouldn’t see any more of them on the battlefield directly for the rest of the Finnish campaigns!

Everybody, particularly Cool and Erik, okay with this (red bolded)?

At one point, Cool said this about Russian paratroopers: "201st and 204th Airborne Brigades were used but as rifle infantry only." Even so, in addition to using them here and there as ground troops, could we have one mission with them being used in a paratroop mode, with an objective to defeat them so as to discourage their further use in the war? Perhaps a campaign variable to suppress similar missions if this one was decisively defeated?

>>> This inquiry speaks to how much designer license for additional fun vs. strict historical accuracy. <<<

I will use only the 1939 Soviet paratroopers as units.csv has the 1940 version appearing only on 12/7/1940. (By the way, since I am outnumbered here as an American, I use European conventions such as how you write shorthand dates; in this case, that's July 12, not December 7, "a date which will live in infamy." Your way makes more sense anyway: date, month, year in progression.)

Screenshot 1.jpg (361.94 KiB) Viewed 2534 times

[CoolDTA]

One thing I've wondered about playing the WW39 beta: are there no railways in Finland? Looking at CoolDTA's maps, they DO seem to have arrived in the industrial age, though... and there's nothing except the second scen in the campaign.

There were probably no rails in the maps of the original game, but it's a neat OoB feature to transport some heavy equipment around.
(And I want to deploy my own Armoured Train, finally)

There are. First connection was built on 1862. Armoured Trains were operated in the Karelian Isthmus and Ladoga Karelia so scenarios in these areas could have railroads. On the other hand Bru's point of the small scale is valid. However, Gabe said "it's a game and you shouldn't be toooooooo historical" and considering for example that historically no Finnish aircraft were used in the north at all (because there were none to spare), it is ahistorical to give the player air CPs in such scenarios. But if and when you do, then why not give Gabe his train?

[CoolDTA]

At one point, Cool said this about Russian paratroopers: "201st and 204th Airborne Brigades were used but as rifle infantry only." Even so, in addition to using them here and there as ground troops, could we have one mission with them being used in a paratroop mode, with an objective to defeat them so as to discourage their further use in the war? Perhaps a campaign variable to suppress similar missions if this one was decisively defeated?

>>> This inquiry speaks to how much designer license for additional fun vs. strict historical accuracy. <<<

Well, I also said one small combat drop (200 men) was actually planned but cancelled because of inclement weather. So it would not be too ahistorical to use a Soviet AB unit (or two) in one of the scenarios in WW 1940. Just to add some flavour and a 'could have happened'. So definitely there could be one such mission you described with the objective and campaign variable.

I will use only the 1939 Soviet paratroopers as units.csv has the 1940 version appearing only on 12/7/1940. (By the way, since I am outnumbered here as an American, I use European conventions such as how you write shorthand dates; in this case, that's July 12, not December 7, "a date which will live in infamy." Your way makes more sense anyway: date, month, year in progression.)

Yes, you're an American, but you are also the All Powerful Designer, so what you say, goes. Dates can be confusing sometimes, but luckily the context usually helps to decide what the writer means.

[bru888]

@Gabe:

I don't see an issue with AI supply in 14Kemijarvi on my copy which I uploaded to Erik last night. A bit close, but adequate for what is on the map for Soviet units and there are no spawns in the triggers:

Screenshot 2.jpg (304.54 KiB) Viewed 2516 times

In 15Petsamo, there are two air deployment hexes on my copy. Since all planes (except recon) are 3 air CP's, I believe, this should be enough for two planes given the 6 CP's provided. However, it could be 7 if the player has War Economy and wants to buy a recon plane. In that case, he can wait until the next turn.

Screenshot 3.jpg (359.75 KiB) Viewed 2516 times

Regarding the counter for the exiting Finn units, that seems to be working properly on my copy. Whether 7 exited units should be the number is up to Erik.

Screenshot 4.jpg (213.31 KiB) Viewed 2516 times

Screenshot 5.jpg (293.58 KiB) Viewed 2516 times

Detect a pattern here with the italicized repetition of "on my copy"? Because, and I say this with no rancor whatsoever, I need to limit my time on each campaign so that I can get to others. As it is, the box of ideas is overflowing with stuff I want to get to and the chief stumbling block is time.

So I needed to work this out and I will share it:

Erik will come up with an idea for a campaign (although, as I said, I have some of my own) and he will do the preliminary work of map preparation and sketching the outline of campaign and scenarios including objectives. Then he turns it over to me and I "flesh it out" with text and images. He has graciously agreed to me using some of my own initiative in changing or creating objectives as well as editing maps and AI teams to some extent. When I am done, he starts a beta thread (the one for Winter War 1939 was a big success) in which I follow along, resolving reported bugs and looking for opportunities for gameplay improvements. I return these scenarios to Erik. When he is ready, Erik releases the campaign officially and the focus of further commentary shifts here to the studio.

Here is the point I am making: Erik remains editor-in-chief. It is his prerogative to make changes subsequent to official release; I see in his 1.6 notice that he tweaked a couple of things (e.g., "14Kemijarvi: Added a few minor Sov units" and "15Petsamo: Play balance changes"). That is absolutely fine. However, at this time if any bugs are uncovered, I am looking at the final versions of what I sent back to him. If I don't find such bugs "on my copy," then I am going to assume that it's something that Erik has done and he should be looking to correct it himself. Else, we are going to spend a lot of time with the back and forth transmission of scenarios. Which, by the way, could produce errors in itself due to confusion.

I love Winter War 1939 but as I said in the beta thread, I want to move on now. Erik is in charge of the official version. That includes the addition of "post-production" features such as railroads and trains.

[bru888]

At one point, Cool said this about Russian paratroopers: "201st and 204th Airborne Brigades were used but as rifle infantry only." Even so, in addition to using them here and there as ground troops, could we have one mission with them being used in a paratroop mode, with an objective to defeat them so as to discourage their further use in the war? Perhaps a campaign variable to suppress similar missions if this one was decisively defeated?

>>> This inquiry speaks to how much designer license for additional fun vs. strict historical accuracy. <<<

Well, I also said one small combat drop (200 men) was actually planned but cancelled because of inclement weather. So it would not be too ahistorical to use a Soviet AB unit (or two) in one of the scenarios in WW 1940. Just to add some flavour and a 'could have happened'. So definitely there could be one such mission you described with the objective and campaign variable.

I am going to take this as a "go ahead" unless Erik overrules. Something subtle and believable with a nod to history without being overly strict about it.

[Erik2]

At one point, Cool said this about Russian paratroopers: "201st and 204th Airborne Brigades were used but as rifle infantry only." Even so, in addition to using them here and there as ground troops, could we have one mission with them being used in a paratroop mode, with an objective to defeat them so as to discourage their further use in the war? Perhaps a campaign variable to suppress similar missions if this one was decisively defeated?

>>> This inquiry speaks to how much designer license for additional fun vs. strict historical accuracy. <<<

Well, I also said one small combat drop (200 men) was actually planned but cancelled because of inclement weather. So it would not be too ahistorical to use a Soviet AB unit (or two) in one of the scenarios in WW 1940. Just to add some flavour and a 'could have happened'. So definitely there could be one such mission you described with the objective and campaign variable.

I am going to take this as a "go ahead" unless Erik overrules. Something subtle and believable with a nod to history without being overly strict about it.

And you could use a random trigger for the para drops so that there are 2-3 different landing locations.

[ColonelY]

Great, thanks!

[GabeKnight]

@Gabe:
I don't see an issue with AI supply in 14Kemijarvi on my copy which I uploaded to Erik last night. A bit close, but adequate for what is on the map for Soviet units and there are no spawns in the triggers:

That's on my copy:
(Tested the v1.6 WW campaign with the vanilla OoB version to be sure)

Screenshot 57.jpg (835.39 KiB) Viewed 2465 times

In 15Petsamo, there are two air deployment hexes on my copy. Since all planes (except recon) are 3 air CP's, I believe, this should be enough for two planes given the 6 CP's provided. However, it could be 7 if the player has War Economy and wants to buy a recon plane. In that case, he can wait until the next turn.

They don't work. Only the one in the NW-corner works (not on your screenshot).

Regarding the counter for the exiting Finn units, that seems to be working properly on my copy. Whether 7 exited units should be the number is up to Erik.

That's on my copy:

Screenshot 58.jpg (226.31 KiB) Viewed 2465 times

No harm done. I know the past few days were quite hectic, many issues reported, many changes to be done.

[bru888]

Yep, Erik definitely made some post-production changes. See my post above.