BrucErik CSD Studio

[bru888]

The AI is too dumb to allow the engineers to go on ahead (I may put them in vehicles and up their aggression to 99 - "Mines! Banzai!")

That worked. Regarding the other problem, there is a line from an old John Denver song: "Country roads, take me home . . ."

When you think about it, having Soviet infantry slogging through unbroken dense forest to get to their objectives is a bit of a cheat in this campaign. Why? Because they lose efficiency with every step whereas Finnish ski troops have the guerrilla trait and therefore experience no efficiency loss from terrain disruption. The player would have to be a complete dunce to not be stocking up on ski troops at this point.

So now my farmers have dropped their hoes and are back at their usual vocation.

[timberwolf15]

Normandy UK & Canada 1944 v2.3 14-3-2020
This campaign is based on John Tiller’s Battles of Normandy. We wish to thank the original scenario designers: Rick Bancroft, Dave ‘Blackie’ Blackburn, Jeff Conner, David Freer, Kevin Hankins, and Glenn Saunders.

Winter War 1939 v1.8 11-3-2020
This campaign is based on John Tiller’s Winter War. We wish to thank the original scenario designers: Ozgur Budak, Frank "Echo 4" Harmon and Dave "Blackie" Blackburn.


As to the studio name, Erik came up with "BrucErik" which I thought was rather nifty, and "CSD" stands for Campaign and Scenario Development.

Playing Winter War 1939 have two battles under me belt and its great !!! Nice Work Good Job

winter war 1939.png (411.3 KiB) Viewed 2788 times

[bru888]

Winter War 1940 may be even better. We are learning on the job.

[Erik2]

Normandy UK & Canada 1944 2.4
Link updated in first post.

All scenarios:
Added end-of-scenario condition to 1 pri obj to allow the players to finish sec objs. Players can always use the #igotnukes cheat to end the scenario after all objectives are met.
Changed mines from neutral to faction-owned. Yes, I know there are different views on this...
27Beny:
Replaced the air exit hexes (again...)
Couldn't find anything wrong with the 'eliminate all Germans' sec obj

15Epsom1:
German reinforcements now arrive at map edges.

14Martlet:
Changed tasks for German rear formations.


18Epsom4
Sec objs fixed.

[bru888]

I just released a scenario called The Raid on Turku. This is actually a 15th scenario for the upcoming Winter War 1940. 15Turku will appear between 11Honkaniemi and 12Lemetti. I put in a campaign popup message to lead into it:

Screenshot 1.jpg (280.04 KiB) Viewed 2701 times

Screenshot 3.jpg (301.93 KiB) Viewed 2699 times

Revised campaign tree:

Winter War 1940 Campaign Tree_1.jpg (291.4 KiB) Viewed 2685 times

[Erik2]

I just released a scenario called The Raid on Turku. This is actually a 15th scenario for the upcoming Winter War 1940. 15Turku will appear between 11Honkaniemi and 12Lemetti.....

Nice...

[Erik2]

A few random thoughts after playing only 4 turns

obj 10 facilitites: add map markers

ships: change to player control, they may only move in ports anyway
change to full strength + 5 (?) damage trigger

trains just decor?

maybe add obj 'do not lose more than x fighters'?

Edit: it seems all Finnish fighters are DXXIs. Maybe replace some with the 3 other fighter types available?
Same goes for the Sov fighters, more variability adds to the fun.

Edit2: the Sov bombers seem to ignore the garrison unit. Maybe they can't spot it in the city hex?
After turn 10 the garrison got some attention.



campaign stuff:
This scenario will be a nice change of pace from all the land scenarios.

replace Finnish aux fighter units with core/ACPs in campaign version?

01Haukila: 12 ACPs
08Muolaa: 3 ACPs
09Summankyla: 6 ACPs
10Kirvesmaki: 6 ACPs

Maybe add Sov air commanders? The Finns will probably have a couple by now.

Play balance is good, maybe a bit on the easy side.
4 of the bunkers were down to 1-strength at the end (I played quick & dirty and could have done better).

end.jpg (280.33 KiB) Viewed 2652 times

[CoolDTA]

I just released a scenario called The Raid on Turku. This is actually a 15th scenario for the upcoming Winter War 1940. 15Turku will appear between 11Honkaniemi and 12Lemetti. I put in a campaign popup message to lead into it:

Great idea!

Minor corrections:

Founded late 13th Century -> Founded early 13th century (1229), or maybe even better just 'on the 13th Century'.
Second largest -> Third largest

[Erik2]

Another very minor issue.

turns_date.jpg (17.19 KiB) Viewed 2634 times

[ColonelY]

Wonderful!

Very nice idea. And I agree with the suggestions previously made...

Some bombers like indeed to go just one hex north to the Garrison.

I've seen once a Soviet fighter taking some shots at a truck - but it was more like a target of opportunity, because he just stopped above the truck...

[bru888]

Thanks for all the feedback! Will tune it up today, re-release it, then go back to the frozen woods.

[bru888]

A few random thoughts after playing only 4 turns

obj 10 facilitites: add map markers

ships: change to player control, they may only move in ports anyway
change to full strength + 5 (?) damage trigger

trains just decor?

maybe add obj 'do not lose more than x fighters'?

Edit: it seems all Finnish fighters are DXXIs. Maybe replace some with the 3 other fighter types available?
Same goes for the Sov fighters, more variability adds to the fun.

Edit2: the Sov bombers seem to ignore the garrison unit. Maybe they can't spot it in the city hex?
After turn 10 the garrison got some attention.

. . . Maybe add Sov air commanders? The Finns will probably have a couple by now.

Erik, let me address these things first.

Why didn't I add map markers? I'm trying to remember. Certainly, identifying the various structures would be cool. Let me go check . . .

. . . oh, I remember why. The flags would only serve the purpose of identifying the named hex without hovering over it. Trouble is, as long as the concrete bunker survives, it obscures the name. After it is destroyed, then the flag remains and so does the name but it seems a bit macabre: "Here lies the lamented Fishery for eternity (or until is is rebuild after the war as either a capitalist or communist facility). However, it adds to the "What are we fighting for?" feeling to have the facilities named, so I placed markers directly to the southeast of each one (and relocated a few other place names) so that the flag in the northwest portion of the hex would be next to the corresponding facility. A bit busy, but I think this works:

Screenshot 1.jpg (573.26 KiB) Viewed 2613 times

Ships: I originally had them under human control but then I discovered (before Gabe did) the cheat of using resource points to repair them because they are sitting on port hexes. I couldn't have docked ships without port hexes (piers), so they joined the garrison, trains, and cargo trucks.

Trains (and cargo trucks): Yes, decor. Just me playing with my train set.

Added objective: "Do not lose more than three aircraft units."

All Finnish fighters are DXXIs: That was a design choice for two reasons: 1) I wanted to pick one historic Finnish fighter squadron and it was No.24 Squadron which "was the most successful fighter squadron of the Finnish Air Force during World War II" (the author means Winter War and Continuation War as part of WWII) and that "unit was still equipped with Fokker D.XXIs when the Soviet Union attacked Finland on November 30, 1939." 2) Rightly or wrongly, the game has Fokker D.XXI as the weakest of the various fighters available to Finland. I wanted to use 12 fighters (fill up two hangars) but I had to beef up the Soviet air raid and downgrade the Finnish AA units to get it nearly balanced. Same reasoning in reverse: Overall, with its greater range and fuel, the Soviet I-16 is stronger than the biplanes.

City garrison: It's funny that you mentioned it. For a long time, I couldn't figure out why the bombers would not attack the garrison even though I sent them directly there. At the last minute, I realized that I had placed the garrison on a city hex and they were concealed! After I removed their cloak of invisibility, the bombers should attack when directed. Due to the choreography, the bombers generally will hit outlying targets first before heading for downtown.

Soviet commanders: Added. Also unlocked the two Finnish commanders for the standalone version, to restore some balance.

[bru888]

campaign stuff:
This scenario will be a nice change of pace from all the land scenarios.

replace Finnish aux fighter units with core/ACPs in campaign version?

01Haukila: 12 ACPs
08Muolaa: 3 ACPs
09Summankyla: 6 ACPs
10Kirvesmaki: 6 ACPs

Originally, I wasn't going to do this but I can see why it might be nice to have the usual campaign flow so as to not have this be too jarring as a sideshow. Let me think about the best way to do this. I definitely want the equivalent of 12 Finnish fighters in the scenario (what fool would deploy core bombers?) but will the player have that many core fighters by this time? If so, do I throw in some initial resources to allow purchases? I will work it out and report back.

[bru888]

Another very minor issue.

turns_date.jpg (17.19 KiB) Viewed 2599 times

Thanks for catching this. The daily calendar pages were surely falling to the floor during this one, eh? Time flies when you're having fun!

[bru888]

Wonderful!

Very nice idea. And I agree with the suggestions previously made...

Some bombers like indeed to go just one hex north to the Garrison.

I've seen once a Soviet fighter taking some shots at a truck - but it was more like a target of opportunity, because he just stopped above the truck...

Thanks for playing this, Colonel. Try version 1.1 which will be out soon; probably later today. The trains and cargo trucks are window dressing, to simulate a "busy city suddenly under attack." The Soviet fighters will only target them if they run out of Finnish fighters to hunt.

[bru888]

I just released a scenario called The Raid on Turku. This is actually a 15th scenario for the upcoming Winter War 1940. 15Turku will appear between 11Honkaniemi and 12Lemetti. I put in a campaign popup message to lead into it:

Great idea!

Minor corrections:

Founded late 13th Century -> Founded early 13th century (1229), or maybe even better just 'on the 13th Century'.
Second largest -> Third largest

Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information. Frankly, I wouldn't be able to do my job here without it. But one must take what is there with a tiny grain of salt in that Wikipedia is "crowd-sourced" and some inaccuracy results.

Take for example the Wiki article on Turku. It starts off saying this:

Image0262.jpg (151.94 KiB) Viewed 2595 times

but then it says this:

Image0263.jpg (328.02 KiB) Viewed 2595 times

Maybe "officially founded" means something. Turku mayor: "Hey, it's been 65 years since we laid the first foundation stone. NOW you're telling me that we never had the ceremony and officially Turku doesn't exist? I want a task force on this, immediately! "

To resolve this, I will take your suggestion of merely "founded in the 13th Century."

Regarding the relative city size, would you be willing to double-check that? The article says "Turku continued to be the most populous city in Finland until the end of the 1840s, and it remains the regional capital and an important business and cultural center and port" whereas "As of 30 September 2018, the population of Turku was 191,499 making it the sixth largest city in Finland." I figure that much of the growth in other areas took place in the latter half of the 20th Century so perhaps Turku was still the second-largest Finnish city in 1940. Sounds more dramatic than "third-largest."

[CoolDTA]

Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information. Frankly, I wouldn't be able to do my job here without it. But one must take what is there with a tiny grain of salt in that Wikipedia is "crowd-sourced" and some inaccuracy results.

It is. At least for some basics, but like you said to be taken with a tiny grain of salt. Note that in some real grognard circles using Wiki as a source is an instant loss of credibility. For me it is good enough for many purposes.

Using only "founded in the 13th Century" is indeed best and I recommended it because of the reasons you mentioned. Still, they are eagerly waiting for 2029.

Regarding the relative city size, would you be willing to double-check that? The article says "Turku continued to be the most populous city in Finland until the end of the 1840s, and it remains the regional capital and an important business and cultural center and port" whereas "As of 30 September 2018, the population of Turku was 191,499 making it the sixth largest city in Finland." I figure that much of the growth in other areas took place in the latter half of the 20th Century so perhaps Turku was still the second-largest Finnish city in 1940. Sounds more dramatic than "third-largest."

Might sound, but it would be wrong information and I know you would rather use correct info, yes?

Okay, I'll give you an example of how those grognards I mentioned do things. Primary sources are preferred. In this case Demographic Situation in 1939, which is here. So as you can see, the correct order is Helsinki, Tampere, Turku, Viipuri, Vaasa etc.

[bru888]

Okay, I'll give you an example of how those grognards I mentioned do things. Primary sources are preferred. In this case Demographic Situation in 1939, which is here. So as you can see, the correct order is Helsinki, Tampere, Turku, Viipuri, Vaasa etc.

Please provide the English language translation. What, you mean there isn't any? Why not?

Well, from what I can gather, most of the report ranks population by province (Lääni: Uudenmaan, Turin-Porin, Vaasan, etc.) but in the last few pages, it gives detailed rankings in which I could detect city names. The order is as you described:

Image0265.jpg (309.86 KiB) Viewed 2571 times

Image0266.jpg (258.47 KiB) Viewed 2571 times

Image0267.jpg (310.58 KiB) Viewed 2571 times

Nice detective work. "Third-largest" it is (as of 1940). Thanks.

[CoolDTA]

Please provide the English language translation. What, you mean there isn't any? Why not?

Well, from what I can gather, most of the report ranks population by province (Lääni: Uudenmaan, Turin-Porin, Vaasan, etc.) but in the last few pages, it gives detailed rankings in which I could detect city names. The order is as you described:

No English language translation because you don't need one!

You actually browsed through it. Once again I'm really impressed (and annoyed the board doesn't have a 'bowing' emoticon).

Hmm..., maybe the French text helped a little bit, yes? I wish I could speak French, too.

[GabeKnight]

Okay, I'll give you an example of how those grognards I mentioned do things. Primary sources are preferred. In this case Demographic Situation in 1939, which is here. So as you can see, the correct order is Helsinki, Tampere, Turku, Viipuri, Vaasa etc.

Well, from what I can gather, most of the report ranks population by province (Lääni: Uudenmaan, Turin-Porin, Vaasan, etc.) but in the last few pages, it gives detailed rankings in which I could detect city names. The order is as you described:
[...]
Nice detective work. "Third-largest" it is (as of 1940). Thanks.

"Nice detective work" indeed. Going through all that trouble just to verify one word/fact from the initial scen popup...
For one, I think you're crazy. But in a good way. I wish others were as diligent in their work as you are.

Great sources, BTW, and also thanks, Cool, for all the support you're providing in this matter.