Need evaluators for a new campaign

[conboy]

ColonelY,

After reading this, I've just make a test to try to "embarked ground unit passing through destroyers or cruiser" in this scenario... It does work, but I didn't knew it! Great, so I've learned an useful tip.

I couldn't get this to work with it set for a Land unit. Grrr! The only way it would work for me was when I set it for a Naval unit. I think the game recognizes embarked infantry/armor/arty as Naval units but not Land units.

I'd like to be able to prevent the players skipping the second deployment and capturing the sea hex with a navy unit.

Can you recheck and make sure the trigger is satisfied with an embarked ground unit?

Here is how I set it up -- you can see the infantry unit poised to cross the Victory sea hex to the left of the trigger set-up. If I change it to Naval unit it works, but not like this. I tried every combination but only the Naval unit works. Did you set yours up similarly? If not, how did you do it?

thanks!

conboy

Screenshot 44.jpg (413.06 KiB) Viewed 2179 times

[GabeKnight]

ColonelY,

After reading this, I've just make a test to try to "embarked ground unit passing through destroyers or cruiser" in this scenario... It does work, but I didn't knew it! Great, so I've learned an useful tip.

I couldn't get this to work with it set for a Land unit. Grrr! The only way it would work for me was when I set it for a Naval unit. I think the game recognizes embarked infantry/armor/arty as Naval units but not Land units.

I think the Colonel means that a debarking land unit can move up to two water hexes, even "through" own naval units.

And yes, I'm pretty sure the game recognizes transport ships as naval units, and doesn't care what's inside (=being transported).

[...]
Only thing is, I don't know how to make a counter that will count only Phase I objectives. Erik asked for one previously, I'm still baffled as to how to count objectives by phase. After I figured out this trigger in the later scenarios, I used it to avoid naming all the objectives and assigning reciprocal German objectives. That's really a time saver -- if I could figure out how to do what you're talking about for discrete Phases (or groups of objectives), it would be a great benefit to future developers to know how to do it!
[...]

Yes, indeed. Sorry, I don't know how to. But I'm sure that several people within this forum know how to do it! Therefore it could be nice if they explain (us) this aspect.

Well, it seems that some explanation(s) may be nice... Some hint thereupon, someone?

I don't know the scen, but you can always use counters like "check VP count" for the prim. or sec. VPs, if applicable, and if all fails just use the scen variables for that. Should be easiest.

[Erik2]

5 Sale:

Turn-1 comments.

I can't find any air deployment hexes at start. Intended?
If yes, I'd wait with the ACPs since this will probably confuse the players.

After disbanding/upgrading and deploying land units on all hexes, I still had 12 LCPs in reserve. After I move the first batch of units ashoe I still can't deploy the second batch. There should at least be a flag planted on Salerno to provide deployment there.

There are a lot of (and I mean a lot) rice paddies on the map. I think it would be better to sprinkle a number of field terrain onto the map for variety. Roads on paddies simply do not work, better replace rice with fields.

There are a couple of bridges that lay in the direction of the river, not properly across it.

There is a lot of the map that is already US-owned at start. This looks odd this being a seaborne invasion.

A few of the objectives are missing map markers.

Despite the US commander being a bit confused here, he carries on with his orders in his breast pocket

[conboy]

Erik, good sir,
I'll check this out but in the brief it says that Tac Air is still hung up at Gaeta.
The brief also says that the 36th and 45th got pretty banged up securing the beach around Salerno. That's why there's so much US territory on the beach.
I'm sure it said to deploy the 30th on the road leading north. There's a US flag that denotes where the deployment hexes are.
Historically, the 30th went in ahead of the rest of the division to help with the mess on the beach. But by the time they got there, it was quiet on the beach, but they went ahead and started the 3d division attack on Acerno while the rest of the division was coming ashore.
I think you might have put all the units in sea hexes and neglected to deploy the 30th north of town to start the attack on Acerno. If so, you in a world of hurt, as they say in parts of the South!

conboy

Erik, if you didn't deploy some units on the road north of town, I recommend you restart and do so. Otherwise... bad joo joo.

One more thing -- this was the first scenario I developed for this campaign after Anzio and Casablanca. So, the rice fields are there to keep the players off the sister division's turf. Brit 10th Army is on the left and 36th and 45th US infantry divisions are on the right. I guess it's pretty hokey but if you stay out of the rice paddies, it'll play like it's supposed to. I don't know what else to do with this issue. I don't want to have to put a bunch of other divisions in play (yet).

I'm definitely open to suggestions (that's why we're doing this!)

[ColonelY]

ColonelY,

After reading this, I've just make a test to try to "embarked ground unit passing through destroyers or cruiser" in this scenario... It does work, but I didn't knew it! Great, so I've learned an useful tip.

I couldn't get this to work with it set for a Land unit. Grrr! The only way it would work for me was when I set it for a Naval unit. I think the game recognizes embarked infantry/armor/arty as Naval units but not Land units.

I think the Colonel means that a debarking land unit can move up to two water hexes, even "through" own naval units.

And yes, I'm pretty sure the game recognizes transport ships as naval units, and doesn't care what's inside (=being transported). [...]

YES, GabeKnight, that was the point!
As well as actually the opposite, more useful within this scenario actually, i.e. that land units can "use" the presence of own naval units to move up two hexes, ending on the water and on a transport ship... And THAT is what must be used to put back the Bernard Force on the water for preparing the second landing! (At that time, I was first trying to use for this purpose only classical harbor! )


So, convoy, uh, it seems that we weren't really talking about the same thing here.

Indeed, what I discovered here (or perhaps rediscovered) is "just" this: having land units at the water's edge, right next to one of our ships, makes it possible to have those land units boarded and placed on a (water) hex adjacent to that ship. That's it!

[ColonelY]

5 Sale:

Yes, I can confirm (having played this scenario completely) that:

1. It's normal for the air deployment hexes - they will appear after few turns, three of them so that all our planes can be deployed.
(It's said on the brief to wait with air units, btw.)

2. Disbanding only the required units (for historical reasons) leads you to be actually able to deploy ALL yours units and begin the scenario without any single LCP left.
(This is why, by the way, most of the classical upgrading or buying options are from time to time disabled... to stick as close as possible to the history.)

3. Yeah, it's a seaborne invasion but NOT made by us as two US divisions have been beaten and have retreated/been evacuated (one of them covering our right flank)... so they've left some ground that the enemy hasn't retaken directly, it's plausible. (And it has been explained within the briefing.)

So, for me there is no issue at all related to this.


But it's true that:

1. Our ACPs could be unlocked ONLY when the event for air availability appears, followed by the 3 air deploy hexes. (Indeed, it would be less confusing like this.)

2. Definitely a lot of rice paddies on this map...


Detailled feedback on this scenario should be coming pretty soon... at least I hope so.

[ColonelY]

So, convoy, it seems that your (double) main concern right now is the following:

[...]
I'd like to be able to prevent the players skipping the second deployment and capturing the sea hex with a navy unit.
[...]

1. Well, I do think that by "prevent the players skipping the second deployment" you mean "force the player to really embark again the entire Bernard Force" (4 units!)...

How to achieve this?

You could just add a new objective related to this, and linked to a counter of all our "naval" units. (Units in transport ships are in principle considered as "naval"!)

Max number of our ships within this scenario = number of destroyers + 1 (the cruiser) + 1 (the supply ship) + 4 transport ships (for ALL the units of the Bernard Force).
When checking this? Well, in the briefing, it's said that we have 3 turns to put all of them back on the water... so, 3 turns after the event talking about preparing to embark them again for the next step, for their next landing...
Condition: Achieved ONLY IF the value of this counter = max number of our ships... OR if the value of this counter >= max number of our ships - 1 (the latter giving more flexibility, with the possibility that the player lose A SINGLE ship, maybe if one of the units of the Bernard Force has been destroyed on the ground or enable for some rater strange reason to follow the others on the water) -> your choice!

This should work, shouldn't it?


2. Then "capturing the sea hex with a navy unit"...

On the first landing sector, to be honest I wouldn’t really see any difference whether it’s a destroyer or a transport ship (carrying an infantry unit or something) which “captures” this sea hex by moving through it. What would it change anyway?

If, let's say, a destroyer and a transport ship are (all) considered as "naval" units, then all's said for this, I think.

What could possibly be done, if you really wish something like this, may be to add another objective to capture this naval sea hex BEFORE turn XYZ... And depending on where the naval units spawn, it may be that actually ONLY a unit really belonging to the Bernard Force can take it on time... BUT would it really be worth it? I'm not sure at all about this.

Then, same general idea, to put some more pressure on the player (but not too much!), you could add another objective to capture the two locations of the first landing sector BEFORE turn XYZ+something... But again, would it really be worth it?


So, even if I think that the first part (naval unit counters!) may definitely be worth it and should actually be added at least for the flavor, I suggest to forget about the second part (which ship captures?) for it doesn't bring much more anyway...


By the way, (still about the 3 SanF scenario) the second sea hex to “capture” (the most eastward of them!) flies already an American flag right now, right from the start!

[conboy]

Thanks ColonelY and Erik.

Erik, Maybe I'll add a counter attacker to turn up the heat if you think it's too easy. But every time I do that first Bernard landing, it gets dicey.

ColonelY, I'm thinking about another Pop-up after the first Bernard landing --
Bernard Force Orders
Bernard Landing Force orders are to hold the triangle between Sant' Agata/Airfield/River and interdict any German units attempting to retreat through that sector.|Be prepared to re-embark the Bernard Force using the warships on short notice.
The whole issue seems intractable at this point. Just like the Brits in Messina -- I like your idea about Patton scolding any shooters. I'm not having much luck with keeping the Brits out of harm's way -- instead they just keep getting more and more pugilistic. Nasty instigators, those Brits.

Hide another regular German infantry unit in the village South to Rometta Maria -- I am working on this. They seem to have some situational awareness and just try to cut the Brits off as they pass by. I like the idea though, and just thought of something else.

Regarding the TacAir at Salerno, I'll delay the ACPs until time to deploy, based on advice of counsel.

Terminator, Please be assured that I am taking your comments to heart and intend to implement them, especially unit placement. But I haven't tested the desert dirt road issue yet for lack of time. I don't want to implement the change if it will take several turns to move units across the desert, is the thing. Besides, down here in the South, the concept of road paving is a relative issue -- what might appear to some to be a good "paved" road, to others is a terrifying path into the bowels of nowhere.

I am certainly happy with the feedback, folks!

keep awn keepen awwn

conboy

(not convoy -- it's Irish)

[ColonelY]

[...]
conboy

(not convoy -- it's Irish)

Oops, sorry, my bad, I went a little too fast.

[...]
Erik, Maybe I'll add a counter attacker to turn up the heat if you think it's too easy. But every time I do that first Bernard landing, it gets dicey. [...]

There is maybe another alternative, if I'm remerber correctly this part: During the first Bernard landing, 2 regular German infantry spawn a little in the SE, one of them being already depleted, half-strenghted or something... Therefore the alternative could just be to the let this unit appear not depleted at all (i.e. at full strenght!), thus leaving this task to the player.

[...]ColonelY, I'm thinking about another Pop-up after the first Bernard landing --
Bernard Force Orders
Bernard Landing Force orders are to hold the triangle between Sant' Agata/Airfield/River and interdict any German units attempting to retreat through that sector.|Be prepared to re-embark the Bernard Force using the warships on short notice.
The whole issue seems intractable at this point. Just like the Brits in Messina -- I like your idea about Patton scolding any shooters. I'm not having much luck with keeping the Brits out of harm's way -- instead they just keep getting more and more pugilistic. Nasty instigators, those Brits.

Hide another regular German infantry unit in the village South to Rometta Maria -- I am working on this. They seem to have some situational awareness and just try to cut the Brits off as they pass by. I like the idea though, and just thought of something else.

Regarding the TacAir at Salerno, I'll delay the ACPs until time to deploy, based on advice of counsel.[...]

Yes, this new Pop-up would be nice and should definitely help.

"The whole issue seems intractable at this point." Well, so what do you think about the combination of a new objective (re-embark the Bernard Force within 3 turns!) and of a counter of ALL our naval units?

"your idea about Patton scolding any shooters"
It could even be realized in two parts, if you think it's worth it: first the warning (when first shot taken or, more likely in terms of triggers, first damage to them!), including few words about consequences (risks about maintaining the alliance & possible punition for us)... then the actual punishment if required (once Brits destroyed, could "add" a "-100 RPs", it will do the trick! )

"I like the idea though, and just thought of something else"
Now that's what awakens my curiosity...

Good for the ACPs; it would definitely be better like this.

[Erik2]

Commander Erik is famous for not reading nor obeying orders.
Salerno restarted

Re the tac air.
I still think you should add the air command points when tac air is available, maybe after the airstrip has been constructed.

Re upgrades:
It would be nice if the upgraded units kept their unit names.

[ColonelY]

5 Sale:

So here are the points I've noticed:

-> During brief (at S3 cont.), 'could be nice to highlight Acerno at that time...

-> About the US flag and the name "Salerno"... I think that they should both be put one hex northwards instead of on the water hex...

-> Pri. obj. to capture Acerno & to capture Avellino -> add red arrows there please!
*******
-> Coherence issue between briefing and names on map!

Brief: "15th Attack Avellino from the north and 7th attack from the east" -> well, the very first time "attack" shall be written with a lowercase, but that's a detail!

The main point is that it is exactly the opposite on the map, looking at the roads where the names "7th Reg Route" and "15th Regt Route" stand!

So, which regiment by where? (Okay, they have anyway the same kind of units, but still...)

By the way, another very little detail: once at it, I would vote for two times "Reg" on the map within the names (and thus no longer "Regt" there).
*******
Ahh, the player receives several new units to replace older ones that has to be disbanded, it's great!

So I've looked at them a little closer, if I may say so:

1. Two mobile "M15 CGMC" to replace our two "M2 90mm AA Gun"... What about directly giving these new units the names of the old units that they are about to replace?
Indeed, if they just replace them; and like this, it will help the player to realize/remember quickly, easily which units can safely be removed! Well, but only if it's correct historicaly, that is!
So, I assume that in this case, one of our new "M15 CGMC" could appear on our reserve unit list wearing the (old) name "Reg AA Co A&B" and the second one the (old) name "Reg AA Co B&C", couldn't it?


2. Our "towed arty" is about to be replaced by nice "M7 Priest"... So, we exchange 3 "105mm Howitzer" for 3 "M7 Priest".
In terms of names:

Rgt (color) ¦ Old name...... ¦ Actual name... ¦ Suggested names
............. ¦ (105mm How.) ¦ (new M7 given) ¦ (directly from start... )
********************************************************************************************************
30th (no)..¦ "39th FA Bn"... ¦ "30th Reg Arty" ¦ Perfect, so the same ("30th Reg Arty")
7th (Blue) ¦ "10th FA Bn"... ¦ None............ ¦ "7th Reg Arty"
15th (Red)¦ . "9th FA Bn"... ¦ None............ ¦ "15th Reg Arty"


3. And finally our tank "M3A3 Lee" is to be replaced by a new "M4A2 Sherman" tank unit, but we keep our tank "M5A1" Stuart unit!
Ok. So far, so good!

The brief says: "the 756th Medium Tank Battalion is upgraded to new M4A2 Shermans. Turn in the M3 to get your RPs back and make CP room for the Shermans."

Although it's perfectly clear in itself, now I'm confused... Well, all started because I would have liked that this new unit actually had a name, but the unit to replace is the "751st Tank Bn (Med)". So, is it here about the 756th or the 751st?

So "751st Tank Bn (Med)" or "756th Tank Bn (Med)"?

Several possibilities:
- If it's a fully new "756th Tank Bn (Med)", what about writting directly its name?
- If it's still more the 751st, then the brief must be modified accordingly and the name of this upgraded unit could still be written directly.
- I don't think so, but I hope it's actually not about the "756th" Regiment from the beginning, otherwise in the very first scenario the brief and the name of the Lee and of the Stuart should be modified accordingly... But even in this case the name of our new unit should be written directly.


After disbanding the corresponding "old" units, we have exactly the correct amount of LCP to deploy all of our units - superbly done!


So, conboy, could you please check this story of 751st or 756th and, in all cases, add names to some of our new units (for the 2 reasons mentionned at point 1 ).
*******
Still about units name, now that I've looked a little closer on them, I've detected 3 very little details from 0 OoB which should be changed (maybe directly in the text_english.txt file):

About the "601st TD BN (Co A&B)" => the "BN" is actually "Bn" (to stay coherent with all other places where it does appear so );
About the "Regt Cannon Co's" => "Regt" or more likely "Reg"? (as everywhere else in principle);
About the "Reg AT Co B&C" => there is a space that can safely be removed (from a double-space just before "AT", I mean).
*******
-> It's very good that you keep unlocking spec for each scenario... In this one, what about replacing the spec "Flight School" by the "Drop Tank" one?
We have no plane to buy/form anyway, but we can always use some extra fuel.

-> The text of the event related to TacAir mentions the "southeast" , well if it's indeed in the South of the map, it's more in its center, isn't it?

-> This map is big... what about granting us some aux recon plane?
*******
Wonderful and rather unexpected event and effect around Acerno!
*******
Finally an issue with the "End Scenario Early" sec obj (there it's about capturing enough obj before turn 23!):

1. I managed to achieve this on the 19th turn -> it works fine!

2. I've then tested the opposite, i.e. delaying on purpose the capture of the last point (with not any single defender left ) until the 24th turn -> the "End Scenario Early" was triggered as well although I was clearly not any longer respecting the timing... So, there is something to check there!

[ColonelY]

4 NewM:

[...] Maybe remove/reduce the minefield on the road as this was the main reason the British were held back. [...]

Well, I wouldn't definitely remove this minefield, but reducing it, I think that's a good idea.

Now, reducing it may be nice, but by how much? Well, possibly just enough so that the Brits will remove this entire minefield in a single go (so when they will find out these mines) but (if possible) not too much in order that they'll still take (at least) some damage from this.

[ColonelY]

6 Volt:

I do like this one as well, I think there's a lot of potential here, but there are several things that need to change a little.

So, first things first!
*******
Brief.:
1. Very first part -> "Truscott here wth the briefing for the battle of the Volturno River." "wth" like "what the hell"!? No, more likely a letter is missing (an "i") to make it "Truscott here with the briefing for the battle of the Volturno River."

2. Then, just the next part: "S-1: The Anti-Tank units have finally caught up with us. 6 Additional CPs are provided for outfitting. Check the Reserve box - they are ready for deployment with their nice new unauthorized M3A1 Halftracks transporters." I really, really like the end of this sentence...
The problem here is that actually this entire section of the briefing should be changed! Indeed, in the previous scenario we already had all our AT units with us and were able to deploy already all of them... In short, there is nothing new here, so nothing to justify this section of the briefing.
Well, not a big deal anyway. I think this comes certainly from the fact that you should have made already several modifications of campaign while building it up.

3. Next part: "There is not much of an armor threat but there is a lot of dug-in infantry and artillery up ahead."
Well, "not much", yes, to say the least... (We'll come back to this a little later!)
Anyway, why "spoiling" it directly? What would you think about these (two basically) modifications: "There shouldn't be much of an armor threat but there is a lot of well dug-in infantry and artillery up ahead."

4. A little later, "TACAIR" may appear as "TacAir" as previously used within this great campaign.
*******
Name issue:

Pietramanela on obj. <=> Pietramelara on map
*******
Our main goal: "Mt San Nicola", on three hexes, could be named on the map as well (at least one time)... But wait a little with this, we'll come back to it later!
*******
Sec. obj.:
1. About Engineers:
A) The 3 northern red arrows (out of 5 for 6 blowned bridges) are actually NOT over bridges... Well, it's fine I guess for the third one (in the middle) due to the somehow high concentration of nearby bridges, but I would really prefer to see at least the two first arrows OVER the actual hexes of the bridges.

B) This counter presents some issue: I've simply MOVED the two first engineers units on bridges (so without even having had the time to repair them) and the counter indicates on the beginning of the second turn that two bridges have been repaired!? Well, two flags over these bridges were now US, but that's all... 'Must do something about it!

***
2. About Secure the remaining (etc.):
A) Four red arrows for a total of 10 locations displayed on the counter?

B) Once the 6 bridges have been taken/rebuilt, the counter shows that 6/10 of the "remaining" objectives have been taken. Well, as they were the very first possible flag to capture anyway, I find it a little weird to label them "remaining"...
Therefore I propose to don't consider any longer these 6 first (bridges) flags as some of the "remaining" ones and thus to adapt all accordingly.

C) At that time I was thinking, well 4 red arrows + 6 bridges = 10 objectives, so ok that's fine...
BUT NO! After the first "red arrow" location captured (it was Majorano di Monti, but shouldn't matter anyway!), the counter displayed 8/10.
6 bridges + only 1 red arrow captured, this makes 7 and not 8. I've re-checked and there was really still 3 red arrow without US flag... Besides, this objective was validated BEFORE I could capture Baia e Latina (the last one at that time)... Counter issue!
*******
As for the previous scenario, unlocking the "Drop Tank" spec would be nice.
*******
Great, there we get more commanders!

'Could give us some (bomber) ace in either of the above scenarios... either directly (as in this one) or as reward for achieving some sec obj! Another possibility, maybe more immersive, would be to give us these 2 new land commanders as reward after the completion of some sec obj - either within this scenario or during a previous one.
*******
Volturno River, visual aspect:

Maybe remove all "rice paddle" which now stand ON this famous Volturno River (on the North and South of the set of bridges)...

('Could do the same as well with the River in the NW, but for this one it's less "visibe" anyway because far away from the actual battlefield.)

It would be nice as well to add a flag with the name "Volturno River", possibly several hexes South to the southernmost bridge.
*******
Events about the 36th Div:
Although this part of the scenario is really great, I think one could still improve it...

The title "36th Div Attacks Dragoni" may actually be a little too long to be properly displayed AND (especially!) is somehow redundant with its text... Therefore I would suggest to replace this title by maybe simply something like "Helpful Hand".

Besides, as these units flies a strange flag (no worries, we can live with that!), probably a good idea to add these two letters within the corresponding text:
"The 36th Division [...]" -> "The US 36th Division [...]"
Just to try making it crystalclear!

Then, about the text with the event "36th Withdraws"... It's now: "With the capture of Dragoni, the 36th Infantry withdraws north to resume its westward attack."
I propose something like this, for I find it more immersive and somehow sympathic as well: "After the capture of Dragoni, the US 36th Infantry has withdrawn north to resume its westward attack.|Thanks, guys, nice teamwork!"
*******

To be continued...

[conboy]

I will consider all these changes y'all have brought up with positive eye to incorporating almost all of them, certainly the ones that are inconsistent or erroneous. The briefings need a lot of work so thanks for your patience and diligence. This is going to be a much much better product for your efforts so again, I really appreciate it.

I don't know what I did to get such good reviewers, but I surely appreciate it.

At least now I know it's not a boring campaign.

thanks again!

conboy

[ColonelY]

You're welcome!


More on 6 Volt:

The bunker several hexes South to "M. della Costa" is now useless because it's easy to simply bypass it... The same put just one hex South to "M. della Costa" would make it much more nastier!

Our main goal is the Mt San Nicola with 3 hexes to capture... BUT NOW IT'S NOT EVEN DEFENDED?!
And these hexes are more like hills than mountains... a tank can easily move through 2 of these hexes within a single turn...
And the bunker to the East (actually this one ON a mountain ) as well as the two minefields are useless because "too far" from our last main objective...

Just before, I've written that "I think this comes certainly from the fact that you should have made already several modifications of campaign while building it up." Now it's quite obvious.

Besides, looking at the Doc1.docx you've put within the folder of this scenario, one see that you've actually MOVED this Mt San Nicola eastwards (it was really on the Moutain before, with a bunker then meaningful) as well as REMOVED several objectives...

Seriously, it's a pity!

Come on, now a large portion of the map is simply unused! Our main goal is no longer on a mountain, is not even defended... Now, this scenario is quite short with its 21 turns (I've achieved a Major Victory in 18 turns)...

For this one, I really think that you should increase it to maybe about 30 turns, really use the map at disposal, put back the "Mt San Nicola" where it was before, as well maybe as several westwards obj, put several additional minefields on these roads and more defensive bunch of Germans in several locations of the West that are now just fully empty (if I may say so )

And, for the flavor, I do believe that it may be really great to see some sort of German counter-attack!

Yes, because as it is now we've full initiative over this battlefield, on this scenario... the Germans are mainly awaiting for us and that's almost all.

Remember one of the suggestions of my last post: "There shouldn't be much of an armor threat but [...]" (within the brief.)?

Actually, there could be a group of German units, let's say a handful of (various) German infantry units, together with some "armor threat" and some mobile arty... maybe deployed SW of "Mt San Nicola" (at its old location, I mean)... when one of our units actually comes in sight of the defended (!) "Mt San Nicola" (at the very least by a bunker, or maybe by a concrete bunker!), then this German group could receive the order to move towards the NE aggressively to "seek and destroy" any US unit around their path...

Sounds good?

[conboy]

The map finishes up next scenario. It starts where this one left off.

All the other comments are spot-on and will be incorporated. I guess this one needs a better finish, check the objectives (first one where they are goofed up, I think), and make some map adjustments. Got it, hombre.

thanks again!

conboy

[ColonelY]

Have you considered the possibility to add some Commanders on several enemy units from time to time within different scenarios?

[ColonelY]

The map finishes up next scenario. It starts where this one left off. [...]

Ah, okay. So, I think the player should know about it (even a little late*)!
(For it can be somehow disappointing, or even frustrating, to be restricted to almost half a map. So, at least if we are "forced" to know that it's on purpose, it would definitely be good... )

But then it's actually perfect, for the proposed counter-attack can come a little before the end of the scenario (together with a Pop-up informing the player about what's going to happen - some recon plane or scouts could have spotted the enemy force moving, for example! ) and, once repelled, that gives matter/consistence for a second phasis... Another battle, another day!

So, the action shouldn't go much westward from Mt San Nicola, that's fine... But this one should really be better at its first location, for sure!

These two mountains, this Mt San Nicola on one of them, an event before the counter-attack from the SW to the NE (roughly), then the actual fighting maybe a little South to the Mt San Nicola... Then, to inform the player as mentioned (*), probably an event once this German counter-attack is repelled or maybe just before the actual end of the scenario... Well, these are great ingredients, aren't they?

[conboy]

Maybe I should bring up the extended map in the briefing --

"We're tasked to drive all the way to the winter line. In this first phase we'll push to Mt San Nicola demarking the Barbara Line, and make sure our sister flanking units are with us before we press on to the Winter Line"

something like that? or just make it a note directly to the players.

This would be a brutally long scenario without a break in the middle, even longer than San Fratello and Brolo (which I think is about as long as I'd care to endure in a 1vAI scenario).

conboy

[ColonelY]

Yes, that'd be actually even better during the briefing.

But maybe with this little addition:

"We're tasked to drive all the way to the German defensive Winter Line. In this first phase we'll push to Mt San Nicola demarking the Barbara Line, and make sure our sister flanking units are with us before we press on to the Winter Line."