BrucErik CSD Studio

[ColonelY]

Ah, about this airborne option, I guess it is really intended as being a "bonus", that is to say the addition of several units.
What I mean by that is that I don't believe it would be like "if you don't use the paratroopers yet, you will have instead more (other) auxiliary troops available"... That's why I'm really talking about a bonus.

So, regarding this airborne option, especially if it can be applied only once in the campaign (OR once for the islands and once for inland, so twice in all? ) - well, especially if it is an option that is "limited" in terms of number of uses:

I think it would be better to offer the player this choice after the first few turns of the scenario in question rather than at the time of deployment or rather than at the very beginning of the scenario. The point is that the player should then already have had a chance to familiarize himself with the map, the forces involved and the objectives - this should help him to determine whether or not this is really where he wants to use his bonus, his joker, his "reserve card(s)"!

[terminator]

PARADROP CARD

Capture d’écran (762).jpg (641.49 KiB) Viewed 2522 times

[Erik2]

I would like these scenarios to be as correct as possible in regards to the historical plans.
Airborne operations required advance planning and should not be available depending on changing tactical situations on the battlefield in my opinion. Hence the at start dialog option(s). Also, I'm not sure if a player-activated dialog option is possible at all in the editor.
And yes, other game systems may have their own solutions for various options. The cards are really nice.

[ColonelY]

Indeed, it is better to try to remain historical or, at least, "plausible" in this context.


From this point of view (the purely "plausible" one, I mean), depending on the means at their disposal, they could very well be ready to leave, or to take off, almost as soon as they are needed... And be involved a second time afterwards, IF it is not too close in time and IF they have not suffered too many losses. (You've understood, I do like paratroopers. )
(So, a little as if someone was ready to press a big red button, as if that was all that was left to do to trigger the operation!)

To act "in the middle of the scenario", while it may not be possible to ask the player explicitly, I think it would be possible to imagine something like this, to get around the problem: A "special" unit at the edge of the map, which the player may, or may not, evacuate/exit before a certain number of turns (perhaps a quarter or a third of the scenario's duration). If this unit is exited by the player, then the variable campaign is modified accordingly and the paratrooper units are spawned.(*)
Otherwise, after the "time limit", this unit is simply removed from the map ("a little clean-up"). Or simply left as it was from the beginning, but with no further effect if the player does suddenly exit it.
All this with a few small immersive events, which clearly explain this mechanism...
As a "special" unit in this context? Maybe some Marine Scouts unit to somehow represent like a parachute commando officer or something. Or, maybe just a simple Truck or some basic Jeep (named accordingly)?


Well, these are just ideas; of course, it's up to you!


(*) EDIT: But not spawned instantly ( ) either; rather a little after the choice limit of perhaps "a quarter or a third of the scenario's duration"

[ColonelY]

Well, I won't bother you on that point anymore.

[Erik2]

Maybe we could add a trigger like 'It is turn x and only y few objectives have been captured. Wwe are running out of time. Would you like to activate the airborne reserve?'

[ColonelY]

We could, I think; that's an idea too!

We might ( ) be running out of time, indeed...

In my opinion, here is the main difficulty: How to define this number of objectives? This can be annoying... especially since it will vary from one senario to another (depending on the overall configuration).
Also, if a "good" player already has enough objectives, he might not see this option, this choice... of course, he wouldn't need it, but he will certainly prefer to see it for himself.

How about something like this, then: "At this point in the battle, it's time to ask yourself whether or not we've already achieved enough objectives, that is whether or not time is running out for us. So, do you want to activate the airborne reserve?"

[Erik2]

Bru, would you like me to assign Jap company-sized infantry/tank units to their regiments? I won't give them any orders.
Should save you a bit of time scripting the AI.

[Erik2]

Operation Olympic 1945 - overview

Olympic was planned with 3 major seaborne invasions (Western, Eastern and Ariake beaches) and 2 optional invasions (Packard/Plymouth and Northern beaches).
This means the campaign is best represented by 3 separate branches in OOB.
One of the branches uses Marine Corp core units while the two other use US army core units. The common Okuchi/Mt Kirishima scenario uses a mixture of Marine and Army units. I may have to create two versions of this scenario since the core unit requirement depends on wether you arrive from an Army or Marine branch.

Core US army and naval units including carrier air units use the standard US faction. The number of core land units is equal to one division plus corps support units. In addition there are aux units in each scenario.
Core landbased air units use the blue US Army faction.
Para units (aux only) use the red US faction.
The reason for using all these factions is to tailor the resource income to each faction.
The number of Marine core units is equal to one division plus corps support units. In addition there are aux units in each scenario.

I've come up with a simple method letting the player decide wether to assign para units in a specific scenario or keep the option for a later scenario.
Once the paras are assigned they will not be available later in the campaign.
Moving an 'off-battle area' unit one hex will trigger the para Dialog where the yes/no selection may let the player select between two landing areas.

The US units are battalions while the Japanese are companies. If the Japanese were concentrated into battalions I think the scenarios would be too easy.
To compensate the Japanese currently have no resource income (!). This may change if certain scenarios are deemed too easy after play-tests.

The player may only debark seaborne units at beaches or ports. I've used escarpment hexsides along other coastal terrain to prohibit 'illegal' landings.

Land-based air units (there are lots these) may only be used in one mission per (most) scenarios. When they are about to run out of fuel it is time to head back to Okinawa or wherever they are based. The player is then left with the carrier-based air units for the rest of the scenario.

After Bruce has finished scripting the AI and added his 'production value' stuff to a specific scenario I will play-test it using the planned historical unit deployments.
When a scenario is deemed ready I will do the final split of the US units into core/aux and command points.

Olympic_branches.jpg (336.3 KiB) Viewed 2235 times

[ColonelY]

Small issue found on 02Kollaa (from the awesome Winter War 1939 campaign).

This issue is related to Soviet planes.

The initial plan was to have one enemy fighter I-16 and one enemy strat bomber DB-3 over these skies. We've still no AA at all. We can purchase our first Finnish fighter... We've got a new obj about shooting down at least one enemy plane. So far, so good.

It has proved to be sometimes quite difficult to achieve - the enemy fighter having "only" 7 turns of fuel and being likely to be the first one attacked. It has to fly away rather soon in order to avoid some fuel issues... Etc. To compensate, and to offer more possibilities to achieve this obj, then these two planes are redeployed. So far, so good.

What's the issue, then?

The issue is that we'll see "from start" 2 Soviet fighters AND 2 Soviet bombers... and that, that's NOT what was intended.

How to fix this? In the two last triggers, "redeploy enemy I-16/DB-3", change the "check turn" from ">1" to ">3".

Otherwise, at the start of the 2nd turn, both "redeployed" planes are spawned (as not anyone deployed and not anyone destroyed yet - thus all other conditions being fullfilled) AND at the start of the 3rd turn, both planes are spawned as they should normally be spawned. Thus 4 planes instead of 2 and the "redeploying" goal lost.

[Erik2]

Winter War 1939_2.2
Link updated in first post.

02Kollaa:
Fixed Soviet air units redeployment.

[ColonelY]

Thanks!

[Shards]

Doing a bit of crosslinking here. And posting in this thread as it feels like a chatty place to think about design.

https://forum.quartertothree.com/t/grog ... 44002/8651

The mechanic that Tom Chick describes here is fascinating. I wondered if there was any clever ways to leverage the ideas behind it when designing AI intentions/triggers in oob

[Erik2]

Interesting indeed. I think Slitherine/Matrix's own game Decisive Campaigns uses cards for operational decisions.
I would love to see something similar in OOB.

An example of a work-around that could more more elegantly be solved using a card. I use this in the upcoming Operation Olympic campaign.

I use the Dialog (triggered by a specific unit moving to a specific 'off-map' location) in OOB to let the player decide when to launch a para operation.
Works well, but needs a few steps to set up correctly.
I also use the Dialog yes/no to let the player decide if the paras should land in area-1 or area-2.

I know you have a few cards up your sleeve, Shards. Bring'em on

[bru888]

I see nothing further to add for 01Tanegashima-6. Working on 02Ariake-3 now. Please stay tuned for questions.

[bru888]

I see nothing further to add for 01Tanegashima-6. Working on 02Ariake-3 now. Please stay tuned for questions.

Impressive Ariake map, by the way. Compliments.

[terminator]

It feels like Discord...

th.jpg (2.41 KiB) Viewed 1928 times

[bru888]

Ariake Bay scenario description — where is this coming from? I assume it's not you writing this. Do I have flexibility with it? For, it seems to tell the story of the battle before it even begins, which is a waste of text and reading time.

Also, I assume I have the usual latitude to sprinkle the objectives around.

Please advise.

[Erik2]

Ariake Bay scenario description — where is this coming from? I assume it's not you writing this. Do I have flexibility with it? For, it seems to tell the story of the battle before it even begins, which is a waste of text and reading time.

Also, I assume I have the usual latitude to sprinkle the objectives around.

Please advise.

All scenario descriptions are from the templates I've used. Please feel free to do whatever you like with them.
I added them primary to give you some initial info.
Sprinkle away.

[bru888]

Ariake Bay scenario description — where is this coming from? I assume it's not you writing this. Do I have flexibility with it? For, it seems to tell the story of the battle before it even begins, which is a waste of text and reading time.

Also, I assume I have the usual latitude to sprinkle the objectives around.

Please advise.

All scenario descriptions are from the templates I've used. Please feel free to do whatever you like with them.
I added them primary to give you some initial info.

They are useful for setting the scene, so please keep including them and I will replace them as inspired.