Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

[KarisFraMauro]

Yeah I notice I have exactly one command point at my disposal, for some reason. Maybe upgrades? Although I notice I can't upgrade the precisely one tank I was given, despite a new model becoming "available" on turn 11. At least I somehow managed to destroy a grand total of two enemy units, if I can take out the remaining 39 maybe that would constitute a draw

Kyushu is interesting. Although Japan is massively outgunned in the air it does at least have a couple air units, and I get the impression that particular imbalance is compensated for by a truly titanic ground force. I estimate I've destroyed a good 30 Japanese units at least by turn 10 (with zero losses on my side despite a couple very close calls, brag brag) but the waves of enemy reinforcements still show little sign of slowing. As it should be! I'm far from convinced I can achieve my own primary objectives, so in other words it's shaping up well.

[Redbird]

I've searched for any posts on my issue, but haven't found any so excuse me if this has already been discussed. My buddy & I have played Erik's Market-Garden 2vAI v1.3 several times & have always received a "Draw" result even though we think we have attained all of the Victory Points. The results page at the end of the battle green checks the Arnhem Bridge requirement, but still shows a question mark for the "Supply route from Hechtel to Arnhem." We both are confused as to why we were not awarded the win. Is there some requirement that is not described in the Victory Points page?

[Erik2]

1v1 Coral Sea historical 1.2
Link updated in first post.

Naval formations are now placed in groups rather than long lines.
Relocated a number of float planes.
Added supply to AA locations.
Changed reinforcements from deployable reserve units to spawned units. Activating the reserves will cause a permanent drop in resource income.
Put the ports back on the map.
Replaced Fortress units with Coastal guns.
Added max fortifications to AA units and Coastal guns.
Changed Tangier from seaplane tender to support ship.

[Erik2]

1v1 Calabria 1940 1.0
Link in first post.

New scenario about the naval battle between the British and Italians in the Mediterranean.

[Erik2]

Deleted
Will be part of an upcoming naval campaign.

[Erik2]

I've searched for any posts on my issue, but haven't found any so excuse me if this has already been discussed. My buddy & I have played Erik's Market-Garden 2vAI v1.3 several times & have always received a "Draw" result even though we think we have attained all of the Victory Points. The results page at the end of the battle green checks the Arnhem Bridge requirement, but still shows a question mark for the "Supply route from Hechtel to Arnhem." We both are confused as to why we were not awarded the win. Is there some requirement that is not described in the Victory Points page?

Are you sure there's an unbroken line of hexes under Allied control betwen teh two objectives? It is no enough to hold the two objectives.
I can't find any fault with the objective.

[Redbird]

Are you sure there's an unbroken line of hexes under Allied control betwen teh two objectives? It is no enough to hold the two objectives.
I can't find any fault with the objective.
[/quote]

Yes, we've repulsed every German counterattack, and control most of the map from West to East (only some minor German infantry that are entrenched & static in the Southeast corner remain). The center of the map is under our control from Hechtal to Arnehm bridge. We've even advanced past the bridge into Arnhem in case that was required. We continue to receive the Draw announcement with the "?" on that supply route requirement. Can't see why as we have no break in our zone of control between the two towns & no Germans occupy any of the intervening bridges. Thanks for answering & trying to figure out what we should do, but I don't know how to determine what isn't working. Would screen shots help?

[KarisFraMauro]

It's been sixteen turns in the Invasion of Kyushu scenario and I still haven't lost a single unit. As much as I would like to attribute this to my tactical genius, it could be Japan would benefit from a bit of strengthening to balance things out.

I'm sure it's not the most historically accurate thing in the world but if Japan got some more air units it would help. As it is now the allies have loads of fighters with nothing better to do than ineffectually strafe infantry. It's hard for me to comment authoritatively without having played as Japan though, something I'd be willing to try. Seem to remember in game discussion of more bunkers, and as that makes me feel worried it's probably the correct move

[Erik2]

There will be several changes to the Kyushu scenario to improve play-balance in favour of the Japanese.
I'd like at least one of the current play-tests to continue until the US objectives are met. This will allow me to adjust (reduce) the number of turns.

[KarisFraMauro]

I'm definitely happy to continue playing. It should be interesting to check out the new version down the road too.

[drewqueens]

Hi,
I have been trying to post a couple of your custom games to play multiplayer and two people have told me they are either reddened out or just not showing up at all, any idea what I am doing wrong? The game I have posted there now is Guadalcanal.

[Erik2]

If the scenario name is red, it is not available in your My Games...Scenarios folder.
If you hold the mouse cursor of the scneario name the tool tip should tell you if you need to have a custom mod installed (with the scenario in its Scenarios folder).
What Guadalcanal scenario? There's none in your screenshot.

[drewqueens]

I zoomed in on it

[Erik2]

Ah, sorry. Only a partial of the screenshot was showing when I typed my reply.
Guadalcanal is grey and looks ok. Anywayone who wants to pick up the challenge needs to download and install the same 7.1 version.

[drewqueens]

Ah! Okay! Good to know, thank you very much!

[Erik2]

1v1 Coral Sea historical 1.4
Link updated in first post.

Fixed 'carrier sunk' triggers.
Reduced landbased US bomber unit experience to zero and strength to 5.
Moved landbased US and Jap air units to separate factions for better control of resource income vs carrier air units' income.
Jap briefing: transports -> merchants
Added txt to Jap naval exit locations 'Warning, for transports only'.
Add more supply to AA locations etc
Added escarpments to all coasts except around ports.

[KarisFraMauro]

It's been a while since I played a naval scenario, hmm... Anyway just signed up for one of the Prokhorovka scenarios you mentioned. In the current one I messed up and am being punished accordingly but my partner is picking up the slack. Also I came across a neat little quote about fighting in the Korean war, apparently from Michael Caine? "First I was bored. Then I was frightened. Then I was bored and frightened."

[Erik2]

1v1 Coral Sea historical 1.5:
Adjusted resource income for all factions. Resources are based on number of air units.
Moved support ship Tangier to the oil supply task force.

[AdmiralYamamoto]

Hello Erik. Here are some issues with Guadalcanal 1942 V7.1.

1. The CV Zuikaku cannot be deployed. It has a red 5 instead of a green 5.
2. One of the objective results is not correct. When I played the Japanese I lost one supply ship. Instead of losing all my RP's for one turn it took away almost 40 RP's every turn thereafter. The Jap income went from 57 to 17 per turn. This was a bit of shock. Please check the US also in regards to this objective.
3. One of my games had a negative number for the Naval CP's.
4. The scenario ended early twice when playing against VonKing. Can you double check to make sure there is not some hidden trigger causing an early end to the scenario.

This is an excellent scenario. VonKing and I were very much enjoying it both games before they ended prematurely. Thanks.

[Erik2]

Thanks for reporting, Admiral.

Negative CPs sometimes crop up in a game. I believe it is linked to some funky game mechanic and not to a scenario itself.
It is an old, rare issue.