Slitherine

jcb989 wrote:If you're planning a campaign, might as well add in all the available functions you can stomach now.

yes, i suspect it would be smarter to add everything we plan to, just so it's in there... we can refine how it works as we add more scenarios

jcb989 wrote:In other news. I got myself caught between versions and games in progress. I now have a game back from cavehobbit that I can't respond to lol =(

quick getaround is to manually add "[SEELOW1]" to CAMPAIGN.TXT. you'll be able to open, play or resign any v1.0 games, although the unit functions will upgrade to whichever version u'r currently using

Right! Thanks for the reminder, you posted that advice earlier and I forgot. Thanks,

Jon,

Have you given any thought to adding achievements to Side 0, using the editor? I did that on my scenarios and it adds a bit of fun IMO.
They work in MP just fine.

Thanks for the reminder, Justin. Adding achievements is a great idea. I'll put it on the v1.2 changelist.

Can we only put achievements for side 0? I can't remember which that is.
What sort of things work best? Losing <x infantry? Killing >y tanks? Taking Hardenberg Lines before Turn z?

Afterthought! Justin/Al, are you guys trialling P-A's awesome Authie scenario?

I really like the way that Authie rolls forward as a series of 'stories' within a bigger scenario, mini battles that spark up, pre-programmed reinforcement waves, that together influence the bigger picture.

I'm beginning to think that I could adapt Seelow Heights to work similarly, starting with smaller numbers of units, and gradually reinforcing both sides to play through the following sub-scenarios:

1. Cross/defend the Oder
2. Take/defend the Hardenberg Line
3. Take/defend the Stein/Wotan Lines
4. Take/defend Seelowdorf village
5. Take and hold the Road to Berlin

Advantage: Fewer units. Much more playable. Rapidly achievable in-game mini-objectives. Reinforcements ensure that the initial loser doesn't feel they have to give up straight away.
Disadvantage: Less variation. Does not reward clever strategies as much (ie. Crushing defeat less likely). Less controllability by each player. More work for me...

What do you guys reckon?

GottaLove88s wrote:Can we only put achievements for side 0? I can't remember which that is.
What sort of things work best? Losing <x infantry? Killing >y tanks? Taking Hardenberg Lines before Turn z?

Yes, at present they can only be coded for Side 0 (probably the default Soviets for you right?), and worse, you cannot switch nations Side 0 Side 1 inside a Campaign.
So there would only be achievements for the one side throughout. I've casually asked for an improvement on that, but it could be a big task for them to edit for that.

I like "don't lose this or that unit" and sometimes "capture and hold this or that VP" among others. Poke around in the editor, you will see that they offer plenty of plug-in choices.

Thanks Justin,

Yeah that sounds pretty cool. Definitely worth adding in, maybe for (i) a VIP commander, e.g. Zhukov, (ii) 3 out of 4 of the Zis-3 battery guns, (iii) taking the Hardenberg VP by turn x, (iv) taking the Seelowdorf VP by turn y... Any others you'd like to see?

I'm going to wait out for some more feedback from v1.1 and then try to work it in over the next couple of weeks...

GottaLove88s wrote:Afterthought! Justin/Al, are you guys trialling P-A's awesome Authie scenario?

I really like the way that Authie rolls forward as a series of 'stories' within a bigger scenario, mini battles that spark up, pre-programmed reinforcement waves, that together influence the bigger picture.

I'm beginning to think that I could adapt Seelow Heights to work similarly, starting with smaller numbers of units, and gradually reinforcing both sides to play through the following sub-scenarios:

1. Cross/defend the Oder
2. Take/defend the Hardenberg Line
3. Take/defend the Stein/Wotan Lines
4. Take/defend Seelowdorf village
5. Take and hold the Road to Berlin

Advantage: Fewer units. Much more playable. Rapidly achievable in-game mini-objectives. Reinforcements ensure that the initial loser doesn't feel they have to give up straight away.
Disadvantage: Less variation. Does not reward clever strategies as much (ie. Crushing defeat less likely). Less controlability by each player. More work for me...

What do you guys reckon?

Well if it means more work for you then defiantly! Just kiddin' Jon.

Actually it does sound interesting to take it in stages. If you decide to do make them , I'm in for sure and will help test them.

playing a pair of V1.1b right now.. here are some very initial thoughts

1) one of my T-70 broke down going over the bridge lol, creating a massive traffic jam. is that intended? Maybe they should start in front of the bridge unless you find this bit of randomness appealing (you might or might not; I'm indifferent so far about it lol but its only turn 3 in that game)

2) I fear the German mortars while 3 are now available, are now too weak. I think I detected you contemplating editing the 120MM properties, which I believe will be the best plan forward myself. If they are toned down by 10% and fire with accuracy similiar to the Zis-3 guns (or even less) then you may have something.

3) already has been mentioned by you, the Zis-3 HE round is useless IMO. Those four guns are strictly smoke machines.

4) the Soviet infantry does seem more useful this time for attack.

5) the map new edits are pleasing.

That is all. Will report more findings as I go

jcb989 wrote:playing a pair of V1.1b right now.. here are some very initial thoughts

1) one of my T-70 broke down going over the bridge lol, creating a massive traffic jam. is that intended? Maybe they should start in front of the bridge unless you find this bit of randomness appealing (you might or might not; I'm indifferent so far about it lol but its only turn 3 in that game)

oops! Definitely NOT intentional. It's worth preventing T70 (and Pumas also to keep it fair) from breaking down. Added to changelist

jcb989 wrote:2) I fear the German mortars while 3 are now available, are now too weak. I think I detected you contemplating editing the 120MM properties, which I believe will be the best plan forward myself. If they are toned down by 10% and fire with accuracy similiar to the ZiS-3 guns (or even less) then you may have something.

Agreed. German 82mm really doesn't do much. I remember Granfali increased these to 3-man teams to have more effect? Could try that? But T34s are tougher beasts than the PzIVs of GJS. Alternatively the 120mm is * very * powerful (and longer range). I could use those instead, but soften their power to make 'em similar to the ZiS-3 (although maybe more accurate for both; ZiS-3 accuracy sucks!). Added to the changelist.

jcb989 wrote:3) already has been mentioned by you, the Zis-3 HE round is useless IMO. Those four guns are strictly smoke machines.

Thanks Justin. ZiS-3 bombardments are shockingly ineffective. Not sure why. Still haven't found the code that regulates this yet. But it feels like ZiS-3 bombardments rarely hit on target, such at of a salvo of 3 shots, on average 1 drop will hit where it's meant to, often none at all. And even when they do hit, they only reduce target morale maybe 5-20 points, even for infantry in the open. I'd like to make ZiS-3's behave the same way as the German mortar bombardments, which are much more accurate/effective (but, while the current setup is too easy for the Soviets, I'm reluctant to give than an even stronger advantage). Added your comments to the changelist tho, so I remember to do something!

jcb989 wrote:4) the Soviet infantry does seem more useful this time for attack.

Yay!

jcb989 wrote:5) the map new edits are pleasing.

That is all. Will report more findings as I go

Thanks mate. Am grateful for your early thoughts!

GottaLove88s wrote:

jcb989 wrote:2) I fear the German mortars while 3 are now available, are now too weak. I think I detected you contemplating editing the 120MM properties, which I believe will be the best plan forward myself. If they are toned down by 10% and fire with accuracy similiar to the ZiS-3 guns (or even less) then you may have something.

Agreed. German 82mm really doesn't do much. I remember Granfali increased these to 3-man teams to have more effect? Could try that? But T34s are tougher beasts than the PzIVs of GJS. Alternatively the 120mm is * very * powerful (and longer range). I could use those instead, but soften their power to make 'em similar to the ZiS-3 (although maybe more accurate for both; ZiS-3 accuracy sucks!). Added to the changelist.

I agree, 82mm just doesn't match up with the 76mm now, too short of range, weak (like the initial 76mm was), inaccurate. I like these planned changes.

Always amazes me how international the BA2 player world is... Here's the download list, by country, for the Vistula-to-Berlin Seelow Heights scenario... It includes the guys who downloaded v1.0, and double counts if you have it on your iPad and your PC, so there's probably only about 70-80 of us actually playing v1.1... Thanks for your support guys! I really appreciate your feedbacks

Lemme at those 4 or 6 Canadians fellows. lol.

And them 3 from Spain are the best players on here in my opinion ! I'll beat em one day

Absolutely love the recon aircraft but have no idea what to expect from them and so not sure where to try to use. Welcome any details you can provide re size of area and extent to which they can spot units not in open ground.

Would like to see it opened up a bit to include a couple of what I think were fairly commonly available units that have been used in other scenarios:
--Panthers(!)
--PzIV
--MG34 and esp MG42
--120mm mortar
--Panzershreck teams

Would also like to put in a general plug for Enric's leader and leader generation concepts. Used them both in Tractor Works to great enjoyment.

ASL'ers out there are painfully aware that Panzerfausts have been MIA. It occurs to me that all infantry types could be given an inherent capability tied to their AT bombs, ie shooting a PF counts as an AT bomb usage. Range of 2 I should think. Welcome thoughts.

Celeborn wrote:Absolutely love the recon aircraft but have no idea what to expect from them and so not sure where to try to use. Welcome any details you can provide re size of area and extent to which they can spot units not in open ground.

Basically, they are to recon an area to reveal what enemy units are there. Good for use on defense (to find the main attack force) or attack to find units before you 'bump' into them unexpectedly and get ambushed). Mainly they reveal enemy units so you can see what you are up against. Tigers/Panthers or just PZIV's, Waffen SS/Para's or regular infantry.

They have no attack capability and are easily shot down. When shot down, they do not reveal any units, except maybe for the AA that shot them down.

Hi Jon,

I see some water tiles which have been (accidentally, I think) converted to 30% cover "open ground" tiles near the center of the map. It looks like its probably because the barbed wire you wanted along the edge of the hex is unfortunately placed in the water hexes.

The Soviets can drive right over these water hexes as a result.

Thanks for the heads up, Justin.

It's a 'feature' of BA... Apparently, the squares work as a stream, preventing movement until the barbed wire becomes damaged. Then the barbed wire water square converts to open ground.

I've now added it as item 13 to the changelist viewtopic.php?f=313&t=55132&start=80#p515053

Grrr!!!