Slitherine

JUNO - first scenario, the landing:

A further look to these famous SdKfz 222...

1. They behave well, i.e. attacking the first one will "wake up" the second one and they will then both try to evacuate by the East once they have been damaged.
2. But when one of them is destroyed, the secondary objective shows still "0 Units" (as previously written).
3. The interest of this secondary objective is to give a specialisation point per "truck" destroyed... So, is it working?

-> What about the specialisation points? We have them for Great Britain (GB) and for Canada (CA).
Before launching the scenario, we have no specialisation point at all, so 0 for GB and 0 for CA.
When I have finished the scenario WITHOUT destroying any of these SdKfz 222, there was 0 for GB and 5 for CA.
When I have finished the scenario with ONE of these german recon destroyed, there was 1 for GB and 5 for CA.
When I have finished the scenario with BOTH recon destroyed (having allowed myself to use two more turns for the sake of this test ), there was 2 for GB and 5 for CA.

SO IT IS WORKING! Indeed we do receive one specialisation point for the GB for each one of the SdKfz 222 destroyed. So it's more like a "display problem" on the Objectives than anything else.

Well you two have hit the nail on the head for me. I can continue my love/hate relationship with invasion scenarios, I especially love anything Normandy. I absolutely love trying to establish a beachhead on contested ground, but I hate it because I am not very good at coordinated attacks from land, air, and Sea. My reports are from V1.5 and lvl 3.

Gold: Love the playability! I got no where near Bayeau the first time, mostly because I did not understand the distance to be traveled. That was just me, nothing to do with your explanation. The second time I played, I won with a 50/50 coin flip and took the occupied VP on the last turn. Normally I am ok with that in a scenario, but in this case I knew exactly where I was going and what needed to be done. So my only comment might be to add a turn or two. Overall, great scenario.

Sword: Again great playability. I chugged through this one pretty fast. I had exited the units by turn 31. So I would suggest cutting the number turns down. Again great scenario

I did the Gold leg of the campaign tree up to Goodwood. I liked all of them. Good playability , great objectives, and different missions. I stopped at Goodwood because I had no more core force. There are some NASTY surprises in the Epsom Attack scenario. My core force was decimated and could not be repaired to full strength. So I got crushed on the Epsom Counter. I am going to try the 1st Epsom again with a different deployment and strategy and see how that one goes. Maybe I will have some core force left for the 2nd Epsom

Juno: This was a good one too. I never got far enough to capture the staffers, but I did get all the other objectives. Very enjoyable.

I fully understand you two are on a knife edge balancing between historical accuracy and playability. So therefore, my comments are offered strictly as that, just comments

You have done a wonderful job on this campaign. It is one of my favorites. As always, I appreciate your hard work

No back to the beaches

SPECIALISATION TREES:

I’ve seen that the British directly have the “Infantry Landing Craft” unlocked, whereas the Canadians don’t have at all this help/option… thus making it (even) more difficult for the Canadians to take the Juno-sector (the British being mainly in charge of the Gold and Sword-sectors). I find this rather strange, at least from a RP point of view, because British and Canadians have more or less coordinated their landings…

Is this on purpose or should the Canadians benefit as well from an already validated “Infantry Landing Craft”?

GOLD scenario: (the landing)

I’ve found a MG Foxhole on a river (the north-western one)… speaking of which, there is the village of La Brehollière on the same river (north from this MG Foxhole). On rivers, we can found as well Le Manoir d’Argouges, Le Genêts and Colombiers-sur-Seulles… As well as the village of Lantheuil, which stands on a bridge.

Of course, these are somehow details, I know, and I don’t want to “piss off” anyone. But I think it’s still worth noticing in order to keep improving this campaign. I simply report any "strange" thing I see, even if it's well possible that some of them are on purpose and even if I do not pretend at all that I've seen all of them.

By the way, I find surprising for example to discover two different locations on the map named “Mont Fleury”.

Few details within French location names:
Crèmel -> Crémel
Lounges -> Longues
La Tringale -> La Tringalle
Aèrodrome -> Aérodrome

And already a few more...

SWORD scenario:

Bièville -> Biéville (which stands by the way on an “Open terrain”)
Eaxit -> Exit
Bènouville -> Bénouville
Château de Bènouville -> Château de Bénouville
Ecarde -> Écarde

These French, the do seem to really like all their different "accents".


JUNO D-2 scenario:

On a river, we can find Le Hamel, Bombanville, Amblie, Colombier-sur-Seulles, as well as Rocreuil (which is represented too as an “Open terrain”). And the village of Lantheuil stands on a bridge… Near Thaon, a german AT-gun starts being deployed in a river…
Creully, Reviers, Le Mesnil-Patry, Le Bosq, Mouen, Athis, Le Londel and Château de la Londe are as « Open terrain »… as well as (though for those it’s more understandable) Ancien Moulin, le Grand Parc and La Distillerie.

And:
Brècy -> Brécy
Le Petit Prè -> Le Petit Pré
La Vallèe -> La Vallée
Aerodrome -> Aérodrome (to be coherent with another scenario, where it's the french version of it...)
Bèny-sur-Mer -> Bény-sur-Mer
La Dèlivrande -> La Délivrande
Lèbisey -> Lébisey
Pèriers-sur-Dan -> Périers-sur-le-Dan (the "le" seems important here...)

Various issues

The Canadians lack most of the specs available to the British.
Generally only factions that have their own official campaign gets proper specs.
The rest must use the generic ones available to all factions.

Villages, MG nests etc on rivers (actually streams) are intended.
Also, the map templates have streams on the hex sides rather than in the hex itself. This means not all map conversions may be optimal.
(Rivers on hex sides vs hexes has been debated a lot on various forums. Personally I prefer hex-sides as this allows you to defend behind a river and have more room for roads alongside rivers).

Ah? Ok, thanks for the prompt answer and the explanations.

Uh sorry about being AFK Ok well for me more turns helps but then I could add via the cheat but then this is a buzz kill its so much better to win with the turns provided what really is a depressing endeavor is when I replay it many times and still get a defeat campaign over with out using a cheat so a draw is the best thing to have but for this specific battle someone like me needs more turns. I am referring to Battle Epson Counter Attack AND the very first battle. But there must be some major thing I am not doing cause I usually need more turns with any scenario.....

Thanks for your answer, gunny. So, it does seem that adding few more turns to the Gold-landing and the Battle Epson Counter Attack is required (without us using codes).


Oh, and I've found a Concrete Bunker somehow buggy on the SWORD-landing. It's the one north to Lion-sur-Mer and it's difficult to attack by land (naval or air strikes ok):

""



Well, huhem, I have some problems to post pictures... Sorry for that.

Anyway, it's the Concrete bunker near Queen Green Beach and just one hex north to the village of Lion-sur-Mer.
Description: (I know, a single picture is worth a thousand words, but in time of hardship you have to make the best of things )

Commandos deployed on the nearby beach can't attack it on the first turn, even after moving one hex south. In this case, they can attack the AT-guns in Lion-sur-Mer or the other adjacent bunker or even try the mines ... but still not take a shot (sneaky or not, doesn't matter here) to this concrete bunker.

Later, during my third turn, with the same commandos in the village of Lion-sur-Mer and this AT-guns destroyed, by a combined action of planes and commandos , so with my commandos just one hex South to this concrete bunker... This time it was possible to take a shot with my commandos at this concrete bunker, sneaky or not, doesn't matter here (except that it would change the damages ). But if I want to move my commandos first (just one hex around this concrete bunker), it can be no longer possible to take a shot at it - it seems to be fine by the western sides of the bunker but not by the eastern sides...

A little bit later, I've brought some infantry at the place where the commandos have directly landed... still no possible shot! Actually, it seems that land units can't attack this concrete bunker if they are on any of those two hexes: the direct landing one and the one just South to it. And that's it.

Not being able to attack bunker issue.

It may be an escarpment hex-side is preventing an attack. There are several intended hex-sides like this especially on the western part of the invading beaches.

An escarpment hex-side? Well, you're indeed probably right: I've made another test with this hex (a place called "Trout")...

Here was the situation: concrete bunker just destroyed (by naval bombardment, but doesn't really matter here), an infantry unit landed (at the same landing spot where our commando can begin the assault) and ready to go -> it was then impossible to move this infantry from the beach to this newly emptied hex, although they are right next.

So an escarpment may definitely be the reason for this.

I use the escarpments for those cliffs that were not possible to scale/move through.
Of course, it would be nice if commando units were able to traverse escarpments..

Sure.

And it is definitely escarpments: one can see them simply by looking carefully at the map - but it's much easier to see them once the bunker is gone! And escarpments are used as well at least for one of the secondary objectives too.

*******
So, I have finished the SWORD scenario, on normal difficulty, with a Major Victory in 29 turns (little hint: no need to destroy the 2 german heavies hidden in pine trees; if needed, just move units around them!).

-> A really enjoyable scenario. And actually much easier than the JUNO scenario.

I've checked the cases of Major Victory/Minor Victory -> the specialisation point for the achievement of the secondary objectives does appear correctly. So, this is fine.

-> No bug found. In principle, nothing to change there!

Though I'm wondering: what about adding few basic german infantry units inland just as garrisons?
Because once the beaches are cleared, as well as the main defense pockets (mainly indicated by the secondary objectives)... there is almost nothing more to stand in front of the glorious invaders! Not even mines anymore. It looks then a little like a health walk to me...

*******
I have taken a look at the name of the deployable units... I'm not an expert in English, of course, but what about renaming the "12 Kings Royal Rifles" (GOLD-scenario) like the "12 King's Royal Rifles" (to use the same "rules" than in the Sword-scenario for a "King's something" unit) as well as the "Queens Own Rifles" (JUNO-scenario) like the "Queen's Own Rifles"?

I've seen that the "121 Fighter Wing" and the "122 Fighter Wing" do appear as well in the Gold-scenario AND in the Sword-scenario... Well, in principle this is impossible for simultaneous "real" landing operations, but in principle as well no one is supposed to see that, so... Anyway, no other number available?

*******
Once the SWORD scenario is finished, it's time to begin the second one... but when we see the map of Normandy, before launching the next scenario, we have the red arrow starting from the Gold location and not from the Sword location.

Okay, the next scenario is the same anyway, but from a RP point of view, it may be a little confusing.

Well, that's all for now.

ColonelY wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:56 pm Well, that's all for now.

This has been an amazing beta-test so far. Thanks to all of you for the volume and quality of the feedback. Keep playing and try to get further into the campaign; we need your opinions on the later scenarios as well.

ColonelY wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 10:00 am JUNO - first scenario, the landing:

A further look to these famous SdKfz 222...

1. They behave well, i.e. attacking the first one will "wake up" the second one and they will then both try to evacuate by the East once they have been damaged.
2. But when one of them is destroyed, the secondary objective shows still "0 Units" (as previously written).
3. The interest of this secondary objective is to give a specialisation point per "truck" destroyed... So, is it working?

-> What about the specialisation points? We have them for Great Britain (GB) and for Canada (CA).
Before launching the scenario, we have no specialisation point at all, so 0 for GB and 0 for CA.
When I have finished the scenario WITHOUT destroying any of these SdKfz 222, there was 0 for GB and 5 for CA.
When I have finished the scenario with ONE of these german recon destroyed, there was 1 for GB and 5 for CA.
When I have finished the scenario with BOTH recon destroyed (having allowed myself to use two more turns for the sake of this test ), there was 2 for GB and 5 for CA.

SO IT IS WORKING! Indeed we do receive one specialisation point for the GB for each one of the SdKfz 222 destroyed. So it's more like a "display problem" on the Objectives than anything else.

The answer for this is that the two processes are separate. The trigger that awards the objective if faulty; I have mentioned this previously in this thread. This has to be set for SdKfz 222 instead of Cargo Trucks:


Whereas these two triggers that actually award the specialisation point bonuses are working correctly because they focus directly on the two HQ units themselves:


So your analysis was correct, ColonelY, and thanks for it. I would imagine that Erik will correct the Cargo Trucks >>> SkKfz 222 problem in the next update.

Fighter wings

These units are actually made up of about 4 airplanes each.
My main source on the scenarios is not more specific than that.
I could always call them 1/x Fighter, 2/x Fighter, but those numbers would not mean much historically.

And I agree of course with Bruce. It feels really good getting so much detailed feedback on this project.
Carry on, soldiers

ColonelY wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:56 pm Once the SWORD scenario is finished, it's time to begin the second one... but when we see the map of Normandy, before launching the next scenario, we have the red arrow starting from the Gold location and not from the Sword location.

Okay, the next scenario is the same anyway, but from a RP point of view, it may be a little confusing.

Erik, he has a point. I'm not sure of the actuality of what happened, but the practicality of our campaign is that both Gold and Sword lead into Villiers:


So it stands to reason that Villiers should show both approaches:


I've added the second set of flag and arrow, as you see, and I uploaded the campaign folder into the "Back to Erik" Dropbox folder should you agree to use the revision.

NOTE: I also uploaded the Juno error correction while I was at it, to save you time.

I've been enjoying reading everyone's experiences. I had been hoping for someone to share their Juno D+1 experience so that maybe I could learn something for my own efforts in this scenario, but since that hasn't happened yet it's best to share my comments now.

It took me 6 attempts to get a win on First Lieutenant (2nd difficulty Level). With that achievement completed I restarted at Captain (Normal difficulty) and tried my luck. With a reckless push on the final turn I did manage to push out a defending AT gun from Buron with my very last available unit for the Victory. In doing so my 1200 RP reserve saved from the Juno scenario was depleted, and with nothing to reinforce my units in the following Misery scenario the campaign was over on the 3rd turn.

The orders in the Briefing for Juno D+1 tell us to "Shore up our lines before advancing" but that is not possible for any hope of a victory. With full knowledge of where the German units are so that we can avoid most of them we need units to speed directly from objective to objective in the western part of the map finally swinging south to the Carpiquet Aerodrome. In doing so our units are actually becoming even more overextended. None of that even matters if we can't reach Buron. The battle between Villons-les-Anisy and Buron is pretty epic for sure and damn fun, but also frustrating at the same time. By my reckoning the poor Canadians are facing a larger opponent by a factor of 3 to 1, and they take a merciless beating because of it.

My recommendations would be more turns of course, but more importantly, more CP's. There is a huge number of unused core units available. The Germans also appear to have an unlimited amount of RP's available to reinforce their units while the Canadians are being fed table scraps, so more RP's please. Thankfully there is actually 10 objectives on the map not 8, otherwise the victories I did achieve would not have been possible.

My last comment is about the air support. The map is so large our Typhoons only get 2 turns of attacks out of every 8 and flying them back and forth from their base is more tedious than useful. I don't have any ideas of what can be done to improve their utility, maybe it would be best to just remove them altogether.

Keep up the great work!

Bobster, comments like these are invaluable. I prowl, looking for bugs to fix, but Erik needs such feedback to balance the scenario and make it truly enjoyable. Whether it's a reduction of enemy forces, an enhancement of friendly forces and resources, or just a matter of too few turns to get the job done, this is what he needs to hear. Thanks.

That specific complaint about the efficacy of air units keeps coming up. These are big maps, so range is a factor. It seems perhaps the air exit/re-deployment hexes need to be increased in number and moved closer to the action just a bit. I'd rather see that than have the air units removed altogether.

Don't forget one thing, though: In the early days of Operation Overlord, air support was flying from England as there were no friendly Continental air bases (and there were no aircraft carriers involved IIRC). Perhaps only a couple of attacks per sortie is indeed reasonable.

bru888 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:17 pm Keep playing and try to get further into the campaign; we need your opinions on the later scenarios as well.

No worries, we’re working on it!

Bobster, it’s coming! I have already looked at Juno D-2; I’ll do it more precisely relatively soon.

Before, I just wanted to check again the landing scenarios in order to be able to really compare them…
Here is my final feedback and suggestions relative to the SWORD and JUNO scenario.

SWORD:
1. What about adding few basic german units as garrisons in the South (as already told)? I think that the “Sicherung” unit type (which appears in other landing scenarios) is a good candidate for this.
2. What about changing the eastern naval flag into a german one? I think that it may give some visibility to the coastal gun, which should then be able to take at least a few shots…

JUNO:
I’ve just replayed this scenario entirely, with the idea of being more precise in terms of how many turns should be added to allow for a still challenging Major Victory…
My units have moved faster than last time: in 12 turns instead of about 15 the beaches were cleared – the one we need, at least (and that’s mainly why there is this difference).
I’ve cleared all primary objectives and just waited to rush for Caen and the vehicles to destroy there (secondary objective) before taking the last one… And there I’ve had the surprise to find no more SdKfz at all, though they have not been attacked and actually not even noticed yet!
They have just disappeared although I was not at all close to Caen.

-> I have a theory:
There is another SdKfz in this scenario: a spawned “SS Pz Aufkl”… The apparition of this SS recon unit is really great from a RP point of view, as a SS Panzer division must be involved soon! But taking shots at this one (in the middle-west of the map), as it is a SdKfz too, may “wake up” the other SdKfz near Caen (in the south-east of the map), thus causing their premature evacuation.

This SS Pz Aufkl was severely damaged. Then it retreated and was not followed, because it can’t recapture territory anyway and because it was moving back not accordingly to the main attack direction of my army group in this sector. So, I basically didn’t care anymore about this one…

Once Caen has been reached without any of the two famous SdKfz in sight, I’ve tried to find this SS Pz Aufkl using #orbitalcommand : this recon unit was nowhere to be seen! It has disappeared as well (possibly using the southern german evac point).

Furthermore, last time, when I have made the tests relative to specialization points, this SS recon unit has not been attacked at all – because my units have followed another path and avoided the spawning area of this SS unit. So it could not have “wake up” the others…

So, am I right assuming that damaging this SS recon unit wakes up our two famous SdKfz, thus causing them to evacuate prematurely?
*******
By comparing JUNO with GOLD and SWORD, it’s clear that the weakest air and naval support is in the JUNO landing. And on the two other scenarios, the player has the possibility to deploy ALL units and even to BUY a few more, which is perfectly fine and allow some customization. But the JUNO scenario doesn’t allow it…

Therefore, I suggest:
1. Adding 1 LCP for the Canada (and I do insist, for I find frustrating being unable to rush all troops forward in a landing scenario)
2. The British have already 5 extra LCP, so either adding them a new unit (already named and of course deployable ) or give them one or two hundreds RP to allow the player to buy something new.
*******
On the JUNO scenario again:
1. Please add 5 turns (40 -> 45), which will maintain it challenging while keeping a Major Victory achievable even with few small mistakes or misplays.
2. And, of course, don’t forget to modify this sentence in the secondary objective description: "They are using a couple of cargo trucks for evacuation if necessary." -> Replace the “cargo trucks” with something for example like "recon units (probably theirs SdKfz 222)". So basically please don't write anymore about "Cargo Truck" explicitly within the description, for it may confuse the players.
*******
And this time, that’s all according to me for these two first scenarios!