Slitherine

Oh, by the way, on the seventh scenario, if I'm not mistaken, I mean on the scenario about the (second) battle for the Hotel:

There was a "single" unit there , the first appearance of this one in the campaign and an unit which started 2 or 3 hexes eastwards from the Fuel Depot (but not on the road)...

I don't remember its name. A little reminder, someone?

bru888 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 3:24 am Gabe, your contributions are appreciated as well. Know that I re-posted that engineers in dense forest issue in the Red Steel Beta forum, in the Order of Battle 8.3.6 thread. And yes, it's only in winter. In default climate, the engineers can move one hex through dense forest.

Finding errors that sometimes do occur and sometimes do not is the worst. Still, it's a bug. Thanks for the repost.

terminator wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:43 pm Mines should always be neutral. If you want the player to see the mines, just reveal their position at the beginning of the scenario(Scenario Start) once and for all. It is like this in the official scenarios. If you put the mines on the side of the player then the player can walk on the mines without any damage

Erik2 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 3:59 pm

GabeKnight wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:29 pm ... My only suggestion would be to reveal (at least some of) the mines to the player. You could use the reveal/hidden units trigger at scen start.
...

I'm thinking about adding flags with 'Danger Mines!' labels on "friendly" mine locations.
Would that work ok?
There may of course be a large number of mines in some scenarios.

I'm not sure how the AI handles flagged locations. It may want to capture them. For example, in my playthrough (of the v1.5 version of the scen), not one single enemy unit did walk into the mines...only I did
A flag might force them into the mined hexes (?)

And on the other hand, too many flags...I don't know...may look weird. You don't want an over-crowded battlefield.

In general, I would agree with Mr. T (congrats on your promotion, BTW, sir; the Karl Gerät looks intimidating) and prefer neutral mines that are revealed. Based on my playthrough of this scen, I wouldn't mind them being Finnish, though. None of my units advanced beyond the mined perimeter at any time during the mission.

bru888 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 4:54 pm The Colonel is on a roll!

Agree. And it's good feedback, too. Please keep it coming...

Going back to that problem with engineers stuck in dense forest, it appears to be a local problem, a scenario file corruption. Bebro looked into it and saw the issue in the scenario (08Kotisaari) but when he tested it elsewhere, and when I tested it independently, the issue does not recur. That makes it very unlikely that the developers are going to find the cause and fix it when they cannot replicate the problem.

The thread is viewtopic.php?f=577&t=97049 but if you don't have access to it, I have attached a "transcript" below. It is a very long, continuous image. Open it in your image viewer, choose 100%, and scroll like you would a web page:


Sorry about the image quality; I had to dial it down to 40% to get under attachment file size limits. Anyway, we worked around the issue in 08Kotisaari as you saw above in one of my posts.

GabeKnight wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:57 pm

bru888 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 4:54 pm The Colonel is on a roll!

Agree. And it's good feedback, too. Please keep it coming...

Thanks! I’ll try.


Now, I just got two ideas:

1. In the 15th scenario (Petsamo), it is very easy to destroy the entire Russian column…
Just put some ski troops in the top/northern part of the map, then rush them westwards and the entire Russian column is directly out of supply! (Because the Russian here can’t handle them by themselves, they are forced to retreat and, if followed, it’s done!)
So, what about adding few (small) supply hex along the road controlled by the Russian at the beginning?
Like this, it would be more difficult to cut them from supply, thus they will be able to defend themselves much better, thus increasing the challenge within this scenario.

2. In the 13rd scenario (Soumussalmi2), that anyone will play (because it’s out of any crossroad choice ), we can gain the prototype of a new unit! It is said in the description that, I quote: “They want you to use it, evaluate its performance, and report.”
So, what about adding a secondary objective in one of the following scenarios of this campaign , something like “Hey, do you remember, the new … (I won’t spoil all ) that we have received in order to test it? Now is the time!”, an objective with maybe a certain amount of damage to deal only with this unit or something… And maybe with an event too, so that the player has no excuse what so ever if he forgets to deploy it (as for the demining engineers)!
(It would somehow be a wink to a previous scenario within this campaign as well as maybe about the flame-tank in the Morning Sun dlc.)

Back to Erik: 09Tolvajarvi2

ColonelY wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:43 pm 09Tolvajarvi2:

Wonderful, a rush towards victory points to handle with the slaughter of enough Russian units... without knowing what will jump out of these dense woods nor from where!

Although, again, I would really wish that there is some reward for the completion of the (unique) secondary objective. So, what about adding (again) around 100 RP as reward?

Otherwise, it's really tempting to only rush for the 4 capture points (it's really easy! ) and win this scenario without bothering about the rest, thus loosing much of the flavor that this scenario contains.
Even a "Minor Victory" count as a victory, no? The challenge here is to capture and keep only 3 victory points, delaying the capture of a fourth one until enough enemy troops have been slaughtered... But this does imply more loses too, as well as some adaptation, because one doesn't know what the enemy is actually planning and one can't afford to lose to much troops nor to many victory point to the enemy... So all this, without any reward, it would be a little a pity, wouldn't it?
-------
Oh, and by the way, adding these maybe 100 RP as reward for the completion of these few secondary objectives won't somehow be too much anyway, for the player will only play ONE of those scenarios (per campaign) thanks to the crossroad.

True. It does seem a bit chintzy (Americanism? Means "cheap" or "stingy") to offer no rewards on the only secondary objective in the scenario. "Get 100 resource points" added.

bru888 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:17 pm Going back to that problem with engineers stuck in dense forest, it appears to be a local problem, a scenario file corruption. Bebro looked into it and saw the issue in the scenario (08Kotisaari) but when he tested it elsewhere, and when I tested it independently, the issue does not recur. That makes it very unlikely that the developers are going to find the cause and fix it when they cannot replicate the problem.

Thanks for the update.
In my vanilla v8.3 of the game, the issue's still there within the Endsieg DLC Huertgenwald scen. I can provide a savegame if needed. Does the scen work for you?

Back to Erik: 10Uomaa

ColonelY wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:43 pm 10Uomaa:
A great scenario too, with heavy fighting!

1. We can't use our tank within this scenario ... is it on purpose?
No deploy hex outside dense forest with a possible path to reach the theater of actions, as tanks can't go through dense forest...

2. Scenario description: "Kotajarvi" should be replaced by "Kotajärvi" (as in the other scenarios about this location), to stay coherent...

3. Secondary objective -> destroy artillery... without reward?! What about adding a bonus of around 100 RP for the completion of this objective?

1. My first thought again was "Tough!" but then I remembered myself. "Bruce, you are a kind, gentle soul. You go overboard trying to be nice. What is happening to you? Is the association with your counterpart Erik, the meanest man who ever lived, the 'bad cop' in our good cop / bad cop partnership, affecting you so negatively?" So yes, here is the before and after and as you can see, I have opened up a corridor for this purpose. Actually, it's a bit of a trap in that the player may be tempted to funnel all of his units down this corridor which may not be good for results:

BEFORE


AFTER


2. Kotajärvi it is. Thanks.

3. Whaddaya think this is, a resource bank? Why you, I oughta . . . uh . . . why sure, Colonel . For the same reason as the previous scenario, "Get 100 resource points" added.

Back to Erik: 12Uomaa2

ColonelY wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:14 pm 12Uomaa2: (or the Lemetti road, i.e. the first scenario after the crossroad)

Great scenario!
An experienced and entenchend unit blocking the road, covered by 3 AT-guns hidden in pine trees, what a death trap for Soviet tanks! And all infantry units inside the dense forest, but just at its borders, so that the tanks can't attack them directly (although the opposite is still possible ). At level 3, almost whiped out the entire Russian column; after they have been defeated, the remnants of the Russian units have retreated, followed by Finnish soldiers full on pursuit! A lonely Russian infantry just survived when it was time to end the scenario, an unit red and heavily depleted - which would have been destroyed as well if I had chosen the tank instead of more artillery as reinforcements.

Issue found, secondary objective: "Inflict 6 aerial damage on enemy land units" -> the ace is well unlocked, but this damage counter doesn't make a difference, right now, between an aerial attack and a land attack!
At the beginning of the scenario, 1 damage to a tank unit by my bomber then 5 by experienced ski troops hidden in pine trees, so 6 in total -> 6/6 (already!?) -> objective checked/validated, so ace unlocked... hem...

Ooops, good catch. Forgot to define the killers as well as the targets:

ColonelY wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:59 am 13Soumussalmi2:

Very nice and immersive scenario. I do like this briefing, as well as the first direct event...

BUT the two (first) events around tanks should definitely come sooner:
1. Indeed, I was warned of the presence of Soviet tanks when they had only one tank left to be destroyed...
2. And my bombers had launched few bombs ONLY because I was delaying the cleaning up of the last Russian units (disorganized, out of supply and depleted) until ALL mines have been removed (in order to complete this nice secondary objective as well )...

Otherwise, it's a really great scenario, with this new BT-42 and this nice air support which could for sure be handy.

Agree.

Erik, I need an official copy of this scenario in the "Ready for Bru" folder, please. As a matter of fact, you might as well make it a clean sweep from here to the end; that way I don't need to keep asking as ColonelY goes along. Please place official copies of these in the folder:

terminator wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:43 pm

bru888 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:38 am So I made the change here, transferring 24 mines from neutral to Finnish ownership. You can see that the player can now see his own mines and avoid stumbling into them:

Mines should always be neutral. If you want the player to see the mines, just reveal their position at the beginning of the scenario(Scenario Start) once and for all. It is like this in the official scenarios. If you put the mines on the side of the player then the player can walk on the mines without any damage

Actually, I don't agree with this. If one side "owns" the mines, having presumably placed them in defensive mode, then they ought to know where they are located. It's not as though every square meter of the hex is filled with mines, so friendly units ought to be able to navigate through their own mine fields. I think this is a neat feature.

GabeKnight wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 3:16 pm

ColonelY wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 12:41 pm Then a bigger issue:
Impossible for me within this map to move heavies or engineers inside the dense forest! (Already just after the deployment.)
Indeed, they can't go from dense forest (pine trees) to dense forest, nor from open terrain to (enter into) a dense forest hex...
Never seen this!

But I have, it's been reported for about a year now and still not fixed. Same goes for the engineers BTW. You can test it yourself in the Endsieg/Huertgenwald scen.

Gabe, you are right as usual. As I demonstrated for bebro, the issue is in one of their own scenarios. I said to him, "it's not a Finnish problem but it could be an engineers problem and it's certainly associated with winter climate. And, as I demonstrated above, it's likely a scenario corruption issue because it cannot be reproduced in a simple test."

German engineer. Dense forest is verboten in winter climate but welcoming in default climate:


If you don't have access to that thread, here is another scrolling image:


As I mentioned previously, we have worked around this issue in 08Kotisaari because I doubt that it's ever going to be fixed. We will know for the future, though, and I will surely be looking for it in Winter War 1940.

Great, keep up the good work!


16Raate1, or "The SAUSAGE!"

A superb scenario but - guess what? - there is an issue (or two) with the counter for the secondary objective, the one about killing all the enemies (20 at the beginning, but then come waves of reinforcement).

1. Of course, it would be much more comfortable for the player to see this counter updated "in real time" (and it's not at all a detail within this scenario! )...

2. This counter doesn't count always correctly, not sure why...

I had finished removing all Russian unit that has been spotted, I had few turns left and 3 enemy units still to be killed!? So the brave ski troops went searching through dense forests, but nobody more coming to sight. Being close to the end of the scenario (timewise), I used by curiosity the "#orbitalcommand": NO MORE ENEMY ON MAP AT ALL, WHEREAS THE COUNTER INDICATED 3 LEFT!

Then I've made some tests: (having to reload each time in-between in order to see and check the updated values of the counter & using the "#orbitalcommand" to count all units myself; this cheat should be quite reliable, because then even the Scouts are visible on the map and on the mini-map)

When......... ¦ Counter ¦ My own count
-------------------------------------------------
Begin......... ¦ 20....... ¦ 20.............¦ -> ok!
Later......... ¦ 15....... ¦ 13.............¦ -> problem!
Later + reinf ¦ 17....... ¦ 16.............¦ -> "
Later......... ¦ 13....... ¦ 11.............¦ -> "
Later + reinf ¦ 17....... ¦ 16.............¦ -> "
End(1st time)¦ .3....... ¦ .0 .............¦ -> "

So there is definitely some issue here!

And I have seen a(nother) weird thing as well : the unit of Russian Scouts being replenished MANY TIMES WITHIN A SINGLE TURN, even from 1 up to 10!? And many times within this scenario (at least 2 times, each time I've tried this scenario).
Well, this complicates a little the removal of this unit, but it stays destroyable anyway... Is it possible that this strange behavior could somehow alter our counter?

17Kelja1:

A good scenario, with a nice briefing as well!

Alas, I do think that it's not enough challenging as it is... Indeed, with an aggressive defense ( ), using the mobility of our ski troops, it's (too) easy to destroy entirely the Russian troops!

In my playtest (level 3 as usual), there was for example no fighting at all around the fort (which we are not really supposed to hold), because there was not a single Russian able to even reach it.

What happened? Well:

1. The Russian heavies came too late - almost when most of their regular infantry units were on the retreat.
2. Their artillery - good and strong, by the way - came into action more or less in the same time than their heavies, so too late to really have an impact on the battle...
Their artillery was able to deal some decent damage (before being entirely whiped out ), but mainly because my troops had counter-attacked heavily and brought the actual fight on the river itself...
3. Their planes stayed put around their deployment zone (so out of action) for quite a long time at the beginning, even if my fighters have reached them to "tease" their bombers...

If the player can destroy about a dozen of regular infantry quickly and without taking much casualties, then all's directly said! Or almost...

Therefore here are my suggestions:

1. Deploy all heavies a little northern, so that they are more likely to stick closer to their regular infantry units and to help them a little;

2. Spawn the artillery sooner (so no longer at turn 3) and/or a little northern as well, so that they can at least support a little their regular infantry in case of fighting near the borders of the river;

3. Make their planes more aggressive - they could fly above their troops (right to the north, maybe) and use theirs bombs to support their assaulting troops;
With the three previous points, the Soviets would be able to launch a better coordinated assault, with more concentrated power... and would then put more of a challenge!

4. Finally, what about increasing the length of this defensive scenario? If they attack more efficiently, then give them some time to obtain results and for the player to counter this stronger threat... So, what about maybe 25 turns instead of 20?


By the way, it's very nice that we could use the "Construction group" to build an airstrip - really useful "fuelwise".
It makes me think again to the option which would be optimal, according to me, for the 14Kemijarvi scenario.
---------
18Patoniemi:

Just great! One of the most interesting scenarios in this campaign; and some of the tasks to be done are completely different from the usual.

Hem, maybe the Russian artillery is a little late as well , but that's all.
---------
19Kelja2:

Another top scenario , with great briefing, volunteers fighters from different countries (even historically on airplane as well ), again with a nice rebuilding story...

I would there just suggest maybe the addition of 2 turns.

Why? Well, these damn Cargo trucks are quite slow to move, which could become quickly tricky about the "Supply Dump 2" (far away). And this event is triggered when the 2 first main objectives have been captured, but we don't know at all that this will happen. What is known, it's the presence of tons of mines and MG-foxholes: nothing that makes you want to rush! But on the contrary you do need actually to rush (to trigger this event, to be able to begin to slowly move these Trucks)...

Therefore, in order to help handling this aspect a little tricky right now, I think it would be nice to have either 2 more turns or few words about "not losing time taking the first objectives" within the briefing.

bru888 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 4:54 pm ... Well, please throw 13Soumussalmi2 and 14Kemijarvi in there, too. The Colonel is on a roll!

Done

bru888 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:32 pm ...
Erik, I need an official copy of this scenario in the "Ready for Bru" folder, please. As a matter of fact, you might as well make it a clean sweep from here to the end; that way I don't need to keep asking as ColonelY goes along. Please place official copies of these in the folder:

Done, all the way to The_End

Erik
Keystone cop

[/quote]
Mines should always be neutral. If you want the player to see the mines, just reveal their position at the beginning of the scenario(Scenario Start) once and for all. It is like this in the official scenarios. If you put the mines on the side of the player then the player can walk on the mines without any damage
[/quote]
Actually, I don't agree with this. If one side "owns" the mines, having presumably placed them in defensive mode, then they ought to know where they are located. It's not as though every square meter of the hex is filled with mines, so friendly units ought to be able to navigate through their own mine fields. I think this is a neat feature.
[/quote]

I'm with Bru on this although I actually did change the mines in question back to neutral...wishy-washy scenario designer

Bru, I think we should try Finnish/Soviet mines in all scenarios in the next update and wait for player feedback.

Erik2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:46 pm

bru888 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:32 pm ...
Erik, I need an official copy of this scenario in the "Ready for Bru" folder, please. As a matter of fact, you might as well make it a clean sweep from here to the end; that way I don't need to keep asking as ColonelY goes along. Please place official copies of these in the folder:

Done, all the way to The_End

Erik
Keystone cop

Thanks, Sisyphus. Now I would hold off any more editing on your part for 13Soumussalmi2 through the end until I have had a chance to go through them with the Colonel's comments in mind. Either I will update and upload these scenarios or you will see my responses as to why some of his suggestions will not be followed.

Regarding the mines, and for the sake of our beta participants so that they know, you are the editor-in-chief. If you agree with me about ownership (and therefore knowledge) of mines by one side or the other in certain situations where it's obviously a defensive battle, then you should restore Finnish ownership in that scenario.

bru888 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:21 pm If you agree with me about ownership (and therefore knowledge) of mines by one side or the other in certain situations where it's obviously a defensive battle, then you should restore Finnish ownership in that scenario.

I think indeed that in a purely defensive battle, one should definitely know where our "own" mines have been put.

Otherwise, one could easily do some unlucky moves when an opportunity to counter-attack locally arises; moreover, one could somehow "misdeploy" some of our units (and this could be even worse than the first point )...
For example, once, I had decided that one spot will be defended whatever happens, thus putting many heavy units around it. Later, being surprised to see nothing coming, I move some of them closer to the action - to actually discover that there was a line of minefields only 2 hex away from where the units were entenched. Knowing that, I could have already deployed them in a more efficient manner... poor Russians! They had already taken such a beating!

bru888 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:34 pm So yes, here is the before and after and as you can see, I have opened up a corridor for this purpose. Actually, it's a bit of a trap in that the player may be tempted to funnel all of his units down this corridor which may not be good for results:

Thanks for making the tank available!


A trap? Nah, in principle the player shouldn't anyway send more than few units down this corridor. Some of them being deployed on the edge of the forest, most of the other units should be sent that way to be ready to support them (i.e. more or less towards the South-west), where the forest is not very wide/broad although dense... so relatively easy to cross!

Actually, it could have been enough to remove only 1 dense forest hex (i.e. leaving the swamp hexes), so that the tank may at least be useful (even if it has maybe to stay put one turn to regain organisation) AND so that this visual "trap" effect may be (much) less important.

bru888 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:06 am

ColonelY wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:30 pm Choice at crossroad - 06Tolvajarvi1:
3. Secondary objective description (the texts):
-> For the Hotel, what about increasing the effect like this: "[...] These barbarians have even turned [the beautiful hotel gardens...]"
-> For the supply dumps, what about talking here of capture instead of destruction? (Appears 3 times.) It would correspond more to what actually happen to these supply dumps and would be coherent as well with the primary objective of the scenario 07Hevossalmi, where they are to be captured.

Sorry, I prefer my interpretations for the "barbarians" text and "destroying" enemy supply dumps. Regarding the latter, on all three supply dumps (and the fuel depot), there are static Soviet units to destroy (trucks, construction group, and fuel depot).

Fine for the barbs.

Actually, if I remember correctly, the Fuel Depot counts as one of the two places related to the retaking of the Hotel (the Fuel Depot was ON its famous nearby garden )... whereas, if one can find over the 3 supply dumps two cargo trucks plus a construction group, the "supply dump" itself is the name give to the hex. And we don't destroy a hex, do we?