Continuation War 1941 Beta Test

[ColonelY]

02Kuolajarvi:

[...]

I think there should an alternative air deployment hex next to the air exit.

Overall a very difficult scenario.
You need to protect your flanks at all times and make sure supply is not cut off behind your lines as your troops progress slowly. If you rush it, you'll get hurt.
This also means that 18 turns are too short, I would probably have needed at least 24 turns.
Having the supply cut a couple of times meant that the whole offensive grinded to a halt.
So I bailed on turn 17 and nuked my way to the next scenario.

I agree with that first point. Well, 1 hex or even maybe 2 because we have 2 planes...

And indeed, for this scenario, 24 turns is still a minimum...

[Erik2]

03Bengtskar

Finnish core:
Inf x5, hvy inf x2

Hanko (several places) should probably be spelled Hankö (at least that is what we mountain-apes call it).
'jaegars' could probably be 'Jägers', similar to the German spelling.

The 'take off the ski' message is a good one. Nice, good old Kandahar ski fittings as well.

This is a tricky one. There is not much the player can do to protect the coastal guns. If the Soviets decide to go for them, at least one gun will be destroyed in 2-3 turns.
The Finnish ships on the east side must run the gauntlet of the Soviet guard ships to get at the transports. This is most likely a suicide mission. I found that the only way to save avoid losing the Finnish ships was to keep them out of harm's way.

Turn 4 landings felt a bit premature as the sea battle was still very much on.

Maybe my play of the initial scenarios were not optimal, but I generally felt that the Soviet units should not have more experience (=2) than the Finns (=0). I think even the naval inf should be restricted to exp = 1.

The battle on the rock went better for the Finns as wore the Soviets down.

Landing the 2nd Naval infnatry wafe on rough desert was a novelty. But I think it was too easy to bottle the enemy up since there is a single land hex connecting to the main island. A better landing site might be north of the dock or east of the western coastal gun. To prevent the player from too easily block this landing, maybe use random triggers based on number of Finnish units nearby. Yes, I know. Fairly substantial work...

I wonder if the Gebirgsjäger would have made a better substitute for the Jäger unit than the current Fallschirmjäger. Feels like a better choice.

The second landing was a disappointment for the Finns (only kidding...). I assumed the original premise about sinking naval transports hold true here as well. Not that there was opportunity to follow this with all the Soviet naval vessels roaming the seas.

Overall, a nice change of pace from the pure land battles.

end.jpg (386.06 KiB) Viewed 2573 times

[bru888]

03Bengtskar:

A magnificent scenario, which also brings a certain novelty to these Finnish campaigns.

Yes, 03Bengtskar and 11Kirkenes (the next scenario, despite the "11") were intended to break up the campaign a bit. Not that the selected battles are bad at all - Erik did a good job of cherry picking and setting them up, and he chose 03Bengtskar - but the player could use a break from the slog through ice and forest. I was looking for a sea battle but I could not find one! You will have to settle for the small lake battle in 08Rukajarvi.

[ColonelY]

03Bengtskar

Landing the 2nd Naval infnatry wafe on rough desert was a novelty. But I think it was too easy to bottle the enemy up since there is a single land hex connecting to the main island. A better landing site might be north of the dock or east of the western coastal gun. To prevent the player from too easily block this landing, maybe use random triggers based on number of Finnish units nearby. Yes, I know. Fairly substantial work...

I think it's already somehow random, because the 2nd wave has landed, when I've played it, precisely north of the dock... To be more precise, it was two units of naval inf (a transport ship of this last wave has been sunk!) -> Therefore, even if I've managed to preserve the island's sea power, I could just do nothing at all to save the precious Water Tank.

[Erik2]

Excellent. I'm not surprised Bru put some randomness into the scenario.

[CoolDTA]

Hanko (several places) should probably be spelled Hankö (at least that is what we mountain-apes call it).
'jaegars' could probably be 'Jägers', similar to the German spelling.

Nope, the correct spelling is indeed Hanko. Is it really Hankö in Norwegian? I ask because Hangö is the Swedish spelling.

Jääkäri (sgl), Jääkärit (pl) in Finnish. In English Jäger is often written as jaeger (both pl. and sgl.) or anglicised as jager (pl. jagers) to avoid the umlaut.

Most interesting, however, is that Minor Victory image. What's with the British Commandos?

oddpic.jpg (48.17 KiB) Viewed 2546 times

A group from No. 4 Commando walk by a collapsed Goatley boat upon returning to New Haven U.K. after the Dieppe Raid, 19 August 1942.

[bru888]

Most interesting, however, is that Minor Victory image. What's with the British Commandos?

A group from No. 4 Commando walk by a collapsed Goatley boat upon returning to New Haven U.K. after the Dieppe Raid, 19 August 1942.

Shhh. Well, the cat's out of the bag, now! (The truth is, I did think these guys were Finns.) Now that this flub has been revealed, it will be swapped out. Got any interesting alternative photos for triumphant coastal jaegers? (Yes, I prefer that spelling - I saw it spelled more frequently as "jaeger" and I just mentioned in the other thread that I will not miss the "ä" when this is all done. Too many trips to the Character Map! )

[CoolDTA]

Shhh. Well, the cat's out of the bag, now! (The truth is, I did think these guys were Finns.) Now that this flub has been revealed, it will be swapped out. Got any interesting alternative photos for triumphant coastal jaegers? (Yes, I prefer that spelling - I saw it spelled more frequently as "jaeger" and I just mentioned in the other thread that I will not miss the "ä" when this is all done. Too many trips to the Character Map! )

Well, there's one major difficulty: no Finnish coastal jägers existed in WW2. A coastal jäger battalion was formed in 1960. Those Commandos imo are not that triumphant which is quite realistic considering it is taken after the Dieppe Raid. I like this pic for Minor Victory, but it is once again portrait oriented, so...



This one is from Hanko so it should be okay for this purpose also, though these guys may be too triumphant.

Trips to the Character Map can be avoided if you make everyone around you envious by using a keyboard with these keys:

[bru888]

Well, there's one major difficulty: no Finnish coastal jägers existed in WW2. A coastal jäger battalion was formed in 1960.

I'll remember to remove the "coastal" when I get to editing Bengtskar. I assume "jaeger" is alright without the "coastal," correct?

This one is from Hanko so it should be okay for this purpose also, though these guys may be too triumphant.

I am sorry, but those guys are out! The first thing that I thought when looking at these impish faces was that one of them had just loudly passed gas. With that thought forever in my mind, I could not ever contemplate this picture with any equanimity :

Image0389.jpg (104.33 KiB) Viewed 2506 times

Now, this one is perfect! It even has a lighthouse in the background. As we discussed, portrait orientation need not be a problem if enough of the content is visible when the image is resized horizontally to 512 pixels. Head, coat, rock, lighthouse: check! Done, thanks:

good_outcome_bengtskar.png (182.17 KiB) Viewed 2506 times

Thanks but no thanks about the keyboard. I know these keys to you are like "a" and "e" are to me but they would drive me crazy as to which is which!

finnish-apple-swedish-finnish-non-transparent-keyboard-sticker.jpg (27.13 KiB) Viewed 2506 times

[GabeKnight]

Thanks guys, looking forward to playing this.
You're just too fast for me...

So, what about adding maybe a 50 or 100 RP reward IF the player already has this Finnish commander?

Yes, I got a bit lazy perhaps in this one. I did that in WW40 so maybe I should do so here.

You could also just disable the corresponding objective as it's done in the stock campaigns.

The 1 RP pr unit pr turn is good for early-year scenarios.
When we get to, say 1943 and later, the cost of repair and upgrading warrants 2-4 RPs.

YES! Thank you, my pleas have finally come through...

I am sorry, but those guys are out! The first thing that I thought when looking at these impish faces was that one of them had just loudly passed gas. With that thought forever in my mind, I could not ever contemplate this picture with any equanimity :

And BTW, be thankful you don't have to deal with the German keyboard layout...

[CoolDTA]

I'll remember to remove the "coastal" when I get to editing Bengtskar. I assume "jaeger" is alright without the "coastal," correct?

Well, they were not jaegers either to be precise, but why not let them stay as coastal jaegers? Imo there is no need to be too strict with details and coastal jaegers would add some flavour. What do you think?

I am sorry, but those guys are out! The first thing that I thought when looking at these impish faces was that one of them had just loudly passed gas. With that thought forever in my mind, I could not ever contemplate this picture with any equanimity :

You crack me up, Bru. Now I can't look at that pic without remembering what you said.

Glad you liked the other image. It is taken on Bengtskär and has imo just the right kind of an atmosphere: the 2nd Lt contemplating the hard fought battle resulting in a victory but not without many men giving the ultimate sacrifice.

Thanks but no thanks about the keyboard. I know these keys to you are like "a" and "e" are to me but they would drive me crazy as to which is which!

Heh, for Finnish you can ignore Å. It has no native Finnish use and is even called 'Swedish O'. It is there only because Finnish and Swedish keyboards are the same.

And BTW, be thankful you don't have to deal with the German keyboard layout...

It would add some fun for Bru indeed. For me less so because I already have two umlauts and for the third (ü) I know Alt+0252 by heart. I always have to check the code for ß though. Ah the days of the first German lessons: "Eine Flasche Coca-Cola, bitte." "Groß oder klein?" "Groß und kalt."

[jeffoot77]

thxs for this campaign,

[Erik2]

I skipped Kirkenes since I already tested the single-player version.

04Ienikuvaara

Waffen SS core:
Inf x10, hvy inf x6

There's already a partisan unit between the crossroad and the exit to the regiment. I assume partisans are not counted towards the exits? This should be known to the players to avoid sending a unit of a wild goose-chase,

I found this was a difficult scenario. Trying to balance the need to get 5 units to the exit just-in-time to be able to use them for a little bit of combat first.

Also there are a lot of Soviet units to beat at the crossroads. Whenever a German units capture the southern crossroad, it will really get hammered (and probably be destroyed). This happened to me 4 times in a row whith heavy infantry... Very frustrating.

I think at least 4-6 turns needs to be added to have some leeway when to start exiting units.
Also dial back the number of Soviet units at the southern crossroad. Maybe 4-5 units.

In the end I had to nuke my way out of this.

[GabeKnight]

Ah the days of the first German lessons: "Eine Flasche Coca-Cola, bitte." "Groß oder klein?" "Groß und kalt."

although LOL is not enough, more like LOL and keep LOLing
Thanks, you've done it again...

[Erik2]

05Sainio

Finnish core:
Inf x4, hvy inf x2, 37mmAT x1, 40mmAA x1, 105mmArt x1

Please add 1-2 more air deployment hexes.

The Soviet units have exp = 3. I think this is a bit too much considering the Finns have not been used too much in earlier scenarios. The Finnish exp is probably still 1 or 2 at the most.

A medium difficult scenario, nicely balanced. By turn 15 the Soviets were on the run.

end.jpg (419 KiB) Viewed 2434 times

[ColonelY]

11Kirkenes:

A nice scenario, even if I've found it quite difficult to save enough ships to avoid a "draw" (which still allows anyway to carry on this campaign, so it's fine!): 2 torpedo-launcher planes appearing = a ship directly sunk, doesn't matter whether it's protected by AA-guns and/or dogfighters...

By the way, for this obj "Do not lose more than 6 ships", I think that at least the description, yet "This includes supply ships, merchant ships, transport ships, and barges.", should gain one "all" like this "This includes all supply ships [...]". This at least and maybe as well a red arrow over all the ships who don't have one right now...

Otherwise, for the flavor: no radar station at all? Could possibly add as well a "Garrison" unit in Kirkenes directly (under the flag, I mean)... But those are more details than anything else.

Towards the end, with the situation under control, I was in the mood to seek these British carriers... But this isn't part of this scenario...

[ColonelY]

04Ienikuvaara

Waffen SS core:
Inf x10, hvy inf x6

There's already a partisan unit between the crossroad and the exit to the regiment. I assume partisans are not counted towards the exits? This should be known to the players to avoid sending a unit of a wild goose-chase,

I found this was a difficult scenario. Trying to balance the need to get 5 units to the exit just-in-time to be able to use them for a little bit of combat first.

Also there are a lot of Soviet units to beat at the crossroads. Whenever a German units capture the southern crossroad, it will really get hammered (and probably be destroyed). This happened to me 4 times in a row whith heavy infantry... Very frustrating.

I think at least 4-6 turns needs to be added to have some leeway when to start exiting units.
Also dial back the number of Soviet units at the southern crossroad. Maybe 4-5 units.

In the end I had to nuke my way out of this.

04Ienikuvaara:

Yes, it IS a difficult scenario...

It may indeed be nice to know for sure whether the "simple" partisans units do count or not towards the exits!

Well, I would say that they don't because I've pursued and harassed one of them "just to see" and it doesn't move towards an exit, even if pushed towards it! But later, I let a Soviet unit in bad shape pass north of my line: it was red and really depleted... But instead of moving north (trying to evac), this unit just stayed put and replenished! Are they really trying to reach the exits?

I agree with Erik: too much Soviet infantry units around (or South) of the Crossroads... Dont' forget that, in this scenario, we're lacking some of our best units (like heavy tanks), so it's coming a little to a battle of attrition, which don't really allow us to evac several of our own units... And more turns would be welcome!

Another suggestion: maybe add some supply on the two Crossroads!
Otherwise, the Soviets could (too) easily cut our single supply line (especially it we've began to evacuate some of our units or sent from the beginning a handful of troops towards the SE through dense forests).

[bru888]

thxs for this campaign,

You're welcome, jeff. Stay tuned, because it's a work in progress.

[ColonelY]

05Sainio:

All working nice and smooth; no issue found.

Well, there is of course this new commander or 50 RP if... [etc.]

To increase a little the challenge on this one, I think that a little handful of new Soviet units could "safely" be spawned around the turn 12 or so, maybe from the three Soviet "entry points", I mean the 3 roads... Before moving towards Sainio to help their comrads who should be on (big) trouble at that time (they need to move first, but will so probably see some action around turn 14 or 15)!

Why around turn 15? Well...

05Sainio

[...]

A medium difficult scenario, nicely balanced. By turn 15 the Soviets were on the run.

[ColonelY]

06Terijoki41:

A great scenario, but there are few points worth mentionning:

-> Well, we have 2 times the now classical "new commander or +50RP if..."

-> I think that 6 turns should be added (so for a total of 30 turns instead of 24... on the 24th turn, I'd almost finised dealing with the 3 last Sov. inf., fully red and heavy depleted, around the Guardhouse's bunker... then 1 turn more to remove this bunker, then moving South to exit enough units...)

By the way, this map reminds me a scenario in the Winter War (39 I think)... with the 3 hex (frozen at that time ) to defend in order to prevent the southern Soviet army group to cross... It's not exactly the same map, due to action focus, but it's great and fully coherent!

-> Issue(s) with Soviet fighters: I've seen them staying put around their airfield until they have all crashed out of fuel!
(And the I-153 goes down before the two I-16, probably for fuel tank capacity reasons ) So this objective was achieved without taking a single shot at them!
Moreover, these fighters were unaggressive because not even engaging a recon plane moving between (and above of course) the Guardhouse's bunker and their airfield.
Their airfield, by the way, is "working", as it does properly its job once captured!
Are those units now like "orphans"?!

-> Possible issue with the counter for exiting our units: The display info seems to be one-turn delayed (the three first units evacuated, counter showing 0/8; the next units continue to exit on the next turn, and the counter shows 3/8...); once I've seen several turns pass with 8/8 without the validation of this objective... another time, with 9/8 it was directly validated... I think this counter should be checked...


I do like this scenario and, actually, it's nice because, amongst others, if the player isn't careful enough, the AI will use the roads (around the first defensive line) to quickly move units and create big "mottis" with the player's units...