Bardia- First Attack :
I find strange that all the "Italian" minefields are situated at the back of bunkers. For me, it would seem more logical that minefields are situated in front of (or next to) bunkers. In this case minefields could belong to "No Man's Land".
A random Minefields placement would bring one more to the scenario.
Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators
-
terminator
- Field Marshal - Gustav
- Posts: 6005
- Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm
- Location: the land of freedom
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
terminator
How should I set up random minefields in the editor? Never done anything in life by random
How should I set up random minefields in the editor? Never done anything in life by random
-
terminator
- Field Marshal - Gustav
- Posts: 6005
- Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm
- Location: the land of freedom
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
In Operation Krohcol, 3 Mines are randomly placed :
- Random Mine (Krohcol).jpg (175.04 KiB) Viewed 2836 times
In my scenario Tunis, I use one of the three placements of mines :
- TunisMines(1).jpg (149.93 KiB) Viewed 2836 times
- TunisMines(2).jpg (158.06 KiB) Viewed 2836 times
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
lol - what a greate informative debate and suggestions since I was taken by surprice by the Italiens riding threw the minefields 
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
Thanks, terminator.
It kind of confirmed my suspiction that adding randomness to deployment is unneccssary complicated.
It kind of confirmed my suspiction that adding randomness to deployment is unneccssary complicated.
-
terminator
- Field Marshal - Gustav
- Posts: 6005
- Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm
- Location: the land of freedom
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
This was suggested by :
Scenario design tips & guidelines (@adherbal)
Overal guidelines:
- Randomise the starting positions of enemy units. This greatly improves replayability and counters the "it's just a puzzle you need to figure out" critic. Randomising every single unit on the map isn't really feasible, but certainly do it for hidden units such as mines, MG nests and ambushing units. Non-essential static defenders can also be randomised, making it harder to predict which towns and villages are garrisoned and which aren't.
Another advantage to place mines randomly, it is that these mines will not be visible on preview.
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
I see the advantage by using random placement.
But the number of trigger/events involved means it is only feasible for a few chosen units, not on a larger scale.
But the number of trigger/events involved means it is only feasible for a few chosen units, not on a larger scale.
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
I've been playing the campaign since a couple of days. It plays quite nice so far, and I had only one endless-thinking AI-trouble in 8Breda so far which I could only circumvent by help from John Connor.
Surely, the Italian units alone don't really have a chance against British, but giving them G.55 fighters in 9Sonnenblume (31/3/1941) is highly exaggerated for a challenge. Its vanilla availability date is on 1/4/1943, although I prefer 5/6/1943 as baptism of fire.
The MC.200 should still be the standard fighter of Italy at the time of the scenario.
I haven't checked yet how the following scenarios are equipped, but this is something that was immediately appearent when I was comparing the combat prediction against my new thought-to-be superior Spitfires.
Surely, the Italian units alone don't really have a chance against British, but giving them G.55 fighters in 9Sonnenblume (31/3/1941) is highly exaggerated for a challenge. Its vanilla availability date is on 1/4/1943, although I prefer 5/6/1943 as baptism of fire.
The MC.200 should still be the standard fighter of Italy at the time of the scenario.
I haven't checked yet how the following scenarios are equipped, but this is something that was immediately appearent when I was comparing the combat prediction against my new thought-to-be superior Spitfires.
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
Horst, thanks for reporting.
Beda Fomm:
Don't know what could be causing the AI hang.
But I have split one AI 8-unit team into two 4-unit teams.
Sonnenblume:
I used the G55 as a substitute for the missing G50bis.
But it was probably too much.
I have replaced it with a MC200 hoping the G50 will be available later.
There are a couple of other substitutes in this scenario:
SM89 replacing non-existent SM84.
SM79 replacing BR20
Any issues with these?
Link updated to 4.9
Beda Fomm:
Don't know what could be causing the AI hang.
But I have split one AI 8-unit team into two 4-unit teams.
Sonnenblume:
I used the G55 as a substitute for the missing G50bis.
But it was probably too much.
I have replaced it with a MC200 hoping the G50 will be available later.
There are a couple of other substitutes in this scenario:
SM89 replacing non-existent SM84.
SM79 replacing BR20
Any issues with these?
Link updated to 4.9
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
Aircraft usually cause long thinking but it only broke in that 8Breda scenario so far. I still have no clue if the planes are always to blame for such "crashes". It was strange as it first happened in turn 13 when I arrived with my units at Benghazi. Maybe the horde of infantry there was also responsible. I could advance one further turn with no-fog cheat, but the next turn crashed again. Turning off the AI was the only reasonable way to continue without skipping the whole scenario by nuke-cheat.
Some maps make it quite difficult for aircraft with the very long distances, but these maps still worked.
My modified aircraft have a slight speed increase, hence it's possible that vanilla players don't noticed anything, while my increased action-radius could mess up.
Okay, I didn’t really pay attention to the many unit descriptions. The Fiat G.50(bis) is a rather unknown plane for me, so I can’t give a hint which aircraft is similar in stats.
The G.55 is really not that bad later and can beat Brit planes. Luckily, I had set the Spitfire.Vb to European availability in 1/3/1941, so I have better chances.
More G.55 in 13Crusader.
The SM.84 is similar to the SM.79, but the SM.89 is rather a tank-buster plane like the Hs-129. I would defenitely not use this replacement!
What else I noticed among aircraft that the German Marseille commander too often sits in a Bf-110 instead of a 109 what is implausible and less challenging.
By the way, the RP system works well so far. You just get enough to pass the scenarios on medium diff with my mediocre ability.
It’s not bad if you don’t suppose to purchase units, although sometimes I still do and upgrade. If you don’t play too shabby, you gather too many units in the long run that I wonder if I shouldn’t sell the surplus as upgrading all of them is too expensive. If you know what else you are gifted later it's easier to save cash on the second playthrough but difficult to judge on the first run.
Some maps make it quite difficult for aircraft with the very long distances, but these maps still worked.
My modified aircraft have a slight speed increase, hence it's possible that vanilla players don't noticed anything, while my increased action-radius could mess up.
Okay, I didn’t really pay attention to the many unit descriptions. The Fiat G.50(bis) is a rather unknown plane for me, so I can’t give a hint which aircraft is similar in stats.
The G.55 is really not that bad later and can beat Brit planes. Luckily, I had set the Spitfire.Vb to European availability in 1/3/1941, so I have better chances.
More G.55 in 13Crusader.
The SM.84 is similar to the SM.79, but the SM.89 is rather a tank-buster plane like the Hs-129. I would defenitely not use this replacement!
What else I noticed among aircraft that the German Marseille commander too often sits in a Bf-110 instead of a 109 what is implausible and less challenging.
By the way, the RP system works well so far. You just get enough to pass the scenarios on medium diff with my mediocre ability.
It’s not bad if you don’t suppose to purchase units, although sometimes I still do and upgrade. If you don’t play too shabby, you gather too many units in the long run that I wonder if I shouldn’t sell the surplus as upgrading all of them is too expensive. If you know what else you are gifted later it's easier to save cash on the second playthrough but difficult to judge on the first run.
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
When playing 13Crusader, you immediately notice when all enemy planes are down, the AI turns are processed like 10x faster with still plenty ground units around. I imagine each plane simply has too many player-units to revaluate in the Tobruk area.
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
13Crusader: I could win this in 19/50 turns on medium diff. Maybe it takes longer with vanilla stats. This gifted me too much RP for the next scenario.
The turn-limit is an important factor for a reasonable RP system if you give income per turn. I’m not the right one for giving a good turn-average with different stats, in particular move-speeds. Vanilla players ought to give reports about their turns for each scenario in the future to balance custom ones better. It’s also an opportunity to show off.
I usually save on each turn manually, so I can go back if something like AI-thinking messes up the scenario.
I didn’t save in the first scenarios that often.
4Operazione: 30/30. I took a bit my time there. Limit should be fine.
5Taranto: 7/12. That’s no scenario you want to linger any longer due to the totally crazy number of enemy ships. I wonder where all these many ships are for support of Italian units later.
6Compass: 14/30. That was too easy.
7FirstBardia: ~16/18. Limit is fine.
8Breda: had an endless AI-thinking loop
9Sonnenblume: 40/40. Maybe fine for the AI in a defense-scenario although you can beat it earlier.
10Mdauuar: 9-15/15. I had basically defeated the AI in 9 turns, but it’s a defense scenario, so I wouldn’t really change it for higher difficulty grades.
11Brevity: ~10/16. Is okay.
12Battleaxe: 16/24. Maybe fine. My units are as fast over desert tiles like open ground.
13Crusader: 19/50. As already mentioned, the limit looks too generous here although the scenario itself is somewhat tough at beginning. It would be much more difficult if the enemy arty would be more spread around Tobruk and always in range of a defending player-unit.
My performance is hardly a good orientation as there too many differences to vanilla, but maybe it gives a rough idea.
About exit/entry hexes in general: a single one is not enough if you can place more than one plane in a scenario where no landing possibilities are present. Place at least two planes with same fuel value and you can easily get trouble later.
5Taranto and 14Gubi are examples.
It looks like the planes need to squeeze through a mousehole to leave the map on a side.
I wouldn’t mind for land-units where you can imagine that damaged tank or wounded infantry units require to be transported on a single railway or hospital route. Aircraft should have more freedom to leave the maps.
The turn-limit is an important factor for a reasonable RP system if you give income per turn. I’m not the right one for giving a good turn-average with different stats, in particular move-speeds. Vanilla players ought to give reports about their turns for each scenario in the future to balance custom ones better. It’s also an opportunity to show off.
I usually save on each turn manually, so I can go back if something like AI-thinking messes up the scenario.
I didn’t save in the first scenarios that often.
4Operazione: 30/30. I took a bit my time there. Limit should be fine.
5Taranto: 7/12. That’s no scenario you want to linger any longer due to the totally crazy number of enemy ships. I wonder where all these many ships are for support of Italian units later.
6Compass: 14/30. That was too easy.
7FirstBardia: ~16/18. Limit is fine.
8Breda: had an endless AI-thinking loop
9Sonnenblume: 40/40. Maybe fine for the AI in a defense-scenario although you can beat it earlier.
10Mdauuar: 9-15/15. I had basically defeated the AI in 9 turns, but it’s a defense scenario, so I wouldn’t really change it for higher difficulty grades.
11Brevity: ~10/16. Is okay.
12Battleaxe: 16/24. Maybe fine. My units are as fast over desert tiles like open ground.
13Crusader: 19/50. As already mentioned, the limit looks too generous here although the scenario itself is somewhat tough at beginning. It would be much more difficult if the enemy arty would be more spread around Tobruk and always in range of a defending player-unit.
My performance is hardly a good orientation as there too many differences to vanilla, but maybe it gives a rough idea.
About exit/entry hexes in general: a single one is not enough if you can place more than one plane in a scenario where no landing possibilities are present. Place at least two planes with same fuel value and you can easily get trouble later.
5Taranto and 14Gubi are examples.
It looks like the planes need to squeeze through a mousehole to leave the map on a side.
I wouldn’t mind for land-units where you can imagine that damaged tank or wounded infantry units require to be transported on a single railway or hospital route. Aircraft should have more freedom to leave the maps.
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
14Gubi: you can't destroy three tank-class units as objective if there is only an L3 and M14 on the map.
The AI could have also needed at least a second exit-hex for its aircraft.
The AI could have also needed at least a second exit-hex for its aircraft.
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
Something what’s really disturbing in the campaign that you have to conquer the same towns over and over again. In 15Dash, haven’t you already conquered Sollum and Fort Capuzzo like 3-4 times before?
There is really a huge feeling of wasting your time if there is no visual accomplishment in your previous scenarios. I know there was some back and forth during the desert war, but this campaign seems to offer more battles within a single operation. I wouldn’t mind zooming in on different fronts, but using basically the same map with similar front lines more than once for similar objectives is a lackluster.
Let's do the time warp again...
There is really a huge feeling of wasting your time if there is no visual accomplishment in your previous scenarios. I know there was some back and forth during the desert war, but this campaign seems to offer more battles within a single operation. I wouldn’t mind zooming in on different fronts, but using basically the same map with similar front lines more than once for similar objectives is a lackluster.
Let's do the time warp again...
-
GabeKnight
- Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
- Posts: 3710
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
Yeah, I had about the same feeling playing some of the scens in an earlier build of the campaign.Horst wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:14 am Something what’s really disturbing in the campaign that you have to conquer the same towns over and over again. In 15Dash, haven’t you already conquered Sollum and Fort Capuzzo like 3-4 times before?
There is really a huge feeling of wasting your time if there is no visual accomplishment in your previous scenarios.
[...] I wouldn’t mind zooming in on different fronts, but using basically the same map with similar front lines more than once for similar objectives is a lackluster.
The mentioned "zooming in on different fronts" was a very important fun factor during my first "Germany Grand" playthrough... I remembered the locations from the Blitzkrieg DLC campaign, and could play them on a larger scale. That was great!
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
I had to do notes now of all campaign scenarios and their dates and turns to have a better overview. It's also sometimes useful to adjust unit availability dates.
25Pass: 10 days per turn must be a mistake with the 30 turn limit.
I have never played the Brits in the desert war before, so can't compare it. I see now that you usually play different operations on later dates.
The example of Sollum and Capuzzo was just too noticeable when I had just finished 13Crusader and basically replay the same map in 15Dash where I see the two locations in enemy hands again. That's a bummer.
No idea which locations historically switched hands that often, but from a player's point of view I want to know why I lost my captured points again that I just conquered like yesterday.
Maybe all is historically correct, but too similar scenarios and maps doesn't motivate a player that much.
25Pass: 10 days per turn must be a mistake with the 30 turn limit.
I have never played the Brits in the desert war before, so can't compare it. I see now that you usually play different operations on later dates.
The example of Sollum and Capuzzo was just too noticeable when I had just finished 13Crusader and basically replay the same map in 15Dash where I see the two locations in enemy hands again. That's a bummer.
No idea which locations historically switched hands that often, but from a player's point of view I want to know why I lost my captured points again that I just conquered like yesterday.
Maybe all is historically correct, but too similar scenarios and maps doesn't motivate a player that much.
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
I forgot to mention that 15Dash has 21/1/1941 has starting date.
The following scenario 16SecOff has 22/12/1941, so not sure if 15Dash should be earlier than that or at least 1942.
There is also a 19Road scenario among the campaign scenarios which rather belongs to the PzC Afrika Korps campaign?
Edit: is 21/11/1941 correct for 15Dash? I've corrected it myself now to play on.
The following scenario 16SecOff has 22/12/1941, so not sure if 15Dash should be earlier than that or at least 1942.
There is also a 19Road scenario among the campaign scenarios which rather belongs to the PzC Afrika Korps campaign?
Edit: is 21/11/1941 correct for 15Dash? I've corrected it myself now to play on.
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
Tally-ho, Rommel, I'm coming! 
That was about fifteen turns fun of defense in 20Alam until Rommel's army broke apart.
Defensive scenarios could need a (hidden) objective that prematurely ends the scenario, but hey, mopping up is fun too, of course!
That was about fifteen turns fun of defense in 20Alam until Rommel's army broke apart.
Defensive scenarios could need a (hidden) objective that prematurely ends the scenario, but hey, mopping up is fun too, of course!
- Tally-ho.jpg (462.57 KiB) Viewed 2482 times
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
Hans-Joachim Marseille switched to a Bf109 (or Fw190) whenever available.
5Taranto:
Added more exit locations and included descriptions.
8Beda:
This scenario never crashed when I play-tested the first campaign-version. This time I ran the scenario from the editor just hitting end-turn for the first 20 turns. No problems.
Added more exit locations and included description.
13Crusader:
Replaced G55 with MC202
Reduced number of turns from 50 to 35.
Redeployed Axis artillery around Tobruk.
14Gubi :
Added more exit locations and included description (for Allied exits).
Fixed 'destroy tanks'-objective.
Fixed victory/defeat labels (no sec objs).
15Dash:
Changed date to 21-11-41.
19Road is a leftover from an aborted plan to lend-lease scenarios from AK if the British lost the 2nd Alamein. The tables would be reversed and the British fight a defensive withdrawal towards Middle East and eventually India.
25Pass:
10 days pr turn changed to 10 turns pr day
Link updated to v5.0
5Taranto:
Added more exit locations and included descriptions.
8Beda:
This scenario never crashed when I play-tested the first campaign-version. This time I ran the scenario from the editor just hitting end-turn for the first 20 turns. No problems.
Added more exit locations and included description.
13Crusader:
Replaced G55 with MC202
Reduced number of turns from 50 to 35.
Redeployed Axis artillery around Tobruk.
14Gubi :
Added more exit locations and included description (for Allied exits).
Fixed 'destroy tanks'-objective.
Fixed victory/defeat labels (no sec objs).
15Dash:
Changed date to 21-11-41.
19Road is a leftover from an aborted plan to lend-lease scenarios from AK if the British lost the 2nd Alamein. The tables would be reversed and the British fight a defensive withdrawal towards Middle East and eventually India.
25Pass:
10 days pr turn changed to 10 turns pr day
Link updated to v5.0
Re: Desert Rats 1940-42 beta testing
22Torch: this scenario isn’t well designed. You start with two invasion forces near the coast but these are fully clustered with fortresses and coastal guns with almost zero possibility to land close by.
If you design a beach invasion then give at least one hex space to land and start with fortifications one hex behind. The soft sand of beaches should be no place for fortifications anyway. The coast is better fortified than the Atlantic Wall!
And worst of all: the AI starts first shelling ships that are forced to deploy within the range of the coastal guns. This is no fun to start a scenario.
If you design a beach invasion then give at least one hex space to land and start with fortifications one hex behind. The soft sand of beaches should be no place for fortifications anyway. The coast is better fortified than the Atlantic Wall!
And worst of all: the AI starts first shelling ships that are forced to deploy within the range of the coastal guns. This is no fun to start a scenario.