Slitherine

Things are getting fairly complicated for the poor scenario administrator with player's mods and mods of player's mods.

I'm sorry that I caused you so much inconvenience Erik2, obviously, that was not my intent. I only wanted to keep playing your Grand Campaign because you already notified us all here that you would only be supporting that from now on instead of the separate campaigns, so I deleted my saves and those downloads. Now I got a campaign that I can't play.

All Norway scenarios work for me in the campaign. Just tested again.
This is on v5.2.3, PC, non-steam.

How are you doing this, might I ask? On the tech forums they said that you must go one scenario back to make the changes work, or at least that is what I read. If I understand it, that means you must go back and play Sjaelland again from start before changes in Norway work? Or maybe the earlier one than that which I did. Replayed "Brest" and that didn't help.

Are you replaying the campaign from Saves from one version, to test the new versions?

Are replaying a campaign from start each new Version?

The only difference I see here is my game is a steam version and a 64-bit version which the game installed automatically as its normal update

Erik2 wrote:Things are getting fairly complicated for the poor scenario administrator with player's mods and mods of player's mods.

Heh, I'm starting to feel really good that nobody but God and a few misguided souls pay any attention to the nonsense I put together!

Gabe, I could post for you another 15Haag version of mine, but I think we both are already bored enough of this scenario. I don’t care about vanilla gaming, hence I don’t know for sure how it plays there differently.
I barely managed it with one para loss, but would have done better if going all over the right bridge straight to the paras without distractions of Rotterdam and possibly Utrecht.
Keeping your core force together often looks wrong, but it still surprises me that it can often work out so much better if you let the other objectives alone at first. OOB clearly favores having more units than the enemy, as you can dominate any strong units if they run out of effectiveness and can't recover anymore.
24Reims is a good example where you can quickly dominate the huge bulk of French tanks with your whole core force instead of fooling around on two different sides. I still had 4 turns left in the end, and the few French inf and at-guns left in the upper-left corner still wait for my attack to come…
About the (air-)redeployment zones: either you have enough to let many planes fly out at same time or you don’t allow this at all. Letting planes wait in a line while their fuel and strength run out is simply pathetic.
I added a long line of air-redeployment zones in the Arras scenario too, but forgot setting the duration of them. When all my airfields during the session were occupied there for a short time, I couldn’t let my planes fly back in anymore. That was a big bummer!
I think the longer flight distance to exit zone can still slightly make up for the quick-repair cheat. The exit zones are certainly extremely useful in defense-scenarios like Arras.

Something for Erik:
23Dunkerque:
- the secret Matilda booty could need a pretty event picture instead of being blank
- the troop train counter doesn’t show correctly how many kills you have, but it still completes
- destroy all warships should only count the destroyers and light cruiser, not the transports
- destroy sea transports has the wrong objective link

26Maginot
- supply connection trigger can’t work if you don’t active it from start

I'm a bit burned out again after this long rush from Poznan to the campaign branch. I remember the paratrooper action in the first Sea Lion mission that requires a working fuel-setting which is broken in my game at least. I hesitate continuing with Sea Lion for that reason.
Maybe I should try Eriks naval campaign a bit, but no idea how it plays on my retarded rig. It would be a good test to see how my US fighters perform with their new tactical bombing load switch.

Brainy wrote:I'm sorry that I caused you so much inconvenience Erik2, obviously, that was not my intent. I only wanted to keep playing your Grand Campaign because you already notified us all here that you would only be supporting that from now on instead of the separate campaigns, so I deleted my saves and those downloads. Now I got a campaign that I can't play.

All Norway scenarios work for me in the campaign. Just tested again.
This is on v5.2.3, PC, non-steam.

How are you doing this, might I ask? On the tech forums they said that you must go one scenario back to make the changes work, or at least that is what I read. If I understand it, that means you must go back and play Sjaelland again from start before changes in Norway work? Or maybe the earlier one than that which I did. Replayed "Brest" and that didn't help.

Are you replaying the campaign from Saves from one version, to test the new versions?

Are replaying a campaign from start each new Version?

The only difference I see here is my game is a steam version and a 64-bit version which the game installed automatically as its normal update

I started a fresh campaign and nuked my way through the scenarios. All of them opened with the proper maps.

Beautifull Maps, lovely great big 3d maps complete with General and briefing. If I had been a dog, I might have had a piddle I was so excited !!

Thanks, Erik2, and Gabeknight for all the help. Mind you this was a brand new campaign start, and I nuked through to Oslo.... but no core units or build up, do you think I might pick up a save now or what ?

Erik2 wrote:

Brainy wrote:I'm sorry that I caused you so much inconvenience Erik2, obviously, that was not my intent. I only wanted to keep playing your Grand Campaign because you already notified us all here that you would only be supporting that from now on instead of the separate campaigns, so I deleted my saves and those downloads. Now I got a campaign that I can't play.

All Norway scenarios work for me in the campaign. Just tested again.
This is on v5.2.3, PC, non-steam.

How are you doing this, might I ask? On the tech forums they said that you must go one scenario back to make the changes work, or at least that is what I read. If I understand it, that means you must go back and play Sjaelland again from start before changes in Norway work? Or maybe the earlier one than that which I did. Replayed "Brest" and that didn't help.

Are you replaying the campaign from Saves from one version, to test the new versions?

Are replaying a campaign from start each new Version?

The only difference I see here is my game is a steam version and a 64-bit version which the game installed automatically as its normal update

I started a fresh campaign and nuked my way through the scenarios. All of them opened with the proper maps.

Moscow is the last map?

I think Vyazma is the last. I can't add more scenarios in the campaign editor, it will only display a limited number of scenarios for selecting in the branch setup.

GabeKnight wrote:I have no problems loading the four Norway missions inside the campaign. Maybe it's a 32/64-bit issue again or your computer just lacks the required processing power (?)

It could be that my laptop has lack of RAM (only 4Gb) , but solo scenario runs without any problems. Thought someone will have some answer how to continue play GGC this way need to wait until strenghten up laptop . Thanks anyway and just to mention that when I nuked all scenarios to Norway it worked just fine so it might be that number of troops eats RAMs

Well today I just bought Burma Road, and then Winter War and Rising Sun because they were on sale a little bit. Then I played the first scenario of Burma road and then stumbled today upon This Custom Germany Grand Campaign - so I am playing the Germany Grand Campaign forget the other stuff !!! Fortunately even though the first two posts or so had links to this campaign that were unusable - the file cannot be downloaded I was familiar enough with stuff to realize maybe there may be another link in this thread for this Campaign and sure enough at a more recent post I found it and it works so now I downloaded it - Played the first scenario got a DRAW because I was to aggressive and poor unit choice plus I even lost a non corp infantry unit early in the scenario ... duh. So I restarted it and am playing it now again . So far so good. Playing on Major level because I like headaches ..

Erik2 wrote:I think Vyazma is the last. I can't add more scenarios in the campaign editor, it will only display a limited number of scenarios for selecting in the branch setup.

OK. Thanks for the campaign)))

Horst wrote: About the (air-)redeployment zones: either you have enough to let many planes fly out at same time or you don’t allow this at all. Letting planes wait in a line while their fuel and strength run out is simply pathetic.
I added a long line of air-redeployment zones in the Arras scenario too, but forgot setting the duration of them. When all my airfields during the session were occupied there for a short time, I couldn’t let my planes fly back in anymore. That was a big bummer!
I think the longer flight distance to exit zone can still slightly make up for the quick-repair cheat. The exit zones are certainly extremely useful in defense-scenarios like Arras.

As most of the official scenarios miss those redeployment hexes, I was just glad to have them, to be honest. But you have a point with "waiting lines" of fighters building up after air superiority has been achieved...
On the other hand this added sometimes to the difficulty, as having not payed enough attention to my plane's numbers and fuel status with the respective count of exit-hexes and therefore had to take losses with my planes having no fuel and no place to land. I was mad, but at myself.
In the SeaLion branch you'll have something like >40 air-CP all the time (and additional air-exit-hexes), so I've been able to deploy almost all of my airforces at once anyway. But after shooting down enemy planes, my fighters mostly remain landed on airfields, cause the damage output to land units does not weigh the risk of possible damage done to them by some stray AA.

Actually I don't mind either solution, as long as all of this is known beforehand at deployment stage and I can plan accordingly.

Horst wrote: I'm a bit burned out again after this long rush from Poznan to the campaign branch. I remember the paratrooper action in the first Sea Lion mission that requires a working fuel-setting which is broken in my game at least. I hesitate continuing with Sea Lion for that reason.

True. It's doable, but you should wait for v5.2.5, I agree.

Horst wrote:Maybe I should try Eriks naval campaign a bit, but no idea how it plays on my retarded rig. It would be a good test to see how my US fighters perform with their new tactical bombing load switch.

I wouldn't mind a second opinion also, to be honest. At times I'm not sure if my blathering about my fleet's naval strenght advantage even applies to other, more casual players . I'm fully aware that you're not one of them, but I'm confident you're quite able to estimate balance issues against existing official naval scenarios.

Alternating the planes to take-off and land alone while coordinating their fuel isn’t always that feasible, hence it can happen that more than one plane has to land or leave the map somewhere. Such mistakes can also easily happen with aircraft carriers, especially when they are on the move.
Can’t remember exactly anymore, but I could still place the off-map planes once into the hangar of a freshly recaptured airfield. It was a bit chaotic in 19Arras that I only managed to break free on turn 27/30 to capture a single secondary objective. The lack of aggression there was the purpose for my other topic here lately. How can you still counter-attack if there are still dozens of tanks fooling around between you and the objectives? My arty and dive bombers couldn't handle them all, and attacking or even leaving from a defensive position isn't always that wise.

My modded gaming is mostly useless for balancing, but play-testing triggers can never hurt if there is need.
Even after so many other players have more or less played through the GGC here, there have still been some trigger issues. Otherwise, the GGC already plays quite fine so far with some few exceptions, possibly only due to my modded game.
What can someone still do here if the official updates and DLCs take too long?
I’ve started the Eastern route of the GGC, but won’t play that as obsessively fast as before anymore. Playing the same stuff over and over again is simply not that thrilling.

Horst wrote:Otherwise, the GGC already plays quite fine so far with some few exceptions, possibly only due to my modded game.

Not necessarily, some scenarios are just too hard to be played right (and not suicidal) to achieve all objectives within the given turn limits. Actually I didn't consider using #overtime on many occasions to add a couple of turns as "cheating".

Horst wrote:I’ve started the Eastern route of the GGC, but won’t play that as obsessively fast as before anymore. Playing the same stuff over and over again is simply not that thrilling.

Cool. This could mean, that if I'm really lucky, the Eastern route may be bug-free at the time I'm ready to continue GGC?

Erik2 wrote:All Norway scenarios work for me in the campaign. Just tested again.
This is on v5.2.3, PC, non-steam.

I also nuked my way to Norway scenarios and they all work now. But also played all scenarios in GGC 2 times in a row and both times when I reached Norway instead of brief there was a fullscreen tactical map and that is end of campaign for me with core I build. Now nuked my way to Norway and time to start campaign without commanders and some very experienced units. Need to build a vhole new core except Kriegsmarine those units I got. My thinking on that matter is that is not memory or processor usage but perhaps commanders. If anyone played whole campaign without nukeing please tell me I'm wrong.

Changes based on Horst's reports.
Link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xlcepkc4ppuuo ... 1.zip?dl=0

Scenarios fixed:
1Poznan
2DanzigN
4Lodz
11Oslo
13Eben
14Albert
15Haag (Erik's modified Gabe/Horst-version )
23Dunkerque
26Maginot
33Canterbury
34Gravesend

Thanks for the update!

I've started playing your Grand Campaign and its great! I really hope you release YOUR version of the Burma Campaign. You really do a great job and it allows people to play another version different than the original.

Ah, I should have better uploaded my v2 of 15Haag with an additional drop zone and paratrooper if I had known it would actually be included to GGC.

63Minsk41
- better no own supply points on certain map edges with AI units nearby, as the AI loves to capture them. This should also apply to other maps if needed
- let’s finally replace the 21 cm arty with mortar Karl
- Brest is still too weak and could need 5-stars. The arty-reinforcement (normally Karl) is rather obsolete if the player arrives with an army of 21cm
- by all means let’s put these idle fighters finally into hangars!

64Smolensk41
- a flag of a primary objective town was deleted. The flag type was already wrong long time ago
- too many of spec-points can be farmed here due bad triggers
- the secret T-34 booty is still aux

66Novgorod
- could need something like 20 supply more as it wasn't enough to place WSS units

I'm curious about the WSS: you only get like 2 RP/turn at beginning. Is that actually enough to keep front-line units alive? I've only purchased Sd.Kfz.7/1 as AA-vehicles so far as these hardly suffer. I guess extra-arty could also work fine, but it was too expensive for me so far with only 125 RP on average throughout the scenarios so far. I remember from the past you gathered like thousands of RP for the WSS which would have been fun to purchase and maintain only Tigers later.

Re Waffen SS resource points income.

I usually add 1 RP pr unit pr turn which normally works well.
But of course this means factions with few units suffer a bit.
So it could be argued that the WSS maybe should get at least twice the RPs pr turn.

I already found the meager +2 RP in the original BK campaign now very stingy. The big difference between the vanilla and GGC campaign is though the extra specs of GGC which allow more WSS units to be used.
I play with the additional Rationing spec which was taken out of the game and earlier Synthetic Fuel, but let’s see at Leningrad example with War Economy and Female Factory Labor:
Germany: 104 LCP + 32 ACP, +58 RP/turn
WSS: 10 LCP, +2 RP/turn
According to the CP/RP ratio, the WSS should have like 4 RP/turn. No idea anymore how high the RP income was in earlier days of the GGC which was way too much.
I haven't played with the new WSS II (and III) spec yet, but I can imagine that the extra +10 (+10) RPs make a huge difference then. Can you actually add more RP income to the already hardcoded default income?
This is just purely calculated, not taking into account that the WSS has historically top priority to gear and supplies.