Slitherine

bru888 wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2020 8:27 pm I learned from Erik how players love their core units, even in single scenarios, not to mention campaigns. They want the capability of upgrading core units or resurrecting dead ones; they like their accumulating experience over the course of the campaign; and there is a challenge in trying to keep favorites "alive" (i.e., never having them killed in the first place). So there must be a Free France core (although some special FF units can indeed be auxiliary).

But this is the arc of this unusual campaign: From West Africa to North Africa to East Africa to Syria, back to North Africa, to southern France, to the Indian Ocean, (skip Normandie-Niémen because that will be all air units), to the Mediterranean, to Italy, to northern France, back to the Mediterranean, back to northern France, back to southern France, and then finally the City of Light! (I had a feeling when I started that sentence that it would wind up looking ridiculous but I was determined to finish it! )

This means I must come up with a unit nomenclature that is non-specific but memorable to the player. I will do my best.

So, for example, it would be great to have units of Leclerc's 2nd Armoured Division show up for the Liberation of Paris, appropriately experienced, and that could indeed happen if the designer creates the units at that time for that scenario. But that seems artificial and mildly disappointing to the player, I gather. He would rather have the division develop into the formidable fighting force that it was in reality, under his guidance.

Can't do that unless the component core units, generically named, are in the campaign from the beginning. Besides, another complaint that we have seen is, if we do have certain core units earlier in the campaign, then making more of them later on, so as to be properly experienced and specifically named for the situation in the scenario, leads to "core unit glut." That is, a bunch of core units hanging around and not being used.

This is a game, after all, and it has to be fun to play. So what I am thinking is, over time, the player will be provided with, or have the opportunity to purchase, core units that will become experienced and serve as, say, Leclerc's 2nd Armoured Division when the time comes. If he has played well, that is. And when the time comes, of course, the text will mention "Leclerc's 2nd Armoured Division." The player can make the association in his mind that the experienced armoured core units in his reserve are this famous fighting unit.

Therefore, this is what I am going to do: I am going to use the 1st Free French Division and 2nd Amoured Division as templates. There will be other divisions based on them as needed. I will not make reference to "Alpine," "Morocco," "Algerian," "Colonial" Divisions, etc.


For the component units, I will use the orders of battle of these two divisions. The names will be "1re Brigade" and such (I wonder if OOB allows the superscript? I'll find out) and using terms like "Fusiliers," "Chasseurs," and "Cuirassiers" but without specific names like "Légion Étrangère" and references to specific locales:


Thus elements of the "1st Free French Division" are going to make their initial appearance at Dakar, whether they were actually there or not. The "1st Armoured Division" may appear as well (if armoured units were used at Dakar; probably not) - the 2nd Armoured Division will appear later. (All this is provisional, of course, until I actually know about the battles to be portrayed.)

I know you are not going to be happy, Colonel, and Erik may not be thrilled either but I feel this is the best compromise open to us.

Erik, I see that you left the enemy units in reserve in Dakar with no provision for deployment by triggers. I take this as freedom of designing and I appreciate it.


Hopefully, then, you will not mind if I also edit enemy unit names. "Régiment Mixte d’Infanterie Coloniale de l’AOF" may be quite accurate but the effect of such long unit names is not desirable:


Besides, the average player will not know the difference or care very much, especially about enemy units. These guys are liable to end up as "Dakar Vichy Garrison" and such.

Don't forget, you can always reverse all this once you take official control of Free France. At this stage, this is me acting upon your inspirations and set up. The final version will be yours to maintain. Therefore, you will want to hold onto your preliminary versions for ex post facto restorations to your satisfaction.

Heh, my folder of Free France bookmarks keeps growing! But we're on a roll and progress is being made.

In the end the answer was in plain sight (although I believe Gabe mentioned this long ago).

In the unmodded game, these are the only units available to Free France in its own right:


If the player is going to play as the Free French, then Free France must be its core and these are the only units available to him for purchase and upgrade. All other units must be "borrowed" from other factions. Such units cannot be managed over the course of a campaign.

It would not matter, perhaps, if the campaign took place only in 1944 and 1945 and involved only those units above. However, Free France will span 1940 to 1944 and involve armoured units, planes, and ships, all of which would be desirable as campaign core units.

So for example, for Dakar I must borrow 1940 infantry from the regular French faction. They can gather experience but cannot be upgraded. By 1944, even 5-star 1940 infantry will be weak compared to enemy units (and I don't want to fudge things by using 1940 German infantry in 1944).

Therefore, while there will be core units throughout the campaign, they will need to be managed from scenario to scenario. Rather than carrying them forward, I will use the "Remove Unit / Remove" effect at Scenario Start to clear out the previous core units. I will provide a fresh set of core units, properly experienced, for the next scenario.

The downside of this is that the player will not be able to nurse and guide his core units throughout the length of the campaign. The upside is that the scenario-specific core units can be more accurately identified rather than the generic labels that I was thinking about.

One complaint may be "I just repaired my core units before the scenario ended and now they are gone!" The trade-off will be that the player gets a free set of core units at full strength for no charge to start the next scenario.

Here's the thing about large maps. This is a beautiful map and I am not about to chop it down and start over but I would not have made it so big. It's 100 x 50 hexes or 5,000 hexes.

Figure roughly half is land. There are only 9 friendly land units in the scenario (so far), equivalent to 278 hexes per unit (2,500 ÷ 9). In other words, it's a lot of area to cover with only 9 units.

Rufisque is a key objective. The player is to take Rufisque and proceed to Dakar for further conquest. Units on foot or in sea transport move about 3 hexes per turn and there are about 45 hexes between Rufisque and Dakar. That means, even if they walk/sail in a straight line, it will take at least 15 turns just to go that distance.

Like I said, this map it too beautiful to crop or scrap so what must happen is that more units must be added, more turns must be added, and more stuff to do must be added to enjoyably pass the time it takes to cover this sized map.

I have come to the opinion that the best maps are sized from 40 to 60 hexes maximum on a side. Less travel time and less of a load on the computer.

I assume these are battalion sized units? Perhaps downgrade them to company sized units. That would allow for more units, without compromising historical accuracy. Of course, if they are already company sized, than this is for nothing

Yes, I would break the bns to coys as well depending on the scenario. Bru may provide fresh core units in the next scenario anyway, so size does not matter

Don't worry, I will make it work. I have a cornucopia for a brain when it comes to OOB ideas.

POLL: Choose a leader for Free France briefing!

Unfortunately, we are going to need to use Admiral Doorman or General Slim as our Free France briefer. There is nobody better; certainly a French briefer cannot be American, Japanese, German, or Russian. Finnish commanders are too recent (to me) for consideration; the rest of the British are too casual; and none of the Italians look appropriate.


If not one of these guys, that leaves Chiang-Kai-Shek, Captain Jingles, and Sergeant McNeil!

I say Doorman. I associate Slim too much with the British.

Zekedia222 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:55 pm I say Doorman. I associate Slim too much with the British.

Yes, I'm definitely leaning that way. Unlike Slim, we don't see much of Doorman in DLC and custom stuff. Besides, being Dutch, he's almost a next-door neighbor to the French!

Zekedia222 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:55 pm I say Doorman. I associate Slim too much with the British.

Same.
(Was the Doorman commander/avatar actually used in any of the stock DLCs? )

GabeKnight wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:13 am

Zekedia222 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:55 pm I say Doorman. I associate Slim too much with the British.

Same.
(Was the Doorman commander/avatar actually used in any of the stock DLCs? )

Better and better! For, if you think about it, why would the designers ever have used Doorman for a briefing when in no DLC does the player play the forces of Netherlands? To the best of my recollection, destroying Doorman's flagship De Ruyter was an objective in Java Sea of Rising Sun but that, of course, was from the Japanese perspective.

Please meet L'Amiral Charles Guillaume Portier! ("Portier" is "Doorman" in French).

bru888 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:47 am Please meet L'Amiral Charles Guillaume Portier! ("Portier" is "Doorman" in French).
commander_62.png

Lol

Zekedia222 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:25 am

bru888 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:47 am Please meet L'Amiral Charles Guillaume Portier! ("Portier" is "Doorman" in French).

Lol

Same, again...

Zekedia222 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:25 am

bru888 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:47 am Please meet L'Amiral Charles Guillaume Portier! ("Portier" is "Doorman" in French).
commander_62.png

Lol

Heh, you thought I was kidding! And I was, until second thought.

Monsieur Portier sounds... well, very French

I like this Admiral Portier too.

'Sounds good to me as well!