Bru's Scenarios and Campaigns

[bru888]

Wow, it's remarkable how a designer can misjudge his own work. I could have sworn that this scenario would be too hard. Will make adjustments. Another post to follow soon.

And actually, that is the way that it went in real life. This raid was a debacle for the British. However, we must make it a gameplay challenge, no?

[bru888]

I just looked at the carrier proposition. Originally, I had a vague idea of including the two of them (and only two, HMS Victorious and Furious) but rejected them for two reasons: 1) I was still thinking of providing fighter-purchasing resources and I was concerned about a Gabe-like subterfuge of the player purchasing bombers instead and sinking the carriers, and 2) with 36 planes involved, the carriers don't have the capacity to serve them all; they only hold two planes at a time.

Well, after considering the matter again, I think I will leave them out. Reasons:
- Number 2 above is still a primary reason.
- Out of consideration for historical accuracy, only two carriers can be in the scenario directly or indirectly.
- Placing the carriers at the top of the map would make it seem like they had advanced almost all the way up the fjord which is not true.
- The raid is designed not to have back and forth but to be a one-and-done strike, again as in real life. Bombers would not be traveling all the way back to the carriers for a refuel then coming back again on the same day. (I know I did that in Turku but somehow it comes off differently in that scenario.)

So for that reason, I gave all the British planes extra fuel to last most of the scenario, wreak their (limited) damage, fly back to the carriers, and hopefully get picked off by the Luftwaffe to fulfill the secondary objectives. That is how I want the scenario to play.

[GabeKnight]

And actually, that is the way that it went in real life. This raid was a debacle for the British.

Good order of battle and unit balance then...

One suggestion I forgot: You should have at least one or two enemy contacts from turn one on. In the very least you should see them entering your LOS. Perhaps move some of the fighters a few hexes further south?

What about keeping the air-exit-hexes and add the carriers? Or how about you assign only the fighters to the carriers (as base), would something like that work?
On the other hand, secondary objectives are supposed to be optional and more difficult to achieve; so in that regard...

[bru888]

I've played the scen in middle and in lvl5 difficulty, and both times it was too easy. For one, with higher difficulties your allied units get 13HP, too ( ).

Before I get into all of the changes that I have made to Kirkenes, let me address this observation.

Yes, on higher difficulties, the player actually gets a benefit as ship strength goes up to 12 and 13. On lower difficulties, he is penalized with ships at strength 8 and 6. So how to handle this?

I tried a trigger to force the strength of stationary targets like ships and fuel depots to be 10 or some other value regardless of the difficulty setting, and it failed. Whatever the strength value is of the unit in the editor, the difficulty setting adjustment overlays it and cannot be forced to be something else once the game starts. That actually is a relief because I am thinking of Turku and other scenarios in which this could be a consideration and the amount of retroactive work needed to implement it.

Here is a picture of the Alliances tab:

Screenshot 2.jpg (234.69 KiB) Viewed 2272 times

The reason I used an AI alliance on the same team as the human player is to prevent the player from moving the ships: another Gabe-like subterfuge to merely sail them all away. Also, the tedium of having to address 12 additional ship move options is something to be avoided. (The game should be designed to NOT give difficulty adjustments to player team units, whether they are human or AI-controlled.)

I could put Finland, Norway, and Kriegsmarine factions under human control (or make all the ships German, which would look lame) but then how do I immobilize them? They all sail through shallow water and I will not make the map look dumb by placing them on beach hexes or surrounding them with naval mines.

So the resolution is this: I am leaving this alone. I design for middle difficulty, which is my own preference of play. This is why I would not notice or think of something like this (but I will keep it in mind for the future, so thanks for pointing it out, Gabe). I am sure this has been designed in spite of and/or overlooked in other scenarios in which the AI controls an ally.

And guess what? Even though the ships are at strength 13 in highest difficulty, the torpedo bombers still sink ships with only two strikes, as seen below. In a test with no opposition, three ships sunk on Turn 2, each with two torpedoes. Same as on normal difficulty. Perhaps 13 strength also means higher hitting power, or 13 vs. 13 strengths cancel each other out so that the effect is the same as 10 vs. 10.

It's all good.

Screenshot 5.jpg (457.25 KiB) Viewed 2272 times

[bru888]

The Raid on Kirkenes v1.1 is uploaded. Download link is in the opening post.

My thanks go to Erik and Gabe for their comments. Rather than quoting them, I trust each gentleman will recognize his input in these changes.

Design Error:
- Fixed the primary objective counters. Those things are a science in themselves to get right. Many variables such as Turn Start vs. Combat Event, Alive vs. Destroyed condition, and count with Win trigger or count with Fail trigger? So now they work, but they are showing the number NOT to reach for a win in each category. The error was in using Turn Start / Scenario turn limit which counts only at the end of the scenario.

Screenshot 1.jpg (357.62 KiB) Viewed 2264 times

Gameplay Adjustments:
- Moved all British planes six hexes south for an earlier engagement and an extra turn of bombing.
- All British drop tank triggers raised from 15 to 18, the full scenario turn limit. Also, British fighters are now equalized with bombers; they were fueled 12, now 18 so that they stick around and fight longer.
- Realigned the British fighters out into 4 groups (instead of 1) for greater flexibility and less thinking time. Gave each group two air patrol points to get them engaged quicker in the fighting. As soon as they see enemy fighters, they go to Seek & Destroy.
- Included 2 British air commanders.
- Removed 2 German AA guns (specifically, the SdKfz 7/1 units).
- Reduced all industrial units from strength 5 to 3. (I noticed that, contrary to the torpedo planes, the bombers don't deal much damage to their targets; this will increase their efficacy and significance.)
- Redistributed the composite balance of Luftwaffe units (I had intentionally overstocked the FW 190 A's because I thought this scenario would be too hard ):
6 FW 190 A reduced to 3
4 Bf 109 F increased to 5
2 Bf 110 E increased to 4

[bru888]

- Redistributed the composite balance of Luftwaffe units (I had intentionally overstocked the FW 190 A's because I thought this scenario would be too hard ):
6 FW 190 A reduced to 3
4 Bf 109 F increased to 5
2 Bf 110 E increased to 4

On second thought, I took the FW 190 A out altogether. Now we have 8 Bf 109 F and 4 Bf110 E planes. The units.csv file shows the FW 190 A intro date as the middle of June and it may not have been widely distributed as of 30 July:

Image0372.jpg (15.41 KiB) Viewed 2252 times

Moreover, Wikipedia shows the introduction as August 1941:

Image0373.jpg (96.05 KiB) Viewed 2252 times

This change in particular should take you high flyers down a peg or two!

The Raid on Kirkenes v1.2 is uploaded. Download link is in the opening post.

[bru888]

And actually, that is the way that it went in real life. This raid was a debacle for the British.

Good order of battle and unit balance then...

An interesting thought occurs. When recreating an historical battle that was truly one-sided in actuality, the designer is faced with a conundrum. Respect historical accuracy and foredoom the player to a boring win or loss? Or change history to balance gameplay and enhance the challenge?

In real life, the raid on Kirkenes was escorted by Fulmar II fighters, not Sea Hurricanes. (Sea Hurricanes did accompany the bombers on the Petsamo raid, but not on the Kirkenes raid.)* I used the Hurricanes because the nearest plane design in the game is the Fairey Battle, a tactical bomber. Imagine if Fulmar II fighters were in the game and presumably weaker than Sea Hurricanes. Talk about easy in that case!

Looking at it from another perspective, say I did want to upgrade the British to an even stronger fighter. It's too early for the only other carrier-based fighter, the Seafire. So what do I do? Use Spitfires which are strictly land-based fighters? That's the kind of thing that crosses the line with me, along with multiple aircraft carriers sailing all the way up the fjord.

So the designer must do what he can with the history and tools at hand and try to strike a balance between verisimilitude and fun. I have tried to do this with Kirkenes and hopefully I have now come closer to the ideal.

*As usual, there are informative articles and maps in scenario subfolders.

[LNDavoust]

There are so many new cool stuff here and in the BrucErick CSD Studio that i can can only gigle and drool like a tender impressionable teenager

I probably shouldn't play these until i have made some progress on my own work but... Wow. Just wow. Just reading through the discussions in these thread is delicious.

Seriously guys, thanks a lot.

[GabeKnight]

The Raid on Kirkenes v1.2 is uploaded. Download link is in the opening post.

To make the comment short: That's it! Good man!

Played it at lvl 5 difficulty and it felt just about right. Fast execution, no AI lag as far as I could tell. Nice short scen; good work, Bruce, thanks!
(Okay, the tac. bombers could be a tad more aggressive or have more experience. They're still doing squat damage)

Screenshot 114.jpg (981.04 KiB) Viewed 2194 times

But there's one thing I do not understand. Why version 1.2? Why not 1.0a or 1.0b? Perhaps a version 1.1 may be warranted, but 1.2? I think it's too much, sorry. Bruce, please do not try to change the constants of the universe!

[bru888]

Here are a few questions for you, Gabe, or Erik, or anybody else: See those two Luftwaffe commanders that you earned? Say this scenario is in a campaign (as it will be, in Continuation War 1941). What happens to those guys if there are no opportunities to use them for several scenarios? Do they just float around (thankfully, minimized as an option), taking up screen space? Can they be assigned to planes in reserve and there reside for the duration, until they are needed again?

[Erik2]

I don't mind the LW commanders sitting on the bench for a couple of scenarios.
You should of course put them to work eventually.

[GabeKnight]

Here are a few questions for you, Gabe, or Erik, or anybody else: See those two Luftwaffe commanders that you earned? Say this scenario is in a campaign (as it will be, in Continuation War 1941). What happens to those guys if there are no opportunities to use them for several scenarios? Do they just float around (thankfully, minimized as an option), taking up screen space? Can they be assigned to planes in reserve and there reside for the duration, until they are needed again?

If you have attached them to some core units - let's stick with this example and say they were air commanders -, they remain attached to those core units in the following scens, even if air units are not used in those scens, until you un-attach them manually.
On the other hand, If you do that inside scens that have no air units, there's no way to re-attach commanders into units in your reserve roster. Then they keep floating around, yes.
This can be annoying when dealing with a greater number of commanders, since you can not access commanders that are not directly visible on screen. I've encountered this once with Erik's stuff, for example. I had two or three naval commanders floating around and no naval units to put them in. They blocked access to the other commanders and I had to juggle around a bit to assign everyone correctly.

[bru888]

Hmmm. Kirkenes is Scenario 4. I am working the Luftwaffe in for Scenario 8 (formerly 07). That means they are floating for Scenarios 5, 6, and 7. The commanders can be minimized, so as Erik says, it's not a big deal.

I have an idea, though. (Heh, I just wanted to spell that "eyedear" for some reason. ) Say I were to do this for the campaign version of Kirkenes:

1) Spawn two core German fighters.
2) Unlock the commanders and assign . . .

Nope, can't do that I just realized. "eyedear" indeed.

Well, here's another one. In the campaign version, promise to unlock those commanders in a future scenario where the Luftwaffe is featured. Use a campaign variable. If said campaign variable is valid for Scenario 8, unlock the commanders then.

Now that, sirs, is an idea!

[bru888]

But to Erik's point, you cannot always provide for every commander to use in every scenario in a campaign, come to think of it. Like this one, CW41. More than one faction being controlled by the human player and not every scenario featuring all factions or even air power. There will always be floaters, I think.

As a matter of fact, in CW41 Erik provides for unlocking certain commanders and assigning them to Wehrmacht or Waffen SS only. That means, say, when Waffen SS is not used, those generals are floating too, if I am not mistaken.

I'll do the campaign variable for the Luftwaffe pilots because it was concerning me that the Luftwaffe had not been used before in CW41 and for all I know is not used at any time (I have to check on this*). It concerned me that I did not want Kirkenes to stand out like a sore thumb in that regard (although suddenly fighting the United Kingdom might do just that. )

*No, no Luftwaffe were featured in CW41 until I brought them in for Kirkenes, unless I missed a spawn trigger to that effect. I think a case could be made to feature them in Olonets and maybe a couple more places, as either aux or core. Certainly for Litsa but I am wondering about the remaining scenarios in Karelia. Thoughts? I'll ask Cool in the studio thread.

*EDIT: According to this source, the closest the Luftwaffe ever came to Karelia, at least from the direction of and in support of Finland, was Rovaniemi. The Luftwaffe is out from Kirkenes until Litsa.

[bru888]

There are so many new cool stuff here and in the BrucErick CSD Studio that i can can only gigle and drool like a tender impressionable teenager

I probably shouldn't play these until i have made some progress on my own work but... Wow. Just wow. Just reading through the discussions in these thread is delicious.

Seriously guys, thanks a lot.

Coming from a fellow of your talents, that is high praise indeed. Thank you.

[GabeKnight]

Bruce, you're overthinking the commander business. Although I'm kinda glad you do mind those things...

I think this would be a candidate for beta. Leave them just be. You can always change it if someone complains.

I'm still hoping the Devs do change the commander assign mechanic to allow attachment even when "minimized".

[Erik2]

When I added the German commanders in CW-41 I assigned them to either the Wehrmacht or Waffen.
But maybe it is possible to not select the faction in the trigger and leave the assignment to the player?
That would be an overall better solution.

[bru888]

When I added the German commanders in CW-41 I assigned them to either the Wehrmacht or Waffen.
But maybe it is possible to not select the faction in the trigger and leave the assignment to the player?
That would be an overall better solution.

Very good. I was thinking that but I deferred to some mastermind scheme that you may have concocted. That will keep the amount of floaters down and lower player frustration over not being able to use all of them. The Finnish pilots may still float in some scenarios but c'est la vie with that.

[bru888]

The Raid on Turku v2.0 is uploaded. Download link is in the opening post.

As part of the Winter War 1940 beta review process, several significant changes have been made to its 15Turku scenario which is the same as this standalone scenario. The changes are as follows:

- moved all structure names (Arsenal, Baltic Line, Barracks, etc.) and flags into the hexes rather than next to them. This makes the map look less cluttered and is no long confusing to the player. Hovering over each structure will identify it:

Screenshot 1.jpg (284.68 KiB) Viewed 1934 times

- split the tactical bombers into two teams; one assigned to cruisers and one assigned to city garrison. The garrison will definitely be attacked now.

- removed the artificial damage system for the city garrison. Since that unit will now take actual damage from tactical bombers, the system was no longer necessary. It will move to exit when its strength is 4 or below.

- restored the two coastal defense ships to human control. This was accomplished by creating another Finland faction in the human column. No resources are assigned to this faction so the ships cannot be repaired, as intended.

- restored the two coastal defense ships to full strength (=10; the screenshot above was taken prior to this change). This should enhance player enjoyment, being able to fire the ships' AA guns, but movement is confined to the dock areas. The tradeoff are two more Soviet Ivanov tactical bombers.

- removed the distracting and balky cargo trucks and trains which played no part in the outcome. They were only window dressing and they took up playing time watching them go.

These changes in total were enough to go to version 2.0. If you played this before and enjoyed it somewhat, or if you have not played it at all, you may want to try it (again). It's better than ever IMO.

[bru888]

It's better than ever IMO.

Now, even better than better than ever! The Raid on Turku v2.1 is uploaded. Download link is in the opening post. Just a tweak:

- I boosted the fuel on the Ivanov Su-2s to give them an extra punch, using my "Drop Tank" manual trigger method (patent pending).