Slitherine

I finished the historical Moscow scenario with a marginal victory. A much tougher fight than early Moscow -- I like how in this scenario there are more defensive lines prepared around the objective cities (not to mention a lot more Russian armored units). Only two things seemed out of place:

1. The Sdkfz 10/4 anti-air unit makes an infantry sound when it moves.

2. It seemed that, as the scenario drew closer to the end, the weather actually improved (from mostly rain/mud conditions to clear). In the last turns it would make more sense for the weather to change over to snow/frozen. Is the weather in PC random or hard-wired? Perhaps I just caught a lucky break with the game I played?

Now it's off to Stalingrad, hope to finish it tonight.

Weather is random.

Razz, that's what I thought. Thank you -- looks like I got lucky.

I just finished the Stalingrad scenario. There was a lot to think about with this one, so I'm writing while the thoughts are still fresh in my mind. First, a handful of issues:

1. Hex (7,12) looks like it is missing a railroad.
2. Hex (32,12) simply says "city." Is this part of Stalingrad?
3. I noticed there are Romanian and Hungarian units in this scenario. I recall in the Poland scenario there were Slovakian units, and it was possible to purchase units for Slovakia. In this scenario, there is no option for purchasing Romanian or Hungarian units. Is this intentional?

Now for my reaction/concerns about the scenario. I really think this scenario is currently (a) too big and (b) too easy. The scale here seems to be even larger than that of the USA scenario, and to me it just seems to lack focus. There are three major events being portrayed here: the siege of Sevastopol, the drive on Stalingrad, and the drive into the Caucasus. If there were any PC scenario that would benefit from being "reduced," it would be this one. I recommend two scenarios -- one that focuses solely on Sevastopol and the Kerch Straits, and another on Stalingrad and the Caucasus (much like the first PG did). As the scenario currently stands, the Sevastopol operation is almost an afterthought; it deserves more detail. The map is fine for the Stalingrad/Caucasus scenario.

In general, here are my concerns about the scenario:

1. The Gustav siege gun is WAY too powerful. It would be a great weapon to have against a series of forts or trenches, but at this scale it totally skews the scenario in the Germans' favor, especially since it can easily be railed around the board. I used it to totally wipe out the Stalingrad defenses, and that definitely didn't feel "right." Again, it would better suited to a Sevastopol-specific scenario, but not here.
2. Stalingrad needs to be better defended. Historically the Russians were able to put up a solid resistance around the city, which forced the Germans to draw off more forces from the south. Perhaps a few more Stalingrad "city" hexes (like London) and some trenches around the city perimeter?
3. The Black Sea coast is missing two large Russian ports that were objectives for the Germans in 1942 -- Novorossiysk and Tuapse. One or both should be added.
4. It seems that organic transports can move a lot farther than should be permitted at the map's current scale. Perhaps reducing the movement rates or fuel capacity to reflect this? (After all, the lack of fuel was a major reason the German offensive in the Caucacus stalled.)

I hope I haven't gone on too long about this scenario, but I wanted to share all my thoughts. I hope to finish Kursk sometime over the weekend.

Just wrapped up the Kursk scenario. Lots of good armor vs. armor battles. Probably one of the best scenarios I've played yet in PzC.

In the scenario briefing I found two errors:

1. In the sentence that reads, "...this victory has stablize..." it should read, "this victory has stablized..."
2. In the sentence that reads, "...from the Soviets, this battle..." the comma should be a semicolon.

As for issues, only found two things that stood out:

1. All of the following units lack movement sounds: bridge engineers (both on foot and in motorized transport), ME 410a, Ju-87G, FW 190a.
2. Once or twice, when one of my air units attacked a land unit and "uncovered" an Russian AA gun, when the AA gun fired the graphic icon was missing (only a strength value showed). The gun appeared a moment or two later.

I won a marginal victory, and was given the choice between Bagration and the Gustav Line. I decided to go for a change of scenery, so it's off to Italy. Hope to finish the scenario up tonight.

Stabilize tense has been corrected.
Comma has been changed to semicolon.

Thanks for the reports, keep 'em coming!

BTW, did you enjoy my FW190 trap in Gustav Line. He enjoyed the taste of P-47 very much.

BTW, did you enjoy my FW190 trap in Gustav Line. He enjoyed the taste of P-47 very much.

Not sure if I hit the trap you are referring to, but I did lose 2 FW190s in the first turn of Gustav.

I finished the Gustav Line scenario this afternoon, and won a shocking decisive victory (see below). First, a few items from the briefing prior to choosing either the Bagration or Gustav scenarios:

1. In the sentence that reads, "...counter-offensive is proving vast..." vast should be vastly.
2. The phrase "hard earned" should be "hard-earned."
3. Not an error but more of a active vs. passive voice issue: the sentence that reads "...advance of the allies..." might sound better as "allied advance."

Now, as for the scenario itself. At first I thought this was going to be a real tough nut, since I had to virtually man the whole Italian front AND face down Anzio with my forces. I decided to place the bulk of my armor around the Anzio perimeter and the rest of the army along the Italian front. First turn, my forces along the main front take a harsh beating (aka two of 15-strength FW190s simply vanish ). When the AI is done I notice that the Anzio forces are somewhat scattered, so I drive my tanks into them and knock off two infantry units. Second turn, AI once more pounds the bulk of my forces along the main front, while the Anzio forces attempt to break out of the perimeter. I notice that Anzio itself is held by an artillery unit, so I use two Panzers to eliminate the unit and occupy the hex. I finish my turn and expect more Allied mayhem. Instead, I am shocked to see the "Decisive Victory" window pop up!

I was pretty shocked, so I went to view the battlefield. I realized that Anzio was the only objective hex the Allies possessed, so I assume that led to my victory. I have to say I was a little disappointed. While capturing Anzio should be a major blow to the Allies, it seems that ending the scenario at that moment is a bit premature. Is the intent here to really have a successful Anzio capture end the scenario? If so, perhaps the perimeter could be a stronger point for the Allies, because at the moment it seems far too easy for the Germans to take Anzio and wrap up the scenario. My other suggestion would be, to make it more of a contest for the Germans, give the Allies a second objective hex -- Naples would be a good one -- so that if/when Anzio falls the Germans can benefit by being able to shift those forces down to the main defensive line, but not immediately end the scenario.

Also, it was here that I ran into a possible bug I've not encountered before. After each scenario is over, I always choose the "view battlefield" option to take a look at what the Allies have left in regards to forces. Well, I did that here, and when I tried to get out of the battlefield view and on to the next scenario, nothing happened. I pressed the "end turn" button, but it did not respond. I went to the main menu and tried to save the game, again, nothing. No window for saves came up. I ended up leaving the scenario, reloading the axis autosave turn, and when I got the "Decisive Victory" splash, I pressed the "continue" button and went to the next scenario. I'm pretty sure I did everything I usually do, so this might be something to look at for this scenario.

Sorry that was so long-winded. Next up, Overlord.

I was refering to our multiplayer match of Gustav Line.

Vast should not be vastly.
Vast, an adjective, is describing 'size'.

You have done well, Herr General, but unfortunately this has proven to be not well enough. Even though you managed to secure all of your objectives before August, the size of the Soviet counter-offensive is proving vast beyond our worst predictions.
You have done well, Herr General, but unfortunately this has proven to be not well enough. Even though you managed to secure all of your objectives before August, the size of the Soviet counter-offensive is proving vastly beyond our worst predictions.
For vastly to fit, it would need to be worded like:
The counter-offensive vastly outnumbers our garrison forces.
Or something.

I'll give you hard-earned, but if memory serves, the 'advance of the allies' has already been changed from what it used to be to what it currently is, so this will probably left to the final editor to decide on once and for all.

Ah, you are indeed correct. I misread the "vast/vastly" sentence the first time, so my mistake. Also, no problem with the advancing allies stuff ... as I said before, it is editor in me coming out. I do appreciate the feedback!

Who's providing the feedback again? lol

Who's providing the feedback again? lol

Hehe, guess that was your feedback on my feedback LOL!

I finished the Overlord scenario today... and got thoroughly crushed by the Allies. I know I've seen this mentioned on the board elsewhere, but there is no option to deploy air units in this scenario. As such the Allied air force had a field day blasting my forces to the point where I ended the scenario (a loss) without a single unit left. Now I realize that even if I did have my meager air forces available for this scenario it probably would have ended the same, but at least I could have managed some defense against the Allied air assault. In any case, until the air issue is resolved, this scenario is almost unwinable. And since I had zero core forces to start the next scenario (Germany), I decided to throw in the towel and end the campaign.

I decided to do switch sides for my next play-through, and test the Allied side. I am going to complete a mini-campaign for both the western Allies and the Russians. For the Allies I'll play the Italy, Gustav Line, Overlord, Ardennes and Germany scenarios in progression.
I'll do something similar with the Russians after that.

So here is my experience with Italy. I played on the "hard" setting to see if the game was any more challenging... not sure if it was, how exactly do the difficulty levels affect gameplay? (At first, I thought the game was "harder" because all of the battle casualty predictions were incredibly skewed against me -- how could an infantry unit several hexes inland cause 3 or 4 points damage on a battleship at sea? Then it dawned on me that the predictor read the same way for the allied side as the German side -- i.e., Axis losses, then Allied losses. Talk about a moment of relief LOL! )

Here are a few things that came up:

1. The "sleep" feature doesn't work right. When you select a unit and press the sleep button, the unit can still be selected afterward to move (and in fact can be moved). However, the "next/previous" buttons go dark if you cycle through the units with the sleep button; yet if you then click on any of the "asleep" units they can still move, despite the "next/previous" button being darkened.

2. I captured all of the objective hexes with about eight turns to go, but the scenario did not end. I then eliminated the last two Axis units on the board, but the scenario still didn't end. I had to keep clicking "end turn" until the final game turn, when the "Allied Victory" splash screen finally popped up.

3. The US 75mm M1A1 unit makes an infantry unit sound when it moves.

4. In the purchase units screen, the American flag icon is a bunch of squiggley lines.

5. Does an aircraft carrier work the same as a regular airfield (i.e., all six surrounding hexes give resupply) or does resupply only happen over the carrier itself?

That's it for now. Off to the Gustav Line scenario, to see if I can do better than my AI allied opponent.

1) that is WAD. It sleeps when you cycle through your units. You can always change your mind and click on the unit to move it.

3) all the sounds are being worked on. Don't need to mention each unit.

4) already in the bug list. Just click on it to see it.

Razz, thanks for the info. I suspected the sleep function might not be a bug, but I was too lazy to go back and look at a previous game.

Today I finished both the Gustav Line and Overlord scenarios. The German AI did a decent job in the GL scenario, and put up a credible defense for as long as it could. Overlord was much easier, as the combination of Allied air- and seapower simply overwhelmed the German forces (although there were a couple of nice surprise German ambushes along the way). I have to say again that I liked the Overlord map that Kerensky posted somewhere else on the forum; it might make taking Caen more of a struggle. Hope the designers consider it.

Two issues I noticed in both scenarios:

1. Will it be possible to buy Allied units when playing the Allied side? I lost two units in GL and one in Overlord, but both times I was prevented from buying anything to replace the lost units.

2. The upgrade function doesn't always work. In both scenarios, I could upgrade units on some cities and not others. Is this intentional, and if so what are the criteria for a city to support upgrades?

That's all for now. Next up, the Ardennes.

Wrapped up the Ardennes scenario as the Allies today. This is definitely a challenge for the Allied player -- you really have to use your defensive bottlenecks carefully, otherwise the Germans can move in several directions very quickly. I think this (along with the Kursk scenario) would make a fantastic multiplayer game.

Only one issue with the scenario: it never snowed! At first I thought it was just unusual weather conditions, but it never snowed once during the game. I reloaded the scenario three times, and each time the first turn came up clear. While I can see some clear turns later in the game, this is once scenario that really does need to have the weather hard-wired (or at least greatly skewed) to have snow in the first few turns.

Overall, this might be the best PzC scenario I've played yet, can't wait to try it from the German viewpoint. However, I want to finish playing through as the Allies some more first. Tonight I will tackle the Germany scenario.

With the arrival of the new patch today, I decided to once again return to the 1939 campaign. Here's my thoughts after finishing the Poland scenario.

1. I like the new terrain hexes (although see #3). I especially like the bridge hexes, nice way to represent river crossings.

2. Maybe it was just me, but it seems the AI was much better this time. I'm playing on "hard" level and the game does seem to have gotten a bit more challenging.

3. The unit "glow" needs to be extended to several of the new hex types. For as nice as the new terrain tiles are, it is very hard to see some units, particularly infantry. Specifically, the following terrain needs a "glow": hills (such as hex 6,23), airfields and countryside.

4. The objective hexes seem less prominent now. I really like how the strategic view map portrays city/airfield ownership; maybe a similar scheme for the main view?

5. The ability to determine core vs. aux units is still a struggle. I can't see the little borders around the strength icons. I was wondering if the following might be a good method: leave core units as white numbers on black boxes, change auxiliary units to black on white or gray boxes.

6. The pop-up info on the tool buttons (replacements, upgrades, etc.) appears to have become unformatted. It no longer displays in three lines, but a single line that has stray characters and is hard to read.

7. Finally, the briefing for the Poland scenario looks great. I was wondering if this might be a good place to mention how many turns it will take for a marginal vs. decisive victory?

In all, I like the game engine improvements; the graphic improvements are good but still need some work. I am looking forward to tackling Norway tonight!

Got the first turn in of the Norway scenario, and noticed something out of whack. It seems both of my core artillery units lost their transports from the previous scenario (I upgraded one and purchased another, both had trucks). All of my other units seem to have their organic transport. Is this design or bug?

dshaw62197 wrote:Got the first turn in of the Norway scenario, and noticed something out of whack. It seems both of my core artillery units lost their transports from the previous scenario (I upgraded one and purchased another, both had trucks). All of my other units seem to have their organic transport. Is this design or bug?

It is certainly not design, so might be a bug.

I finished the Norway scenario, and I was a little disappointed. It didn't seem nearly as challenging as it was in the previous beta. It appeared there were fewer Allied forces present (only one aircraft?). Also I don't like having Namos removed as an objective... I thought that was the real climax of the scenario, trying to get up there in time to salvage a marginal or decisive victory. I hope it gets restored in the final version.

On the other hand, it seems the terrain in central Norway has been modified, making it more difficult to move the Germans overland to the north. I do like that change, as it makes you ponder how to best get your forces north without getting them ambushed.

I will work on the Low Countries (and some multiplayer games!) this evening.

Before I move on to the Low Countries, I forgot two things to mention about Norway:

1. The ship movement noise is awful. The first time I heard it I thought there was static coming out of my speakers. Hope this is just a "placeholder" lol.

2. Another terrain feature that needs a "glow" when units are present: mountains.

Just finished the Low Countries, and this scenario is definitely improved. The Allies have a strong selection of units, and the British presence now feels more historical. Appropriately enough, the final city I captured was Dunkirk. Thoughts and issues:

1. In the scenario briefing, in the sentence that reads, "...some of your more difficulty..." "difficulty" should be "difficult."

2. Maubeuge (18,10) appears as a Belgian objective; however, the city is in France, so shouldn't it be French? (Of course this may be for balancing issues, just wanted to point it out.)

3. The new unit icon for the bridge pionere unit is ... meh. This was the first scenario where I played with it on the board, and it looks like some sort of tub or animal. I understand what the icon represents, but I think it needs at least one soldier with it so it doesn't look like a fighting bathtub. (Maybe the icon could be the older sprite when the unit is not over a river, and the pontoon unit could show up when the unit is bridging a river.)

Also, I took my first turns in the multiplayer game. So far the experience is good, no difficulties figuring out how to issue or accept a challenge. However, while attempting to play a multiplayer game, I had my first crash to desktop in PzC. When I first started PzC, I went to mulitplayer first, took my turns, exited and then played the current scenario in my campaign (LC). I went back to multiplayer, see two games are ready, and clicked on one. Nothing happened; I clicked again, and the CTD occurred. I reloaded the game, went back to multiplayer, tried once more to get into one of my games, and again had the CTD. This was just a little while ago (3:00am EDT US), so not sure if the problem is on my end or perhaps it was an issue on Slitherine's end. Either way I thought I'd bring it up.

I only gained a marginal victory in the LC, so it's off to a Sea Lion-less France (and hopefully multiplayer) tomorrow.