Winter War 1939 Beta Test

[bru888]

1. Blowing the bridge doesn't actually seem to slow down any unit (allied or not)...

That's true, because the river hex that it crosses is frozen. The point, though, is that hex is the only way to get across the "river" because the rest of it is deep water. terminator had it right; an infantry unit and AT gun can hold the bridge for a while until the other Soviet column approaches on the northern side of the river.

Erik, if you are concerned about the Soviet passivity south of the bridge in 01Terijoki, I recommend the following:
- "6 Rifle" AI team initial aggression = 99
- "6 Rifle-a," "6 Rifle-b," and "6 Rifle-c," triggers "Move to Hex" aggression = 99
- ratchet up the turns to 20 for a greater challenge and, if you do that,
- replace the in-game deployment hexes on the two roads leading north with land deployment hexes available Turns 1-20.

Screenshot 3.jpg (222.42 KiB) Viewed 2391 times

Screenshot 4.jpg (217.55 KiB) Viewed 2391 times

Screenshot 6.jpg (234.12 KiB) Viewed 2391 times

Screenshot 7.jpg (390.95 KiB) Viewed 2391 times

[ColonelY]

an infantry unit and AT gun can hold the bridge for a while until the other Soviet column approaches on the northern side of the river.

Well, actually, two entenched heavy infantries both covered by an AT-gun as well as by an unit of artillery and, it's simple, all the southern column will be blocked for the entire scenario (at normal difficulty - level 3). Then the others units can be in charge of cleaning up the whole northern russian column!

And not even needed to blow the bridge...

[bru888]

Those improvements that I suggested above may help if Erik agrees. We will see.

[ColonelY]

2. I'm wondering whether the name "1/1 AAMG" should be on the spawn_name 11 instead of the 35th? Thus, I assume there was more tanks (BT-5) previously.

Let's maybe clarify this question. Well, in terms of armored units, and if I'm not mistaken, of course, the Russian will have all of them in the southern column: 1 recon (BA-10 or something), only 3 tanks B-5 (with the B-7 model renamed) and 1 GAZ-AAA 4M Maxim (with its own nice name). So why are there FOUR times the name "B-5" on spawned units that appear on the text_english.txt of this scenario?

[Erik2]

2. I'm wondering whether the name "1/1 AAMG" should be on the spawn_name 11 instead of the 35th? Thus, I assume there was more tanks (BT-5) previously.

Let's maybe clarify this question. Well, in terms of armored units, and if I'm not mistaken, of course, the Russian will have all of them in the southern column: 1 recon (BA-10 or something), only 3 tanks B-5 (with the B-7 model renamed) and 1 GAZ-AAA 4M Maxim (with its own nice name). So why are there FOUR times the name "B-5" on spawned units that appear on the text_english.txt of this scenario?

There are no B-5 unit type in OOB, I have substituted it with the B-7.
I 'always' use the historical unit name as a substitute reminder if the devs later add the unit. It makes it is easy to check the txt_engisj file later without having to open the scenario in the editor.
In these squad/platoon level scenarios each tank etc unit is actually 1 vehicle, so a historical unit name for each separate unit is moot.
Therefore the vehicle units usually share the formation name.

Hope that little rant answered at least part of your questions
Erik

[Erik2]

Those improvements that I suggested above may help if Erik agrees. We will see.

I am always in agreement with Master Bru

Link updated to 1.5 in first post.

01Terijoki:
Increased Sov AI team aggression
Increased Sov unit exp from 0 to 1
Increased no of turns from 18 to 20
Removed a few forward deployment hexes and added replacements way up north

04Soumussalmi:
Replaced txt_english file

[ColonelY]

Hope that little rant answered at least part of your questions

Thanks, but that was already more or less clear to me.

Well, it may definitely be a detail, but the main point is actually: is it possible that the soviet GAZ-AAA 4M Maxim unit spawns now with the name "B-5" instead of the historically accurate "1/1 AAMG"?

Or, said otherwise, I don't understand why 4 units are spawned (3 tanks "B-5" + this AA-mobile unit) when the text_english.txt contains 4 times "B-5" (as names) AND the "1/1 AAMG" as well... so 4 units spawned on map but info relative to the names of 5 units !?

If I open the editor, then your Soviet Activation folder for this scenario, then the tank sub-folder, the four units are indeed 3 tanks B-7 and this AA-mobile unit...

Could you just check a last time this story of name for this AA-unit, please?


Maybe it's the effect of my main mod , but then I would find this quite surprising!

[Erik2]

ColonelY

You are correct, I missed that.

The tanks are now named 34 Light Tank BT-5 while the AA unit is simply GAZ-AAA etc
Fixed in the next update

[ColonelY]

I missed that.

No worries!

Phew, it was difficult for me to make it clear, this time...

[ColonelY]

Scenario 2: air exit working fine, but it's rather difficult to follow the bomber (for example) to shot it down and then to bring our fighter back to safety without fuel issue... so what about adding another air exit more to the east, like in the top middle of the map or something? (the Pythagorean principle, avoid the hypothenuse )

Scenario 3: the enemy units killed count is only showed at the end of the scenario and not "in real time"...
Although, the event pop-up correctly (once 4 ennemy units have been destroyed) and the later reward works fine as well.

Both nice and enjoyable scenarios!

[bru888]

I agree on both counts. Thanks for the feedback and the compliment, Colonel.

Erik, one fighter versus two planes is tough, especially since the AI does its disappearing act in this one. In 02Kollaa, I could add Finnish exit/deployment hexes over here:

Screenshot 3.jpg (157.19 KiB) Viewed 2289 times

And I could add the artificial AI air redeployment mechanism that gives the human player another chance at enemy planes (although they "redeploy" at full strength).

In 03Linnasalmi, the triggers are working but they are counting bonus kills only at "Scenario turn limit." I could build in a counter for that so, so, satisfying body count based on "Combat Events." (Actually, I may be able to tweak the existing triggers for the same effect.)

Screenshot 4.jpg (229.76 KiB) Viewed 2289 times

If you agree, kindly place official copies of 02Kollaa and 03Linnasalmi in the "Ready for Bru" folder.

[ColonelY]

Scenario 4:

1. I've acquired the "War Economy" spec, in order to be able to buy a recon plane for this scenario , BUT there was NO ACP available at all! (So, there should be at least one, thanks to this acquired "War Economy"...) Are the ACP blocked or something within this scenario?

2. I've decided to send a column to save the brave guys in Karvola , thus activating the surrounding Russians. All is working smoothly, as well as the event popup once they have reached the other village and the apparition of the new commander. But, due to heavy fighting in the area and the massive presence of Soviets, I've just seen the first unit of Snipers being spawned and destroyed immediately!
-> Therefore I suggest that this unit should spawn elsewhere (the 0910, I mean). So maybe either more to the west, in a safer starting position, or closer to the spawning area of the second sniper unit.


And one more great scenario, one more!

[bru888]

Scenario 4:

1. I've acquired the "War Economy" spec, in order to be able to buy a recon plane for this scenario , BUT there was NO ACP available at all! (So, there should be at least one, thanks to this acquired "War Economy"...) Are the ACP blocked or something within this scenario?

Yes, that is the designer's decision whether to include air support even if a specialisation will allow it. In that scenario, there is no provision for either side to have aircraft so the +1 Air Command Point will be of little use. Hopefully +2 Land (and Naval, but also not usable) Command Points will be more helpful.

Bru:
Recon air option is a good idea actually. I will add one air exit and one deployment hex in scenarios 6-20 (if there are currently none).
Scenarios 1-5 placed in the Bru-folder.
Replaced text_english all scenarios.

Everybody else:
Thanks for the feedback, added non-Bru-stuff to my list.

[Dwightd]

Version 1.3, lvl 3, Sausage War

I got a minor victory on this one. I chowed down on the sausages but just could not kill all the Russian units. They just kept going deeper in the woods, and I chased them. I'm sure the full stomaches did not help

All air deployment and exit hexes worked well, and the air support was a welcomed addition.

[ColonelY]

Scen. 5:

A great one, with all's working fine.

The trickiest part was, for me, to sustain the heavy artillery fire - even if some (sweet) revenge has been taken by destroying one of their artillery pieces!
I really like the surprise - for it was one! (thanks to the short description of the objective ) - for the completion of the first secondary objective (the one related to tanks!).

Still, here are some details:

1. What about adding in the 3rd part of the briefing, something like: "[... entrenched machine gun positions] and through our minefields. [Such...]"
It is indeed an important part of our defenses and mentionning it could maybe avoid us some unlucky moves, for one can't already see our own mines, so...

2. Display objectives:
-> Primaries: I would find it more comfortable to see "in real time" how many capture points are still under control... Of course this condition is evaluated at the end of the scenario, but seeing always "8/4"...
-> Secondaries: Why not letting the counter run for the "decimate Soviet forces" one, after completion of this objective? At the end, the one related to tanks shows in my scenario "6/2" (which I like!), but the last one stays at "12/12" despite the slaughter of (so) many Russians!


Next step: I'll test the different possibilities at the crossroad... More feedbacks coming!

[GabeKnight]

[/i]-> Secondaries: Why not letting the counter run for the "decimate Soviet forces" one, after completion of this objective? At the end, the one related to tanks shows in my scenario "6/2" (which I like!), but the last one stays at "12/12" despite the slaughter of (so) many Russians!

If you want the counter to update past the limit (e.g. 10/6), you just need to load a (turn) savegame file.

You probably did that with the "6/2" tank objective, right?

[ColonelY]

Well, it's possible but I don't remember actually...
-> So I've just reloaded one of those files (turn 17) and this time the appearing numbers were the followings: 6/4 (primary) then 8/2 (tanks) and 27/12 (units)...

Indeed, you're right.

(By seeing those results, I should have reloaded once before the turn 17... because I had then destroyed only 6 tanks! )


Ok, that's it about the secondary objectives within this scenario!

[ColonelY]

Choice at crossroad - 06Tolvajarvi1:

1. Please add 4 turns!
In order to keep a still challenging major victory achievable; it's a big map and only 18 turns...

2. Really too much LCP!
92 at the beginning plus 60 as reinforcements appearing in waves along the scenario so a total of 152 LCP! (Even without the +2 of the "War Economy".)
-> Maybe remove 30 of them (so reduce those reinforcements by half - but the sooner they are available, the better, of course ).
Otherwise there is the risk to waist RP to buy more units, which will take long before seing action in this scenario and, more importantly, won't even probably be deployed within its following scenarios, wich do contain much less LCP.

3. Secondary objective description (the texts):
-> For the Hotel, what about increasing the effect like this: "[...] These barbarians have even turned [the beautiful hotel gardens...]"
-> For the supply dumps, what about talking here of capture instead of destruction? (Appears 3 times.) It would correspond more to what actually happen to these supply dumps and would be coherent as well with the primary objective of the scenario 07Hevossalmi, where they are to be captured.

4. Could actually be surprising to realize that there is no enemy at all in the Strait itself nor in the eastern part of the map...
So, what about adding few words within the scenario description, to tell that one expect the Soviet division to stand only on and around roughly the diagonal part of this road?
Like this, the player would be less likely to waist time and manpower searching the enemy elsewhere "just in case"...

5. If one fails the secondary objectives, they are not marked as failed at the end of the scenario... Doesn't really matter anyway, for it's the primary objective which is the more likely to be failed within this scenario. (For this test, I've just deployed units then let turns pass without even moving them.)

[GabeKnight]

WW1939 v1.5, lvl3, played out of my mod

Scenario 2: air exit working fine, but it's rather difficult to follow the bomber (for example) to shot it down and then to bring our fighter back to safety without fuel issue... so what about adding another air exit more to the east, like in the top middle of the map or something? (the Pythagorean principle, avoid the hypothenuse )

Scenario 3: the enemy units killed count is only showed at the end of the scenario and not "in real time"...
Although, the event pop-up correctly (once 4 ennemy units have been destroyed) and the later reward works fine as well.

Both nice and enjoyable scenarios!

Colonel, you read my mind.
Those were the main issues I also wanted to report here. The scen #2 sec. obj. to shoot down a Soviet air unit was only possible by crashing my own plane in the process. It's probably worth losing a rookie plane for a commander reward, but still...

The scen #3 prim. obj. counter should be updated at least at turn start, but combat event should work nicely, too. Sounds like an unimportant detail at first, but for me something like that is really necessary to plan the timing of my counter-attack. With a 15 turn limit and extremely low on RP, I did not want to attack too soon. And the 100RP/kill reward was introduced with a perfect timing. Really needed the ressources at that point. And with such high reward in mind, my defensive gameplay changed completely and I went full berserk on the Soviets. Almost got both the heavies in the woods, too.

The first scen worked flawlessly. But yeah, the southern Soviet column has no chance whatsoever to cross that river.

Screenshot 45.jpg (983.95 KiB) Viewed 2169 times

[GabeKnight]

Bruce, some minor details, if you wish:

Wasn't this bridge-crossing supposed to be changed (suggested by terminator)?

Screenshot 43.jpg (284.46 KiB) Viewed 2165 times

You're the expert, but I think there's a verb missing in that sentence:

Screenshot 44.jpg (43.18 KiB) Viewed 2165 times