Slitherine

Rudankort wrote:Having said all that, although redoing Kursk in 2x bigger size and with 2x more units is probably not an option at this point (because the size of the core effects all scens in the campaign, not just one scen), I have nothing against tweaking it - changing terrain, maybe adding one more line of defense, adding some more auxiliary units. This battle MAY need this because it has several separate fronts, and so, as I said above, simplification and averaging of units may not work so well here. You can even make your own version of Kursk and post it here - then we can see what people think about it.

Having played most of your campaign now it is generally playable, and enjoyable - but it does very much feel like PGlite.

However in the hopes that things like AI, scenario reinforcements and victory conditions can have some flexibility for scenario designers who want to go bigger I decided to illustrate what I had envisioned as my ideal PG follow on campaign (ie apply similar size/orientation/scope changes to all battles to make them more dynamic without, hopefully, loosing their historical trappings.)

Being extremely busy at work this spring this is far from a playable scenario atm - it's more the scenario builder equivalent of a sketch but for illustrative purposes it should be sufficient. Please note the Russian units are representative of both starting units and mid game reinforcements. Sometime after launch I'll go back and remake it as an actual scenario.




The point being to illustrate that increasing the size (35x60) vs. (25x40PG) is not merely scaling up "more of the same." Yes the breakthrough front isn't all that different from PG but the extra space is being used so that it's impossible just to line up forces from one side of the map to the other. While your core force is taking out the salient, soviet reserves instead of point defending the objectives are lauching substantial counter attacks, both from within the saliant as well as to the north against Orel and Bryansk, and the south against Belgorad and Kharkov.

Ideally scenario victory conditions would be take and hold all objectives until the end of the scenario for a major victory or hold the 4 starting objectives for a minor victory. Ideally you would be able to assign non-city deployment hexes for the russian player so his forces pour in from the entire east edge, as opposed to spawning around cities. The core force would be around 50 units, compared to 43 in the original - the bulk of the balance being required to stiffen the fronts around Orel/Belgorad.

This changes the make up of the scenario from being a straight slogging match against time, to being a juggling match between how much of your core you assign to the drive on the objectives and hopefully pinch off the salient, versus how much has to be assigned to guard the flanks and hopefully hold the line until the salient is secured and the bulk of your core can be redeployed to the east.


PS I used german flags to make the "front line" clearer. The blue chevrons indicate where the German player will have to divert forces to defend while clearing out the saliant with others.

You can not have mid game reinforcements.

Only at the start.

Razz1 wrote:You can not have mid game reinforcements.

Only at the start.

What do you call the spam of 45mm ATGs that appear around objectives now?

However in the hopes that things like AI, scenario reinforcements and victory conditions can have some flexibility for scenario designers

I don't see why you couldn't make premade reinforcements though - it's not like it's a novel concept or would be very difficult to program. Having premade T-34s deploy half way through the scenario would be much more entertaining than leaving purchasing purely in the hands of the AI.

Likewise being able to set AI deployment hexes instead of the default "around the cities" would make for much more interesting scenarios instead of the current sweeps from one side of the map to another.

Very good approach boredatwork! It sounds exciting. I support the idea to simulate something historically scenario designer should predeploy forces non existent at the start of operation. Much of the timing can be done trough AI.

boredatwork wrote:

Razz1 wrote:You can not have mid game reinforcements.

Only at the start.

What do you call the spam of 45mm ATGs that appear around objectives now?

That is the AI buying new units.

It is not too smart now. Never buys air power. The German AI like to but recons

I can't speak for the AI, but there should be considerably flexibility in terms of victory condition options. Perhaps as early as the next beta, you may see multiplayer scenarios where the objectives have nothing to do with conquering VHes....

DLC 1943 won't disappoint.

Kerensky wrote:DLC 1943 won't disappoint.

Finished DLC43 finally (I had to go back and replay 39-42 largely to rationalise my SE unit groupings as well as to make 88mm Flaks purchaseable as AT units so my initial pair could be upgraded to StuGs later on).

Generally I would have to say very well done. I particularly like Kharkov 43 and Orel - the former because it requires defense while on offense, the latter because part of the game is rushing your reserves into position in time to defend. Hopefully the later serves as a model for some of the battles of DLC44. In particular, given my penchant for preserving core units, I hope to see greater reliance upon Aux units to man the initial defensive lines so they can be easily overwealmed with the player's units playing the role of fire brigades. If possible if the Devs could be convinced to add it I would suggest a delayed core arrival to maximize the effect - only place part of the core on to start then allow the player to place additional core units on subsequant turns.

It's not quite my ideal campaign - I would have preffered fewer, larger battles of greater scope - for example doing Kiev and Kursk as 1 scenario covering the whole battle instead of mini battles - but I understand the advantages to the PG2 scale approach in terms of historical accuracy, as well as keeping the AI behaving predictably.

The main issue with the mini battle approach is IMO you lose a sense of the big picture and some of the resultant battles feel a bit generic. If I could make 1 small suggestion to improve the current DLC content, if resources could be spared, it would be to include situation maps in the briefings to show the players the overall front situation and where the battle they are being asked to fight fits in. Nothing Fancy - the WINPG/Allied General style would be adequate - something with lines and arrows to show that when I'm being asked to encircle Kiev it's clear exactly where and how a given battle will achieve that. Not everyone has a detailed knowledge of russian geography (or WW2 in general) so IMO it would provide more historical flavour without much in the way of work.