Slitherine

Massive Allied force around Kutno and they did nothing, they never even attack when my (small) force was up there picking away at them. And 5 units were on trains just sitting there. They never moved or attack even weaker units next to them.

An AI issue or was I lucky to not have “triggered” them in to action?

The concept of the units at Kutno is foreshadowing the following scenario of Piatek.

dshaw62197 wrote:I also liked how the scenario briefing suggested that taking the rail route north of Lodz might be a good way to hit the town from the rear. I advanced cautiously, with one infantry unit entrained, another on foot, and an artillery unit for support. I'm glad I was slow, else I might have railed my unit right into the teeth of the Kutno pocket! It is nice to see that the scenario briefings aren't always the best information... I like that even my superiors can be surprised sometimes!

I like how the campaign is progressing so far. In fact, with the Kutno carry-over to the Piatek scenario, it almost feels like a narrative developing. I do feel like I'm getting drawn into a storyline. It's nice having multiple scenarios in one front, as opposed to jumping from country to country as in the original 1939 campaign. I'm finding myself thinking, "what's going to happen next? What other surprises do the Poles have in store?" Again, nice touch.

Issues with excessive polish inactivity seems to be a re-occurring theme though, so this is an issue that will probably get some attention.

Kerensky wrote:Issues with excessive polish inactivity seems to be a re-occurring theme though, so this is an issue that will probably get some attention.

I would think so. I understand the passive defender, but for multiple turns I had very low strength units that were right next to full strength tanks… and not even one shot fired my way.

I had one AI unit and it sat there.

If those AI units are made active, we will have to extend the number of turns. Perhaps, by two.

Also, the pill boxes must be passive as they never fired a shot.

The scenario's should be more clear.

For Lodtz it says" capture all objectives".

It should say, "capture all Primary Objectives".

Are not Flags Objectives?







Of course they are....

Razz1 wrote:The scenario's should be more clear.

For Lodtz it says" capture all objectives".

It should say, "capture all Primary Objectives".

Are not Flags Objectives?
Of course they are....

No they are not. The pzloc files follow the same format that the base game has.
Poland:
IDS_SCEN_AXIS_CAM_OBJECTIVES <i>Decisive Victory:</i><br>Capture all objectives with at least 5 turns remaining.<br><br><i>Marginal Victory:</i><br>Capture all objectives.
IDS_SCEN_AXIS_SCN_OBJECTIVES Capture all objectives.
Stalingrad:
IDS_SCEN_AXIS_CAM_OBJECTIVES <i>Decisive Victory:</i><br>Capture all objectives with at least 10 turns remaining.<br><br><i>Marginal Victory:</i><br>Capture all objectives except the Caucasus (Maikop, Grozny, and Baku).
IDS_SCEN_AXIS_SCN_OBJECTIVES Capture all objectives except Caucasus (Maikop, Grozny, and Baku).

DLC pzloc format:
IDS_SCEN_AXIS_CAM_OBJECTIVES <i>Decisive Victory:</i><br>Capture all objectives.<br><br><i>Marginal Victory:</i><br>Control at least 4 objectives.

There is no mention of primary objectives in either case.

Good point Razz1 – and I would agree on that about what the definition of “objective” is.
.......... Well - at least it is always my objective.


Plus now that you mention it, I had units sitting next to bunkers and was never attacked there either.

Fortifications are often passive to better accommodate bypassing them. For example, if the two bunkers outside Lodz shoot at any unit that goes around and takes Lodz from the rear... what's the point in bypassing them at all? The must be killed or they will kill anyone trying to take the VH behind them.

People who wish to fight fortifications and bunkers can choose to do so. Those who are able to maneuver around them and bypass them will be rewarded by not being threatened by them in most cases.

The definition of 'objective' is identical to the definition of objectives in the base game. There is no deviation. There is no such thing as primary or secondary objectives. There are only objectives (gold border around flag).
If ever there is a need to spell out different kinds of objectives, this has been done. For example, Poznan.

IDS_SCEN_AXIS_CAM_OBJECTIVES <i>Decisive Victory:</i><br>Capture all city objectives and capture at least 3 Polish Airfields.<br><br><i>Marginal Victory:</i><br>Capture at least 3 city objectives.

It specifically says city objectives and airfield objectives.

Kerensky wrote:Fortifications are often passive to better accommodate bypassing them. For example, if the two bunkers outside Lodz shoot at any unit that goes around and takes Lodz from the rear... what's the point in bypassing them at all? The must be killed or they will kill anyone trying to take the VH behind them.

Precisely why I was attacking the bunkers. Thinking if I take the city hex, they will just blow me out of there. That really changes the way I will look at bunkers going forward.
I’m undecided if I think that is a good thing or not.

I think the best solution is move passive bunkers and fortifications at least 1 hex away from any objective flag. This way a player does not need to wonder 'is this a shooting or a passive bunker?' Because even if it is a shooting bunker, it is safely out of range.

Consider it done.