Slitherine

By invitation from Erik. Version 0.9.

Here is the campaign tree; no issues that I can see but a couple of "just to be sure" suggestions:


You know better than I do but it is my (incomplete) understanding that this tab is merely for establishing who the humans are, in regards to the core, and the colors of the arrows. Still, wherever the Americans encounter Soviets in this campaign, the Soviets are AI. "Just to be sure," I would move the check to the AI column without deleting the second Human column itself. [Never mind; see below.* I cannot delete images so I will explain instead.]


These last two scenarios are not dated. "Just to be sure," it might be best to date them the same in the campaign editor as they are in the scenario editor:


* You needed to have a red arrow for Soviet movements later in the campaign so you added another column. The editor only allows additional Human columns but this is not important. So, long story made short, leave it alone!

Omaha Beach v. 0.9

Ugh. I know why you need to use this guy and the "Sir" approach. Promise me that, if and when they ever come out with U.S. Army generals, you will go back over your campaigns and update them accordingly. This does not cut it:


A U.S. Army commander does not get get briefed by a Marine sergeant. For now, why not use this alternative and dispense with the "Sir"?

Omaha Beach v. 0.9 (continued)

"Destroy all 4 Atlantikwall Guns" is a primary objective:


As such, there should be an offsetting German objective, such as "1gun":


I'm thinking this out . . . Say the player takes all 5 objectives but fails to destroy one or more guns. That would be a Draw - neither side achieved ALL primary objectives. I believe it should be a Defeat and if you agree, then you need the German "1gun" objective and another trigger here that evaluates at scenario-end whether one or more guns are still alive. If so, then fail the U.S. objective and award the German objective:


Shouldn't this tank count toward "Destroy all tanks"?


Thread to be continued . . .

Omaha Beach v. 0.91 (continued)

I have not been paying much attention to the outcome descriptions - I believe many of them come from Panzer Corps and tend to be too long for our dialog box, yet you hold onto your quixotic hope of getting a scroll bar therein - but this caught my eye, for both Minor and Major Victory:

"Congratulations. It is a hard-won victory and because enemy resistance was much tougher than anticipated, in none [italics added] of the sectors the goals were met."

That does not seem to be an appropriate statement of victory. May I suggest the following?

Minor Victory: "Congratulations. It is a hard-won victory but because enemy resistance was much tougher than anticipated, in some of the sectors the goals were not met."

Major Victory: "Congratulations. It is a hard-won victory and although enemy resistance was much tougher than anticipated, in all of the sectors the goals were met."

Version 0.91

I missed this yesterday because Omaha Beach dates coincided and I noticed the zeroes in the Campaign Editor for the final two scenario dates, which you have corrected. However, as soon as I compared the dates for Pointe du Hoc, I began to notice the significant discrepancies between the two sets of dates for all of the other scenarios:


I know that the Campaign dates determine the availability of specialisations but I was not sure whether they, or the Scenario dates, control the availability of units. To test this, I looked for US Infantry '44 in Pointe du Hoc, available 9/2/1944 in units.csv:


If the game thought it was July 1943, they would not be available yet, but there they are:


Scenario dates apparently rule in this case. Therefore, unit availability is not affected but I'm rather sure specialisations will be so I would imagine that you will want to correct the Campaign dates.

Pointe du Hoc v. 0.91

Nitpicking, I know, but . . . You usually don't differentiate in the wording of "Capture all X objectives"; i.e., "primary" or "secondary" because it's self-evident which are which. However, in the case of this "Do not lose any objective at any time," that could be confusing to the player as to what you are referring. You mean, of course, these other objectives but I would suggest saying "Do not lose any Omaha Beach objectives at any time":


Thanks for calling my attention to an ideal retirement location: "Loungeville." It sounds heavenly! Anyway, here's another nitpicker but maybe less of one this time - I would make all of these Capture VP Events. Sometimes I nitpick because I don't know enough about the game but I would venture to say that a Move Event is not recorded at the moment one of these VP's is captured. Thus it has to wait until some other unit moves which, 9 times out of 10, would be fine. The 10th time, though, it might make a difference:


Now, here's some dramatic, hard-hitting feedback, for sure!

This trigger is calling for 4 primary objectives; it should be Value > 2:


This trigger fails the wrong U.S. primary objective:

Pointe du Hoc v. 0.91 (continued)

This is well-designed; at the beginning, the objective is marked as completed:


and this trigger evaluates it at scenario-end in order to award the resources even though the objective remains completed:


Then there are a series of triggers that would fail the objective should any of these VP's fall to the Germans. The only problem is, the first one, Colleville, is not linked to the Target Hex:

Carentan v. 0.91

You almost aced this one! I just noticed one thing wrong; you have only one German plane in the scenario but the game is tracking 8 units for "Eliminate all air units":


Now, this trigger correctly tracks the air units:


but this one does as well, in error, and apparently since it comes later in the list, it governs (I learn something new about OOB everyday):


When I changed the link in the "Arm" trigger to the correct objective, it displayed properly:


Which brings up an interesting point and something else that I learned today. When a trigger has a Check Unit Count condition, it is looking for ALL such units, even those not yet deployed. This brings to light something else that I need to check from now on; that is, whether all such units are eventually deployed by the scenario designer so that an objective like this can be completed.

Your mechanism works fine as I found in this test; your counterattack is on its way, stimulated by my taking a primary VP with (short-lived) U.S. recruits:


The player needs to be careful not to end the scenario before getting the last panzer unit (hence the importance of the count) if he wants those specialisation points.

Thread to be continued . . .

Bru and Erik, Keep up the good work I can't wait to play this one, looks awesome.

Dwightd wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:52 pm Bru and Erik, Keep up the good work I can't wait to play this one, looks awesome.

Thanks. It's almost all Erik, though; I'm just looking over his shoulder. This campaign really is impressive and I think you will enjoy it. Moreover, it's the third of a trilogy and if I am not mistaken, you will be able to carry over your core from US Corps 42-43 to 43-44 and 44-45.

Cotentin* v. 0.91

* You spell this as "Contentin" for the Scenario Name in Settings but it is spelled correctly everywhere else.

Orphan, and a mighty big baby at that!


More orphans here:


You may want to shift the focus of the second briefing to "the locations marked with an A on your map":


You may also want to consider providing the player with a popup message alerting him to the existence of a new primary objective at this point:


For the reason that I stated in one of the Pointe du Hoc posts, I would make all of these "Towns" triggers Capture VP Events:


Just to save yourself time (and avoid possible complications), I don't think you ever need AI secondary objectives to achieve or fail. You need a trigger to achieve a human secondary objective (and sometimes you may want to definitely fail a secondary objective rather than leaving it open), but AI secondary objectives don't really do anything AFAIK and associated triggers are superfluous:


Thinking of that missions Defeat, Draw, and Victory outcomes grid in the Scenario Editor Manual, human secondary objectives distinguish between Major and Minor Victory and Defeat according to whether they are completed or not. ("Not" encompassing both when they are definitely failed or merely left open at scenario-end.) AI primary objectives make it possible for the human player to experience Defeat. (Without which, the alternatives are just Victory or Draw). AI secondary objectives seem to have no function, however.

Cotentin v. 0.91 (cotinued - just kidding )

You have the Visible Units alliance correct - German - but no Unit Definition:


and here you have the wrong Viewers and the Unit Definition that should have been selected for Visible Units:


As it is, you are saying, "Activate the objective when any German plane sees a fellow German." Move the Category "Air" Unit Definition to Visible Units and change the alliance to Green/United States.

Just checking on this one; it deploys German air units when U.S. land units are within two hexes of La Haye-du-Puits. I am always nervous when two triggers are named the same:

Cherbourg v. 0.91

These orphan Schnellbooten, are they window dressing or should they be assigned to to AI Team #4 - KM (Naval Seek & Destroy)?


You chose to use the Japanese MXY7 Ohka to represent the V-1 flying bomb; a good choice, given the similarity of appearance. However, here they are referred to as "Me262s" - perhaps just delete this reference? Most players know what the V-1 looked like:


Speaking of appearances, you use this photo in conjunction with the "V1 Spotted" trigger:


That's actually the V-2 rocket. May I urge you to use this photo instead? I scoured the Internet for hours to find it! (Which is a lie; it's from Wikipedia which I went to immediately ):

I converted that pic to PNG format in case you agree to use it:


I would have gone back to the previous post and swapped the image but, as you know, we cannot edit posted images in this forum.

Cherbourg v. 0.91 (continued)

I thought about this but remained of the opinion that if you are going to mention the V-1's and the town of Brix, you ought to point to it on the map:


Heh, maybe it's me, but I'm not sure I would trust this statement! "There are no reports of any Luftwaffe activity in the area. You should safely select bombers only for this mission."

I would not wait for a Combat Event to activate this trigger; I would make it "Move Event" or "Any Event":


Also, please change this text to: "Our troops have stumbled upon a few German V1 launch sites." (You have "VI" which is Roman numeral 6.)

One last thing; there is no Unit Definition here which means bombers flying over Brix will find the airfields and trigger the objective. You may want to restrict this to Category "Land":

Cherbourg v. 0.91 (continued)

Lots of stuff to cover in this scenario! Let's continue.

The "V1 destroyed" trigger is looking for the Unit Owner to be Kriegsmarine but the V-1's belong to the German faction:


Same thing with the "V1 survive" trigger:


Another problem with that trigger is that it should evaluate at scenario-end, not at the first Combat Event. As it is, the trigger probably fails the objective almost immediately:


Notice also that the trigger is requiring only a MXY7 Ohka alive, not an airstrip. That's fine, if the MXY7 Ohka stays in the airstrip. But you do provide for the V-1's to be launched, given certain conditions here:


This opens up some new avenues of consideration.

First, the trigger is requiring Damage to be exactly 9. What's the likelihood of hitting that number on the nose? What about easier difficulty settings where enemy units begin with strengths of 8 or 6? What about using something like "Damage > 5 or 6"? [Important - see next post.]

Second, so the V-1 flying bomb launches. That leaves an empty airstrip. The mission is "You need to destroy both the launch pads (airstrips) and the V1s . . ." If so, then "Airstrip" should be added to the "V1 survive" trigger Check Unit Condition as another Unit Definition.

Third, real V-1's would probably have been aimed at London or its environs with preset targeting. When these V-1's take off, they are going to target local U.S. units. But, alright; some poetic license if you will. Perhaps the Nazis could quickly reprogram the V-1's for local targeting. They will destroy themselves in the process, thus helping complete the objective in a roundabout manner.

Fourth, however, is that the V-1's are not assigned to any AI team, so they are in fact not going anywhere!


So the V-1 module was a great idea but it needs some tweaking.

Heh, I see by this time you had come around to my way of thinking about these "Towns" triggers and Capture VP Event:


I thought we had a problem with too many secondary VP's (9, while the objective says "Capture and hold all 8 objectives at scenario end" but it turns out that you hit Vasteville twice - no harm:


This trigger effects the wrong objective:


This image is not in the scenario folder:


Also, please remove the "t" from "tbe" in "This should tbe a real help overcoming the Cherbourg defenses."

Well. I say with conviction that Cherbourg has worn me out! That's all for this evening.

Cherbourg v. 0.91 (continued)

Whoa. I can't go to bed yet. I just caught this as I was reviewing my last post before signing off.

These "Launch V1" triggers are not going to work at ALL because you have the airstrips designated as the killers:


I thought of doing the triggers this way:


As I am sure you are aware, the Unit Damage Done condition is limited to only Class for Target Definition, not Category or Unit Type. The closest selection, then, is "Structure" but the problem with that is, the concrete bunkers are also structures. No good.

Allow me to suggest this arrangement, then, with you choosing an appropriate Amount threshold:


Now, sir, I hear my pillow calling me in a rather voluptuous manner: "Oh, Bruuuuuuuce!" Good night.

Thread to be continued . . .

Let's take a moment for a bit of Bru news. I now have permanent access to a laptop that runs version 8.1.0 just fine. Rejoice! Rejoice! Tra-la-la-la-la!

No more hunkering down and hiding in version 7.1.4 on my old laptop. I don't have a clue what happened to OOB after that version which would make it hate that laptop so. Believe me, I tried everything. The only thing I can think of is that the laptop was originally Windows 7, then Windows 8/8.1, and finally Windows 10. Something may have been lost along the way.

What a difference, though. Versions 7.1.8 and 8.1.0 were terrible on that old laptop, particularly the editors. Smooth as silk on this laptop, though.

So I have emerged! I am with you, Brother! Bring on the Soviet Guards! Roll out the GAZ-MM 25mm!

Avranches v. 0.91

After a while, one acquires an instinct for CSI sweeping, you know? As I was viewing the missions tab, I had a premonition that there would be a problem with primary VP's and associated triggers:


The issue is, there are four primary VP's on the map: the three that you want the player to "Capture all 3 objectives" and Pèriers which is not to be lost at any time. All four primary VP's count toward this trigger:


So in the very beginning, the U.S. player already has one objective in the bag before firing up a single Sherman tank and only needs to take 2 of the other 3 objectives:


The easiest solution is to make Pèriers an ordinary capture point but that may look lame. You could change the mission to "Capture/hold all 4 objectives" and change the trigger to "Value > 3" but that may create a problem with the "Ger 1 obj" objective and trigger. The other alternative, of course, is to do this for the three German-held objectives:

Avranches v. 0.91 (continued)

You may get a complaint or two about "Exit at least 10 land units at scenario end." This mission appears only after the three German-held primary VP's are taken. So, the player is biding his time, preparing carefully-planned attacks, and takes the third VP on turn 21, say. All of a sudden, a new mission pops up and he has to scramble to get 10 units to exit in the few remaining turns. Why hide this mission? If you prefer it to be this way, then perhaps a mention of it in the briefing, that once the primary objective are taken, a "breakout" will be expected and required?

See above for a discussion of why I believe secondary AI objectives to be superfluous. If anything, although this particular trigger is alright, it could have in fact led to an error with the U.S. objective:


Without a Category of "Land" for Unit Definition, the Waffen SS will be unusually jumpy at the sight of a U.S. plane:


Same with these two triggers: