Scripted invasions idea

[jpinard]

Hi Bill,
I love scripted invasions. It saves us from having to do some tedious work each game. However... right now there is no reason to not take Denmark or Norway via scripted invasion and I think this takes away from the fact you even have a script there. I think the amount to invade those countries is perfect, but to make the player second guess his decision I think there should be something happening on the other side of the coin.

If it costs 30 MPP to invade Denmark and take it automatically, have Denmark offer the player 30 MPP to NOT invade. I don't remember Norway's cost, but if it costs like 150 MPP, I would suggest 30-100 MPP to not invade them. The player would then be free to break their promise not to invade, but alternatively they now have a good reason to not perform the automatic invasion. If the player gets bogged down doing a manual takeover it is not the game's fault but their own decision

The wording could be something along the lines of "Denmark understands an invasion of their country is practical matter for Germany and offers 30 MPP from their banks to not invade."

[BillRunacre]

Effectively to make it less of a no-brainer?

Though I wonder if a manual invasion is actually cheaper in MPPs. A Tank unit could drive up there, or a Paratroop unit drop on the capital and take out the defenders with a bit of air support?

[Jaimainsoyyo]

Well if you invade Denmark not only is cheaper than the script( no cost with a paratroper and an airplane destroying the unit in Copenhagen) but also it brings you a few morale points due that the unit is unsupplied in the first turn.

[dhucul2011]

Denmark is easy to take without need for the script.

A medium bomber to hit the garrison and then a paratroop and it's done.

I would suggest removing the auto invasion script for Denmark altogether.

It also avoids the problem of the USA protesting manual invasions but not scripted ones. (for Denmark anyway)

[jpinard]

ORIGINAL: jaimain

Well if you invade Denmark not only is cheaper than the script( no cost with a paratroper and an airplane destroying the unit in Copenhagen) but also it brings you a few morale points due that the unit is unsupplied in the first turn.

I did not realize Denmark had such a tiny defense. So maybe Denmark and Norway should have a tiny bit more defense so it balances out? I like the scripts and would like to see them remain. To fix the U.S. issue just add U.S. angst for a manual invasion there just like what happens in other areas.

[xwormwood]

Scripted invasions should be rather expensive. The player who loves his MPPs will do the invasion manually, while the player who wants to get an auto-victory will have to pay the price for this.
Pay for Denmark (50). Pay for Norway (200).
And than take a step to the side and watch what will happen next.

[n0kn0k]

I think it doesn't add any fun or gameplay value to remove the scripts, it distracts from the battles that the game is about.
And I'd take the mpp hit anyday to just save the time and effort / annoyance to take Norway with bad supply.

[sullafelix]

+1

[derfderf]

I think scripted invasions are a nice option. They can be declined and invasion can then be done manually. With this in mind I would favor the addition of a scripted invasion of Malta. I would also suggest that as part of the script it be made clear that if declined can still invade manually.

[BillRunacre]

I don't mind increasing the price for Norway a bit so that there is more of a choice, say to 200.

Denmark is 50 which is cheap. Too cheap perhaps?

[Ostwindflak]

Taking stuff manually is fun, but in all honesty there are times when I don't feel like doing it. Especially Denmark. Denmark really provides you nothing except a jump off point to Norway. After that it really doesn't serve much purpose. I think 50 MPPs for it is fine.

Where Norway has at least a resource mine, I wouldn't mind an increase in MPPs for a scripted invasion there. Strategically it is more important to the Germans early game.

[jpinard]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

I don't mind increasing the price for Norway a bit so that there is more of a choice, say to 200.

Denmark is 50 which is cheap. Too cheap perhaps?

Nope not too cheap at all. In fact 200 for Norway makes me do a double take.

[n0kn0k]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

I don't mind increasing the price for Norway a bit so that there is more of a choice, say to 200.

Denmark is 50 which is cheap. Too cheap perhaps?

Denmark should be cheap. In reality they only resisted for 6 hours.
If you want to see a good movie about it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3542188/ [:D]

A more expensive Norway script i wouldn't recommend for gameplay reasons.
I'm totally against removing the scripted conquest though, Instead change the MPP penalty to a damage script.
It's really easy for an allied player, knowing that the Axis need to take Norway and when they need to do it, to mess it up. Way too gamey.
In reality it was a surprise attack due to bad weather and communications in Norway.

I'd recommend to change some if not all of the MPP cost into event scripted damage to the ships of the kriegsmarine.
That would reflect reality a bit better, and gives better immersion.
If you read the wiki you will understand why. [:)]

At sea the invasion proved a significant setback. For the Kriegsmarine the campaign led to crippling losses, leaving the Kriegsmarine with a surface force of one heavy cruiser, two light cruisers and four destroyers operational. This left the navy weakened during the summer months when Hitler was pursuing plans for an invasion of Britain. The German losses at sea were heavy, with the sinking of one of the Kriegsmarine's two heavy cruisers, two of its six light cruisers, 10 of its 20 destroyers and six U-boats. With several more ships severely damaged, the German surface fleet had only three cruisers and four destroyers operational in the aftermath of the Norwegian Campaign.[5][112] Two torpedo boats and 15 light naval units were also lost during the campaign.[113] Two German battleships and two cruisers were damaged during the campaign.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Campaign

[sPzAbt653]

event scripted damage to the ships of the kriegsmarine.

This seems like a good idea, then the player has the choice of the easy scripted invasion but a weakened KM, or a tedious manual invasion with control over the KM [losses are on the player!].

[xwormwood]

Guys, from my point of view (which is obviously not the one of the majority, and that is absolutely ok) it is like that:

if i play a game, i want to play the game.
Scripted events are fine for a movie. They are not so great for a game which invites you to change history, try things on your own, compare yourself with your historical counterparts.

Isn't it a major error of thought if you reduce the game to that what happened in HISTORY where you should create opportunities for BOTH sides to change what has happened back then?
Why should Denmark always surrender? Because they did it in history? Well, yes, they did. But they could have fought, too. In SC3 there is a PLAYER in charge about the decision of every Alliance.
Why doesn't the ALLIED player get to decide about Denmarks or Norways behaviour? Who are we to decide that everything has to be just like it was in history even though the players are representing absolutely a-historic rulers with unlimited powers?

I don't say that attacking Denmark is great fun. But honestly - attacking France is neither fun, once you did it a several hundred times (which you will have done once you've reached a certain grognard age).
We all know France surrendered. But they could have kicked the shit out of the Germans. If they would have acted sooner, different, and somewhat luckier.
But everybody demands that France has to crumble. So France gets punished because of the bad luck, bad command, late actions of their historical counter parts.

If something is boring - well, shouldn't we think about ways to make a boring thing interesting again?

I don't want to see the Kriegsmarine damaged only because the historical counterparts used it in a risky way. If at all I want to see it damaged because I got into a fight, because I gambled, or short: as a direct result of my naval movements and combats.

I don't want to complain. After all this will be the first release, and not everything can be done at this point of the game series.
But I would be really glad if you could unterstand my point of view, and why it makes me look rather disapointed if not frustrated on scripted events (including scripted units).

[dhucul2011]

X-man, we are completely on the same page here.

The map that Bill created is so pretty that it's an absolute shame to not have game-play is some of the lesser theatres.

1. The Denmark script should go for sure. It's so easy to take Denmark.

2. I would maybe keep the Norway script but increase the cost and instead of the free conquest of the country, the script could place the invasion forces outside of Oslo and the coastal cities. The Axis would still have to attack the objectives and maybe even add air support. It would be very do-able as the Norwegian garrisons are so weak in turn one.

3. Dakar could be added to the bottom of the map on the African west coast and a popup detailing the benefit of attacking it, morale boost, gold reserves etc. There could then be a DE to complete the Richelieu.

Anyway, I keep spouting off about this and look forward to adding to my MOD when it goes public.

[Mithrilotter]

I like scripted invasions. They free up time to spend on the more interesting battles of the game.

I don't want to see an increase in MPP cost to penalize people that don't like micromanaging everything.

[sPzAbt653]

But I would be really glad if you could unterstand my point of view, and why it makes me look rather disapointed if not frustrated on scripted events (including scripted units).

I really can't understand your position at all. The scripted invasions are a choice, if you don't like them, don't choose them ?!?!

Scripted invasions are a nice choice for the rookie that has yet to learn all the rules, and might also be nice for the expert who wants to focus on other things and is not interested in another time and effort consuming invasion of Norway.

I will also add that if you like to manually invade Norway, it's not going to be realistic at the corps scale. But it doesn't matter to me, you can do it if you want, your choice

[jpinard]

ORIGINAL: Mithrilotter

I like scripted invasions. They free up time to spend on the more interesting battles of the game.

This exactly! We don't always have the time. The game takes a looong time to play which is why I think Bill's script's here are brilliant.

ORIGINAL: Mithrilotter

I don't want to see an increase in MPP cost to penalize people that don't like micromanaging everything.

This is why I suggested a small bonus for not invading vs. increased cost. That seemed like the best of both worlds. I think increased cost will force us penny pinchers into doing the conquests manually and I don't want to feel that way. After reading everyone's feedback I would suggest the bank idea, but lower the payout. 10-20 MPP for not invading Denmark and 50-60 MPP for not invading Norway. It really feels like that is the best way to do this. Otherwise I'd prefer no change and no increase in cost. The way my games go if I choose to invade manually I will end up much further behind cost-wise and schedule-wise for invading France. I'm just a moderate player, not an expert which is also again why the "please don't invade us for xxx MPP" felt like a good balance.

[xwormwood]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

But I would be really glad if you could unterstand my point of view, and why it makes me look rather disapointed if not frustrated on scripted events (including scripted units).

I really can't understand your position at all. The scripted invasions are a choice, if you don't like them, don't choose them ?!?!

Two additional remarks.

The AI gets the same decisions as the human player. But I can't choose for the AI, so no matter what i prefer, there will always be scripted invasions as long as you can't turn them off for the entire game.

I always play on the highest difficulty level. Why should i get anything for free while using this mode?
If at all, scripted events could be part of the Beginner level, where they would indeed fit in just beautifully.

Your point about the realism: i guess that is a given once we fire up Strategic Command or any other wargames.

I could / should add that my ideal war game would be a Strategic Command structure where you can fight all battles (optionally, just like in the Total War series) in a Panzer General Style. A game within the game.

But you have your idea of a great wargame, and I have mine. That is absolutely ok, we don't have to convice each other by force, and that is why I stop it at this point.