Campaign Series East Front III 1939-1941 - scenario question

[Jason Petho]

For East Front III, with the initial release focusing on battles in 1939 through 1941, what battles do you think should be represented/included?

[Red2112]

Depending on the scale. Malta, Tobruk, Barbarossa [8D]

[Jason Petho]

East Front, of course. So will cover Poland, Finland and the invasion of Russia (up to 1941)

West Front II will have Malta and Tobruk.

[76mm]

The massive tank battles near near Dubno in 1941 would be an obvious choice, as would some of the fighting West of Smolensk as the Germans tried to close the encirclement, and the fighting at Yelnia. Down near Rostov could also be a good choice, maybe the attack on Odessa (if Romanians are also included). How well do you think the engine will handle urban maps?

[jamespcrowley]

Whatever battles are included, I do hope we will see far more vs the AI and, ideally, playable from both sides.

I appreciate that the AI is not that strong as the attacker but perhaps the victory conditions could be made more asymmetrical so as to support the AI when the player is defending.

I have only just got back into the Campaign series after many years and, as a WW2 buff, am looking forward to the improved versions that are promised for the future.

As well having the ability to fight a scenario from either side, possibly using two separate scenarios to do so, I would also like to see 'variable' scenarios.

By this I mean having a number of variations, perhaps slight perhaps not so slight, built into the main, or default scenario. Thus the scenario 'The battle of....' would have variation a, b, c and so on. The player could select the default scenario for the first time it is played but, subsequently, could have the programme (or should it be app, now) randomly pick a variation. The variations could stay inside historical constraints and could include; slightly different setups; small OOB changes and maybe even some different AI routines. That way the player could still have imperfect knowledge, to some extent at least, when replaying scenarios rather than just solving the puzzle as to how to beat the AI in a perfect way.

[Crossroads]

Thanks Jim, nice input! i recently had a go with my Sirte'85 scenarios with providing an H2H and SIDEA options to each battle, and it worked out quite nicely. The logical step would be to have both SiDE A and B alternatives available then, right [:)]

I also liked your idea of providing alternatives and variations. Having studied a certain battle in depth in order to come out with a historical situation, there's often a few key moments where everything could have gone the other way, so indeed making an alternative version would make sense here.

Certainly something to be considered!

[jamespcrowley]

Looking at the projected release date for EF3 and given that the majority of the game engine is in place already(?), I assume that the time is going to be taken with scenario design and subsequent testing and balancing - a lot of work I'm sure.

So the suggestion of variants is to get the most out of the scenarios, given the effort that goes into making them. I doubt that the precise location and strengths of platoons and sections can be verified, down to the 250m scale, especially in large battles on the East front, so having alternatives in those areas should not compromise the historical veracity of the scenario to any great extent.

With that in mind, I would also like to suggest having, potentially, a more flexible ending to scenarios. I appreciate that the time-limit in scenarios is primarily a game mechanism to put pressure on the player but there are many occasions when, towards the normal end of a scenario, the player is very close to victory and another turn or two would clinch it.

Perhaps there could be a mechanism whereby some extra turns could be obtained at the expense of a percentage of victory points. In that way, if the turns went on too long, the player would lose anyway.

Not sure how easy, or otherwise, it would be to institute these suggestions or even if they would generally be welcomed but I hope you don't mind me posting them.

[Big Ivan]

ORIGINAL: James Crowley

Looking at the projected release date for EF3 and given that the majority of the game engine is in place already(?), I assume that the time is going to be taken with scenario design and subsequent testing and balancing - a lot of work I'm sure.

So the suggestion of variants is to get the most out of the scenarios, given the effort that goes into making them. I doubt that the precise location and strengths of platoons and sections can be verified, down to the 250m scale, especially in large battles on the East front, so having alternatives in those areas should not compromise the historical veracity of the scenario to any great extent.

With that in mind, I would also like to suggest having, potentially, a more flexible ending to scenarios. I appreciate that the time-limit in scenarios is primarily a game mechanism to put pressure on the player but there are many occasions when, towards the normal end of a scenario, the player is very close to victory and another turn or two would clinch it.

Perhaps there could be a mechanism whereby some extra turns could be obtained at the expense of a percentage of victory points. In that way, if the turns went on too long, the player would lose anyway.

Not sure how easy, or otherwise, it would be to institute these suggestions or even if they would generally be welcomed but I hope you don't mind me posting them.

Jim that is a great idea! Variable ending at a VP expense, I like that.

Maybe too with the variable ending some random reinforcements could arrive along a pre-determined board edge, town or crossroads. Something to think about.
The possibilities are intriguing.

Cheers!
John

[berto]

ORIGINAL: James Crowley

With that in mind, I would also like to suggest having, potentially, a more flexible ending to scenarios. I appreciate that the time-limit in scenarios is primarily a game mechanism to put pressure on the player but there are many occasions when, towards the normal end of a scenario, the player is very close to victory and another turn or two would clinch it.

Perhaps there could be a mechanism whereby some extra turns could be obtained at the expense of a percentage of victory points. In that way, if the turns went on too long, the player would lose anyway.

Not sure how easy, or otherwise, it would be to institute these suggestions or even if they would generally be welcomed but I hope you don't mind me posting them.

Don't mind at all.

Apart from your game end suggestions, I am of this opinion: If the time limit is up; whether you won or lost; the game engine should not stop you cold; you should be able to keep playing if you wish. There are many times where I am in the middle of an interesting battle, and I want to play it out to the bitter -- or glorious -- end, to heck with the victory conditions, to heck with the scenario time limit. As an option of course.

Not hard to implement at all.

[76mm]

So, any more clarity on what scenarios will be included?

[dox44]

i also would like to play out scenario no matter if i'm getting killed.

i also like the suggestion to make VC harder for human against AI.

i also would like 2 versions of scenarios if possible. one played from each side.

i'll take whatever scenarios are offered.

i'm buying when its ready.

thanks!

[Jason Petho]

Planned:
A series of scenarios dealing with the invasion of Poland 1939
A series of scenarios dealing with the Winter War (Finland/Russia)
A large number of scenarios dealing with the Smolensk 1941 campaign; from the crossing of the Dnepr to the fighting around Yelnia.
A series of scenarios dealing with the fighting around Odessa 1941
A series of scenarios dealing with the fighting in the Crimea 1941
Moscow 1941
Kiev 1941
Leningrad 1941
Rostov 1941

Random battles that I find in my library and user recommendations

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

So, any more clarity on what scenarios will be included?

The scope, obviously, will be as follows:

[*] Fall Weiss 1939
[*] Winter War 1939-1940; Continuation War 1941
[*] Barbarossa 1941

As for particular scenarios, this would be the time to ask for your favorites (as you for instance did) [:)]

[Crossroads]

Ah, Jason beat me to it. Regardless, now's the time to ask for them!

[76mm]

Jason, thanks, looks like a good list, but please don't forget Dubno! Personally I have close to zero interest in Poland or Winter War scenarios, so I'm glad that it appears that you'll have lots of Barbarossa scenarios.

Also, IIRC correctly there where some interesting fights around Kalinin in late '41, and note that my initial post should have referred to fighting East of Smolensk (rather than West).

[Jason Petho]

Yes, Dubno, of course!

[jamespcrowley]

Operations Platinfuchs and Polarfuchs up in Finland and the Arctic, could be interesting and a bit more off the beaten path.

As could the attacks on the Baltic Islands - operation Beowulf II. German Army, Navy and Airforce not to mention Brandenberg commandos.

[Jason Petho]

Completely agreed, James.

I have even started a map of the islands.

Jason Petho

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: James Crowley

Operations Platinfuchs and Polarfuchs up in Finland and the Arctic, could be interesting and a bit more off the beaten path.

I'll have a look at this then, as I've got some books on this already [:)]


(c) sa-kuva.fi

[jamespcrowley]

Oh ho!

Bring 'em on! This is looking to be very exciting.

Do we really have to wait another year?