Matrix Games Forums

Hi everyone,

my campaign can be downloaded here:

http://people.freenet.de/steelpanthers/

I updated the first nodes (especially 003, the player has now no aux artillery and the Japanese are stronger).

Kind regards,

Roland

PS: Any criticism is welcome - without feedback it is difficult to learn.
I would also welcome public criticism (for example here within this thread).

Downloading now.

Tell us a little bit about this campaign.

I gave the information in another thread approx. 3 weeks ago when I was searching for someone who would be willed to publish it (finally I created myself a minimal website for the purprose of publishing this campaign).

The raw data are:

Slot: 31

Number of different scenarios: 39

Sides: USMC vs. Japanese
(sometimes USArmy, British, Korean (=mutineering Japanese) and others western allied units appear as auxiliary units)

Core force size: 4400 points

File size of the five downloads combined (zipped): approx. 2.4 MB

Winnability: easy (at least I think so)

Time: November 1945 to July 1946


The player takes command of an USMC core force that takes part in the invasion of Kyushu (november 1945, operation Olympic) and Honsho (march 1946, operation Coronet).

(This isn't historically correct, since (as far as I know) it wasn't planned to use any single USMC unit at the beginning of *both* operations. I made an exuse by the wish that the assaults on Honsho would be spearheaded by very experienced units.)

The campaign is very large (both in size of some of the scenarios and regarding the number of scenarios).

It was my first attempt to create a SPWAW campaign, therefore I made some mistakes (especially regarding the number of units involved in the scenarios that cover the capture of the city of Kagoshima).

If you look for a high quality campaign (like the campaigns written by WBW), you will be very disappointed.

If you were going to play a computer generated campaign (USMC vs. Japanese), this campaign should be an interesting alternative.

A very big flaw during the design was the lack of playtesters.
I asked for playtesters, but only very few volunteered and I received feedback only for the first nodes (can't blame anyone for this, because this campaign is very large).

If I would start designing it today, I would

- use a very small core force (like one platoon of tanks)

- design the battles from very small (the platoon and a few infantry units as auxiliary units figting against a small enemy) to medium (with more auxiliary units)

- make fewer experiments (trying to create a scenario were the player storms a beach that was just nuked isn't the right thing for a beginner )

- search playtesters for the single scenarios; that way I would have found more people willing to test it and I would have received feedback for all scenarios.


The problem with the huge core force is that if the player does well in the first scenarios, after the 6th scenario or so an almighty USMC elite troop is stumping the enemy into the ground.
If there are too many losses in the first scenarios, instead of upgrading experienced units the player will receive replacements with no combat experience and some of the later scenarios might be impossible to win.

I think that I learned a lot during the design of this campaign and I can only beg for any feedback in order to learn more.

Kind regards,
Roland

I must have missed or forgotten.

I got a chance to look at the opening scenario and it looks good.

I prefer smaller cores, but we'll give it a go anyway.

Well, *now* I prefer smaller cores, too .

By the way, I think that it's a good thing that you missed the original thread, showthread.php?s=&threadid=37551
because I corrected some errors in the first nodes (especially Node 003 was too easy).

I hope you enjoy the campaign,
Roland

howdy

Downloaded the campaign and played the first battle...guess SPWAW again has some problems with scoring as the result was about 10000 vs 1000..and my only major losses were 3 105mm SP arty.

But. I was really surprised when I looked at the final map and roster...japanese side had 16 mg nests and 20+ 70mm at rockets unpositioned. Actually I was able to see their '+' symbols and like at the very edge of the map, in the black area...very odd.

Voriax

Thanks for the hint, I just eleminated formations P, Q, R, S, AF, AG, AK, AI, AJ and AK.

It's a long time ago that I worked on node 000.
I remember that one playtester found the original version of node 000 too difficult, therefore I eleminated some formations (or, at least, I thought that I eleminated them :rolleyes: ).

BTW, I playtested it with C&C on.
The problem is that with C&C off, some scenarios (especially node 012 - the player positions his core force on the right side of the map and has to ensure that a convoy arriving some turns later on the left side of the map makes it to an victory exit hex on the right side of the map - a nightmare with C&C on) become easier.

I remember when playing node 000 with C&C on, I positioned my main force in the south and headed towards the northeast.
With C&C off, I took a more balanced assault resulting in a slightly easier game.

I think that this campaign isn't very challenging, it's more for beginners....
When I playtested it, I took into consideration that I knew were the nasty surprises are and tried to keep this into consideration when adjusting the difficulty. Maybe sometimes I went a little too far....

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

It helps me correcting some errors in this campaign and (in the long term) helps me learning how to make the next campaign better.

Kind regards,
Roland

Roland,..wasn´t it you having problems with the shellhole limit on some big maps??

Originally posted by RockinHarry
Roland,..wasn´t it you having problems with the shellhole limit on some big maps??

Yes. You see the result in the Tokyo scenarios:
At first, I wanted to have one very huge very long senario.
I first had the idea that the center of Tokyo would have been nuked, and that the players core force (followed by a huge number of auxiliary units) quickly stormes over the map to stamp down the surviving enemy troops into ground.
Then I had to split it into several smaller scenarios with the action always taking place in a different part of the map.

Roland

Originally posted by RolandRahn
Yes. You see the result in the Tokyo scenarios:
At first, I wanted to have one very huge very long senario.
I first had the idea that the center of Tokyo would have been nuked, and that the players core force (followed by a huge number of auxiliary units) quickly stormes over the map to stamp down the surviving enemy troops into ground.
Then I had to split it into several smaller scenarios with the action always taking place in a different part of the map.

Roland

Ah ok! I knew it. Whenever again you´re going to reach the shellhole limit, ask Tracer for the Shape file update link! We´ve added lots of rubble, ruined buildings and shellhole graphics that you can use to workaround a couple of map making issues! I rembererd your shellhole limit problem when adding these to the update. Have fun.

Do the new shellholes count as defensive as the real ones?
It is may be misleading if I seek cover in a heavily shelled hex and it counts as an open terrain.

Artur.

They new 'shellholes' are only icons...the map designer can place them on any hex (except buildings), but the characteristics of the underlying hex will remain. To use them correctly they should be placed on a 'non-mixed' hex, preferably a 'rough' or 'rocks' hex.

That sounds good.

Maybe it is a good idea if you mention this thing in your terrain graphics pdf file. Or in the tutorial if you make something like that.

Then it would be reasonable not to use standard shell holes but the other alternative you mentioned.If you do that, new shelling can still work.

BTW: did you test shelling on your shelled terrain?

Artur.

Roland, a few comments/complains.

First, I think your setup areas are way too small. Especially in the 5th and 6th battle (5th: ammotrucks+ exit hex, 6th: hill with plenty of victory flags in the NE corner)

Also you have positioned the Japanese troops too close to my setup lines in both of these scenarios, I spotted first Japs while setting up troops. I assume this wasn't your intention?

And you might reconsider infiltrations and putting those units as standard reinforcements arriving on turn xy. For example, if the 4th and 5th battle Jap headquarters never arrived on map!

And in the 5th fight majority of ammo trucks arrived on turn 25 (I think, didn't write it down). This made it very hard to exit them, as even with no enemies around I would have had only few turns to spare. In this case all trucks that for some reason or another suppressed badly or routed didn't make it. 3 units, not so bad but still.

Not a bad campaign so far, on the whole. The Alamo was gruesome..did I mention I have 4 flame tanks in my core? In that battle I actually stopped using arty in order to get the Japs come to me faster..to be roasted.

Oh, and the amount of caves in the 5th battle...hilarious

Voriax

Originally posted by sztartur
That sounds good.

Maybe it is a good idea if you mention this thing in your terrain graphics pdf file. Or in the tutorial if you make something like that.

Then it would be reasonable not to use standard shell holes but the other alternative you mentioned.If you do that, new shelling can still work.

BTW: did you test shelling on your shelled terrain?

Artur.

Harry covered that, and many other tip/tricks in his 'icon guide'...I've been told it will be included in the patches.

The shellhole icons behave the same way as the 'cobblestone' (city) street tiles...damage appears on top of them. So assuming you have not exceeded the 'shellhole limit' you'll get shellholes on top of shellholes. To be honest though, I never actually tested them beyond making sure they displayed correctly...if I get a chance later today I'll look into it.

To Tracer:
That is more then perfect. Good job!!!

Artur.

Hi Voriax,

first of all:
Thank you for the feedback.

Originally posted by Voriax
Roland, a few comments/complains.

First, I think your setup areas are way too small. Especially in the 5th and 6th battle (5th: ammotrucks+ exit hex, 6th: hill with plenty of victory flags in the NE corner)

Well, the victory hexes in the NE corner are only necessary for a big victory. However, during playtesting I quickly learned that a real japanese defense of that hill would make it *very* difficult, so I erased the infantry defending this hill (it is now only defended by bunkers, AA guns & caves (no infantry)).

Originally posted by Voriax

Also you have positioned the Japanese troops too close to my setup lines in both of these scenarios, I spotted first Japs while setting up troops. I assume this wasn't your intention?

Yes, the main problem is when the computer pre-places all USMC units on the eastern edge of the map (on places were the player can't place units), they can spot some japanese units in the south.

Originally posted by Voriax

And you might reconsider infiltrations and putting those units as standard reinforcements arriving on turn xy. For example, if the 4th and 5th battle Jap headquarters never arrived on map!

In the 4th battle, the HQ unit ruined the game.
Reason:
The HQ has morale/experience 200, so it is impossible for the Japanese more to break.
If the HQ is on the map, the player destroys it, takes all victory hexes and inflicts serious casualties on the Japanese, the Japanese force moral breaks and the game ends (Japanese morale broken & all victory hexes taken).
And the player loses, because at this point, he has no troops exited via the victory exit hex.
Even if you have plenty of time left, even if you annihilated everything that could disturb you using the road, even if the road is undamaged and you have 20 turns left, you loose.
In the Alamo-scenario I did the same thing:
The HQ has morale/experience 200 and never enters the game - otherwise the Japanese morale might break ynd the game would end too soon.
Looking back, it might have been wiser to place a Japanese victory hex that can't be recaptured on the map.

Originally posted by Voriax

And in the 5th fight majority of ammo trucks arrived on turn 25 (I think, didn't write it down). This made it very hard to exit them, as even with no enemies around I would have had only few turns to spare.

They arrive on turn 26. It's a challenge to get even those trucks through that arrive so late and it depends on the condition of the road and how many japanese troops are still able to fire at the road.
If the player uses too much artillery, the road is damaged too much and the trucks will have difficulties reaching the exit hex.

The player should open the road - I should have noted in the scenario introduction that the road shouldn't be damaged too much or I should change the scenario length from 50 to 60 turns...

Originally posted by Voriax


Not a bad campaign so far, on the whole. The Alamo was gruesome..did I mention I have 4 flame tanks in my core? In that battle I actually stopped using arty in order to get the Japs come to me faster..to be roasted.

Oh, and the amount of caves in the 5th battle...hilarious

Voriax

Thanks for the feedback (this will help me when I write my next campaign - prerhaps when Combat Leader is published ) and I hope you will enjoy the next scenarios....

Roland

Thanks for explanations..btw, I'm just about to storm the hill in 6th scenario..so I really didn't know yet about the lack of infantry :p

Btw, you have a slight map bug there..there are invisible buildings around hex 69,56 (in the orchard close to town). Not that bad as nowadays tanks don't generally get immobilized when they crash into such hexes but still....

If you want to keep Japanese on board...I've seen some scen gurus use one invisible flag that has a value of 10 points. This is owned by the AI side from the beginning..and being such low value it has practically no meaning in victory level calculation. Also AI doesn't take such low value hexes into consideration when it plans for moves.

I don't think that you need to increase the length of the ammo truck scenario. Like I said, I got almost all trucks out with few turns to spare. Ok, 3 were in almost constant state of suppress, and when no-one fired at them. And I think I lost 2 trucks. Moderate victory but nothing I didn't expect..experience tells me that in exit hex scenarios it is almost impossible to get a decisive as some units will always stay behind (immobilizations, lack of transport)

Voriax

Originally posted by Voriax
Thanks for explanations..btw, I'm just about to storm the hill in 6th scenario..so I really didn't know yet about the lack of infantry :p

OOOPS...
Sorry for the spoiler.

Roland

(Like I said, be aware of the huge infantry concentrations protecting the hill in the NE....)

And another thing...the suicide AT units. They seem to have zero ammo thus they are rather suicidal..to themselves.

Voriax