Re: Missing / Lost Scenarios
 

Uploaded to first post in thread the fixes per feedback. Thanks folks!

Re: Missing / Lost Scenarios
 

That sound like someone swapped them from vehicle FOOs to foot. Vehicles base class with speed 6 or less will make the horsey "clip clop" sound (if defaulted) as slow vehicles of that speed are presumed to be animal transports (limbers or wagon teams), so likely the original guy bought FOO trucks and swapped the details to foot without changing the base class.

Easiest fix would probably be to change them to foot Fo's in the editor, assuming the OOb has them.

Re: Missing / Lost Scenarios
 

Sounds to me like the OOB designer may have bought an on-map SPG or whatever and "doctored" it into an off-map battery incorrectly.

Main reason id that if the base type is a truck or whatever, and speed is reduced to 0 then it'll show as immobilised. A proper battery base type does not have that problem as the code expects that class to be speed 0 as its not a vehicle class. or the old scenario may now be pointing at a vehicle class base type, since things have been swapped around in the OOB since then.

Easiest "fix" in either case would be to swap the battery for a proper off-map battery by deleting and re-purchasing if the OOB has these.

Re: Missing / Lost Scenarios
 

My fixes/changes for 551 was to make both E0 and I0 default rifle squads since they are are HQ unit (like if you were going to buy a rifle company) my thoughts is that it's a HQ squad and it should be able to call arty.

The fix for 550 was just to make them OBA (deleted the old and re-purchased as new).

For King of the Hill I just removed the Soviet OBA, it's a slow slog and tough, don't think (yet) that the Russians need it.

Re: Missing / Lost Scenarios
 

Scn 557 Jewish Partisans has a number of odd issues:

1. The Poland (Jewish) player receives 725 VPs for artillery overload but the green player has no artillery. In fact, neither side has any artillery.

2. The Green player's mission is advance rather than delay or defend. As a result the Green units march forward to the right side of the board and are cut down.

3. "Pesant" should be "Peasant" and "Jew Partisans" should be "Jewish Partisans". These are minor but the grammarian in me is compelled to address it. :)

I played as the Green player and was able to hold off the attack but still suffered a marginal loss due to the artillery overload.


If the issue of the Green player advancing can't be fixed, the scenario could still be played as the Green player defending as long as the artillery overload issue is fixed. I don't know which is easier to do.

Thanks again for posting these. It is a pleasure to play test them.

Re: Missing / Lost Scenarios
 

Thanks again RetLT. I can try to see if I can resolve some of (or all of) the issues with 557. Not sure if I can or not, but will take a look unless the original designer wants to fix it.

Re: Missing / Lost Scenarios
 

Does that scenario have ammo trucks for someone? - ammo resupply units count as artillery points. Ammo bunkers can be expensive.

Does it have mortars? - mortars (and any other on map indirect capable units) are artillery and so count towards artillery points, its not just off-map arty that counts). Anything appearing in the bombardment screen basically tot up the arty points, excluding aircraft.

If you want to make them not cost arty points - figure out the arty units, and reduce their cost in the editor until the imbalance bonus goes away. Some scenario designers put in ammo units in order to go "boom" and ammo bunkers can be expensive, so if they are in "for effect", they may need their points reduced in the editor?. Some designers stack them on bridges for the demolition effect, for example, usually tied to a remote detonated booby trap.

Artillery overload is based on the overspend given the mission type. in an assault, there is no limit to the attacker (AFAIR). However, changing to an assault may make things dug-in which may be undesirable. Another thing to look at is the cost of units - if the scenario was designed long ago then units may cost less than if they had been recently run through the OOB cost calculator. So check an example squad and see what the cost is in the recent oob. Simply making the attacker's units cost more may whittle away at the overload bonus (e.g. make his HQ worth lots perhaps?).

Re: Missing / Lost Scenarios
 

They have to be of the HQ Unit Class (as well as being the A0 unit) in order to get the HQ unit boost in artillery observerness. If you want that, exchange them back to the HQ unit given by the OOB in the editor.

Re: Missing / Lost Scenarios
 

Thanks Andy for those valuable points! I'll fix 551, I saw the HQ unit class but was thinking it was for the A0 unit only, so I can safely change it from a rifle squad to HQ rifle unit (class)? Essentially, I think they should be the company HQ unit (those FOO's).

Re: Missing / Lost Scenarios
 

The HQ unit is there to be A0. If the A0 unit is the default HQ unit class it has enhanced FOO characteristics. If it is changed to another type, it loses that - unless it was made an FOO class (including an observation helo, but doing that would lead to more dead Hqs, since players and the AI will tend to kamikaze those;)!)

Making a company HQ an HQ unit class is a pure waste of time. Company HQs are not the A0 unit, so there are absolutely no benefits to a unit other than the A0 for being of that class. It will just put a big "kick me" sign on your CHQs against any human opponent - precisely why we do not have "command tanks" etc. that serve no game function other than to mark them for early destruction by a human opponent.That has of course not stopped some OOB designers from using some "special" Unit Class infantry as CHQs, say the only use of e.g. the medium infantry in a particular OOB - which human players will twig very quickly if fighting against these armies where the designer oh so "helpfully" did this.

The habit of changing the A0 to another type comes from SP1's long campaigns I think since you could only have 24 core units, so making the boss a tank was worthwhile because then you had that extra combat unit to contribute to the fight.

In our games, the HQ should remain as an HQ Unit Class. He can then call for fires almost like an FOO but if attacked then he has survival chances like a small rifle section would. If you make him a tank, the user will risk him or the enemy air may zap him in an airstrike since AFV stick out to planes unlike foot units. Losing the A0 loses any campaign (except the human v human) and has a bad effect on morale (especially when tipping the balance to "force broken" status) and he serves as the real link to off-map units so off map arty will go off the net more often if he is destroyed or routed. Battalion HQ's job is to hide in the rear and avoid conflict.