Bru's Scenarios

[bru888]

Crap. As moderator and gentlemanly person, I will permit myself that much profanity here. Just as I thought and asked, if a player clicks on any question mark for objective information at turn start, it's no longer turn start and the event popup message does NOT appear. Back to the god d... uh, ever-loving drawing board.

I DID. And I've tested it just now, and I can tell you exactly why this is happening: It's kinda my fault again. This behaviour only happens, if you add objective markers to it. If it's only text in the obj. briefing, the popups appear okay next turn. As was everything without markers in version 1.0.

PS Don't kill the messenger, please...

Kill the messenger? How about virtually kissing the messenger (on the virtual cheek, that is)? Yeah, I know I used that joke earlier today.

Well, for cryin' out loud! Not you, Gabe. It's this God-damned (this time I'm letting it slip out) game and scenario editor. Who in the hell knew this and how did you come across it?

[GabeKnight]

Who in the hell knew this and how did you come across it?

I didn't know before. But I KNEW I tested it previously, and if I do things, I do them right (mostly ). Meaning I clicked at the obj. multiple times during multiple turns and everything worked just fine. So something must have changed from v.1 to v.2. So I tried different approaches until a pattern emerged. That's how my brain works, can't help it. I love riddles and can't leave them unsolved...

Oh, and while you're at it, want to change "event_trigger_49_211_text" accordingly (no new objective)
...and the sec. obj. markers for the "ferry" sec. obj. should point to the destination and the starting point as well... sorry, really can't help it... you know the Sheldon character from Big Bang Theory?...

[bru888]

I had gone through in version 2.2 and replaced Turn Start with Move Event but now I have restored the previous version and removed the objective hex links. EVERY popup appears now, no matter how many times I look at objective information at Turn Start.

In my scenarios, these messages are crucial (and informative and entertaining). There will never be an objective link in any of my scenarios from now on and I am thinking of going back to my old ones to see if I can improve them accordingly.

I could post this in Tech Support - I probably will and give you credit for finding this - but this is one of those things that will never be corrected, like blank photos in scenario editor launch. At least now I know.

Where is that "event_trigger_49_211_text"? Oh I got it. Hang on.

[GabeKnight]

Where is that "event_trigger_49_211_text"?

- Fixed the error that allowed victory without sinking any supply barges (the objective should have been active from the start even though the barges don't show up until later).

The popup text of this one.

[GabeKnight]

But to lift your mood at least a little: Version 2.0 played very well on middle difficulty for me (and it's my third time around - or fourth?). Whatever changes you're doing in the next update, I'm keeping version 2.0 and version 1.1 as well...

Screenshot 124.jpg (685.96 KiB) Viewed 2752 times

[bru888]

But to lift your mood at least a little: Version 2.0 played very well on middle difficulty for me (and it's my third time around - or fourth?). Whatever changes you're doing in the next update, I'm keeping version 2.0 and version 1.1 as well...

Screenshot 124.jpg

Tight, as intended. Listen, two things: 1) Make sure you are playing 2.3 if you do any more with this, which I would not ask you to do, and 2) Please accept my gratitude for helping me out on this scenario. If you feel ambitious, check out some of my previous work with the same sharp eye and I will tune things up accordingly. Not every suggestion, of course, but most because yours are good.

Profile in Courage new version 2.3 uploaded (version 2.2 was short-lived).

[GabeKnight]

Fun fact: I don't think there is a Minor Victory possible in PiC by definition - although there seems to be a text to suggest otherwise

EDIT: And you're welcome. It's the least I can do for having such fun with a scenario.

[bru888]

Fun fact: I don't think there is a Minor Victory possible in PiC by definition - although there seems to be a text to suggest otherwise

That I know, and I won't say it was by design but by acceptance when I realized the situation early on. This is the definition of Minor Victory:

Capture629.jpg (181.72 KiB) Viewed 2750 times

The thing is, one of the primary objectives IS to complete all the secondary objectives (the five tasks assigned during the scenario). Thus it is not possible to meet all primary objectives and not complete all secondary objectives. I am fine with this. Besides, the picture and caption that I used for Minor Victory are a bit lame.

[bru888]

Profile in Courage new version 2.4 uploaded. Just a couple of last minute tweaks; mostly related to pop-up messages but primarily moving the Marines fighters appearance up one turn. I've had a little developer's remorse in that this scenario may be a bit tough now.

Anyway, I say "last minute" because I wanted to finish it with the 5.2.3 scenario editor. Now it's on to 5.2.9. A new patch is always a potential adventure for modders and their existing creations, let alone new ones. We'll see!

[bru888]

Next on the drawing board (well, in the think tank at this point): The Second Battle of Jutland.

[GabeKnight]

Nice Bruce!

It's terrific how many new great scenarios are created for this quite old game still
Battling the Panzerkrieg DLC right now, but I'll make sure to squeeze "T2BoJ" in if I'm not finished playing by then.
Keep 'em comin', keep 'em comin'....

[ALP071]

May I suggest a second round in Alaska, Canucks and all? Just saying...

[bru888]

May I suggest a second round in Alaska, Canucks and all? Just saying...

I'd like to ask you something. A while back, you said "Anchorage is waaaaayyy good." I assume you meant The Aleutian Crisis and if so, I thank you. And if so, you are the only person on record to have ever played that scenario so you are a focus group of one. What did you like about that scenario? Better yet, what did you NOT like about it?

I'll give you some things to think about: Were there too many units? Was the map too big and it took too long to move units or have the AI move units? Were there too many popups and too much reading to do? Did the fact that it was not strictly historical bother you?

Because, I believe you and Gabe and steevodeevo are the only three humans on earth who have ever indulged in the nonsense that I have created! And I am wondering why.

Not that I will change my approach much, if at all. You see, these scenarios are also for my own OOB game-playing old age. Some day I will go back to them as a retired scenario designer, ready to spend my golden years enjoying my own handiwork. "Gee," I'll say, "what genius created this scenario? Oh yeah, now I remember!"

[bru888]

By the way, thanks to Gabe's revelation the other night, I intend to go back to previous scenarios and see if I can eliminate all objective-linked hexes so that I can have popup messages appear at Turn Start instead of first move into the turn. That alone may reduce the irritation factor of when I try to tell a story but need to have you make a move and then be interrupted. First thing at Turn Start works best for all popup messages that are not combat or movement related.

[steevodeevo]

May I suggest a second round in Alaska, Canucks and all? Just saying...

I'd like to ask you something. A while back, you said "Anchorage is waaaaayyy good." I assume you meant The Aleutian Crisis and if so, I thank you. And if so, you are the only person on record to have ever played that scenario so you are a focus group of one. What did you like about that scenario? Better yet, what did you NOT like about it?

I'll give you some things to think about: Were there too many units? Was the map too big and it took too long to move units or have the AI move units? Were there too many popups and too much reading to do? Did the fact that it was not strictly historical bother you?

Because, I believe you and Gabe and steevodeevo are the only three humans on earth who have ever indulged in the nonsense that I have created! And I am wondering why.

Not that I will change my approach much, if at all. You see, these scenarios are also for my own OOB game-playing old age. Some day I will go back to them as a retired scenario designer, ready to spend my golden years enjoying my own handiwork. "Gee," I'll say, "what genius created this scenario? Oh yeah, now I remember!"

I'm playing Aleutian next by coincidence. We don't have stats on who plays what so there may be lots of folks who don't post in forums who dl and play stuff, but if its accurate that fewer folks play your work Bru, it may be that your work focusses more on slightly lesser known events and fictional 'what if' scenarios. I personally find these fascinating but I would guess some players tend to gravitate to events they recognize and know some background in regards. I could be completely wrong.

[bru888]

Yes, I am sure that is a big part of it. I guess I enjoy the fringes instead of mainstream and that works for one big reason: Mainstream is being covered. The official DLC hews closely to historical events, as does Erik. Heck, Erik sits down for a day or two and then comes out with a 50-scenario campaign that covers half the war at a time! I rather do unusual stuff that nods to the historical but also leans to fictional. Or, perhaps, focuses closely on some overlooked aspect of the war. If that means my clientele are, uh, limited in number, then so be it as long as those few are not bored by my stuff in the bargain.

[ALP071]

May I suggest a second round in Alaska, Canucks and all? Just saying...

I'd like to ask you something. A while back, you said "Anchorage is waaaaayyy good." I assume you meant The Aleutian Crisis and if so, I thank you. And if so, you are the only person on record to have ever played that scenario so you are a focus group of one. What did you like about that scenario? Better yet, what did you NOT like about it?

I'll give you some things to think about: Were there too many units? Was the map too big and it took too long to move units or have the AI move units? Were there too many popups and too much reading to do? Did the fact that it was not strictly historical bother you?

Because, I believe you and Gabe and steevodeevo are the only three humans on earth who have ever indulged in the nonsense that I have created! And I am wondering why.

Not that I will change my approach much, if at all. You see, these scenarios are also for my own OOB game-playing old age. Some day I will go back to them as a retired scenario designer, ready to spend my golden years enjoying my own handiwork. "Gee," I'll say, "what genius created this scenario? Oh yeah, now I remember!"

Will answer via PM; related intel has an ULTRA security rating; HQ doesn't want old Uncle Joe getting to know his weaknesses

[bru888]

Thanks, ALP071. I replied by PM but I wanted to repeat my thanks.

[Erik2]

I think it is very good for the game that we now have more designers that cater to different segments of the player community.
And I do play your scenarios, Bru. I currently do not have the time to report much, that's all.

[bru888]

The Aleutian Crisis new version 1.1 uploaded. (What the heck? How have I gotten away with only one revision of this scenario? It must have been before I started numbering my versions.)

- A few typos fixed but most importantly,
- All Turn Start popup messages now occur at turn start rather than the first move of a turn. The latter arrangement was a workaround but it is now less obtrusive having messages popup at the beginning of the turn instead of while moving units. The reason I am able to make this change is the discovery that linking objectives to hexes is why Turn Start popup messages would not appear if the player looked at objectives at the start of a turn. Objective hex links are now removed.