Bru's Scenarios

[Shards]

https://twitter.com/garius/status/14845 ... IkKPQ&s=19

Thought this might be of interest

[bru888]

Screenshot 2.jpg (469.35 KiB) Viewed 1320 times

[bru888]

"No, no, no, Bruce! How many times do I have to tell you NOT to overload an AI team with one assignment?!? Moron!"

Screenshot 1.jpg (150.9 KiB) Viewed 1294 times

"Gee, I wonder why the game was doing this? Maybe YOU should think about it, Bru!"

The Thinker.jpg (82.67 KiB) Viewed 1294 times

"Ahh, much better now, with these alterations. Can you remember this basic principle next time?"

Screenshot 2.jpg (155.66 KiB) Viewed 1294 times

[In both cases enemy warships go on the attack after two turns, once the rain squalls have ended and the destroyer smokescreens dissipate. With the first arrangement, smoke was coming from my laptop (I exaggerate) as the AI plotted out thousands of combinations of ship maneuvers. It has a much easier time with the second arrangement.]

[Erik2]

Been there, done that.
Naval scenarios can be a bear to get right. One thing is AI unit and possible movement options overload, another is forcing the AI to do 'exactly' what the designer want.
The naval AI tasks are somewhat limited compared to land and air tasks.

[Horst]

Started to play your standalone scenarios.
Oahu Invasion looked nice as fictive one, but was a bit too large for my taste, that's why I skipped it.

Similar with The Aleutian Crisis which I had played until turn 25 or something, when I got too bored doing nothing but getting hammered by Soviets units. The reinforcements of planes, naval units and other ground forces simply took too long for me to just watch another episode of my poor sods and repair ships getting tortured.
Anyway, the presentation with the fictive story and alternative way to finish the Jap part by avoiding damage was very well done here and entertaining for themselves.

Profile in Courage was a very neat scenario. Relative small playground with racing cars, eh I mean boats, doing plenty side missions. The only sad failure here was the static Amagiri which I sniffed out too early and sunk it easily without any retaliation fire as the objective trigger wasn't switched yet as it seems. Better spawn such units when they come into action to avoid such premature dealings.

General advice
Objectives should be immediately updated and not on the next move order of a unit.

Objectives should point to their relevant locations. Hard to remember if it was only mentioned in a message box.

Avoid swamps and dense wood on roads/bridges if possible, as long as the trails don't lead to a gingerbread house. Same for supply hexes. Imagine how supply routes in real life would go.

Avoid Static Defense for units for being too idle: better use Local Defense/Defend Hex 0 for ground units and Defend Hex 0 (no hex setting) for naval units.
Ground units with Local Defense 0 will return to their original location if pushed out or can even grab a supply hex if in reach. For better a real defense, Defend Hex with set fortified positions is even better which supports swapping positions, return to original hex, and other useful stuff for an AI group.
Naval units with Defend Hex 0 will swim idle on the spot but at least fire on anything in range. They won't chase anything. That's somewhat better than being totally idle if ships have to be on stand-by during a scenario
Disadvantage of Seek & Destroy and Defend Hex is usually that the AI cheats spying into the fog what to capture and attack if their settings are beyond their sight range.

[Horst]

Marshalls-Gilberts Mutiny v2.1
It was a funny alternative scenario. Who else isn't annoyed by those lazy pseudo-allied units in scenarios?
Maybe turning surrendered ships to a different neutral faction would be more fair as they most likely revealed positions, but on the other hand, this magnetism made it quicker to finish all objectives in time.
I almost forgot to place the added Marines unit from the Reserve.

Ploesti Revisited v1.1
Was working fine, except the too tightly scheduled paratrooper action. I was fooling around the airstrip way later than turn 10 but nothing happened anymore until Axis fighters mowed down the airstrip.
I had already finished the bombing, but still needed to return the downed airmen. Wasn't really up to bomb the rest afterwards either.
Btw, from turn 17 on, the game turned into a crawl with too many planes sharing the same AI group.
Remembers me of my old AI Aircraft Test: https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=92243
Got a faster rig now, but the game still can't handle too many planes in the same group.
The Patrol AI task is much more large-group friendlier, more authentic and fog-cheats less, but obviously fuzzier to set up.

Castle Itter v1.3
The turn limit was very tight, especially if you still have to climb the mountains to reach some battered SS guys hiding in the wooden area south of the castle.
If you know where you look for the enemies, know about reinforcements, you surely save more time.
Such exotic scenarios are always nice to experience. Well done!

The Raid on Turku v2.3
I was going to propose using factories, but after watching eleven concrete bunkers getting slowly shattered, I changed my mind.
That was one of the totally-out-of-balance scenarios which doesn't work at all with my own unit stats.
My I-16 is way better than the Fokker that made them even with all these many commanders, higher experience, and extra fuel impossible to endure.
On the other hand, my cruisers were too tough covering each other with their passive AA-support fire ability for the light bombers.
At least I could take some revenge with the Bofors to reduce planes to 7 in the end on medium diff.
It's okay, as it is always interesting to see how things are balanced.
During the last turns, I noticed the heavy bombers becoming quite idle in the air. Maybe it was related to their lowered strength versus AA threat. The aggressiveness is unfortunately not changeable by using Air Patrol.

To be continued...

[Horst]

The Raid on Kirkenes v1.2
The major unbalanced point here was most likely the much better speeds of 11 on my modified Swordfishes compared to crappy 6 of vanilla that motorized AA guns can overtake on roads.
On about turn 8, the odds were swinging to my favor, but I simply couldn't cover all these many low-strength structures.
I primarily failed in turn 12 but could achieve at least both secondaries thanks to flak, but I assume the Gestapo still won't be amused.
Besides my unit differencies, it is unfair that the enemy starts close to their targets garanteeing fast kills and can last forever in the skies thanks to the cheated "drop tanks" extra fuel, while my few fighters, unlike the larger enemy air force, had to constantly return to base due low-strength due being easily overwhelmed.
Even with Movement 6, the first ship kills could maybe already be done in turn 2. There should be more needed interception time if the enemy planes would all start on the upper map edge.

Operation Lila Denied v1.9
It wasn't clear to me with the air-to-ground provocation, that's why I checked.
So no air unit may damage infantry, tank, and recon class of any enemy faction, including the Kriegsmarine ground units. You forgot artillery as there are SPGs around.
Overall, a good scenario that makes me curious for the Free France campaign. The scuttling minigame is also nifty. Maybe too many supply hexes around that disattracts too much the AI. Less supply hexes can lead the AI where you want it.
Remembers me of playing duplex' Chinese scenarios against superior odds with only aux units. As long as the scenarios are entertaining for themselves, core units aren't required for having fun.

Battle of the Scheldt v1.0
I haven't started to play this. Huge core, but map relative small, so I'm going to play this, as I haven't faced V1 yet in the last Allied DLC.
Checking out Polish units has already shown me that this faction still needs more unit end-date adjustments and late-ware infantry additions and other Brit stuff that I'm going to add to my mod.
This could take a while to play through.

[Erik2]

Bru's scenarios are among the best-made in the business.

[Horst]

Battle of the Scheldt v1.0
Sorry, I quickly gave up this scenario, as I don't like to fiddle with so many units. Remembers me too well of Allied DLC #2 which I badly needed a break afterwards.
Here are still some suggestions when I take a look at the map:
Supply hexes should be generally (not only on this map) harder to get, like moving them on defensive structures, where they are plausibly hoarded. Bunkers with flag and supply always look nice as little or large HQs, what also focuses the AI more to important targets to conquer or protect. That usually prevents one-turn capturing, so AI and players have more time to react.
I've checked the vanilla settings and saw, that sadly only the US supports the tank landing-craft spec. I'd still give the Inf one to Britain and Canada, as even LVTs were used during this operation. Should make landings a little more comfortable and authentic.

[bru888]

Thanks for these reviews. Contrary to what Erik said, and I thank him for that, my scenarios are not popular for three reasons:

1) Two much reading. I was a history major (who quickly found out, after graduation, that it was hardly a good choice of majors) and I remain a lifelong history buff. As such, I tried to pack a lot of historical minutiae into my productions. The problem with that is, for somebody who is not a history buff, and who merely wants to play a wargame, reading all that stuff is tedious.

2) I went nuts with my maps, Part 1: I'm not just talking about size (see next point), but in detail. All of the "decorations" (buildings, trees, rocks, etc.) count when your computer is loading the scenario and running it. Result: It takes a long time to load my scenarios and, on some computers, chokes the resources out of them. Crash!

3) I went nuts with my maps, Part 2: It's a simple axiom. The bigger the map, the more units the designer needs to justify it and the more moves they need to traverse it. Some of my earlier scenarios were simply too large in terms of hexes. Result: Players get bored moving so many units over long distances / many turns and hexes.

I am saying all of this as a cautionary tale to whatever scenario/campaign/game designer may be reading this. It's a game, not a history lesson or a satellite photo. Keep it simple and remember that, although players do want a reasonable challenge, above all they want to have fun. Sorry to say, but including hundreds of units, thousands of trees, and what FDR said at the Casablanca Conference DOES NOT lend itself to fun.

The best balance, the optimal approach to scenario and campaign designing for OOB has always been achieved by Erik Nygaard, as evidenced by the perpetual interest in his works. We have been lucky to have had him with us all these years.

[Horst]

I like the historical stuff, even if it is fictional like in The Aleutian Crisis. I felt the tension rising, maybe too much with hardly reinforcements, hence I bailed out like a chicken running away from the fox.
The exotic battlefields, like Castle Itter, are definitely recommended to play as history lesson, as the typical wargamer can easily burn out when fighting the 1001st T-34 on the Eastern Front. It is also a very welcomed change to play with a tiny amount of units where you feel "damn, I must really help these guys out!"
As I have started the Free France campaign now, I think that's also something what I want experience, as I had really no clue about all these fights in Western Africa yet. A historical lecturing is badly needed in such exotic trips.

I had also started to modify official content, reading around about historical facts and units. It is something where you can quickly get lost (and also burn out).
No worries, maestro, your history lessions are highly appreciatated

[bru888]

Thank you for the kind words but my mind's eye pictures you thusly :

empty_movie_thaters.jpg (49.36 KiB) Viewed 1049 times

Know that your comments are highly valued by me. I may use them someday if and when I decide to upgrade/redo some of these works. Thanks.

[FieldMarshalStrudel]

Thanks for these reviews. Contrary to what Erik said, and I thank him for that, my scenarios are not popular for three reasons:

1) Two much reading. I was a history major (who quickly found out, after graduation, that it was hardly a good choice of majors) and I remain a lifelong history buff. As such, I tried to pack a lot of historical minutiae into my productions. The problem with that is, for somebody who is not a history buff, and who merely wants to play a wargame, reading all that stuff is tedious.

2) I went nuts with my maps, Part 1: I'm not just talking about size (see next point), but in detail. All of the "decorations" (buildings, trees, rocks, etc.) count when your computer is loading the scenario and running it. Result: It takes a long time to load my scenarios and, on some computers, chokes the resources out of them. Crash!

3) I went nuts with my maps, Part 2: It's a simple axiom. The bigger the map, the more units the designer needs to justify it and the more moves they need to traverse it. Some of my earlier scenarios were simply too large in terms of hexes. Result: Players get bored moving so many units over long distances / many turns and hexes.

I am saying all of this as a cautionary tale to whatever scenario/campaign/game designer may be reading this. It's a game, not a history lesson or a satellite photo. Keep it simple and remember that, although players do want a reasonable challenge, above all they want to have fun. Sorry to say, but including hundreds of units, thousands of trees, and what FDR said at the Casablanca Conference DOES NOT lend itself to fun.

The best balance, the optimal approach to scenario and campaign designing for OOB has always been achieved by Erik Nygaard, as evidenced by the perpetual interest in his works. We have been lucky to have had him with us all these years.

Bru, I have to voice my support for lots of historical background for scenarios and campaigns, as another history buff. Understanding the context in which a battle or series of battles were fought, and the meaning of the potential outcomes, makes a big difference in how I view the current game I am playing. To me, knowing what Roosevelt said (or did not say) at Casablance IS FUN, and important, if it is relevant. I know there are quite a few other players who would agree, and those who do not, can skip reading the background. (It is a good idea of course to separate the background from the nuts and bolts of the scenario description.)

You are right that too many units can ruin a scenario for many people; that was one of my biggest problems in many of the The Operational Art Of War series. Re-creating the entire Eastern Front down to battalion level may be impressive, and realistic, but for me playing it was ludicrous. Big maps are not necessarily a problem though, if there is a purpose to it. The scale of North Africa was vast compared to the relatively small numbers and size of the units fielded by the Afrika Korps, and maps of that campaign should reflect it.

I am just starting out with this game, and I look forward to playing your scenarios. I hope that, with some adjustments, you stick to your vision of what a good scenario/campaign should be. Erik Nygaard does not have to be the only good designer; OOB is versatile enough to accommodate many others. Cheers!

[bru888]

Wow, the occasional "letters" such as this one are quite incentivizing! I am stimulated by your comments, moving the needle back to resuming my designing career here, though I am currently heavily involved in other projects. I do have some ideas and even a couple of scenarios that I started only to be mothballed . . . we will see.

Field Marshal, I salute you and thank you for taking the time to express those opinions. Yes, the historical stuff will continue for the sake of, say, the five of us here who like it? (Just kidding.) But for one big reason alone: I play what I create (after a required lengthy period of forgetfulness) and I like the history!

I have learned about the other two aspects. Let's just say that my later stuff may not be as abhorrent. Also, I have a hazy hankering to revisit some of the earlier works. OOB designing can be surprisingly complex under the hood and there are good practices and arcane methods which can be applied that I know now.

Well, thanks again. Much appreciated.

[McAuslin]

The Battle of the Scheldt is a cracking scenario, challenging.
I have one observation: one of the main objectives 'Eliminate all the kriegsmarine in the estuary'; can it drop to secondary? Getting a draw (twice) because you can't find one sub is a right pain and subhunting is (for me) a tall ordr amidst the rest of this games excellent objectives. Perhaps exchange it with another secondary?

[stevefprice]

The Battle of the Scheldt is a cracking scenario, challenging.
I have one observation: one of the main objectives 'Eliminate all the kriegsmarine in the estuary'; can it drop to secondary? Getting a draw (twice) because you can't find one sub is a right pain and subhunting is (for me) a tall ordr amidst the rest of this games excellent objectives. Perhaps exchange it with another secondary?

bloody hell! When did you get tech savvie and find the forums

[StuccoFresco]

2) I went nuts with my maps, Part 1: I'm not just talking about size (see next point), but in detail. All of the "decorations" (buildings, trees, rocks, etc.) count when your computer is loading the scenario and running it. Result: It takes a long time to load my scenarios and, on some computers, chokes the resources out of them. Crash!

3) I went nuts with my maps, Part 2: It's a simple axiom. The bigger the map, the more units the designer needs to justify it and the more moves they need to traverse it. Some of my earlier scenarios were simply too large in terms of hexes. Result: Players get bored moving so many units over long distances / many turns and hexes.

Ah, I'm so guilty of this. I like big maps because I want the player (and myself) free to maneuver around instead of simply banging against a wall of enemies over and over. Finding alternative ways of winning the same scenario is one of the most satisfying things to me. However, it definitely brings forward the problems you highlighted: you need many more units to "fill" the map, and it slows everything down.