The Radzy Award: Scenario Test & Discussion Thread

[Heinrich505]

Macisle,

No worries on giving away unit types.  It won't have any effect on my desperate attempts to hold the line together, haha.

Also, no problems with screen shots.  I always like seeing them. 

I like your point distribution for the different victory locations.  I think it might work.  Can you color code the victory sections differently on the map, sort of like the set-up zones would have different colors?  Or are they all that neon florescent green?

Sent you a PM.

Heinrich505

[Macisle]

1 hour ago, Heinrich505 said:

Macisle,

No worries on giving away unit types.  It won't have any effect on my desperate attempts to hold the line together, haha.

Also, no problems with screen shots.  I always like seeing them. 

I like your point distribution for the different victory locations.  I think it might work.  Can you color code the victory sections differently on the map, sort of like the set-up zones would have different colors?  Or are they all that neon florescent green?

Sent you a PM.

Heinrich505

Alas, it's neon ur-nuthin' on the zones. It would be great to have color options.

If I go with the new zones, I'll really need to get into the weeds of the AI plan and do some major thinking and probably extensive tweaking. The AI is a lot better at denying objectives than actually taking them. Like I mentioned before, the limit of 16 groups really impacts the designer's ability to coordinate any force much beyond company size. It's easy for a human player to split off a team for this task (like hold an objective) and send the others for that task (like take the next), but the AI may quickly run up against problems and wacky, suicidal results may occur if you attempt to do things in two areas at once with the same group.

So, I'll be looking for ways to perhaps squeeze out some extra groups to give the AI a better shot at actually scoring some points from taking objectives.

Now that I think of it, I think that was the primary reason I went with one big location. Short of player surrender, the AI is unlikely to get any terrain objective points, but the player has to work hard to get any himself. Thus, the victory level is largely decided by how beat up the player gets and if he takes the objective or forces an AI surrender, he deserves the better victory level.

Anway, I don't know which terrain objective style is right for this one yet. In H2H, multiple objectives would defininitely be the way to go. Your playtesting will help me decide which path is better with this Human vs. AI-only scenario.

Thanks. I PM'd you back.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Macisle

[A Canadian Cat]

12 hours ago, Macisle said:

If I go with the new zones, I'll really need to get into the weeds of the AI plan and do some major thinking and probably extensive tweaking. The AI is a lot better at denying objectives than actually taking them. Like I mentioned before, the limit of 16 groups really impacts the designer's ability to coordinate any force much beyond company size. It's easy for a human player to split off a team for this task (like hold an objective) and send the others for that task (like take the next), but the AI may quickly run up against problems and wacky, suicidal results may occur if you attempt to do things in two areas at once with the same group.

Another possibility is to switch some of these to touch objectives so the AI does not need to hold so many.  Then your AI plan could focus more on one or two objectives and let touch objectives be earned as the AI progresses towards its final goal.

[Glubokii Boy]

Just now, IanL said:

Another possibility is to switch some of these to touch objectives so the AI does not need to hold so many.  Then your AI plan could focus more on one or two objectives and let touch objectives be earned as the AI progresses towards its final goal.

Sounds like a very good suggestion !  

Defenetly something i would give a try...

[Macisle]

48 minutes ago, IanL said:

Another possibility is to switch some of these to touch objectives so the AI does not need to hold so many.  Then your AI plan could focus more on one or two objectives and let touch objectives be earned as the AI progresses towards its final goal.

Thanks for the suggestion, IanL! I'll keep that in mind as I move forward.

Hey, I wonder if you can multitask a touch objective as a trigger? No time to test it at the moment. I've been using Scenario Author mode this evening to refresh my memory of the AI plan in action. It's been awhile since I did that. Need to hit the hay now.

One thing I've discovered doing this scenario: the AI doesn't seem too keen on cancelling a fire mission when it is taking out its own troops. I've seen that happen many times.

Oh, another thing that popped into my head from the early days on this one that may interest someone out there...

Initially, I had 3 stukas for the player. I thought they might combine into a single formation, show up and leave at the same time. However, they seem to be independent, so I cut them down to the current single stuka. As the battle goes on, the Soviet side becomes less target rich armor-wise and the opposing forces are more mixed together in the terrain. I didn't want to take a chance on a late-arriving stuka knocking out any of the player's armor (or any other player vehicles for that matter).

So far, I've never seen the stuka attack anything other than Soviet targets (it is a veteran pilot). -Don't think I'd try that with Soviet CAS! I've never tested it methodically, but my Quick Battle experience is that Soviet air often kills more of its own than Germans.

I suppose you could have a short campaign scenario where the Germans have to cross and exit a map while under air attack, with no other Soviet forces around. Might be a cool technique to add tension and inflict some random casualties. Or, it could just piss off the player.

He-he.

[Macisle]

I did a lot of work on the scenario yesterday, mostly in the AI Plan. Here are the highlights:

• Fixed the runaway MG team problem (yes, it was just the kind of dumb mistake I thought it was, but I could swear the same attempt to fix it didn't work before...).
• Changed some Soviet Terrain Objectives to Touch.
• Since the Germans don't need triggers, I subdivided some of the Axis Terrain Objectives into smaller, more easily identified boundaries (as much as the 15 slots would allow).
• Did initial work on tightening up coordination between the Soviet armor and infantry by setting "Wait for Order" triggers. Now, the Soviet armor hangs back more and lets the infantry scout forward. This is going to make things harder, but more realistic. Lots more to do on this.
• Improved the AI Plan orders in general in terms of intelligent approaches to Objectives.
• Found and fixed some Plan errors like conflicting, unwanted painted zones I didn't realize were there. Oops!
• Switched out the current arty for standard Divisional medium and heavy howitzers. The player gets more arty overall, but howitzers are slower than mortars on fire mission setup times.
• Dropped the number of FOs from 2 to 1, but upped the stats from Regular +1 to Veteran 0. Originally, the at-start FO was near the HMGs and there was a risk of the player losing the team in the early turns of the game. So, I added a second, reinforcement FO. Later, I moved the first FO to safety, but never deleted the second. Now, the single "Divisional" FO arrives at 25-50 minutes in a Kubelwagen at the end of the SW main road.
• Moved the Soviet's far-right flanking infantry back, so that they have to cover more ground before reaching the HMG/ATG position.

The news about the 4.0 Upgrade is very exciting. There are many things in it that would really enhance this scenario. AI Area fire alone would be epic. So, my hope is that the Upgrade will be released soon, allowing me to integrate the new features.

[Erwin]

It didn't sound like 4.0 was close to release.   Could be months at least.

[Macisle]

20 hours ago, Erwin said:

It didn't sound like 4.0 was close to release.   Could be months at least.

I won't stop working on the scenario to wait for it. If I finish it before the upgrade is released, I'll probably do an updated version for those who buy it and leave the old one up for people who don't.

I might also do a Soviet vs. AI version. That one would use an expanded slice of the Radzymin master map with a core force of a company of T-34/76s, a company of infantry, perhaps two groups of 45mm ATGs and whatever reinforcements and arty seem appropriate. At this point, the three enemy groups would each be a Panther platoon plus a company of panzergrens, plus some odds and ends. Rather than a tight combat area like in the German version, the Soviet version would require the player to recon out to find the enemy approach paths, choose the best terrain to engage in, and try to flank and ambush with local superiority of force. Rinse and repeat for each of the 3 enemy groups. Thinking the Germans might be SS for that one (Vein has a mod and/or the next RT module may be out before I get it done anyway).

No ETA, though. It'll be awhile if I do it.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Macisle

[Erwin]

Looking forward to it.

[Macisle]

Work continues...

I've made some changes to the Axis force mix. Overall, the player gets more muscle, but it is more staggered and later in arrival. I also reduced the number of panzershrecks and HMGs.

The opening is less choreographed/Hollywood. The sacrificial SU-76Ms are gone. The player also has a better chance of moving his on-map ATGs before arty hits them. I may also cut the fixed start positions in favor of setup zones. Not sure yet.

The Soviet force mix hasn't changed much, but the SU-76Ms are being reassigned to make better use of their strengths (good guns) and be more be thoughtful about their weaknesses (everything hurts!).

Lots of adjusting and testing being done with the AI plan to make the Soviets perform more intelligently. It's VERY slow going, but the AI is being smarter. The flipside is that the pace of combat has slowed down a lot. However, the AI has to coordinate the various group timings and keep its casualties down if it is expected to touch/take the smaller, more defined Terrain Objectives that are in now.

That will be the hardest, most time-consuming part--identifying what the AI can realistically take and getting the right AI plan to do it.

[Macisle]

Working hard on this, but it's S-L-O-W going.

It took ages to get the opening Soviet artillery acceptably close to what I wanted for the redo. I really wish the designer had a similar level of control to what the player has during the game. It would save a lot of time.

There have been significant force changes on both sides. In trying to make things work with the initial force mix, I was having to really pump up the Soviet armor and infantry numbers. Jagdzpanzers eat T34-76s for breakfast and the ATGs do the same to SU-76s. That, and all the panzerschreks just made the required unit density on the Soviet side too high. I want to keep the Jagdpanzers, if possible. Most of the Soviet armor suffers reduced spotting ability from having 4-man crews. With AI behavior, a significant portion of them will become 3-man crews by the time they try to shoot because the AI is terrible about staying unbuttoned in danger zones. After having done test runs with everything short of Stalins, the only option I see is going with T34-85s. They can peform well-enough for me to reduce the size of the Soviet force and can take a TC loss without becoming largely useless.

On the German side, the AT power of the panzerschreks and ATGs was still too high. I want the infantry battle to be given adequate weight. So, the whole German infantry force is now made up of Stragglers with extra LMGs (3 per section) and the ATGs are cut. They will have to fall back when faced with Soviet tanks (trying to keep them in overwatch, but the AI always seems to want to make them go forward...even if ordered to stay back!). The German armor (with extra infantry) will arrive quite late.

So far, I think this force mix creates the dynamics I want: juicy urban infantry combat ala a fighting withdrawal, with a late-game combined arms counterattack.

Right now, the unit density is a heavily reinforced (in men, not AT weapons) company plus a PN of TDs on the German side against a reinforced infantry battalion supported by a reinforced tank company on the Soviet side.

The AI plan has had to be rebuilt from the ground up, but I'm making progress with it for the early part of the scenario. Lots more to do. Still, I'm finding AI troops often not waiting when they should be, like having a 30:00/31:00 order time set, but they start the order at 11:00 and I can't find a reason for it. -Very frustrating and adds a lot of test time.

And that's where things stand this week.

(Edit: I just removed the link to beta version 1 in the opening post for this thread. I'll be updating that link with each new test version, when ready.)

Edited September 30, 2016 by Macisle

[Macisle]

I used my time this weekend to create a master AI Plan organization tool using Photoshop. That way, I can see the whole plan at a glance. Also, it will serve as a very user-friendly reference for other designers, should I need any help from them. Here's how it looks:

It follows the painted tiles in the Editor exactly, except for Setups where I have placed units manually, rather than painting a zone in the AI Plan. In those cases, I use circles and the circled locations are not exact.

I'm off to a good start with this. Some testing of opening turns shows the AI performing much better.

(Friendly fire risk from overwatch tanks reduced post screenshot. See how a thing like this helps! )

Edited October 3, 2016 by Macisle

[Glubokii Boy]

Hello....Thanks for your continues work on this.

 

Testing AI-plans over and over is by no way the most fun part of scenario designing, uurghf...It can sure take the fun out of scenario-designing and

become more of tedious work. I hope you will be able to get this scenario to a state that you are happy with...

Unfortunatelly i have not been able to help much with this but i thought i might mention one little thing you might considder when working with these plans.

I don't know if this is something you have already tried or not but...

 

In some of the scenarios i have made i have found that giving the AI Groups a DASH-order (perhaps also QUICK-orders work...i don't quite recall right now)  instead of ASSULT or ADVANCE works quite well to simulate an AI assult. This/ these commands are the only ones that does not use bounded-movements....Making them faster.

This will result in all of the troops in the AI Group will move forward at the same time...Using weight of numbers to overwhelm the players defences.  This can make the AI attack

harder to deal with as a player in some cases i feel. The AI on DASH (QUICK) may not use as much firepower as they advance but they can make more then up for that by having

more troops assulting simultainously...Can be quite tricky to deal with...This works best in close quarter fighting imo....

 

You may not like this at all but if you feel like it please try it out...perhaps as some of the russians advance into the built up areas.

The downside is offcourse that fast movements tire troops...but its not that terribly exhausting. They can actually advance quite a distance even  with these commands...

 

Best of luck with the scenario.../RepsolCBR

 

 

 

 

[Macisle]

5 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

Hello....Thanks for your continues work on this.

 

Testing AI-plans over and over is by no way the most fun part of scenario designing, uurghf...It can sure take the fun out of scenario-designing and

become more of tedious work. I hope you will be able to get this scenario to a state that you are happy with...

Unfortunatelly i have not been able to help much with this but i thought i might mention one little thing you might considder when working with these plans.

I don't know if this is something you have already tried or not but...

 

In some of the scenarios i have made i have found that giving the AI Groups a DASH-order (perhaps also QUICK-orders work...i don't quite recall right now)  instead of ASSULT or ADVANCE works quite well to simulate an AI assult. This/ these commands are the only ones that does not use bounded-movements....Making them faster.

This will result in all of the troops in the AI Group will move forward at the same time...Using weight of numbers to overwhelm the players defences.  This can make the AI attack

harder to deal with as a player in some cases i feel. The AI on DASH (QUICK) may not use as much firepower as they advance but they can make more then up for that by having

more troops assulting simultainously...Can be quite tricky to deal with...This works best in close quarter fighting imo....

 

You may not like this at all but if you feel like it please try it out...perhaps as some of the russians advance into the built up areas.

The downside is offcourse that fast movements tire troops...but its not that terribly exhausting. They can actually advance quite a distance even  with these commands...

 

Best of luck with the scenario.../RepsolCBR

Thanks for the tip, RepsolCBR!

Thanks also for you continuing help. It's very much appreciated. I'll definitely put the DASH assault technique in my bag of tricks. I'm not sure if I can work it in for this scenario yet. The sticking point is running out of order slots. There is a lot of ground to cover and there are a lot of places to take. It would be great (and sure speed up the scenario design time) if I had as many orders as needed. Then, I could fine tune the AI to use short dashes under good overwatch, approach the door side of buildings before entering the next turn, avoid dangerous roads, and such. As it is, I'm having to make the best compromises I can. Which means...testing...testing. I'll see it through, though. It's bearing fruit.

The AI Plan tool I made is really helping and will allow me to coordinate things much better and avoid getting tripped up over running out of order slots, etc. Now, I have a template and will start using it from the get-go for all my scenario designs. This is the first scenario I've made that uses an elaborate AI Plan. As J.T. Kirk says, "We learn by doing." I'm posting information about the process partly for the help it might offer to others interested in making scenarios or just learning more about the game.

There have been more force changes. The starting German force is now 3 platoons of Stragglers with 3 full squads and 3 LMG teams each, plus a company HQ and 2 HMGs. All LMGs and HMGs in the scenario will be MG34s. At this point, there will be one late game reinforcement group consisting of a full Jagdpanzer IV platoon, along with a reinforced platoon of Stragglers. Arty will be 2 batteries of medium and one battery of heavy divisional arty, all with reduced ammo. They will arrive staggered later in the game, after the AI has past certain obvious kill zones.

Basically, the player will not have enough force to do more than monitor and peck at the Soviets before needing to fall back in the initial stages (at least the first hour at this point) . He'll need to keep falling back and try to hold the really good (city block) areas--or at least some of them. Then, when the strong reinforcement group arrives, he can beat back the Soviets and perhaps take back some lost objectives before the game ends.

I'm still not sure on scenario time. The first version could be shorter because the opening was "canned" and the action fast. Now that it's free-form with more realistic force density, I'm going to have stretch things out quite a lot to allow the AI time to get places. I'm not really worried if it gets quite long, though. It's meant to be a niche scenario for SP play only, so I'll go with whatever time is needed.

Current playtesting of the opening 30 minutes feels good. The action seems much more realistic than the earlier version and the Soviets are not taking many casualites before I feel the need to fall back. I think the scenario is maturing quite a bit.

The points and objectives are still an open question. I need to work with the AI Plan more to see what the AI can be expected to achieve and how best to do it. This map offers some excellent defensive terrain and has some size to it (both reasons I chose it). So, I've got to keep distilling the force mix and AI Plan to see how I should structure the points and TOs to make it all work point-wise.

Lots more do, but I'm feeling good about the way things are shaping up.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Macisle

[mjkerner]

Really looking forward to this one, Macisle.

[Macisle]

4 hours ago, mjkerner said:

Really looking forward to this one, Macisle.

Thanks, mjkerner!

I'm working on it daily and hope to get the next test version up in about a week.

[BletchleyGeek]

Thanks for sharing the process of refining the scenario victory conditions - that was a very interesting discussion.

Regarding AI plans, something that has worked quite well for me is:

1) Take a screenshot of the 2D view of the map as you do

2) Convert it into PDF

3) Load it up on Adobe Acrobat on my Samsung Galaxy Tab A

4) Plot on the tablet using the stylus AI groups positions, plans and timings

5) Go to the editor and input the plan reading from the tablet

One problem that has me stumped is that it is very hard to get a "global" view that combines the plans of all the AI groups... realising that you forgot to plot the flanking move of a "fix and flank" plan involves usually some facepalming. In this scenario it looks to me the AI is organised in quite a few maneuvering elements, so I am curious to hear about how you're dealing with that. 

 

[Macisle]

47 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Thanks for sharing the process of refining the scenario victory conditions - that was a very interesting discussion.

Regarding AI plans, something that has worked quite well for me is:

1) Take a screenshot of the 2D view of the map as you do

2) Convert it into PDF

3) Load it up on Adobe Acrobat on my Samsung Galaxy Tab A

4) Plot on the tablet using the stylus AI groups positions, plans and timings

5) Go to the editor and input the plan reading from the tablet

One problem that has me stumped is that it is very hard to get a "global" view that combines the plans of all the AI groups... realising that you forgot to plot the flanking move of a "fix and flank" plan involves usually some facepalming. In this scenario it looks to me the AI is organised in quite a few maneuvering elements, so I am curious to hear about how you're dealing with that. 

 

Thanks, BG.

My current AI Plan development method uses Photoshop (+ fraps for screenies) and is as follows:

1.  Make a tile-based composite map of the whole map using screenshots from Map View.
2. Create folders in PS for each AI group (using all 16 for this one) with a chit for each AI Group showing color-coded group number, name ID info, and a picture icon (infantry, tank, MG, etc.). Add a text layer for order details and a paint layer to show the painted tiles for the order.
3. Create subfolders and duplicate the chits, order detail text, and paint layers so each order gets a folder (I just duplicate the last order folder and edit it to be the new one--goes pretty fast).
4. Do an order in the Editor, screenshot it, place it in PS in semi-transparent overlay and paint the exact tiles using the same color as on that particular AI group chit. Then delete the screenshot layer.
5. Add any notes, clarification, or quick-form future planned moves (for when I don't have time to plot the moves, but don't want to lose the idea).
6. Rinse and repeat as needed.

This way, I have the full, exact AI Plan at at glance and can spot flaws, opportunities, and brainstorm new ideas easily. Also, I plan to do multiple AI Plans, so I can copy the file and change it as needed.

It's slow to get going, but speeds up as you go. Tedious? A bit, but it beats the hell out of using pen and paper and trying to flit back and forth between the groups and orders in the Editor. It's very easy to make mistakes and miss things that way (like in the beta 1 plan! ).

So far, I quite like the work flow and will continually refine the approach.

I'm glad folks are finding the discussion interesting. I'll keep up my attempts to offer fodder for folks interested in the design process. I don't have many public scenarios under my belt and the ones I've released have all used die in place AI setups. I've done lots of quickie AI plans for private "custom quick battle" scenarios, but, as beta 1 made so very obvious, trying to create a polished full-blown plan for public release is a whole other animal.

Learnin' on the job!

And enjoying it. 

Edited October 5, 2016 by Macisle

[mjkerner]

Now I'm even more enthusiastic about this, Macisle.  BG's and your techniques are really good ideas.  I've only ever gone the quickie custom quick battle route, but always wanted to better refine my plans, even if just for my own benefit.  You and BG have given the rest of us a good roadmap for tackling the "can't keep it all straight" problem.  Nice!

[BletchleyGeek]

37 minutes ago, mjkerner said:

Now I'm even more enthusiastic about this, Macisle.  BG's and your techniques are really good ideas.  I've only ever gone the quickie custom quick battle route, but always wanted to better refine my plans, even if just for my own benefit.  You and BG have given the rest of us a good roadmap for tackling the "can't keep it all straight" problem.  Nice!

I had never thought about that - one could use this as well for AAR's or records keeping. Especially for those who struggle to find the time to sit down with their CM undisturbed for anything longer than 30 minutes

One could use as well OneNote instead of Adobe Acrobat, for extra flexibility.

Thanks @Macisle as well for describing how you build your plan diagrams, sounds tedious but sounds pretty effective as well.

Edited October 6, 2016 by BletchleyGeek

[Macisle]

A belated thanks for the compliments on my AI Plan diagram technique. They are much appreciated. I've stuck with it and every move is in there. Alas, despite daily work of multiple hours, I'm only just nearing the end of getting the basic move-plotting of the first AI plan done. Then I need to go back and get order timings nailed down and tweak anything else that needs tweaking. Having the diagram is really paying off and I intend to make it my standard approach to scenario design.

I'm also doing some tweaking and "beautification" of the map. The tweaking is mainly door repositioning to help the AI use safer paths. However, some of it will help the player, too. Most of the stock hedges/walls follow the recommendations in the Scenario Design AAR by JonS to avoid "dead" spots where soldiers won't go. However, I'm finding some that don't and am altering them to do so if I think combat may happen there. The visual enhancement involves the addition of favor objects and creation of some "vignettes" like a gas station and the depot area where the ammo dump is (moved a bit from where it was in beta 1). I'm not planning to go full-bore on this kind of thing--just add them in a few places where I think the player's eyes will spend some time.

At this point, the plan is to get one solid AI Plan down and get the scenario out. Then, as time allows, I hope to add more--probably after the 4.0 Upgrade. I don't know when the beta 2 test version will be ready as this is taking a lot longer than I expected. Beta 1 was what it was because I wanted to keep time investment to a minimum and intended it to be a kind of a "high-end quickie" scenario. Now that I'm going for a polished, "mature" scenario, I want to make sure it lives up to those expecations.

So, no ETAs anymore, but I am working as hard as I can on it and am pleased with the way things are going.

[Macisle]

-Just a quick line to say that RL time demands (self-employed and in a bit of a crunch) have forced me to take an extended break from working on this. I'm not sure when I will be able to get back into it. Hopefully in a few weeks to a month.

If it turns out to be longer and the 4.0 Upgrade is released with significant work on it still left to be done, I will likely go ahead and integrate the 4.0 features into it. The new Editor facing feature alone would eliminate days/weeks of trial and error work on tank facings and significantly speed things up.

Also, the coming area fire feature is really tailor made for this scenario. Even with the Soviets having T-34-85s now, it is difficult to get them to offer the kind of infantry fire support I would like the AI to have, due to their lack of target awareness. That is also slowing things down a lot as I work to find the right force balance to allow the Soviets to have a shot at winning/giving a decent challenge, while still giving the Germans the TD elements I want to give them.

Sorry for the delay and thanks again for your interest in this scenario. I look forward to diving back in as soon as I can.

[Baneman]

Somehow I've missed this, but it looks extremely interesting.

Ping me when you pick up work on it again and I'll be happy to give it a test drive  ( I'm a fan of large engagements )

[Macisle]

4 hours ago, Baneman said:

Somehow I've missed this, but it looks extremely interesting.

Ping me when you pick up work on it again and I'll be happy to give it a test drive  ( I'm a fan of large engagements )

Thanks, Baneman!

Will-do for sure.

I'm hoping to offer players a kind of SP experience that they may not have encountered much before--at least to this degree. The early part of the game will be an urban fighting withdrawal (will offer lots of opportunities to use smoke grenades to cover movement). They player will have to balance force preservation with trying to monitor and reduce the enemy where he can. Positions that look solid may suddenly become untenable. Stay one turn too long and you may be cut off. 

Late in the game, reinforcements will arrive and the action will switch to counterattack, perhaps with the player's initial force remnants encircled.

The player has a reinforced company. The Soviet AI's force is, well...larger (but much reduced from the first playtest version).

One thing I'll need community help on before I put out the next test version is getting the Victory Points sorted out. The Objectives are painted, but I'm not sure what to do with the points. The current plan is to have some AI objectives to be Touch and some Occupy so that the AI doesn't need to leave units on the closer objectives. However, since the player may be able to take some back later, I need help sorting out how to handle things to be fair to both sides.

I'll post to let folks know as soon as I get back to work on it. I'm very tempted to do a video of my last few turns of playtesting, as the action was very illustrative of what I'm going for for the first part of the scenario. No time at the moment though.

Anyhoo, thanks again. I'm looking VERY forward to getting your feedback!

Edited November 24, 2016 by Macisle

[Macisle]

BF Santa is really delivering this Christmas! The 4.0 Upgrade is chock-full of excellent stuff!

EDITOR

• AI AREA FIRE ORDERS: The AI can now be scripted to use Area Fire! Each AI Order can have a target zone designated.
• AI FACING ORDERS: Each AI Order can be given a location for it to Face towards.
• AI WITHDRAW ORDERS: AI Groups can be ordered to Withdraw towards their movement destination. Vehicles will move in Reverse to the destination, while infantry will leapfrog back while turning around to face behind them.
• CAMPAIGN RESUPPLY: Personnel replacements and ammunition levels are now more uniformly resupplied across all core units between campaign missions, as opposed to the all-or-nothing check on each unit done previously.
• 3D FLAVOR OBJECT CLONE TOOL: Flavor object can be cloned within the 3D view without having to go back to the 2D view.
• 32 ORDER AI PLANS: Each AI Group can now have up to 32 Orders, increased from 16.
• STREAM TERRAIN: Small streams can now be placed on battle maps.

The 32 Order AI Plans is a wonderful surprise that helps me a lot in this scenario. With AI Facing, AI Area Fire and 32 Orders, it's a whole new world that gives me exactly what I was looking for for this scenario. Man, I am soooo excited!

Thanks, BF!

Also, some wonderful stuff for gameplay:

• HULLDOWN COMMAND: Vehicles have access to a new movement command called Hulldown. This command allows a vehicle to move forward until only the turret is exposed to a specified target, and then the vehicle stops moving.
• IMPROVED INFANTRY SPACING: Infantry on the move will now respect each other's personal space! While moving, squad and team members will maintain a few meters of distance between each other. Soldiers will also spread out laterally on the move when possible (some terrain may necessitate column movement, such as paths through rough terrain).
• PEEKING AROUND BUILDING CORNERS: Infantry units positioned adjacent to building corners will now automatically post some soldiers at the corners to observe and fire around the obstacle
• AI PROACTIVELY AVOIDS HIGH-EXPLOSIVE FIRE: The TacAI that runs soldiers and vehicles will more proactively, and reactively, attempt to avoid incoming HE fire. Two classic examples are that the AI will attempt to avoid being wiped out by incoming artillery barrages and direct tank fire.
• COMBINE SQUAD COMMAND: Combine Squad is a new Admin Command for squads. This command is useful for squads that have suffered major losses and need to consolidate their remaining personnel into larger teams!

I'm most excited about Peeking Around Corners. That is something I've wanted forever and a possible game-changer as well. I'm an infantry guy and this is Yuge!

It will still be a number of days before I can get back into working on this scenario, but I am super gungho on integrating the 4.0 features in.

Merry Christmas, everybody!

Edited December 24, 2016 by Macisle