Thoughts on Scenarios

[shepherd352]

I thought that scenarios were a waste of time, mere shadows of the real game but I started the Desert Fox Scenario today and it's fun! I selected Italy (which, in real life was responsible for the theatre) and was immediately into action. The action had a very realistic feel, as each operation resulted in my units suffering ORG loss and needing time to recover. Then it was a race as to whether the UK would rebuild first or if I could hit them. Some of my operations failed and some reached further than I could sustain. This was all good.

But some things don't make sense (in no order).
1. I received a message that Crete had fallen and that it would be useful as an airbase but, six months later, it is still controlled by Greece.
2. I started with a Luftwaffe group that included 1xINT,1xCAS and 1xTAC. What good is that? One limitation of the game is that you can't reorganise expeditionary forces so now I have this white elephant group that is good at nothing. I tried using it a few times and the INT got rippled to pieces (I'm not sure if that was due to the UK INT or using INT in ground attack). Either way, they are just wasting fuel if they are at the front. Then you get reinforcements. The Italians can be slotted into the existing army but the three single German TAC (without a leader) are again useless. Similarly, I get 2 x German MOT-INF, that arrive as a division, without a leader. I think they are supposed to be used to bring 15 Panzer and 5 Leichte Division up to strength (to 1xPNZ and 2xMOT) but how am I to reorganise these replacements, as they are expeditionary forces? One of my German divisional commanders has "inactive" against his name. He is not earning experience. I don't know if he is contributing to the battle.
3. When I look at my German Troops, I get Italian unit descriptions. My Panzer Divisions are using Italian tanks and the Luftwaffe is flying Italian aircraft. The German units start at much higher levels of Tech but the Italian units are slowly catching up. There is a slim possibility that there is something wrong in my game but, if that is not the case, this scenario (and I would assume all) is badly flawed. I should have two replacement pools (German and Italian) but I assume I have one. I should have two tech levels (or groups of levels) but I assume I have one.

I have tried to deal with the flaws of the scenario by removing the "expeditionary" limitation in my save game files. I will be careful to not mix German and Italian units but I will miss the German flags on my German units. At least, this way, I can organise my forces.

I wrote this, and did not add to an existing thread, because I wanted to express how enjoyable my first scenario has been but I also wanted to highlight its shortcomings. Have others experienced the same problems with scenarios and what work arounds do they use? Should these shortcomings be fixed by PI or do we just hope that the modding community will sort them out, after they have rereleased their FTM compatible mods?

 

[shepherd352]

I was going to let this thread die from lack of interest but I have completed the scenario and thought I should add some additional observations.

Continuing my list of things that don't make sense (in post 1):
4. I captured Alexandria but the UK continued to recieve reinforcements delivered to the port. This should be easy to check and alter. Perhaps the reinforcements could be delivered to Haifa if Alexandria is occupied by the Axis?
5. I took Romani and the scenario ends. I think reinforcements go through to the Torch landings so I was a bit disappointed at not being able to face them (although I would not have the UK at my back, I would need to leave troops to occupy Egypt. A pity there is not a play on option.

Nevertheless, I think there is a lot of scope to do scenarios well, so the are relatively short but challenging and interesting. I had fun with this scenario and recommend it to anyone wanting a short diversion.

 

[damnt512]

what patch are you playing ?

 

[shepherd352]

My game is FTM v3.04 (with correct checksum).

 

[cfp]

I don't own FTM and can't really help you, but Exp. Forces using your own tech (Italian, in this case, as opposed to German) has always really irked me. 15 pz and 5 leichte used German armor, not Italian. Yet in some places it makes sense (Foreign Wehrmacht volunteers often used German equipment)

That said, it sounds -really- buggy.

 

[shepherd352]

In a standard game, expeditionary forces use the tech and manpower of their donor country but the supplies of the receiving country. I think this is a good balance, although it would be good if there was a better mechanic for tech sharing (but perhaps the current system is realistic). For some reason the scenario messes this up, with tech and manpower coming from Italian sources.

The aim should be for allied forces to not have the freedom to intermix, so using expeditionary forces as the tool makes sense, if it worked the same as it does in a regular game (regarding tech and manpower). Since we can't alter the structure of any expeditionary force, the scenario designer (or modder) needs to make sure that reinforcements are properly added. If additional brigades arrive, that should add a third brigade to an existing division, they should not be joined into yet another division. I don't know if game mechanics allow for a new brigade to be added to a existing division but I would prefer to see the new brigade instantly appear as the third brigade in 21st Panzer Division (preferably with zero ORG) than to appear at Tarabalus (sp?) at 100% ORG but never be able to join its intended division. If it is impossible to have new brigades added to existing divisions, they need to rethink using expeditionary forces.

As for reinforcements appearing after the port has been captured, this was just lazy programming. Some ealy deliveries check if the port is held but then (just as there is risk that the port may have fallen) they stop checking.

This scenario is not so much buggy as poorly written. They had a chance to create a neat little scenario that would recreate a small but interesting part of the war but their lack of forethought has created something that can still be fun but is disjointed and unrealistic. Nevertheless, it can still be fun.

[Edit] And reinforcements (and the removal of forces) should be somewhat forecast. In real life, divisions did not just appear on a boat nor did they suddenly dissapear off the battlefield, their movement was planned many months in advance. The scenario adds and removes forces according to historic records but you only know this if you check the game files. Surely some warning can be given (a pity that we don't have access to the diplomacy screen as these movements could have been listed, six months in advance, in that location).

 

[unmerged(252844)]

I played the Desert Fox scenario as Italy and have also come across same bugs/errors as you:

1) Crete message constantly comes up that the Germans have won the battle then lost. We are toldwe can land navalinvasion at Egypt but we don't have any transports or any naval fleet for that matter.
2) As for problem two again you ar right about useless german exp force that comes without leaders and you are unableto assign your own generals. Bigger problem it is for land troops.

Dissapointing liek you said that it was short (couldn't continue on to counter Op. Torch) but was still enjoyable overall.


Will try the next scenariowhen I have time and get back.

 

[shepherd352]

I completed the Desert Fox scenario as the Allies (having first played as Axis). I found that a second Australian Division (the 7th?) was allocated as reinforcements but was designated as UK troops, not Australian expeditionary forces (similar for a South African brigade). This is just sloppy. Given that all tech and manpower in a scenario is drawn from the host country, they might as well just give them national names and don't bother with expeditionary status. As I was about to take Tarabalus, the italians recieved a reinforcement german division but without a commander!

I experienced two brigades being taken from me (for deployment elsewhere in the world). The code checks that they are not in combat at the time but it was quite annoying to lose two brigades from a division that was West of Tarabalus at the time? It would be good if there was a way to prompt the player for which brigades to give up, or at least give him a choice (so tactical realities can be considered).

Both my "Desert Fox" campaigns were very brief: as Italy, I had won by the end of 1941 and as the UK I had won by April 1942. In both efforts, the main reasons I could not advance faster was supply difficulties and waiting for units to regain ORG. There are so few divisions in this scenario, that the destruction of just a few will remove any balance. You need to avoid flanking and surounding your enemy or you win in less than a year. I must admi that I refused the two options to lose more forces: send some brigades get captured in Crete (like I haven't read history) and declare war on Vichy Syria (like I need more enemies when my front line was very thin). There seems to be no down-side to rejecting these additional problems.

I took a quick look at the Fall Blau scenario and it suffers from the same issues. It is a pity that so little attention was given to getting the details and mechanics right for these scenarios.

 

[FOARP]

The scenarios in HOI2 worked by simply assigning one side as the "allies" and the other side as "axis" by simply creating separate, unitary "axis" and "allied" countries- yes, this means creating two new countries, but it avoids using the expeditionary force mechanism (which has anyway never worked satisfactorily).

 

[Darkrenown]

We are toldwe can land navalinvasion at Egypt but we don't have any transports or any naval fleet for that matter.

You are not told that.

 

[Darkrenown]

As for reinforcements appearing after the port has been captured, this was just lazy programming. Some ealy deliveries check if the port is held but then (just as there is risk that the port may have fallen) they stop checking.

My bad. Originally I had the scenario end when Alexandria was captured, need to update those events.

 

[FOARP]

"There are so few divisions in this scenario, that the destruction of just a few will remove any balance"

Yes, why is there (apparently) no "shatter" dynamic in the scenarios? This at least would add a bit more balance (i..e., units remain in the game, but need to be rebuilt).

 

[unmerged(252844)]

You are not told that.

Im pretty sure I saw the message Crete canbe used as a base island to land future invasions on Egypt, I'll reconfirm it first before reporting it as a bug.

 

[Altipueri]

More scenarios please.

It would be great if this game could have dozens, like Combat Mission or TOAW.

So much work has gone into this game now it would be a shame to just pander to the super experts who are always going to be super picky. Widen the market, appeal to new players.

 

[Union Jack]

Nevermind, made seperate thread as this is an old one.

 

[Syphus]

Im pretty sure I saw the message Crete canbe used as a base island to land future invasions on Egypt, I'll reconfirm it first before reporting it as a bug.

Despite the fact that this is a Necro. Isn't it that it just mentions that it can be used as an airbase?

 

[Altipueri]

I've just played the scenario in HOI3 FTM; HOI2 Armageddon; AoD; and similar ones in Advanced Tactics and TOAW.

My best victory was with AoD - I had the Australians drinking beer in Tripoli about the time the awful Gadaffi was probably conceived.