Korean War Revisited

Hi Patine,

I was just taking a quick look at your files. Did you by any chance forget to include the wterrain2.bmp file in your download package? I don`t seem to have it in the zip I downloaded.
 
Sorry, I must have missed that. Here it is until the DL can be updated permanently.
 

Attachments

  • wTerrain2.jpg
    wTerrain2.jpg
    73.8 KB · Views: 221
So, has anyone given this a serious try yet since the release?
 
I think this scenario really needs to have less infantry, and perhaps just general types of useful units.

If I was designing this myself, I'd go for classic 1 and 2 move attackers, a few defender types, and some specials like air and limited armour.

The CIV2 unit list does not have to be filled, a perfect tactical game can be had even with a limited family of units.

Not putting this good effort down, just an observation.
 
I carried on my game this morning and hope to grab a cheeky hour or so after work tonight. Managed to take Seoul & the south with relative ease. Pusan has held out and the British are tearing up the west coast. There's just three landlocked cities south-west of Seoul to take before the advance into the north begins. I will reserve judgement until I have completed the scenario, but so far it is a fun & colourful play. Love all the unusual aircraft and obscure UN Infantry units, though I think it would be more challenging if the numbers were reduced somewhat.
 
I have almost completed The Korean War now and I must congratulate you on your very enjoyable scenario. It looks great, is fun to play and works without any notable bugs. However, having looked at it with the eye of a scenario designer I have drawn up a list of improvements that I think could enhance the scenario without the need for any major redesign. Think of them as more tweaks and additions that should be possible to implement, should you choose to do so, without the need for major effort or headaches. This list is not a criticism of the scenario, but an appreciation of the good work that has gone in so far and a vision of how to elevate it from good to outstanding! It has the potential to be a classic, but it just lacks a little in the last third.

I'm off out for a walk in the country now (the sun has finally made an appearance in dear old Blighty) but I will try and post the list this afternoon/evening. :)
 
What, sun in the UK! The global climate patterns are truly screwed indeed! Gore and DiCaprio were right!

Seriously, though, thanks for the thorough and I definitely look forward to seeing your list. I'm not like those Renassaince artists who will challenge you to a duel to the death for making "criticisms" or "suggestions" regarding their work. I'm glad you enjoyed playing it. It was - literally - years in the making.
 
PROS:

Very well made and enjoyable scenario. The initial North Korean attack is well engineered.

Great map. Good scale, looks great and works well.

The graphics are superb.

Scenario works well with no obvious bugs. Most of the unit stats work well.

CONS:

Could you add a reminder text event to change from summer to winter?

There are a few geographically isolated cities. (Kujang, Yangdok, Changjin & P'ungsan). Could these have some kind of road link or are they intentionally difficult to reach without Paratroopers & an airbase?

I would suggest including an engineer unit so UN can build fortified positions (fortresses). Without this option the game turns into a series of city sieges.

You could add village & town terrains with greater defence values. (instead of suburbs in countryside).

A few more smaller cities would spread out UN forces more thinly.

Remove airbases. They just get in the way!

Air protected stacks make defending Pusan relatively easy. They become less effective when Migs appear later in the game.

Aircraft defend cities first! Perhaps the air unit stats could be re-examined. Many times Sabres held off Chinese hoards without sustaining significant damage.

UN air power too strong. Aircraft really are the decisive weapon in this scenario. I know in ToTPP it is possible to limit the number of attacks per unit. This one small change would make units like the Banshee & Sabre far less destructive and as a result the scenario would be much more challenging. You could always give all air units 2 range to solve this at a stroke, though it would have the effect of more air protected stacks/blocking aircraft.

What is the purpose of the Soviet frontier? Could this unit slot be re-used?

Vladivostock etc... What is the purpose? Could you re-use these four?

For me there are not enough events. I would suggest adding more text. More verity. More rewards.

Chinese attacks are fairly predictable. They did cause me some problems but by and large I could see what was coming and shuffle units to meet the threat. How about adding more varied Chinese events, behind lines etc... Nearly all Chinese attacks in the west. Add more in Centre & East.

What is the end game? After a good first two thirds the scenario kind of peters out into a war of attrition. Just holding the northern cities for years gets a bit boring. I feel you could improve the end portion of this otherwise very good scenario.


I'm glad you're willing to take on constructive criticism of your work. I did really enjoy it and that is why I feel compelled to make these observations. With a little more work (hopefully all relatively simple) I can see this going from good to outstanding. You have a really solid basis to work from here! If you choose to leave it as it is that's not the end of the world. It works and it is a lot of fun, but I hope you consider making another push to really make The Korean War shine! :)
 
First, about those four cities, my sources on North Korea show them as having been up to and during the war, and for a while thereafter, quite isolated cities. I also have seen no specific mention of their capture (by city name) by UN forces, just operations "in those provinces." I suppose thus it likely wouldn't kill all realism to build a road to them.

An event to remind the player of the season, and more events in general, are definitely a possibility.

UN Engineers could indeed be re-introduced. They were first removed before ToTPP raised the number of unit slots to save unit slots.

I will definitely look into village/town terrain, and removing airbases.

More cities can also be looked into. The Korean Peninsula's a pretty thickly-settled place, after all.

I will also look into air power and Chinese tactics and how to balance a bit better.

The "Soviet Frontier," is, admittedly, an esthetic remnant of the old Soviet Player from when I was toying with an Atomic Option and, after that was kaiboshed, to stop the UN player from running freely around the Primorskye Region. However, it now occurs to me, tootall's recent suggestion of the Area-of-Operation Boundary Marker (using pollution tiles) that are uncrossable by the UN by house rule could this mechanism's place instead.

And finally, admittedly victory conditions a bit vaguely-termed and could be sharpened.

Thank-you for this feedback and criticism. I'll see what can be done.
 
That would work. Just extend the Chinese border along the Russian frontier & make the border terrain impassable. I don't think any of the other impassable terrain types are essential for the game mechanics so you could set them as passable.
 
First, about those four cities, my sources on North Korea show them as having been up to and during the war, and for a while thereafter, quite isolated cities. I also have seen no specific mention of their capture (by city name) by UN forces, just operations "in those provinces." I suppose thus it likely wouldn't kill all realism to build a road to them.

I definitely think roads to these cities would make their capture less frustrating. If you added more Chinese events in the centre and east then they would become another battleground to stretch the UN forces.

An event to remind the player of the season, and more events in general, are definitely a possibility.

Should be a quick and easy one to add. I did forget on a few occasions.

UN Engineers could indeed be re-introduced. They were first removed before ToTPP raised the number of unit slots to save unit slots.

By adding an Engineer and allowing them the ability to build fortresses you could expand the battle beyond the cities. Perhaps a few fortresses in the hills north of Pusan from the start of the game would give the UN player some more options for the defence. The UN player could also build defensive lines to try and limit the infiltration of Chinese units into the south.

I will definitely look into village/town terrain, and removing airbases.

I never use airbases (unless that is the only option to get from A to B. It's very frustrating when you send an aircraft on a long flight and it accidentally lands on an un-noticed airbase. By all means include strategic airbases for the Chinese or in very remote areas, but I would advise deleting them from the main routes.

More cities can also be looked into. The Korean Peninsula's a pretty thickly-settled place, after all.

This idea has the potential to upset the balance of the scenario (science etc...) but if executed carefully it would definitely stretch out UN resources, especially if added in the North.

I will also look into air power and Chinese tactics and how to balance a bit better.

Limiting the attacks per turn of UN aircraft would have a dramatic affect on gameplay. For example, a Sabre can attack about 16 times in a single turn. That's a lot of Chinese units that won't be bothering the Infantry. If you limited it to perhaps three attacks per turn the ground troops would have to get far more involved.

The "Soviet Frontier," is, admittedly, an esthetic remnant of the old Soviet Player from when I was toying with an Atomic Option and, after that was kaiboshed, to stop the UN player from running freely around the Primorskye Region. However, it now occurs to me, tootall's recent suggestion of the Area-of-Operation Boundary Marker (using pollution tiles) that are uncrossable by the UN by house rule could this mechanism's place instead.

That would work too!

And finally, admittedly victory conditions a bit vaguely-termed and could be sharpened.

I think the victory conditions are OK, take and hold all Korean cities for a decisive victory. The thing that bothered me a bit was that once I had taken all the cities all I could do is sit there and wait for the Chinese hordes. If the events were expanded and the potential to use engineers to build defensive lines were introduced I think this last phase would be much more interesting as UN forces were gradually whittled down and hard choices had to be made about whether to hold on or retreat back to more easily defended lines.

Thank-you for this feedback and criticism. I'll see what can be done.

You're welcome. I'm glad you have taken my feedback in the spirit it was intended. You have built a good solid fun scenario which is the finished article in itself. I just think it's a few tweaks and additions away from being a classic. :D
 
So, I've begun implementing some of these suggestions, including adding an Engineering Unit or 2 for the UN player (with no city building), as well as re-introduced the H-19 Chickasaw, though almost entirely as a scout unit with minimal attack power (as in, you'd be wasting it to attack most units). I was just wondering, since my sources only really mention the USACE as the source of UN engineers in the Korean War (I've found no mention of significant numbers of British or Commonwealth ones, at least not full units worth), I was wondering if someone could create a USACE logo for a unit (as below), or present a source of a larger number of non-US engineers present in the war; either will do. Thanks in advance!
 

Attachments

  • USACE.gif
    USACE.gif
    7.9 KB · Views: 201
Ah, well, I'll just slap a generic engineering icon on it for now, and (knock on wood), maybe someone will have a spare moment and take their hand at it later. ;)
 
Alright, my life has been very hectic lately and, though I have posted quite a bit of late, it's mostly been of the responses to other posts, inquiries, and chattiness type, as most may have noticed. Now it's time, I think, to resume work. First, to finish up the last touches to this one, the Korean War, then get my Fall of Rome (for which I still have a lot of compiled resources waiting for use) going.
 
Okay, I've come across a bit of a stumbling block here. I'm hoping someone can help. I went to "unfortify" all the squares in the KW scenario (as they'd all been fortified with invisible fortress terrain with CivStacks years ago) so I could just apply ToTPP's no-stack-kill option and have fortresses available to be built with the few engineers the player is planned to get (who can also build airbases and fix roads, as their main purposes in this scenario) for their defensive bonuses, which I believe McMonkey and possibly others suggested - but, I can't get CivStack to work in Windows 8, no matter what I do (and compatibly mode has been something that I've NEVER gotten to work), and I can't find any advice by Catfish or others in a search of the tech subforum (it may be buried in there, but I'm not sure where). Is there anyone who can offer any advice or help here at all, as it's going to be VERY tedious removing all that fortress terrain square by square by hand?
 
Top Bottom