Battle of Italy 1943 - 1945 ToTPP 0.18.4 and Lua scenario, Updated to Patch 1.3

[JPetroski]

So I was able to play through turns 15 or 16, but I've found I'm going to have to do that all over again from the save I have of Husky being completed. I thoroughly enjoyed myself but I do have to wonder how many people are going to make solid progress through a campaign and then kind of feel rug pulled, not by you or your lack of documentation or warning as you have done what you can, but by my own memory given the fact that it's so complicated it's really hard to remember everything to consider, but, you know, your readme is 14,000 words long LOL. This is a complicated scenario!

I definitely enjoy myself and often find myself thinking, "Yeah, this is the new standard right here" which you've done time and again throughout your career. Tactics are so important and I find myself hunting artillery especially because it is so devastating with the way you've set it up. I'm 100% on board with the stack limits for terrain now - it adds marvelous depth and just makes things incredibly fun. I feel like there are so many scenarios that would benefit from it tremendously.

I find the AI very strong and deadly and that you need to concentrate your forces to take them on. I feel like my biggest problem with this playthrough was taking on too much as I tried to push a ton of units into Taranto early and advance along two fronts. Doing so prompted the German response events for both coasts on the same turn which really screwed me. Honestly next match I might try the Adriatic approach.

Difficult scenarios are fun, though I will say if you forget something or don't take something into account, it's really hard to come back from it. Case in point, I'm up near Foggia, launching what I think is a pretty good campaign to take it as well as Naples when I'm hit out of the blue by the weather. Did you put it in the readme that this would happen? Absolutely. Is it therefore my fault? Yes. Do I wish I remembered it was coming up? You bet ya, because it screwed me.

Another case in point is the DUKWs. I get (and enjoy) how they are the units than create a supply depot, but I don't understand why they are the only unit that can remove a supply depot. You charge resources for the depots (which I forgot about until I pressed a key looking for instructions on something else) and you really need quite a lot of them, even in Sicily, but then if you forget to remove them (with a unit you'll have, at most, 4 of in the campaign) and sail off with it, you have to bring it allllll the way back to dismantle something you'd think any old grunt could do, and this also completely stops your offensive because you need those DUKWs to build up depots on the front to have any chance of moving. What about letting any unit dismantle them for a price and letting DUKW's dismantle them for free/a lesser price?

I'd also just point out that there is a lot of RNG in this scenario. Fine for replayability and frankly I think the way you've done winter, ground supply, etc. is far better than what I had in HoF (which was also RNG) but it can definitely be frustrating when it comes to weather and planes being ground because the Allies actually spent considerable resources on meteorologists and would have a pretty good idea of when bad weather was coming through. You have an air map that really serves little purpose other than convenience. Why not add a dynamic weather system to it such as in OTR and have the groundings occur in regions that have heavy cloud cover? There might be code that will do just this soon enough if I can convince @Prof. Garfield to do it for OTR because I really do like your grounding mechanism and think it should remain. I just find the current system too abstract and random.

I'm having a ball and it helped me pass my time at the kids house this week when they weren't tearing around. The more I dig into the scenario the more I enjoy it. Unfortunately I also find I've jumbled something badly and have to restart several hours of work. That's not necessarily a bad thing (Red Front once did that to all of us). But I will say I wish I "measured twice, cut once" with the readme lol.

Oh - and one more thing - I may have missed it - but I can't locate in game or in the readme what I'm supposed to press to get troops sent to Corsica. If I've missed it because I'm worn out and tired that's on me but if it isn't in the read me, it should be please.

 

[tootall_2012]

Hi John,

So I was able to play through turns 15 or 16, but I've found I'm going to have to do that all over again from the save I have of Husky being completed...

I think you are concentrating too much on trying to play the 'perfect' game rather than just playing the game... It's okay to play and lose. You will gain the advantage of having an overall picture of what works and doesn't in your campaign, all while learning the game mechanics.

The game is not at all designed to make victory impossible merely challenging.

I thoroughly enjoyed myself but I do have to wonder how many people are going to make solid progress through a campaign and then kind of feel rug pulled, not by you or your lack of documentation or warning as you have done what you can, but by my own memory given the fact that it's so complicated it's really hard to remember everything to consider, but, you know, your readme is 14,000 words long LOL. This is a complicated scenario!

I'm sorry to hear you are finding the game 'complicated'. As I may have replied in an earlier post, I don't believe the scenario is complicated at all, it's simply that it has many different parts which I feel once you have become familiar with them should increasingly become second nature.

Amost all features are quite simple and straighforward: DUKW's are used to build or remove supply hubs, trucks can transport or resupply units, bombers need to return to base to rearm, Liberty Ships can only unload in cities or from beachheads, etc.

I've certainly tried my best to include both visual cues (with the many unit icons) and game text to make it as easy and fluid for the player as possible.

Have you printed out "Appendix C: Hot Keys" as I recommended in post #8. It's a quick and easy reference guide to remind you of the key game features. I always had it by my side while play testing.

I definitely enjoy myself and often find myself thinking, "Yeah, this is the new standard right here" which you've done time and again throughout your career. Tactics are so important and I find myself hunting artillery especially because it is so devastating with the way you've set it up. I'm 100% on board with the stack limits for terrain now - it adds marvelous depth and just makes things incredibly fun. I feel like there are so many scenarios that would benefit from it tremendously.

Yes, this scenario is very much a tactical simulation rather than an empire building one.

As I may have mentionned, the stacking limit feature was orignially designed to be optional (the code is still in place, I merely commented it out), but after my 3rd play through I realize it was just too important a component of the overall game play to remove it.

I find the AI very strong and deadly and that you need to concentrate your forces to take them on. I feel like my biggest problem with this playthrough was taking on too much as I tried to push a ton of units into Taranto early and advance along two fronts. Doing so prompted the German response events for both coasts on the same turn which really screwed me. Honestly next match I might try the Adriatic approach.

As a rule I prefer to let players develop their own paths to victory but I will repeat one of my prior tips, i.e. this is very much a battle of attrition, i.e. the more German units you destroy the harder it becomes for them to be replaced (this is especially true of the defensive units along the main defensive lines, i.e. once destroyed they are not replaced).

As such, you want to have as much frontage as possible to increase your overall targets of opportunity (as part of my personal preference, I typically always had the American/FF operating on the west coast and British/CW troops on the east coast)

Difficult scenarios are fun, though I will say if you forget something or don't take something into account, it's really hard to come back from it. Case in point, I'm up near Foggia, launching what I think is a pretty good campaign to take it as well as Naples when I'm hit out of the blue by the weather. Did you put it in the readme that this would happen? Absolutely. Is it therefore my fault? Yes. Do I wish I remembered it was coming up? You bet ya, because it screwed me.

I will respectfully disagree here. Though it is true that the Germans counter-attacks can be deadly at times, as the Allies you should always have the ability to bounce back if you manage your resources wisely.

As such, here are a few extra tips:

• Be mindful of your casualty rate (a ratio under 40% is acceptable losses) and as such don't make un-necessary costly attacks, i.e. make sure to properly prepare before making those big attacks against those well defended positions
• Try to build your Docks in liberated ports as soon as is possible in order to generate those vital extra supply bonuses,
• Unless absolutely necessary, don't waste your time on building city improvements, i.e have them generating "supplies" (aka Captialization).
• Always try to keep the units of your different nationalities operating together to benefit from their AF/DF bonuses.

Another case in point is the DUKWs. I get (and enjoy) how they are the units than create a supply depot, but I don't understand why they are the only unit that can remove a supply depot. You charge resources for the depots (which I forgot about until I pressed a key looking for instructions on something else) and you really need quite a lot of them, even in Sicily, but then if you forget to remove them (with a unit you'll have, at most, 4 of in the campaign) and sail off with it, you have to bring it allllll the way back to dismantle something you'd think any old grunt could do, and this also completely stops your offensive because you need those DUKWs to build up depots on the front to have any chance of moving. What about letting any unit dismantle them for a price and letting DUKW's dismantle them for free/a lesser price?

I'm not certain why you think only the DUKW's can remove supply hubs. As indicated in the ReadMe #18, Appendix C: Hot keys and in-game Tips menu:

A Supply Hub unit can always be disbanded in one of two ways:
•    You can move a DUKW, UK or US Truck unit to its location and press on the 'u' key and this will not only disband the hub but return the initial 15 supplies cost.
•    You can go to the game's Orders menu and select Disband, though in this case you will not recuperate the 15 supplies.

I'd also just point out that there is a lot of RNG in this scenario. Fine for replayability and frankly I think the way you've done winter, ground supply, etc. is far better than what I had in HoF (which was also RNG) but it can definitely be frustrating when it comes to weather and planes being ground because the Allies actually spent considerable resources on meteorologists and would have a pretty good idea of when bad weather was coming through. You have an air map that really serves little purpose other than convenience. Why not add a dynamic weather system to it such as in OTR and have the groundings occur in regions that have heavy cloud cover? There might be code that will do just this soon enough if I can convince @Prof. Garfield to do it for OTR because I really do like your grounding mechanism and think it should remain. I just find the current system too abstract and random.e.

I make no claim to be an expert on the effects of weather on air operations in Europe during WWII, but on my limited knowledge and reading on such matters, it was not infrequent for air units to be grounded due to bad weather during the fall/winter seasons. As such, based on my understanding, I tried to implement a very simple yet somewhat realistic solution.

Futhermore, its important to remember that air operations in this scenario are not about strategic bombing (though there is a limited aspect of that with the rail yards) but rather about ground support. Bombing a city is not the same as attacking ground forces. As you say, if Hamburg was overcast they could always reroute to an alternate city target. It's not the same in a ground offensive. If your scheduled to launch a ground offensive against Monte Cassino with air support and it's overcast that day or week, bombing the town of Ortona isn't going to help much.

And that's what the functionality is trying to represent, i.e. the unpredictability of air operations during that era.

In terms of the game play itself, a simple trick during fall/winter/spring turns, is to move your air units that are activated just out of the city/airbase to prevent them becoming grounded (the code only checks for grounding when its the air unit's turn to activate provided it is on an airbase or in a city).

I personally used the air map regularly. I found it extremely convenient when flying my air units to their target destinations as you don't have to 'fly' around enemy ground forces that you may encounter along the way.

Oh - and one more thing - I may have missed it - but I can't locate in game or in the readme what I'm supposed to press to get troops sent to Corsica. If I've missed it because I'm worn out and tired that's on me but if it isn't in the read me, it should be please.

I think this may have been an oversight on my part, where you only get the following message when you get Italy to surrender (I should have added it as a game tip as well):

With Sardinia under your control, you may transport (aka teleport), at a cost of 10 supplies each, any American G.I., Rangers or French Goumiers units located in Palermo, Trapani or Tunis to Cagliari or Olbia provided they are in your possession.

To do so, simply press on the 'shift' + '2' keys simultaneouly when the infantry unit is active and select the appropriate destination.

You may, of course, also use your Liberty Ship's to transport any troops to a liberated port city on that island.

The island of Corsica itself can only, initially, be invaded by American G.I., Rangers or French Goumiers units, provided they are located in the port city of Olbia.

To do so, simply press on the 'shift' and '2' keys simultaneouly when the infantry unit is active and select the 'send unit to Bonifacio' option, which will teleport the unit to the beach tile just northeast of the town, provided there isn't an enemy defender\n^on it.

Liberating that town will activate Corsican partisan cells on the island.

 

[JPetroski]

I hope I haven't offended you as I'm trying to articulate that the game is fun and challenging and I enjoy it, and I'm also taking pains to admit that "it's on me" when I miss things, or forget them. Also I don't think I could really come up with better solutions than you have to a lot of this stuff. Any feedback is coming from a good place

With that said, you don't get to write a 14,000 word readme and say the scenario isn't complicated Does it mostly work when you learn it? It sure does. Once you get the hang of things is it fun and enjoyable and making me want to implement a lot of the stuff? You bet. Does it work pretty much like you'd expect? Yeah - no real issues found. But if you need 14,000 words to explain a civ2 scenario, it's a lot to take in. We're all still playing a game that came out in 1996. Few of us are all that great at taking new things in I do encourage people to try it here though, because you'll have a lot of fun!

I don't know that I'm trying to play a "perfect game" or "win" but what I am saying is that because there is too much for me to take in at once, I'm finding that I have created some situations that are drastically unideal and it's not that interesting to continue on in that fashion just for the sake of doing it. I'd rather just restart and play it with some semblance of knowledge, which is why I've saved a few key moments to revert to and try out new things.

Thanks for filling me in on some of the many things I missed though. I do feel your pain as someone who has written some monster readmes myself - "well, I put it in the readme!" Fair enough, but we both do need to remember the 1996 comment, I think.

 

[tootall_2012]

I hope I haven't offended you as I'm trying to articulate that the game is fun and challenging and I enjoy it, and I'm also taking pains to admit that "it's on me" when I miss things, or forget them. Also I don't think I could really come up with better solutions than you have to a lot of this stuff. Any feedback is coming from a good place

Of course not! I always appreciate feedback, positive or negative, as long as it is constructive which yours always is.

As you mentionned the scenario being complicated on a few occasions, I've simply been trying to gauge whether you felt it was, at least partially, either too difficult or unplayable as a result.

It is true, this is undoubtedly my most advanced attempt at reproducing a historically accurate simulation and therefore required the implementation of many game mechanics (both in the back and foreground).

I hope for the most part, that I've managed to do this as seamlessly as possible.

With that said, you don't get to write a 14,000 word readme and say the scenario isn't complicated Does it mostly work when you learn it? It sure does. Once you get the hang of things is it fun and enjoyable and making me want to implement a lot of the stuff? You bet. Does it work pretty much like you'd expect? Yeah - no real issues found. But if you need 14,000 words to explain a civ2 scenario, it's a lot to take in. We're all still playing a game that came out in 1996. Few of us are all that great at taking new things in I do encourage people to try it here though, because you'll have a lot of fun!

Fair point, though in my defense I was trying to make a subtle but important distinction, i.e. meaning by comparison the field of "quantum mechanics" is complicated whearas BoI remains at heart a Civilization II scenario whose multiple concepts remain, I'm convinced, fairly easy to grasp.

I will grant that the inital "complexity" stems primarily from the fact that you are being thrown many concepts to absord from the very start and therefore that there is an initial, though by no means an insurmontable, learning curve.

As you've indicated, the Sicilian campaign can serve as an excellent tutorial on the overall game mechanics for those who would like to get their feet wet first before taking the full plunge.

I don't know that I'm trying to play a "perfect game" or "win" but what I am saying is that because there is too much for me to take in at once, I'm finding that I have created some situations that are drastically unideal and it's not that interesting to continue on in that fashion just for the sake of doing it. I'd rather just restart and play it with some semblance of knowledge, which is why I've saved a few key moments to revert to and try out new things.

Of course you should play at whatever pace you feel is comfortable and right for you!

For my part, I was merely trying to point out that once you've played a full scenario you will get a much better understanting on the scenario overall and how best to play and win.

Thanks for filling me in on some of the many things I missed though. I do feel your pain as someone who has written some monster readmes myself - "well, I put it in the readme!" Fair enough, but we both do need to remember the 1996 comment, I think.

Just for comparison, Napoleon's readme had 12,000 words. Are there more concepts to absord? Yes, certainly. Are they difficult to learn? No, I don't believe so.

Is the scenario too advanced or complex? I didn't feel it was while designing or play testing it. I certainly tried to make it as simple and easy to play as possible.

Hopefully, that will be the experience of anyone of decides to have a go at it.

 

[JPetroski]

Fair point, though in my defense I was trying to make a subtle but important distinction, i.e. meaning by comparison the field of "quantum mechanics" is complicated whearas BoI remains at heart a Civilization II scenario whose multiple concepts remain, I'm convinced, fairly easy to grasp.

I will grant that the inital "complexity" stems primarily from the fact that you are being thrown many concepts to absord from the very start and therefore that there is an initial, though by no means an insurmontable, learning curve.

As you've indicated, the Sicilian campaign can serve as an excellent tutorial on the overall game mechanics for those who would like to get their feet wet first before taking the full plunge.

As you mentionned the scenario being complicated on a few occasions, I've simply been trying to gauge whether you felt it was, at least partially, either too difficult or unplayable as a result.

It is true, this is undoubtedly my most advanced attempt at reproducing a historically accurate simulation and therefore required the implementation of many game mechanics (both in the back and foreground).

I hope for the most part, that I've managed to do this as seamlessly as possible.

Is the scenario too advanced or complex? I didn't feel it was while designing or play testing it. I certainly tried to make it as simple and easy to play as possible.

As someone who has a fair bit of experience with complex scenarios myself, I think you've done a very good job of keeping most of the complexity beneath the surface. Aside from the unit combat abilities (which I only understand in generalities like "bring a general," "keep the same types of units together" and "have a scout car nearby") I think I "mostly" understand it by now. So maybe an important distinction is there's a difference between "complicated" and "understandable." The scenario is complicated, but it is also understandable. It's complex in that there are a number of things that need to be absorbed, as you put it, but any one of those things taken as a singularity is perfectly understandable as pretty much everything you've done has a solid rationale behind it. If that makes sense?

Basically, there's a lot of things to remember to do but understanding how any of them work if you remember to do them isn't that hard. But, you know, in the US at least, phone numbers are seven digits for a reason

I do think that if you more or less kept this formula (and I really wouldn't change it) - 2 or 3 scenarios from now it will be pretty standard and I'd just be able to move through them. It's just so groundbreaking and that adds issues to contend with, which most of us I'd say are facing these days.

I certainly wouldn't change it or scrap it. 100% a classic and your best work yet. I haven't found any bugs and am definitely enjoying myself. Any things I would do slightly different you have a good rationale for doing your way, so if I happen to suggest something and you don't like it, no worries. You just never know if it was thought of/considered or might be enjoyed/preferable. There's a ton of ways to skin a cat in lua, after all.

 

[tootall_2012]

As someone who has a fair bit of experience with complex scenarios myself, I think you've done a very good job of keeping most of the complexity beneath the surface. Aside from the unit combat abilities (which I only understand in generalities like "bring a general," "keep the same types of units together" and "have a scout car nearby") I think I "mostly" understand it by now. So maybe an important distinction is there's a difference between "complicated" and "understandable." The scenario is complicated, but it is also understandable. It's complex in that there are a number of things that need to be absorbed, as you put it, but any one of those things taken as a singularity is perfectly understandable as pretty much everything you've done has a solid rationale behind it. If that makes sense?

Yes, I agree that the combat capabilities, particularly the trait bonuses, are probably the less obvious implementation because you can only see the full combat factors displayed once you actually launched your attack (presuming you haven't turned off the 'Display Combat Power' popups).

It would have been ideal if the modified factors could have been displayed beforehand in the unit Help tab, but the trait mechanism, for a very simple reason, can't compute these factor prior to knowing exactly which units are attacking which defender in what terrain. That can only be done at the moment of the attack itself.

I do think that if you more or less kept this formula (and I really wouldn't change it) - 2 or 3 scenarios from now it will be pretty standard and I'd just be able to move through them. It's just so groundbreaking and that adds issues to contend with, which most of us I'd say are facing these days.

I certainly wouldn't change it or scrap it. 100% a classic and your best work yet. I haven't found any bugs and am definitely enjoying myself. ..

Phew, thanks! Some of these new game concepts I implemented are so deeply imbedded within the whole scenario/code framework that changing how they worked or behaved would be a momumental effort (case in point the whole procurement menu structure, which I sincerely hope people who've played the scenario like it as is because it is a beast of coding ).

... Any things I would do slightly different you have a good rationale for doing your way, so if I happen to suggest something and you don't like it, no worries. You just never know if it was thought of/considered or might be enjoyed/preferable. There's a ton of ways to skin a cat in lua, after all.

As I've said, I truly appreciate members feedback and suggestions. As you know, whenever I agree with them I try to see if I can implement them and if not at least try to explain my reasoning, rightly or wrongly, behind my decisions.

So feel completely at ease to continue providing your feedback. I'll be very interested to hear your reaction once you come up against the first major defensive line.

 

[Dadais]

That can only be done at the moment of the attack itself.

It is possible to abord a fight at any time ?

You could thus display it once attack is launched, before any round, and propose option to proceed or cancel the attack ?

 

[tootall_2012]

It is possible to abord a fight at any time ?

I think you meant 'abort'? If so, that's an interesting question. As the mechanism is part of the lua template I feel that @Prof. Garfield is best suited to answer this one, assuming he so wishes.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

It is possible to abord a fight at any time ?

You could thus display it once attack is launched, before any round, and propose option to proceed or cancel the attack ?

I think you meant 'abort'? If so, that's an interesting question. As the mechanism is part of the lua template I feel that @Prof. Garfield is best suited to answer this one, assuming he so wishes.

If you wanted to, you could make the combat power message ask "do you want to proceed", and, if the player chooses not to, set maxCombatRounds to 0, which would cancel the attack. You could do interesting things, like only give the option if there is a scout or maybe still do a few rounds of combat.

FYI, @tootall_2012 , the configuration option to turn off combat doesn't work. The setting is not linked with the check in combatSettings.lua. Since you commented out another version of turning off the combat report, I think you want (~line 340):

    if attacker.owner.isHuman and configuration.getSettingValue("displayCombatPower") then    
        text.simple("Attacker: "..tostring(calculatedAttackerStrength/8).." FP: "..calculatedAttackerFirepower.."  // Defender: "..tostring(calculatedDefenderStrength/8).." FP: "..calculatedDefenderFirepower,"Display Combat Power: ".. attacker.type.name .. "",object.mCombat)
    end

(with a suitable require line earlier).

 

[tootall_2012]

FYI, @tootall_2012 , the configuration option to turn off combat doesn't work. The setting is not linked with the check in combatSettings.lua. Since you commented out another version of turning off the combat report, I think you want (~line 340):

    if attacker.owner.isHuman and configuration.getSettingValue("displayCombatPower") then  
        text.simple("Attacker: "..tostring(calculatedAttackerStrength/8).." FP: "..calculatedAttackerFirepower.."  // Defender: "..tostring(calculatedDefenderStrength/8).." FP: "..calculatedDefenderFirepower,"Display Combat Power: ".. attacker.type.name .. "",object.mCombat)
    end

(with a suitable require line earlier).

Yes, I originally had created my own version of the pop up and was using a flag to be able to turn it off or on, when I realized you had already implemented a similar function and switched to it instead (why re-invent the wheel).

Thanks for the heads up. I've added the configuration bit of code and can now turn off the combat popup.

 

[ThichN]

I finally had some time to sink into this. Hope to post more detailed feedback at some point, but let me just say that this scenario hits all the right notes for me. It is insanely difficult, but one of the few scenarios that are a joy to restart (in fact, addictive in that sense), and when I make real advances, it feels meaningful. But also, I am learning peripherally about a moment in history I know little about. To me, that is what Civ scenarios have always been about!

This is one of those projects that makes me want to shake Civ6 players and say, "This is what the genre should be!" ... as I often lament that more people are not still playing this very niche game we adore, but are satisfied with such highly telegraphed, hold-your-hand experiences current Civ iterations are.

Anyway, well done, @tootall_2012 !

 

[tootall_2012]

Hi ThichN,

I finally had some time to sink into this. Hope to post more detailed feedback at some point, but let me just say that this scenario hits all the right notes for me. It is insanely difficult, but one of the few scenarios that are a joy to restart (in fact, addictive in that sense), and when I make real advances, it feels meaningful. But also, I am learning peripherally about a moment in history I know little about. To me, that is what Civ scenarios have always been about!

Thank you for taking the time to post your first impressions of the scenario. I'm glad to hear your first experience appears to be positive.

To be honest, I've always felt from the beginning that my latest design might not be everyone's cup of tea primarily because it is a battle scenario, in the same vein as my Battle of France and Iwo Jima scenarios, which is focused almost exclusively on the tactical aspect of wargaming and not empire building, which was okay for me. As I always say, though I enjoy sharing my creations with the community and getting their feedback on how it could be improved, first and foremost, I design the scenarios that I want to play. If as you say, it hits all the right notes for other members as well, than that is wonderful as well.

This is one of those projects that makes me want to shake Civ6 players and say, "This is what the genre should be!" ... as I often lament that more people are not still playing this very niche game we adore, but are satisfied with such highly telegraphed, hold-your-hand experiences current Civ iterations are.

Civ 6 is the first iteration of the franchise which failed to grab my interest (I only bought the base game many years after it was released when it was on sale at 90% and barely played 15 hours of it). This is my own personal opinion, but it feels like they spent far too much time on inserting all the bells and whistles at the expense of the core mechanics of the game like diplomacy or combat (the AI can't fight its way out of a paper bag). And don't get me started on the one unit per tile limit which is completely inappropriate for a strategic level game. I can hear members saying but tootall what about stacks of doom, to which I reply stacking limits. This was easily implemented over 15 years ago with the Civilization like game Call to Power and even Civ IV had a mod which introduced stacking limits. But never mind me, as you can tell I was clearly disappointed with the last version of the game so that was my little rant on the subject!

All the same, at this time, I'm not looking forward to a possible Civ VII because I fear it will be more of the same.


On a side note, I had the opportunity to read your new "Under the Commanche Moon" introduction thread yesterday and have to say once again I'm impressed by the scope and subject matter you've selected and are looking forward to it. This is a period of history, the "American Indian Wars" or the "American Frontier Wars" I'm only familiar with at a high level. It will be very interesting to have a scenario that depicts this from the native American side and their struggle for survival as a people and nations.

 

[tootall_2012]

It is insanely difficult, but one of the few scenarios that are a joy to restart (in fact, addictive in that sense), and when I make real advances, it feels meaningful. But also, I am learning peripherally about a moment in history I know little about. To me, that is what Civ scenarios have always been about!

Just looking for a little bit of clarification as I have with some of John's comments in this thread so I can get a better understanding. When you say difficult do you mean in terms of the tactics and strategies required to win the game or in terms of the rules?

 

[ThichN]

I think this engine works well for tactical games as much as they do for empire-building ones, with the right modifications. In fact, some of those features for empire-building are so well-aligned with tactical usages that it feels fairly seamless, as can be seen here, in JPetroski's scenarios, and others.

You don't need to convince me on Civ6. I find it to be a hollow shell of a game. Information is, as I said above, overtly telegraphed, and no matter how many features they load onto the game, from canals to tornadoes, it is masking the lack of depth elsewhere, or, I should say -- freedom of gameplay in a true sandbox. (The true pinnacle of the genre for me is SMAC, but that's another story!)

Just looking for a little bit of clarification as I have with some of John's comments in this thread so I can get a better understanding. When you say difficult do you mean in terms of the tactics and strategies required to win the game or in terms of the rules?

The best way I can put it is: in the 90s, I would play a lot of those hex-based tactical games... forgot their names. Civil War. Napoleon. There were others. In contemporary gaming, you might have (weird analogy here) Final Fantasy Tactics (I guess that's also the 90s!), or other war games featuring highly specialized unit types and difficult maps and conditions. This scenario reminds me of those, albeit more zoomed out. In those games, the most difficult maps are certainly frustrating and time-consuming, but that doesn't mean they aren't incredible and lead to fantastic memories. I think points of this scenario are suited to restarting and trying different angles of approach, much like those tactical wargames. There are certain FFT levels, or Civil War levels, that you don't realize you made a mistake in the early stages of warfare until the very end of the battle. So it goes. Perhaps the learning curve here is a bit steep, but I have found it immensely rewarding in bites. That said, I haven't won (yet). I don't mind this, given my interests.

I am not advocating for .sav scumming, by the way... by "restart" I mean wholly restart, although it does seem like a good idea to do that after certain stages. I know in the Napoleon scenario, another favorite, I .sav scummed my first playthru. Was also returning to Civ and new to ToTPP, so was totally lost, but caught up. I think the work being done here is innovative.

 

[tootall_2012]

You don't need to convince me on Civ6. I find it to be a hollow shell of a game.

Yes, that's the sentiment I was trying to express, i.e. it somehow feels hollow and empty when playing the game. It lacks soul. I also find it odd that after being released 7 years ago there isn't a single scenario that was created for it (even Civ V, which must be a beast for scenario design, has many dozens).

The best way I can put it is: in the 90s, I would play a lot of those hex-based tactical games... forgot their names. Civil War. Napoleon. There were others. In contemporary gaming, you might have (weird analogy here) Final Fantasy Tactics (I guess that's also the 90s!), or other war games featuring highly specialized unit types and difficult maps and conditions. This scenario reminds me of those, albeit more zoomed out. In those games, the most difficult maps are certainly frustrating and time-consuming, but that doesn't mean they aren't incredible and lead to fantastic memories. I think points of this scenario are suited to restarting and trying different angles of approach, much like those tactical wargames. There are certain FFT levels, or Civil War levels, that you don't realize you made a mistake in the early stages of warfare until the very end of the battle. So it goes. Perhaps the learning curve here is a bit steep, but I have found it immensely rewarding in bites. That said, I haven't won (yet). I don't mind this, given my interests.

So it sounds like you find it challenging from a strategy point of view, which is good. As I've mentioned a few times in this thread, this was quite a difficult campaign for the Allies and I tried to represent that in my design. As you say, every little gain feels like a reward and positive step forward in your battle towards ultimate victory.

I'll be interested to hear your further comments and observations whenever you are so inclined.

 

[tootall_2012]

Hi all,

My apologies for the tardiness on this one but I've attached a Patch 1.3 zip file to this post, which replaces patch 1.2 of post #53 (I've deleted that zip as it is obsolete) that deal with the issues previously reported below:

As reported by @JPetroski in post #55, air and naval units could be damaged when inadvertently trying to enter tiles with sea mines. This is no longer the case, as air and naval unit are now prevented from attacking sea mines altogether (as was always my intention from the beginning), and will receive a pop up message to that effect when attempting to do so.

As reported by @JPetroski in post #61, there was missing a game tip concept on how to transit your troops to Sardegna/Cordica. The information can now be found uner the "Game Concept" menu (key '6') under the 'Transport to Sardegna' option.

As reported ny @Prof. Garfield in post #69, the configuration option to turn off the "Display Combat Power", accessed under key '0' menu, didn't work and has now been fixed.

You can simply copy the folders into your Battle of Italy folder.

Let me know if you are still encountering issues.

 

[tootall_2012]

In addition, I thought I would post a few screen shots for those who may not have had an opportunity to play the scenario and were curious about it:

It's the week of July II, 1943 and the Allies invade Sicily with the US 7th Army under Gen. Patton moving towards Palermo and the British 8th Army under Gen Montgomery ultimate goal the port of Messina!

It's the week of September III 1943 and with the conquest of Sicily complete the Allies elect to land on the beaches of Salerno only to find stiff German resistance!

It's Fall season and the week of November IV, 1943. Having successfully beaten back the German assaults at Salerno the Allies are coming up against the fortifications of the redoutable Gustav Defensive line!

It's the Winter week of February II, 1944 and the Allies have made serious dents into the German Gustav Line. How much longer can the Germans hold out!

Can you do better than your historical counterparts and break the Germans hold on Italy sooner and with less casualties...

 

[techumseh]

Do the stacking limitations apply to Axis units as well?

 

[tootall_2012]

They do not, but other than in the occasional odd city they rarely, in my experience, had exceeded more than 4 or 5 units in a non- city tile.

 

[techumseh]

That makes sense. I assume it could be made to apply to the AI though, if you wanted it to?