SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

SPWaW is a tactical squad-level World War II game on single platoon or up to an entire battalion through Europe and the Pacific (1939 to 1945).

Moderator: MOD_SPWaW

User avatar
Mike Wood
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Oakland, California
Contact:

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by Mike Wood »

Hello...

When a bit more internal testing is finished, I will request that the production folk release the new executable and editor for public beta testing, to get input from a broader range of players.

Thanks...

Michael Wood
ORIGINAL: Goblin

I think that the likes of gamers are not based on the site they post at, but rather a fear of the game changing towards what they believe might be the negative, or towards the unknown. I think the biggest worry is caused by the latter.

Your periodic updates are much appreciated also, as they help alleviate the fear of the unknown. You will always have people disagree with change, myself included sometimes. Often that fear disappears when they get to try the newest version.

Regardless of what people post here, The Depot, or where ever, you are making many positive changes that are appreciated.


Goblin
User avatar
Goblin
Posts: 5418
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 7:57 pm
Location: Erie,Pa. USA
Contact:

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by Goblin »

Cool! Thanks for the info!


Goblin
User avatar
omegaall
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 4:37 pm

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by omegaall »

Michael,

A few minor comments:

4) Sometimes the player setup side was incorrect, when assaulting beaches. Fixed.
AT LAST. This has driven many crazy !!!

THANKS!!!!


The OOB editor.
Besides a lot of 'off noise' re the changes I see few that can not be over come by any scenario designer or OOB designer. What has be added by you is great and the extra work highly valued.

There is just one delicate point that I think some may appreciate.. The inclusion of csv input and out put from the editor. I do understand that this can cause issues and there are certain background problems such as wrong formation structures being imported and these should be caught by the editor. But this aside could you see the way to allowing csv input/output for the editor?

The result would be one editor does all, saves messing about with different editor just to build an OOB.

THANKS


User avatar
Mike Wood
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Oakland, California
Contact:

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by Mike Wood »

Hello...

If you mean importing and exporting an ASCII delineated file, sure, I could do that. That way, a fellow could read, edit and save the files with a data base program, like dBase. Is that what you want?

Bye...

Michael Wood
ORIGINAL: omegaall

Michael,

A few minor comments:

4) Sometimes the player setup side was incorrect, when assaulting beaches. Fixed.
AT LAST. This has driven many crazy !!!

THANKS!!!!


The OOB editor.
Besides a lot of 'off noise' re the changes I see few that can not be over come by any scenario designer or OOB designer. What has be added by you is great and the extra work highly valued.

There is just one delicate point that I think some may appreciate.. The inclusion of csv input and out put from the editor. I do understand that this can cause issues and there are certain background problems such as wrong formation structures being imported and these should be caught by the editor. But this aside could you see the way to allowing csv input/output for the editor?

The result would be one editor does all, saves messing about with different editor just to build an OOB.

THANKS


User avatar
Goblin
Posts: 5418
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 7:57 pm
Location: Erie,Pa. USA
Contact:

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by Goblin »

Keep it in English you two!!![:-][:D]


Goblin
User avatar
minefield
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by minefield »

Yeah Mike I'm pretty sure that's what they mean. They are used to Chlanda's OOBDump.exe. It creates a comma separated file but I'm sure tab would work fine too.
never cross a minefield
Procrustes
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:52 am
Location: Upstate

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by Procrustes »


WOW! This sounds fantastic! Could I ask, did you ever find why C&C was causing MC crashes?

Thanks again!!

P.
User avatar
Mike Wood
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Oakland, California
Contact:

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by Mike Wood »

Hello...

No. That and adding a separate preference item for morale on currently on my short list. Have gone back to work on War in the East, however. So, it will be a while. As soon as internal testing is done on other items, we will have the new executable and the new build of the editor available.

Bye...

Michael Wood
ORIGINAL: Procrustes


WOW! This sounds fantastic! Could I ask, did you ever find why C&C was causing MC crashes?

Thanks again!!

P.
User avatar
omegaall
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 4:37 pm

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by omegaall »

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

If you mean importing and exporting an ASCII delineated file, sure, I could do that. That way, a fellow could read, edit and save the files with a data base program, like dBase. Is that what you want?

Bye...

Michael Wood

In a way that is what I was referring to. But more for something like Excel/Access. These are more common than dBase. So either a comma delimited or tab delimited file.
I am not sure which is easier to code for the tab or comma separated. I gather that would produce 3 separate files, one for weapons, one for Units and the third for Formations. This would make building OOBs a lot simpler than trying to jump about in the current editor.
So we could export the information do the ‘thing’ and import it back into the editor. Then we use the editor to do the touch ups and fix the pricing properly using the new price/ammo routines now in there.
This all makes for a more balanced OOB design.

It would be great if you allow for this.

Thanks

User avatar
minefield
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by minefield »

omegaall,
Choosing between tab or comma delineated values isn't a big deal. You either write a tab or a comma ascii character.

TSV and CSV table formats are very common. Every database program should be able to import the data. I know Excel does.

Putting the unit, weapon, and formation information into a single or three separate files wouldn't be much of a difference from a programming standpoint. All of the data is pretty much just parsed from the top of the OOB file (weapon -> unit -> formation).
never cross a minefield
User avatar
omegaall
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 4:37 pm

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by omegaall »

minefield: To me tab or comma separated is 6 of one half a dozen of the other.
Putting it all in one file is not smart either.
There are at present 250 weapon and unit slots each. There are 200 formation slots. Each of these weapon/unit and formations all have internally, different structures and number of used values. Not to mention empty spaces. So putting that in one file and trying to import directly to a data base will not make sense. Also the read process as a single file is messy. That is the read process from the tab/comma separated file back into the program.

Hence the simplest is 3 files one per type. Again comma or tab is not a big issue.

As far as data base issues go, most people have some form of office, MS or other and that has a basic spreadsheet or may be a simple data base such as Access. As far as Access goes it is, deep down nothing more than a front end to a set of spreadsheets, since it is derived from Excel anyway.

Also most people who do play with OOBs and want spread sheet style output to work with are already familiar with the current styles as in Freds OobDmp and with the SPWW2/MBT series Mobhacks CSV style. So why push for something different again?

I don’t see that as a big issue, it will be to some extent what Michael is able to arrange and find convent to do in the amount of time he has to put into this.

Simply I am just pleased he is happy to look into doing something to ease that aspect of OOB design.
User avatar
minefield
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by minefield »

omegaall,
I was just stating what is possible through code. I really don't care how it is implemented; I just wanted to present the options so you (plural) could voice what would be best.

I have analyzed the oob file and am aware of its format.

It is very possible to put all the information in one file. The only question is whether you want to view one file or three files for an OOB.

To put the different sections in one file you just format the csv file as:
name,age,weight
bob,13,155
susan,14,500
, ,
type,age
dog,11
cat,3

You have whitespace to separate your OOBs. You have headers that are specific to each section. Not sure what you mean by empty spaces. You just wouldn't write the fields not used by WaW.

What is messy about reading the csv file back into the program?

I think we are in agreement about people having some kind of database program. Each of these should be able to use csv files.

The format for one file as shown above is exactly the same as Fred's OOBDump except the three sections are combined into one file. You could get the same effect by opening each individual file and pasting its contents into one file. The question is whether people like working on three files for an OOB or one.

We are all grateful for Mike's contributions.
never cross a minefield
johnhulten
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:34 am

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by johnhulten »

Hope you can get to CC on MC soon so I can enjoy all your other fixes. I'm back to MC on 8.3 till the CC problem is fixed. Thanks
soldier
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:58 am

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by soldier »

Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ?
except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign
User avatar
Mike Wood
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Oakland, California
Contact:

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by Mike Wood »

Hello...

Map width based on size of core force. Wanted to avoid battalion fighting on brigade frontage or regiment fighting on division frontage. What had you in mind for what size force?

Thanks...

Michael Wood
ORIGINAL: soldier

Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ?
except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign
User avatar
KG Erwin
Posts: 8366
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cross Lanes WV USA

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by KG Erwin »

ORIGINAL: soldier

Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ?
except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign

This has been a long-standing issue. The size of your initial core force plays a part in this: if its over 3000 points, you're more likely to get larger battle maps. Now that you mention it, I tend to customize core forces to cover the maps I want to fight on. The Germans are a good example -- in the latest 8.403 test mech, in Sept 39 you have 3111 points to work with (True Troop Cost ON, Rarity OFF). I changed my OOB set to match the parameters, without getting away from historically-available forces.

Oddly, my chosen USMC battalion landing team (reinforced), is much cheaper, and does not exceed the 3000-point level. The main reason is that I focus on infantry (three companies), with a minimal supply of armor (three 5-tank platoons, equipped with the older M2A4s). The heavy weapons are just four 81mm mortars, two 37mm AT guns, and two self-propelled 75mm GMCs. I also add four Raider platoons and a Parachute platoon.

The upgrade paths for the Marines are fairly simple. With each successive year, the rifle squads get more powerful. The 9-man squad of 1942 gets replaced by the 12-man squad in 1943, and the 13-man squad in 1944-45. The 1942 BAR squads can change to either an Assault Squad, an additional 30 cal MMG, or a bazooka team.

The light tanks of 1942 get replaced by the Shermans, with a flame tank upgrade for one tank in each platoon.

The 4-man Recon Teams change to 6-man Scout/Sniper Teams.

The Raiders/Paras are a special case -- although ahistorical, I tend to keep them for the duration. Historically, all were converted into "regular" Marine squads and folded into new regiments. Doing this essentially gives you a fourth infantry company capable of conducting independent operations -- a 1940s version of the modern "special operations capable" units.
Image
User avatar
Mike Wood
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Oakland, California
Contact:

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by Mike Wood »

Hello...

Standard defensive battalion frontage averaged about 900 yards or about 18 hexes. Allowing a frontage of 40 hexes, two thousand yards, means the battalion was stretched pretty thin and it was difficult to control with fire. Over that and there was a hole in your line. Standard offensive battalion frontage was about 500 meters, a little better than half that. This offensive frontage assumes one infantry battalion and an attached company of armor.

Is there a problem with this?

Thanks...

Michael Wood
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

ORIGINAL: soldier

Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ?
except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign

This has been a long-standing issue. The size of your initial core force plays a part in this: if its over 3000 points, you're more likely to get larger battle maps. Now that you mention it, I tend to customize core forces to cover the maps I want to fight on. The Germans are a good example -- in the latest 8.403 test mech, in Sept 39 you have 3111 points to work with (True Troop Cost ON, Rarity OFF). I changed my OOB set to match the parameters, without getting away from historically-available forces.

Oddly, my chosen USMC battalion landing team (reinforced), is much cheaper, and does not exceed the 3000-point level. The main reason is that I focus on infantry (three companies), with a minimal supply of armor (three 5-tank platoons, equipped with the older M2A4s). The heavy weapons are just four 81mm mortars, two 37mm AT guns, and two self-propelled 75mm GMCs. I also add four Raider platoons and a Parachute platoon.

The upgrade paths for the Marines are fairly simple. With each successive year, the rifle squads get more powerful. The 9-man squad of 1942 gets replaced by the 12-man squad in 1943, and the 13-man squad in 1944-45. The 1942 BAR squads can change to either an Assault Squad, an additional 30 cal MMG, or a bazooka team.

The light tanks of 1942 get replaced by the Shermans, with a flame tank upgrade for one tank in each platoon.

The 4-man Recon Teams change to 6-man Scout/Sniper Teams.

The Raiders/Paras are a special case -- although ahistorical, I tend to keep them for the duration. Historically, all were converted into "regular" Marine squads and folded into new regiments. Doing this essentially gives you a fourth infantry company capable of conducting independent operations -- a 1940s version of the modern "special operations capable" units.
User avatar
Goblin
Posts: 5418
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 7:57 pm
Location: Erie,Pa. USA
Contact:

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by Goblin »

To me, how I set up my forces indicates what I am defending or fighting for. Attempting to cover the whole map is not my goal. Having a bit more map to work with and choose fighting positions from would be nice (thus defining what my coverage will be). Cramming a 5000 point battle onto the standard 'small' map is often a major pain.



Goblin
User avatar
KG Erwin
Posts: 8366
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cross Lanes WV USA

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by KG Erwin »

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Standard defensive battalion frontage averaged about 900 yards or about 18 hexes. Allowing a frontage of 40 hexes, two thousand yards, means the battalion was stretched pretty thin and it was difficult to control with fire. Over that and there was a hole in your line. Standard offensive battalion frontage was about 500 meters, a little better than half that. This offensive frontage assumes one infantry battalion and an attached company of armor.

Is there a problem with this?

Thanks...

Michael Wood

Alright -- the argument is turning into "Do you play this game as a a military exercise ", OR "as a fun escape"?

SPWaW, to MY mind, is somewhere in between. It isn't solid enough to be called a "simulation". It is still just a game, and many abstractions have to be interprolated. It is by no means a "real-world" game, even in terms of WWII.

The best we can do, IMHO, is an approximation. The game gives you the impression of being there -- it simply can't go beyond that.

Once everyone gets that notion firmly drilled in their heads, then we can work towards making it more enjoyable for everybody.
Image
User avatar
omegaall
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 4:37 pm

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

Post by omegaall »

Hmm...
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Alright -- the argument is turning into "Do you play this game as a a military exercise ", OR "as a fun escape"?

SPWaW, to MY mind, is somewhere in between. It isn't solid enough to be called a "simulation". It is still just a game, and many abstractions have to be interprolated. It is by no means a "real-world" game, even in terms of WWII.

The best we can do, IMHO, is an approximation. The game gives you the impression of being there -- it simply can't go beyond that.

Once everyone gets that notion firmly drilled in their heads, then we can work towards making it more enjoyable for everybody.


I think I have heard words like this somewhere at the Depot.. And no it was not you either.

2 people thinking the same way and on this particular track!!! [:-]
Post Reply

Return to “Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns”