[rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again...
Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky
[rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again...
[june 2014 update - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3637715]
After a long hiatus, I now have time again to start tinkering with SBP. Life got in the way of the most recent version (my fourth edition of the scenario), but things have settled down a bit, albeit now with a new addition to my family who seemingly keeps me up many more hours of the day than are available.
Anyway, I've covered quite a bit of ground in the first three rounds of edits. The OOB isn't 100% accurate, but it's 100% better than the old/original one was. The entrance/exit units are better (like the addition of US 9 ID in Sicily). And I've been able to make the air/sea/rail transport capabilities for each side much more user-controlled and event/action-based.
I'm going to start digging in again this week, and will return here with some updates as I go along. Screenshots might also accompany certain updates, which should help with any suggestions you might have for me.
It's been my goal for about a year and a half now to make this scenario "work," as in fixing the following long-standing issues:
-Prevent the always-frustrating bog-down in Sicily (this has happened every time I play this)
-Allow naval power to impact the early stages of the game.
-Improve the post-Anzio game overall, which previously wasn't all that exciting (not that anyone actually made it that far before)
What else should I look for?
After a long hiatus, I now have time again to start tinkering with SBP. Life got in the way of the most recent version (my fourth edition of the scenario), but things have settled down a bit, albeit now with a new addition to my family who seemingly keeps me up many more hours of the day than are available.
Anyway, I've covered quite a bit of ground in the first three rounds of edits. The OOB isn't 100% accurate, but it's 100% better than the old/original one was. The entrance/exit units are better (like the addition of US 9 ID in Sicily). And I've been able to make the air/sea/rail transport capabilities for each side much more user-controlled and event/action-based.
I'm going to start digging in again this week, and will return here with some updates as I go along. Screenshots might also accompany certain updates, which should help with any suggestions you might have for me.
It's been my goal for about a year and a half now to make this scenario "work," as in fixing the following long-standing issues:
-Prevent the always-frustrating bog-down in Sicily (this has happened every time I play this)
-Allow naval power to impact the early stages of the game.
-Improve the post-Anzio game overall, which previously wasn't all that exciting (not that anyone actually made it that far before)
What else should I look for?
-
- Posts: 4839
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again...
Mike!
Finally! I hope you are still keen to continue our PBEM Beta of FStBP, aye? I was waiting for 'ages' for any kind of response from you; remember... I was able to evacuate most of my boys from Sicily and awaiting your toe/foothold on the mainland!
Klink, Oberst
Finally! I hope you are still keen to continue our PBEM Beta of FStBP, aye? I was waiting for 'ages' for any kind of response from you; remember... I was able to evacuate most of my boys from Sicily and awaiting your toe/foothold on the mainland!
Klink, Oberst
RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again...
I'm going to take a look again at the test run we were working on. If it's what I expect it is, we're going to have to re-start with the new file.
I'll let you know.
I'll let you know.
RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again...
Ah yes, that's the problem we had. The air/sea lift units that are disbanded to activate the transport... they reconstituted. So I have to go change that.
But either way, not only have I changed the scn file already, but I've forgotten my password for our PBEM test.
So I will send you the new file, along with my first turn, soon.
But either way, not only have I changed the scn file already, but I've forgotten my password for our PBEM test.
So I will send you the new file, along with my first turn, soon.
RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again...
Maybe you haven't noticed, there's a StbP 43-45 AAR going on at the German TOAW forum: http://www.si-games.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22854
Also, i think the 16. SS PzG Div "Reichsführer SS" appears too early. It didn't see action before early 44 when 2 of its battalions were sent to the Anzio beachhead. Look here: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1943 and here: http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gli ... 6SSPGD.htm (latter page is in German).
Also, i think the 16. SS PzG Div "Reichsführer SS" appears too early. It didn't see action before early 44 when 2 of its battalions were sent to the Anzio beachhead. Look here: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1943 and here: http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gli ... 6SSPGD.htm (latter page is in German).
RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again...
Nope, didn't notice the other place. Good luck to them, because it's going to bog down very quickly once the Etna Line becomes the focus point. Just yesterday I deleted all those pre-fabricated entrenchments.
Also, thanks for the tip on 16 SS PzG.
Also, thanks for the tip on 16 SS PzG.
RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again...
I'm finally back and ready to dive in once again... having a baby is rough stuff.
I'll update again later this morning with some short-term goals for the upcoming round of edits to StBP v. 3.4.
I'll update again later this morning with some short-term goals for the upcoming round of edits to StBP v. 3.4.
RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again...
Short-term goals...
> Italian units do not reconstitute.
> Add more news events to keep both sides updated.
> Fix replacements rate; possibly change to a disband system.
> Add more shock events triggered by successes/failures by each side.
That's just for the immediate future. I'd like more suggestions from all of you, too.
> Italian units do not reconstitute.
> Add more news events to keep both sides updated.
> Fix replacements rate; possibly change to a disband system.
> Add more shock events triggered by successes/failures by each side.
That's just for the immediate future. I'd like more suggestions from all of you, too.
-
- Posts: 4839
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again...
1st of all, congratulations to 'little' Mick or perhaps Michaela? I'll make an assessment and will also ask the master of masters of events (Telumar). I got a bunch of OOB and TO&E 'mined', and I'd implement the OT or the RAD pioneer battalions or regiments attached to the 10th, 14th Army in order to prepare the fortifications. Can be triggered by an event or as Theatre Option, e.g. give the player the option to get a PzGr Div from Southern France etc. or a bunch of fortification digging pioneer units.ORIGINAL: mike1984
Short-term goals...
> Italian units do not reconstitute.
> Add more news events to keep both sides updated.
> Fix replacements rate; possibly change to a disband system.
> Add more shock events triggered by successes/failures by each side.
That's just for the immediate future. I'd like more suggestions from all of you, too.
Will keep in touch,
Klink, Oberst
RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again...
Update on what I'm currently fixing... REPLACEMENTS!
This has been a huge bug in this scenario: trying to make replacement rates realistic.
I've just finished up taking a complete inventory of every single squad and squad opening (such as, "Cromwell: 0/12") from the Allied side. Now I'm moving on to the Axis side. This will allow me to get a better base for creating the replacements system for SBP 3.4.
I'm thinking of using events and disbands to activate replacements at different levels, for a few turns at a time. For example, the Allies will get a disband on July 21 that activates 5% replacements across the board (it will exclude units not yet assigned, as they will come in at the appropriate time/turn) for three turns/days.
That's just the basic draft of my idea.
Thoughts?
This has been a huge bug in this scenario: trying to make replacement rates realistic.
I've just finished up taking a complete inventory of every single squad and squad opening (such as, "Cromwell: 0/12") from the Allied side. Now I'm moving on to the Axis side. This will allow me to get a better base for creating the replacements system for SBP 3.4.
I'm thinking of using events and disbands to activate replacements at different levels, for a few turns at a time. For example, the Allies will get a disband on July 21 that activates 5% replacements across the board (it will exclude units not yet assigned, as they will come in at the appropriate time/turn) for three turns/days.
That's just the basic draft of my idea.
Thoughts?
-
- Posts: 642
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am
RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again...
I've played against the AI several times using the TOAW III 3.0 version of your scenario.
I enjoy the treatment of this theater immensely.
Something to consider:
Deployment of troops by sea and air is dependent on when world-wide strategic considerations allocates transport assets to the theater. Because the game is structured to be played from the theater commander perspective, once those transport assets are available, it would seem logical that the deployment location of follow on forces should be under the control of the theater commander.
Because the game begins with a foundation of North Africa being under allied control, and covers more than 20-months of duration in daily turns, follow on forces should be deployed to North Africa and then transported to the sites in theater the theater commander chooses as the place for them to enter the battle.
This could be accomplished by deploying follow on units one turn earlier than now scheduled, and providing enough sea transport capacity to move them.
This allows for the game to proceed outside of the historical constraints if a theater commander becomes more successful than the historic outcome. It also eliminates the events of withdrawing units in Sicily and recomposing them in Italy to follow the historic deployment schedule.
I enjoy the treatment of this theater immensely.
Something to consider:
Deployment of troops by sea and air is dependent on when world-wide strategic considerations allocates transport assets to the theater. Because the game is structured to be played from the theater commander perspective, once those transport assets are available, it would seem logical that the deployment location of follow on forces should be under the control of the theater commander.
Because the game begins with a foundation of North Africa being under allied control, and covers more than 20-months of duration in daily turns, follow on forces should be deployed to North Africa and then transported to the sites in theater the theater commander chooses as the place for them to enter the battle.
This could be accomplished by deploying follow on units one turn earlier than now scheduled, and providing enough sea transport capacity to move them.
This allows for the game to proceed outside of the historical constraints if a theater commander becomes more successful than the historic outcome. It also eliminates the events of withdrawing units in Sicily and recomposing them in Italy to follow the historic deployment schedule.
Take care,
jim
jim
RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again...
Wow, has it been 2.5 years already? Geez. Let's see what I can dig up and start working on...
Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass
Last I saw of this I was working on replacements. Lo and behold, that's where I'm starting off this time around. I never finished. I didn't even leave myself notes on what exactly I was doing, so I have to just open the scenario file in editor and figure it out that way. It appears...
I'm implementing some sort of disband system for replacements. I don't think it's where I disband a unit that's filled with squads. Rather, the disband--which arrives once per month--activates replacements for 2-3 turns.
For the rail repair units, I haven't dug too deeply, but I don't see them in my current scenario file. I'll have to double check, but when I figure it out, I'll probably take up Oberst's suggestion and put them under the Army formations.
See you all soon. I may put in some work on this tonight.
I'm implementing some sort of disband system for replacements. I don't think it's where I disband a unit that's filled with squads. Rather, the disband--which arrives once per month--activates replacements for 2-3 turns.
For the rail repair units, I haven't dug too deeply, but I don't see them in my current scenario file. I'll have to double check, but when I figure it out, I'll probably take up Oberst's suggestion and put them under the Army formations.
See you all soon. I may put in some work on this tonight.
RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass
I've received permission from sPzAbt653 to use his updated map and TOE. This should help save me several dozen steps on my mission to finish this friggin' thing.
Last night I started to work on the OOB a bit--adding the Eastern & Western task forces, and Force H--but ran into some trouble with the eqp file. I have an email about to sPzAbt653 about that. I changed all the file names to match up, but it's still saying I'm using the wrong eqp file.
This has halted any further work on the OOB, events, or replacements issues. So everything is stuck until I get this resolved. Grrr.
Last night I started to work on the OOB a bit--adding the Eastern & Western task forces, and Force H--but ran into some trouble with the eqp file. I have an email about to sPzAbt653 about that. I changed all the file names to match up, but it's still saying I'm using the wrong eqp file.
This has halted any further work on the OOB, events, or replacements issues. So everything is stuck until I get this resolved. Grrr.
- Attachments
-
- 2002.337.2..0.marked.jpg (98.36 KiB) Viewed 221 times
RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass
Mike,
_Every_ time I modify (or even review) the custom eqp file in xml or Parm's editor, and then return to TOAW editor to work on some other piece, I _always_ get that message. Even when nothing has changed. I just think the TOAW editor has indigestion about a custom .eqp, and has to spit something up. I think if you examine one of your units, you'll see that TOAW editor has found and linked up with the custom eqp file. If you see "Cavalry Squad (early)" in place of 'US M-1/BAR Squad w/ M-9'... well you might have a problem there.
At any rate, I've just ignored that message when I'm sure there is no problem, and done my TOAW work, saved it, and next time into the TOAW editor -- NO 'playing with the wrong eqp' message.
HTH
That said, I still do check paths and file names via Windows often when I start a custom eqp project. After a while, though, I just ignore the message.
_Every_ time I modify (or even review) the custom eqp file in xml or Parm's editor, and then return to TOAW editor to work on some other piece, I _always_ get that message. Even when nothing has changed. I just think the TOAW editor has indigestion about a custom .eqp, and has to spit something up. I think if you examine one of your units, you'll see that TOAW editor has found and linked up with the custom eqp file. If you see "Cavalry Squad (early)" in place of 'US M-1/BAR Squad w/ M-9'... well you might have a problem there.
At any rate, I've just ignored that message when I'm sure there is no problem, and done my TOAW work, saved it, and next time into the TOAW editor -- NO 'playing with the wrong eqp' message.
HTH
That said, I still do check paths and file names via Windows often when I start a custom eqp project. After a while, though, I just ignore the message.
RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass
Thanks, I'll go through it again this evening and see how it goes. I'm hopeful it's what you suggest it may be.ORIGINAL: ogar
Mike,
_Every_ time I modify (or even review) the custom eqp file in xml or Parm's editor, and then return to TOAW editor to work on some other piece, I _always_ get that message. Even when nothing has changed. I just think the TOAW editor has indigestion about a custom .eqp, and has to spit something up. I think if you examine one of your units, you'll see that TOAW editor has found and linked up with the custom eqp file. If you see "Cavalry Squad (early)" in place of 'US M-1/BAR Squad w/ M-9'... well you might have a problem there.
At any rate, I've just ignored that message when I'm sure there is no problem, and done my TOAW work, saved it, and next time into the TOAW editor -- NO 'playing with the wrong eqp' message.
HTH
That said, I still do check paths and file names via Windows often when I start a custom eqp project. After a while, though, I just ignore the message.
RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass
ORIGINAL: mike1984
Thanks, I'll go through it again this evening and see how it goes. I'm hopeful it's what you suggest it may be.ORIGINAL: ogar
Mike,
_Every_ time I modify (or even review) the custom eqp file in xml or Parm's editor, and then return to TOAW editor to work on some other piece, I _always_ get that message. Even when nothing has changed. I just think the TOAW editor has indigestion about a custom .eqp, and has to spit something up. I think if you examine one of your units, you'll see that TOAW editor has found and linked up with the custom eqp file. If you see "Cavalry Squad (early)" in place of 'US M-1/BAR Squad w/ M-9'... well you might have a problem there.
At any rate, I've just ignored that message when I'm sure there is no problem, and done my TOAW work, saved it, and next time into the TOAW editor -- NO 'playing with the wrong eqp' message.
HTH
That said, I still do check paths and file names via Windows often when I start a custom eqp project. After a while, though, I just ignore the message.
Me and Panama would always place a special unit in the New Equipment part of whatever custom equipment file we created or are working with. Then if you get that message in the editor all you have to do is check to see if your special unit is there.
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein
Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t come back?
A: A stick.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein
Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t come back?
A: A stick.
RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass
We may have found the problem, but I'm not home to test it. I may have been working with the wrong TOE/OOB file.
Keeping fingers crossed for this one.
Keeping fingers crossed for this one.
RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass
It's fixed. Really weird problem. I had to save the eqp folder/file and the sce file in a certain order if I wanted to avoid the eqp file error.
RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass
Update:
The more I think about this scenario, the better I believe it will be as 191 half-week turns, as sPzAbt653 has done with the version I'm now working off of. It's a big change of direction for me, but hey, it works.
Naval units are now in the game, with Eastern and Western Task Force squadrons, and Force H squadrons.
The disband system I had been implementing for air/sea transport will carry over to this version. I like giving PBEM players the most flexibility possible with planning air/seaborne operations.
REPLACEMENTS! They should actually be fixed by going to the half-week turns, so a huge, huge, huge part of my stress is now gone... well, until I playtest this and figure out something else is wrong with the replacements.
I've made this version a pure PBEM game. The duplicate units needed for any PO version have been removed.
I'll have more updates later. But progress!
The more I think about this scenario, the better I believe it will be as 191 half-week turns, as sPzAbt653 has done with the version I'm now working off of. It's a big change of direction for me, but hey, it works.
Naval units are now in the game, with Eastern and Western Task Force squadrons, and Force H squadrons.
The disband system I had been implementing for air/sea transport will carry over to this version. I like giving PBEM players the most flexibility possible with planning air/seaborne operations.
REPLACEMENTS! They should actually be fixed by going to the half-week turns, so a huge, huge, huge part of my stress is now gone... well, until I playtest this and figure out something else is wrong with the replacements.
I've made this version a pure PBEM game. The duplicate units needed for any PO version have been removed.
I'll have more updates later. But progress!