Questions About The Editor

[pz501]

I have many questions concerning the Editor, and hopefully someone in the know can help with these:

1. I've attempted over the past month to change unit names in the 1943-45 Campaign to more nationality-specific form (for instance, rendering a German unit as 352. Infanterie-Div rather than '352nd Infantry Division', or 1 'Superga' Div Fanteria as opposed to '1st 'Superga' Ital Infantry Division. (I've been doing the same things for the Allies).


2. I understand that to do so, I have to rename the OOB/TOE entries, making sure internal data is locked, also being sure I'm using the right unit sizes rather than 'default', and make sure the entire scenario is named properly, so it won't overwrite one that comes with the game.


3. This works fine within the editor, but in most cases when testing, the modded scenario appears to lose all AI scripting (not all the time at first, but it seems to eventually), and generating a new script for it never seems to work either. In other cases, sometimes the scenario data appears to get scrambled, where for instance, the Allies lose all shipping points, and never can invade anywhere even under complete human control.


4. The problem in point 3 normally appears when I create and use a custom OOB/TOE for a particular unit, and then either modify an existing unit in the list, or add a completely new unit that uses the new entry to the list.


5. The questions I have are: (1) Should existing OOB/TOE's never be edited, and only brand new ones created instead? (2) Can a new OOB/TOE be added to the database anywhere in the open slots available, or are some slots reserved so that they can never be used, or are some Nation-specific only? (3) Also, when adding to the unit list for a scenario, do these slots also have forbidden areas as asked above?


6. Finally, am I 'breaking' the scenario by using a mixture of German, Italian, French, English, etc terms and abbreviations, when the Editor is only intended for use in English, while typing in entries?


Last question: If I was to create an air-only 1943-45 scenario to simulate the Strategic Bombing War, is it possible to create for the USAAF, Bomb Division HQ's and for the RAF, Group HQ's? Assuming it is, will escort fighters need to be assigned directly to a particular HQ, or if I were to create VIII Fighter Command, would it be able to escort bombers belonging to say 1st Bomb Division, if they both report to 8th AF? Also, try as I might, I can't seem to discover how to set victory conditions for an air campaign.


I know this is a long list of questions, but I really hope someone can help. If I'm going into areas that for expansion purposes have been locked out, I'll understand.

Many thanks for taking time to read this.

[RedLancer]

1. You can edit existing TOEs but as you have found out names are often used to control the AI. AI Scripts are only valid for T1 - after that it's hard coding set by Gary. The script uses slot numbers so adding a unit will cause problems. Re-scripting is not too difficult. Not sure why you are losing shipping points.
2. There are no slot restrictions but try to keep them close and not in the far reaches of available slots.
3. No - but I'd keep the EF Box stuff separate. If you 'insert' unit slots all the links adjust.
4. No - language should have no effect - less the hard code issue - for example when we started we had Corps Engineer Battalions for the Brits which started to behave as Corps HQs - hence the Crps abbreviation.

As for the Air Campaign that is something I'm already working on - you should spot some Group HQ insignia if you look. Escort fighters need to be in the same command chain. So if you have VIII Fighter Command and VIII Bomber Command you can combine their air groups in an AD for 8th Air Force but VIII Fighters won't escort a VIII Bomber AD. Air VPs are also being worked on.

[pz501]

Thanks for the quick reply, and it's a real help.

The hard coding is pretty much what I suspected. Gary's designs have always been pretty much "wired", so when something doesn't work as I expect, that's the first thing I think of.

I've been playing his games since the 1980's-90's. (I think my first was either "Guadalcanal Campaign" or "Bomb Alley"...dating myself here!)

I'll just have to work within the limits. Good luck with the Air Campaign, since "Eagle Day/Bombing The Reich" is in need of a replacement, and it looks as if the Dev's who were working on it have disappeared.

Once again, thanks for replying, and confirming a suspicion.

[warshipbuilder]

since "Eagle Day/Bombing The Reich" is in need of a replacement, and it looks as if the Dev's who were working on it have disappeared.

+1

[JeffroK]

I tries the same sort of modding, IMHO some of the terminology comes through as very cumbersome and I tried to tidy them up.

Got the game running and it took a few turns to realise I had scuppered the AI.

Very dissapointed.

PS What did I try?
Took the National Prefix off units in the TOE area, the Germans didnt have one so why should there be PO, IT, BR etc
Renamed the TOE for the New Zealand Infantry Division, it was never called a Mixed Division.
Renamed the TOE foe the Indian Infantry Division, they were not Mountain Divisions and despite the myths many of their men came from Desert or Jungle areas.
As pz501 did for German Infantry, named Italian Infantry as "Fanterie" but got stumped with their Motorized Division!

In the OOB area I tried to add more chrome, 44th HuD Infantry Division, 1st SS LAH Panzer Division, 3rd Carpathian Infantry Division, 36th Texas US Infantry Division, 51st Highland Infantry Division. British Artillery got renamed as Field Regiment, Medium Rgt etc. I renamed the 1st Special Service Force.

Now I have to go back and re-enter as much as I can.

[Steelers708]

It's a great pity the naming of units is so bland when giving them them the nicknames they had adds flavour and authenticity, especially considering that unlike WitE we know have the divisional emblems included in the game.

[RedLancer]

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

It's a great pity the naming of units is so bland when giving them them the nicknames they had adds flavour and authenticity, especially considering that unlike WitE we know have the divisional emblems included in the game.

The problem is space - no more no less.

[Steelers708]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

It's a great pity the naming of units is so bland when giving them them the nicknames they had adds flavour and authenticity, especially considering that unlike WitE we know have the divisional emblems included in the game.

The problem is space - no more no less.

OK so we are stuck with using English, but there is still room in the unit name bar to add a bit of flavour even in abbreviated form for the longer ones e.g LSSAH, Totenkopf, GvB, HuD(44th inf), Sturm(78th Inf) etc

[pz501]

I tried the same things, and it didn't work. We have the reasons why, and that's too bad. I'll like I said just have to accept that some things are locked in and can't be altered.

For what it's worth, an Italian Motorized Division could probably be rendered "Divisione Fanteria (motorizzato)" or maybe "Div Motorizzato". Depends on how much space is available, and how much you want to use.

Even though there might be sufficient space in the unit naming bar, looking at the stock game some names get truncated by the unit display boxes...abbreviations would help there too.

I can't (and won't) complain though. I never offered my services (like anyone wanted or needed them!) because I figured development and testing was limited to a small, trusted group. Such arcane things as unit naming conventions, and nationality-specific terms were most likely never a priority when dealing with the design and testing of such a complex game overall.