653H Mod

Please post here for questions and discussion about modding for Strategic Command.
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5903
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: 653H Mod

Post by BillRunacre »

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Can we change the values for Mines and Oil ? It seems they are worth either 15 or 30 MPP, but it would be nice to customize them a bit to reflect their different outputs.

Yes, if you go to:

Campaign -> Country Data -> Edit Resource Data

Then you can amend the values of resources.

Bill
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9948
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: 653H Mod

Post by sPzAbt653 »

Campaign -> Country Data -> Edit Resource Data
But that is by Country, and I was interested in individual values. For example, the difference in output between Maikop and Baku.

I was recently looking at Oil Production numbers and while I didn't find anything surprising, the actual numbers are interesting. While they vary depending on the source, on a scale of 1-100 for amount of oil produced by a country in 1940, with the USA at 100 other countries would be roughly as follows:
USSR = 16
Iran = 6
Rumania = 3
Iraq = 2
Germany = .4
Hungary = .1

Go USA !!
User avatar
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
Posts: 785
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:00 pm

RE: 653H Mod

Post by Iñaki Harrizabalagatar »

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Many thanks! Btw did you modify the defence bonus? I am planning to do it because the values seem odd, with​ armour having double the bonus of infantry in cities, for instance.

Hi Iñaki

It's actually the other way around, as the defence bonuses apply to the defender when they are attacked by that unit type, so Tank Defense Bonus = bonus provided by that terrain when defending it against tanks.

Bill
Well, that makes sense! many thanks Bill
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5903
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: 653H Mod

Post by BillRunacre »

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Campaign -> Country Data -> Edit Resource Data
But that is by Country, and I was interested in individual values. For example, the difference in output between Maikop and Baku.

This can be approximated in a different way - by adding more Oil resources in one area than another, and perhaps not giving them all a rail connection, as without it to a Capital/Industrial/Primary Supply Center then their MPP value will be less.

Interesting figures, some of the others really pale into insignificance in comparison, important though they were to their respective side.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9948
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: 653H Mod

Post by sPzAbt653 »

by adding more Oil resources in one area than another, and perhaps not giving them all a rail connection
Thanks, and I will keep this in mind when I get to crunching MPP numbers.

This is why I feel that Oil [and Manpower] is an important factor that should be a separate consideration in a game of strategic scale. Been playing this for a year now and I've never had a game as Germany where I felt like I really needed to go for Baku in order to alleviate the fuel consumption problem. It's ok for the Allies, they always had other sources, so their strategic concern with oil was preventing Germany from getting it.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9948
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: 653H Mod

Post by sPzAbt653 »

The version I am working on has redone the convoy system to where it is all different, but I don't think that would have anything to do with what I think I am seeing. The top part of the screen shot is the Convoy box, and I have assigned 50% of the UK's MPP's to the USSR, which it is showing to be 329 MPP's. At the end of the turn the display shows that the UK is sending only 230. I haven't changed any settings in several turns and have been observing this for a while, so I think there is something wrong in the calculations, or am I looking at it wrong ?

Image
Attachments
653H38.jpg
653H38.jpg (121.02 KiB) Viewed 189 times
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5903
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: 653H Mod

Post by BillRunacre »

It's the 329 that seems wrong, as that's more than 50% of income received that turn. I'm not sure exactly how that 329 is calculated or whether it is referring to potential income, i.e. if all resources were at full strength. Would that make any sense in your scenario, i.e. if there are UK resources at less than full strength?
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9948
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: 653H Mod

Post by sPzAbt653 »

are UK resources at less than full strength?
I don't see any, except for Jan Mayen Island where I put a town and it is at 3 instead of 5, I guess because it is all by itself on that little island [:)]

How about this: 460 + 198 = 658, 658 x 50% = 329. Just a coincidence ? Or is it adding the USA convoy in before it makes the actual calculation ?
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5903
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: 653H Mod

Post by BillRunacre »

You may well be right, as it would seem rather coincidental.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 5875
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: 653H Mod

Post by Hubert Cater »

Hi sPzAbt653,

There is a bug here and the bug is actually in the Convoy screen where you are assigning the transfer amount percentage. It looks like when you set it to 50% it was not actually then being recorded as the new transfer percentage, and the previous percentage, likely 35% was being held.

So the 329 amount is correct in the Convoy screen as the % transferred to the USSR takes into account all incoming MPPs, so it would be 50% of 460 + 198, i.e. 658 * 50% = 329.

When the final MPP transfer screen showed during the end turn sequence it was instead 658 * 35% = 230

I'll fix this for the next update,
Hubert

However,
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9948
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: 653H Mod

Post by sPzAbt653 »

Hi Hubert,

I don't know if this will help when you fix it, but I don't think the previous percentage is being used because the Convoy script starts at 15% and the first turn that it was active I changed it to 50%. The above screen shot was from many turns later and I had never changed it from 50%, so my opinion would be that the final calculation is being done before the total is calculated [460 x .5 = 230, not 638 x .3605 = 230].

Thanks, Steve
User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 5875
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: 653H Mod

Post by Hubert Cater »

Can you send me a saved turn where I can see this in action and test it out and make the necessary corrections?

Thanks as I think this might be the only way for me to properly track it down and fix it.

support@furysoftware.com
User avatar
wurger54
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:18 am
Location: Texas

RE: 653H Mod

Post by wurger54 »

Definately a top notch mod... Thanks!

A little feedback after playing '39 & 40 as the Germans. Like the mods to the economy, unit purchases, unit options, etc. OB seems more along the lines of my reading and when compared with other games. Like the map changes, more along the lines of what my eye is used to. Play seems to flow nicely. Took France in a timely manner. Working on Malta, which seems tougher. I like the event additions. We'll see how Barbarossa plays.

Things I don't much care for: Where'd the destroyers go? My U-boats and PBs are running amok and haven't been challenged yet. The Brits are camped out around Denmark, even though I have planes attacking them. I lost Scharnhorst, and I guess, associated DDs, trying shoe them away. Not having German armies takes some getting used to, although not really something I dislike. I liked having the extra hitting power the armies seemed to have. I'm sure it will play better in Russia.

A personal preference is alternating weekly turns.

Appreciate the hard work in putting this mod together. [&o]
Wurger
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9948
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: 653H Mod

Post by sPzAbt653 »

Naval Units represent Task Forces and Battle Groups, but still retain
their Capital Ship names [it's nicer that way]. There are few
Cruisers or Destroyers, except for some specific cases.

But I was never happy with it either and have tried several different configurations over the past six months and am fairly happy with the newest bright idea, which is close to being posted [spoiler alert: it involves no naval units except for subs and a few destroyer units].

I liked having the extra hitting power the armies seemed to have.
Valid point that others will share, but with an historical oob that goes out with the bath water. It plays different but I don't think it is better or worse either way.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9948
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: 653H Mod

Post by sPzAbt653 »

A personal preference is alternating weekly turns.
Based on my own experience with other games covering the same scale and time frame, I like this solution or alternative to having to play every turn during the winter periods where operations are greatly reduced, leaving the player with little to do except to wait for spring to come. It might make a Battle of the Bulge or Soviet Winter Offensive a little difficult to pull off, but I haven't wanted for either of those in all of the games that I have played [there are always other things to do].

Appreciate the hard work in putting this mod together.
Thanks very much, appreciate that! And as I said, a newer version is coming soon, with so many changes I have to rename it.
User avatar
wurger54
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:18 am
Location: Texas

RE: 653H Mod

Post by wurger54 »

In War in Europe the winters of 39/40 and 40/41 are always a slog. After that winter turns are about as busy as any others. I'll be curious to see how Russian winter offensives play with the scaled turns.
Wurger
Rodimstev
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 7:07 am

RE: 653H Mod

Post by Rodimstev »

Hi all,

i have the same issue as Beachinnole, i think that i put this mod in the false directory...so have you got the possibilty to say me what is this directory?

Thanks in advance

Rodim
"l'audace encore de l'audace toujours de l'audace" Danton devant l'assemblée nationale 20 septembre 1792.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9948
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: 653H Mod

Post by sPzAbt653 »

See Post #2 of this thread, and if you still don't get it go here to see the full explanation:
tm.asp?m=4300169
Rodimstev
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 7:07 am

RE: 653H Mod

Post by Rodimstev »

thanks a lot all work is fine.

Rodim
"l'audace encore de l'audace toujours de l'audace" Danton devant l'assemblée nationale 20 septembre 1792.
Amadeus
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:53 am

RE: 653H Mod

Post by Amadeus »

Question to designer of Mod: Is there any different between Corps and Waffen SS Corps?
"You have to practice what you preach"(RONALD BELFORD SCOTT)
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”