Europa 1947 v5.8 for TOAW IV

Post new mods and scenarios here
User avatar
Silvanski
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Belgium, residing in TX-USA

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by Silvanski »

Looking forward to your update Victor.[:-]
One small request though. Can you give your scenario a slightly different name, as I plan to keep working on my mod... Multiple PO tracks coupled on events is something I would like to get done...
The TOAW Redux Dude
User avatar
VHauser
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 12:23 am

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by VHauser »

Trials and Tribulations.
My computer crashed and took my recent work with it. Sigh. I try to save often and this is why I take notes, but it will take a while to recover. Oh well. Onwards!

Silvanski,
At the rate I'm going, and even if I stay healthy, it will take months for me to finish this project. I will come up with a different scenario title.
Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)
User avatar
Silvanski
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Belgium, residing in TX-USA

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by Silvanski »

ORIGINAL: VHauser
My computer crashed
[:(][:(][:(] sorry to hear that... you've been putting so much work into this
The TOAW Redux Dude
User avatar
VHauser
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 12:23 am

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by VHauser »

I should have the Axis OOB stuff recovered later today, and the Allied OOB stuff recovered sometime tomorrow.

Fort Update.
I could keep forts from voluntarily moving by using orders and objectives. But I couldn't keep them from involuntarily retreating. So, I can't give forts a movement of 1. Oh well. Plan B is to separate the long-range equipments from everything else. I'll use the coastal artillery symbol for the long-range stuff (which I'll call emplacements), and the fort symbol for everything else (which I'll call strongholds). Since the strongholds won't attack or fire, they will retain their 'fortified' status until the enemy forcibly reduces that status. This means that at least the stronghold part of each fortified zone will retain its 'fortified' status for as long as possible even with a movement of 0, and even after the emplacement part fires (thus losing its 'fortified' status).
Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)
User avatar
larryfulkerson
Posts: 40908
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:06 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ,usa,sol, milkyway
Contact:

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by larryfulkerson »

ORIGINAL: VHauser

I should have the Axis OOB stuff recovered later today, and the Allied OOB stuff recovered sometime tomorrow.

Fort Update.
I could keep forts from voluntarily moving by using orders and objectives. But I couldn't keep them from involuntarily retreating. So, I can't give forts a movement of 1. Oh well. Plan B is to separate the long-range equipments from everything else. I'll use the coastal artillery symbol for the long-range stuff (which I'll call emplacements), and the fort symbol for everything else (which I'll call strongholds). Since the strongholds won't attack or fire, they will retain their 'fortified' status until the enemy forcibly reduces that status. This means that at least the stronghold part of each fortified zone will retain its 'fortified' status for as long as possible even with a movement of 0, and even after the emplacement part fires (thus losing its 'fortified' status).
If they are forced to retreat and they lose their "F" status can't they at last go three-dots and "T" status?
Interviewer: "What is your greatest weakness?"
Elderly Gentleman: "My honesty."
Interviewer: "Well I hardly think that could be a weakness."
Elderly Gentleman: "I don't give a fuck what you think."
DanNeely
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:05 am

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by DanNeely »

If you're splitting the forts up, can you make all the long range guns fixed/immobile types that go to the replacement pool when the unit moves?

I suspect that if moving sends everything into the replacement pool, the fort unit would evaporate if forced to retreat.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man ... weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not [it] an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
User avatar
VHauser
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 12:23 am

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by VHauser »

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: VHauser

I should have the Axis OOB stuff recovered later today, and the Allied OOB stuff recovered sometime tomorrow.

Fort Update.
I could keep forts from voluntarily moving by using orders and objectives. But I couldn't keep them from involuntarily retreating. So, I can't give forts a movement of 1. Oh well. Plan B is to separate the long-range equipments from everything else. I'll use the coastal artillery symbol for the long-range stuff (which I'll call emplacements), and the fort symbol for everything else (which I'll call strongholds). Since the strongholds won't attack or fire, they will retain their 'fortified' status until the enemy forcibly reduces that status. This means that at least the stronghold part of each fortified zone will retain its 'fortified' status for as long as possible even with a movement of 0, and even after the emplacement part fires (thus losing its 'fortified' status).
If they are forced to retreat and they lose their "F" status can't they at last go three-dots and "T" status?
The problem is that my concept was broken. Flak towers (and other fortified areas) cannot be allowed to retreat, so they have to have a movement of 0. So, basically I'm not going to change anything regarding how coastal artillery/forts (0 movement) work. Everything remains as you've known it--except that I'll be reserving the coastal artillery symbol for long-range forts and reserving the fort symbol for equipments that are not long range. Thus, a coastal artillery will permanently lose its 'fortified' status after it fires, but a fort will not lose its 'fortified' status unless forced to do so by enemy action.
BOTTOM LINE: What was 1 fort will be broken into 2 components (1 coastal artillery for all the long-range equipments, and 1 fort for everything else). But each component will work exactly the way you've always known it to work.

Addendum.
I'm continuing to work on my 'paradigm shift' for unit TOEs. I think I'm getting close to a workable/elegant solution.
Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)
User avatar
VHauser
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 12:23 am

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by VHauser »

Crash Recovery.
I think I've recovered the OOBs to their pre-crash condition. A bigger problem is recovering my work on the .eqp file, which I'm still working on recovering.
Anyway, here are the air OOB stats:
Total Axis (all Axis nations combined): 102 fighter units, 22 bomber units, 27 attack units, 10 naval patrol units, 2 intruder units, 4 strat bomber units.
Total Allied (all Allied nations combined): 149 fighter units, 42 bomber units, 67 attack units, 12 naval patrol units, 6 intruder units, 7 strat bomber units.
Note that pretty much all Axis air units start the game on the map, but a variety of Allied air units arrive as reinforcements.

'Paradigm Shift' TOEs.
The concept is simple--minimize the number of unit withdrawal/reorganization events by maximizing the number of units that require no (or minimal) reorganizations over the course of the game. The use of hypothetical units helps, but the bottom line is that some units require significant reorganization no matter what. The good news is that I've identified the tank units as the main culprits. So, stripping the tanks out of other units and combining them into separate units goes a long way to solving this problem. I'm making progress and am happy with the results so far.

Air Units and Game Scale.
A while back I stated that 160 aircraft per air unit was the optimum size given the 25km game scale. This is based on the physical realities. Runways and control facilities (hardstands, hangers, maintenance, communications, etc.) must be larger and more extensive in the jet age being covered by E47. I've determined that 480 combat aircraft (3 air units) in a 25km hex is the practical limit. The fact that 160 aircraft is convenient (160 = Soviet air division, 160 = reinforced geschwader, 160 = air wing) is a lucky coincidence, but I'm happy it worked out that way.
Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)
User avatar
VHauser
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 12:23 am

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by VHauser »

As far as I know, I've finally crash restored everything. Yay.

So far, I'm happy with the air and naval and fort units and the map (ready for playtest). I'm now starting to dig into all the other ground units.

Naval Attrition Divider.
I was wrong. I originally thought that a NAD of 100 was way too high. After testing NADs of 20, 50, and 75, those were all too low. Turns out that a NAD of 100 works best.

Axis Strategic Defense.
The Axis reached the limit of its expansion during 1945-46 in E47 terms. By 1947, facing irresistible manpower and industrial inferiorities along all of their borders, the Axis literally cannot mount any further strategic offensives. Local offensives/counteroffensives are still possible by the Axis, but the strategic initiative is absolutely on the side of the Allies by 1947. This is the main reason that I decided to make the scenario Axis P.O. vs. human Allies. The influence of Axis strategic defense on the design concept behind Axis force structure, Axis formation orders, Axis deployment, and Axis everything else cannot be overstated. Axis strategic defense is the foundation of everything I'm doing with this scenario.
Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)
User avatar
VHauser
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 12:23 am

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by VHauser »

Unit Ratings.
I'm working on tank and artillery and AAA ratings. I'm making steady progress and I think I'll be finished with all the first-pass (playtest ready) ratings by the end of the weekend.

Headquarters.
Axis HQs will be strong combat units and Allied HQs will be weak support units. This is because humans will always prioritize P.O. HQs as targets. Also, the P.O. is not very good at protecting its HQs, so its HQs must be strong enough to protect themselves. Axis HQs will always be worthwhile targets for the human player to attack, just not easy to kill.
Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)
User avatar
VHauser
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 12:23 am

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by VHauser »

Airpower.
I think that airpower will be decisive in E47. Plane for plane, the Luftwaffe is better than the Allies and the Regia Aeronautica is about the same, but the rest of the Axis nations are inferior. The net result should be that the human Allies will be able to outperform the Axis P.O. and gain local air superiority time and again until the Axis air forces are eventually worn down, at which point...

Personal Best.
The way I'm personally going to approach this scenario is in terms of my "personal best" over time. The scenario is 175 turns long. If I can improve on my victory time game after game, then the scenario will stay fresh for me. Once I reach a point where I can no longer improve my victory time, then it's time for a new scenario. [I will almost certainly make modest revisions to the scenario after every time I play it to keep it as fresh as possible, and pass those revisions along to the community.]

Hotseat Play.
This scenario should lend itself well to multi-human hotseat play. Years ago with some early TOAW3 versions of this scenario, a few of us would get together each week to play at a friend's house. The scenario is easy to divide into 3 (USA, British, and Soviet) with plenty to do for each player. And the arguments that result over railcap, seacap, and airlift, give the feel of a real Allied coalition.

I'll be busy this weekend, but I hope to have another update by Monday.
Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)
User avatar
VHauser
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 12:23 am

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by VHauser »

Sad News.
Turns out that I cannot edit armored defense strengths as I need to (the values of 5-7 as currently exists for post-WW2 AFVs are far too limiting [a light tank has a defense strength of 5 and a Maus has a defense strength of 7, which is fundamentally flawed and 100% unacceptable]).

Anyway, since I cannot make the armored defense strength edits that I need to, I can't proceed further with this project. Theoretically, there are dozens of things I could continue to work on (like events and TOEs and formation orders, etc.). But the project would still be broken after all that effort if I can't edit the armored defense strengths the way I need to, so there is little point of giving that effort if the end result is fundamentally flawed, as it would be.

If someday the equipment editor is fixed to allow independent editing of armored defense strengths, then I will enthusiastically continue work on this project (I still have all my notes). But it was made pretty clear to me that that is not going to happen. Sad news.
Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)
User avatar
Gandalf
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:20 pm
Location: Jefferson City, MO

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by Gandalf »

ORIGINAL: VHauser

Sad News.
Turns out that I cannot edit armored defense strengths as I need to (the values of 5-7 as currently exists for post-WW2 AFVs are far too limiting [a light tank has a defense strength of 5 and a Maus has a defense strength of 7, which is fundamentally flawed and 100% unacceptable]).

Anyway, since I cannot make the armored defense strength edits that I need to, I can't proceed further with this project. Theoretically, there are dozens of things I could continue to work on (like events and TOEs and formation orders, etc.). But the project would still be broken after all that effort if I can't edit the armored defense strengths the way I need to, so there is little point of giving that effort if the end result is fundamentally flawed, as it would be.

If someday the equipment editor is fixed to allow independent editing of armored defense strengths, then I will enthusiastically continue work on this project (I still have all my notes). But it was made pretty clear to me that that is not going to happen. Sad news.

(FYI, .eqp files (along with a lot of other TOAW files are actually in XML format).

So .eqp files are capable of being edited externally with an XML editor such as XML Notepad 2007 from Microsoft (free). You could make the necessary changes in that way, see pg. 166-167 of the TOAW manual for an example of using an XML editor to directly edit game files.

Note: you can actually edit XML files with a standard text editor, but readability/formatting issues really make this difficult hence the suggested usage of an XML editor capable of showing the text in XML format (especially the "tree" format).

I suggest XML Notepad 2007 as noted above because you can get it directly (for free from Microsoft) on their web site here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downloa ... px?id=7973

I just don't trust other utility download sites anymore (even CNET) due to Malware crap.

The one thing I don't know about is if you make external changes, do they "stick" if you reload the .eqp file in the TOAW editor after making the external changes or will the TOAW editor mess with them in some cases. I presume they do. but you'd have to experiment and find out for yourself. If that were the case, make a log of changes you need to externally make and apply them after you have finalized the TOAW editor work.

Hope this helps.
Member since January 2007 (as Gray_Lensman)

Wargaming since 1971 (1st game Avalon Hill's Stalingrad)

Computering since 1977 (TRS-80) (adhoc programming & game modding ever since)
User avatar
VHauser
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 12:23 am

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by VHauser »

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

ORIGINAL: VHauser

Sad News.
Turns out that I cannot edit armored defense strengths as I need to (the values of 5-7 as currently exists for post-WW2 AFVs are far too limiting [a light tank has a defense strength of 5 and a Maus has a defense strength of 7, which is fundamentally flawed and 100% unacceptable]).

Anyway, since I cannot make the armored defense strength edits that I need to, I can't proceed further with this project. Theoretically, there are dozens of things I could continue to work on (like events and TOEs and formation orders, etc.). But the project would still be broken after all that effort if I can't edit the armored defense strengths the way I need to, so there is little point of giving that effort if the end result is fundamentally flawed, as it would be.

If someday the equipment editor is fixed to allow independent editing of armored defense strengths, then I will enthusiastically continue work on this project (I still have all my notes). But it was made pretty clear to me that that is not going to happen. Sad news.

(FYI, .eqp files (along with a lot of other TOAW files are actually in XML format).

So .eqp files are capable of being edited externally with an XML editor such as XML Notepad 2007 from Microsoft (free). You could make the necessary changes in that way, see pg. 166-167 of the TOAW manual for an example of using an XML editor to directly edit game files.

Note: you can actually edit XML files with a standard text editor, but readability/formatting issues really make this difficult hence the suggested usage of an XML editor capable of showing the text in XML format (especially the "tree" format).

I suggest XML Notepad 2007 as noted above because you can get it directly (for free from Microsoft) on their web site here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downloa ... px?id=7973

I just don't trust other utility download sites anymore (even CNET) due to Malware crap.

The one thing I don't know about is if you make external changes, do they "stick" if you reload the .eqp file in the TOAW editor after making the external changes or will the TOAW editor mess with them in some cases. I presume they do. but you'd have to experiment and find out for yourself. If that were the case, make a log of changes you need to externally make and apply them after you have finalized the TOAW editor work.

Hope this helps.

Alas, the changes do not "stick" because they are dependent on the armor thickness value. Thus, an 8-ton halftrack with 10mm of armor has a DF of 5 and a 180-ton Maus with 220mm of armor has a DF of 7. This is obviously fundamentally flawed and broken, but it is not going to be fixed because the TOAW4 gatekeeper does not see the problem.

Anyway, after thinking about it all day, I've come up with a possible workaround. But that workaround will be extremely painful and time-consuming to implement. And it will still be flawed--although not as flawed as what we have now. So, I'm going to take a day or two to ponder if it's worth it to spend all that time and effort just to achieve a modest (but still flawed) improvement over the broken situation we have now. As of now, I don't think it's worth it, but I don't want to make a hasty decision. I'll know better what I want to do in a day or two...
Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)
User avatar
Gandalf
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:20 pm
Location: Jefferson City, MO

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by Gandalf »

If your workaround does not work, I ran across this:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

This is a screw-up by me. Armored equipment derives its defense strength from its armor thickness. The DF value itself is used to set the weight of the equipment instead. The value being entered here is the DF value regardless of whether the equipment is armored or not. It should have been the weight when the armor flag is set.

So, you can still vary the defense strength by varying the armor thickness. But you can't set the weight. What you can do, for now, is look for an existing equipment that has the right weight, and use it as a starting point (copy and paste).
ORIGINAL: tarzanofmars

Ah gotcha, glad it wasn't a bug in the editor at least. So how about this, since I'm experimenting with using armor for personnel: In the default database the Mounted Rifle Squad (Late) has 1cm of armor, but not the armored attribute checked, so last night I found that you can set the armor any thickness and as long as you don't check the 'armored' attribute, the game does not overwrite your defensive strength.

So now my question is, are these different armor thicknesses being recognized? Are they still coming into play in the battle results?
ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Now, I found this jewel for you to see how Mark Steven simulated the Zulu Wars of 1879...

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenar ... u-War-1879

I think there's a modified .EQP, incl. Henry Repeaters etc. So, have a look at this scenario.

Klink, Oberst

You can read thru the entire thread if you want here: tm.asp?m=4412492

Regards
Member since January 2007 (as Gray_Lensman)

Wargaming since 1971 (1st game Avalon Hill's Stalingrad)

Computering since 1977 (TRS-80) (adhoc programming & game modding ever since)
User avatar
VHauser
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 12:23 am

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by VHauser »

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

If your workaround does not work, I ran across this:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

This is a screw-up by me. Armored equipment derives its defense strength from its armor thickness. The DF value itself is used to set the weight of the equipment instead. The value being entered here is the DF value regardless of whether the equipment is armored or not. It should have been the weight when the armor flag is set.

So, you can still vary the defense strength by varying the armor thickness. But you can't set the weight. What you can do, for now, is look for an existing equipment that has the right weight, and use it as a starting point (copy and paste).
ORIGINAL: tarzanofmars

Ah gotcha, glad it wasn't a bug in the editor at least. So how about this, since I'm experimenting with using armor for personnel: In the default database the Mounted Rifle Squad (Late) has 1cm of armor, but not the armored attribute checked, so last night I found that you can set the armor any thickness and as long as you don't check the 'armored' attribute, the game does not overwrite your defensive strength.

So now my question is, are these different armor thicknesses being recognized? Are they still coming into play in the battle results?
ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Now, I found this jewel for you to see how Mark Steven simulated the Zulu Wars of 1879...

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenar ... u-War-1879

I think there's a modified .EQP, incl. Henry Repeaters etc. So, have a look at this scenario.

Klink, Oberst

You can read thru the entire thread if you want here: tm.asp?m=4412492

Regards

Well, after pretty much wasting an entire weekend on this, I've come to the realization that this is merely a tempest in a teapot. Turns out that armored defense strengths are purely cosmetic and have literally no effect on combat resolution--all that matters is armor thickness.

And while having armored defense strengths within the ridiculously narrow range of 5-7 is terribly misleading visually when looking at armored units on a map, that's all it is--visually misleading and nothing more.

I suppose that that visual misrepresentation could have an impact (you attack that armored unit that has a DF of 3 on the map thinking that you are attacking 30 enemy Lynx light tanks (defense strength of 5), when in fact you are attacking 25 Tiger tanks (defense strength of 6)--oops). Oh well. It's not gonna change and nothing I can do about that.

Anyway, jumping through hoops trying to get armored defense strengths in the range of 5 (halftrack) to 25 (Maus) instead of 5-7 in order give players a more informative (as opposed to misleading) visual representation on the map is simply not worth my time and effort. It doesn't affect combat resolution. It only affects players' visual ability to make better informed decisions. I, personally, wanted to give players that better visual representation because I wanted them to be able to make better informed decisions (instead of the misleading situation we have now). But since I can't do that, and evidently never will, I'm not going to spend any more time thinking about it.

I've already wasted several days on this and enough is enough. I will continue to press on with this project. I wanted to have a useful update today, but lost that time due to this sideshow. Now, it will be later in the week before my next update.
Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: VHauser

Well, after pretty much wasting an entire weekend on this, I've come to the realization that this is merely a tempest in a teapot. Turns out that armored defense strengths are purely cosmetic and have literally no effect on combat resolution--all that matters is armor thickness.

And while having armored defense strengths within the ridiculously narrow range of 5-7 is terribly misleading visually when looking at armored units on a map, that's all it is--visually misleading and nothing more.

I suppose that that visual misrepresentation could have an impact (you attack that armored unit that has a DF of 3 on the map thinking that you are attacking 30 enemy Lynx light tanks (defense strength of 5), when in fact you are attacking 25 Tiger tanks (defense strength of 6)--oops). Oh well. It's not gonna change and nothing I can do about that.

Anyway, jumping through hoops trying to get armored defense strengths in the range of 5 (halftrack) to 25 (Maus) instead of 5-7 in order give players a more informative (as opposed to misleading) visual representation on the map is simply not worth my time and effort. It doesn't affect combat resolution. It only affects players' visual ability to make better informed decisions. I, personally, wanted to give players that better visual representation because I wanted them to be able to make better informed decisions (instead of the misleading situation we have now). But since I can't do that, and evidently never will, I'm not going to spend any more time thinking about it.

I've already wasted several days on this and enough is enough. I will continue to press on with this project. I wanted to have a useful update today, but lost that time due to this sideshow. Now, it will be later in the week before my next update.

I may have been a bit off the mark about the impact of defense strengths (TOAW combat is pretty arcane). While they definitely have nothing to do with the survivability of armored equipment, they may play a role in whether the equipment holds its ground or not. Vehicles compared to infantry aren't very good at that, so it probably makes little difference whether its a Maus or a halftrack trying to hold the hex.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
VHauser
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 12:23 am

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by VHauser »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: VHauser

Well, after pretty much wasting an entire weekend on this, I've come to the realization that this is merely a tempest in a teapot. Turns out that armored defense strengths are purely cosmetic and have literally no effect on combat resolution--all that matters is armor thickness.

And while having armored defense strengths within the ridiculously narrow range of 5-7 is terribly misleading visually when looking at armored units on a map, that's all it is--visually misleading and nothing more.

I suppose that that visual misrepresentation could have an impact (you attack that armored unit that has a DF of 3 on the map thinking that you are attacking 30 enemy Lynx light tanks (defense strength of 5), when in fact you are attacking 25 Tiger tanks (defense strength of 6)--oops). Oh well. It's not gonna change and nothing I can do about that.

Anyway, jumping through hoops trying to get armored defense strengths in the range of 5 (halftrack) to 25 (Maus) instead of 5-7 in order give players a more informative (as opposed to misleading) visual representation on the map is simply not worth my time and effort. It doesn't affect combat resolution. It only affects players' visual ability to make better informed decisions. I, personally, wanted to give players that better visual representation because I wanted them to be able to make better informed decisions (instead of the misleading situation we have now). But since I can't do that, and evidently never will, I'm not going to spend any more time thinking about it.

I've already wasted several days on this and enough is enough. I will continue to press on with this project. I wanted to have a useful update today, but lost that time due to this sideshow. Now, it will be later in the week before my next update.

I may have been a bit off the mark about the impact of defense strengths (TOAW combat is pretty arcane). While they definitely have nothing to do with the survivability of armored equipment, they may play a role in whether the equipment holds its ground or not. Vehicles compared to infantry aren't very good at that, so it probably makes little difference whether its a Maus or a halftrack trying to hold the hex.

Yet Abrams tanks have a defense strength of 11 which is better than infantry. But since armored defense strengths will never be de-linked from armor thickness (which is possibly the worst way to simulate an AFV's ability to hold ground, just ask Ferdinand crews at Kursk), then there is no point in debating the issue.

I would celebrate to see armored defense strengths de-linked from everything and be as stand alone as non-armored defense strengths are. But I've already spent another 20 minutes simply responding to this again...
Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)
tverse
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:53 pm

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by tverse »

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

Looking forward to your update Victor.[:-]
One small request though. Can you give your scenario a slightly different name, as I plan to keep working on my mod... Multiple PO tracks coupled on events is something I would like to get done...
I was toying with the idea of trying this scenario...but before I start I was wondering if the mod you are working on is about to come out or is it already done and part of V5.8?
AAR Carry out Operation Husky
tm.asp?m=4420472
User avatar
Gandalf
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:20 pm
Location: Jefferson City, MO

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

Post by Gandalf »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I may have been a bit off the mark about the impact of defense strengths (TOAW combat is pretty arcane). While they definitely have nothing to do with the survivability of armored equipment, they may play a role in whether the equipment holds its ground or not. Vehicles compared to infantry aren't very good at that, so it probably makes little difference whether its a Maus or a halftrack trying to hold the hex.

In the case of a Heavy Artillery Attack (for example 150mm) on an armored unit or hex it is in. How is the armored unit's defense applied against this type of attack if DF is just cosmetic?

Basically, I'm thinking the Artillery is NOT Armor piercing NOR is it HEAT, so what factor(s) (if not DF) does the armored unit use against it in defensive calculations?
Member since January 2007 (as Gray_Lensman)

Wargaming since 1971 (1st game Avalon Hill's Stalingrad)

Computering since 1977 (TRS-80) (adhoc programming & game modding ever since)
Post Reply

Return to “Mods and Scenarios”