Europa 1947 v5.8 for TOAW IV

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 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?

My understanding is that a fraction of the artillery's AP is used as AT against armor. But that may only be if the artillery is adjacent to the armor. It needs rigorous testing that I don't have time for just now.

[VHauser]

Armored Defense Strengths (ADS), redux.
I really wanted to leave this topic alone, but new problems have arisen that deserve attention.
Tracked Bridge Carrier (ads=6) has better ground-holding ability than T-34/85 (ads=5), even though the Tracked Bridge Carrier is totally unarmed. Who knew?

But now comes a more serious problem. Both the Wespe (ads=7) and the Hummel (ads=7) are better at holding ground than the King Tiger (ads=6). In fact, they are better at holding ground than pretty much every AFV in WW2. But what makes this problem so serious is that both the Wespe and the Hummel have armor thicknesses of 2cm. What this means is that the Wespe and Hummel SHOULD have ads=5 based on armor thickness. But they don't. SOMETHING is forcing those ads=7 values that have nothing to do with armor thickness, which means that something is seriously broken somewhere.

[Gandalf]

ORIGINAL: VHauser

Armored Defense Strengths (ADS), redux.
I really wanted to leave this topic alone, but new problems have arisen that deserve attention.
Tracked Bridge Carrier (ads=6) has better ground-holding ability than T-34/85 (ads=5), even though the Tracked Bridge Carrier is totally unarmed. Who knew?

But now comes a more serious problem. Both the Wespe (ads=7) and the Hummel (ads=7) are better at holding ground than the King Tiger (ads=6). In fact, they are better at holding ground than pretty much every AFV in WW2. But what makes this problem so serious is that both the Wespe and the Hummel have armor thicknesses of 2cm. What this means is that the Wespe and Hummel SHOULD have ads=5 based on armor thickness. But they don't. SOMETHING is forcing those ads=7 values that have nothing to do with armor thickness, which means that something is seriously broken somewhere.

Have you actually tested these issues (i.e. Wespe/Hummel being better than the King Tiger in game play) or are you still going by the displayed ADS number (which was stated to be "cosmetic" for armored units (though obviously seriously broken in the way it is being calculated for "cosmetic" display)?

[Gandalf]

edit> deleted accidental double post.

[VHauser]

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

ORIGINAL: VHauser

Armored Defense Strengths (ADS), redux.
I really wanted to leave this topic alone, but new problems have arisen that deserve attention.
Tracked Bridge Carrier (ads=6) has better ground-holding ability than T-34/85 (ads=5), even though the Tracked Bridge Carrier is totally unarmed. Who knew?

But now comes a more serious problem. Both the Wespe (ads=7) and the Hummel (ads=7) are better at holding ground than the King Tiger (ads=6). In fact, they are better at holding ground than pretty much every AFV in WW2. But what makes this problem so serious is that both the Wespe and the Hummel have armor thicknesses of 2cm. What this means is that the Wespe and Hummel SHOULD have ads=5 based on armor thickness. But they don't. SOMETHING is forcing those ads=7 values that have nothing to do with armor thickness, which means that something is seriously broken somewhere.

Have you actually tested these issues (i.e. Wespe/Hummel being better than the King Tiger in game play) or are you still going by the displayed ADS number (which was stated to be "cosmetic" for armored units (though obviously seriously broken in the way it is being calculated for "cosmetic" display)?

I want to see what Bob has to say first. You and I see problems. I don't know about Bob, though.

Anyway, here is what I suspect. King Tiger with 19cm of armor is likely to have greater staying power than a Wespe with armor of 2cm, even though 10 King Tigers will display a map defense value of 6 and 10 Wespes will display a map defense of 7--very misleading but you and I already knew that (I don't know about Bob, though).

But of more interest is that 10 Tracked Bridging Vehicles will display a map defense of 6 while 10 T-34/85s will display a map defense of 5, and in this case the Tracked Bridging Vehicles with armor of 15cm will likely have more staying power than the T-34/85s with armor of 9cm, even though the Tracked Bridging Vehicles are totally unarmed.

But the bigger problem is that it is now clear that armored defense strengths are not linked to armor thickness. The Wespe and Hummel prove that. And solving the mystery why this is so might lead to de-linking all the other AFVs from armor thickness, too. That is my hope, anyway.

As it stands now, though, I see the two cases above as irreconcilable and problematic (both in terms of the database as well as gameplay).

I suspect that armor weight and armor volume are also meaningless and useless, perhaps even more meaningless and useless than armor defense strengths. Should we as scenario developers just ignore those values as worthless? I wonder what Bob has to say about that, too.

[Gandalf]

I see a problem in this calculation of the displayed ADs (which if it also shows up on the unit counter) could definitely be misleading for gamers, but I'm wondering if it actually affects the combat calculations reflected in the combat planner screen? If so, it's a BIG problem. If NOT, then it's just a misinformative "cosmetic" issue, that still needs fixing, but not a game breaker... Just have to pay a lot more attention to the combat planner until it gets debugged and fixed.

Might have to set up some limited scenario tests utilizing just a few questionable units on a simple map to observe the combat planner information.

edit> The Ardennes 1944 scenario has Hummels, Wespes, and King Tigers (Tiger VIB). Might make a test case out of it by stripping all German units other than the above, making three units consisting of say only 10 vehicles each, and have some Allied units (combat planner attack them to observe the actual combat defensive odds.

edit>> Interesting, The Ardennes 1944.eqp file, (located in the \Graphics Override\... folder has the following information:

Wespe______ Armor:2.. DF:11
Hummel_____ Armor:3.. DF:24
Tiger VIB____ Armor:19. DF:75
Maus_______ Armor:35. DF:90

Are we perhaps talking Apples vs Oranges? This is a user defined .eqp file that has DF values outside the range of 5-7 and those values obviously "stick" in that particular .eqp file. Am I misunderstanding what factor you are trying to edit/manipulate?

[VHauser]

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

I see a problem in this calculation of the displayed ADs (which if it also shows up on the unit counter) could definitely be misleading for gamers, but I'm wondering if it actually affects the combat calculations reflected in the combat planner screen? If so, it's a BIG problem. If NOT, then it's just a misinformative "cosmetic" issue, that still needs fixing, but not a game breaker... Just have to pay a lot more attention to the combat planner until it gets debugged and fixed.

Might have to set up some limited scenario tests utilizing just a few questionable units on a simple map to observe the combat planner information.

edit> The Ardennes 1944 scenario has Hummels, Wespes, and King Tigers (Tiger VIB). Might make a test case out of it by stripping all German units other than the above, making three units consisting of say only 10 vehicles each, and have some Allied units (combat planner attack them to observe the actual combat defensive odds.

edit>> Interesting, The Ardennes 1944.eqp file, (located in the \Graphics Override\... folder has the following information:

Wespe______ Armor:2.. DF:11
Hummel_____ Armor:3.. DF:24
Tiger VIB____ Armor:19. DF:75
Maus_______ Armor:35. DF:90

Are we perhaps talking Apples vs Oranges? This is a user defined .eqp file that has DF values outside the range of 5-7 and those values obviously "stick" in that particular .eqp file. Am I misunderstanding what factor you are trying to edit/manipulate?

There seem to be discrepencies with your Ardennes 1944 .eqp and mine.
My Notepad XML editor shows:
Wespe Armor=2 DF=11
Hummel Armor=3 DF=24
King Tiger Armor=14 DF=10
Maus Armor=35 DF=90

My TOAW4 in-game editor shows:
Wespe Armor=2 DF=8
Hummel Armor=3 DF=7
King Tiger Armor=14 DF=6
Maus Armor=35 DF=8

I have no clue what is going on and why the XML editor and the in-game editors are so different and which one is actually used by the game.

EDIT: I have some heart tests scheduled and it might be Friday before I can get any meaningful work done on E47. I'll be checking this thread in the meantime.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: VHauser

I want to see what Bob has to say first. You and I see problems. I don't know about Bob, though.

Anyway, here is what I suspect. King Tiger with 19cm of armor is likely to have greater staying power than a Wespe with armor of 2cm, even though 10 King Tigers will display a map defense value of 6 and 10 Wespes will display a map defense of 7--very misleading but you and I already knew that (I don't know about Bob, though).

But of more interest is that 10 Tracked Bridging Vehicles will display a map defense of 6 while 10 T-34/85s will display a map defense of 5, and in this case the Tracked Bridging Vehicles with armor of 15cm will likely have more staying power than the T-34/85s with armor of 9cm, even though the Tracked Bridging Vehicles are totally unarmed.

But the bigger problem is that it is now clear that armored defense strengths are not linked to armor thickness. The Wespe and Hummel prove that. And solving the mystery why this is so might lead to de-linking all the other AFVs from armor thickness, too. That is my hope, anyway.

As it stands now, though, I see the two cases above as irreconcilable and problematic (both in terms of the database as well as gameplay).

Tanks are handled differently from other vehicle types, like self-propelled guns. So, in other words, there's a different formula for tanks vs. SPG. I can't go back in time and read Norm's mind as to why, but I can take a stab at it: SPG have larger crews than similar sized tanks, and those crews work outside the vehicle - making them more "infantry-like".

I suspect that armor weight and armor volume are also meaningless and useless, perhaps even more meaningless and useless than armor defense strengths. Should we as scenario developers just ignore those values as worthless? I wonder what Bob has to say about that, too.

The Weight value is not used by anything. Still a good idea to enter it just in case that changes down the line. The volume is used to generate the RCSB value, which impacts chances to hit.

I've already discussed most of this in my included article in the manuals folder: "How to Edit the Equipment Database.pdf". (Note that it's an older document and assumes use of the BioEd instead of the current, built-in, editor.

[Gandalf]

ORIGINAL: VHauser

There seem to be discrepencies with your Ardennes 1944 .eqp and mine.
My Notepad XML editor shows:
Wespe Armor=2 DF=11
Hummel Armor=3 DF=24
King Tiger Armor=14 DF=10
Maus Armor=35 DF=90

My TOAW4 in-game editor shows:
Wespe Armor=2 DF=8
Hummel Armor=3 DF=7
King Tiger Armor=14 DF=6
Maus Armor=35 DF=8

I have no clue what is going on and why the XML editor and the in-game editors are so different and which one is actually used by the game.

EDIT: I have some heart tests scheduled and it might be Friday before I can get any meaningful work done on E47. I'll be checking this thread in the meantime.

FYI, The date stamp on my Ardennes 1944.eqp file is 11/29/2017 4:51 PM and the file size is 2524KB. I double checked my numbers above to see if I was fuzzy sighted late last night, but the numbers I posted are correct.


Off-Topic>

Good Luck on the heart tests.

I had Mitral valve heart surgery myself about 3 years ago. I chose a surgeon that used the computerized da Vinci operating system at DePaul hospital in St. Louis, Missouri. No Zipper scar down the middle of the chest, just a small incision scar (almost invisible) on the right chest upper side (for the robotic instrument(S) entry). Out of the hospital in 5 days. Almost 100% recovery in 3-4 weeks. Found the surgeon on the web since my cardiologist only knew to refer patients to the University of Missouri Medical Center, Columbia, MO, for the conventional open "zipper scar" surgery. He now refers 1st time valve surgery patients to Dr. Theodoro (my surgeon) in St. Louis if they don't mind the extra drive. They have at least a dozen doctors (or more by now) that do heart valve surgery with the da Vinci operating system across country. If you're interested and can't seem to find one, contact Dr. David Theodoro, MD (you can google him) and ask him for a recommendation on the closest Da Vinci surgeon near you. He knows most of them.

You can also youtube search Dr. Theodoro and da Vinci operating system for video information.

I would have put this in a PM, but if you're like me, you might overlook reading PM notifications for many days and if you have to think about possible heart surgery sooner, the information above might be helpful to you. Again, good luck and I hope your heart tests go well. [:)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

edit>> Interesting, The Ardennes 1944.eqp file, (located in the \Graphics Override\... folder has the following information:

Wespe______ Armor:2.. DF:11
Hummel_____ Armor:3.. DF:24
Tiger VIB____ Armor:19. DF:75
Maus_______ Armor:35. DF:90

The DF slot in the equipment file is not the DF value used in the game if the equipment is armored. It is actually used to set the weight of the tank. The DF value of armored equipment is derived separately by the game.

This is the part that the built-in editor has bugged. It actually has the real DF in that location. I have to fix that.

[VHauser]

My 1st heart test went well. More tomorrow. The preliminary indications are that I will need to change heart meds, but no surgery (fingers crossed).

Armored Defense.
Okay, I'm willing to jump through some hoops to try to work around the hard-coded armored defense strengths that range from 5-7. The visual representation on the map will still be terribly misleading, but I'm hoping that playtest results will be encouraging.

[VHauser]

The past several weeks I've worked on the map and the forces editor. The map is ready for playtest. I'm about 1/3 ready for playtest with the forces editor: air and naval units for both sides are ready and I'm about halfway ready with the Allied ground forces, but I've hardly touched the Axis ground forces. I'm almost finished with the first-pass .eqp ratings, but I will make a complete item-by-item second pass before the .eqp is ready for playtest.
EDIT: The Axis TOEs will be very different from the Allied because the Axis is P.O. and I want to make their force structure as Elmer-proof as I can. I want to finish the Allies first to give me a better idea how to compose the Axis.

Anyway, I need a break from the forces editor so I'm going to start work on the events editor. I'll make a first pass at the events editor (should take a week or two) and then get back to work on the forces editor (finish Allies first and then the Axis). Then a second pass at the events editor (should take less than a week). It will probably be sometime in May before I finish all of that. Onwards!

[larryfulkerson]

Hey you guys: I just found a YouTube movie about what would have happened if the US and Russia got
into it just after WWII and I thought you guys might want to see it too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8B3ceKwV8Q

[VHauser]

Events Editor.
I've taken a look at the events editor. It looks like most of the work I'll need to do involves ensuring that the correct units/formations are tied to the correct events. This is because of the forces editor changes I'm making (unit colors and shifting units between formations and creation of new formations, etc.). However, one big change I want to make involves doing away with shock effects and replacing shock with movement effects instead. I have a background in in large boardgame design/development. In the 1980s/1990s I used to work for a company called GR/D which produced a large boardgame series called Europa. In Europa, we used movement rates (among other things) to simulate seasonal effects. I think that that will work well in E47. I want to replace shock effects with 66%/100%/132% movement rates. For example, if a unit has a base (100%) movement rate of 24, then in winter/mud it will have a movement rate of 16 (66%) and in summer it will have a movement rate of 32 (132%) and during transitional periods it will have a movement rate of 24 (100%). Those percentages were chosen due to the game scale being changed from 20km (TOAW3 E47) to 25km (TOAW4 E47) per hex even though the map itself did not change (the original map was drawn at 20km per hex, but 20km per hex proved problematic during gameplay and changing the scale to 25km per hex improved the way the game played even though the map itself didn't change).

Theater Options.
I plan to give the Allied player at least two theater options. Starting in 1948, the Allies will be able to disband some (most?) of their AAA units and gain infantry/equipment replacements. Also starting in 1948, the Allies will be able to disband some of their fighter air units and retrain as bomber/attack units. In addition to those two theater options, there might be more that I haven't thought of yet.

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: VHauser
Events Editor. I want to replace shock effects with 66%/100%/132% movement rates.

Excellent idea Something I overlooked.

[aspqrz02]

Have you considered the 'German' option for the Allies ... that is, do what the Germans did with their divisions ... reduce the manning levels both TO&E and actual field level.

They did this with relatively little reduction in combat power, too ... and that's in the real world.

Another thing that you may or may not have considered, the US had about half their actual combat strength in Europe in the form of non-Divisional units, Armour, Artillery and Infantry as well as support elements. They could have doubled the actual number of Divisional units by simply combining these non-divisional elements ... or they could have consolidated the transport and armoured elements into Infantry Divisions turning them all into Mechanised divisions.

The other thing is that the US had not tapped out their manpower reserves in the same way as the Brits had, so there was more depth back at home that could have been called up ...

Just some ideas for consideration.

Phil

[VHauser]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz02

Have you considered the 'German' option for the Allies ... that is, do what the Germans did with their divisions ... reduce the manning levels both TO&E and actual field level.

They did this with relatively little reduction in combat power, too ... and that's in the real world.

Another thing that you may or may not have considered, the US had about half their actual combat strength in Europe in the form of non-Divisional units, Armour, Artillery and Infantry as well as support elements. They could have doubled the actual number of Divisional units by simply combining these non-divisional elements ... or they could have consolidated the transport and armoured elements into Infantry Divisions turning them all into Mechanised divisions.

The other thing is that the US had not tapped out their manpower reserves in the same way as the Brits had, so there was more depth back at home that could have been called up ...

Just some ideas for consideration.

Phil

The Western Allies were democracies. They never seriously considered creating a hierarchy of divisions because they knew that politically it was bad to assign troops to "second-rate" units. All Western Allied units were created equal--and have stayed that way even until today.

Manpower issues had more to do with keeping expert skilled labor operating the factories. A skilled machinist was more valuable at home than as a rifleman in the field. The war material produced by the USA was so important to the chances of Allied success that manpower operating the factories was more important than manpower in the field.

Yes, the Allies had lots of non-divisional units. It gave them operational flexibility. German units are generally superior to Allied units (in proficiency if nothing else). The Allies need all the operational flexibility they can get, and I'm giving them plenty--they will need it.

[VHauser]

I've gone back to working on the OOBs. So many events are tied to the OOBs that I need to finish the OOBs first.

The Soviet Army.
I won't know for sure until I'm finished, but I think that the Soviet Army will be smaller in terms of overall manpower and larger in terms of numbers of units. I can justify the smaller manpower due to German occupation of the most populated regions of Russia. However, most all of Soviet industry is still intact and Lend Lease is in high gear, so the equipment levels are strong. Also, although I didn't intend to perform the Soviet reorganization of ground forces until 1948/1949, it greatly simplifies the game to just begin the game with the Soviet forces already reorganized. I think that the overall effect of this is that although the manpower size of the Soviet Army will be smaller, its fighting power will be as strong as before.

[VHauser]

Unit Breakdowns.
Most units will not be able to break down, especially the Axis. Since the P.O. does a very poor job of recombining unit breakdowns, eliminating Axis breakdowns strengthens the Axis P.O. On the Allied side, I'm already giving them a tremendous amount of operational flexibility so breakdowns should not be necessary.

Soviet OOB.
I'm making slow but steady progress. I should be finished within the next 7 days.

[VHauser]

Soviet OOB, continued.
The Soviet OOB is taking longer than I thought. There are inconsistencies with unit IDs and TOEs that need to be resolved. I hope to have the Soviet OOB playtest ready sometime this week. The good news is that the problems I'm dealing with for the Soviet OOB will hopefully make the remaining OOBs go more smoothly.