Matrix Games Forums

Come and see us during the Spieltagen in Essen!New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Custom Estabs

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> Custom Estabs Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Custom Estabs - 12/6/2011 4:21:52 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2449
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
I halted all work on these a long time ago, but can others who may have created custom estabs, ones for France '40 for instance, port their tables into the newly patched game?

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.
Post #: 1
RE: Custom Estabs - 12/8/2011 4:43:31 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
PoE,

I think i'm asking the same question in this thread(http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2585349&mpage=2), although it might be better asked here.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Rudiger


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Chief,

If you use the estab editor that comes with the new patch then any estab it creates will work with the new patch. I recommend you make a copy of the existing estab file, rename it and then modify it. It's pretty simple to create a new force estab. I recommend you read the Estab Editor manual. It's not that long and you should be able to work something up pretty quickly.


Sorry, wasn't very clear with my original post. (I know how to create a scratch estab) what I should have said was...

I built my Vichy French scratch estab following the same general values as the stock estabs for comparable things, with regards to unit (frontages, unit force/sub-force/combat-class etc) and weapon (performance values), so that a Vichy French inf coy/rifle isn't significantly different to the stock Allied/Axis ones.

One of the first thing listed in your change log is: "revised the force estabs to correct some factual and systemic data anomalies". What are these changes? For example, Panzerfausts have been made more effective, have they not? Was this the result of changes to the weapons data or does the .exe just handle the same data differently now? A lot of the changes in the log seem to be such .exe changes. If, OTOH, the panzerfaust data, for example, has been significantly changed to achieve the result then I should make changes to my French version.

Also, one of the changes listed is: "Adjusted Formation frontage and depth values in BFTB Estabs. Of particular note, increased depth of road column from 3 to 4m per man. This had a significant effect on combat losses by reducing unit density of forces in road column. This one factor alone virtually halved combat losses." If these changes are limited then it'll be fairly simple to change the values in my scratch estab formation tab but otherwise (unless there's a way to overwrite/update automatically this section of the estab) it sounds like I'll have to recreate my whole estab. Might it not be possible, as I suggested a while ago, to allow parts of estabs to be imported/exported?

The only other change in the log that have the word estab in it is: "Revised Estabs - including reductions to size of bases and arty Bns and mods to RPG ammo." What values were these, and why?

Finally, US AT Platoons have been merged into the Coys - will independent AT Platoons not work properly anymore?




quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

As Richard made virtually all of the data changes that affect estabs, I'll let him respond to this.


(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 2
RE: Custom Estabs - 12/8/2011 7:34:18 PM   
simovitch


Posts: 4183
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
Yes, you should be able to. There is nothing that we did with the weapons and vehicle estabs for the update that should preclude you from using what you had before with some minor editing - i.e. you can compare the formation effects changes we did for in-situ and adjust your estabs accordingly.

We did change the packing weight for several of the ammo shells, which has a minor effect on supply delivery only.

We also weeded out alot of PersQty from some of the bigger artillery Battalions but there is no hard and fast rule (whatever rules there were were made long before my time) except that you need to have enough personnel to man all the weapons and vehicles and provide a support platoon, and arm the platoon accordingly. Vehicles with drivers that aren't towing guns or crew should be relegated to bases, etc.

RPG effectiveness was coded in the game, there's nothing for you to edit. I don't think I deleted any forces, like the 57mm AT platoon, so you can still use them if you want. The UK and other allied forces got the big workovers, but we didn't change the vehicles and weapons.

Let us know if you have any problems.

_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 3
RE: Custom Estabs - 12/8/2011 7:56:38 PM   
Chief Rudiger

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Thanks for the clarification - doesn't sound too bad at all!

What was the reason for removing the AT Platoons from the stock scenarios?



PoE,

Sorry if i've hijacked your thread!

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 4
RE: Custom Estabs - 12/8/2011 9:15:23 PM   
simovitch


Posts: 4183
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Rudiger

What was the reason for removing the AT Platoons from the stock scenarios?

All of the other nationalities have these AT platoons integrated into the rifle line coys. And they tended to clutter the already busy map. So now the US Rifle Coy's have a few AT guns built into the estab.

Folks were also complaining about how a single AT platoon was holding up entire tank battalions. The bottom line is we should try to keep the smallest unit no less than company size.

_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to Chief Rudiger)
Post #: 5
RE: Custom Estabs - 5/31/2012 2:36:23 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Rudiger

What was the reason for removing the AT Platoons from the stock scenarios?

All of the other nationalities have these AT platoons integrated into the rifle line coys. And they tended to clutter the already busy map. So now the US Rifle Coy's have a few AT guns built into the estab.

Folks were also complaining about how a single AT platoon was holding up entire tank battalions. The bottom line is we should try to keep the smallest unit no less than company size.


Then why not attach it to the HQ as per real life? Is there something about HQ's that would prevent them from firing?

I see there is no prime mover assigned to the rifle company. Are they not slowed down lugging around a piece of equipment weighing north of 1000 kilos?

While I'm here, the AP ratings seem optimistic. What projectile are the numbers based on?

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 6
RE: Custom Estabs - 6/6/2012 1:19:58 AM   
simovitch


Posts: 4183
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
It was our contention that regardless of where the AT guns were attached, the best representation of the deployment of the AT platoon would be to dole them out to the line companies.

If we included the prime mover in with the rifle coy, then the rifle coy could not enter the woods. We had to make this abstraction/compromise to work within the limitations of the game engine.

Our sources are documented in the Appendix of the manual, I don't remember the exact source but I remember it was collaborated with a couple of other sources. What you may be seeing is the inflated value resulting from the conversion of the source penetration data as usually fired against a 30d plate, converted to the equivalent thickness of a vertical plate. That beefs it up by 16% or so. So conversely, the vehicle armor thickness shows vertical plate equivalents modified by a deflection factor.

_____________________________

simovitch


(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 7
RE: Custom Estabs - 6/6/2012 4:58:16 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

It was our contention that regardless of where the AT guns were attached, the best representation of the deployment of the AT platoon would be to dole them out to the line companies.

If we included the prime mover in with the rifle coy, then the rifle coy could not enter the woods. We had to make this abstraction/compromise to work within the limitations of the game engine.

Our sources are documented in the Appendix of the manual, I don't remember the exact source but I remember it was collaborated with a couple of other sources. What you may be seeing is the inflated value resulting from the conversion of the source penetration data as usually fired against a 30d plate, converted to the equivalent thickness of a vertical plate. That beefs it up by 16% or so. So conversely, the vehicle armor thickness shows vertical plate equivalents modified by a deflection factor.


Accidentally hit ok before actually typing my response.

I will keep the forest info in mind. I appreciate the background.

Do any of the manuals define which classes of vehicles can enter forests? IIRC it's the jeep for the 57. In any event, if the towed pieces will move without a mover, then the best thing to do would be to remove all vehicles from infantry units while leaving them with the weapons like the .50's and .30's that were attached to vehicles or towed. Infantry battalion and regimental recon units are the first things that spring to mind, but also the motorized combat engineers and others I haven't thought of yet.

I have already reconsidered the infantry mortar platoon, and have decided to keep it separate. The 57's were very much under infantry battalion HQ control if you believe the relevant field manuals. Their thinking seeming to be that they were more effective as a unit than doled out piece meal. For now the fourth m1917 section is with the battalion HQ, but might be better off with the AT platoon if I decide to separate them out as a unit.

Uniting the mortars and M8's with the armored battalion HQ as per the FM doctrine still seems a better choice in terms of reducing some screen clutter and in terms of the crazy behavior I have seen so far from the AG platoons rushing into close proximity as if they were direct fire platforms.

Thank you for the info on penetration data. One less thing to puzzle over for now.

I appreciate the info that I am getting from you and others around here; and I don't really intend to re-fight old design battles if I understand what y'all are willing to share.






< Message edited by Central Blue -- 6/6/2012 5:45:08 AM >


_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> Custom Estabs Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.086