Matrix Games Forums

Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager is now available!Space Program Manager gets mini-site and Twitch SessionBuzz Aldrin: Ask Me Anything (AMA) on redditDeal of the week Fantasy Kommander: Eukarion WarsSpace Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/25/2013 11:15:11 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 485
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
Well I tried some scens out, to get a feel for the game (I havent played it for years, but played TOAW2 quite often in the past also have even TOAW1 as orignial somwewhere, but 2 was considerabley better)......

Played Tannenberg as Russian (which was not very succesful, even if I did a bit better then in reality however I got frustrated that the German seemed to have still reserves and their troops maybe 2 or 3 times better then mine, I thought in WW1 eastern front the Germans were very short of troops and only succeceded cuase of of better tactics and fast movements per rail, as well leadership)...but ok.

Then examined some more scens (i wanted to play WW3 ones but needed some retraining on the game concepts) but got stuck with Western Front 44-45 as Germany...

What I did was concentrate forces around Paris and dont let them get encircled early on, as well tried not to make piecemeal attacks which were the main errors by Germany on this front it seems...for France this worked to a degree, however I lost a good Pz.Div that should attack some weaker US forces which got to far from their main effort, I thought they would be an easy prey. However my Div did not attack bot overrun them, then suddenly the div seemed not to be able to move and could not get back in the city it attacked from.....ok, the next turn seemingly dozends of allied units encircled this div, the turn thereafter it was gone......


But my main prob seem to be the conduct of defense or better fighting withdrawal in Italy, the Allies have taken the Gothic line more less at the beginning of Sept. 44 (in reality they reached the line in early 45 !). Also in this case the real commanders / troops seemed to be better than mine.as the German were able mostly to retreat in good order to the next defensive line while making the allies pay in blood for every step forward in difficult terrain suited for the defense.

Well it seems the AI isnt that bad in the offense, but I need some tipps for manouvrers like described above or better how the Germans conducted the war in Italy with limited resources. Is it possible to be as good or even better and if yes, how ?

Thanks

Maybe I just suck at the game concept, also I find it confusing to have severall attack rounds in the same turn cause it is so different from other games I played (like War in Russia etc.)

I seems impossible to disengage from the enemy in good order in this game, also the allies seem to be faster as in reality moving in this terrain. I also lost a good pz. div in Italy, it should serve as a assault breaker to allow other units to retreat but it did not work. Ok, I was able to disengage 1-2 weak inf units, but the pz.div itself could not retreat back and was attacked in force. It was broken up in sub units and only 1 of these managed to survive :(

Sorry for spelling :)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 5/25/2013 11:19:23 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/25/2013 11:46:12 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4677
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
Well, a fighting retreat is probably the hardest type of operation to pull off. When that massive force of enemy units shows up, it's time to get out again, but if it's only lead scouting elements, of course you need to launch a nice, vigorous counterattack and annihilate them.

The trick is knowing the difference, knowing what units to sacrifice to slow everyone else down, and knowing where to put that new line so that you don't give up too much but you have enough time to prepare your new positions.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 2
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/25/2013 12:48:06 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 485
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
Thanks, yup you are right... but it still bugs me that I am doing worse vs. AI then in reality...

Maybe the designer of the scen is here too, it is Mr. Marshall.
I have found a quite serious error: The wrong 75mm PAK is produced by the Germans, it should be the PAK 75/L48 but produced is the old French gun 75mm (called Pak 97/38 in game) only 6-7 units need these at all, while almost every units uses the standard 75mm PAK :(


Heres the CORRECT gun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_Pak_40

WRONG ONE (this shouldnt be produced at all anymore imo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_PaK_97/38



well here is Sept. 44 Italian fron as you can see Allies reached the Gothic line:




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 5/25/2013 12:51:48 PM >

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 3
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/25/2013 5:00:45 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2056
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Thanks, yup you are right... but it still bugs me that I am doing worse vs. AI then in reality...


That naturally depends on the scenario design. It still could be that (at least) the Italian part of the sce is biased towards the Allied side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Maybe the designer of the scen is here too, it is Mr. Marshall.
I have found a quite serious error: The wrong 75mm PAK is produced by the Germans, it should be the PAK 75/L48 but produced is the old French gun 75mm (called Pak 97/38 in game) only 6-7 units need these at all, while almost every units uses the standard 75mm PAK :(


Heres the CORRECT gun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_Pak_40

WRONG ONE (this shouldnt be produced at all anymore imo)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_PaK_97/38



well here is Sept. 44 Italian fron as you can see Allies reached the Gothic line:





Good catch. Note that there is an updated/modded version of the scenario available - but this version cannot be played vs the PO:

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?menu=off&Id=112

_____________________________


(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 4
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/25/2013 5:59:42 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 485
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
Thanks, see what the designer of the new version writes:

"It is my belief having playtested the first part of this scenario many times now, that it should be played with active disengagement turned off. Others in the Dev Team will disagree, but I believe active disengagement will make it impossible for the Germans to stage multiple retreats given the limited forces they have. After more playtests, I might be proven wrong in this. The jury is still out."

So I am not the only one with this problem....

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 5
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/25/2013 7:07:21 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2056
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
Btw, in a Human vs PO game you can turn this off anytime during play.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 6
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/26/2013 10:42:11 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 485
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Btw, in a Human vs PO game you can turn this off anytime during play.


Yep I know, but I played with it till now, so keep it on. Maybe of course more difficult but such is war

Btw: Were some other errors also corrected in the new version, esp. I found some more strange things which production, ex: what are the 122mm and 152mm guns ? First I think this should be howitzers, and second those are Russina captured so shouldnt be produced at the end of the war (cause Wehrmacht was in retreat on the Russian front and would rarely capture Russian arty which should be anyway quite behind the frontlines....). Another issue seems to be that the allies have too much M36 too early (the appeared in mass at the end of 44), they should have fewer or no M36 in the middle of 44 but get them beginning Sept or Oct or so. Just some thoughts...

Whats with ME262 ? I got some at the beginning, but thoese were destroyed by the Allies with airfield attacks, these are not produced at all, I have 2 left in the pool. Maybe 2/turn would be realistic production?

What is the 37mm "light gun" ? I know the 37mm AA.... or 150mm "light" gun, these are probably heavy inf guns....155mm guns ?? I recon Germans had 150mm howitzers, but 155mm guns ? Only allies afaik ("long tom").

Why do engineer units have motorized mortars ? Those would be better for Pz or Pz Gren units.

280mm + 300mm MRL ? Those arent used by anyone on the map :(

Same with 2 models of SdKfz (those pile up in the pool, but no one wants them it seems)...


(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 7
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/26/2013 11:15:59 AM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4677
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

155mm guns ?? I recon Germans had 150mm howitzers, but 155mm guns ? Only allies afaik ("long tom").


The Germans used a lot of 155mm guns captured from the Czech and French armies. Certainly the original Czech factories would have been able to supply shells for them late into the war, too.

For the rest, I suspect they are artifacts of the scenario design, where someone has hit "1% replacements" at some point and then modified a few bits.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 8
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/26/2013 2:16:29 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 485
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
Other question: Why have M18´s + M10´s anti armor rating of 16, while Panthers have only 13 ? The Panther gun was much better then 3inch / 76mm. These should be like the normal kwk 75/48. But the Panther has a kwk 75/70.....

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 9
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/27/2013 4:37:12 AM   
HPT KUNZ

 

Posts: 172
Joined: 7/4/2002
From: near Philadelphia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Other question: Why have M18´s + M10´s anti armor rating of 16, while Panthers have only 13 ? The Panther gun was much better then 3inch / 76mm. These should be like the normal kwk 75/48. But the Panther has a kwk 75/70.....

Alpha77
Good point you bring up. Indeed the penetration tables give 90mm at 1000 meters for the 3 inch M18 and 120mm for the 90mm M36 Jackson, vs 120mm for the Panther (30 deg slope)(wwiivehicles.com). Of course other factors go into anti-armor strength rating such as rate of fire, optics, rate of turret traverse, and vehicle speed (to maneuver for flank shots). Still, I am not sure this is enough to account for the difference in TOAW anti-armor strengths of 16 for the M18, and 23 for the M36 vs 13 for the Panther.

A comparison of hypothetical units of the same size and ratings:
Panther----------9/5 (attack/defend)
M18--------------10/5
M36--------------18/5
M4/75------------10/5
M4/76------------10/5
T34/76------------9/5

I am a bit surprised at the discrepancies. Something for designers to thing about...

_____________________________

signed
Kunz, HPTM

"Dedicated to the Allied and German soldiers who fought, bled, froze and died for their countries." by Trevor N.DuPuy, in Hitler's Last Gamble.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 10
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/27/2013 7:17:50 PM   
Matti Kuokkanen

 

Posts: 1854
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

But my main prob seem to be the conduct of defense or better fighting withdrawal in Italy, the Allies have taken the Gothic line more less at the beginning of Sept. 44 (in reality they reached the line in early 45 !). Also in this case the real commanders / troops seemed to be better than mine.as the German were able mostly to retreat in good order to the next defensive line while making the allies pay in blood for every step forward in difficult terrain suited for the defense.

It has been complained about the game that unit in fortified hex with Ignore Losses is very hard to beat. If high profile attacker also has Ignore Losses, it will keep going until end of the turn.

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 11
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/28/2013 6:55:42 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 4677
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

A comparison of hypothetical units of the same size and ratings:
Panther----------9/5 (attack/defend)
M18--------------10/5
M36--------------18/5
M4/75------------10/5
M4/76------------10/5
T34/76------------9/5


The attack ratings you see on the counter are the AP strength so not really relevant to the question of armour penetration.

quote:

Of course other factors go into anti-armor strength rating such as rate of fire, optics, rate of turret traverse, and vehicle speed (to maneuver for flank shots).


Given the way that TOAW deals with anti-armour fire, I don't think these were built into Norm's numbers. In particular, there is a separate rating for optics.

If we did get into these "hidden" factors, I'd also be interested in factoring in reliability. Panthers simply broke down a hell of a lot more- especially in the earlier years.

_____________________________

"Event 902: Bob Cross slays dragons!"

http://www.savemstateathletics.com/tdg/

(in reply to HPT KUNZ)
Post #: 12
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/29/2013 1:50:37 AM   
HPT KUNZ

 

Posts: 172
Joined: 7/4/2002
From: near Philadelphia
Status: offline
GD, thanks for your insight. That was the point I was making: penetration alone does not determine the anti-armour strength. Other factors (exclusive of proficiency and other ratings) evidently contribute to the the attack/defend values when translated into units. As you point out, reliability is a good example to consider.

Nevertheless, the M36 jumps out as an outlier. It is hard for me to rationalize a 2x value vs Panther. In future versions of Ardennes 1944 I will likely reduce the number assigned to the battalion. What are your thought?
cheers

_____________________________

signed
Kunz, HPTM

"Dedicated to the Allied and German soldiers who fought, bled, froze and died for their countries." by Trevor N.DuPuy, in Hitler's Last Gamble.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 13
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 5/29/2013 7:57:24 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2056
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
@Kunz: Why not modify the database?

_____________________________


(in reply to HPT KUNZ)
Post #: 14
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 6/2/2013 1:00:44 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 485
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
Well I shouldnt even touch that subject, as I guess it was discussed 100 times before, but there are much doubtful values in the database.

See for ex also:
- the TigerI armor values and the 88m gun ratings (too low).
- Brummbärs have way to high anti armor (these were assault guns vs. forts and building firing 150mm He shells, of course these can destroy a tank too, but its not their primary mission as well the gun is very short so should have trouble in targeting moving targets)
- StuH42 should have an HEAT AT value like the Sherman 105.
- Geschützwagen 38 is wrong, this had an 150mm inf gun, their AT value way to high in game.

I also looked up some M10 data, it seems their speed was only 4-5 km/h faster then Panther, their turret rotating SLOWER than Panther, the optics should be roughly the same but maybe Panther a bit better. So in summary Panther should have much better AT value than an M10. For the M36 the 90mm gun was a bit better (depending on ammo used) than 75mm/70, but not by much. I guess all the other values are the same like M10. For M18 I guess the same like M10 but much faster and lighter armor.

If we take as a base the Pz4H value of at 11 (75/48 gun, slower as M10) I would give the M10 12. I would give the M18 13 cause faster. The Panther 14 or 15. M36 probably same as Panther or 1 point better lets say 16 (if the better ammo used more, but I read even the US had shortages in tungsten and other ores needed for these not only Axis). Lets not open up the can of Tiger1...

Imho the 17pdr should be simmilar to the US 90mm btw.

AH reliability: The early Panther versions were sucky, cause they had to rush to battle on orders of Hitler, they werent properly tested. Later Panthers were ok tho......(like the G version)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 6/2/2013 3:18:34 PM >

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 15
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 6/3/2013 4:07:57 PM   
HPT KUNZ

 

Posts: 172
Joined: 7/4/2002
From: near Philadelphia
Status: offline
Alpha77,
There are certainly a LOT of questionable values in the TOAW Database. You obviously have quite a bit of expertise in this area, and could probably find numerous questionable values.

Not so long ago Oberst Klink et al proposed creating a community consensus update of the database. I am not sure how far along that got. This would be a modified database that need to be uploaded and then downloaded and renamed with each scenario using that database.(I understand that a totally new database in TOAW would get back to the ongoing problem a revision of TOAW (doubtful), playbalance of existing scenarios...)

I have a personal (and admittedly irrational!) bias against creating individual databases for each individual scenario. Instead I use the original database and adjust the equipment fill and unit ratings (even replacement rate) until what I find fit my idea of what the unit strength should be, and a correct game balance for the two forces. However, I may start creating individual databases for scenarios.



_____________________________

signed
Kunz, HPTM

"Dedicated to the Allied and German soldiers who fought, bled, froze and died for their countries." by Trevor N.DuPuy, in Hitler's Last Gamble.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 16
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 7/2/2013 2:49:14 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 485
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
Arg, played some modern scens and noted the same probs with strange equipment values....

So HOW can I edit these values myself, maybe I make a mod with values more relastic and also another WW3 scen which accompies my "Red Lightning2" in Harpoon (this is of course mostly air and some naval comabt) for the land war.. I noted there are already some good WW3 scens out there. However I have an idea which will make this unique

But I also noted (in regards to the orig topic) that the defensive works much better with my NATO troops in the 80ties. I mean they seem to be able to better disengage from the Russians then the example with the Germans at the western front WW2. I want to play Red too and see how it is for them....Reasons maybe: Better armored transprot mobility, somewhat better profiency, maybe air suppority, also the Dutch and Germans have quite much of these smaller recon battalions which seem to help too (but they have MBTs too in these)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 7/2/2013 2:54:06 PM >

(in reply to HPT KUNZ)
Post #: 17
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 7/6/2013 9:27:20 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1322
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

GD, thanks for your insight. That was the point I was making: penetration alone does not determine the anti-armour strength. Other factors (exclusive of proficiency and other ratings) evidently contribute to the the attack/defend values when translated into units. As you point out, reliability is a good example to consider.

Nevertheless, the M36 jumps out as an outlier. It is hard for me to rationalize a 2x value vs Panther. In future versions of Ardennes 1944 I will likely reduce the number assigned to the battalion. What are your thought?
cheers

I second what 'Der Meister' aka Telumar said; there are ways to tweak the values and the .eqp files. I've done (parts of it) for my Kharkov '43, and it received some good feedback. If you're already developing a new Ardennes '44, drop me a line, 'Doc'. I am not sure if I once sent you my comprehensive description of how I adjusted the values for the various squads, but I found it:

I made some tweaks with in the range of existing combat values, so don't expect some 'Wunderwaffen' on either side.

I based the tweaks on the following facts and Norm's design and intention:

The AP (Anti-Personal) values are, as per Norm:

A 10 men Rfl Sqd has a AP of 19. This is represented in the game as Light Rifle Squad - 1 x Sqd Ldr + 9 x Rfl Men. Each soldier contributes an AP value of 2, except the Sqd Ldr who's foremost task is to lead. He is represented with half
the AP value. So 1(1) + 9(2) = 19

One LMG has an AP value of 6, as we know a regular Rifle Squad in the game got a value of 25. This is represented in my .EQP as e.g. Rfl Sqd + le.MG34/42 for the Germans. Other Rifle Squads with non-specific LMGs
are simply represented with adding a (+). Hence, a Hungarian Rifle Squad WITH an LMG is called: Rifle Squad FEG 35M(+).

Now, a Heavy Rifle Squad, and I refer to Bob Cross' analysis, is NOT equipped with one HMG BUT 2 x LMG. It's reflected and shown in the AP value. Remember, Norm's HRS has an AP value of 31

19 + 6 + 6 = 31!

Talking about the HMG. Norm's AP values reflect a 12.7mm or .50 calibre weapon such as the US M2 HMG or the Soviet DShK-38 12.7mm HMG. Those calibres naturally got some AT value, in this case 2.

NOW, how did I come up with the German MG42 s.MG (HMG) value of 24? Easy. I am aware it has not the punch of the M2 HMG, but the accuracy and the rate of fire while mounted on a tripod.
I simply used the standard value for the 2 x MMG (AP=12) and voila - here's the 24. For one MG34/42 (a mix of them) is used the value 18. 1 x LMG (6) + 1 x MMG (12) = 18.

Some weapons or teams are represented with the amount of the specific weapons in parentheses. Most notably the MG34/42(1) m.MG team

I used the same philosophy for the German Motorized Rifle and Panzergrenadier, as well as Pioneer Squads, especially the AT and HEAT/Kinetic values.

An early Panzerfaust or PIAT got an AT value of 5
Late war PzF and the US Bazooka an AT value of 8
The Panzerschreck and post-WW2 Bazookas an AT value of 15.

We can assume that an AT team with an AP value of 16 got a mix of SMG and Rfl men, probably 4-6. But that's nicely represented as well.

Klink, Oberst



< Message edited by Oberst_Klink -- 7/6/2013 9:40:00 AM >


_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to HPT KUNZ)
Post #: 18
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 7/7/2013 12:04:10 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 485
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
OBERST: This sounds reasonable, I already started a overhaul of the database (for general use and my won use in scenario I plan to make if time alows)....

Signed
Feldwebel Schulz

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 19
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 7/7/2013 1:30:56 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1322
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
The best and easiest way to tweak the database is done with Andy's superb TOAW Eqp Editor:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.edmiston/toaweqpedit.htm

Klink, Oberst




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 20
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 7/7/2013 5:41:09 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2056
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

OBERST: This sounds reasonable, I already started a overhaul of the database (for general use and my won use in scenario I plan to make if time alows)....

Signed
Feldwebel Schulz


And don't forget to read Bob Cross' "How to edit the database" pdf in TOAW's manual folder. He uses an other editor, but there is valuable info in that doc.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 21
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 7/7/2013 6:40:10 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 485
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

OBERST: This sounds reasonable, I already started a overhaul of the database (for general use and my won use in scenario I plan to make if time alows)....

Signed
Feldwebel Schulz


And don't forget to read Bob Cross' "How to edit the database" pdf in TOAW's manual folder. He uses an other editor, but there is valuable info in that doc.


I have already done most of the "work", these are only minor changes anyway...maybe I add some more modern armor like the upgraded Chieftain or new LEO2-.-- Guess the equip. editor is quite easy to work with, but scen design is a bit more challenging imo.

The only problem is of course these eqip files won´t work with scens made with others. So it can be only scen specific


BTW: Please read this thread it gives a good advise for WW2 better EQP file ! Also a question reg. modern EQP in this thread, THANKS
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3362116

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 7/8/2013 7:48:15 PM >

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 22
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 7/7/2013 8:26:50 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1322
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

OBERST: This sounds reasonable, I already started a overhaul of the database (for general use and my won use in scenario I plan to make if time alows)....

Signed
Feldwebel Schulz


And don't forget to read Bob Cross' "How to edit the database" pdf in TOAW's manual folder. He uses an other editor, but there is valuable info in that doc.


I have already done most of the "work", these are only minor changes anyway...maybe I add some more modern armor like the upgraded Chieftain or new LEO2-.-- Guess the equip. editor is quite easy to work with, but scen design is a bit more challenging imo.

The only problem is of course these eqip files won´t work with scens made with others. So it can be only scen specific


No, you just need to rename the .eqp file for the different .sce. It's normally stored in the graphics folder.

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 23
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 7/10/2013 9:57:36 PM   
HPT KUNZ

 

Posts: 172
Joined: 7/4/2002
From: near Philadelphia
Status: offline
I would like to use a modified .eqp for a scenario that has been completed. Naturally, simply renaming say,
Anzio 44, would give a jumble due to changes to the slots.

Is there a way to find the TOAW vanilla Equipment.eqp, load it into the Equipment Editor and rename it
mod scenario.eqp. One could revalue some of the equipment using the Equipment Editor, but not adding or deleting equipment slots in the new mod scenario.eqp and therefore not end up with a jumble?

Or a better way?

signed
KUNZ, HPTM

_____________________________

signed
Kunz, HPTM

"Dedicated to the Allied and German soldiers who fought, bled, froze and died for their countries." by Trevor N.DuPuy, in Hitler's Last Gamble.

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 24
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 7/11/2013 5:47:11 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 2785
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Is there a way to find the TOAW vanilla Equipment.eqp, load it into the Equipment Editor and rename it


I've used the Bio-Ed to do this, it works fine. Bob Cross did a document on how to do it that should be in your 'Manuals' folder.

I haven't used the more recent Equipment Editors that have been created, so someone else will have to answer to those.

(in reply to HPT KUNZ)
Post #: 25
RE: Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? - 7/11/2013 8:16:38 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1322
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

I would like to use a modified .eqp for a scenario that has been completed. Naturally, simply renaming say,
Anzio 44, would give a jumble due to changes to the slots.

Is there a way to find the TOAW vanilla Equipment.eqp, load it into the Equipment Editor and rename it
mod scenario.eqp. One could revalue some of the equipment using the Equipment Editor, but not adding or deleting equipment slots in the new mod scenario.eqp and therefore not end up with a jumble?

Or a better way?

signed
KUNZ, HPTM

There is a better way, doc. But remember, the Anzio '44 was modified for 1km and 2km hex scale; so there's an issue. Derek Weichs and another bloke made a WW2 .eqp that would suit your needs for a Ardennes '44 one. Regarding the slots etc.; that's easily done with Notepad++.

If you already got the .OOB file, that's even better. They can be split in .FORCE and .FORMATION files easily with Andy's tool and then step by step with Notepad++ finf/replace the equipment :)

Drop me a line, I email you an example.

Seems like TOAW III is getting busy again! I am even working on Kharkov '43 after a realistic Elmeer vs. Elmer AAR!

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to HPT KUNZ)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Fighting withdrawal or defensive game in general? 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

0.107