The Poor Man's Mod Guide 4

[cbelva]

For those who want more information on editing the data files and are tired of waiting on the 4th mod guide, I have released a "cheat sheet" of sorts I call "The Poor Man's Mod Guide 4". It is not a replacement to the 4th mod but is an collection of all that I have learned in editing my own data files. I hope it helps. You can download it in the document section on the OTS website. The link below should take you there.

OTS Documents

[Tazak]

[&o]

[harry_vdk]

just on time [:D].

[cbelva]

It won't answer all your questions, but it should point you in the right direction. Some of Cap'n D formulas were too complicated for this doc and I really didn't have them. However, if you look at the values in the data files that came with the game, you should be able to fake a fairly descent value [:D] At least that is what I have done.

[cbelva]

Oh, if you have any questions let me know. I am sure there are a fair share of typos [:-]

[JohnOsb]

Nice, where was this at when I was trying to learn how to build a database [:)] it would save my head from banging against the wall [:D]

[kipanderson]

Cbelva,

Yes... thanks.. it’s very useful. It is a great help not to have too work it all out myself.

All the best,
Kip.

[Tazak]

cbelva, just spotted a typo

page 9

%d/—This adds an alphabetic designation to the front of a unit beginning with “A”.
%C/--This adds a numerical designation to the front of a unit beginning with “1”.

These are the other way around, %d/ gives numerical and %C/ gives alphabetic

TIP: Giving company formations a different designator to the platoons avoids naming issues e.g. coys designated alphabetical and platoons designated numerically

[CapnDarwin]

Tazak is correct. %d is an integer number, 1, 2, 3.... %C (capital) will give you capital letters. %c will do lower case letters. We'll get Charles to update it.

[lionel1957]

Nice work!

[cbelva]

There is a new addition coming out with the next patch. It basically correct it's a mistake in the first edition. Keep your eye out for it.

[CaptainMaxwell]

Does this file still exist on some remote hard drive or was it extinguished when the great meteor hit the website?

Thought I would give my modding efforts another spin and realised that I deleted the file.

[WildCatNL]

ORIGINAL: CaptainMaxwell

Does this file still exist on some remote hard drive or was it extinguished when the great meteor hit the website?

Thought I would give my modding efforts another spin and realised that I deleted the file.

The document got promoted to "FPC Modding Guide 4 National Databases.pdf", and you'll find it in the documents folder of your Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm game installation. (For example, S:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm\Documents ).

William

[WABAC]

If the protection factor data is going to change for the new game, according to some new formula, then this is all moot I suppose. If the data are going to carry over as is, then would-be modders will be interested in figuring this stuff out.

I had relied on the rule of "divide by 15" -- as described in these forums by Capn Darwin -- for my 1962 scenarios that required some new tanks. So I was surprised to see this new formula in The Poor Man's Mod Guide 4. The new formula can be found on page nine.

To calculate a unit’s PF, use the following formula: ((Frontal Hull armor in mm/15) *0.3) + ((Frontal Turret armor thickness in mm/15) * 0.7) = PF

I am trying to create the U.S. M103 heavy tank which has hull armor of 130mm at the thickest point, and 250mm on the gun shield -- or mantlet. And the results I was getting with the two known formulas were less than I expected. And this led me down the rabbit hole of looking at the armor of some tanks in the spreadsheets that predate the various new technologies. Previously I had never had reason to examine those numbers.

The PF for the T34-85 in the Soviet user file is 7. I choose this example first because there has been plenty of opportunity to examine this model. Hull armor is widely quoted at 45mm, and turret armor at 90mm. So lets walk through this so people can correct my math if need be. [:)]

45/15 = 3. 3 * .3 = .9.
90/15 = 6. 6 * .7 = 4.2
4.2 + .9 = 5.1 PF

OK. Let's try sloping the hull armor at 60 degrees to give a line-of-sight thickness of 90mm.

90/15 = 6. 6 * .3 = 1.8
4.2 + 1.8 = 6

We could try dividing 90 by 15, but that just gets us to 6. But it gets us there faster than the longer formula. So lets try dividing 90 by 7. And we get 12.875.

Lets look at the T-55 and its 14 PF. Widely quoted sources use 100mm to 97mm for the front hull and 200mm to 203mm for the turret front. I'll use the thickest numbers.

For the published formula I get: 11.47
For the published formula modified by slope I get: 13.47
Divided by 15: If hull, then 6.66. If turret, then 13.53
And 203/14 equals 14.5

So let's look at the M60A series which are all rated at 18PF. And that makes their armor superior to the T55. At their thickest point, the front hulls are 143mm. The best information I have found on the turret for the A1 and A3 is 250MM adjusted for slope, as described by Hunnicut, A History of the American Main Battle Tank, 1984.

Published Formula: 14.52
Divided by 15: If hull, then 9.533. If turret, then 16.666
Or, 250/18 equals 13.888

And finally, the M48 with a PF of 14, which makes its armor rating equivalent to the T55. Here we have a hull at 110mm and a turret "equivalent" to 178mm per Hunnicut, Patton: A History of the American MBT, 1984.

Published Formula: 10.5
Divided by 15: If hull, then 7.33. If turret, then 11.86.
Or, 178/14 equals 12.71

So, after all that, my simple mind is left with several possibilities. The devs simply have access to better armor numbers than I do. But which formula should we be using?

Or if their armor numbers are roughly approximate to mine, and the data are correct, then the two formulas known to users are off.

Or, if one of the formulas is to be preferred over another, then the data are off, in some instances at least.

After typing all that, I sure hope I don't have to do the Emily Litella routine when the devs drop the simple explanation on my simple mind. But maybe I should do this stuff with my hearing aids on, just to be on the safe side. [:)]

[CapnDarwin]

Some clarity in your other data thread. Grabbed a base 10mm value (Southern Storm) versus a 15mm value for Red Storm for the M103 value. Should be 15 for 15mm, not 22 as for the 10mm data. RS values based on the higher of the turret or hull for 15mm resolution. 70/30 was a discussion at one point, but not used in RS.

[WABAC]

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

Some clarity in your other data thread. Grabbed a base 10mm value (Southern Storm) versus a 15mm value for Red Storm for the M103 value. Should be 15 for 15mm, not 22 as for the 10mm data. RS values based on the higher of the turret or hull for 15mm resolution. 70/30 was a discussion at one point, but not used in RS.

OK. Divide by 15 it is, and let the chips fall where they may.

If they look "too low," I'll adjust for angle.

And is effective range max range * .33 as in the mod guide? When we were discussing the M41 it looked like you were going for 1/2 of max.

Thanks Capn.