Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV

 
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] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/16/2018 1:14:21 AM   
Silvanski


Posts: 2487
Joined: 1/23/2005
From: Belgium, residing in TX-USA
Status: offline
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

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 61
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/16/2018 9:08:11 PM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline
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)

(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 62
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/17/2018 1:27:25 AM   
Silvanski


Posts: 2487
Joined: 1/23/2005
From: Belgium, residing in TX-USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser
My computer crashed

sorry to hear that... you've been putting so much work into this

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 63
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/17/2018 11:36:03 AM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline
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)

(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 64
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/17/2018 12:46:44 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 37091
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

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?

_____________________________

Scientists discovered recently that the most perfect food in the world is cockroach milk. It's got all the sugars, fats, and proteins to provide the perfect balance of nutrients for whoever consumes it.

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 65
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/17/2018 1:05:57 PM   
DanNeely

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
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

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 66
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/17/2018 1:53:00 PM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson


quote:

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)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 67
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/18/2018 12:54:09 PM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by VHauser -- 2/18/2018 1:01:01 PM >


_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 68
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/20/2018 1:02:36 PM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline
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)

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 69
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/22/2018 12:20:47 PM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline
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)

(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 70
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/23/2018 2:10:44 PM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline
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)

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 71
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/25/2018 6:40:22 PM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline
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)

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 72
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/25/2018 9:29:00 PM   
Gandalf


Posts: 349
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

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/download/confirmation.aspx?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.

< Message edited by Gandalf -- 2/25/2018 11:46:01 PM >


_____________________________

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)

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 73
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/25/2018 11:08:05 PM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf


quote:

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/download/confirmation.aspx?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)

(in reply to Gandalf)
Post #: 74
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/26/2018 7:05:08 AM   
Gandalf


Posts: 349
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline
If your workaround does not work, I ran across this:

quote:

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).


quote:

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?


quote:

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/scenarii/the-operational-art-of-war-scenario-828-The-Zulu-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: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/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)

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 75
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/26/2018 11:38:40 AM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

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

quote:

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).


quote:

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?


quote:

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/scenarii/the-operational-art-of-war-scenario-828-The-Zulu-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: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/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)

(in reply to Gandalf)
Post #: 76
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/26/2018 3:06:47 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11084
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 77
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/26/2018 5:06:44 PM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

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)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 78
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/26/2018 5:31:42 PM   
tverse

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 10/10/2016
Status: offline

quote:

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?

(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 79
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/26/2018 9:12:59 PM   
Gandalf


Posts: 349
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

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?


< Message edited by Gandalf -- 2/26/2018 9:14:40 PM >


_____________________________

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)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 80
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/26/2018 11:25:25 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11084
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

quote:

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.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Gandalf)
Post #: 81
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/27/2018 8:55:06 PM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 82
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/27/2018 11:48:52 PM   
Gandalf


Posts: 349
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

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)?


_____________________________

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)

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 83
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/27/2018 11:49:27 PM   
Gandalf


Posts: 349
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline
edit> deleted accidental double post.

< Message edited by Gandalf -- 2/28/2018 4:23:00 AM >

(in reply to Gandalf)
Post #: 84
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/28/2018 2:53:30 AM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf


quote:

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.

_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to Gandalf)
Post #: 85
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/28/2018 4:33:42 AM   
Gandalf


Posts: 349
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by Gandalf -- 2/28/2018 6:26:57 AM >


_____________________________

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)

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 86
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/28/2018 11:43:42 AM   
VHauser


Posts: 120
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline
quote:

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.

< Message edited by VHauser -- 2/28/2018 12:17:56 PM >


_____________________________

Member since May 2000 (as VictorHauser)

(in reply to Gandalf)
Post #: 87
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/28/2018 3:27:12 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11084
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

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".

quote:

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.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 88
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/28/2018 5:16:43 PM   
Gandalf


Posts: 349
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

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.


< Message edited by Gandalf -- 2/28/2018 5:36:27 PM >


_____________________________

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)

(in reply to VHauser)
Post #: 89
RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV - 2/28/2018 9:26:05 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11084
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Gandalf)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
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

0.172