Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory)

 
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 >> FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 8:40:44 AM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Kind of strange but I have only noticed this yesterday.
When starting the campaign (so first movements, no battles, no other units moved in the path) the furthest I can get with armoured elements is 85 km (recon on a highway) when at the same time the infantry regiment can cover 50 km. Am I doing something wrong here? I mean for 3.5 day turn this a pathetic distance for a recon unit (tanks can only cover same distance as infantry).
Historically on June 27, 2nd and 3rd Panzer Groups met up at Minsk advancing 300 km into Soviet territory . Seems like I'm doing something terribly stupid or something is set up wrong as I cannot get more than 200 km in 2 turn and only with recon elements :(

Another two things of more general nature.
Why it is not allowed to transport unitsby rail in one go? I mean 200 km by train was in-and-out operation for a day. And within 3 days that should still allow for some fighting.
No chance of getting the semi-automatic digging in? There is no added value (just wast of time) to having to dig 'em all manually. One I order them to dig in they should be digging in until order otherwise.


< Message edited by gliz2 -- 4/16/2018 9:48:32 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 10:03:23 AM   
Lobster


Posts: 3909
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2
One I order them to dig in they should be digging in until order otherwise.



12.4. Fortification
(Advanced Rules)

Once ordered to dig in, units will continue
to dig until their location is Fortified or you give
them other orders.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 2
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 10:18:06 AM   
Lobster


Posts: 3909
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Kind of strange but I have only noticed this yesterday.
When starting the campaign (so first movements, no battles, no other units moved in the path) the furthest I can get with armoured elements is 85 km (recon on a highway) when at the same time the infantry regiment can cover 50 km. Am I doing something wrong here? I mean for 3.5 day turn this a pathetic distance for a recon unit (tanks can only cover same distance as infantry).
Historically on June 27, 2nd and 3rd Panzer Groups met up at Minsk advancing 300 km into Soviet territory . Seems like I'm doing something terribly stupid or something is set up wrong as I cannot get more than 200 km in 2 turn and only with recon elements :(



I am assuming your opponent is a human player. Having said that, no human player is going to order a general offensive against the German player, thus losing a good portion of Soviet forces in useless counter attacks. A human player knows what forces are confronting them and what their intents are. A human player does not have their communications severed and so can see exactly what is happening. The things that made the German advances possible are not present in any Barbarossa scenario without totally taking away the Soviet player's ability to do anything with the frontier armys. Instead the human player will attempt a general withdrawal while sacrificing units to slow down the German advance. In the scenario the Soviet player has historical hindsight. In any Barbarossa setting you will never get a historic outcome.

Let me rephrase that last sentence. You will never get a historic outcome unless it is designed into the scenario. Perhaps the scenario should let the AI take control of certain armies and give them objectives within historic parameters for the first and/or second turn. After all, there were no communications between Army HQ and it's units. So the units used standing orders that they all had. These standing orders were basically to advance to the border, not pull back.


< Message edited by Lobster -- 4/16/2018 10:23:18 AM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 3
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 10:18:41 AM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Lobster
Thanks mate. I will have a look. I got the impression it was not happening in FITE2. But I know that some units take more than a turn to see the increased dug in (like from D to E).
I'll report back.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 4
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 10:26:05 AM   
Lobster


Posts: 3909
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
You have to remember that for whatever reason the entrenchment rate in the scenario has been, er...neutered. 50% of default I believe? So if that is the case it could take twice as long.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 5
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 12:16:26 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Lobster let me rephrase the main question:
The effective maximum range of my recon units is 85 km (I cannot move them any further than 85 km).

The issue is not about the advance speeds but about the movement capacity. In reality a operation movement of 500 km in 7 days on the front was nothing special. However it seems impossible to do in FITE2 because the implied ranges. For me this is puzzling.

< Message edited by gliz2 -- 4/16/2018 1:14:31 PM >

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 6
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 12:34:29 PM   
fogger

 

Posts: 1410
Joined: 9/17/2006
Status: offline
"Why it is not allowed to transport units by rail in one go? I mean 200 km by train was in-and-out operation for a day. And within 3 days that should still allow for some fighting."

This is a TOAW problem, not a FITE problem and I have raised it in the past. Last time I gave a real life example of an exercise I did once. We moved 9kms from the Enoggera Army barracks to Roma Street rail yards (no longer there). A vehs B vehs and approx 500 men. We then moved by train to the Shoalwater Bay training area which was approx 600kms. Then from the rail head to the exercise FUP (approx another 30kms). The move from Enoggera started Sunday morning 0700 and the exercise started 25hrs later at 0800 Monday morning. In TOAW that is one move to the rail yard, one move to SBT, and part of a move to the FUP. In FITE it takes 1 week to do what we did in 25 hours.


_____________________________

Thought for the day:
If you feel like doing some work, sit down and wait....... The feeling does go away.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 7
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 1:16:16 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Fogger
Exactly my point. The Soviets where literraly railed into combact into 1941 and even in 1942.On one day they could be put into transport, shipped 800 km or so and next day go straight into combact.

(in reply to fogger)
Post #: 8
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 1:37:16 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3909
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
What needs to be done is scaling of rail movement points in relation to time scale and map scale. Changing from rail to road and road to rail should cost movement points, yes. It will never be correct because it covers over a 100 year period over the entire globe. Rail in China during WW2 would be hugely different from rail in Europe in 1998.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 4/16/2018 1:40:52 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 9
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 1:55:08 PM   
TPOO

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 11/15/2007
From: Garden Grove, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Lobster let me rephrase the main question:
The effective maximum range of my recon units is 85 km (I cannot move them any further than 85 km).

The issue is not about the advance speeds but about the movement capacity. In reality a operation movement of 500 km in 7 days on the front was nothing special. However it seems impossible to do in FITE2 because the implied ranges. For me this is puzzling.

quote:

Lobster let me rephrase the main question:
The effective maximum range of my recon units is 85 km (I cannot move them any further than 85 km).

The issue is not about the advance speeds but about the movement capacity. In reality a operation movement of 500 km in 7 days on the front was nothing special. However it seems impossible to do in FITE2 because the implied ran


Maybe you can give an example of what you want to do and what you say you cannot do. In FITE2 we have given the Axis player through the editor almost as much movement allowance that the game engine will allow on the first two turns with extra movement allowance and no ZOC.

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 10
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 1:59:37 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3909
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Lobster let me rephrase the main question:
The effective maximum range of my recon units is 85 km (I cannot move them any further than 85 km).

The issue is not about the advance speeds but about the movement capacity. In reality a operation movement of 500 km in 7 days on the front was nothing special. However it seems impossible to do in FITE2 because the implied ranges. For me this is puzzling.


In some places the advance was up to 900 kilometers in two months. I don't believe anyone advanced 500km in one week. Przemsyl to Dnepropetrovsk is 900km. Are you talking about what you could do with your recon units because of the crazy movement bias given the Axis and complete lack of zoc for the Soviet side?

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 11
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 2:13:02 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
I will post pictures later on but generally I'm seeing quite the opposite. So instead of being able to cover up to 200 km per turn I can barely make 85 km in first turn. I have tried few thing but to no avail.
And a single combat results in even lower ranges. Same for the movements on the road.

When recon unit is moving in own territory the cost per highway/road hex is 1 but behind enemy line is 4 points. For infantry it goes from 1 to 3 points. Makes no sense to me

@Lobster
Mate I'm writing about movement and not advance. Movement is moving unit dfrom point A to B. Advance is getting through enemy lines. Get it out of your system Sir

< Message edited by gliz2 -- 4/16/2018 2:16:10 PM >

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 12
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 2:26:24 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Example from Bagration operation is Bagramyan’s motorized columns dash, which had passed Third Panzer Army’s left flank, turned north and, in an 80-kilometer (during the night) move, captured Jelgava and cut the last rail link to Army Group North.

In 5 weeks Soviet Army advanced some 750 km.

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 13
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 2:42:03 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11979
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online
Sadly, I don't seem to have a copy of FITE2. It doesn't seem to have been included with the game and isn't on Larry's list.

However, IF its scale is 5km/hex and half-week turns, then it is the same scale as CFNA and needs the myriad adjustments I made for that scenario.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 14
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 3:08:17 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Curtis
I though it is a standard scenario just placed in that strage folder (Graphics override or something). I got my copy on a realse day and it was there.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 15
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 3:20:57 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11979
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Curtis
I though it is a standard scenario just placed in that strage folder (Graphics override or something). I got my copy on a realse day and it was there.

Ah, there it is: Custom Graphics. And it is 5km/hex and half-week turns.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 16
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 5:04:38 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3909
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Example from Bagration operation is Bagramyan’s motorized columns dash, which had passed Third Panzer Army’s left flank, turned north and, in an 80-kilometer (during the night) move, captured Jelgava and cut the last rail link to Army Group North.

In 5 weeks Soviet Army advanced some 750 km.


that's only 150km per week. 75km per half week turn. Well within your 85km.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 17
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 5:16:23 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3909
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I will post pictures later on but generally I'm seeing quite the opposite. So instead of being able to cover up to 200 km per turn I can barely make 85 km in first turn. I have tried few thing but to no avail.
And a single combat results in even lower ranges. Same for the movements on the road.

When recon unit is moving in own territory the cost per highway/road hex is 1 but behind enemy line is 4 points. For infantry it goes from 1 to 3 points. Makes no sense to me

@Lobster
Mate I'm writing about movement and not advance. Movement is moving unit dfrom point A to B. Advance is getting through enemy lines. Get it out of your system Sir


I'm well aware of what you are talking about. The number of examples where a motorized column moved through enemy territory at highway speeds are few. One is the run to Daugavpils as though it were a Sunday drive. It's extremely difficult to recreate those kinds of things including the coup to take the bridge there. The game tends take what you do to recreate those sprints and apply them universally across the entire map.

The scenario designer game the Axis a 150% movement bias and basically eliminated Soviet zones of control. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm saying you yourself can edit those in the event editor so you get what you want.

From the scenario documentation:

Event description:

Germany.
Turn 1-? (See below) Automatic.
Operation: Barbarossa:
Axis ground shock: 150 for 3 turn then 120.
Axis Air Shock: 150 for 3 turn then 120 until Rasputitza then 110.
Soviet Air Shock: 5 for 3 turns then 90 till turn Rasputitza
Soviet land shock 80 for 2 turns
Axis Recon: 10 for 2 turn the 0
Axis Zoc cost:,0 for 3 turns then 50% of normal until turn 12, then 75% until Rasputitza
Axis movement bias: 150% at turn 1, then 125% at turn 2, returning to normal on turn 3.


Edit those last two however you wish and you have what you are hoping for. Well, not the ZOC because it's as low as it can possibly go. But at least the movement bias can be made higher. Up to 450%+ i believe.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 4/16/2018 5:28:36 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 18
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 6:59:40 PM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline

I mean this looks quite odd to me that at the same road with the same situation armoured units cannot go much further than foot infantry


< Message edited by gliz2 -- 4/16/2018 7:02:26 PM >

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 19
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 8:12:54 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3909
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
I changed turn one movement bias to 100% and:






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to gliz2)
Post #: 20
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 8:14:13 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3909
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
Bias is broken? Mech unit now moves farther than infantry unit. Or does 150% movement bias mean terrain costs are 150% more, not 150% more movement given to the moving units? It could be like the recon level where many of us thought if you changed the value to the desired recon level it would be that level. When actually you had to add (+) or subtract (-) the desired amount from the existing value.

I'm thinking it may not be broken at all. Rather the value has been misinterpreted in how it works. So if this scenario designer wanted to give the Axis a reduced terrain cost the value should actually be 50% not 150%.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lobster -- 4/16/2018 8:49:33 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 21
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 8:44:45 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11979
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online
Here are the movement adjustments I made to CFNA due to its scale:

Force Movement Bias: 153
Enemy Hex Conversion Cost: 29 (2.9% per hex instead of 10% per hex)
Supply Cost of Movement: 11 (0.11 per MP instead of 1 per MP)
Readiness Cost of Movement: 29 (0.29 per hex instead of 1 per hex)

Those changes were NOT made because CFNA was some sort of special situation. They were made because that specific hex scale (5km/hex and half-week turns) had been intentionally mucked up by ole Norm (for reasons only he knows). They were made to make the scale function the way the other scales that Norm considered "normal" worked (for example: 5km/hex and full-day turns).

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 22
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 10:20:53 PM   
TPOO

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 11/15/2007
From: Garden Grove, CA
Status: offline
Also, while the scale chosen is 5km per hex the actual map is 6km per hex, meaning you have moved a further distance, instead of 85 km is probably closer to 100km

Bob, I am not sure Soren was aware of this issue with 5km hex scale and if it poses a problem or not for this scenario, as it has appeared that it is balanced the way it is. I will forward him this info in case he wants to update.

Thanks.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 23
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/16/2018 11:09:08 PM   
DanNeely

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I will post pictures later on but generally I'm seeing quite the opposite. So instead of being able to cover up to 200 km per turn I can barely make 85 km in first turn. I have tried few thing but to no avail.
And a single combat results in even lower ranges. Same for the movements on the road.

When recon unit is moving in own territory the cost per highway/road hex is 1 but behind enemy line is 4 points. For infantry it goes from 1 to 3 points. Makes no sense to me

@Lobster
Mate I'm writing about movement and not advance. Movement is moving unit dfrom point A to B. Advance is getting through enemy lines. Get it out of your system Sir


Unless you're feeling particularly suicidal, movement in enemy territory isn't a nice Sunday drive back home. You're moving about 1 vehicle in 4 at a time leapfrogging from one overwatch spot to the next while dismounts beat the bush looking for holdouts and stay behinds just waiting to launch an ambush into your flank/rear.

_____________________________

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 gliz2)
Post #: 24
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/17/2018 6:32:33 AM   
docgaun

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 1/26/2012
Status: offline
Hmm. I agree that is a problem. We will look into it. A bit of testing seems, that enemy hex conversion cost set to 50% might work? Does this seem like a good solution? Any other ideas?
Thanks for the input. Appriciate it very much.

The there will be a new update out shortly

(in reply to DanNeely)
Post #: 25
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/17/2018 6:42:51 AM   
gliz2

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 2/20/2016
Status: offline
Dan
In military you have stances for movement. And although I generally agree that it might be suicidal on some occasions it's a must to push hard. Come to think of it the whole idea of paratroopers is suicidal. Guys flew in unarmoured pkanes into enemy territory, jumping out of them with very limited means in hope the main force will arive before they get annihilated ;)

But back to FITE2. I do understand the point presented by you. So is it different for Infantry then? How come infantry regiment on foot, in the exactly same game circumstances, move further than a Panzer Regiment. Am I missing something here? We are talking about tactical movements not on operational scale (moving dividions or Corps). I read one study about the Barbarossa campaign and I have the below figures in mind (they might be a bit off of course):
Infantry Div marching speed was 25-30 km per day (2-3km/h)
Motorised Div marching speed was 70-80 km per day (6-10 km/h).
Panzer Div marching speed was 110-120 km per day (8-15 km/h).
The values had been much different for advancing movements but if I recall not by more than 30-40% (Pz Div indeed were the slowest).
But when you talk tactical movements like rushing with a Kampfgruppe or recon elements or even with foot infantry the story was different. Even in Napoleonic wars the whole Infantry Corp could move 35 km per day into enemy territory (effectively marching 3.5-4 km/h).

During War in the East on many occasions armoured/mechanized elements were used for rushing into enemy territory (the whole Blitzkrieg was based on it).

And my final gripe. If I move the division' elements first goes recon which does it's job of reconnaissance for the others. Why then this "clearing the road ahead" effect is not represented in the game? You can still get ambushed (not really with this game engine) but the movement would have been much quicker than if Tanks were on the spearhead.

I'm just trying to figure the mechanics behind it. It's a game and has little to do with real warefare. So sometimes it's counterintuitive :)

(in reply to DanNeely)
Post #: 26
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/17/2018 2:15:09 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 11979
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: docgaun

Hmm. I agree that is a problem. We will look into it. A bit of testing seems, that enemy hex conversion cost set to 50% might work? Does this seem like a good solution? Any other ideas?
Thanks for the input. Appriciate it very much.

The there will be a new update out shortly

The Force Movement Bias should be scaled down by 5/6. So, it would be about 127 or 128.

The costs, however, are adjusted for the turn interval only. So, they should stay the same as in CFNA.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to docgaun)
Post #: 27
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/19/2018 6:55:44 AM   
Gandalf


Posts: 360
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Here are the movement adjustments I made to CFNA due to its scale:

Force Movement Bias: 153
Enemy Hex Conversion Cost: 29 (2.9% per hex instead of 10% per hex)
Supply Cost of Movement: 11 (0.11 per MP instead of 1 per MP)
Readiness Cost of Movement: 29 (0.29 per hex instead of 1 per hex)

Those changes were NOT made because CFNA was some sort of special situation. They were made because that specific hex scale (5km/hex and half-week turns) had been intentionally mucked up by ole Norm (for reasons only he knows). They were made to make the scale function the way the other scales that Norm considered "normal" worked (for example: 5km/hex and full-day turns).


I decided to make these changes and see the effect. Problem is the TOAW IV Scenario Editor is still not ready for prime time usage yet.

I get as far as saving the game scenario in (.xml) format, editing the changes suggested above including both enemy force biases, and the three other variables, save it, reload it with XML Notepad 2007 to ensure the changes took, then go back to the Scenario Editor which then proceeds to LOCK UP reloading the edited game (XML) file. (and yes, I even let it auto name the xml file with the extension .gam, then I tried manually extension naming it .xml) NADDA. Nothing worked.

I would hope in the supposed upcoming TOAW IV patch that someone might actually patch the scenario editor so that it actually works without these frustrating issues. I have several ideas for scenarios that I have given up on due to the current flaws of the scenario editor.

_____________________________

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 #: 28
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/19/2018 2:40:32 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9144
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
Problem is you went outside the TOAW IV Scenario Editor and tried to use xml, which has always been shakey at best, and usually ruins what you are doing, although some use it and claim it is good. There is no reason to take the extra time and steps to do that. Those four changes can be made in two minutes using the Editor in TOAW.

(in reply to Gandalf)
Post #: 29
RE: FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) - 4/19/2018 4:03:58 PM   
Gandalf


Posts: 360
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Problem is you went outside the TOAW IV Scenario Editor and tried to use xml, which has always been shakey at best, and usually ruins what you are doing, although some use it and claim it is good. There is no reason to take the extra time and steps to do that. Those four changes can be made in two minutes using the Editor in TOAW.


edit> I first tried it directly with the editor itself, but I could not find where to directly edit these variables. The editor for me is extremely hard to use (without tooltips) since I have to basically disable tooltips to prevent black boxes from covering everything up as I mouse over the work area (another dumb flaw of the NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME TOAW IV Scenario Editor. I'm using a regular Microsoft hardware mouse... not a software mouse.

I thought possibly about going back and purchasing TOAW III to utilize it's editor (thinking FITE was first produced for TOAW III, but on further thought, the mouse problem might have existed in that editor also and just got ported over to TOAW IV's editor. No sense putting more money into an unknown.

I also retried it using WordPad to edit it as a text file (which in reality is all an xml file is (a formatted text file). That didn't work either. This points to the Scenario Editor itself being flawed in its import/export of XML files. Also, I've never had an issue editing xml files before with other games, but those games use the xml file itself and don't require a flawed editor to retranslate the xml file into a game file.

edit> I was finally able to get the changes entered via the Scenario Editor Menu... I had to go back again to Bob Cross's Scenario Editor tutorial sticky for explanations on using the Editor. (The TOAW IV manual was not cutting the mustard). I was looking for the variable changes on the Force Editor popup box itself, not realizing it was implemented by changing the menu items from above AFTER the Force Editor was opened. (very non-intuitive). Yes, this was easy to do as an editing of an existing scenario. However, the clumsiness of using this editor defined by the black boxes (necessitating disabling tooltips), and poor implementation of import/export of xml files precludes any enjoyment I might find in designing my own scenarios from the ground up.

And another minor annoying but stupid behavior of the editor is that it hammers you with the pounding music over and over again even though it's disabled in the game, necessitating sound muting or going into any game scenario before exiting and starting the editor. Why in the name of you know who doesn't the editor take the settings from the game into account?


< Message edited by Gandalf -- 4/19/2018 5:18:24 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 sPzAbt653)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> FITE2 units movement (into enemy territory) Page: [1] 2   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

0.180