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: Pocket Fun

 
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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Pocket Fun Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pocket Fun - 3/1/2017 3:24:01 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Hi Bill - I think it was because it wasn't cut off yet, as all that action was spread out across posts 75-77 [which were all three posts from the same turn]. Next turn it was at 2 [3 minus 1 for having two units adjacent], and I didn't post that because I was more excited that my panzers took the town.


Thanks, that's good to hear.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 91
RE: Pocket Fun - 3/2/2017 3:22:59 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Five weeks doesn't seem like a lot of time, but historically units surrounded without air supply were very quickly dealt with.

Made me curious, so I checked the historical Kiev pocket, the one where 600,000 Soviet troops were surrounded. From the time of enclosure to the time of last resistance was only 10 days. WOW ! It is also reported that the fighting was vicious [150,000 of the Soviets were killed].

(in reply to Meyer1)
Post #: 92
RE: Pocket Fun - 3/2/2017 4:24:55 PM   
TheBattlefield


Posts: 507
Joined: 6/11/2016
Status: offline 		That's exactly what I meant. The "breakdown" of permanently undersupplied units should be massively speed up during the weekly(+) turn mode. With the current game engine, reducing the strength would be very helpful without having to intervene in the current supply rules.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 93
RE: Pocket Fun - 3/2/2017 7:06:16 PM   
TangSooDo

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline 		There is something puzzling me about this mod, which overall I think is excellent -- Soviet corps seem to have identical qualities as guard corps, but the guard corps are more expensive. Does anyone know the answer?

(in reply to TheBattlefield)
Post #: 94
RE: Pocket Fun - 3/3/2017 2:00:05 AM   
Meyer1

 

Posts: 899
Joined: 2/9/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Five weeks doesn't seem like a lot of time, but historically units surrounded without air supply were very quickly dealt with.

Made me curious, so I checked the historical Kiev pocket, the one where 600,000 Soviet troops were surrounded. From the time of enclosure to the time of last resistance was only 10 days. WOW ! It is also reported that the fighting was vicious [150,000 of the Soviets were killed].


Less than a week to clear the pocket in the second battle of Kharhov, 1942, with more than 200k prisoners. I think when the surrounded forces try to breakout, that usually lead to quicker outcomes such in these cases, when supply is not that big of an issue that would be when forces adopt a hedgehog defense and wait to help from the outside.
As Clausewitz said, defense is stronger...

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 95
RE: Pocket Fun - 3/3/2017 4:53:17 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield
That's exactly what I meant. The "breakdown" of permanently undersupplied units should be massively speed up during the weekly(+) turn mode. With the current game engine, reducing the strength would be very helpful without having to intervene in the current supply rules.

Yes, and this is what I meant when I mentioned the various circumstances pertaining to situation and country. In this case, the Soviets had very poor supply infrastructure, so they could not last for long. This is why I've had the idea to reduce some of the Soviet Resource Supply Values when Barbarossa starts. I have yet to playtest it to see if there is any effect.

(in reply to TheBattlefield)
Post #: 96
RE: Pocket Fun - 3/3/2017 4:58:22 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Winslow
There is something puzzling me about this mod, which overall I think is excellent -- Soviet corps seem to have identical qualities as guard corps, but the guard corps are more expensive. Does anyone know the answer?

Nothing in my notes, so either there is nothing there and it is an oversight, or at the time I did it I didn't feel it was important enough to document. However, they all arrive free of charge, and the player is supposed to re-build them only, which is cheaper than building. Of course then, rifle corps are also be cheaper to rebuild ...
Overall I'm not sure, what do you think should be the case ?

(in reply to TangSooDo)
Post #: 97
RE: Pocket Fun - 3/3/2017 11:51:37 AM   
TheBattlefield


Posts: 507
Joined: 6/11/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield
That's exactly what I meant. The "breakdown" of permanently undersupplied units should be massively speed up during the weekly(+) turn mode. With the current game engine, reducing the strength would be very helpful without having to intervene in the current supply rules.

Yes, and this is what I meant when I mentioned the various circumstances pertaining to situation and country. In this case, the Soviets had very poor supply infrastructure, so they could not last for long. This is why I've had the idea to reduce some of the Soviet Resource Supply Values when Barbarossa starts. I have yet to playtest it to see if there is any effect.


Maybe, but the supply infrastructure in Stalingrad, Leningrad and Berlin were also not exhilarating and nevertheless was fought for months and not days. I suspect that the factors sea/air supply, weather situation, leadership and moral of the defending troops are somewhat more serious than country-specific differences of infrastucture and therefore a solution approach over the Russian resources may not solve the general problem of encircling.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 98
Soviet Guard Corps - 3/3/2017 12:58:14 PM   
TangSooDo

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline 		I like the idea of having the guards. I think Soviet units received the guards designation based on performance in battle, but I'm not positive about that. For example, if the 1st Corps performed really well, it would be renamed 1st Guards Corps. However, in this game it seems appropriate to give the guards a slight increase in combat capability if they are going to be more expensive -- maybe 0.5 points attacking hard targets, or a half point in both soft or hard defense ratings.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 99
RE: Soviet Guard Corps - 3/3/2017 4:26:39 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Yes, the 'Guards' title was given to units based on combat performance. The actual TO&E of Guards units didn't change except they were given a couple more artillery pieces.
quote:

give the guards a slight increase in combat capability if they are going to be more expensive -- maybe 0.5 points attacking hard targets, or a half point in both soft or hard defense ratings.

I like this, I think I'll do it, thanks !

(in reply to TangSooDo)
Post #: 100
RE: Pocket Fun - 3/3/2017 4:28:15 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

a solution approach over the Russian resources may not solve the general problem of encircling.

But I think it can't hurt, although like I said, I haven't tested it yet so I will see what happens.

(in reply to TheBattlefield)
Post #: 101
RE: Pocket Fun - 3/3/2017 4:52:41 PM   
James Taylor

 

Posts: 638
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Corpus Christi, Texas
Status: offline 		Having the Soviet Guards arrive with one step of experience and overstrengthed to 11 seems more appropriate then the 0.5 increase in hard target value. Just saying.

_____________________________

SeaMonkey

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 102
RE: Pocket Fun - 3/3/2017 9:41:27 PM   
TangSooDo

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline 		The main thing regarding Soviet Guards would be to give some higher value seeing as they cost more -- of course it's a matter of personal preference and design philosophy as to what that higher value should be. Thinking about it a little further, once the Guards Corps has been eliminated, however, will it be rebuildable with any higher value if we go with the one step of experience and overstrength solution? Won't it then be no more valuable in combat ability than a regular corps but more expensive to rebuild?

(in reply to James Taylor)
Post #: 103
RE: Pocket Fun - 3/5/2017 3:21:36 AM   
ME262

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 1/4/2016
Status: offline 		playing your MOD... just got into tonight.. so far so good! I like it... enjoying the challenge over the vanilla camps.

(in reply to TangSooDo)
Post #: 104
RE: 653H Mod - 3/18/2017 5:52:34 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Working on slightly modifying the Surrender Conditions for Axis Minors,
based on historical influences. All will still surrender by normal
Morale Conditions, but some additional conditions will exist, starting
with Italy which has four additional conditions.

If the USA is in and the USSR is not surrendered, Italy will Surrender:

1] If the Allies hold each of these:
Tripoli 172,21
Tunis 167,112
Syracuse 176,112
Palermo 173,109
Messina 177,109
plus any one Resource on the Italian mainland.

2] or if the Allies hold each of these:
Tripoli 172,21
Tunis 167,112
Marseille 157,97
Nice 160,97
Monaco 162,96
plus any one Resource on the Italian mainland.

3] or if the Allies hold each of these:
Tripoli 172,21
Tunis 167,112
Munich 169,86
Salzburg 172,87
plus any one Resource on the Italian mainland.

4] or if the Allies hold each of these:
Tripoli 172,21
Tunis 167,112
Zagreb 178,92
Bihacs 176,91
Ljubljana 176,91
plus any one Resource on the Italian mainland.

The idea being to cover all avenues of Allied advance,
each case which would signal that Germany/the Axis
are not winning, in which case Italy would be following
its historical course by trying to get out of the war.

Any thoughts/ideas/concerns are welcome.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 105
RE: 653H Mod - 3/18/2017 7:50:53 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Finland:
If the USA is in and the USSR is not surrendered, Finland will Surrender:

If the Allies hold each of these:
Leningrad 206,52
Narva 202,54
Vyborg 203,49
Priozersk 205,48
Sortavala 207,45
Petrozovadsk 214,46
Belomorsk 214,36
Kandalaksha 210,24
Murmansk 211,16

plus any one of the following:
Petsamo 209,13
Kemijarvi 201,26
Suomussalmi 203,34
Joensuu 205,43
Lappeenranta 202,48
198,50

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 106
RE: 653H Mod - 3/18/2017 7:51:26 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Hungary:
When the Soviets entered Hungarian territory in September 1944,
their government was overthrown and the German controlled Arrow
Cross Party became the new government. Hungarian units fought
until destroyed, some survived until the end of the war. Therefore,
in the game Hungary will surrender if Budapest is Allied occupied,
and the Germans will receive an Hungarian corps.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 107
RE: 653H Mod - 3/18/2017 8:37:38 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Romania:
If the USA is in and the USSR is not surrendered, Romania will Surrender:

If the Allies hold each of these:
Odessa 207,90
Vinnitsa 202,84
Lwow 194,82

plus any one of the following:
Jassy 201,89
Cernauti 197,86
Galati 202,93
Sofia 192,100
Nish 190,98
Belgrade 187,94

< Message edited by sPzAbt653 -- 3/22/2017 2:30:23 AM >

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 108
RE: 653H Mod - 4/5/2017 5:59:14 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		The Destroyers seen at the bottom show up even when the Unit Trigger = 0 [I have searched for relevant scripts and this seems to be the only one]. There are no Destroyers in the Production or Deployment que's, and I have zero'd the Destroyer values in the AI Production Scripts. Is there another place where these units are being generated ? [I don't want them arriving].




Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 109
RE: 653H Mod - 4/9/2017 5:23:21 PM   
TheBattlefield


Posts: 507
Joined: 6/11/2016
Status: offline 		Hi sPzAbt653

have you solved the problem in the meantime? There are no more possibilities for the appearance of these destroyers. Probably this is just one of those strange temporary errors or have you just forgotten to update the script after the modification in the editor?

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 110
RE: 653H Mod - 4/9/2017 5:41:11 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Probably this is just one of those strange temporary errors

So far I can only chalk it up to this. Thanks for confirming that I seem to have covered all the possibilities. Each time this happens I check everything to see that it all appears to be ok.
It's no big deal, just a minor annoyance.

(in reply to TheBattlefield)
Post #: 111
RE: 653H Mod - 4/10/2017 2:06:05 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		If they are turning up when the Failsafe Date is reached, then that will be the reason.

The Failsafe Date means that they will turn up then if not triggered before, so you may want to set a much later Failsafe Date, i.e. one after the end of your campaign.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 112
RE: 653H Mod - 4/10/2017 2:35:59 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Failsafe Date !

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 113
RE: 653H Mod - 4/11/2017 10:09:24 AM   
TheBattlefield


Posts: 507
Joined: 6/11/2016
Status: offline 		Ok. I thought so far that this was only the "expiration date" for the respective event. I'm always learning something about it...and then forget it again.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 114
RE: Pocket Fun - 4/15/2017 1:58:00 PM   
gogopher

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 3/22/2017
Status: offline 		loving the mod...just reinstalled sc though and not sure what version of ur mod is current...the one i have is 1.01

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 115
RE: Pocket Fun - 4/15/2017 3:51:28 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		You have 1.1, which is the latest. 1.2 is taking a while.

(in reply to gogopher)
Post #: 116
RE: 653H Mod - 4/17/2017 8:32:17 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		How do I stop a convoy once it has started ? For example, I'd like to add a US East Coast convoy, but then stop it if the US takes a later Decision to build an overland pipeline.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 117
RE: 653H Mod - 4/18/2017 4:03:02 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		You could stop it by having an alternative convoy higher up in the file whose triggers will take precedence when that later Decision is fired.

It will show on the map but it doesn't necessarily need to send any MPPs anywhere.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 118
RE: 653H Mod - 4/19/2017 6:28:46 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline 		Thanks Bill, but this one is over my head. I looked thru the existing convoys to try and figure out how they end, for example Egypt-England, or Narvik-Germany, but I don't see it. No worries, I can do without.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 119
RE: 653H Mod - 4/20/2017 7:04:15 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline 		Convoys continue for as long as the conditions triggering them continue, there is no direct mechanism to turn any off.

However, within the script file they are read from top to bottom, so one placed in the file above another will, if its trigger is met, be the active convoy in game.

Which is why I'm thinking that placing a convoy script that fires (possibly triggered by a dummy Decision, as they can have more variable triggers) higher in the file than the one you want to turn off, would effectively fix it.

I hope that makes a bit more sense?

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Pocket Fun Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

1.563