RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

omegaall -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/8/2005 2:17:40 AM)
minefield: To me tab or comma separated is 6 of one half a dozen of the other. Putting it all in one file is not smart either. There are at present 250 weapon and unit slots each. There are 200 formation slots. Each of these weapon/unit and formations all have internally, different structures and number of used values. Not to mention empty spaces. So putting that in one file and trying to import directly to a data base will not make sense. Also the read process as a single file is messy. That is the read process from the tab/comma separated file back into the program. Hence the simplest is 3 files one per type. Again comma or tab is not a big issue. As far as data base issues go, most people have some form of office, MS or other and that has a basic spreadsheet or may be a simple data base such as Access. As far as Access goes it is, deep down nothing more than a front end to a set of spreadsheets, since it is derived from Excel anyway. Also most people who do play with OOBs and want spread sheet style output to work with are already familiar with the current styles as in Freds OobDmp and with the SPWW2/MBT series Mobhacks CSV style. So why push for something different again? I don’t see that as a big issue, it will be to some extent what Michael is able to arrange and find convent to do in the amount of time he has to put into this. Simply I am just pleased he is happy to look into doing something to ease that aspect of OOB design.

minefield -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/8/2005 8:52:39 PM)
omegaall, I was just stating what is possible through code. I really don't care how it is implemented; I just wanted to present the options so you (plural) could voice what would be best. I have analyzed the oob file and am aware of its format. It is very possible to put all the information in one file. The only question is whether you want to view one file or three files for an OOB. To put the different sections in one file you just format the csv file as: name,age,weight bob,13,155 susan,14,500 , , type,age dog,11 cat,3 You have whitespace to separate your OOBs. You have headers that are specific to each section. Not sure what you mean by empty spaces. You just wouldn't write the fields not used by WaW. What is messy about reading the csv file back into the program? I think we are in agreement about people having some kind of database program. Each of these should be able to use csv files. The format for one file as shown above is exactly the same as Fred's OOBDump except the three sections are combined into one file. You could get the same effect by opening each individual file and pasting its contents into one file. The question is whether people like working on three files for an OOB or one. We are all grateful for Mike's contributions.

johnhulten -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/8/2005 11:38:52 PM)
Hope you can get to CC on MC soon so I can enjoy all your other fixes. I'm back to MC on 8.3 till the CC problem is fixed. Thanks

soldier -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 12:06:39 AM)
Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ? except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign

Mike Wood -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 2:24:21 AM)
Hello... Map width based on size of core force. Wanted to avoid battalion fighting on brigade frontage or regiment fighting on division frontage. What had you in mind for what size force? Thanks... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: soldier Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ? except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign

KG Erwin -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 2:51:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: soldier Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ? except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign This has been a long-standing issue. The size of your initial core force plays a part in this: if its over 3000 points, you're more likely to get larger battle maps. Now that you mention it, I tend to customize core forces to cover the maps I want to fight on. The Germans are a good example -- in the latest 8.403 test mech, in Sept 39 you have 3111 points to work with (True Troop Cost ON, Rarity OFF). I changed my OOB set to match the parameters, without getting away from historically-available forces. Oddly, my chosen USMC battalion landing team (reinforced), is much cheaper, and does not exceed the 3000-point level. The main reason is that I focus on infantry (three companies), with a minimal supply of armor (three 5-tank platoons, equipped with the older M2A4s). The heavy weapons are just four 81mm mortars, two 37mm AT guns, and two self-propelled 75mm GMCs. I also add four Raider platoons and a Parachute platoon. The upgrade paths for the Marines are fairly simple. With each successive year, the rifle squads get more powerful. The 9-man squad of 1942 gets replaced by the 12-man squad in 1943, and the 13-man squad in 1944-45. The 1942 BAR squads can change to either an Assault Squad, an additional 30 cal MMG, or a bazooka team. The light tanks of 1942 get replaced by the Shermans, with a flame tank upgrade for one tank in each platoon. The 4-man Recon Teams change to 6-man Scout/Sniper Teams. The Raiders/Paras are a special case -- although ahistorical, I tend to keep them for the duration. Historically, all were converted into "regular" Marine squads and folded into new regiments. Doing this essentially gives you a fourth infantry company capable of conducting independent operations -- a 1940s version of the modern "special operations capable" units.

Mike Wood -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 4:53:27 AM)
Hello... Standard defensive battalion frontage averaged about 900 yards or about 18 hexes. Allowing a frontage of 40 hexes, two thousand yards, means the battalion was stretched pretty thin and it was difficult to control with fire. Over that and there was a hole in your line. Standard offensive battalion frontage was about 500 meters, a little better than half that. This offensive frontage assumes one infantry battalion and an attached company of armor. Is there a problem with this? Thanks... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: KG Erwin quote: ORIGINAL: soldier Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ? except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign This has been a long-standing issue. The size of your initial core force plays a part in this: if its over 3000 points, you're more likely to get larger battle maps. Now that you mention it, I tend to customize core forces to cover the maps I want to fight on. The Germans are a good example -- in the latest 8.403 test mech, in Sept 39 you have 3111 points to work with (True Troop Cost ON, Rarity OFF). I changed my OOB set to match the parameters, without getting away from historically-available forces. Oddly, my chosen USMC battalion landing team (reinforced), is much cheaper, and does not exceed the 3000-point level. The main reason is that I focus on infantry (three companies), with a minimal supply of armor (three 5-tank platoons, equipped with the older M2A4s). The heavy weapons are just four 81mm mortars, two 37mm AT guns, and two self-propelled 75mm GMCs. I also add four Raider platoons and a Parachute platoon. The upgrade paths for the Marines are fairly simple. With each successive year, the rifle squads get more powerful. The 9-man squad of 1942 gets replaced by the 12-man squad in 1943, and the 13-man squad in 1944-45. The 1942 BAR squads can change to either an Assault Squad, an additional 30 cal MMG, or a bazooka team. The light tanks of 1942 get replaced by the Shermans, with a flame tank upgrade for one tank in each platoon. The 4-man Recon Teams change to 6-man Scout/Sniper Teams. The Raiders/Paras are a special case -- although ahistorical, I tend to keep them for the duration. Historically, all were converted into "regular" Marine squads and folded into new regiments. Doing this essentially gives you a fourth infantry company capable of conducting independent operations -- a 1940s version of the modern "special operations capable" units.

Goblin -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 5:07:10 AM)
To me, how I set up my forces indicates what I am defending or fighting for. Attempting to cover the whole map is not my goal. Having a bit more map to work with and choose fighting positions from would be nice (thus defining what my coverage will be). Cramming a 5000 point battle onto the standard 'small' map is often a major pain. Goblin

KG Erwin -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 5:32:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... Standard defensive battalion frontage averaged about 900 yards or about 18 hexes. Allowing a frontage of 40 hexes, two thousand yards, means the battalion was stretched pretty thin and it was difficult to control with fire. Over that and there was a hole in your line. Standard offensive battalion frontage was about 500 meters, a little better than half that. This offensive frontage assumes one infantry battalion and an attached company of armor. Is there a problem with this? Thanks... Michael Wood Alright -- the argument is turning into "Do you play this game as a a military exercise ", OR "as a fun escape"? SPWaW, to MY mind, is somewhere in between. It isn't solid enough to be called a "simulation". It is still just a game, and many abstractions have to be interprolated. It is by no means a "real-world" game, even in terms of WWII. The best we can do, IMHO, is an approximation. The game gives you the impression of being there -- it simply can't go beyond that. Once everyone gets that notion firmly drilled in their heads, then we can work towards making it more enjoyable for everybody.

omegaall -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 7:20:38 AM)
Hmm... quote: ORIGINAL: KG Erwin Alright -- the argument is turning into "Do you play this game as a a military exercise ", OR "as a fun escape"? SPWaW, to MY mind, is somewhere in between. It isn't solid enough to be called a "simulation". It is still just a game, and many abstractions have to be interprolated. It is by no means a "real-world" game, even in terms of WWII. The best we can do, IMHO, is an approximation. The game gives you the impression of being there -- it simply can't go beyond that. Once everyone gets that notion firmly drilled in their heads, then we can work towards making it more enjoyable for everybody. I think I have heard words like this somewhere at the Depot.. And no it was not you either. 2 people thinking the same way and on this particular track!!! [:-]

Mike Wood -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 3:04:07 PM)
Hello... Ok, folks. You don't like 40. Give me some numbers. Thanks... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: Goblin To me, how I set up my forces indicates what I am defending or fighting for. Attempting to cover the whole map is not my goal. Having a bit more map to work with and choose fighting positions from would be nice (thus defining what my coverage will be). Cramming a 5000 point battle onto the standard 'small' map is often a major pain. Goblin

Goblin -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 4:34:17 PM)
Even medium maps more often would be better, Mike. I think most people's complaint is that you draw the small maps with a large core. Small maps with a smaller core are not a problem. Dunno if big maps with a small core bother people or not (they do not bother me personally; room to manuever). Can it be adjusted so that above a certain point value you get more medium and large maps? Goblin

KG Erwin -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 6:37:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Goblin Even medium maps more often would be better, Mike. I think most people's complaint is that you draw the small maps with a large core. Small maps with a smaller core are not a problem. Dunno if big maps with a small core bother people or not (they do not bother me personally; room to manuever). Can it be adjusted so that above a certain point value you get more medium and large maps? Goblin Is map size for long campaigns something that could allow for player input? A multiple choice option like 1) Small maps only; 2) Small/medium mix ;3) Medium/large mix.

Mike Wood -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 7:32:53 PM)
Hello... Yup. If some one reminds me, when I work on SPWaW next ime, I could add that. Bye... Michael Wood quote: KG Erwin Is map size for long campaigns something that could allow for player input? A multiple choice option like 1) Small maps only; 2) Small/medium mix ;3) Medium/large mix.

KG Erwin -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 7:40:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... Yup. If some one reminds me, when I work on SPWaW next ime, I could add that. Bye... Michael Wood Great. Thanks. Alby, Goblin and I will definitely remind you of the idea. [:)]

Goblin -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 8:12:20 PM)
That's really great Mike, thanks![:)] Goblin

soldier -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/12/2005 11:43:50 PM)
quote: Standard offensive battalion frontage was about 500 meters, a little better than half that. This offensive frontage assumes one infantry battalion and an attached company of armor. I would find a battalion sized force crammed into 20 hexes very claustrophobic in WAW. I'm not sure whats wrong here but i don't like having a unit in every hex of the front. Either way war very rarely follows a standard. Theres a good episode in Band of Brothers where they cannot cover the line during Ardennes. I'm pretty sure most armies experienced this at onetime or another during WW2 and the WAW LC doesn't represent this very common campaigning problem I get small maps wether my core force is 5000 points or 1000. I'm pretty certain that there is no difference, you keep drawing 40 hex wide maps no matter what. With such narrow maps strategies for manuevre or probing for weak spots are largely eliminated and as such a large element of what blitzkrieg and WW2 in general was all about. Fire and manuevre, concentration of force, armoured breakthrough, flanking.... the list goes on The option for larger maps in LC would be a huge improvment.

KG Erwin -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/13/2005 12:34:36 AM)
I'd think that most gamers would go for the "size choice" option. Maybe this could be polled at the Depot ?

Mike Wood -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/13/2005 3:28:51 AM)
Hello... Having already commited to adding the feature, I am not sure why you would need to poll. But if you like, poll away. Bye... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: KG Erwin I'd think that most gamers would go for the "size choice" option. Maybe this could be polled at the Depot ?

Alby -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/13/2005 3:51:15 AM)
No need for poll Thanks Mike [&o]

FNG -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/13/2005 3:33:48 PM)
Not wishing to seem ungrateful for all the work that's already been done and/or is in progress, but would it be possible to have a volume control back in the game? Getting the balance between guitars and machine-guns is real tricky with some CDs that I like.... [;)]

hank -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/13/2005 8:01:02 PM)
One thing I've noticed in the campaigns is that the overall direction of forces is swapped. In other words if I pick the WWII scenario I get the Americans (Allies) positioned on the right side attacking to the left (or facing west if north is up) which goes against the overall direction of attack in the western theater. The Allies pushed the Germans easterward yet in the campaign the forces are the opposite. I'm at work and can't remember for sure but I think the eastern front battles are OK ... germans facing east or to the right/ruskies facing west or to the left. I've worked engineering and construction for years and I like north being up on maps. In fact there's a user designed scenario for SSG's BiN of the battle of Kursk which has north pointing to the right. Its a popular scenario but the rotation of the battlefield just kind of ruins it for me. just a small peeve of my for an otherwise wonderful game. hank

m10bob -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/14/2005 5:12:01 AM)
Michael....I especially like your changes as in #'s 2 and 3 above..Thank you for "historical correctness", (even if it has to be somewhat abstract to fit into the confines of a game- otherwise somebody might choke on smoke, or get hit by a ricochet !)[;)]

KG Erwin -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/14/2005 5:36:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hank One thing I've noticed in the campaigns is that the overall direction of forces is swapped. In other words if I pick the WWII scenario I get the Americans (Allies) positioned on the right side attacking to the left (or facing west if north is up) which goes against the overall direction of attack in the western theater. The Allies pushed the Germans easterward yet in the campaign the forces are the opposite. I'm at work and can't remember for sure but I think the eastern front battles are OK ... germans facing east or to the right/ruskies facing west or to the left. I've worked engineering and construction for years and I like north being up on maps. In fact there's a user designed scenario for SSG's BiN of the battle of Kursk which has north pointing to the right. Its a popular scenario but the rotation of the battlefield just kind of ruins it for me. just a small peeve of my for an otherwise wonderful game. hank Mmap orientations are one of the many abstractions. There may be occasions when east is north, or west is south, or whatever. In ground combat, NSEW doesn't matter anyway, does it? You have a right flank, a left flank, a forward direction and a retrograde direction. Compass direction doesn't apply, correct?

m10bob -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/14/2005 6:40:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KG Erwin quote: ORIGINAL: hank One thing I've noticed in the campaigns is that the overall direction of forces is swapped. In other words if I pick the WWII scenario I get the Americans (Allies) positioned on the right side attacking to the left (or facing west if north is up) which goes against the overall direction of attack in the western theater. The Allies pushed the Germans easterward yet in the campaign the forces are the opposite. I'm at work and can't remember for sure but I think the eastern front battles are OK ... germans facing east or to the right/ruskies facing west or to the left. I've worked engineering and construction for years and I like north being up on maps. In fact there's a user designed scenario for SSG's BiN of the battle of Kursk which has north pointing to the right. Its a popular scenario but the rotation of the battlefield just kind of ruins it for me. just a small peeve of my for an otherwise wonderful game. hank Mmap orientations are one of the many abstractions. There may be occasions when east is north, or west is south, or whatever. In ground combat, NSEW doesn't matter anyway, does it? You have a right flank, a left flank, a forward direction and a retrograde direction. Compass direction doesn't apply, correct? Well, technically, you need to know if the sun will be in your eyes, and knowing direction is mandatory for a pre-designated avenue of retreat,(from ambush missions). Oh.........you meant the game ????????[:D]OOPS!!!!!!! Sorry!....XIN LOI !!!!!!![:D]

tracer -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/15/2005 3:24:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... When a bit more internal testing is finished, I will request that the production folk release the new executable and editor for public beta testing, to get input from a broader range of players. Thanks... Michael Wood The 'bulletproof' method...thanks again for giving the entire SPWAW community the best Christmas gift possible! [&o]

Nikademus -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/15/2005 8:01:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... Having already commited to adding the feature, I am not sure why you would need to poll. But if you like, poll away. Bye... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: KG Erwin I'd think that most gamers would go for the "size choice" option. Maybe this could be polled at the Depot ? A good thing it is....yes. (larger map sizes have been a strength of SP:WW2)

hank -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/15/2005 8:20:39 PM)
"Mmap orientations are one of the many abstractions. There may be occasions when east is north, or west is south, or whatever. In ground combat, NSEW doesn't matter anyway, does it? You have a right flank, a left flank, a forward direction and a retrograde direction. Compass direction doesn't apply, correct?" ... by KG Erwin Well, no ... I don't agree. Immersion is a very important aspect of war games. There's already significant abstractions to all these strategy games. I venture to say, the vast majority of game titles attempt to create their maps so they reflect reality and they take into account convention (maps are made with north up). If I go to one of my hundreds of WWII books to look at a battle and check on the disposition of forces, north is up most of the time. The more you take away from historical reality ... and geographical reality ... the more you detract from immersion. I for one like to feel I'm playing through an actual battle that actually happened like I do with HPS PzCampaigns or BiN or HttR. If those games rotated the forces 180 degrees, I'm sure the players would go into turmoil. I just have a problem with this issue being simply disspelled because compass direction doesn't matter. It does. But, I'm not going to argue this point. It was just an observation. This can be dropped and I'll just live with it the way it is. No big deal. hank

Mike Wood -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/15/2005 9:18:53 PM)
Hello... Actually, map orientation is not abstracted. In the table that gives the battle locations, there are several factors, such as amount of water, amount of woods, amount of hills, amount of roads and starting side for each combatant. The maps are generated in a random fashion, but the map orientation assumes the top of the map is north and places each force on the appropriate side. Due to the scale of the battles, one side may often fight in a direction other than that of the general front. During operation Torch, for instance, Americans attacked towards the south, east, west and even north in a number of engagements. In the drive across Europe, the Allies crossed the same river a goodly number of times, attacking sometimes from the east and others from the west, north or south. Due to map drawing limitations, the game only places combatants facing east or west. Hope this Helps... Michael Wood quote: ORIGINAL: KG Erwin quote: ORIGINAL: hank One thing I've noticed in the campaigns is that the overall direction of forces is swapped. In other words if I pick the WWII scenario I get the Americans (Allies) positioned on the right side attacking to the left (or facing west if north is up) which goes against the overall direction of attack in the western theater. The Allies pushed the Germans easterward yet in the campaign the forces are the opposite. I'm at work and can't remember for sure but I think the eastern front battles are OK ... germans facing east or to the right/ruskies facing west or to the left. I've worked engineering and construction for years and I like north being up on maps. In fact there's a user designed scenario for SSG's BiN of the battle of Kursk which has north pointing to the right. Its a popular scenario but the rotation of the battlefield just kind of ruins it for me. just a small peeve of my for an otherwise wonderful game. hank Mmap orientations are one of the many abstractions. There may be occasions when east is north, or west is south, or whatever. In ground combat, NSEW doesn't matter anyway, does it? You have a right flank, a left flank, a forward direction and a retrograde direction. Compass direction doesn't apply, correct?

Korpraali V -> RE: SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release (12/15/2005 10:15:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Wood Hello... Actually, map orientation is not abstracted. In the table that gives the battle locations, there are several factors, such as amount of water, amount of woods, amount of hills, amount of roads and starting side for each combatant. The maps are generated in a random fashion, but the map orientation assumes the top of the map is north and places each force on the appropriate side. Due to the scale of the battles, one side may often fight in a direction other than that of the general front. During operation Torch, for instance, Americans attacked towards the south, east, west and even north in a number of engagements. In the drive across Europe, the Allies crossed the same river a goodly number of times, attacking sometimes from the east and others from the west, north or south. Due to map drawing limitations, the game only places combatants facing east or west. Hope this Helps... Michael Wood Hi! About the sides: I've played Long Campaing with the British in East Asia. All the fights against Japan seem to be in weird direction: British facing west and Japanese facing east. In Burma/India this was vice versa. Could this be fixed? Thanks for the great work!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.65625