Editor question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

damezzi -> Editor question (10/11/2009 1:05:18 AM)

This is the first time I'm messing around with the editor trying to make some tests to see if my chess scenario is possible. As I said, I barely know the game mechanics as a player, let alone as a designer and I still didn't read all the tutorials available. Anyway, I'm already messing around and got stuck in a point.

I've set two regimes with 3 units and one hq each. Each unit has one SFT type I derived from the rifle type. I've set them to full supply, experience, action points, etc. Also, I've set the two different regimes to war state.

Well, my goal was just to run some combat between those units in order to see how far I could control results, but, as soon as I begin the game I don't get the option of attacking with my first regime. When I click on an enemy unit I get the movement, transfer, etc, buttons on the bottom, instead of the attacking options(even if unavailable). If I finish the turn I get the status of the other regime units and the attacking options appear for both regimes, as if all were enemies. Here I'm able to set an attack on the first regime units, but not on the second regime units. Synthesizing: in one round I get the option for movement for all units (regime 1 and 2), but I'm only able to move regime 1 units; after finishing the round I get the option for attacks for all units (regime 1 and 2), but I'm only able to attack with regime 2 units.

Another thing I notice is that even if I can setup an attack with regime 2 units, not all of them seem available for attacking, even if they have full action points and supply. What else do I need?

Maybe I'm only missing something obvious here, but I would like to go on with tests before mastering the game mechanics, just to know if what I want to do is possible. So, any help will be welcome.



Tufkal2 -> RE: Editor question (10/11/2009 12:27:32 PM)

Difficult to tell without a screeni.
One very likely problem might be that the two regimes are not set to be at war with each other?
This is in the regime menu under "Diplomatics".
Normally you should get buttons like move, transfer etc for your own units and buttons like attack, bombard etc for enemy units and some of these buttons for enemy controlled hexes in which you do not see a unit (example: You can bombard an enemy hex even if you do not see a unit but you can only attack a unit you see).
If this is not it I suggest to post some screens so people can have a look?
Have fun modding...



damezzi -> RE: Editor question (10/12/2009 8:39:37 PM)

Thanks Lunaticus. I don't have images here at the moment. They are on another computer. A I can tell to complement at this moment is that I have set the two regimes to war state. I have even set them to different people and people group, since I wasn't certain that could pose a problem. The counters show the colors of their respective regimes, yet I can't find the name of their regime in the unit configuration screen. I searched for a way to change units regime in order to see if they were really set to the correct regime (independently of color), but wasn't able to find a place to change the regime of a specific unit. Anyway, they seem to be in the correct regime, not only for their colors, but also because, even if they show the same kind of command buttons when selected, for a regime they are available and for the other they show as unavailable. It is like if both regime were the allied, but then, when I change turn and the attack buttons show for both of them, I'm able to attack (only with one of them).
Ok, I know that without the screenshots it seems confusing. I'll try to post them as soon as I have them available... or I can send the scenario file, if you have the patience to take a look at it.



damezzi -> RE: Editor question (10/13/2009 8:04:11 PM)

Lunaticus, here are some images. You can see that borders contain all units, as if of the same regime.
This show the first turn. Movement options are shown for both regimes, but I'm only able to move one of them.

[image]local://upfiles/25850/B2A12E9FD24F4B62A0942FA3F65C587E.jpg[/image]



damezzi -> RE: Editor question (10/13/2009 8:05:33 PM)

In the second turn I get the attack option for both regimes, but I'm only able to attack with one of them.

[image]local://upfiles/25850/176F26496F8A4552A59871529D4FB55B.jpg[/image]



damezzi -> RE: Editor question (10/13/2009 8:06:28 PM)

You can see in this screen that an attack on the other regime is possible.

[image]local://upfiles/25850/6E0DEC94BEA9410499A36C43FFD14695.jpg[/image]



damezzi -> RE: Editor question (10/13/2009 8:07:17 PM)

Regimes are set to war state.

[image]local://upfiles/25850/28C7BF65DEE946E0A6CA541DAEE4EDC2.jpg[/image]



damezzi -> RE: Editor question (10/13/2009 8:08:12 PM)

I don't know if there is another screen that could help. If so, please tell me.



CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Editor question (10/13/2009 8:57:02 PM)

Good luck with this, for if you succeed Advanced Tactics might become a universal campaign manager, which would be very good for everybody.



Tufkal2 -> RE: Editor question (10/13/2009 9:16:29 PM)

Well it is a bit sketchy but I think the cause seems to be that the hex you are trying to fight on is "unoccupied" meaning there is no regime owner for this. This looks also like this since there is not dividing line in the territory.
You should try the following:
In the editor go to the map and change the regime owner of the hexes so that they belong to the right regime. Then please try again.
If this is not it maybe it is possible to upload the scenario to the scenario bank?



GrumpyMel -> RE: Editor question (10/14/2009 6:10:46 PM)

Yeah, it looks like the "owner" of the hex the regiemea are occupying got messed up. Basicaly, for land hexes a regieme's units should never be able to occupy a hex it doesn't "own". More specificaly, it shouldn't be able to occupy a hex "owned" by another regieme.

I'm guessing the regieme that isn't able to attack because the hex it is trying to attack is it's OWN TERRITORY (i.e. the engine doesn't let you attack your own territory).

Essentialy when creating a scenerio in the editor you want to make sure that all land hexes are owned by which-ever regieme has units occupying them.

I haven't tested it out myself, but I suspect that you can run into the issue you are experiencing if you change the ownership of hexes after placing units there...or possible move units in the editor to new position (outside their territory) after you have placed them. Some combination of the above is probably what is at play.

As Lunaticus pointed out.... as long as you correct the ownership of the hexes in the editor to match the units who occupy them....you should be ok.




damezzi -> RE: Editor question (10/14/2009 10:10:39 PM)

Thanks GrumpyMel and Lunaticus. That was exactly the problem; once I changed the hex ownership, things worked as they should. My error was thinking that the engine would change ownership automatically in those cases, but, maybe there is a use to such a condition.

Talorgan, I don't think I'll be able to setup an universal campaign manager, since, even if I succeed controling combat results, the AI turn is inaccessible. My chess scenario would use chess to resolve combat only on the player turn; on the AI turn the combat strenght of units will be used normally, so that the player will get a different board setup each time his turn begins. Only Vic can have control over combats during the AI turn, so... but having a game which could be used as a campaign manager would make the day for a lot of people. I've seen demands for such a system in other forums, too. And it would be a first step in integrating different games representing different levels, something I think will happen at some point in the future.



damezzi -> RE: Editor question (10/15/2009 8:20:32 PM)

Is there a way I can disband a non empty unit, as if destroying it?

I was able to make units which always win when attacking, but which can win or lose when defending, so that in the AI turn the game will play normally. In the player turn, the player will set the attack only when he won the game used to resolve battle (a tactical level game or a game like chess) and will be able to jump into the captured hex. Yet, if the player loses the 'outside' game he must disband his own unit. Transfering the subformations to another unit and disbanding the empty unit will keep the subformations in play. How can I destroy them using simple game commands?



CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Editor question (10/20/2009 9:04:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

having a game which could be used as a campaign manager would make the day for a lot of people. I've seen demands for such a system in other forums, too. And it would be a first step in integrating different games representing different levels, something I think will happen at some point in the future.


Good to know that other people feel the same way.

As far as I can make out there are two modes such a game may be played in: "campaign manager" with editable saved game files; and "PBEM" where editing is not possible. Don't see why both can't be catered for.



damezzi -> RE: Editor question (10/27/2009 12:14:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

Is there a way I can disband a non empty unit, as if destroying it?

I was able to make units which always win when attacking, but which can win or lose when defending, so that in the AI turn the game will play normally. In the player turn, the player will set the attack only when he won the game used to resolve battle (a tactical level game or a game like chess) and will be able to jump into the captured hex. Yet, if the player loses the 'outside' game he must disband his own unit. Transfering the subformations to another unit and disbanding the empty unit will keep the subformations in play. How can I destroy them using simple game commands?




Nobody?

Even a negative answer would help, since I would think about a work around and give up a straight solution.



Tufkal2 -> RE: Editor question (10/27/2009 1:27:27 AM)

Hi Damezzi,
I think the way the system works is as follows: First you need to delete all subformations of a unit and then you can delete the unit itself.
Have fun modding.



damezzi -> RE: Editor question (10/27/2009 10:16:24 PM)

It seems then that there is no way for a player to just exclude a subformation from the game, apart from losing it in combat...

I thought about using an HQ as repository for 'out of game subformations'; I would set this HQ in an isolated area and it would receive subformations which players would exclude through transfer, but for that I would need to have infinite transfer capacity and no distance restriction. Is there a way to set this up?



Jeffrey H. -> RE: Editor question (10/28/2009 7:47:54 PM)

There is a way to remove units via the "disband unit" button on the information page of the SFT. If you click on a picture of the SFT of an actual unit, you will be taken to an information screen showing the unit stats. There is a "disband unit" button there that will do what I think you need done.

The AI in the game gets strat transfer for free, so there may be some way to access free strat transfer in the editor via command or via the unit specific settings.



damezzi -> RE: Editor question (10/28/2009 8:25:24 PM)

Thanks Jeffrey, that's exactly what I needed. I don't know how it passed unnoticed.



Jeffrey H. -> RE: Editor question (10/29/2009 3:35:30 AM)

Great news and good luck with your mod !



damezzi -> RE: Editor question (11/1/2009 3:13:07 AM)

I have some extra questions regarding the editor and the game engine:

- Is there a way I can simulate attrition at sea, i.e., troops perishing during a long journey, ships sinking, etc?
- Trucks must be in the HQ unit to add land capacity points for transfers?
- If I have a unit stocking plenty of supply near my front units, I need to transfer this supply to HQs in order to distribute them? If I have no HQ around can’t I distribute this supply directly to units? I would like to simulate moving supply stocks which aren’t HQs.
- I don’t know if I understood the Recon rule well, but from what I could infer subformations get hide points in some terrains and when more subformations are present in a unit, more hide points this unit will have, so that spotting a unique subformation in a forest hex would be easier than spotting 10 subformations, since they would have more hide points. Is that right? Because, if so, this would be weird, since, usually it would be easier to spot a whole division in a forest than a single squad. Or the hide points from the terrain aren’t multiplied by the number of subformations? The formula Recon Points - Hide Points seem strange, since it gives the impression that the more 'troops' you have, the easier it will be to hide. I think I got something wrong here.



Tufkal2 -> RE: Editor question (11/1/2009 3:24:15 AM)

Here are some answers from how I think things work:
1. Difficult. Has been discussed extensively here but I think there is no real 100% solution.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2122394
2. Yes
3. Supply only goes to HQ and from HQs to units. Never directly to units.
4. Well all units with hiding ability "shield" a hex and make everything in the hex more difficult to see for the enemy. So is not specific afaik to the subformations having hide points. Hide value for the terrain are added for all units together. So yes sometimes if you have more units in a hex they make all units in the hex more difficult to see. I think the idea is that the units with hide values are hampering enemy recon in the hex and so e.g. some scouts (or whatever has a hiding value) are defending the main body from enemy eyes.




damezzi -> RE: Editor question (11/1/2009 4:12:19 AM)

Thanks for the fast answer Lunaticus.

Yet, I still find strange the idea under the Recon concept. Ok, subformations with hiding ability could add to a unit capacity of not being spotted, but being cumulative without a maximum value???... and mainly when the hiding points come from terrain and not from special ability which, at least, would justify accumulation. I really can`t see why a unit (without special hiding ability) would hide better in a forest hex having 10 subformation in it than a unit with only one. Even if they can put more effort in hiding, a recon detachment in a high spot would spot a big number of troops much easier (I think), not to mention air recon; in that case, a high concentration of troops should be easily spotted. Anyway, for what I have in mind, I'm more concern about how it works than with realism. Thanks again.



Vic -> RE: Editor question (11/1/2009 9:49:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

Thanks for the fast answer Lunaticus.

Yet, I still find strange the idea under the Recon concept. Ok, subformations with hiding ability could add to a unit capacity of not being spotted, but being cumulative without a maximum value???... and mainly when the hiding points come from terrain and not from special ability which, at least, would justify accumulation. I really can`t see why a unit (without special hiding ability) would hide better in a forest hex having 10 subformation in it than a unit with only one. Even if they can put more effort in hiding, a recon detachment in a high spot would spot a big number of troops much easier (I think), not to mention air recon; in that case, a high concentration of troops should be easily spotted. Anyway, for what I have in mind, I'm more concern about how it works than with realism. Thanks again.



Sorry there Lunaticus was wrong on the hide issue. Units are tested seperatly if they hide properly or not. An each unit uses the hide score of the SFtype with the lowest hide score. So a unit mixed with scouts and infantry has a hide score of 0.

Best regards
vic




Tufkal2 -> RE: Editor question (11/1/2009 4:33:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic


quote:

ORIGINAL: damezzi

Thanks for the fast answer Lunaticus.

Yet, I still find strange the idea under the Recon concept. Ok, subformations with hiding ability could add to a unit capacity of not being spotted, but being cumulative without a maximum value???... and mainly when the hiding points come from terrain and not from special ability which, at least, would justify accumulation. I really can`t see why a unit (without special hiding ability) would hide better in a forest hex having 10 subformation in it than a unit with only one. Even if they can put more effort in hiding, a recon detachment in a high spot would spot a big number of troops much easier (I think), not to mention air recon; in that case, a high concentration of troops should be easily spotted. Anyway, for what I have in mind, I'm more concern about how it works than with realism. Thanks again.



Sorry there Lunaticus was wrong on the hide issue. Units are tested seperatly if they hide properly or not. An each unit uses the hide score of the SFtype with the lowest hide score. So a unit mixed with scouts and infantry has a hide score of 0.

Best regards
vic



Oops did not know that, one never finishes learning with this very nice game. Thanks for the update.



damezzi -> RE: Editor question (11/1/2009 6:59:12 PM)

Thanks Vic, for the input. Using the lowest hide score makes sense. But I still don't get the terrain modifier on this. Suppose the following situation:

A unit with 250 Recon Points is moving and we have an adjacent unit with 25 'zero hide points' subformations in a terrain that has 10 hide points. Now, what would be the result?

1.  250 Recon - 250 Hide points (25*10 for terrain) or;

2.  250 Recon - 10 Hide points (being the terrain hide points applied to the unit just once, independently of the number of subformations)?

Number 1 doesn't make sense in my opinion, since it would be stating that the larger the number of subformations in a unit, the more difficult it would be to spot them and subdividing the 25 subformations in 25 units would make them much more likely to be spotted, since units are checked independently.

In the second case the number of subformations or units in the hex wouldn't make difference (I think it should, since a big concentration of troops should be spotted more easily); subdividing the subformations in multiple units wouldn't make difference also, which is a good thing. I think the second case is a lot more reasonable. Maybe there is a third case which I'm just ignoring.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.71875