[rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design



Message

mike1984 -> [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again... (10/27/2011 12:33:51 PM)

[june 2014 update - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3637715]

After a long hiatus, I now have time again to start tinkering with SBP. Life got in the way of the most recent version (my fourth edition of the scenario), but things have settled down a bit, albeit now with a new addition to my family who seemingly keeps me up many more hours of the day than are available.

Anyway, I've covered quite a bit of ground in the first three rounds of edits. The OOB isn't 100% accurate, but it's 100% better than the old/original one was. The entrance/exit units are better (like the addition of US 9 ID in Sicily). And I've been able to make the air/sea/rail transport capabilities for each side much more user-controlled and event/action-based.

I'm going to start digging in again this week, and will return here with some updates as I go along. Screenshots might also accompany certain updates, which should help with any suggestions you might have for me.

It's been my goal for about a year and a half now to make this scenario "work," as in fixing the following long-standing issues:

-Prevent the always-frustrating bog-down in Sicily (this has happened every time I play this)
-Allow naval power to impact the early stages of the game.
-Improve the post-Anzio game overall, which previously wasn't all that exciting (not that anyone actually made it that far before)

What else should I look for?



Oberst_Klink -> RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again... (10/27/2011 1:12:15 PM)

Mike!

Finally! I hope you are still keen to continue our PBEM Beta of FStBP, aye? I was waiting for 'ages' for any kind of response from you; remember... I was able to evacuate most of my boys from Sicily and awaiting your toe/foothold on the mainland!

Klink, Oberst



mike1984 -> RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again... (10/27/2011 1:59:10 PM)

I'm going to take a look again at the test run we were working on. If it's what I expect it is, we're going to have to re-start with the new file.

I'll let you know.



mike1984 -> RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again... (10/27/2011 2:05:11 PM)

Ah yes, that's the problem we had. The air/sea lift units that are disbanded to activate the transport... they reconstituted. So I have to go change that.

But either way, not only have I changed the scn file already, but I've forgotten my password for our PBEM test.

So I will send you the new file, along with my first turn, soon.



Telumar -> RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again... (10/28/2011 11:39:29 AM)

Maybe you haven't noticed, there's a StbP 43-45 AAR going on at the German TOAW forum: http://www.si-games.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22854

Also, i think the 16. SS PzG Div "Reichsführer SS" appears too early. It didn't see action before early 44 when 2 of its battalions were sent to the Anzio beachhead. Look here: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1943 and here: http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gliederungen/PanzergrenadierdivisonenSS/16SSPGD.htm (latter page is in German).



mike1984 -> RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again... (10/28/2011 12:01:04 PM)

Nope, didn't notice the other place. Good luck to them, because it's going to bog down very quickly once the Etna Line becomes the focus point. Just yesterday I deleted all those pre-fabricated entrenchments.

Also, thanks for the tip on 16 SS PzG.



mike1984 -> RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again... (1/18/2012 10:53:41 AM)

I'm finally back and ready to dive in once again... having a baby is rough stuff.

I'll update again later this morning with some short-term goals for the upcoming round of edits to StBP v. 3.4.



mike1984 -> RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again... (1/18/2012 11:47:06 AM)

Short-term goals...

> Italian units do not reconstitute.
> Add more news events to keep both sides updated.
> Fix replacements rate; possibly change to a disband system.
> Add more shock events triggered by successes/failures by each side.

That's just for the immediate future. I'd like more suggestions from all of you, too.



Oberst_Klink -> RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again... (1/18/2012 12:25:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike1984

Short-term goals...

> Italian units do not reconstitute.
> Add more news events to keep both sides updated.
> Fix replacements rate; possibly change to a disband system.
> Add more shock events triggered by successes/failures by each side.

That's just for the immediate future. I'd like more suggestions from all of you, too.

1st of all, congratulations to 'little' Mick :) or perhaps Michaela? I'll make an assessment and will also ask the master of masters of events (Telumar). I got a bunch of OOB and TO&E 'mined', and I'd implement the OT or the RAD pioneer battalions or regiments attached to the 10th, 14th Army in order to prepare the fortifications. Can be triggered by an event or as Theatre Option, e.g. give the player the option to get a PzGr Div from Southern France etc. or a bunch of fortification digging pioneer units.

Will keep in touch,

Klink, Oberst



mike1984 -> RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again... (1/20/2012 6:15:13 PM)

Update on what I'm currently fixing... REPLACEMENTS!

This has been a huge bug in this scenario: trying to make replacement rates realistic.

I've just finished up taking a complete inventory of every single squad and squad opening (such as, "Cromwell: 0/12") from the Allied side. Now I'm moving on to the Axis side. This will allow me to get a better base for creating the replacements system for SBP 3.4.

I'm thinking of using events and disbands to activate replacements at different levels, for a few turns at a time. For example, the Allies will get a disband on July 21 that activates 5% replacements across the board (it will exclude units not yet assigned, as they will come in at the appropriate time/turn) for three turns/days.

That's just the basic draft of my idea.

Thoughts?



jimcarravall -> RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again... (1/23/2012 7:48:44 PM)

I've played against the AI several times using the TOAW III 3.0 version of your scenario.

I enjoy the treatment of this theater immensely.

Something to consider: 

Deployment of troops by sea and air is dependent on when world-wide strategic considerations allocates transport assets to the theater.  Because the game is structured to be played from the theater commander perspective, once those transport assets are available, it would seem logical that the deployment location of follow on forces should be under the control of the theater commander.

Because the game begins with a foundation of North Africa being under allied control, and covers more than 20-months of duration in daily turns, follow on forces should be deployed to North Africa and then transported to the sites in theater the theater commander chooses as the place for them to enter the battle. 

This could be accomplished by deploying follow on units one turn earlier than now scheduled, and providing enough sea transport capacity to move them.

This allows for the game to proceed outside of the historical constraints if a theater commander becomes more successful than the historic outcome.  It also eliminates the events of withdrawing units in Sicily and recomposing them in Italy to follow the historic deployment schedule.   







mike1984 -> RE: [rolls eyes] Oh great, it's that Sicily to Brenner Pass guy again... (6/12/2014 5:54:31 PM)

Wow, has it been 2.5 years already? Geez. Let's see what I can dig up and start working on...



mike1984 -> Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/16/2014 3:27:41 PM)

Last I saw of this I was working on replacements. Lo and behold, that's where I'm starting off this time around. I never finished. I didn't even leave myself notes on what exactly I was doing, so I have to just open the scenario file in editor and figure it out that way. It appears...

I'm implementing some sort of disband system for replacements. I don't think it's where I disband a unit that's filled with squads. Rather, the disband--which arrives once per month--activates replacements for 2-3 turns.

For the rail repair units, I haven't dug too deeply, but I don't see them in my current scenario file. I'll have to double check, but when I figure it out, I'll probably take up Oberst's suggestion and put them under the Army formations.

See you all soon. I may put in some work on this tonight.



mike1984 -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/19/2014 2:30:37 PM)

I've received permission from sPzAbt653 to use his updated map and TOE. This should help save me several dozen steps on my mission to finish this friggin' thing.

Last night I started to work on the OOB a bit--adding the Eastern & Western task forces, and Force H--but ran into some trouble with the eqp file. I have an email about to sPzAbt653 about that. I changed all the file names to match up, but it's still saying I'm using the wrong eqp file.

This has halted any further work on the OOB, events, or replacements issues. So everything is stuck until I get this resolved. Grrr.

[image]local://upfiles/31611/4AE207EC82D24B5FB3DFA9A3B375F2CB.jpg[/image]



ogar -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/19/2014 3:29:48 PM)

Mike,

_Every_ time I modify (or even review) the custom eqp file in xml or Parm's editor, and then return to TOAW editor to work on some other piece, I _always_ get that message. Even when nothing has changed. I just think the TOAW editor has indigestion about a custom .eqp, and has to spit something up. I think if you examine one of your units, you'll see that TOAW editor has found and linked up with the custom eqp file. If you see "Cavalry Squad (early)" in place of 'US M-1/BAR Squad w/ M-9'... well you might have a problem there.

At any rate, I've just ignored that message when I'm sure there is no problem, and done my TOAW work, saved it, and next time into the TOAW editor -- NO 'playing with the wrong eqp' message.

HTH



That said, I still do check paths and file names via Windows often when I start a custom eqp project. After a while, though, I just ignore the message.



mike1984 -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/19/2014 3:36:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ogar

Mike,

_Every_ time I modify (or even review) the custom eqp file in xml or Parm's editor, and then return to TOAW editor to work on some other piece, I _always_ get that message. Even when nothing has changed. I just think the TOAW editor has indigestion about a custom .eqp, and has to spit something up. I think if you examine one of your units, you'll see that TOAW editor has found and linked up with the custom eqp file. If you see "Cavalry Squad (early)" in place of 'US M-1/BAR Squad w/ M-9'... well you might have a problem there.

At any rate, I've just ignored that message when I'm sure there is no problem, and done my TOAW work, saved it, and next time into the TOAW editor -- NO 'playing with the wrong eqp' message.

HTH



That said, I still do check paths and file names via Windows often when I start a custom eqp project. After a while, though, I just ignore the message.

Thanks, I'll go through it again this evening and see how it goes. I'm hopeful it's what you suggest it may be.



Lobster -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/19/2014 4:30:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike1984


quote:

ORIGINAL: ogar

Mike,

_Every_ time I modify (or even review) the custom eqp file in xml or Parm's editor, and then return to TOAW editor to work on some other piece, I _always_ get that message. Even when nothing has changed. I just think the TOAW editor has indigestion about a custom .eqp, and has to spit something up. I think if you examine one of your units, you'll see that TOAW editor has found and linked up with the custom eqp file. If you see "Cavalry Squad (early)" in place of 'US M-1/BAR Squad w/ M-9'... well you might have a problem there.

At any rate, I've just ignored that message when I'm sure there is no problem, and done my TOAW work, saved it, and next time into the TOAW editor -- NO 'playing with the wrong eqp' message.

HTH



That said, I still do check paths and file names via Windows often when I start a custom eqp project. After a while, though, I just ignore the message.

Thanks, I'll go through it again this evening and see how it goes. I'm hopeful it's what you suggest it may be.


Me and Panama would always place a special unit in the New Equipment part of whatever custom equipment file we created or are working with. Then if you get that message in the editor all you have to do is check to see if your special unit is there.



mike1984 -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/19/2014 6:17:36 PM)

We may have found the problem, but I'm not home to test it. I may have been working with the wrong TOE/OOB file.

Keeping fingers crossed for this one.



mike1984 -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/20/2014 1:24:27 AM)

It's fixed. Really weird problem. I had to save the eqp folder/file and the sce file in a certain order if I wanted to avoid the eqp file error.



mike1984 -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/21/2014 4:13:14 AM)

Update:

The more I think about this scenario, the better I believe it will be as 191 half-week turns, as sPzAbt653 has done with the version I'm now working off of. It's a big change of direction for me, but hey, it works.

Naval units are now in the game, with Eastern and Western Task Force squadrons, and Force H squadrons.

The disband system I had been implementing for air/sea transport will carry over to this version. I like giving PBEM players the most flexibility possible with planning air/seaborne operations.

REPLACEMENTS! They should actually be fixed by going to the half-week turns, so a huge, huge, huge part of my stress is now gone... well, until I playtest this and figure out something else is wrong with the replacements.

I've made this version a pure PBEM game. The duplicate units needed for any PO version have been removed.

I'll have more updates later. But progress!



mike1984 -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/23/2014 4:50:07 PM)

Last night, for the first time, I fired up this most recent scenario version in a hot-seat game. I didn't really fight myself, but just wanted to double check that my disbands system for air and sea transport works. And whaddya know, it did just fine.

The only way I'll know if the replacement rates are ok is to play a real test game. So if anyone wants to help me out with that, we can get a game going in the next few days.

I've also added the navy units, including withdraw events for those, as Force H was removed after the Italian surrender, and the other naval fire support squadrons were phased out gradually until spring of '44.

An Axis disband is still needed for the evacuation of Sicily. Probably one big 8k or 9k over two turns.

More events that could add some spice are things like shock levels (which would hopefully keep the game moving along, rather than bogged down in trench warfare for 100 turns), more weather events, and maybe some other variable non-historical things... say, an extra Axis division is pulled from another front... just spitballin' here.

Thoughts?

[image]local://upfiles/31611/B8A2A3BF52314AB4BB2482330ABB3545.jpg[/image]



mike1984 -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/24/2014 4:27:58 PM)

Last night I made a change/addition that I'd like some input from you all.

Airborne units. In this case, the 82nd AB and the 1st AB TF. What I did was create duplicate (slight name changes) units for each Airborne unit. And if one Airborne regiment/unit is destroyed, it will not reconstitute, but instead the "new" duplicate version will arrive.

The issue I'm trying to solve here is that when an airborne unit is destroyed, it loses all airborne capabilities after it's reconstituted. That's a problem in longer scenarios like this one, where airborne formations could make more than one operational combat jump.

Is this cheating the system too much? I don't think it is in this specific situation/scenario. But open to arguments otherwise.

[image]local://upfiles/31611/5A71653DF20E421D9653481A90A712D5.jpg[/image]



Morshead -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/25/2014 4:47:22 AM)

I am happy to play-test one of the sides (not sure I can devote time to 2 sides). Very dedicated to TOAW - and keen to help great scenario designers. Lemme know how! !



mike1984 -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/25/2014 2:14:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Morshead

I am happy to play-test one of the sides (not sure I can devote time to 2 sides). Very dedicated to TOAW - and keen to help great scenario designers. Lemme know how! !


burroughs said he would playtest as the Allies vs Me. So you then could playtest as the Axis vs Me.

Also, are you running the 3XBb patch? I'm still learning about it, so I have to get it before we start any games.



ogar -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/25/2014 8:48:14 PM)

Mike,

As a designer, be careful designing with 3xB because a scenario edited with 3xB cannot be played with plain ordinary 3.4.0.202.  Players do not need to worry about this, but designers need to be careful.  I have a complete copy of my TOAW 3.4 directories, that I use only for editing.  That way, anything done there is playable on both 3.4 and on 3xB.  I do happen to play with 3XB for most of my ongoing games; it works.

You can of course decide that players must use 3xB and so edit with that.  But then whether scenarios edited under 3xB migrate under TOAW 3.5, 3.6, 3.71452714290...  or whatever_the_hell_it's_called.  I just do not know.



mike1984 -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/25/2014 9:13:00 PM)

Ok, well now I'm confused. Should I install 2 copies of the game? One w/3xb for playing, the other w/o 3xb for editing?
quote:

ORIGINAL: ogar

Mike,

As a designer, be careful designing with 3xB because a scenario edited with 3xB cannot be played with plain ordinary 3.4.0.202.  Players do not need to worry about this, but designers need to be careful.  I have a complete copy of my TOAW 3.4 directories, that I use only for editing.  That way, anything done there is playable on both 3.4 and on 3xB.  I do happen to play with 3XB for most of my ongoing games; it works.

You can of course decide that players must use 3xB and so edit with that.  But then whether scenarios edited under 3xB migrate under TOAW 3.5, 3.6, 3.71452714290...  or whatever_the_hell_it's_called.  I just do not know.





Morshead -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/26/2014 6:23:34 AM)

Mike,

I have both the 3XBb patch and regular (though I was not aware of the issue with scenario editing). Tell me which you would like to proceed with - and my e-0mail is morshead@me.com - we can get cracking Cheers



ogar -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/26/2014 2:22:31 PM)

Mike,

Just to make sure my preferences are clear - I'd copy the whole TOAW directory under Matrix Games. So now you have two complete copies of 3.4. Upgrade one of them with 3xB. Use the not-upgraded 3.4 for editing or playing. Use the 3xB when playing. Again, this is just what I'm doing.

If you do edit a scenario with 3xB, all that will happen when someone tries to play it with 3.4 is that the player gets the message "TOAW is unable to load this version." (Oh, and that's if they get past the hiccup, where, inside TOAW when you view the directories and scenario files to choose to play a new scenario...TOAW 3.4.0.202 will not 'see' (display) a 3xB scenario. Even though Windows will find and display the 3xB scenario and associated files.)

Sorry to confuse things, but I'd hate to see you 'lose' any editing work because you did not know the effects of the upgrade. The editor is difficult enough.



mike1984 -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/27/2014 1:13:30 AM)

Update: Nevermind, I figured it out. Just me being thick for a minute there. One side question, though... there's no actual, visible indication within the game that I'm running the 3xb patch, right? I mean, everything looks EXACTLY the same everywhere.

I've copied the entire directory, so now I have two complete TOAW folders in my Matrix Games folder. The one TOAW folder had to have a slightly different name for obvious reasons, but that's all I changed.

When I go to run the 3xB update, it says I'm missing the audiere.dll file, but I clearly see that file in both copies of the directory.

What am I missing?
quote:

ORIGINAL: ogar

Mike,

Just to make sure my preferences are clear - I'd copy the whole TOAW directory under Matrix Games. So now you have two complete copies of 3.4. Upgrade one of them with 3xB. Use the not-upgraded 3.4 for editing or playing. Use the 3xB when playing. Again, this is just what I'm doing.

If you do edit a scenario with 3xB, all that will happen when someone tries to play it with 3.4 is that the player gets the message "TOAW is unable to load this version." (Oh, and that's if they get past the hiccup, where, inside TOAW when you view the directories and scenario files to choose to play a new scenario...TOAW 3.4.0.202 will not 'see' (display) a 3xB scenario. Even though Windows will find and display the 3xB scenario and associated files.)

Sorry to confuse things, but I'd hate to see you 'lose' any editing work because you did not know the effects of the upgrade. The editor is difficult enough.




ogar -> RE: Latest RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass (6/27/2014 4:20:01 PM)

Mike,

Assuming you figured out the audiere.dll issue, (never ran into it, myself, so have no ideas on that issue).
Yes, my experience has been that the 3xB (and its "ancestor", the AAA patch) mod look exactly like 3.4.0.202. (See below for a non-3xB look difference.)
The difference with 3xB is the tweak to allow AAA eqp in non-AAA units to participate in anti-air combat, and, a slight change in the likelihood of a defending unit in F status and IL, to retreat after combat... meaning, sometimes they budge and sometimes they do not.

I use shortcuts on my desktop to kick off each .exe in each TOAW directory. The label under my 3xB shortcut reads "Shortcut to Copy of TOAW 3.4 w/ 3xB". It was originally "Shortcut to Copy of TOAW 3.4", and later I used it to upgrade to 3xB. The label under the shortcut to the TOAW directory I use for editing reads "EDITOR Shortcut to TOAW 3.4" and points to a directory labelled "EDITOR The Operational Art of War". The 3xB directory uses some graphic mods from Telumar that changes the backgrounds, buttons, etc. The 3xB directory was where I originally experimented with these, so it still has "The East is Red" look. The standard directory was never changed, and the EDITOR directory is, I think, using the Olive Drab look. But I am so unobservant, that the look/skins/etc would not clue me in to where I am working.

HTH

Good luck with the playtest.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625