quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser
My computer crashed

quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser

I should have the Axis OOB stuff recovered later today, and the Allied OOB stuff recovered sometime tomorrow.

Fort Update.
I could keep forts from voluntarily moving by using orders and objectives. But I couldn't keep them from involuntarily retreating. So, I can't give forts a movement of 1. Oh well. Plan B is to separate the long-range equipments from everything else. I'll use the coastal artillery symbol for the long-range stuff (which I'll call emplacements), and the fort symbol for everything else (which I'll call strongholds). Since the strongholds won't attack or fire, they will retain their 'fortified' status until the enemy forcibly reduces that status. This means that at least the stronghold part of each fortified zone will retain its 'fortified' status for as long as possible even with a movement of 0, and even after the emplacement part fires (thus losing its 'fortified' status).

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser

I should have the Axis OOB stuff recovered later today, and the Allied OOB stuff recovered sometime tomorrow.

Fort Update.
I could keep forts from voluntarily moving by using orders and objectives. But I couldn't keep them from involuntarily retreating. So, I can't give forts a movement of 1. Oh well. Plan B is to separate the long-range equipments from everything else. I'll use the coastal artillery symbol for the long-range stuff (which I'll call emplacements), and the fort symbol for everything else (which I'll call strongholds). Since the strongholds won't attack or fire, they will retain their 'fortified' status until the enemy forcibly reduces that status. This means that at least the stronghold part of each fortified zone will retain its 'fortified' status for as long as possible even with a movement of 0, and even after the emplacement part fires (thus losing its 'fortified' status).

If they are forced to retreat and they lose their "F" status can't they at last go three-dots and "T" status?

quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser

Sad News.
Turns out that I cannot edit armored defense strengths as I need to (the values of 5-7 as currently exists for post-WW2 AFVs are far too limiting [a light tank has a defense strength of 5 and a Maus has a defense strength of 7, which is fundamentally flawed and 100% unacceptable]).

Anyway, since I cannot make the armored defense strength edits that I need to, I can't proceed further with this project. Theoretically, there are dozens of things I could continue to work on (like events and TOEs and formation orders, etc.). But the project would still be broken after all that effort if I can't edit the armored defense strengths the way I need to, so there is little point of giving that effort if the end result is fundamentally flawed, as it would be.

If someday the equipment editor is fixed to allow independent editing of armored defense strengths, then I will enthusiastically continue work on this project (I still have all my notes). But it was made pretty clear to me that that is not going to happen. Sad news.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser

Sad News.
Turns out that I cannot edit armored defense strengths as I need to (the values of 5-7 as currently exists for post-WW2 AFVs are far too limiting [a light tank has a defense strength of 5 and a Maus has a defense strength of 7, which is fundamentally flawed and 100% unacceptable]).

Anyway, since I cannot make the armored defense strength edits that I need to, I can't proceed further with this project. Theoretically, there are dozens of things I could continue to work on (like events and TOEs and formation orders, etc.). But the project would still be broken after all that effort if I can't edit the armored defense strengths the way I need to, so there is little point of giving that effort if the end result is fundamentally flawed, as it would be.

If someday the equipment editor is fixed to allow independent editing of armored defense strengths, then I will enthusiastically continue work on this project (I still have all my notes). But it was made pretty clear to me that that is not going to happen. Sad news.

(FYI, .eqp files (along with a lot of other TOAW files are actually in XML format).

So .eqp files are capable of being edited externally with an XML editor such as XML Notepad 2007 from Microsoft (free). You could make the necessary changes in that way, see pg. 166-167 of the TOAW manual for an example of using an XML editor to directly edit game files.

Note: you can actually edit XML files with a standard text editor, but readability/formatting issues really make this difficult hence the suggested usage of an XML editor capable of showing the text in XML format (especially the "tree" format).

I suggest XML Notepad 2007 as noted above because you can get it directly (for free from Microsoft) on their web site here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/confirmation.aspx?id=7973

I just don't trust other utility download sites anymore (even CNET) due to Malware crap.

The one thing I don't know about is if you make external changes, do they "stick" if you reload the .eqp file in the TOAW editor after making the external changes or will the TOAW editor mess with them in some cases. I presume they do. but you'd have to experiment and find out for yourself. If that were the case, make a log of changes you need to externally make and apply them after you have finalized the TOAW editor work.

Hope this helps.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

This is a screw-up by me. Armored equipment derives its defense strength from its armor thickness. The DF value itself is used to set the weight of the equipment instead. The value being entered here is the DF value regardless of whether the equipment is armored or not. It should have been the weight when the armor flag is set.

So, you can still vary the defense strength by varying the armor thickness. But you can't set the weight. What you can do, for now, is look for an existing equipment that has the right weight, and use it as a starting point (copy and paste).

quote:

ORIGINAL: tarzanofmars

Ah gotcha, glad it wasn't a bug in the editor at least. So how about this, since I'm experimenting with using armor for personnel: In the default database the Mounted Rifle Squad (Late) has 1cm of armor, but not the armored attribute checked, so last night I found that you can set the armor any thickness and as long as you don't check the 'armored' attribute, the game does not overwrite your defensive strength.

So now my question is, are these different armor thicknesses being recognized? Are they still coming into play in the battle results?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Now, I found this jewel for you to see how Mark Steven simulated the Zulu Wars of 1879...

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/the-operational-art-of-war-scenario-828-The-Zulu-War-1879

I think there's a modified .EQP, incl. Henry Repeaters etc. So, have a look at this scenario.

Klink, Oberst

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

If your workaround does not work, I ran across this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

This is a screw-up by me. Armored equipment derives its defense strength from its armor thickness. The DF value itself is used to set the weight of the equipment instead. The value being entered here is the DF value regardless of whether the equipment is armored or not. It should have been the weight when the armor flag is set.

So, you can still vary the defense strength by varying the armor thickness. But you can't set the weight. What you can do, for now, is look for an existing equipment that has the right weight, and use it as a starting point (copy and paste).

quote:

ORIGINAL: tarzanofmars

Ah gotcha, glad it wasn't a bug in the editor at least. So how about this, since I'm experimenting with using armor for personnel: In the default database the Mounted Rifle Squad (Late) has 1cm of armor, but not the armored attribute checked, so last night I found that you can set the armor any thickness and as long as you don't check the 'armored' attribute, the game does not overwrite your defensive strength.

So now my question is, are these different armor thicknesses being recognized? Are they still coming into play in the battle results?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Now, I found this jewel for you to see how Mark Steven simulated the Zulu Wars of 1879...

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/the-operational-art-of-war-scenario-828-The-Zulu-War-1879

I think there's a modified .EQP, incl. Henry Repeaters etc. So, have a look at this scenario.

Klink, Oberst

You can read thru the entire thread if you want here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4412492

Regards

quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser

Well, after pretty much wasting an entire weekend on this, I've come to the realization that this is merely a tempest in a teapot. Turns out that armored defense strengths are purely cosmetic and have literally no effect on combat resolution--all that matters is armor thickness.

And while having armored defense strengths within the ridiculously narrow range of 5-7 is terribly misleading visually when looking at armored units on a map, that's all it is--visually misleading and nothing more.

I suppose that that visual misrepresentation could have an impact (you attack that armored unit that has a DF of 3 on the map thinking that you are attacking 30 enemy Lynx light tanks (defense strength of 5), when in fact you are attacking 25 Tiger tanks (defense strength of 6)--oops). Oh well. It's not gonna change and nothing I can do about that.

Anyway, jumping through hoops trying to get armored defense strengths in the range of 5 (halftrack) to 25 (Maus) instead of 5-7 in order give players a more informative (as opposed to misleading) visual representation on the map is simply not worth my time and effort. It doesn't affect combat resolution. It only affects players' visual ability to make better informed decisions. I, personally, wanted to give players that better visual representation because I wanted them to be able to make better informed decisions (instead of the misleading situation we have now). But since I can't do that, and evidently never will, I'm not going to spend any more time thinking about it.

I've already wasted several days on this and enough is enough. I will continue to press on with this project. I wanted to have a useful update today, but lost that time due to this sideshow. Now, it will be later in the week before my next update.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser

Well, after pretty much wasting an entire weekend on this, I've come to the realization that this is merely a tempest in a teapot. Turns out that armored defense strengths are purely cosmetic and have literally no effect on combat resolution--all that matters is armor thickness.

And while having armored defense strengths within the ridiculously narrow range of 5-7 is terribly misleading visually when looking at armored units on a map, that's all it is--visually misleading and nothing more.

I suppose that that visual misrepresentation could have an impact (you attack that armored unit that has a DF of 3 on the map thinking that you are attacking 30 enemy Lynx light tanks (defense strength of 5), when in fact you are attacking 25 Tiger tanks (defense strength of 6)--oops). Oh well. It's not gonna change and nothing I can do about that.

Anyway, jumping through hoops trying to get armored defense strengths in the range of 5 (halftrack) to 25 (Maus) instead of 5-7 in order give players a more informative (as opposed to misleading) visual representation on the map is simply not worth my time and effort. It doesn't affect combat resolution. It only affects players' visual ability to make better informed decisions. I, personally, wanted to give players that better visual representation because I wanted them to be able to make better informed decisions (instead of the misleading situation we have now). But since I can't do that, and evidently never will, I'm not going to spend any more time thinking about it.

I've already wasted several days on this and enough is enough. I will continue to press on with this project. I wanted to have a useful update today, but lost that time due to this sideshow. Now, it will be later in the week before my next update.

I may have been a bit off the mark about the impact of defense strengths (TOAW combat is pretty arcane). While they definitely have nothing to do with the survivability of armored equipment, they may play a role in whether the equipment holds its ground or not. Vehicles compared to infantry aren't very good at that, so it probably makes little difference whether its a Maus or a halftrack trying to hold the hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

Looking forward to your update Victor.[:-]
One small request though. Can you give your scenario a slightly different name, as I plan to keep working on my mod... Multiple PO tracks coupled on events is something I would like to get done...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I may have been a bit off the mark about the impact of defense strengths (TOAW combat is pretty arcane). While they definitely have nothing to do with the survivability of armored equipment, they may play a role in whether the equipment holds its ground or not. Vehicles compared to infantry aren't very good at that, so it probably makes little difference whether its a Maus or a halftrack trying to hold the hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I may have been a bit off the mark about the impact of defense strengths (TOAW combat is pretty arcane). While they definitely have nothing to do with the survivability of armored equipment, they may play a role in whether the equipment holds its ground or not. Vehicles compared to infantry aren't very good at that, so it probably makes little difference whether its a Maus or a halftrack trying to hold the hex.

In the case of a Heavy Artillery Attack (for example 150mm) on an armored unit or hex it is in. How is the armored unit's defense applied against this type of attack if DF is just cosmetic?

Basically, I'm thinking the Artillery is NOT Armor piercing NOR is it HEAT, so what factor(s) (if not DF) does the armored unit use against it in defensive calculations?

quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser

Armored Defense Strengths (ADS), redux.
I really wanted to leave this topic alone, but new problems have arisen that deserve attention.
Tracked Bridge Carrier (ads=6) has better ground-holding ability than T-34/85 (ads=5), even though the Tracked Bridge Carrier is totally unarmed. Who knew?

But now comes a more serious problem. Both the Wespe (ads=7) and the Hummel (ads=7) are better at holding ground than the King Tiger (ads=6). In fact, they are better at holding ground than pretty much every AFV in WW2. But what makes this problem so serious is that both the Wespe and the Hummel have armor thicknesses of 2cm. What this means is that the Wespe and Hummel SHOULD have ads=5 based on armor thickness. But they don't. SOMETHING is forcing those ads=7 values that have nothing to do with armor thickness, which means that something is seriously broken somewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser

Armored Defense Strengths (ADS), redux.
I really wanted to leave this topic alone, but new problems have arisen that deserve attention.
Tracked Bridge Carrier (ads=6) has better ground-holding ability than T-34/85 (ads=5), even though the Tracked Bridge Carrier is totally unarmed. Who knew?

But now comes a more serious problem. Both the Wespe (ads=7) and the Hummel (ads=7) are better at holding ground than the King Tiger (ads=6). In fact, they are better at holding ground than pretty much every AFV in WW2. But what makes this problem so serious is that both the Wespe and the Hummel have armor thicknesses of 2cm. What this means is that the Wespe and Hummel SHOULD have ads=5 based on armor thickness. But they don't. SOMETHING is forcing those ads=7 values that have nothing to do with armor thickness, which means that something is seriously broken somewhere.

Have you actually tested these issues (i.e. Wespe/Hummel being better than the King Tiger in game play) or are you still going by the displayed ADS number (which was stated to be "cosmetic" for armored units (though obviously seriously broken in the way it is being calculated for "cosmetic" display)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

I see a problem in this calculation of the displayed ADs (which if it also shows up on the unit counter) could definitely be misleading for gamers, but I'm wondering if it actually affects the combat calculations reflected in the combat planner screen? If so, it's a BIG problem. If NOT, then it's just a misinformative "cosmetic" issue, that still needs fixing, but not a game breaker... Just have to pay a lot more attention to the combat planner until it gets debugged and fixed.

Might have to set up some limited scenario tests utilizing just a few questionable units on a simple map to observe the combat planner information.

edit> The Ardennes 1944 scenario has Hummels, Wespes, and King Tigers (Tiger VIB). Might make a test case out of it by stripping all German units other than the above, making three units consisting of say only 10 vehicles each, and have some Allied units (combat planner attack them to observe the actual combat defensive odds.

edit>> Interesting, The Ardennes 1944.eqp file, (located in the \Graphics Override\... folder has the following information:

Wespe______ Armor:2.. DF:11
Hummel_____ Armor:3.. DF:24
Tiger VIB____ Armor:19. DF:75
Maus_______ Armor:35. DF:90

Are we perhaps talking Apples vs Oranges? This is a user defined .eqp file that has DF values outside the range of 5-7 and those values obviously "stick" in that particular .eqp file. Am I misunderstanding what factor you are trying to edit/manipulate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser

I want to see what Bob has to say first. You and I see problems. I don't know about Bob, though.

Anyway, here is what I suspect. King Tiger with 19cm of armor is likely to have greater staying power than a Wespe with armor of 2cm, even though 10 King Tigers will display a map defense value of 6 and 10 Wespes will display a map defense of 7--very misleading but you and I already knew that (I don't know about Bob, though).

But of more interest is that 10 Tracked Bridging Vehicles will display a map defense of 6 while 10 T-34/85s will display a map defense of 5, and in this case the Tracked Bridging Vehicles with armor of 15cm will likely have more staying power than the T-34/85s with armor of 9cm, even though the Tracked Bridging Vehicles are totally unarmed.

But the bigger problem is that it is now clear that armored defense strengths are not linked to armor thickness. The Wespe and Hummel prove that. And solving the mystery why this is so might lead to de-linking all the other AFVs from armor thickness, too. That is my hope, anyway.

As it stands now, though, I see the two cases above as irreconcilable and problematic (both in terms of the database as well as gameplay).

quote:

I suspect that armor weight and armor volume are also meaningless and useless, perhaps even more meaningless and useless than armor defense strengths. Should we as scenario developers just ignore those values as worthless? I wonder what Bob has to say about that, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser

There seem to be discrepencies with your Ardennes 1944 .eqp and mine.
My Notepad XML editor shows:
Wespe Armor=2 DF=11
Hummel Armor=3 DF=24
King Tiger Armor=14 DF=10
Maus Armor=35 DF=90

My TOAW4 in-game editor shows:
Wespe Armor=2 DF=8
Hummel Armor=3 DF=7
King Tiger Armor=14 DF=6
Maus Armor=35 DF=8

I have no clue what is going on and why the XML editor and the in-game editors are so different and which one is actually used by the game.

EDIT: I have some heart tests scheduled and it might be Friday before I can get any meaningful work done on E47. I'll be checking this thread in the meantime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

edit>> Interesting, The Ardennes 1944.eqp file, (located in the \Graphics Override\... folder has the following information:

Wespe______ Armor:2.. DF:11
Hummel_____ Armor:3.. DF:24
Tiger VIB____ Armor:19. DF:75
Maus_______ Armor:35. DF:90