RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/5/2019 5:53:39 PM)

I was messing with my TV spreadsheet and I finally had a flash of inspiration. If this inspired concept works, it will save me time and equipment slots. I will know by the end of this weekend. I really hope this works because I think I can save this scenario and maybe even be able to get back to the Italians sometime in May. Cross your fingers.

On a related subject, I tried to make a Cossack Tachanka and could not because TOAW does not have horse-drawn vehicles, only horse-drawn transport. But trying to create the Tachanka led directly to my flash of inspiration, so I'm not too disappointed.



cathar1244 -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/5/2019 7:21:21 PM)

quote:

The problem is that the transportation values are NOT rational.


I've been poking the equipment database to re-familiarize myself with the transportation "cost" for pieces of equipment. A general summary: the transport cost for non-armored equipment is a given; the value will be whatever it is for, say, a gun, or a truck, or an SP-SAM as long as it is not armored.

Armored equipment is handled differently. The DF value of armored equipment determines the transport cost. As Bob Cross mentioned in his document regarding equipment file editing, the transport cost equals three-quarters of the DF value. Thus, if the DF is "4", the transport cost will be 3.

So the DF value drives the transport cost for armored equipment. Now I'm wondering, in a retreat before combat resolution, if a unit with only armored equipment reckons the defense value based on the DF value or the defense factor calculated on the basis of its armor.

Cheers



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/5/2019 7:50:29 PM)

Cathar,

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but what I think you are saying is incorrect. I have examined most every equipment listed in the database, and the transportation values are irrational. Certainly, there was a system used to create those transportation values, but that system, while systematic, does not produce rational results.

Look at the picture I posted in post #165. Both the pickup truck and the Pershing SSM have the same transportation value (3). And that is irrational. Both a 37mm antiaircraft gun and a 12-inch siege gun have the same transportation value (2). And that is irrational. And on and on and on.

So, yes, there was a system used to produce transportation values. But that system is broken and produces irrational results.

E47 is a very complicated scenario. The human (Allied) player has enormous transportation problems trying to fight a very powerful enemy over a huge area involving land, sea, and air operations. If the transportation values are irrational, then the aircap, seacap, and railcap numbers will lead to impossible situations for the human player to deal with. Therefore, the human player must be given transportation values (and the associated aircap, seacap, and railcap) that are as rational as possible. As I said earlier in this thread, I wouldn't even play my own scenario today because the transportation values are broken and irrational. I am working very very hard to give players the most rational transportation values I can, and this is a very difficult problem to solve because there is no way to directly edit transportation values. I think I might be close to solving this problem, but I don't know today.



cathar1244 -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/6/2019 7:00:37 AM)

Victor, yes, I agree that the transport costs don't match real-world characteristics well. Another example is a rifle squad having a transport cost of "1" while a pickup or jeep costs "2". When I stated those costs are a "given", I meant that is what the game delivers, for good or bad.

The system is made more complex because it has two components -- the system of "given values" and the system used for armored equipment. I don't envy you the task you've set for yourself. It is going to be a balancing act involving a lot of detailed consideration.

Cheers



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/6/2019 2:18:03 PM)

As I suspected, I'm having serious equipment-slot problems. At this point I have to merge weapon types as much as possible. For example, JagdPanther, JagdTiger, Nashorn, JagdPanzer IV, Hetzer, etc., are all going to be merged into a single weapon type called JagdPanther (late). So, when you see Spanish tank units equipped with JagdPanther (late), they aren't necessarily JagdPanthers, but can be any assortment of 1945/1946-era SPATs.

Also, some units, like US Marine divisions and Soviet Rifle corps are already at 24 equipment slots and I don't know if I can free up enough slots by merging weapons (because they don't have many, if any, AFVs to merge), no matter what. I was afraid of this. I don't know how to solve this right now, but I'm not giving up.

I do know that I'm going to have to completely re-organize the Soviet OOB because I did the Soviets first and a lot has happened since then which make many aspects of the Soviet OOB incompatible with the OOBs I did later. It won't surprise me if I have to re-organize the other Allied OOBs as well.

But first things first--I still have to figure out a way to solve the transportation problem before anything else.



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/10/2019 9:41:43 AM)

I haven't been feeling well the past couple days (I think I had an allergic reaction to some meds), but I'm feeling better now. Onwards!

I've resolved my problems with USMC divisions and Soviet rifle corps. To do this, I've had to compress TO/Es to 21 (and even 19 sometimes) equipment slots. Very painful and it's going to take a lot of time to go through the entire OOB re-organizing units.

But I'm now having problems with airborne units. As far as I can tell, when it comes to transport equipment, whether Airborne Movement Allowed has been selected is irrelevant. For example, the Truck equipment does not have Airborne Movement Allowed. And yet when trucks are assigned to an airborne unit, those trucks will fly along with the rest of unit when performing an airborne operation. Further, if I create an equipment called Light Motor Transport (Jeeps, etc.) that I specifically want to have Airborne Movement Allowed, it does not. You ask yourself, who cares? Well, trucks are roadbound and I want Light Motor Transport to not be roadbound. So, today my trucks which are roadbound and do not have Airborne Movement Allowed fly along with their airborne unit, while my light motor transports which are not roadbound and do have Airborne Movement Allowed are left behind.

This matters, because in the world of TOAW unintended consequences cause problems in other unexpected areas. I don't want to simply accept that trucks are broken when it comes to airborne movement only to spend several months working only to discover that there was another problem with trucks and I just wasted a lot of time. So I need to resolve this now, while I'm dealing with transportation problems.

I believe that if I can resolve this issue, then I'll be ready to get back to OOB work. I'll have to test some boundary conditions first, but today I think that once the airborne problem is solved (am I overconfident?) that I'll be able to provide players with transportation values they can trust (given that I can't edit TVs directly). At the very least they'll be consistent, which means that even if you don't trust them, the TVs I'll provide will be directly linked to the aircap, seacap, and railcap based on those TVs and transportation will work consistently. And that is not the case with TOAW today, which is what started all this.




VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/12/2019 12:36:34 PM)

I have not been able to solve the problem with trucks and airborne operations. I suspect that there is a problem with the program itself and how it interacts with unit symbols, in this case the parachute, parachute-infantry, glider, and headquarters symbols. I think that only a programmer familiar with the game code can fix this.

However, I might have a way to work around this problem. [Having to work around TOAW's myriad problems has become all too familiar by now.] I'll be testing this work-around today. Fingers crossed.



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/12/2019 2:57:43 PM)

Regarding my E47 timeline.

Although E47 starts on 1 Jan 1947, do not think of this scenario as a "late" WW2 scenario. E47 is more like a "Korea and Cold-War" scenario.

The historical timeline had all nations demobilizing in 1945. Military research and funding were slashed. New technologies and equipment in 1945 (both on the drawing boards and/or ready for testing) were shelved. The Korean war basically "re-started" the research and technologies that already existed in 1945, but on a more limited level. Historically, the Korean War was fought using a lot of WW2 equipment. Not so with E47.

The E47 timeline postulates that all nations continue to frantically and at maximum effort develop new technologies and equipment, with no demobilization or de-funding. Thus, I assign 3 years of "peacetime" development for each year of E47. Thus, 1946 E47 corresponds to 1946-48 historical, 1947 E47 corresponds to 1949-51 historical, 1948 E47 corresponds to 1952-54 historical, 1949 E47 corresponds to 1955-57 historical, and 1950 E47 corresponds to 1958-60 historical. The scenario ends by the summer of 1950 because one side will have a working atomic bomb by then (game over).

The whole premise behind E47 is that no nation had an atomic bomb in 1945-46. Perhaps Einstein died before writing his famous letter to FDR. Perhaps FDR chose not to take Einstein's advice. Who knows? But something happened that resulted in no atomic bombs. But by the time E47 begins, both sides want an end to the war as soon as possible. The frenzy to build an atomic bomb begins. And somebody WILL have an atomic bomb by the summer of 1950, thus ending E47 one way or the other. You, as the human player, are trying to ensure Allied victory before then, thus forestalling a potential Axis atomic bomb.



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/13/2019 11:51:42 AM)

Well, I've figured out a way to work around the airborne transport problem.

So, as far as I know today, I have the tools I need to give players reliable and consistent transportation values. Now comes the pain of re-organizing the OOBs, starting with the Soviets.

I have no clue how long this re-organization process is going to take, but I do know that it will add units to both sides' OOBs. My guess is 7-8 weeks. I doubt it will be sooner because I know I have some busy medical days ahead that will consume a week or two.

Despite my moaning and whining, I'm actually pretty satisfied with being able to give players useful transportation values. [I want to play this damned thing myself, so I have a selfish interest in this process.]

Anyway, I'll provide occasional updates with my progress. "Forward, gunner Asch!"



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/14/2019 5:30:19 PM)

Well, I'm getting off to a slow start. I quickly discovered that I need to do some fine-tuning and calibrating. I should have done some more testing before trying to dive right in. Most of the numbers are just fine, but there are a few that aren't quite right.

Wasn't it Patton who said, "Better a good plan today than a perfect plan tomorrow."? Well, I want to get as close to perfect as I can. So, I'm going to shoot for the day after tomorrow. That will give me the rest of today to undo the mistakes I already made, tomorrow to fine-tune, calibrate, and double-check my numbers, and then the day after tomorrow to start again.

P.S. From the little I did yesterday and this morning, I might have underestimated the amount of time and effort needed to do this. I have faith that the results will be worth it, but I'm starting to suspect that I'm a masochist when it comes to E47.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/14/2019 5:38:23 PM)

It's always darkest just before dawn.



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/14/2019 7:53:05 PM)

Supply Points.
I mentioned earlier that I'm having issues with supply points. Here is an example.

Both Murmansk and Arkangelsk have a supply value of 100 in Europa 1947. I think those numbers are impossible (or at least very impractical) because the premise behind Europa 1947 is that the Axis has actually grown in strength, not diminished. I think that the amount of effort and resources that the Allies would have to expend to deliver supplies around the north coast of Norway is simply not worth it. I will probably cut those numbers to 25, and even that might be too high. I believe that after the Soviets took Manchuria away from the Japanese that the Soviets would plunder it for every bit of food, manpower, and resources that it possibly can. And since the rest of China is fighting their own Civil War (Mao vs. Chang) there is little the Chinese can do about it, especially since the USA has diverted pretty much all their combat resources from China to Europe. Anyway, the Trans-Siberian pipeline (I postulate that the USA contributed enormously to double-track and modernize it) is the real source of Soviet supply (plundering Manchuria as well as Allied deliveries to Vladivostok) in this scenario. And even though this isn't a high priority right now, I am making a list and will be checking it twice.

Cataclysm '47
I've reached the point where this scenario has become real enough to have its own name. So, in accordance with Silvanski's request, from now on I will be referring to C47. However, I don't want to start a new thread until C47 is actually released.



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/18/2019 12:50:40 AM)

I was making progress regarding OOB reorganization, but I have to address a problem with AAA. AAA has been dogging me since the start of this project. And now that I'm reorganizing the OOBs, it's time to correct some errors I made a while ago. Hopefully, I'll be able to make those corrections in the next day or two.



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/19/2019 12:29:27 PM)

I've corrected my mistakes and resolved my AAA issues for the Allies. I also have a clear idea what to do with the Italians and Germans when I get to them.

However, now I have to edit the map to reflect these changes. Probably take a day or two.

While I'm editing the map I will also address some of the supply-point problems I've come across.



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/21/2019 6:59:40 PM)

I made good progress this weekend. With luck, I'll be finished with the Soviet re-organization by the end of the month. So far, I'm quite pleased with the transportation values I'm seeing.

There are many stretches of broken rail in the USSR at the start of C47. This is a holdover from previous versions of Europa 1947. However, I can justify these broken rails due to the Herculean effort expended on double-tracking and modernizing the 5,700+ miles of the Trans-Siberian Railway.

Justifying all the Allied broken rails in North Africa (from previous versions of Europa 1947) is more challenging. However, since I'm still working on the Soviets, I'll worry about North Africa when I get there.



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/23/2019 4:27:07 PM)

A Fly in the Ointment.
Historically, the Germans first tested an ATGM in 1944 (the X-7). Historically, the French introduced the S.11 in 1955 (1948 in C47 terms), which was based on the German X-7.

For C47, giving the Germans 2 years to refine and get their X-7 ready for service, I can justify introducing the X-7 in 1947. And the Allies will have their ATGMs starting in 1948 (they need a year to study captured X-7s). That's not the problem.

The problem is making a judgment regarding how widespread these ATGMs would be. It's a problem because I'm in the middle of re-organizing the Soviets, and I've already had a variety of equipment-slot issues. My gut reaction is to simply create new units because the early ATGMs were difficult to operate and required a lot of training, which avoids the equipment-slot issue. But I don't want to start down this road today only to figure out a better solution next week. Hopefully, I'll decide on the most practical way to handle ATGMs in the next day or two.




RyanCrierie -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/24/2019 8:08:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser

The historical timeline had all nations demobilizing in 1945. Military research and funding were slashed. New technologies and equipment in 1945 (both on the drawing boards and/or ready for testing) were shelved. The Korean war basically "re-started" the research and technologies that already existed in 1945, but on a more limited level. Historically, the Korean War was fought using a lot of WW2 equipment. Not so with E47.


I've been at the National Archives, and I've seen papers saying basically "well, now with the war over (in September 1945), we can introduce a 24 month delay to these new 3"/50 3"/70 anti-aircraft guns."



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (4/27/2019 9:18:19 PM)

I've figured out how I want to handle ATGMs, so that's taken care of.

I'm still having issues with AAA, but I think that won't be finally resolved until my final review before release, so no worries there for now.

I've made good progress with re-organizing the Soviet OOB. I should be finished in the next few days. Next, I'll re-organize the USA-equipped forces. I estimate that that will take around 3 weeks because I have a busy medical week coming up. Overall, I'm happy with the Soviet re-organization, and even though this whole transportation-value issue has been painful, I think that the results have been worth it.



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (5/3/2019 10:24:01 AM)

I've finished the Soviet OOB re-organization. I'm pretty happy about the results. Turns out that were a variety of mistakes in the OOB I did months ago that I was able to fix and improve.

I'm going to take today off and then start on the USA-equipped OOB re-organization tomorrow. I think it will take around 3 weeks to finish. I will also address some map issues, mainly supply points and rail lines.



larryfulkerson -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (5/3/2019 11:39:13 AM)

quote:

I'm still having issues with AAA, but I think that won't be finally resolved until my final review before release, so no worries there for now.

Have you ever been the Allied player and one of your B-52's get's shot down by VC armed with bows and arrows. It needs a little tweaking I'm guessing.



cathar1244 -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (5/3/2019 1:05:31 PM)

quote:

It needs a little tweaking I'm guessing.


The AA values used by ground units in TOAW would make a great topic for an 'under the hood' discussion.

Cheers



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (5/4/2019 5:32:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

I'm still having issues with AAA, but I think that won't be finally resolved until my final review before release, so no worries there for now.

Have you ever been the Allied player and one of your B-52's get's shot down by VC armed with bows and arrows. It needs a little tweaking I'm guessing.


Heh. The list of TOAW "anomalies" is nearly endless.

But speaking of AAA, I think I've resolved most of my issues with AAA. Basically, AAA guns were proving not very useful in the jet age depicted in C47. My TO/Es have evolved over the months to reflect that reality. Also, the British and Americans used different AA weapons with one exception--the Bofors 40mm AAA gun. Turns out that for low altitude, the twin mount was reasonably useful. So, I've adopted the twin 40mm mount as my "standard" (the Soviets use twin 37mm) for combat units. Dedicated AAA units still have a variety of AAA weapons, but the Allies don't have a lot of those (the Germans will, though).



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (5/4/2019 5:56:27 PM)

North African Railroads.
A little research has revealed why the North African rails are a mess.
1) The British never intended to extend the coastal rail much past Tobruk in Libya. I've extended it as far as Benghazi, even though the Benghazi port wasn't considered very good. Players will still have the option to extend it still further, though.
2) The situation in Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco is very different. There, there are lots of small railroads, but they use all sorts of different rail gauges and they are in all sorts of disrepair. I've given the Allies a connection between Tunis and Oran, and a connection between Casablanca and Fez, to represent modernization as well as conversion to standard gauge. They really need that connection between Tunis and Oran because Axis anti-shipping aircraft are very dangerous.

Which brings me to another nagging issue with C47--Supply Points.
Europa 1947 gives Gibralter a supply rating of 100. I have a problem with this because once Spain joins the Axis can the Allies even hold Gibralter, much less use it as a 100 supply point? I've answered yes to holding Gibralter (although I imagine the air and naval fighting in the area to be intense). Regarding the 100 supply rating, I don't have a clear solution. As long as the Axis pose an immediate threat, the 100 rating is unjustifiable. But if/when the Allies secure the region around Gibralter, then a 100 rating might be justified. But that begs the question, should a big rock at the southern tip of Spain EVER be a 100 supply point? I'm seriously considering reducing Gibralter to a 50 or even 25. This forces the Allies to hold Portugal and/or somehow knock Spain out of the war.



cathar1244 -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (5/4/2019 6:54:43 PM)

Victor, one bit that may interest you is that the improved L70 Bofors gun came out in 1947. That might be an equipment option for some of your Allied forces.

Cheers



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (5/6/2019 1:17:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Victor, one bit that may interest you is that the improved L70 Bofors gun came out in 1947. That might be an equipment option for some of your Allied forces.

Cheers


Cathar,
In the interests of simplicity (and precious equipment slots), I only have one 40mm AA equipment instead of both a 40L60 and 40L70 version. But I've weighted the AA rating in favor of the L70 version. Given the scale of C47, I've done this with most all equipments. For example, the Soviets only have 3 medium tanks: T-44 (late), T-54, and T-54 (late). The Germans will have only 3 medium tanks: Panther (late), Leopard, and Leopard (late). And so on. This scenario is simply too big to have a plethora of equipment types that require endless unit upgrades during the game.



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (5/6/2019 1:25:25 PM)

An example of unit re-organization.

Below is what an American corps HQ looked like a week ago, before re-organization:

Based on TOAW's (irrational) transportation values, that unit has a TV of 1865. But based on my rationalized TVs, that unit has a TV of 2756, which is way too heavy. And that's why I'm doing this re-organization. [See next post below.]




[image]local://upfiles/51616/A1E2C320509D443D8F72DFB93E4E2DEF.jpg[/image]



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (5/6/2019 1:34:07 PM)

Here is the re-organized American corps HQ:

This streamlined unit now has a rationalized TV of only 1263 (instead of 2756), which is much more transportation friendly. It retains all of the essential equipments and strips out all of the heavy (and non-essential) equipments.

It's interesting that once you have a rationalized TV system, you pay a LOT more attention to keeping units lean and focused on maximum utility for the minimum transportation value. Kind of like real life, eh?

[image]local://upfiles/51616/C6EC011F019D4EE4AAC7A9B39A9A844F.jpg[/image]



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (5/7/2019 6:11:51 PM)

Here is a Soviet heavy artillery unit (note that Allied units have significantly different TO/Es than Soviet units).
This unit has 16x 122mm howitzers, 16x 122mm guns, 16x 12mm ER guns, 16x 122mm LR guns, 16x 130mm guns, 16x 130mm ER guns, 16x 152mm howitzers, 16x 152mm guns, 16x 152mm ER guns, 16x 152mm LR guns, 8x 8 inch guns, 8x 8 inch ER guns, 16x quad AAMG, 8x twin 37mm AA, 48x prime movers, 64x hvy trucks, and 32x trucks. It has a rationalized TV of 2401.



[image]local://upfiles/51616/D42DC9FDD3344FAF9AEA8F0E24718FD5.jpg[/image]



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (5/7/2019 6:16:35 PM)

Here is my TV spreadsheet with the above Soviet unit using the base (irrational) TOAW TVs. Based on TOAW's irrational TV system, the above unit has a TV of 832.



[image]local://upfiles/51616/2AB042C4319E41C790441EF3588F466A.jpg[/image]



VHauser -> RE: Europa 1947 for TOAW IV (5/7/2019 6:23:16 PM)

Here is my spreadsheet with the rationalized TV for the above Soviet heavy artillery unit.
[Note that I always try to produce a unit TV within the "sweet spot" of the 2 values in green (the second number is always evenly divisible by 3)] The above Soviet unit has a TV of 2401, which is in the sweet spot.



[image]local://upfiles/51616/14F5C9CE65C64847B9671960278F173F.jpg[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.436523