Combined faction (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade



Message

exsonic01 -> Combined faction (11/7/2019 7:41:31 PM)

I think it might be possible to make a combined faction, like Eugen's WRD style.

NATO (all Nato nations)
PACT (all PACT nations)
Eurocorps (FRG + France)
Eastern Block (Poland + GDR + Yugo)
Or we could make FRG + Brit, USA + FRG, USSR + GDR...

Would it be possible? If there are unit number limitation for factions, then NATO / PACT would not be possible. But other two-nation faction might be doable.

PS) In terms of historical accuracy, IMO joint operation of such combined faction wouldn't be that much frequent. But maybe, it might be possible. I guess this also depends on scenario designer's plan and scenario.



CCIP-subsim -> RE: Combined faction (11/7/2019 8:43:16 PM)

Totally possible - and not even that difficult, actually!

All you really need to do is copy over the formations and flights, and match them with entries for eras.

Aircraft, units, weapons, and ammo are not nation-specific. Only formations, flights, and eras are.

I'll give it a look - I actually think this would take just a couple of hours to do as a mod.

One thing I'm wary about, though: how would that work with the DLC content?
I don't want to create confusion for those who don't have the DLCs - or worse yet, accidentally open up items that are supposed to be locked for those who don't have the DLC?

I suppose I'll try it with just US/UK/FRG and USSR/GDR/Poland first and see what happens.



forgottnsoldier -> RE: Combined faction (11/7/2019 9:14:02 PM)

You should be able to do this with the Database editor. I did this but just with the aircraft so far. I have all my NATO nations set up to be able to use any NATO air assets they want.



CCIP-subsim -> RE: Combined faction (11/7/2019 9:45:17 PM)

In this particular case, it's probably much easier to do it with a text editor, actually, since all you really need to do is just copy-paste and change the DB entry numbers for the flights/formations (and make sure everything matches the correct eras) [:)]



exsonic01 -> RE: Combined faction (11/8/2019 1:31:31 AM)

Thank you so much.

Then I need to decide which nation's artillery and command delay should be chosen for such combined faction. I guess, if we chose one particular nation's "date" section data as a representative one for artillery and command delay, then other will follow, right?

But it seems that we cannot keep each nation's own unique stats for command delay and artillery stats for combined faction. Hmm... I was more thinking of such united faction but in a way to keeping each faction's ability, however it seems that is not possible... It seems it is related with core engine of this game so this might be very hard to fix I guess, but I wish if AB offers an option of united faction with each nation's own stats.

For now, anyway, for NATO or PACT faction, I guess the best option might be the US or USSR as representative artillery and command delay stat. Or I'm not sure, mix and max from each nations? What would be the best way to make combined faction's main stat?

Also, regarding formation and flight, should I need to copy and paste the lines, and add up numbers after formation and flight accordingly?



CCIP-subsim -> RE: Combined faction (11/8/2019 4:18:20 AM)

Yes, you have to renumber any additional formations. In factions.xml, just paste the formations from the factions you want, and renumber them sequentially like this:

quote:

<string name="formation592" value="305,1969,5,1978,12,5" />
<string name="formation593" value="306,1973,6,1979,12,100" />
<string name="formation594" value="307,1980,1,1991,12,100" />
<string name="formation595" value="308,1970,1,1978,12,100" />
<string name="formation596" value="309,1979,1,1988,12,100" />
<string name="formation597" value="310,1965,1,1978,12,100" />
<string name="formation598" value="311,1979,1,1991,12,100" />
<string name="formation599" value="327,1965,1,1979,12,100" />
<string name="formation600" value="328,1980,1,1984,12,30" />
<string name="formation601" value="314,1972,1,1978,12,100" />
<string name="formation602" value="315,1979,1,1991,12,100" />
<string name="formation603" value="316,1974,3,1978,12,100" />
<string name="formation604" value="317,1979,1,1991,12,100" />
<string name="formation605" value="318,1976,1,1978,12,100" />
<string name="formation606" value="319,1979,1,1991,12,100" />
<string name="formation607" value="320,1976,1,1978,12,100" />
<string name="formation608" value="321,1979,1,1991,12,100" />
<string name="formation609" value="322,1985,1,1991,12,100" />
<string name="formation670" value="323,1985,1,1991,12,100" />
<string name="formation671" value="260,1965,1,1968,12,100" />
<string name="formation672" value="261,1965,1,1968,12,100" />
<string name="formation673" value="262,1965,1,1968,12,100" />
<string name="formation674" value="263,1965,1,1969,12,100" />
<string name="formation675" value="264,1965,1,1969,12,100" />
<string name="formation676" value="265,1965,1,1969,12,100" />
<string name="formation677" value="263,1970,1,1973,12,30" />


Same with flights immediately after them.

So, merging US, UK and FRG resulted in 677 formations and 55 flights. There are obviously some national nuances you lose by combining them, things like artillery costs, training values, and even unique casualty sprites. But on the other hand, you get all the formations to play with!

The one downside, however, is the generic names of a lot of units - other than by sprite and maybe equipped weapons, you can't really tell which "Infantry HQ" is which!
So, to do it as a proper mod - suppose it would require adding the nation to the name of each unit.


[image]local://upfiles/52852/D1667257A3E74241BB9A5B9E308AC6CE.jpg[/image]



exsonic01 -> RE: Combined faction (11/8/2019 8:50:38 PM)

Is it possible to change the unit names from database? I just wish to change the name of units with name of the nation, like:

US Infantry
Poland Infantry
Italy Infantry

But I find that units.xml contains names of all units, but it is really hard to distinguish which line belongs to which faction... Or, is this modified from formations.xml?



CCIP-subsim -> RE: Combined faction (11/8/2019 9:01:28 PM)

Yep, that's what I was doing last night - just means that it'll take a bit longer, and affect the units/aircraft files.
For now I'm simply doing the labels as Infantry (US), Infantry (USSR), Infantry (FRG), Infantry (GDR), etc.
I'll run some tests on it later and see if I can release it as a mod.



nikolas93TS -> RE: Combined faction (11/9/2019 1:17:30 PM)

Currently, player control only one faction because that is how things worked during the Cold War*. However, since 1991 the level in the military hierarchy at which regular multinational interaction takes place has lowered. For example, the British Army of the Rhine would typically have co-ordinated with its allies at Corps or Division level. Nowadays, multinationality occurs within brigades or even battalions.

As we do plan to expand towards modern era, we realised that we will need to implement a new system allowing for such co-ordination, also because some factions (particularly smaller NATO members) lack some basic combat systems to wage modern combat independently due to post-Cold War military reductions.

However, we are not yet sure how we will implement that; we might use the current system to make super-factions as have been proposed above in order to save time and resources, or we might implement a new mode allowing to “borrow” allied formations.

*a notable exception was Korean War with Commonwealth Division (and integration of some smaller contingents within UN Command) but even in that case we talk about units with common language, doctrine, equipment etc.



CCIP-subsim -> RE: Combined faction (11/9/2019 2:34:53 PM)

Oh, I agree - the current approach is totally fair from from a realism perspective. This is more of a fun/flexibility/scenario design perspective[:D]

Another exception that comes to mind from the period is the US 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam in 1965-66, which had an Australian battalion and a New Zealand artillery battery attached to it for a full year.



CCIP-subsim -> RE: Combined faction (11/10/2019 11:18:12 PM)

So I've done the thing. See this post:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4714407

[image]https://i.imgur.com/xf7EOKu.jpg[/image]

[image]https://i.imgur.com/Hag0JJz.jpg[/image]

[image]https://i.imgur.com/MOrrjQ8.jpg[/image]

[image]https://i.imgur.com/GvBfWSO.jpg[/image]

[image]https://i.imgur.com/KiwDKlZ.jpg[/image]

One thing I realized is kind of handy about this is not so much for the player faction, as for the enemy AI - since it keeps things a bit more unpredictable, especially in campaigns.



exsonic01 -> RE: Combined faction (11/11/2019 1:14:43 AM)

This looks great!! This would enables some sort of 'combined operations' for future scenario purpose. Actually I was working on this, but I guess your idea with parentheses looks much better and clean and you are so fast!!

I wish to try this in any scenario or campaign. May I ask how combined forces changed AI behavior?



exsonic01 -> RE: Combined faction (11/11/2019 1:48:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS
Currently, player control only one faction because that is how things worked during the Cold War*. However, since 1991 the level in the military hierarchy at which regular multinational interaction takes place has lowered. For example, the British Army of the Rhine would typically have co-ordinated with its allies at Corps or Division level. Nowadays, multinationality occurs within brigades or even battalions.

As we do plan to expand towards modern era, we realised that we will need to implement a new system allowing for such co-ordination, also because some factions (particularly smaller NATO members) lack some basic combat systems to wage modern combat independently due to post-Cold War military reductions.

However, we are not yet sure how we will implement that; we might use the current system to make super-factions as have been proposed above in order to save time and resources, or we might implement a new mode allowing to “borrow” allied formations.


*a notable exception was Korean War with Commonwealth Division (and integration of some smaller contingents within UN Command) but even in that case we talk about units with common language, doctrine, equipment etc.

Regarding examples, there were more examples of multi-nation operation during Korean war other than Commonwealth forces. Several units of American artillery and armor fought alongside with RoK corps and divisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Courageous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pyongyang_(1950)
During battle of Pyongyang, 6th Medium Tank Battalion continued to north with RoK 1st infantry division. I guess Battalion size armors wouldn't be a "smaller contingents" as combined operation...
Plus, during Vietnam war, RoK divisions and regiments received support from US artillery and airstrike, and several RoK elements attempted air mobile operation with the support of US UH-1 helicopters. In those examples, mostly US provided supportive assets to RoK forces but even those require good degree of communication and coordination.


Regarding multi-nation operations during hypothetical hot cold war, I agree it would be rare if any happens. But it never means it is guaranteed to not happened at all. Like CCIP's comment, I guess this would depends on scenario designer's imagination. Of course such scenarios will make AB more interesting [;)]

During Korean war, one of the PLA's main tactic/strategy was to penetrate deep inside following the forward boundary line of UN forces. Sometimes responsibility and control of area become unclear among different units in the middle of combats & operations, and if communication fails. PLA exploited this weakness. They received enough info from recon, spy, and PoW interrogation, and they narrowed several valleys and mountains along the UN forward boundary line as possible infiltration route, which is likely to be neglected from UN forces. Plus, they only moved at night. This is how PLA was possible to make some success after they engage to Korean War. With underestimation of PLA capability by UN HQ, PLA division's infiltration maneuver successfully surrounded many UN groups during Korean War, such as Battle of Chosin, Battle of Hoengsong, and Battle of Hyeon-ri. Later, UN catch this PLA strategy and they countered this with more fire power and narrower distance among units.

We could make similar example. In the middle of communication jamming and with the help of fake assault, some Soviet or NVA elements penetrated deep inside FRG along forward boundary between Belgium 1 corps and BAOR 1 corps. This might created some sort of combined reaction from FRG / UK / Belgium forces against PACT OMG.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75