PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts - Questions & Commentary

Panzer / Allied General Remake: Strategies, Tactics, Efiles, Custom Campaigns, Customizations, Documentation.

Moderator: Radoye

User avatar
Cat Leon
Major
Major
Posts: 100
Joined: 2019-12-17 10:16, Tuesday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Cat Leon » 2021-01-06 10:24, Wednesday

I thought that planes can always be deployed only near airfields but it works this way if you buy a plane after scenario already started! In campaigns a planes can be deployed in any of the deploy hexes before scenario starting... :drink
Leon, the friendly cat who walks by himself, plays PGF, PG2 & OG and bores busy people!

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 470
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Radoye » 2021-01-06 13:47, Wednesday

That is correct, ever since the original PG(DOS). you can deploy any unit on any deployment hex (providing for movement rules).

User avatar
HexCode
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 926
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] PGF: Quo Vadis ?

Post by HexCode » 2021-01-07 21:25, Thursday

All post excerpts quoted below have recently appeared elsewhere in these forums within the context of, say, "Game X".
First i want to say sorry, but i had to write this rant. It's been growing for a long time and i can't hold it back anymore :lol I also don't want to attack anybody. I am only angry at myself because i care too much about the game and the community. I always wished i would have joined the community in 2007 and not in 2017. I was 10 years too late. A pity.
Well, what does all the above have to do with PGF ? Personally speaking, not much !
But most people from the near-death community won't care anyway. And that's also my main point. The community is dead and i have to figure out how to emotionally disconnect and then say goodbye :howdy c'est la vie :dunno
In order for a "community" to be on the verge of "dying", it certainly has to preexist. In my opinion, there's never been a PGF "community" worth its salt.
So will there be any future development of the game, efiles and campaigns?
Will there be anybody making maps? Are there active members of the community who are willing to contribute?
When it comes to PGF, very, very few of those, under the most optimistic scenario imaginable.
I often wonder if there is a single active efile maker because it seems that nobody is doing any research. And if so, why are they not able to share some useful links? And, let's be honest, it's not about some links but about participation in a healthy community.
Again, in order for a "community" to continue staying "healthy", it has to preexist.
Nobody needs people secretly working on their own stuff but not taking part in anything. Then the forum would be empty. Like it is now. And i am not talking about sports stuff, Bundesliga, nonsense talk or youtube links... ;)
Solitary, mostly insular modding has been the PGF "way" for many, many years.
I don't need answers to my questions, because - in fact - i already got them over time. No answer is an answer and no participation in a community is an answer too.
I totally agree in spades.
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:15, Wednesday, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 470
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Radoye » 2021-01-10 17:28, Sunday

In my mod i'm trying to use the "Max Unit Experience" setting in scenarios to keep control of the amount of "stars" core units can get as the campaign progresses. This became necessary with the introduction of the 1936 Spanish Civil War prequel to the 1939 campaign - as it turns out, the player would arrive to Poland with a bunch of 3-star units which then make the following scenarios way too easy (5-star airforce in 1941 :shock ). But with limiting experience to a max of one star it doesn't unbalance things and the campaign is still playable. So i decided to implement the following scheme for max experience as the game progresses (not yet fully implemented though, it's still WIP):

Up to and including 1939 - max 1 star (translates to "Max Unit Experience 100")
1940 - 1941 - max 2 stars ("Max Unit Experience 200")
1942 - early 1943 - max 3 stars ("Max Unit Experience 300" etc - you get the idea)
Late 1943 - 1944 - max 4 stars
1945 and later - max 5 stars

The above is for a German "world conquest" campaign, be it the stock SSI PG1 one or some of the custom ones based off of it; for Allied campaigns a similar scheme could be devised to fit with each particular campaign. Play balance can then be achieved through adjustments to the opponent / AI side experience settings for the pre-placed units in the scenarios rather than piling on prestige which would be spent on spamming the map with countless cheap crappy units.

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 470
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Radoye » 2021-01-13 02:28, Wednesday

Elsewhere in this forum - or look, ma, i did a HexCode ;) :
HexCode wrote:
2021-01-13 01:24, Wednesday
By the way, the kinds of content which immediately come to mind are BMP files containing icons and file EQUIPMENT.PGEQP containing unit specs. This is because their content governs play involving multiple scenarios.
Correct, but also includes stuff like flags / nations, mapnames.str (custom city and other geography names), terrain tiles and others. With PGF, hard limitations of PG1 are gone, and the amount of data in the files can be expanded, there is no longer a pressing need to replace existing stuff because now there's plenty of room to continue expanding.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: Air Units -- AI's Occasional Paralysis

Post by Lettos » 2021-01-25 20:02, Monday

HexCode wrote:
2021-01-25 02:59, Monday
Absent a friendly airfield on the map, PGF's AI doesn't move its air units at all. Aircraft carriers don't seem to matter; ditto for enemy airfields... :eek

One can easily mod a hex somewhere on the map's edge to visually display some "innocuous" terrain like sea / ocean while sporting a "concealed", underlying airfield terrain. To spice up custom content design experimentation a bit, what happens if the hex were to be designated neutral territory ? :dunno :)

# Radoye # would add a whole bunch of airfield hexes masked as ocean hexes, with one single ocean hex in the middle of it all; he'd then park an aircraft carrier unit right in the middle so that it can't move - to give "things" the "right looks" as well.

Ok, this is a modding subject deserving some... "serious research" ! :P
This good old cow seems to have enough room to stick in ten syringes with an injection of hidden upgrades ... to become a dream mustang for a moment. :cool :howdy
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 470
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Radoye » 2021-01-26 22:45, Tuesday

I don't think this current / final version of PGF AI disbands units. One of the early iterations of the AI would disband (almost) all of its units on turn one and then purchase hordes of crap around victory hexes. Alex / Rudankort said he learned this "trick" from watching H2H players. I did some playtesting back then and was extremely against this because it defeats any purpose of actually designing scenarios, and after a lot of pushback we finally ended up with the current AI - it no longer disbands its units but still tends to purchase hordes of crap around victory hexes :dunno

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Lettos » 2021-01-27 10:19, Wednesday

Radoye wrote:
2021-01-26 22:45, Tuesday
I don't think this current / final version of PGF AI disbands units. One of the early iterations of the AI would disband (almost) all of its units on turn one and then purchase hordes of crap around victory hexes. Alex / Rudankort said he learned this "trick" from watching H2H players. I did some playtesting back then and was extremely against this because it defeats any purpose of actually designing scenarios, and after a lot of pushback we finally ended up with the current AI - it no longer disbands its units but still tends to purchase hordes of crap around victory hexes :dunno
All of the above confirms that PGF is not a game, but a classic wargame that emulates the clash of real historical armies.
What strong units could Poland mobilize after September 10, 1939? Nothing. Norway? Nothing. France after June 4, 1940? Something relatively small, mainly poor-weaponed reserve infantry divisions. Yugoslavia and Greece in 1941? Nothing.
Soviet Union in October-November'1941? People's militia, partisans and very rare advanced units redeployed from other fronts and the Far East.
Germany in 1945? Volkssturm and redeployment of the remnants of the armies.
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 470
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Radoye » 2021-01-29 20:32, Friday

Actually, he did read the Strategy Guide but decided he can do better... Apparently, if you run "basic" AI it should be his interpretation of the original PG1 AI, where "Advanced" is all his ideas. :dunno

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 470
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: AI Prestige Management (Part II)

Post by Radoye » 2021-01-29 22:45, Friday

HexCode wrote:
2021-01-29 20:55, Friday
# Radoye #, have you ever played with "basic" AI on ? Is it anything like SSI's AI ?
It is, to a degree - the AI is less annoying with its purchasing habits and stuff, in some aspects it is indeed closer to SSI's.

But i found it generally weak and not very challenging, more like the SSI PacGen AI if you know what i mean - PG1 AI was "smarter" ;)

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 470
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: AI Prestige Management (Part III)

Post by Radoye » 2021-01-29 23:52, Friday

HexCode wrote:
2021-01-29 22:57, Friday
Ok, has anyone tried "intermediate" AI ? If so, what was it like ?
"Advanced" is the default one so i based most of my research on that, and it's been a while since i last looked at the other modes so take what i say with a grain of salt, but i believe "intermediate" is just a weaker / less aggressive variation of the "advanced" where "basic" was supposed to be SSI-like.

None of the AI modes in PGF work particularily well IMO, which is a shame because Rudankort is fully capable of developing a solid challenging AI as he proved with PzC, which is pretty much on par with SSI's PG1 AI.

User avatar
HexCode
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 926
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Retrograde 'Kriegsspiel' -- Technical Assistance

Post by HexCode » 2021-01-31 19:52, Sunday

The other day, # Lettos # brought up something that I hadn't seen since the now bygone days of James Dunnigan and his (long defunct) brainchild, SPI. The idea here is to utilize PGF's play system framework to emulate, as closely as technically feasible, the historical unfolding of certain WWII battles / operations (i.e., historically accurate walk-through). This retrograde 'Kriegsspiel' will likely entail some notion of "Serially Inter-Connected Scenarios" not necessarily comprising a run-of-the-mill, SSI-style campaign.

This sort of "grognard" exercise used to be quite feasible and reasonably popular in the days of tabletop wargaming. The rules could be bent at will... In the case of computer-enabled play systems, one may need to resort to interventions requiring solid, technical know-how. By the way, PGF's "Cheat Codes" should be usefully viewed as "Custom Content Designer Aids".
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:18, Wednesday, edited 2 times in total.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Lettos » 2021-02-01 20:33, Monday

Radoye wrote:
2021-01-10 17:28, Sunday
In my mod i'm trying to use the "Max Unit Experience" setting in scenarios to keep control of the amount of "stars" core units can get as the campaign progresses. This became necessary with the introduction of the 1936 Spanish Civil War prequel to the 1939 campaign - as it turns out, the player would arrive to Poland with a bunch of 3-star units which then make the following scenarios way too easy (5-star airforce in 1941 :shock ).
This problem was easy to predict. :shock ;)
Radoye wrote:
2021-01-10 17:28, Sunday
But with limiting experience to a max of one star it doesn't unbalance things and the campaign is still playable. So i decided to implement the following scheme for max experience as the game progresses (not yet fully implemented though, it's still WIP):

Up to and including 1939 - max 1 star (translates to "Max Unit Experience 100")
1940 - 1941 - max 2 stars ("Max Unit Experience 200")
1942 - early 1943 - max 3 stars ("Max Unit Experience 300" etc - you get the idea)
Late 1943 - 1944 - max 4 stars
1945 and later - max 5 stars

The above is for a German "world conquest" campaign, be it the stock SSI PG1 one or some of the custom ones based off of it; for Allied campaigns a similar scheme could be devised to fit with each particular campaign. Play balance can then be achieved through adjustments to the opponent / AI side experience settings for the pre-placed units in the scenarios rather than piling on prestige which would be spent on spamming the map with countless cheap crappy units.
There is another way to solve the problem. Reduce the chances of a player getting PP during a scenario. Create scenarios for the player in which he will be forced to end the scenario with incomplete units with STR <10. Don't give a big bonus for completing the scenario. And the player will be forced to settle for regular, non-elite reinforcements for the units.
Last edited by Lettos on 2021-02-15 20:04, Monday, edited 1 time in total.
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

User avatar
HexCode
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 926
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Prestige... Famine

Post by HexCode » 2021-02-01 21:01, Monday

Lettos wrote:
2021-02-01 20:33, Monday
There is another way to solve the problem. Reduce the chances of a player getting PP during a scenario. Create scenarios for the player in which he will be forced to end the scenario with incomplete units with STR <10. Don't give a big bonus for completing the script. And the player will be forced to settle for regular, non-elite reinforcements for the units.
Historically, most SSI's fans have been drooling over possessing ueber-prestige. However, as far as this forum is concerned, that was way then and this is now. :)

In my own offbeat, modding yard I often resort to prestige... starvation. Basically, a human player essentially has a couple of ways through which to acquire additional prestige: gaining cities / airfields / ports and successful combat. It has been working for me.

In addition, human players can always adhere to some "house rule" calling upon them to procure (or not) elite replacements depending on the situation; just like in the old SPI days... :yes
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:18, Wednesday, edited 1 time in total.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: Coreless Campaigns (Part I-II)

Post by Lettos » 2021-02-01 21:01, Monday

HexCode wrote:
2021-01-10 01:11, Sunday
From Father Time's Jurassic archives... :)
Before anyone answers this question as a definite "NO", just look at {PG1-DOS} with a fresh eye. No, not the one where you see yourself at the front of 10, 5-star, Tiger IIs pounding on the miserable and poorly lead AI units. I'm talking about a challenge here and, preferably, play against another human.

Why do I ask?

I'm in the middle of making a campaign or rather redesigning the original one. The further I progress the less I like it; it becomes increasingly easier. The AI requires incredible amounts of prestige just to make it a bit challenging. But what does the AI do with all that prestige? You guessed it. It buys a bunch of 24 point AT guns and 75mm Arty. Essentially, I keep asking myself: what's the point? Another problem is that because of the huge advantage given to the AI, many scenarios are virtually unplayable against another human via PBEM or hot-seat. And this is my dilemma.

The solution to my dilemma is actually simple and easy to implement. Get rid of all core units in each scenario and replace them with auxiliaries. In doing so, the player will still be advancing through the campaign, except that he will not be carrying any "ueber-units" along with him. This is more like a general being transferred from one operation to another. I also think this to be a more realistic approach.

So, what do you think?
I think this idea is so good that it requires opening a separate topic. :) :cool
Because:
HexCode wrote:
2021-01-10 18:50, Sunday
"this, provided a Coreless Campaign is carefully designed to impose an appropriately biting prestige scarcity most of the time...

As for the gradual increase in difficulty, I'd imagine that it'd depend on the OoBs of the constituent standalone scenarios. Obviously, a designer has many degrees of freedom here..." (from "Coreless Campaigns. Part II) viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174&start=50#p7301
And this is a really good solution for a number of difficult historical situations. An example is January 1942. The disastrous state of the German panzer divisions on the Eastern Front is described here: viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=50#p7751
For me, as the author of the next Scenario, such as Kharkiv'1942, there was one option - to cut the PP so that the player was forced to replenish his uber-units with regular replacements.
But here one more option seems to be possible ... or not? What happens if, in the next scenario, we also DECREASE the number of core units? A player's shout and curses at me? :nyet And a player who has read not only children's books, but also military history literature, will say "Wow!" ? :shock
First question, to all: has anyone ever DECREASED the number of units in the next scenario? What will happen to the player's existing Core units? They will disapper? Or will be transferred to AUX? Or game will crash? :huh
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: "Ephemeral... Philosophy" ?

Post by Lettos » 2021-02-01 21:34, Monday

HexCode wrote:
2021-02-01 21:24, Monday
:howdy # Lettos #,

I see that you've discovered the forum's "Ephemeral... Philosophy" which has hitherto been carefully concealed and, for all intents and purposes. de facto hiding "in here". :) For a full subject rundown kindly go here:

My Posts
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174#p1748

Just pick and choose anything that strikes your fancy... :monster :lol
Absolutely right! :howdy I've read today all posts in this topic. Not partly as before, due to a lack of time, but completely whole topic. :)
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: Six "Computer Somethings"

Post by Lettos » 2021-02-02 00:26, Tuesday

HexCode wrote:
2021-02-01 23:38, Monday
Now that our friend, # Lettos #, has discovered "Ephemeral... Philosophy", I truly owe him the following contribution from Father Time's Jurassic archives...
The transition from board wargaming to computer wargaming has been characterized by SIX (6) consecutive "computer somethings":

Computer-Assisted

The earliest envisaged usefulness of computers in wargaming was to relieve players from the drudgery of having to count hexes, roll dice and the like (i.e., wargame "bean-counting").

Computer-Moderated

A bit later, the appearance of "robust / responsible code" opened the way for players to begin trusting the underlying software's ability to impartially and accurately observe and "police" a wargame's play rules.

Computer-Enhanced

Eventually, Designers / Developers embarked on a trip the purpose of which was to come up with and implement features which, without the computer's assistance, would be virtually impossible to emulate in a board wargame environment (e.g., Fog of War, "dummy stacks" notwithstanding).

Computer-Challenged

The real break with board wargaming came about through the industry's introduction and continual embellishment of Programmed Opponents (POs), usually referred to as Artificial Intelligence (AI). In theory as well as in demonstrable, widespread practice, a player couldn't care less about "finding" another player to, well, ... play, anymore. Instead, the "computer" would be there at a moment's notice... It's here that video wargaming entered the hobby picture in a major way.

Computer-Glorified

It didn't take long for the industry to realize that a hitherto untapped, customer cohort was there to be commercially exploited. To this end, role-playing elements / features were introduced directly aiming at inducing "heroic, larger than life" emotional states in such players. Ever since, such players have been identified as the dominant slice of video wargamers.

Computer-Entertained

Finally, multimedia elements / features were also introduced aimed at entertaining video wargamers not so much by lionizing them but rather by inducing psychological "being there" states (antiseptically presented, of course, since no virtual stray bullet / bomb could ever threaten such players).
I look at these six points from the perspective of a historian who found an old computer in a pirate chest.
1-3 is what makes PGF very valuable.
4 - no breakout has occurred yet. Otherwise, the conversation between Hexcode and Lettos on this forum simply would not have taken place. :thud :doh :)
5-6 is not for me at all :evil
7 - if you put on something like a vest and a helmet with small hydro- or electromagnetic drives on a gamer, connect this crap to a computer, then you can simulate a bullet shot from a Magnum and even a shot from a faustpatrone. Put several capsules with powder gases into the helmet, and periodically also simulate the hit of a shell into the tank. And if you put a powerful electric heater under the ass, then the gamer can really feel how the tankers burned in the tanks.
Before turning on the computer, Waver and insurance police are highly required. :lol :lol
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 470
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: Coreless Campaigns (Part I-II)

Post by Radoye » 2021-02-02 02:23, Tuesday

Lettos wrote:
2021-02-01 21:01, Monday
First question, to all: has anyone ever DECREASED the number of units in the next scenario? What will happen to the player's existing Core units? They will disapper? Or will be transferred to AUX? Or game will crash? :huh
Nothing happens. The game plays as before.

The number you see there in the scenario parameters is the number of available purchase slots, and nothing more. Basically, if the number of set core units is X, and currently on the map there is a number of core units smaller than X (let's call this Y), then there will be X-Y core units available for purchase. You can set this number to 0 and prevent the player from purchasing any new core units in this scenario, but it doesn't affect his existing core. The player will still be able to place his core units, to reinforce them etc as normal.

I play with these numbers (mainly with Aux, but it's the same principle) to limit purchasing for the AI side in my mod (to avoid the crazy clumps of junk units around victory hexes - i limit the number of units available to AI so that they can't buy stuff until there's pretty much just one or two victory hexes under its control), also i disable all Aux unit purchase for the human player side to force them to take better care of their existing aux units (no replacing them if they die - and in some scenarios you do need them because your core alone is not enough). I did not so far reduce the number of core slots available although i might do that in some scenarios (like Berlin) to prevent the player replacing their losses until they lose a certain number of core units.

Now, if you'd like to limit the number of core units in a scenario, that might not be possible outright, but if say you only put one single deployment hex on a map, you could force the player to keep deploying their core one unit per turn, which too could make an interesting scenario... :deal :evil

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: Coreless Campaigns (Part I-II)

Post by Lettos » 2021-02-02 23:21, Tuesday

Radoye wrote:
2021-02-02 02:23, Tuesday
Lettos wrote:
2021-02-01 21:01, Monday
First question, to all: has anyone ever DECREASED the number of units in the next scenario? What will happen to the player's existing Core units? They will disapper? Or will be transferred to AUX? Or game will crash? :huh
Nothing happens. The game plays as before.

The number you see there in the scenario parameters is the number of available purchase slots, and nothing more. Basically, if the number of set core units is X, and currently on the map there is a number of core units smaller than X (let's call this Y), then there will be X-Y core units available for purchase. You can set this number to 0 and prevent the player from purchasing any new core units in this scenario, but it doesn't affect his existing core. The player will still be able to place his core units, to reinforce them etc as normal.

I play with these numbers (mainly with Aux, but it's the same principle) to limit purchasing for the AI side in my mod (to avoid the crazy clumps of junk units around victory hexes - i limit the number of units available to AI so that they can't buy stuff until there's pretty much just one or two victory hexes under its control), also i disable all Aux unit purchase for the human player side to force them to take better care of their existing aux units (no replacing them if they die - and in some scenarios you do need them because your core alone is not enough). I did not so far reduce the number of core slots available although i might do that in some scenarios (like Berlin) to prevent the player replacing their losses until they lose a certain number of core units.

Now, if you'd like to limit the number of core units in a scenario, that might not be possible outright, but if say you only put one single deployment hex on a map, you could force the player to keep deploying their core one unit per turn, which too could make an interesting scenario... :deal :evil
Thank You! :)
Thus, to reduce Core units quantity or Core units EXP/STR the Scenario developer will have to pose a challenge to the player in the scenario in which Player will either lose or win a Pyrrhic victory. Difficult but not impossible :phew :)
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

User avatar
HexCode
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 926
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Controlled, Methodical Experimentation

Post by HexCode » 2021-02-03 03:32, Wednesday

Granted, to date, the PGF "Hobby at Large" doesn't even come close to the richness of technical know-how and play system internals as compared to good ol' PG1-DOS. However, the... century is still young ! :)

No matter what the subject which some hobbyist "investigates" is, controlled, methodical experimentation should be the order of the day. Of course, not all "research" areas are equally tractable. It should come as no surprise, for instance, that trying to understand hexadecimal code is, perhaps, the most difficult challenge of them all.

Now, not every hobbyist is naturally predisposed to doing "research", far from it. In fact, most hobbyists don't even care to learn anything that "research" may unearth. Fair enough; the world we live in is quite... practical and, especially these days, in much of a hurry.

In the final analysis, to each his own ! :|
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-11-17 00:34, Wednesday, edited 3 times in total.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: Coreless Campaigns (Part I-II)

Post by Lettos » 2021-02-03 09:18, Wednesday

HexCode wrote:
2021-02-03 00:22, Wednesday
Ok, perhaps I'm a bit thick today, technical "investigations" and all... :) I mean, have you guys ever tried to spend an hour looking at hexadecimal code ? :eek :lol
I've tried to look on it 15 minutes. All that I can said is "In the final analysis, to each his own !"(Hexcode). Even the best ship captain will be unable take off with modern plane into the sky and even best pilot in rank of naval captain will succesfully sunk the best ship :)
Jedem das seine, suum cuique.
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

User avatar
HexCode
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 926
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] "Anarchic" or "Open-Ended" ?

Post by HexCode » 2021-02-03 23:15, Wednesday

There's an informal "division of labor" taking shape in this forum. In my opinion, that's very good ! :yes

"Ephemeral nuts and bolts Q&As" and quite a few "ephemeral opinions" circumscribe this great topic. Why great ? It's because the road to achieving significant accomplishments invariably starts quite...anarchically. :)

Now, the "open-endedness" currently experienced in our [ADV] topic is anything but anarchic. Ideas and observations are bounced back and forth among posters, ultimately aiming at knowledge convergence.

So, thesis, antithesis and (hopefully) synthesis are on the hobby's table. :clap Don't call me... Hegel, though :lol !
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-06-04 06:50, Friday, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 470
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Radoye » 2021-02-04 14:02, Thursday

I could see a naval scenario where empty transports play the role of convoyed merchant ships. Maybe something similar with trucks - possibly in a combination with an "anchor" to keep them road bound - and have a scenario where Partisans ambush a transport. :dunno

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: Transport Unit Classes: Any Creative Ideas ?

Post by Lettos » 2021-02-04 18:11, Thursday

HexCode wrote:
2021-02-04 10:23, Thursday
This is a very, very preliminary subject.

The role of Transport Class units as "containers" has already been rather extensively discussed and documented in this forum.

HOWEVER:

What if a designer were to field (i.e., pre-place) such units solo at the very start of a scenario ? To what purpose / use could one conceivably specify / put such "non-container" units ? Any ideas ?
To create a true black-hole separating replacements send by AI to Air and Ground units, theoretically there is useful 4th air class - Air transports.
Now AI will not send replacements to loaded air transport.And now You've offered now an ideal solution for "Black hole" - empty Air transport with no load.
It will be an ideal solution to deploy on map at least one very expensive Air transport unit called as "Batman General's HQ"- we can name it unit as term "replacements separator" - with STR=1 end EXP more than 0. Additionally we can set this Transport unit's MVT=0 and all attacks and defenses to 0 too. And at the start of Scenario deploy this strange unit it to far airfield. It's Ideal "Black Hole". Until AI will got an Event "injection" it will send available PP and replacements to all "upper" 3 classes of Air units. And all remained PP AI will use to send replacements to this "black hole" till Event.
Can we do it? Can we try to deploy one air transport with cost = "a lot of thousands PP", EXP>0 and STR=1, give to AI a lot of PP and see what happens?

My dream in Post Scriptum. If all offered will work and if player's fighters will shut down this air "Batman HQ" at the end of Scenario then Player will got a lot of PP. We will take PP away from player, rewarding him less premium prestige for a victory.
PPS. By the way, there is possible to implement Ground unit's replacements separator too. We know that in right game Human against AI all enemy air units will be shut down on 7-10th turn. Why we can't to create a next "Pumpkin General's HQ" in Ground units, in Recon Class? Such as Batman General's HQ it will not receive any PP from AI until first Event occurs, and even till second Event. Just to adjust PP as we need. Tiny tuning but very worth. :doh :)
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

User avatar
HexCode
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 926
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Offbeat Tendencies (Part I)

Post by HexCode » 2021-02-06 05:34, Saturday

Granted, the PGF "Hobby at Large" has never exhibited an appetite for "internals" knowledge. Ok, a few of us do exhibit offbeat tendencies such as maintaining a lasting interest in finding out what's under the software's hood.

[EPH] Verify, Don't Assume
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174&start=200#p10971

focuses on what one should (or, more to the point, not) do while approaching PGF on the basis of prior acquired PG1-DOS technical knowledge (solid or not). Elsewhere in THIS PGF forum, I wrote:
It's rather interesting that {certain, possibly conflicting, technical data} are being mentioned in Prima's PG1 Strategy Guide... Basically, "researchers" are being faced with "Fog-of-Internals"; always ! :eek
Now, neither Prima's PG1 Strategy Guide nor any selective summary of its contents are that clear or, for that matter, 100% accurate when it comes to PG1-DOS itself. If so, one shouldn't expect that information to be 100% applicable to PGF, far from it. But, the information does constitute a useful start in triggering educated guesses as a "researcher" moves forward with his technical "investigations". In any case, the preceding approach has been working for me ! :yes
Last edited by HexCode on 2022-02-22 16:04, Tuesday, edited 8 times in total.

crudmunster
Private
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: 2021-02-06 20:29, Saturday

Allied General vanilla - Finland scenario

Post by crudmunster » 2021-02-06 20:31, Saturday

This has been driving me insane - I've never been able to beat this scenario. How are you supposed to get a victory?

This remains the only scenario I've never even won normally - it's been decades of it bothering me. Has anyone beat this and how?

crudmunster
Private
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: 2021-02-06 20:29, Saturday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by crudmunster » 2021-02-07 03:45, Sunday

a - PGF, I didn't even know SSI even worked on modern machines
b - campaign
c - the default
d - only weather and supply
e - yeah soviets against finns

crudmunster
Private
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: 2021-02-06 20:29, Saturday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by crudmunster » 2021-02-07 21:22, Sunday

I agree that it shouldn't be winnable, but it seems googling some people claim they can win

User avatar
HexCode
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 926
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Offbeat Tendencies (Part II)

Post by HexCode » 2021-02-08 20:11, Monday

Self-reflection time... :lol Why am I "investigating" PGF's play system and technical minutia ? To boot, why do I bother documenting such... boring :) "stuff" ?

1) I like the challenge per se of discovering what's lying under a piece of wargame software's "hood".

2) I'm a devoted chess player. As such, I'm fascinated by how much depth and variety in situations one comes across despite the fact that, compared to PGF, chess's play system is, well, primitive. :) So, when it comes to a well mastered PGF, the sky should be the limit. :2cents

3) I strongly dislike "begging" programmers for this or that; especially when such characters are nowhere to be "found"... :eek Therefore, I most welcome "independent" discoveries which could enrich modding and, by extension, playing experiences.

4) Taking full advantage of PGF in a modding sense requires one to be extremely well versed in play system and technical minutia. One just can't accurately remember and recall all that "stuff" by heart; hence the need for easily accessible, reliable documentation.

There, I bared my wargamer's... soul ! :lol
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:23, Wednesday, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HexCode
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 926
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] A "Community"... Revealing Survey

Post by HexCode » 2021-02-13 23:34, Saturday

Recently, I conducted a rather revealing experiment. As we all know, this forum is about 18 months old. There's just a handful of hobbyists who frequently post here. I went back and compiled a list of (14) hobbyists who have been posting quite infrequently in the past. I fired off PMs to all those hobbyists just asking them to respond to a simple, straightforward question: "How did you "discover" this forum ?". So far, I've got just ONE response...

Do "we" need a... philosopher to expound on the meaning of "community" ? A... theologian, perhaps ? Wait, I just had a... vision. If memory serves me correctly, in most Protestant Christian traditions:

1) The Church Militant (ecclesia militans) consists of Christians on earth who struggle as soldiers of Christ against sin, the devil etc.

2) The Church Triumphant (ecclesia triumphans) consists of those who have the "beatific vision" and are in Heaven.

Does anyone care to take a crack at the rather... inviting analogies / metaphors ? :evil :)

P.S. Plain talk: There's no such thing as "PGF Community". :nyet Personally, I wouldn't give a... "triumphant" guy the time of day ! :nyet And no, I'm not some kind of unpaid technical support acting on behalf of the long "departed" PGF programmer. :nyet

Bottom line: Quid Pro Quo ! :bonk
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-11-24 03:52, Wednesday, edited 4 times in total.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: AI's... Echelon Formation

Post by Lettos » 2021-02-14 17:25, Sunday

HexCode wrote:
2021-02-13 20:19, Saturday
Elsewhere in this forum:

Human reporter interviews PGF's AI. :)
Lettos wrote:
2021-02-13 19:08, Saturday
... why are you still spreading your power so unevenly? Is this the main secret of your tactics?
- Yes. This great tactic was used by Epaminodas at the Battle of Leucta.
- Do You mean Epaminondas in the Battle of Leuctra?
- No. Epaminodas at Leucta. That's what my creator told me.
- Do you know any other tactics?
- No. The tactics of Epaminodas at the Battle of Leucta are the best.
:yes

So, now we know; :bullhorn PGF's AI is a "one-trick-pony"... However, one can only be impressed by the AI's exposure to Ancient Hellenic Military tactics, albeit somewhat... alphanumerically challenged. :lol
At least now it is more clear in which offensive scenarios the AI will be more adequate. These are scenarios on any relatively "narrow" maps, where the AI can simultaneously attack in a maximum of two directions (i.e., an attack on two VH). If You will give him three "targets", entrust him to choose directions - and he will even answer you something. First, it attacks two VH, and only then will it attack the third VH. A little patience looking at this show :lol
If the scenario map is "wide", implying an attack on 5-7 VH simultaneously, the AI will not be able to cope with this task.
Don't ask from amoeba about wolfs tactics :no ... Just manipulate with amoeba in developed scenarios to make from it something like wolf. :D
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: Bridging Options

Post by Lettos » 2021-02-25 18:16, Thursday

HexCode wrote:
2021-02-25 16:54, Thursday
Well, if and when the need arises... :)
It depends on the strategic focus of what we are doing. If there is a good "dreamy" idea to make a top-class board out of PGF, then we are ahead of the whole planet. And it costs well ... probably not even many millions, but a little more. If we also put a thinking AI in there ... you really think that these are scary words and AI is something that only super-corporations can do - well, I have something to object to as arguments. Many millions for such nonsense - it already sounds ridiculous in the framework of some ongoing processes ... A lot! Lettos, are you greedy? No ... not at all, leave me alone. Now, we just ... well, we are engaged in a free hobby and thanks to this we do not go crazy with the news about some horror - a virus ...
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: AI Units -- Movement, Attack, Replacement & Purchase Priorities

Post by Lettos » 2021-03-09 10:35, Tuesday

HexCode wrote:
2021-03-04 00:59, Thursday
I've just finished documenting PGF's *.PGSAV internal structure.

*.PGSAV (SECTION 15)
AI Behavioral Instructions

viewtopic.php?f=95&t=496#p8358

should be of particular interest to content designers aiming for "interventionist" human play against PGF's AI. Fortuitously, the 24 bytes involved are placed at the very end of the file; hence, it's child's play (pardon the pun) to locate them and experiment with them. By the way, there're 2 settings the meanings of which I haven't been able to "decipher". Anyone interested in taking over and finish the "job" ? After all, I'm a H2H play guy... :)
It is possible that yes!
But here's a technical problem. When all the children were engaged in a constructor with nuts and bolts, I went to the river and made boats, and then played toy soldiers. :)
Hexcode, will it not be difficult for you to write instructions for children of 4 years of age on how to get into these files and then save them correctly for testing? :huh
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: "Creativity"... Challenge

Post by Lettos » 2021-03-09 12:07, Tuesday

HexCode wrote:
2021-02-09 06:21, Tuesday
Hello fellow "researchers" and "dreamers".

Think of Ground units located in hexes having been assigned some specific Terrain X (i.e., UTR). Consider the following... anomalous unit Replacement properties:

On behalf of such a unit, a player

1) Has the full freedom to choose either Normal or Elite Replacements.

2) Isn't able to procure more than one (1) Strength Factor and one (1) Ammo Point per turn.

3) Can keep on procuring Strength Factors unimpeded by the usual restrictions imposed by the unit's Experience Levels (i.e., "Stars") or by any scenario-specific cap on unit over-strengthening.

4) Can keep on procuring Strength Factors unimpeded by the adjacency of one (1) or even two (2) enemy units.

5) Can keep on procuring Strength Factors unimpeded by prestige unavailability. In fact, Accumulated Prestige may even turn negative (i.e., prestige on... credit).

Any "creative" ideas ? Like this forum's Moderator observed a few moons ago: "we're always trying to push the {modding} envelope around here" (paraphrasing somewhat) ! :yes
I have pondered your idea, but there has been no practical result yet. We can use it somewhere, but I don't know where yet.

But as a by-product, the idea of a "railroad" and a transport route in the ocean emerged.
Introduction:
The idea with the Event and the Black Hole and the sudden appearance of a lot of units from the AI in some cases may not work exactly as planned. But these are small things compared to the fact that you have to create two different scenarios for the game in Human-2-AI and H2H modes.
But what if you put all the units that simulate the "strategic reserve" on the map and make sure that the AI or human player cannot physically bring them into battle before a certain turn?
For example, Winston Churchill awaits the arrival of convoys in Alexandria in order to win the battle of El-Alamein in 1942. Or Joseph Stalin relocated Siberian divisions from Far East to Moscow front in 1941.

Can't we do it like this?
Image

Blue lines are Neutral hexes. In case of convoy to Alexandria these neutral hexes can be Red Sea coasts, or usual ocean tiles.
In this example transport with red dot carries Hurricane fighter. Equipment file must be modified to allow Hurricane be transported by sea.
Transports with blue dots - tanks Matilda.
We make the map larger than it is necessary for the battlefield. We only need the territory to the east and south of Alexandria for the convoy.
AI will move transports towards the place of unloading. At least he can do that, regardless of whether he plays the AI in Defensive or Offensive scenarios. The player for Allied will do the same in H2H mode with only one exception: gentlemen's agreement not to unload the plane for transport. AI does not do such tricks :nyet :)
But a Axis bomber can fly into this "transport corridor" and attack transports. :shock
To prevent such speculative actions of the player and and to exclude any damage to sea transports as a result of air attacks, we need to create the new Sea transport and slightly change the parameters comparing with usual sea transport.
Air attack = 0, Air Defense = 200-1000. Adjusting MVT to 1,2,3 we can simply calculate and predict when reinforcements arrives.
If we need to unload transports faster we can place on map more unloading hexes at the end of the path.
Only one problem observed during testing. Sometimes AI move first Hurricane, but sometimes - Matilda's. There are no warranty which unit will be unloaded first.

How to made a railroad for Siberian reinforcements?
Prepare one Clear Terrain tile with "RR" letters. (It is for example only!).
In new created unit replace Sea transport icon with train. And at the end of path place some kind of Train junction tile. Maybe it will be a tile of a city without a flag, only with letters "RS".
Both Stalin and Churchill are happy, and Rommel and von Bock are more interested in playing :lol
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: "Creativity"... Challenge

Post by Lettos » 2021-03-09 17:29, Tuesday

HexCode wrote:
2021-03-09 16:01, Tuesday
Lettos wrote:
2021-03-09 12:07, Tuesday
But what if you put all the units that simulate the "strategic reserve" on the map and make sure that the AI or human player cannot physically bring them into battle before a certain turn?
This is technically feasible. The "reserve" units are pre-placed on map hexes in a map zone surrounded by neutral hexes (likely bordering on a map edge) with, perhaps, one or two hexes serving as potential "exits". One pre-places there specially designed enemy surface and / or air units sporting very high defense / strength values and MA=0. In order for the "reserve" units to be able to exit from... bondage :) they'll have to totally destroy those immovable, blocking obstacles first.
It looks a little complicated. And what prevents an anti-AI Human player from sending several bombers to this reserve and bombing them a little? And why are you sure that AI will actually try to get out of this sanatorium? In the sandbox, AI just ran into the Tiger II with STR=15 and EXP=5 and didn't nothing.
HexCode wrote:
2021-03-09 16:01, Tuesday
Lettos wrote:
2021-03-09 12:07, Tuesday
...the idea of a "railroad" and a transport route in the ocean emerged.
As an aside, the design of a unit which is constrained to move along "roads" only has been documented elsewhere in the forum (i.e., submarine class organic transport).
It's here, right? viewtopic.php?f=95&t=189#p2246
Probably submarines can be used as well. But transport with Air Defense = 200 and Air attack = 0 in this case looks more reliable.
Lettos wrote:
2021-03-09 12:07, Tuesday
How to made a railroad for Siberian reinforcements? Prepare one Clear Terrain tile with "RR" letters. (It is for example only!). In new created unit replace Sea transport icon with train. And at the end of path place some kind of Train junction tile. Maybe it will be a tile of a city without a flag, only with letters "RS".
HexCode wrote:
2021-03-09 16:01, Tuesday
I'm afraid I lost you here. Are you thinking of a "corridor" flanked by neutral hexes ?
Exactly! I drawed it on map... :phew
HexCode wrote:
2021-03-09 16:01, Tuesday
How to you visualize unit embarkation and disembarkation ?
One coastal port with some sign meaning what it is not usual port what can be occupied by Player. Clear terrain type. Sea transport will disembark units in these tiles.
Or You mean something another?
HexCode wrote:
2021-03-09 16:01, Tuesday
Will transportation be "faster" ? If so, how ?
MA = 1,2,3 - it is a player's choice depending from Scenario. There is no technical problems to create slower sea transports in equipment file.
HexCode wrote:
2021-03-09 16:01, Tuesday
Not necessary, if pre-placed.
Yes, You are right! This makes the task even easier! :)
HexCode wrote:
2021-03-09 16:01, Tuesday
Lettos wrote:
2021-03-09 12:07, Tuesday
... gentlemen's agreement not to unload the plane for transport. AI does not do such tricks
If pre-placed, one can grant the air unit just one (1) fuel point...
Now I'm going to check what the AI will do. But there is one more nuance in where the planes will be unloaded. AI will unload them where - to the coastal line tiles? Although there will be a friendly airport nearby? Need to be checked :)
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: "Creativity"... Challenge

Post by Lettos » 2021-03-09 18:26, Tuesday

HexCode wrote:
2021-03-09 17:56, Tuesday
Lettos wrote:
2021-03-09 17:29, Tuesday
And what prevents an anti-AI Human player from sending several bombers to this reserve and bombing them a little? And why are you sure that AI will actually try to get out of this sanatorium? In the sandbox, AI just ran into the Tiger II with STR=15 and EXP=5 and didn't nothing
Frankly, I wasn't thinking about the AI at all. Clearly, one can't expect too much from PGF's AI, can he ? As for H2H play, an appropriate "house rule" should be sufficient... :2cents
Lettos wrote:
2021-03-09 12:07, Tuesday
... gentlemen's agreement not to unload the plane for transport. AI does not do such tricks ... If pre-placed, one can grant the air unit just one (1) fuel point ... Now I'm going to check what the AI will do. But there is one more nuance in where the planes will be unloaded. AI will unload them where - to the coastal line tiles? Although there will be a friendly airport nearby? Need to be checked
Yes, if one opts for air unit fuel... starvation, a disembarkation hex with friendly underlying airfield terrain will be required. Hex adjacency will also work. Finally, one can get really fancy and place an aircraft carrier class unit on the disembarkation hex... :)
This is the point, when creating scenarios, I have to constantly think about this AI, an idiot in the form of a reflective amoeba ...
And I have to look for a simple solution, understandable to him. It seems to be working out a little. :)
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: Hex-Editing, Again !

Post by Lettos » 2021-03-09 18:48, Tuesday

HexCode wrote:
2021-03-09 17:32, Tuesday
The requisite technical expertise isn't particular to PGF's binary files. Basically, one must know his way around a hex-editor. The Web contains oodles of information on this.

NOW, half a generation makes a big difference. Back in the mid-1990s when SSI's PG1 was released, quite a few computer users identified themselves as "power users". To this effect, certain types of PG1-DOS modding were decidedly, technically "advanced". They included extensive hex-editing of various binary files.

Fast forward to 2010. When PGF's programmer started coding the game, there were no "power users" left willing and able to hex-edit anything. In fact, a couple of posters proudly announced to the hobby that they would never hex-edit anything, period. Relatedly, Open General's programmer was giving players almost everything they were asking for on a silver platter. This (quite laudable) approach inevitably generated an atmosphere of disdain for any sort of "adventurous" technical modding; the PGF hobby was impacted as well.

Bottom line; hex-editing re: PGF is usually seen as hopelessly "retro" and, perhaps, even weird... :P
Talking about "retro"...
Once upon a time, in 1988, my programming device was a calculator that used Reverse_Polish_notation
I don't remember anymore if the cars were running on gasoline or using steam engines. ;) I would not be able to programmatically add 2 + 2 on this calculator right now. But I wrote pretty good programs. There was 4 kilobytes of RAM!, if you translate this strange assembler to the equivalent of the BASIC language code.
That is, I was dealing with prehistoric devices. But they were already the next generation after the hexadecimal code ... Read something from the translated books of Niklaus Wirth and something on AI from the literature of the 1980s. Perhaps something from what you read even still somehow affects the thought processes? Not sure whether the answer is positive or negative. :huh :dunno
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: Scale Consistency & Scalability

Post by Lettos » 2021-03-10 22:52, Wednesday

HexCode wrote:
2021-03-10 17:56, Wednesday
Half a century ago, two seminal hex-based, turn-based wargames, Blitzkrieg and Panzerblitz, launched two partially overlapping wargaming traditions. Blitzkrieg ushered in the era of Strategy Wargaming. Panzerblitz did the same for Historical Wargaming.

Two of the topmost concerns in Historical Wargaming have been how to establish geographical and magnitude consistency as well as pursue scalability across the board. The object has always been to render multiple battle situations playable under the same rules and unit specifications.

The goal of geographical consistency is to establish definitive, unchanging dimensions underlying a typical map hex. In this context, scalability poses the challenge of designing maps sporting hexes of varying dimensions while somehow tinkering with rules and unit specifications so as to keep "things" objective...

The goal of magnitude consistency is to establish definitive, unchanging interpretations of the meaning of a typical unit strength factor. In this context, scalability poses the challenge of specifying units of varying sizes while somehow designing appropriate maps so as to keep "things" objective...

In my opinion, PGF's design isn't adequately suited to effectively pursuing "objective" scale consistency and scalability aims in the context of custom content generation. :2cents
"isn't adequately suited" - this is a very correct estimate! :yes
On the other hand, we somehow live in this environment? :huh
From the point of view of scalability, I am currently interested in one fundamental point of the game. Or, in more detail, two of the same section: Max Ammo and Fuel.
There are at least three levels of scale here, i.e. Unit is equivalent:
1) Division
2) Battalion
3) Company or Platoon

To explain the question, I will mention one fact: Soviet tanks on June 22, 1941 had a maximum of one or one and a half ammunition inside the tank and in warehouses. It mean about 100 shells per tank. For some tanks such as KV-2 even less than one full set (36 shells). How much AMMO it is in the PGF/PG1 compared to the minimum weekly ammunition of the Wehrmacht's Panzer division? 1? 2? or 1/4? :dunno :D
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

User avatar
HexCode
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 926
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Re: Scale Consistency & Scalability

Post by HexCode » 2021-03-11 04:04, Thursday

Lettos wrote:
2021-03-10 22:52, Wednesday
From the point of view of scalability . . . There are at least three levels of scale here, i.e. Unit is equivalent:
1) Division
2) Battalion
3) Company or Platoon
In my opinion, PGF's play system is reasonably suited for Grand Tactical (i.e., company level, 1 day / turn) engagements. However, most SSI "generals" would vehemently disagree with me. The allure of purchasing new units is just too strong to resist... :) So is the "glorious", albeit, inevitably historically counterfactual Campaign play ! :2cents

When it comes to Strength Factor interpretations, I'm decidedly against the often "revealed" conceptualization that one can take, say,... Berlin with a few soldiers, tanks, artillery pieces and planes... :lol You see, it's those damn icons ! :P I choose to view Strength Factors as constituent sub-units collectively comprising the normally displayed unit. Unfortunately, PGF's play system "views" these constituent sub-units as being identically equipped etc...
Lettos wrote:
2021-03-10 22:52, Wednesday
From the point of view of scalability . . . I am currently interested in one fundamental point of the game. Or, in more detail, two of the same section: Max Ammo and Fuel.
Yes, PGF's play system has often come under severe criticism here. Interestingly enough, turn duration enters the scalability considerations big time as well. For example, what does it mean for an air unit to be flying around for days on end without being resupplied at some friendly airfield or aircraft carrier ? Also, resupply and replacements are subject to rules uniformly applicable across the board; there's no play system room for targeted differentiation... :(
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-05-31 19:21, Monday, edited 2 times in total.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: Scale Consistency & Scalability

Post by Lettos » 2021-03-11 20:03, Thursday

HexCode wrote:
2021-03-11 04:04, Thursday
I choose to view Strength Factors as constituent sub-units (not necessarily identically equipped) collectively comprising the normally displayed unit.
I am now considering one practical example from recent history.
Everyone knows a "simple" thing - the Wehrmacht division. Let's compare these divisions?
Some info to start: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/German ... .html#fig5
Please scroll to Figure 5. (Continued) [II-9] and Figure 6. [II-10]

So many numbers that would seem to be very useful in determining the answers to some important questions ... but... can you apply these numbers to the PGF? I can not, too. There is a bit more work to do here to get a slightly more readable result.

I have simplified the table a bit by combining a number of similar weapon types.
Image

Same image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y3s64L ... sp=sharing

Can we now compare divisions in terms of firepower?
Unfortunately not. Until we know how many rifles are equal to one machine gun, and how many mortars are equal to a machine gun, the comparison will be biased. And even if we find out these coefficients, worked out by the harsh brutal practice of fighting, what can this give in the PGF? Some coefficients are for urban battles, where a machine gun is almost equal to a machine gun, and others for a battle on a plain.
It remains only to operate with such concepts as "it seems to me", "probably", "most likely", etc.

So, it seems to me that I probably, most likely and very likely and subjectively see the following in this table:

First section - infantry divisions (with or without transport vehicles):
- Division '42 (Old type) is more stronger in Hard and Soft Attack than the 1944 division. And, accordingly, a little stronger in Ground defense.
- And Div'42 is much more stronger in Hard Attack and Ground Defense than Div'38-39-40-41 due to ATG 75mm replaced 37mm guns. SA is equal.
- Two-regiments Division is almost equal to Division'44.
- Volks Grenadier division is mostly equal to Div'44 but should have a better Close Defense.
- Mountain Division is less weaker than Div'44.
- Air Force Parachute Division is better than Div'44. Weaker than Div'42 in HA but stronger in Soft Attack and Close Defense. Increased Air Attack and Air Defense.

Second section - motorized and armored divisions:
All three types are much stronger than Div'42 in HA, SA, AA, AD, GD. Coefficients can be calculated "Seems and Probably" looking to table data.

But... talking about PG/F there are mixed two types of our great units!
Army armored and SS Armored are TANKs.
Army Motorized is... INF with purchased Sdkfz 251 or 250 as "transport". But it is not only transport such as taxi cab for infantry to move better over mud.
Everything that could shoot and ride on wheels is attached to these armored personnel carriers as a trailer. And trained personnel included. So Sdkfz 251/250 were very expensive units, if we'll look on Army motorized Divisions as on very complicate army complex. Talking in PGF terms - transport unit with more higher HA, SA and Defense than standart values, but not so high as for Tanks in same time period.

That is, when buying an armored personnel carrier for the infantry, the player does not just transfer the infantry to the all-terrain vehicle, but actually changes the type of this infantry.
The point of upgrading the infantry after 1942 is not to buy supermen of the 1944 model, but to upgrade the transport and make the division motorized.

It's historically interesting - to go hunting not on the Sdkfz 7 all-terrain vehicle, but on the Sdkfz 250, accompanied by 48 Pz IV ... This thing must be very expensive. :) :lol

Again, I come back to the idea that armored personnel carriers in the PGF should be more important than in the old basic version from the PG/F: viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=50#p8468
But this does not apply equally to all WW2 armies.
Last edited by Lettos on 2021-03-12 13:05, Friday, edited 1 time in total.
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

User avatar
HexCode
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 926
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Re: Scale Consistency & Scalability

Post by HexCode » 2021-03-12 00:08, Friday

Lettos wrote:
2021-03-11 20:03, Thursday
But... talking about PG/F there are mixed two types of our great units!
Army armored and SS Armored are TANKs.
Army Motorized is... INF with purchased Sdkfz 251 or 250 as "transport".

. . .

... when buying an armored personnel carrier for the infantry, the player does not just transfer the infantry to the all-terrain vehicle, but actually changes the type of this infantry.

. . .

Again, I come back to the idea that armored personnel carriers in the PGF should be more important than in the old basic version from the PG/F . . . But this does not apply equally to all WW2 armies.
All such challenges stem from something foundational to all SSI 5-Star General play systems, including their various emulations:

Units can't be combined so as to simultaneously participate in one and the same attack / combat !

In traditional tabletop wargaming territory, multi-unit simultaneous combat is, well, old hat... Oftentimes, unit diversity is quite desirable. For example, an infantry division assisted by an armored regiment triggers beneficial column shifts in the good ol' Combat Results Table (CRT). That's combined arms warfare for you ! :)

In the early days of the WWG hobby, a few "grognards" attempted to get around the aforementioned "obstacle" by coming up with "scientific" formulas which would "objectively" reflect the composite effect of any historically accurate, underlying sub-unit diversity. As far as I know, the "Hobby at Large" just... shrugged ! :|

The preceding notwithstanding, I certainly don't view custom content design to be a popularity contest. It's up to every designer to effectively pursue his interests. If others find his ideas, approaches and creations useful / enjoyable, great. If not, too bad, so sad ! Yeah, I know, I'm a bit... jaded ! :lol
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-11-17 00:38, Wednesday, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Ale
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
Posts: 1115
Joined: 2019-10-07 17:14, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Ale » 2021-03-12 00:28, Friday

yes, yes ... just it is based on Japanese game Daisenryaku play system, whose PG and series and all till this date are emulations. SSI designers and owners said themselves.

:lol rightful intervention, misters. must say do not play much of your beloved game, but throw an eye sometimes ; good luck with what you are doing...

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: Scale Consistency & Scalability

Post by Lettos » 2021-03-12 11:11, Friday

HexCode wrote:
2021-03-12 00:08, Friday
All such challenges stem from something foundational to all SSI 5-Star General play systems, including their various emulations:
Units can't be combined so as to simultaneously participate in one and the same attack / combat !
HexCode wrote:
2021-03-12 00:08, Friday
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=503#p8548
My short answer to Duke of Wellington: Knishops attacking! Why not? Kni-ght + Bi-shop? Knishop is allowed to go ahead as knight but can retreat backwards only as Bishop due to the horses are very tired. :lol :lol
Or take a piece of chewing gum or a piece of plasticine and stick it on one of the squares of the board at the beginning of the chess game. We choose the square at random. Piece can enter the square but sticks until it is captured by opponent's piece wich will be affected by plasticine again. How easy it is to break a centuries-old system with one sticky lump ... :( :dunno :lol

Ok, back to PGF and two invented "knishops". Both units created not instead of old but as additional types of existing ones.

1st. Anti-aircraft ATG 8.8cm "Acht-acht".

Idea: viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=50#p8468

Class = 5 (Anti-aircraft!)
Soft Attack = 4
Hard Attack = 18
Air Attack = 15
Naval Attack = 8 (? Should be something equal to Destroyer)
Ground Defense = 4
Air Defense = 6
Close Defense = 0
Movement type = Wheeled or Half-Tracked
Initiative = 12
Range = 2
Spotting = 1
Target Type = 0 (Soft!)
Movement = 2
Max Fuel = 40
Max Ammo = 8
Can Have Organic Transport = 1 (Yes)
Cost = very expensive. If PzIVD cost for example is 200, Anti-aircraft ATG 8.8cm should cost about 300-400. (It's only my assumption)

And "usual" transport unit which is available for purchasing also for any another unit. But I'm not sure if someone will buy so specific unit for example, as usual infantry transport ...

Sdkfz 7 with "trailer"

Class = 15
Soft Attack = 1
Hard Attack = 10
Air Attack = 8
Naval Attack = 4-6 (Something less than Z-Destroyer)
Ground Defense = 8
Air Defense = 3-4 (need to be adjusted)
Close Defense = 0
Movement type = 1 (Half-Tracked)
Initiative = 12
Range = 0
Spotting = 1
Target Type = 0 (Soft!)
Movement = 5
Max Fuel = 40
Max Ammo = 8
Cost = much more expensive than SPW 251.

Transport with such parameters is quite suitable for an attack a Hard target. And is extremely weak if attacked by enemy ATY or INF. So the best usage of this transport is to place it somewhere close to enemy tanks, may be hitting one weaker, and immediately provide him a stronger "shield" of friendly tanks. And prevent any attacking by enemy INF. It looked pretty good in the sandbox test! But it need to be tested in real Scenarios.

2nd. Panzer-Grenadier (Army Motorized Division) "true" version.

Idea: viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174&start=100#p8551

The 1943-44 model "Wehr HW 1944" infantry division itself is well balanced in the PGF.
From WAW equipment file:
Wehr HW 1944 - SA=8, HA=8, GD=8 (Cost 120)
Gebirgspioniere 1944 - SA=8, HA=6, GD=8 (Cost 396) By the way, why here is so big difference 396-120?
INF units are OK but... looks that they need more stronger transport.

PanzGr 44 Sdkfz 251

Class = 15
Soft Attack = 6
Hard Attack = 8 (or 10?)
Air Attack = 1 (or 2-3?)
Naval Attack = 1
Ground Defense = 9
Air Defense = 9
Close Defense = 1
Movement type = 1 (Half-Tracked)
Initiative = 8
Range = 0
Spotting = 2
Target Type = 1 (Hard)
Movement = 5
Max Fuel = 40
Max Ammo = 8
Cost = much more expensive than SPW 251.

Please take a look how these "knishops" can be realized in icons:
Image
Same image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LoWP2Z ... sp=sharing
Two versions for Sdkfz: 251 and 251/9 with Pak 75mm and Sdkfz 7 with 8.8cm ATG.

And some words about this Sdkfz 251/1 in 1939-1942 ... Comparing armor and armament, this is the same as PzI. Even better, because in addition to machine guns, soldiers can fire from their own weapons. But PzI have SA=3 and SPW251 Soft Attack is only 2! May be it's better to increase SA to 4? :huh
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 470
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Radoye » 2021-03-12 20:01, Friday

Speaking of scale, IMO HexCode is probably closer to the right answer here, although Company might be a tad too small, i always considered it being at a Battalion level - so 4 Companies with their command and support units included (light mortars and AT). Definitely not a Division.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Lettos » 2021-03-12 22:47, Friday

HexCode wrote:
2021-03-11 04:04, Thursday
In my opinion, PGF's play system is reasonably suited for Grand Tactical (i.e., company level, 1 day / turn) engagements. However, most SSI "generals" would vehemently disagree with me. The allure of purchasing new units is just too strong to resist... :) So is the "glorious", albeit, inevitably historically counterfactual Campaign play ! :2cents
Grand Tactical (i.e., company level, 1 day / turn)
Frankly speaking, I did not understand your terminology. Are you talking here about the company level? That company, of which there are three or four in the battalion?
Radoye wrote:
2021-03-12 20:01, Friday
Speaking of scale, IMO HexCode is probably closer to the right answer here, although Company might be a tad too small, i always considered it being at a Battalion level - so 4 Companies with their command and support units included (light mortars and AT). Definitely not a Division.
What scale do you think is appropriate on the map when talking about a single hex?
1 unit = 1 company, 1 hex = ?? km
1 unit = 1 battalion, 1 hex = ?? km
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 470
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Radoye » 2021-03-13 03:22, Saturday

It would be a herculean task to rework the entire PG/AG SSI map catalogue to a consistent single scale. PacGen had a scale modifier value in scenarios which would change firing ranges (so that Iwo Jima and Central China make more sense within the same campaign, especially with appropriate turns per day / days per turn settings), unfortunately we don't have that in PG/AG/PGF, and if we try to stick to a consistent scale Sevastopol would be just a single hex on a map rather than a whole scenario map. Every single map would have to be redone from scratch. So IMO that ship has sailed a long time ago.

Trying to model single units as divisions - in fact, anything larger than a battalion - these would have to include everything at once (except planes and ships), infantrymen, artillery, cavalry (where applicable), tanks, armored cars, bridging equipment, your uncle and my grandma... And there's no good way to model this under PG rules as a single unit, you can't give it the capabilities of infantry and tanks and artillery all at once, unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

So HexCode is right in that the game rules favor smaller unit modeling where an infantry unit is chiefly made up by infantrymen, tank unit by tanks/armored vehicles, artillery by artillery pieces etc. Once you go above the battalion scale this breaks down and no longer can suit the purpose. But if you go below battalion scale, you're no longer talking kilometers for a hex size but meters (and we arrive at Steel Panthers territory), so larger scale PG maps no longer make any sense and if we reduce the scale to company level you're no longer invading a country but at best maybe a railway junction or a river crossing. I mean, that's perfectly fine too for those who like it like that, let there be a 1000 blossoms bloom i always say, but then we're no longer talking about Operation Barbarossa or Normandy landings or some such - which will not sit well with others who like it that way. :dunno

So, since the map scales are already widely inconsistent, IMHO as the best compromise (and you're free to disagree with me), battalion scale for unit modeling is a perfect fit because it's the largest organizational unit that is still made up largely of the same type of troops - with some added support elements that we can calculate into the stats - infantry is still (mostly) infantry, tanks units are tank units etc. This is also considered as the smallest military unit capable of independent operations on the other hand. It works (somewhat) in a Sevastopol / Washington scenario type, it works (somewhat) in a Moscow / Stalingrad scenario type and everything in between, so there you have it.

:2cents

User avatar
HexCode
First Lieutenant
First Lieutenant
Posts: 926
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Driving Down Memory Lane...

Post by HexCode » 2021-03-14 05:11, Sunday

Here's what PGF's programmer told the "Hobby at Large"... eons ago:
In PGForever.exe there is also a... table somewhere, but I don't want you guys to waste the time hex editing the EXE . . . This is not the PGF way of doing things. Any game which requires modification of its main EXE cannot be considered truly customizable. In the future all... tables will go to a separate text file, and each game will be able to have its own... tables . . . I intend to work on moving ever more of hard-coded stuff from the game engine to external files. Thus, I plan to move all terrain types, unit classes, weather zones, movement types and tables, target types etc to data files where it will be easy to edit them or add more entities. In perspective, I'm thinking of using some script language (like Lua or Python) to code all game rules and formulas. Then it will be possible to change them at will without modifying the game executable
Is there some current significance to the above quoted, albeit, never hitherto realized intentions ? Only that I'm trying my best to do "something" about "realizing" them, even if, by technical necessity, the likely results of my efforts won't be very user-friendly ! :) :ihope That's what happens with / to de facto "abandonware", under the most auspicious, long-term developments and most optimistic statements of intent... :2cents
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-11-17 00:39, Wednesday, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 470
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Radoye » 2021-03-14 16:56, Sunday

That's how PzC works - everything is externalized into simple tab delimited txt files. Very easy to mod movement types, terrain types, unit classes, everything.

Where it breaks down for me is with the eye candy - the unit icon format is a bit tricky to mod, especially compared to PG/AG/PGF; in addition to that, each unit has a series of custom sounds and animations ("effects") to go along with it, which make things unnecessarily complicated. And me being borderline OCD can't stand if things are just half way done, but the effort required to have them 100% done is more than i'm willing to put in.

But, for those who are willing to put in the effort, PzC offers great possibilities to modding be it with map design, triggerable scenario events, everything is customizable, it's beyond easy to add new unit classes, movement types, nations, whatever. It's PGF on steroids and unlike the PGF we use here, it's a finished polished product.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts (ask questions or comment here)

Post by Lettos » 2021-03-14 20:12, Sunday

Radoye wrote:
2021-03-14 16:56, Sunday
That's how PzC works - everything is externalized into simple tab delimited txt files. Very easy to mod movement types, terrain types, unit classes, everything.

Where it breaks down for me is with the eye candy - the unit icon format is a bit tricky to mod, especially compared to PG/AG/PGF; in addition to that, each unit has a series of custom sounds and animations ("effects") to go along with it, which make things unnecessarily complicated. And me being borderline OCD can't stand if things are just half way done, but the effort required to have them 100% done is more than i'm willing to put in.

But, for those who are willing to put in the effort, PzC offers great possibilities to modding be it with map design, triggerable scenario events, everything is customizable, it's beyond easy to add new unit classes, movement types, nations, whatever. It's PGF on steroids and unlike the PGF we use here, it's a finished polished product.
Modification of types and classes of units, terrain types, scenarios etc - it's only 1/3 of overall of global problem (PGF, PzC or whatever it is from this series of turn-based models).
The remaining 2/3 are AI. Which is useless in all models. So there is nothing to worry about :)

Talking about PzC icons and graphics at all - there is an obvious lack of aesthetics on the part of the creators. It looks like what was done according to the templates of military needs, but it turned out to be unclaimed and in a truncated form went to the market.
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

Lettos
Kadet
Kadet
Posts: 481
Joined: 2020-10-12 15:43, Monday

Re: Naval attack and ... minefields in PGF

Post by Lettos » 2021-03-21 20:19, Sunday

1) Parameter Naval Attack (NA) of Ground units

At the moment, this parameter for all "normal" units, except for specialized ones (for example, coastal battery) is 0 or 1.
In my opinion, this requires correction.

a) Units with Ranged attack > 0
Can't a 152mm AT field battery do serious damage to a destroyer or gunboat approaching the coast?
Is there a need to increase the NA parameter? I think yes.
b) Units with Range = 0
The only chance for such units to enter into a combat clash with the Naval Unit is to attack some Destroyer that approached the coast or entered the port on the previous turn.
In general, putting a Capital Ship into a port to defend a hex port is the last and not the best action, which can only be understood in case of a total shortage of Ground units.
Real Ports often do not have such a large water area to keep the ship safe from mortaires fire and even large-caliber small arms fire. The damage will not be significant, but it can be quite sensitive.
That is, Naval Attack of INF (especially HW INF), Tanks can be more significant than 0 or 1.
c) In many "land" scenarios, the nearest ship is in hundreds kilometers from the battlefield, or the ship is present in a very minor role (eg LC, France). And this NA parameter is not used at all. Which means it can be used for some other purpose! For instance...


2) Minefield

a) The minefield cannot attack itself, but inflicts losses on the attacking Ground unit.
Only one unit class meets this requirement. It's Air Defense. Air Attack parameter = 0.
b) The minefield cannot move by itself. MVT = 0.
c) The minefield must never move.
d) The minefield can be destroyed by certain classes of units: INF, Tac Bombers, AT.
Not all INF units are equally effective in removing mines. Engineers and Sturmpionieres do it best, and cavalry and paratroopers do it worst. The minefield can be cleared by special tank units (Bridge or Engineering tanks), but not by regular tanks.
It is required that some units effectively attack the minefield, while others do not. How to do it:

Assigning to AD unit Target Type = 3 (Naval (!)). MVT Type = 6 as for Naval unit.
And assign some serious NA value to all Ground units that effectively cope with the demining task (INF, AT)
Do not forget that you can clear mines with the help of artillery bombardment of a minefield or even air bombardment.

For example, I'm currently testing something like this:
INF Sturmpioniere NA = 20-30
AD Minefield GD = 5-6 (may be 8?)
SA = 8-10, HA = 8-10

These parameters of Attack should be adjusted later, may be increased to 12-15.
It is only example which looks good in testing sandbox for now!

Icon - group of black dots.

This "Passive" minefield has one drawback. When a unit moves into the hexes closed by the "fog of war", the unit stumbles upon such a minefield and does not suffer losses.

Such minefields can be used as "removable blockers" on roads. Or placed close to FORT units to prevent immediate attack to FORT by Player's INF or Tank units.
But you can also create and use:


3) Active Minefield or "Minefild with small fortifications"

Unit Class = 1 (Tank)
+ Organic Transport: Destroyer or Capital ship with Range = 0, SA=0, HA=0. Ship is much better than Submarine for H2H and still great for H-vs-AI mode, because the minefield will never be located in the port.
MVT Type = 6 (Naval)
Target Type = 3 (Naval)
MVT = 0
SA = 10-15 (or more)
HA = 10-15 (or more)
GD = 8?

There are even possible to create 3 types of such "fortified" minefields.
Anti-personnel Fort minefield: SA = 10, HA = 1
Anti-tank Fort minefield: SA = 1, HA = 10
Mixed minefield: SA = 10, HA = 10

Icon - group of black dots of different sizes and some kind of Strongpoint.


4) Usage of Ground INF Units with increased Naval attack in Scenarios

So, in the new Campaign Scenario, where minefields are involved, you just need to copy the new equipment file with new NA for some units.

If the Scenarios action takes place only on land, then you can use one common file for all Scenarios.

If some Scenarios contain enemy ships there is a choice to use minefields or not (i.e. to increase for some INF units and Artillery Naval Attack or not).
- I've checked now what happens if INF with NA=30 will attack all four types of Capital Ships (with standart PGF PG Campaign SA and HA) and Destroyer placed close to coast. INF losses are 2-3, Ships losses 1-2. On enemy turn Ships attacked INF units. Only destroyer has been heavily damaged (STR=1 after attack), but all Capital ships were a winners causing significant losses to INF. So I was expecting a disaster for the ships, but it did not happen :)

First of all, usage of minefields depends on the location of the minefields on the Scenario map. If the enemy's minefields are far from the coast, then the Player's Engineers will hardly have enough time to walk to the coast and attack ships.
In addition, it is not at all necessary that the AI ​​will expose all its ships to attack at once.
And the Player is unlikely to want to take a couple of Engineers to the seashore for a one-time attack, and expose them to the attack of the entire enemy fleet.
That is, there are a number of practical considerations that make raising the NA of INF and AT Ground Units fairly harmless to enemy ships.

I think using minefields on a battalion (and company) scale would be very interesting. On a divisional scale, minefields are of little importance due to their small geographic size.

=====

All of the above referred to the case: the enemy has minefields.
I'm very interested in testing what the AI will do when it encounters the Player's minefields. Does the AI use its own Engineers with increased NA? I don’t know yet :)

Since the topic is non-standard and unusual, some nuances may appear here that I did not take into account and did not see during the development of minefields and their testing.
--War in History Campaign (WiH)-- Aut non tentaris aut perfice.

Post Reply