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

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

Moderator: Radoye

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

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

Post by HexCode » 2019-10-13 17:18, Sunday

INTENT & UTILITY
===================

The present thread is intended to serve as an omnibus "ephemeral" topic. Anything re: PGF goes...
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-06-16 23:09, Wednesday, edited 9 times in total.

re-enlist
Private
Private
Posts: 4
Joined: 2019-11-20 07:26, Wednesday

Help with PGF modification tooling

Post by re-enlist » 2019-11-20 07:35, Wednesday

Gents,

I need some help. I am not a computer genius..... :thud
Since a couple of days I am using FPGE to slightly modify PGF scenarios for my own use.

1. I would like so slightly alter some unit specifications in the equipment file. Can i use FPGE for that as well? All i see is an export equipment file function but no way to alter units specs in FPGE. Or should i use another tool for the equipment file?

2. I try to add some deployment hexes. I FPGE using the "D" buton i can specify those hexes. See th black outline around them. But when playing in campaign mode i do not see them and can't deploy in them. strangely when i use the overview function at the start of a scenario, showing the whole map in a small window they show as deployment hexes but as said i cant use them). Does anyone see what i'm doing wrong?

Thanks in advance for helping.
Frans

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 297
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: Help with PGF modification tooling

Post by Radoye » 2019-11-20 12:46, Wednesday

Hi Frans,

It appears what i said on the old forum isn't entirely true - i seem to remember being able to edit unit stats using FPGE (but in a very unintuitive way), however i can't find it anymore. I must've been mistaken.

But just like most other data files in FPGE the equipment file is basically a tab separated text file and can be opened in a spreadsheet editor (Excel or some such). I find this the most efficient way to edit PGF equipment - especially if you freeze panes so that you have the unit names on the left and the column headings at the top - this way you can scroll the data up, down, left, right and still see where you are. You can also temporarily sort the file (my preferred method is by nation, then class, year, month) to group units together - just don't forget to sort it back according to the unit number before saving.

As for the deploy hexes not sure what is wrong. If you want you can send me the files so i can take a look (but you might have to wait a few days before i have the time to do it). I'll PM you my email address.

re-enlist
Private
Private
Posts: 4
Joined: 2019-11-20 07:26, Wednesday

Re: [REF] Modding Technical Hints

Post by re-enlist » 2019-11-27 10:44, Wednesday

I can modify PGF files with excel and/or notepad. However when saving they are saved with type "TXTfile" instead of for instance PGEQP. Even if i rename it with the correct extension, in properties it wil say its a txt file.

Does the executable have a problem with that filetype?

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 297
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts

Post by Radoye » 2019-11-27 13:03, Wednesday

Those files are txt files, just the file extension is changed.

PGF is designed to be easily modified, that's why most of its data files are tab separated lists saved as plain text files and editable as such, the only thing that distinguishes between them is the file extension (and of course the internal structure of the information within). Scenario files, campaign path, equipment file, briefings etc these are in essence all plain text files.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Verify, Don't Assume

Post by HexCode » 2019-12-26 05:24, Thursday

PGF is a remake of SSI's Panzer/ Allied General(s), not a replica. Most players and "light" modders need not overly concern themselves with any... lurking differences. They may as well forget about SSI's "old ways" and enjoy PGF in "as is" condition. That said, certain "advanced" modders better be careful. I'm thinking of individuals possessing PG1-DOS "advanced" modding... credentials :) who decided to migrate their activities into PGF modding territory (I'm one of them). "Advanced" modding is all about nuanced, technical details. To this effect, most differences are to be encountered in such details.

:bullhorn So, "advanced" modders (such as myself) better verify every little detail and assume nothing !
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:03, Wednesday, edited 4 times in total.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Who Speaks for Them ?

Post by HexCode » 2019-12-26 18:53, Thursday

There's quite a bit of PGF custom content "around". However, only a tiny fraction of custom content designers are presumed to be active in this forum (i.e., topics the titles of which are prefaced by "[DEV]"). What about the rest ? Well, the... departed can't speak for themselves, can they ? To this effect, do they really need "someone" to speak on their behalf ? Not necessarily. Why ?

a) Anyone can play through custom content and decide to post "something" about it. If so, any such commentary will be the poster's, not the designer's.

b) Any modder can embark on modifying already existing custom content. The ensuing activities will be 100% attributable to the modder, not to the original designer or to any prior modders, if any.
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:03, Wednesday, edited 1 time in total.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] End of Decade Remarks

Post by HexCode » 2019-12-30 01:17, Monday

PGF has been around for a decade. The dawn of a new decade is just a couple of days away. In many ways, the present forum is about PGF's future, not its past.

1) Our forum is kindly accommodated as part of a collection of forums hosted by three "Red Administrators" who obviously do care and actively aim for all around success.

2) Our forum's Moderator actively assists posters in accommodating their posts.

3) Future poster participation is currently... unknowable ! :evil
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:04, Wednesday, edited 3 times in total.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] H2H Play Isn't... "Broken"

Post by HexCode » 2020-01-05 22:57, Sunday

PGF AI's many shortcomings are rather well known. That doesn't mean that H2H play is in any way "broken", far from it. As an old hand in designing scenarios for H2H play under PG1-DOS and a budding such designer under PGF, I can assure interested parties (if any) that H2H play under PGF is just fine, save for a couple of programming glitches that can be dealt with by resorting to observing appropriate "house rules".
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:04, Wednesday, edited 2 times in total.

re-enlist
Private
Private
Posts: 4
Joined: 2019-11-20 07:26, Wednesday

Help: not able to buy core units

Post by re-enlist » 2020-01-07 09:41, Tuesday

In some of the PGF "campaigns" is have the following problem:

I have one or more free core slots according to purchase window. But i can not buy a unit to fill it despite having more ten enough prestige.
If an aux slot is also available then the purchase can be done filling the aux slot.

Does anyone recognize this issue and maybe know a solution.

i experience this issue so far in the following "campaigns"
- French general
- Cowboy attack

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 297
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

Re: Help: not able to buy core units

Post by Radoye » 2020-01-07 12:50, Tuesday

There are bugs in some converted campaigns that messed up the player side - i don't remember the details anymore, been a while i last looked into it, but in essence you're playing as Allied while the game thinks you should be Axis and assigns purchase slots to Axis side instead (or vice versa). I made fixes for these, you can find them here:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/5epq8qkja ... s.zip/file

http://www.mediafire.com/file/3ar3mn2t9 ... x.zip/file

This makes the campaigns playable but there are other detail issues with scenarios that need fixing (for example - the use of "wrong" air and sea transports). Let me know if you run into other campaigns in need of similar intervention.


(Note: this topic will be eventually merged into the appropriate one)

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] "Ephemeral" or "Developmental" ?

Post by HexCode » 2020-01-10 19:51, Friday

Whether certain "consequential" posts are lodged into the present topic or some topic the title of which starts with "[DEV]" doesn't really matter.

BUT

it makes a big difference whether a poster writes about "archaeology" (i.e., custom content the designers / re-designers of which are not or no longer active in this forum) or about custom content the designers / re-designers of which are presumed to be active in this forum, thereby rendering such custom content "developmental" (i.e., work presumed to be in progress).

"Advanced" modding is all about coming up with novelties based on extracting advantages from as well as avoiding pitfalls lurking in technical details. If so, it stands to reason that "live" discussions involving the active participation of designers should directly impact the latter's development activities in a beneficial way. Equally important, compared to "autopsy" :) discussions where the relevant designers / re-designers are "absent", "developmental" discussions enjoy the obvious practical benefits arising out of participating designers / re-designers being the most knowledgeable regarding, what else, their treasured... "babies" under discussion. ;)
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:05, Wednesday, edited 2 times in total.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Why Am I Doing "This" ?

Post by HexCode » 2020-01-24 15:49, Friday

The other day, I received an Email from someone who wanted to know why I've been posting "all that stuff around here". That person remarked that both PGF and this forum are terminally dead for all intents and purposes.

My answer was this. Irrespective of PGF's current "public" status, very much like yesteryear's PG1-DOS, PGF serves my private wargaming interests quite well. I'm a private content designer exclusively focusing on ahistorical, H2H scenario play. As such, I'm not missing at all posts having to do with historical content and / or campaigns. Of course, I would welcome posts containing interesting technical information / know-how applicable across the spectrum of content preferences (i.e., technical lingua franca).
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:05, Wednesday, edited 2 times in total.

Bob Semple
Private
Private
Posts: 1
Joined: 2019-12-20 09:47, Friday

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

Post by Bob Semple » 2020-01-25 08:48, Saturday

HexCode wrote:
2020-01-24 15:49, Friday
The other day, I received an Email from someone who wanted to know why I've been posting "all that stuff around here". That person remarked that both PGF and this forum are terminally dead for all intents and purposes.
This strikes me as both rude and awfully presumptious. Obviously there isn't a lot of activity around here, but there are evidently still people designing and sharing custom content. :dunno

And, more to the point, some of us do appreciate the technical documentation which you provide, regardless of whether it was intended for any audience. :yes

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] No Way

Post by HexCode » 2020-02-13 03:29, Thursday

Well, I got yet another email. This time, I was prompted to get in touch with PGF's programmer and attempt to somehow convince him to "finish" PGF...

I believe I've drawn a clear line in the sand when it comes to PGF's programmer. Some of my posts in that "other" Web venue notwithstanding, I've absolutely no desire to post any significant comments regarding him in this forum, ever. To this effect, I've already posted:
It's not my intent to engage in any critique, let alone criticism, of the software's developer or any custom content designer; this includes the actual (custom) content itself. In a nutshell, I'm completely agnostic regarding such matters.
I've also posted:
PGF is freeware and is "publicly" available in "as is" condition.
As far as I'm concerned, "as is" really means "as currently downloadable via the Internet". Therefore, logically, PGF's programmer is a non-factor... :2cents
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:06, Wednesday, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 297
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

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

Post by Radoye » 2020-02-13 15:25, Thursday

The PGF programmer, having moved onto a commercial product (Panzer Corps) for which he is actually earning money, has effectively abandoned PGF. Furthermore, his contract with the Panzer Corps publisher prevents him from doing any further work on PGF or to share its source code.

So for all that matters, PGF is what it is.

If someone is looking for a "finished" version of PGF i suggest picking up Panzer Corps:

https://www.slitherine.com/game/panzer-corps-gold

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Unorthodox... PBEM

Post by HexCode » 2020-02-14 16:39, Friday

Some PGF aficionado may like to PBEM but can't do so due to opponent unavailability / unsuitability. Also, for whatever reason, he may not be interested in playing PGF Online. Well, if so, such a person may conclude that AI warfighting is the only option available to him...

Hobbyists familiar with yesteryear's tabletop wargames were no strangers to the all too common situation where one didn't have anyone to play with / against. Interestingly enough, quite a few hobbyists had gotten accustomed to playing both sides by skillfully alternating between two opposing wargaming... mindsets. The widespread absence of Fog of War (FoW) definitely helped...

Contrary to received opinion, one can PBEM PGF with / against himself. The trick is to get quite a few scenario fights going. Given some elementary facility with file organization and management, a hobbyist can cycle through, say, 50 scenarios before having to play the "other" side in any particular scenario. This play mode is quite advantageous because:

1) The problem of defeating FoW through knowledge of the other side's force disposition is minimized due to the fact that human memory regarding details can easily be taxed... Even better, with 50 scenarios or so ongoing, chances are that human memory will go wrong, juxtaposing the wrong tactical situation / picture...

2) One doesn't really need all these fancy "battlefield generator" options based on randomization of initial force dispositions. A heavily taxed human memory is tantamount to one being faced with a FoW situation simulating force disposition randomization every step of the way, not just initially ! In other words, a player has to play . . .

. . . the visible part of the board and not the man, every time, all the time...

So, where there's a will there's a way... :ihope
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:06, Wednesday, edited 1 time in total.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Ten Years are About Right

Post by HexCode » 2020-02-18 19:13, Tuesday

Kindly check out:

Verify, Don't Assume...
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174#p2392

In my opinion, it was a big "mistake" to subject SSI's PG1-DOS to "serious" technical research way back in the late 1990s. Why ? In those days, there was a lot of Player and Light Modder "public" activity which mightily interfered with the... serenity :) and fixity of purpose of a few well intentioned technical "researchers"...

Quite fortunately, PGF's "public" realities have evolved differently. Ten years after PGF's release, Player and Light Modder "public" activity is virtually nonexistent. This has potentially untied the hands of the odd technical "researcher" (i.e., Advanced Modder) such as myself to uninterruptedly pursue all kinds of "serious" ... things ! :)

My view on the admittedly many nuanced differences between PG1-DOS and PGF is this: PGF is it ! Any technical fixes and novelties I might consider implementing better be desirable on their very own practical merits. Whether the impetus behind such envisaged fixes and novelties is some other piece of software or, even, interesting idea is immaterial. In other words, hey PG1-DOS, just take a... number like everybody else ! :2cents
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:07, Wednesday, edited 4 times in total.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Content Design Degrees of Freedom

Post by HexCode » 2020-02-22 18:44, Saturday

Whether one likes it or not, PGF's "classic" (i.e., SSI) content has always served as an important paradigm many custom content designers chose to emulate over the years. That's an empirically established and, in my opinion, rather uncontroversial fact.

Myself coming from the... deeply technical side of the "hobby", I've reached the following conclusions:

1) PGF allows for tremendous customization of battlefield initial conditions incomparable to anything feasible in-game.

2) Consequently, standalone scenario design is way more "adventurously free" as compared to campaign design.

However, to each his own !!
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:07, Wednesday, edited 1 time in total.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Experimentation Pays Off

Post by HexCode » 2020-02-26 20:11, Wednesday

From a custom content designer's perspective, blind adherence to PGF's "classic" (i.e., SSI) content paradigm considerably limits what may actually be (design-wise) feasible. To this effect, experimentation often pays off big time.

Here are a couple of suggestions:

A) SSI's content designers kept quite a few unit Attack values at zero (0). A lot can be learned and, hopefully, put to good use by specifying positive values and observing the resulting battlefield behavior.

B) More generally, SSI's content has de facto established something akin to a unit attribute ensemble "orthodoxy". Yet, "mix & match" experimentation is bound to yield innovative as well as practically useful, new unit definitions.

In my opinion, custom design experimentation and imagination go hand in hand.
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:07, Wednesday, edited 1 time in total.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] PGF's AI vs. PGF's AI ?

Post by HexCode » 2020-04-19 01:25, Sunday

Why would anyone be interested in watching PGF's AI playing against... itself ?

1) Entertainment; pure and simple ! :)

2) Players may be interested in zeroing in on PGF AI's observable weaknesses so that they can take full advantage of them thereby scoring speedy, if not spectacular, victories.

3) Players seeking more challenge may be interested in purposely avoiding taking advantage of PGF AI's observable weaknesses thereby pretending that their opponent is human and, consequently, playing accordingly...

4) Custom content designers may be interested in how PGF's AI plays so that they can fine tune their scenarios and campaigns, depending on their particular design aims. On occasion, the AI "show" may reveal design "bugs"...
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:08, Wednesday, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 297
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

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

Post by Radoye » 2020-04-19 14:11, Sunday

I must say the AI vs AI exercise is much more interesting in the original SSI "general" games than in PGF.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Engine Entrails

Post by HexCode » 2020-04-23 04:42, Thursday

Elsewhere in this forum:
JediKnight007 wrote:
2020-04-22 19:46, Wednesday
Regarding PacPG, Pepa told me in an email that he has been working on it, since this pandemic has given people a lot of free time. I also directed him to some technical info on how to hex edit pgf.exe, because his mod uses different movement and weather tables than standard PG/PGF. (Previous attempts to convert PacPG to PGF failed because of this.)
a) It took 20 years since SSI's release of PG1-DOS for considerable, technical information regarding the internal structure of the engine to become "publicly" available. In the case of PGF by comparison, it "only" took 5 years for the same to happen. I call this relative... progress ! :)

b) Obviously, a "reasonably faithful" adaptation of PacPG originally playable under PG1-DOS so that it can be played under PGF as well would necessitate judicious amounts of hex-editing of PGF's engine. :2cents
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:08, Wednesday, edited 3 times in total.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] AI Module: Play Balance

Post by HexCode » 2020-04-24 04:43, Friday

A) When PGF's AI Module is pitted against itself, we come across a textbook case of Identical Opponents. However, the AI Module isn't an adaptive learner. Consequently, Playing Skill Improvement and Education go out the window. As for Friendliness, oh well ! :) Finally, for rather obvious reasons, Concurrent, Mirrored Gaming is perfectly symmetrical.

B) When PGF's AI Module is pitted against a human opponent, we often come across cases of Unevenly Matched Opponents.

1) Once again, the AI Module not being an adaptive learner, Playing Skill Improvement, Education and Friendliness are all but meaningless. To boot, the rationale underlying Concurrent, Mirrored Gaming just evaporates...

2) The human opponent doesn't have to worry about friendliness and symmetry, of course. Playing Skill Improvement and Education do occur naturally via the mere act of playing against the AI Module. The longer a human opponent plays, the more experienced he becomes, but always subject to eventual diminishing returns. :evil In addition, Concurrent, Mirrored Gaming allows the human opponent to appreciate and study a battle all around and, hence, avoid blind spots in his gaming knowledge. Remember. though, PGF's AI Module cannot serve as active campaigner...
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:09, Wednesday, edited 3 times in total.

Tronjer
Private
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: 2020-06-29 03:39, Monday

Can I change the difficulty level during a campaign?

Post by Tronjer » 2020-06-29 04:00, Monday

Hi
I am new to the forum and not quite sure whether I picked the correct thread for this post.
I am playing Spanish General - Republican (v 0.98). With the default difficulty settings it is impossible to win the first scenario (Extremadura). So I changed the settings to more prestige and higher experience for the Republican player.
Can I change the settings back or modify them for the following scenarios?

Tronjer

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 297
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

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

Post by Radoye » 2020-06-29 13:14, Monday

I believe these are fixed once you start a campaign, you can't change them afterwards.

There are tricks to these difficult scenarios under PGF AI, usually involving parking one of your units next to AI victory hex ASAP (to prevent purchasing new units there). The AI will keep reinforcing non-VH cities instead, which you can safely by-pass. I'm not too familiar with this particular scenario but this generally works.

Tronjer
Private
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: 2020-06-29 03:39, Monday

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

Post by Tronjer » 2020-06-30 13:34, Tuesday

Thanks for this tip, Radoye.
I thought maybe the difficulty setting is in some kind of ini file, but there is none. Can it be in the pgforever.exe? And can that be edited?

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] No "Saved Game Editor"

Post by HexCode » 2020-06-30 16:28, Tuesday

Tronjer wrote:
2020-06-30 13:34, Tuesday
I thought maybe the difficulty setting is in some kind of ini file, but there is none. Can it be in the pgforever.exe? And can that be edited?
The setting resides within a campaign's evolving "Saved Game" binary file(s) (*.PGSAV). To my knowledge, there's never been an aftermarket "Saved Game Editor" for PGF around. Unlike in the case of PG1-DOS, PGF aficionados never saw the need for such a utility to be developed... :|
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:09, Wednesday, edited 3 times in total.

Tronjer
Private
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: 2020-06-29 03:39, Monday

Re: No "Saved Game Editor"

Post by Tronjer » 2020-06-30 17:16, Tuesday

In fact, there seems to be no need to set the difficulty level back, since the next scenarios are as hard as the first one. I am quite happy with my extra prestige and experience. And there is always the last resort of the cheat codes. Not satisfying, but sometimes I really need them.

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 297
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

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

Post by Radoye » 2020-06-30 18:45, Tuesday

keep in mind these campaigns were not developed for PGF and with PGF's "quirky" AI in mind - i believe these were converted from AG. And this used to be one of the harder custom campaigns in AG as well.

Good luck with your further conquests! :)

nerdyoldman
Private
Private
Posts: 1
Joined: 2020-07-22 21:21, Wednesday

Done my first bit of light modding!

Post by nerdyoldman » 2020-07-22 21:51, Wednesday

I tend to always the AG scenarios, especially the British one.
So I added some extra units. like the Daimler Armoured Car and the Tetrarch with Little John adapter Both very real units.
The Daimlers were extensively used for much of the war, and the Little John adapters really were fitted to the Tetrarches that were dropped behind enemy lines on D-day.
Then I thought I would do a "bridgelayer" tank. I based it on the Valentine, because that was the most common.
Then a Churchill AVRE, and a Churchill V. All real stuff in use by D-day.not just some weird one-off prototypes.
I downgraded the Churchill IV in the equipment file to be the same as a Churchill III - the authors seem to have mixed up the Churchill NA75 with the Churchill IV, but in reality, its timeline is more like a Churchill VI.
I also pepped up the Comet with a new version, to reflect the better ammo available from early '45
I chucked in a bunch of Sunderland flying boats, too, with effectiveness getting better as ever better radar was fitted,

I have just done my first scenario improvement - the 2nd scenario in the North Africa set has a Mosquito VI BEFORE THE PROTOTYPE EVEN FLEW!
So I edited to file to swap it for the more realistic Blenheim IV.

Enough talk ;-)
Here are the mods:

# ID Name Class Soft Attack Hard Attack Air Attack Naval Attack Ground Defense Air Defense Close Defense Movement Type Initiative Range Spotting Target Type Movement Max Fuel Max Ammo Cost Icon Animation Month Year Last Year Bomber Special Ignores Entrenchment Can Have Organic Transport Can Have Sea Transport Can Have Air Transport Can Paradrop Can Bridge Rivers Jet Flag
3211 Valentine Bridge 1 1 1 0 0 8 9 1 0 1 0 1 1 3 51 5 204 195 79 3 43 45 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 23
3212 AL Tetrarch LitJ 2 1 12 0 2 6 7 2 0 6 0 2 1 7 70 5 292 174 54 6 44 45 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 23
3213 Daimler Arm Car 2 1 9 1 2 6 8 2 7 6 0 3 1 8 65 10 176 1374 87 6 41 46 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 23
3214 Daimler AC LitJ 2 1 12 1 2 6 8 2 7 6 0 3 1 8 65 10 189 1374 87 6 44 46 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 23
3215 Sunderland I 9 0 0 10 11 12 10 0 5 2 0 3 2 13 152 5 371 658 55 6 38 46 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
3216 Sunderland ASV 9 0 0 11 11 12 11 0 5 2 0 4 2 12 152 5 381 658 55 10 41 46 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
3217 Sunderland IIIA 9 0 0 12 12 12 12 0 5 2 0 5 2 13 152 5 391 658 55 4 44 46 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
3218 Comet APDS 1 9 20 0 3 12 11 4 0 10 0 1 1 6 45 9 276 3478 76 1 45 46 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 23
3219 Churchill AVRE 1 15 8 0 4 14 9 3 0 0 1 1 1 4 40 3 220 1352 58 6 44 47 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 23
3220 Churchill V/95 4 15 7 0 4 14 9 4 0 5 3 1 1 4 40 7 268 1352 58 6 44 45 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 23
3221 Churchill NA 75 1 11 12 0 3 14 9 4 0 9 0 1 1 4 40 10 220 1356 58 3 44 46 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 23

The "game" mosquito is the MK VI, which is a Fighter Bomber - however the date is wrong.
The game uses 3/41 as the date, yet in reality 5/41 was when the MK II (a fighter) was introduced, and the Mk VI didn't exist until 6/42.
For more historical accuracy, it should be replaced by a Blenheim IV.
(but as the mosquito is used in later scenarios as well, simply overwriting the equipment data file may have unexpected results!)
so I changed 002.pgscn replace unit code 174 with 173 (replace mosquito VI with Blenheim IV)

None of the changes I made seem to work as "wonder weapons" in my testing. The bridgelayer is good in some scenarios, but SO slow.
The Daimler Armoured Car is probably the best addition of the lot, as it has a nice sting in that 2 pdr, but needs to be careful with "proper" tanks, and even heavily equipped infantry. However, it was fast, a lot were in use, and there really was a "Little John" version of it in use after D-day. It is great for shooting up "transport" half-tracks! The Sunderland is much of a muchness with the Catalina - shorter rang, but carried more bombs.

Comments welcome

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 297
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

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

Post by Radoye » 2020-07-23 14:10, Thursday

That looks very interesting, thank you.

But beware, now that you've been bitten by the modding bug, like the rest of us you can pretty much kiss your social life goodbye! :deal

(Not that there's much of a social life left in this CoVid age anyway :| )

re-enlist
Private
Private
Posts: 4
Joined: 2019-11-20 07:26, Wednesday

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

Post by re-enlist » 2020-11-04 09:51, Wednesday

Gents,

need a little bit of help.

I do make some scenarios in PGF for presonal use (their level is not that good)

I use FPGE to change things. But sometimes that goes pretty wrong.

First can anyone explain what is the role of the Supply hexes?
Part of PGSCN file
# Supply hexes
# Hex Prestige for Capturing
(2:5) 0
(6:2) 0
(6:9) 0
(20:6) 0


And how can i influence it using FPGE? If i use a text editor direct in the PGSCN file the scenario starts up with a complete empty map and hangs.

Another serious issue is that i have serveral times that as soon as one party takes an enemy victory hexes after that purchase of new units goes wrong because i get the screen, select the purchase bur have no place to deploy it.

I hope someone can help

Thanks in advance.

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 297
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

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

Post by Radoye » 2020-11-04 15:07, Wednesday

Supply Hexes are basically cities, where units can be purchased. Prestige for capturing is how much a player (human or AI) gets for capturing them from the enemy.

Unlike PG, in PGF it takes a few turns before one can purchase units in newly captured cities, if this is what you're asking.

Also, while editing in FPGE you need to set up the side for each city (Axis or Allied) as well as the flag (nation ownership) if you want to be able to purchase units there. The best thing to do is to look at existing scenarios (something simple, like the original PG Poland scen) and see how things are set up there, then try emulating that in your scenarios.

Baby steps. Don't worry, you'll get there! :)

mgor
Private
Private
Posts: 2
Joined: 2020-11-14 12:12, Saturday

How to start an online game?

Post by mgor » 2020-11-14 12:29, Saturday

We have PGForever v1.02 on two PC's connected to the Internet in one house (Windows 10). The game is launched on the both PC's. How to play with each other?

User avatar
Radoye
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Royal Navy Battlecruiser Sqn
Posts: 297
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

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

Post by Radoye » 2020-11-14 15:57, Saturday

I never did it myself, but from what i understand one of you would have to start a scenario, select a side for himself (pick "Player" from the radio button selector) and select "Remote Opponent" from the other side. You should then be prompted to pick a name for your game and start the session. The other player should then select Join Online Game from the main menu and should see the game you created.

As i said, i never tried it myself so this is all theoretical, but i'm sure someone will be able to fill in the blanks here :)

mgor
Private
Private
Posts: 2
Joined: 2020-11-14 12:12, Saturday

Re: How to start an online game? by mgor » 2020-11-14 13:29, Saturday

Post by mgor » 2020-11-14 18:15, Saturday

Radoye wrote:
2020-11-14 15:57, Saturday
one of you would have to start a scenario, select a side for himself (pick "Player" from the radio button selector) and select "Remote Opponent" from the other side. You should then be prompted to pick a name for your game and start the session. The other player should then select Join Online Game from the main menu and should see the game you created.
I'm trying to do it in this way, but after I enter a name of the game and confirm it, a run-time error occures.

User avatar
Cat Leon
Major
Major
Posts: 66
Joined: 2019-12-17 10:16, Tuesday

stackicn.bmp issue

Post by Cat Leon » 2020-11-19 09:29, Thursday

The small icon of aircraft-carrier for "Axis" is missing in stackicn.bmp! :-? As a result, we see a small truck instead of carrier in the game.
It's clear that both Allies and Axis should have an small icons for same unit classes! I don’t understand why the developers of PGF didn’t think about this simple thing especially since "Axis" carrier icon is present in the castable.png and it works in the game! As far as I understand this problem can only be solved by changing the game engine. Is it possible?
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: 297
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

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

Post by Radoye » 2020-11-19 14:20, Thursday

This is inherited from the stock PG/AG where Axis does not have a carrier, the stackicn image is a direct conversion from PG.

Back in the day i was working with Rodankort (PGF developer) doing some playtesting for him and i mentioned this and a few other shortcomings of the PG/AG way of doing things (even though in many aspects superior to PacGen, the whole PG/AG "world" is basically a subset of what is available in PacGen so adding the missing unit classes, naval rules, night turns, 3-way scenarios, terrain and movement types etc etc with all the associated graphics would still make a lot of sense even when all you want to do is to make the original PG scenarios and campaigns playable under modern OS without having to set up emulators and such) but he said that's something he plans to look at in phase 2, his first goal being to provide a perfect reproduction of PG.

In the end, neither is PGF a perfect PG nor did we ever got to phase 2, since Rudankort got offered a contract to develop a commercial game (PanzerCorps) which ended up incorporating a lot of the concepts that were discussed during betatesting PGF - and is now prohibited under the terms of his contract to further work on PGF or to release the source files.

So i'm afraid it is what it is, at least for the next while.

User avatar
Cat Leon
Major
Major
Posts: 66
Joined: 2019-12-17 10:16, Tuesday

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

Post by Cat Leon » 2020-11-20 08:48, Friday

:howdy And yet, what if you ask Rodankort to fix this small glitch if you are still in contact with him. I don’t think that small fixing of an old EXE file is the breach of contract ...especially since no one will know about it! It's a hour's work for him, IMHO...

Another question. Is there any way to anchor an unit which have some movement (towed antitank guns or artillery for example) if it is necessary in the scenario? Unlike PG2, the trick with motionless fortification as transport doesn't work in PGF... :no

And another question :)
How to set "Allies Move First 1" option in a scenario using FPGE editor? :huh
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: 297
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

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

Post by Radoye » 2020-11-20 14:26, Friday

There are several small glitches in PGF that would need fixing before we get into purely cosmetic stuff (for example, see what happens if you purchase an unit with movement 0 in a coastal / port city, or even if you attack them on a coastal hex and force them to retreat) but in the past Rudankort routinely refused to do so citing the terms of his contract.

As for anchoring the units, i never found a satisfactory solution to keep ATY, AT, AD, INF in place as such. I ended up creating a "garrison infantry" unit (Fortification class, increased GD / AD values and extra ammo, 0 movement) to work around this - it's far from ideal but it's the best i could think of.

User avatar
Cat Leon
Major
Major
Posts: 66
Joined: 2019-12-17 10:16, Tuesday

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

Post by Cat Leon » 2020-11-21 07:50, Saturday

There are several interesting lines in scenario file :
Max Unit Strength
Max Unit Experience
Allies Move First
Hidden scenario

FPG editor always adds "Max Unit Strength 15" and "Max Unit Experience 599" but i can only change them by hands.
As for "Allies Move First 1", I can only add this line by hands and it really works in the game but FPG editor always removes that line after saving a scenario. Does anyone know how to set these parameters in the editor? :huh
The work of "Hidden scenario 1" option is obscure to me...

BTW: if I'm not mistaken, this "rudankort" is Russian so I could try to talk him in Russian. Does anyone have his actual e-mail?
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: 297
Joined: 2019-09-30 11:21, Monday

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

Post by Radoye » 2020-11-21 14:25, Saturday

"Hidden scenario" is cosmetic, denotes a scenario that doesn't show up in the single scenario list in the PGF menu. Mainly it's used for the SSI Allied General campaign where originally you had the same scenario files being reused for US and UK campaigns - PGF has separate US and UK scenarios here but only one of them is playable from the single scenario mode (unless you hack it and remove the "hidden scenario" setting). It doesn't really do anything with regards to the actual gameplay once you've found your way into the actual scenario.

There is a way to set "Allies move first" from FPGE but i can't remember now off the top of my head how, it's been a while. I usually use FPGE only for map editing, to change ownership of hexes, add a city or a port or whatnot here or there, edit the deployment zones etc - i like to edit the scenario parameters by hand using a plain text editor (Notepad++ is my favorite). So i'm not 100% sure on where you can find this option but i know i did it.

For the other ones, "Max Unit Experience" is quite interesting for campaign play, it lets you control the rate your units gain experience throughout the campaign so that you don't end up with a monster all 5-star 15-strength core too early (or at all) if you've been adding extra scenarios to your campaign path.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] My Key Takes

Post by HexCode » 2020-11-25 06:19, Wednesday

Bears repeating...
PGF's developer / programmer "publicly" released his game package, including a subsequently released, final engine update, Version 1.02. The software is presumed to be de facto "abandonware & betaware". FPGE's last developer / programmer of record "publicly" released his final editor package Version 0.7.5.10543. The software is presumed to be de facto "abandonware & betaware" as well. One of the editor's main purposes was to facilitate certain types of modding undertaken within the context of PGF.

PGF's source code hasn't been "publicly" released. As such, all of my posts will be based on the key assumption that the title's current engine and external support file formats will remain virtually unchanged, save for some potential hex-editing of PGF's main and only executable.

I consider SSI's Panzer / Allied General (stock) content which PGF's developer rendered playable under PGF to be adapted (i.e., strictly speaking, custom) content. Nevertheless, such time-honored (i.e., "classic") content is very useful in allowing a poster such as myself to use natural language to document and explain "things" as opposed to just resorting to opaque... hexadecimal / binary code.

Asking technical questions or, more generally, participating in interactive discussions regarding technical matters, is considerably more demanding than posting in non-technical areas. Language precision and poster patience are sine qua non if anything constructive is to be achieved as a result of such forum interactions.
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-19 22:34, Monday, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Cat Leon
Major
Major
Posts: 66
Joined: 2019-12-17 10:16, Tuesday

Re: Maximum Number of Units

Post by Cat Leon » 2020-12-15 13:15, Tuesday

I see you love to "philosophize"! :)
HexCode wrote:
2020-12-11 22:17, Friday
Cat Leon wrote:
2020-12-11 15:25, Friday
What is the maximum number of units for each side in PGF scenario?
Practically unlimited... :) In any case, undefined !
I have asked because I decided to remember "my youth" and finally complete some scenarios for my unfinished ETO Efile. Particularly, Kursk scenario with new enlarged and more detailed map (including sector of Army Detachment Kempf to the south of Belgorod) requires about 170 Soviet and more 100 German units. Some other scenario are also at work (including Kiev and Balaton with reworked maps and some others). All these scenarios will be as realistic as it is possible in the game... ;)
Leon, the friendly cat who walks by himself, plays PGF, PG2 & OG and bores busy people!

jjchamps76
Private
Private
Posts: 2
Joined: 2020-12-24 06:13, Thursday

AI purchasing algorithm

Post by jjchamps76 » 2020-12-24 06:44, Thursday

Has anyone figured out/summarized the AI purchasing algorithm? I have had some success manipulating the equipment file to alter AI purchases to make the game harder and more realistic (ie making t34s the cheapest Russian tank often results in fun T34 counterattacks rather than useless light tanks). It seems the AI first purchases aa/art/at to fully encircle all victory hexes (including some high cost options), then buys a mix of inf/at/art/tnks in other supply hexes almost always buying the cheapest option of each class like the worst tank that is easily destroyed. I have been unsuccessful getting AI to build any airforce even at price set at 1. Any insight into AI purchasing preferences would be appreciated.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] AI Unit Purchasing Behavior

Post by HexCode » 2020-12-24 12:12, Thursday

From Father Time's Jurassic archives...
Stop Being... Cheap

Mr. Alexander Shargin (of PGF & PzC fame) has "publicly" suggested that "beer & pretzels" player types who enjoy PG1-style games wouldn't know what to do with tools / ways aimed at really controlling PGF's AI behavior. I wholeheartedly agree with the preceding, bang on assessment !

This post is strictly... aimed at hobbyists who clamor for AI module qualitative improvements. The fact that "beer & pretzels" players worship at the altar of the electronic... god who choreographs hordes of AI-led, ill-fated, cheap units marching to their pre-ordained doom is old hat around here. Is there a qualitative alternative ?

Yes, there is !! Provided, that is, one is willing to be(come) a little... technical as opposed to basking in the... glory of announcing to the world that he's a proud, Internet Bulletin Board... "Player" expecting the... moon and the stars from some "talented sucker".

The technical solution is rather simple. Specifically, one tweaks the weapons specification (E-)file to render the "cheap stuff" unavailable for PGF's AI module purchase. Consequently, the module will be forced to field way more... respectable opposition.

The implementation of the preceding technical solution can be campaign, even scenario-specific. It just presupposes some elementary facility with file editing and management and, most importantly, the absence of a... spoiled, crybaby mindset !! :)

The Ultimate... Bargain

There're positively infuriating instances where the "poor" AI module simply refuses to buy "expensive" units. Such instances call for the adoption of... radical measures. Basically, one renders the electronic side's "good stuff" incredibly... cheap; hence, the... bargain ! In many, but not all, instances, PGF's AI module falls for this technical ruse...

The preceding is a splendid example of "computer-grognard" wargaming parting company with "strategy" wargaming. Like so many times before, "computer-grognards" must decide whether to stick to their "objectivist"... guns and avert their eyes in horror or whether to grudgingly accept the notion that unit "purchase prices" can be malleable and definitely subordinate to quality play (i.e., "war theater shadow pricing"). I know, I know, the... sanctity of the ultimate, all-purpose use, E-file may be at stake here... Oh, well, just another... heresy ! What's new "around here" ? :) By the way, I was elated to have come across the following post snippet:

... e-files are worthless without campaigns / scenarios to play with them, meaning that there is a relationship between e-files and campaign / scenario making. Over the years there have been at least 10-20 floundered attempts of creating a perfect or more realistic e-file with guys spending huge amounts of time creating an e-file only to find out that if no one actually builds a campaign / scenario with it, the e-file is really completely worthless...

All this notwithstanding, if "computer-grognards" are content putting "objectivist" limitations / constraints on their hobby activities, all the power to them. There's no such thing as a universally accepted hobby... orthodoxy, thank... God ! So, to each his own...
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:12, Wednesday, edited 3 times in total.

jjchamps76
Private
Private
Posts: 2
Joined: 2020-12-24 06:13, Thursday

Re: AI Unit Purchasing Behavior

Post by jjchamps76 » 2020-12-24 20:24, Thursday

Thank you for posting this. It does seem that manipulating prices is only way to get good AI purchasing. It has limits as I can't see how you can get AI to build an airforce.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Treat That AI With... Respect

Post by HexCode » 2020-12-25 11:58, Friday

"We" all know that PGF's AI never does many "things" that human players are always at liberty of doing. Here are a few examples:

a) The AI never purchases air units.
b) The AI never lands paratroops.
c) The AI never puts aircraft carriers to good use.
d) The AI never upgrades units.

One could go on and on... :eek

A way to increase the challenge while duking it out with PGF's AI is to routinely observe a state of suspended disbelief. Namely, one just assumes that his opponent is a human like himself, thereby fashioning his playing style and adjusting his actions accordingly, every step of the way... :ihope
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:12, Wednesday, edited 2 times in total.

HexCode
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 619
Joined: 2019-09-30 18:54, Monday

[EPH] Slamming the Door Shut

Post by HexCode » 2020-12-28 15:02, Monday

Personally and, thank God, preemptively, I'd like to slam the door shut to the following time-honored, petty and, ultimately, counterproductive poster responses:

1) I don't "like" your mod. Therefore, there's nothing that you and I can "say" to one another.

2) Your mod isn't historically accurate. Therefore, there's absolutely no utility or merit to its underlying technical basis.

3) I only play against the AI (or H2H). Therefore, since you're into H2H (or AI) play, well, we're total strangers "in here".

4) I'm just a player. I don't care about custom content design issues and problems. Please don't bother "us" with such "ugly & irrelevant" posts.

I don't know about others. :dunno As far as I'm concerned, such possible expressions would merit a one way trip to the virtual garbage can. :yep
Last edited by HexCode on 2021-04-07 23:14, Wednesday, edited 3 times in total.

Post Reply