Enabling PO

[Silvanski]

Hurrah, got it fixed!
By designating a different Polish unit in the withdraw event to tell the engine which units/color needs to be withdrawn ... but still it's puzzling why it did the wrong thing before I fixed this... Maybe something to do with the order of the original OOB? Anyway I'm relieved that my whole weekend won't be wasted trying to fix it [&o][/align]

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

Hurrah, got it fixed!
By designating a different Polish unit in the withdraw event to tell the engine which units/color needs to be withdrawn ... but still it's puzzling why it did the wrong thing before I fixed this... Maybe something to do with the order of the original OOB? Anyway I'm relieved that my whole weekend won't be wasted trying to fix it [&o][/align]

I was trying to fix a problem introduced in some scenarios when converting from Opart100 to Opart300. Units like withdraw with numbers > 2000 (Player 2) if they are split or offmap, will subtract 1500 and use that init number instead.

This will be fixed in the patch.

Ralph

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

Hurrah, got it fixed!
By designating a different Polish unit in the withdraw event to tell the engine which units/color needs to be withdrawn ... but still it's puzzling why it did the wrong thing before I fixed this... Maybe something to do with the order of the original OOB? Anyway I'm relieved that my whole weekend won't be wasted trying to fix it [&o][/align]

I was trying to fix a problem introduced in some scenarios when converting from Opart100 to Opart300. Units like withdraw with numbers > 2000 (Player 2) if they are split or offmap, will subtract 1500 and use that init number instead.

This will be fixed in the patch.

Ralph

Since this is caused by an event, if it happens to you, please PM me, and I'll need a save of the PBL of the file that would be sent to the first player, and I'll run through the events with the new executable (fixing things if necessary) and send back an SAL file.

Ralph

[Silvanski]

It's a "vs PO only" scenario Ralph.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

It's a "vs PO only" scenario Ralph.

[:D]

[Silvanski]

[:-] Veers ....
 
[;)]

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

It's a "vs PO only" scenario Ralph.

Then send (or post) a .sal file[:D]

ralphtrickey (at) hotmail (dot) com

and I'll send a fixed one back if I can.

I need the last valid one, just before you hit end turn.

Ralph

Note to self... I wonder if Elmer can PBEM?

[Silvanski]

I'm gonna test some more once again to see what happens when the Polish air unit I designated for the Polish withdrawal event is eliminate before the Commies take Berlin.
That air unit is less likely to be eliminated before then... but if I press it hard it just might

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrickNote to self... I wonder if Elmer can PBEM?

Elmer keeps his email address secret [:D]

[Silvanski]

Problem solved it seems.
 
I let the air unit in question been blown into oblivion -it showed up in the expected reinforcements as a reconstituted unit-, but then cleared Berlin to allow the Ruski paras to march in an cause the surrender of the scheduled Polish units and it happened flawless... The few surviving Polish units -different color scheme- and all NKVD garrisons stayed on the map.

[Silvanski]

Trotsky v3 seems to be running fine now... but just to make sure I'm gonna wait patiently for the new patch.

[ralphtricky]

Good idea, it shouldn't be too much longer.

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Good idea, it shouldn't be too much longer.

Nice

[ralphtricky]

Elmer is a bit stronger, so you may need to rebalance a bit.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Elmer is a bit stronger, so you may need to rebalance a bit.

What did you do to improve him this time, Ralph?
EDIT: Is he any better on the defence?

[Silvanski]

I've already did work on balancing ... i.e. Commie formation supply has been addressed, it was a wee bit too high: they'll now need a breather from time to time which gives the human Allies some respite to organize his tattered defense.
 
When the patch is available I'll compare new Elmer with old Elmer and make more adjustments where needed...

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Veers

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Elmer is a bit stronger, so you may need to rebalance a bit.

What did you do to improve him this time, Ralph?
EDIT: Is he any better on the defence?

He's a little better.

Here's a quick summary of some of the Elmer changes.
Better path finding. This really helps Elmer a lot.

The below three really help Elmer work better in specialized scenario.
Elmer handling Air and Sea combat improved by quite a bit
Elmer will now put bridging engineers adjacent to enemy units to allow them to assault.
Elmer should now land at non-port hexes if an objective is adjacent to a shoreline, along with other minor improvements for amphibious operations.

The below four should help defence.
Elmer should do a better job of not needlessly shifting forces about.
Elmer should do a slightly better job of planning assaults.
Elmer uses artillery better.
Rail transported reinforcement work better.

I know that the new Elmer will win either side of Barbarossa against the old Elmer.

[Veers]

Awesome.
 

[ralphtricky]

Thanks. I'm hoping it opens up more scenarios to play against Elmer.

It's not as impressive as the initial release improvement, but they are reasonable.

[Silvanski]

Sounds great indeed. I'm sure the difference will be clear when playing against Elmer.