Merging Estabs

[parmenio]

Somewhere IIRC there was talk of a tool in the next patch to allow the merging of Estab files to ease the addition of user-created entries.

Is that actually the case or did I hallucinate it?

If it was just ruminating on the possibility and there won't be anything concrete delivered, then I'm going to write one. Just for the hell of it I've started writing some code today that parses the XML of the Estab file. Initially this is with the intention of determining which are the missing equipment entries (to start with) in the BftB estab for the CotA force lists and creating them myself...

...which of courses means I'll need to merge the two.

[vandorenp]

I am surprised there has not been a reply here.

I'd like to see something like this. I have started an estab for KOAD by copying the bftb one from a certain point in time. But then I realize the BFTB estab could be updated as patches are released. How to stay up with that I wonder?

I am planning to add to the estab:

static Division, Corps and Army HQ that have no vehicles as a work around to stop high HQ in the attack.
US combined arms companies: light balanced, heavy balanced, tank heavy, and mech heavy
Maybe same for Germans
scratch road blocks small. medium, and large
German

Wondering out load: Could we implement minefields by creating a squad that has no man power and mine cannons with a range of 1 or a few meters with a low probability of kill?

[Arjuna]

When you say merging estabs, on what basis do you want to rule clashed in or out. Eg if both have an entry for an MG42, whcih one do we choose and why?

[parmenio]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

When you say merging estabs, on what basis do you want to rule clashed in or out. Eg if both have an entry for an MG42, whcih one do we choose and why?

Well the merging for clashes would probably have to be visual rather than automatic. One of the issues I have with the BFTB estab v. COTA is that object-ids were re-used for totally different weapon systems making merging much more difficult. It would have been better to make those ids unique across estabs and maintain that discipline going forward because then *all* your arguing about is the performance data you've assigned to the MG42.

In fact I've had to prototype it so that it throws up duplicated ids in the two estabs (this is using the COTA force lists) with the object "names" so that I can say "Yep, that's the same weapon or No, we've got a duplicate id we'll have to fix"...

... not ideal.

Edit: Taking it one step further an XML attribute could be added to each entry which would indicate whether an item had been user-modified. Panther Game updates could be merged across automatically if custom="false" and the user presented with the two entries if custom="true". Entries user-modified but not present in the shipped estab could also be merged in automatically.