Southern Storm and Data Files

[CapnDarwin]

Ok, question time. I really like what Tazak is doing with the multiple more concise data files for a country. The advantage is have a more era proper equipment focused formations to choose from when building a scenario. This is great for new players or those not familiar with the various TOE and OOBs of the Cold War.

So the question is, should we look to adopt this structure for Southern Storm and going forward of have one major formation structure per file?

Should we drop the OTS original locked files and just have a single open OTS set that folks can modify or use as a basis for new structure files?

We are already looking at a major redesign of the scenario editor and making supporting UI changes now is timely.

Let us know what you think.

[Tazak]

Ooooh good questions

easy one first for me

Should we drop the OTS original locked files and just have a single open OTS set that folks can modify or use as a basis for new structure files

No, please keep a locked original file (maybe unhide all the tabs) but having a 'master' file to revert back to if I'm playing around with the user file is invaluable

So the question is, should we look to adopt this structure for Southern Storm and going forward of have one major formation structure per file?

Tough one, certainly the large armies like US/USSR/French? and to a lesser extent UK it does help to have more concise data files where there is a wide range of OOB/TOE, whereas smaller countries or those with fewer OOB types can fit nicely into a single data sheet

[harry_vdk]

Are you planning a free choice for selecting the force and perhaps multiple datafile.

Example 1:
- Player 1:
American[.xls]
- Player 2:
Soviet[.xls]

Example 2: (more then one country per side)
- Player 1:
American[.xls],British[.xls]
- Player 2:
Soviet[.xls]

Example 3: (more then one datafile per side)
- Player 1:
American1[.xls],American2[.xls]
- Player 2:
Soviet[.xls]

Example 3: (training scenario)
- Player 1:
British[.xls]
- Player 2:
WGerman[.xls]

Example 4: (training scenario with non official game country's)
- Player 1:
Belgium[.xls]
- Player 2:
Dutch[.xls]

[IronMikeGolf]

One thing to remember: if you have an unlocked scenario that relies on (a) locked data sheet(s), the scenario is only partially editable. Having said that, I agree with Tazak, that a protected set of data sheets can be a comfort. So, maybe include a "archival" set that is protected, but have editable scenarios use unprotected ones.

I think the thing that drives us to fragmenting the data sheets is the "magic numbers" contained in them. Looking at this from a US forces perspective, I can see utility in theater-level data sheets. Or even major command level. A stateside REFORGER unit is not the same (in terms of magic numbers) as a forward deployed unit (e.g 9ID or 4ID vs 3ID). You can make a good argument even inside USAREUR (e.g. 8ID vs one of the ACRs).

For 2.1, I think those numbers should not apply uniformly across all forces on a side in a scenario (even if the side is all from the same member nation). We have seen scenarios developed with a mix of forward deployed and National Guard units. We see work on multinational forces on the same side in a scenario. I think the magic numbers need to be pushed down to the units and not be a global setting for a side in a scenario.

Maybe that's leader counters. Maybe that's the data sheet has the default setting for a side, but it can be set for individual units. Maybe it can also change during a scenario (e.g. Bn HQs has Morale reduced, units in the Bn have Risk Profile go up and Local Initiative go down). Resubordination could have similar effects.

Lots to think about.

[JohnOsb]

For what its worth here is my two cents [:)]

Have to agree with Tazak, keep the master database lock. Also would like to hear how the database will be made per the question from harry_vdk.

[CapnDarwin]

To answer Harry's question. Yes to 1-3 and probably to 4-5, but 4-5 can be done now with copied file sets set to the opposing side. I would like to make it simple in the scenario interface to set sides and mix selections. I'll have to see how much I can get away with before Rob throws stuff at me. [:D]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

"Should we drop the OTS original locked files and just have a single open OTS set that folks can modify or use as a basis for new structure files?"

As with others... No...keep a firm base from which all can revert to play and design from.

No must go and find out what Tazak is up to as am going through a Data file phase.. .

All the best,
Kip.

[IronMikeGolf]

Kip,

Tazak is doing yeoman work of translating the contents of US Army Field Manual 100-2-3, Soviet Army Troops, Organization, and Equipment, into a data sheet for the game. That manual was published in June, 1991, so it gives you a feel for the time frame.

Bear in mind, this is a vast and tedious task and it really just gives you a template: this is what typical units have for equipment and how the units are structured. It's not an OOB in the sense of "here's what this Guards Tank Division had" on a given date.

That manual is a very handy reference for doing this task. I wish we had access to the equivalent Soviet info on NATO. It would be more comprehensive than what we have to work with NATO-wise. A good thing is there are a number of us here that served in those Armies and remember the force structures. Or, parts of them, anyways.

[CapnDarwin]

Okay, so having a set of OTS original data files for oops prevention is a must. We can do that a couple ways. First a read only archive folder in the game folders and we can have a OTS data files repository on our website as well.