Europa 1947 v5.8 for TOAW IV

[larryfulkerson]

I think it's possible that might be a great idea. I would sure hate to miss anybody that qualifies though.

[VHauser]

Okay, here is my working idea for transportation values. Basic format is: equipment type (cargo limit), transportation value

Horse Team (6), tv 4
Fast Horse Team (4), tv 3
Truck (7), tv5
Protected Truck (7), tv 5
Heavy Truck (8), tv 6
Light Motor Transport (5), tv 4
Halftrack Transport (8), tv 6
Halftrack APC (7), tv 7
Wheeled APC (6), tv 6
Tracked APC (8), tv 8
Wheeled Amphib Transport (7), tv 8
Tracked Amphib Transport (8), tv 9
Amphibious Ferry (n/a), tv 9
Prime Mover (10), tv 7
Heavy Prime Mover (11), tv 8

Armored Car, tv 8
Light Tank, tv 12
Medium Tank, tv 20
Heavy Tank, tv 28
Very Heavy Tank, tv 36

Guns and Mortars
Gun caliber in inches, but always a minimum of 2
Air transportable +0, other +1
Mortars -2
Howitzer +0
Gun +1
ER Gun +2
Some gun examples:
81mm mortar = 2 [3.2(inches) +0(air transportable) -2(mortar)], but always a minimum of 2
50mm AT Gun = 3 [2(inches) +0(air transportable) +1(gun)]
120mm mortar = 4 [5(inches) +1(not air transportable -2(mortar)], can be carried by fast horse team
105mm pack howitzer = 4 [4(inches) +0(air transportable +0(howitzer)], can be carried by fast horse team
105mm howitzer = 5 [4(inches) +1(not air transportable +0(howitzer)], requires at least a horse team
150mm howitzer = 7 [6(inches) +1(not air transportable) +0(howitzer)], requires at least a truck
203mm ER Gun = 11 [8(inches) +1(not air transportable) +2(ER gun)], requires a heavy prime mover

There will be exceptions and variations, but these are the basic guidelines I plan to use.
Notes:
1) I don't want to introduce heavy horse teams, so I'll allow horse teams to carry 150mm howitzers
2) bridging teams and railroad repair teams will have a tv of 2
3) treat AAA guns as ER guns

[VHauser]

Sigh. I've spent the past several hours trying and I cannot do what I wanted because I have no way to edit transportation values. This really sucks and I'm dead in the water now.

Currently, (why, Norm? WHY?) all motorized equipments have a transportation value of 3. So, according to Norm, 100 jeeps have the same transportation value (300), as 100 Pershing-2 surface-to-surface missiles (300). I have no words for how wrong and broken this is.

Anyway, unless/until I can figure out a way to overcome/work around what Norm has broken, I can't do anymore OOB work, because all TO/Es (especially the British- and USA-equipped forces) require rational transportation values.

I'm even more frustrated now than I was on Sunday. If any of you know of a way to edit transportation values, please let me know.

[larryfulkerson]

If any of you know of a way to edit transportation values, please let me know.

I'm not sure how to do it myself and I'd like to know the answer to that too. There might be a way to increase and/or decrease the movement range by using the movement bias variable.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: VHauser

Sigh. I've spent the past several hours trying and I cannot do what I wanted because I have no way to edit transportation values. This really sucks and I'm dead in the water now.

Currently, (why, Norm? WHY?) all motorized equipments have a transportation value of 3. So, according to Norm, 100 jeeps have the same transportation value (300), as 100 Pershing-2 surface-to-surface missiles (300). I have no words for how wrong and broken this is.

Anyway, unless/until I can figure out a way to overcome/work around what Norm has broken, I can't do anymore OOB work, because all TO/Es (especially the British- and USA-equipped forces) require rational transportation values.

I'm even more frustrated now than I was on Sunday. If any of you know of a way to edit transportation values, please let me know.

If I make a unit with 10 122mm howitzers it has a movement of 1. It should be zero.
If I add 10 infantry squads it still has a movement of 1. It should still be zero.
Now here is where things get stupid. I don't like to use that word but nothing else fits.
If I add a halftrack the movement becomes 9. Take away the infantry and it drops to 5. Take out the halftrack and put in a truck and it becomes 6.
Now for the stupidity. A truck is an abstract number of trucks. I don't know how many, maybe Van Gogh would. Or Norm. Same for a halftrack. It's an abstract number of halftracks and moves about the same amount of 'stuff' as a truck. BUT. When in combat one halftrack is exactly one halftrack. It somehow becomes a set number. It's no longer abstract. It's magic. As far as I can tell scout vehicles like jeeps are treated the same way as halftracks because they have the transportation flag set. In combat a truck is still an abstract number of trucks. No magic. Anything with the transportation flag set is treated this way as far as I know.
I've asked to get this changed but it's like beating a rock with a feather. So yeah, you will have problems with any kind of transportation.

[VHauser]

Well, I've been up all night stressing over this and I'm exhausted. My brain keeps spinning though. I might have a an ugly solution. As far as I can tell, I can create a new equipment that has a DF of 0, but that still retains a transportation value (as well as a movement rate).

Using this will require equipment slots (which are capped at 24) and I'm already facing severe equipment-slot shortages in a lot of units. Which, in turn, might require more jumping through hoops and a total reworking of all TO/Es I've done to date (several thousand units over many months).

I'll experiment with this further later today after I get some sleep. For now, here is a picture of a Pershing SSM alongside a jeep-sized (approximately) pickup truck (both have transportation values of 3 in TOAW).

[VHauser]

Well, I got a little sleep and tried to get my idea to work. Unfortunately, my idea uses too many equipment slots. At this point, I'm stuck with no clear way to proceed.

Unless somebody comes up with a way to edit transportation values, I have no way to produce a scenario that players can trust.

Maybe I'll have a flash of inspiration, but for now I think that I have to put this project on the shelf.

[btd64]

Have you emailed Bob or Ralph. Maybe they could help. I've been watching your thread from the beginning. I for one will be disappointed if the project goes on the shelf, as I'm sure you are. I myself have been working on a mod for War in the Pacific AE for the last 3 years or so and had to shelf it once. So I know the frustration your facing. I guess what I'm saying is sometimes it's good to put it down for a minute and step back. In any event, good luck....GP

[VHauser]

After some more sleep I find that I don't want to give up on this project yet. There might be a way for me to streamline the TO/Es to free up some equipment slots. This will be a painful and tedious and months-long process, but it might allow me to do what I want.

Some experimenting this morning has yielded some strange and interesting results. Did you know that selecting Lightweight sets the transportation value of ANY equipment to zero. Yes, you can give a Tiger 2 a transportation value of zero by selecting Lightweight. As horribly broken and ridiculous as this is, I can actually use this. No, not on Tiger 2s, but as a movement-rate modifier. Explaining how I can do this would take more time than I have right now, but it takes me closer to doing what I want using a minimum of precious equipment slots.

Another thing I learned is that you can give decimals in the ratings and the game will accept it. Want to give your Tiger 2 an armor thickness of 0.1 with a DF of 1? You can. I think I can use this, too.

If I can convince myself in the next few days that I can produce somewhat rational transportation values within the 24 equipment slot limit, then I might (repeat, might, because the pain involved will be considerable) attempt to save this scenario.

[VHauser]

Well, after another day I'm a little closer to determining whether to continue with this project. More experimenting has proven me wrong about decimal ratings. Inputting decimal ratings won't crash the game, but the game automatically truncates all fractions (e.g., 0.99 becomes 0). So, decimal ratings won't do what I wanted. No biggie because I can still get close.

Anyway, equipments CAN, and indeed, DO have decimal transportation values. Unfortunately, since there is no way to edit TVs, these values can't be changed. But I've managed to find equipments with TVs close to what I want, and that will have to suffice. Armored cars will have a TV of 8.25 instead of the 8.0 I wanted, light tanks 12.75 (instead of 12.0), medium tanks 23.25 (instead of 20), heavy tanks 29.25 (instead of 28). I can live with those values. I chose the 23.25 and 29.25 TVs for medium and heavy tanks because after further reflection I think mediums were becoming more indistinguishable from heavies during the period covered by E47.

Also, I've figured out a way to handle other TVs in a way that might, might, use fewer equipment slots. Will test that further soon.

[btd64]

It looks like the step back helped. Looking good Victor....GP

[cathar1244]

Victor,

How are you determining the individual transport cost of a piece of equipment?

Cheers

[VHauser]

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Victor,

How are you determining the individual transport cost of a piece of equipment?

Cheers

Cathar, see post #161 above.

[VHauser]

Okay, here is my working concept for TO/Es and transport values.
[I will have a spreadsheet (which will probably take me a week or so to develop) to help me with the following]
Step 1: sum the transportation values of all equipments that are not AFVs (AFVs already have their TVs) and not infantry that are not horse-transportable.
Step 2: add a number of Equipment9 (which have a TV of 9) equipments that get as close, without exceeding, the sum derived from step 1.
Step 3: sum the transportation values of all equipments that are not AFVs (AFVs already have their TVs) and not infantry that are horse-transportable.
Step 4: add a number of Equipment3 (which have a TV of 3) equipments that get as close, without exceeding, the sum derived from step 3.
Step 5: refine and adjust as necessary.

Here is a simple example.
A Soviet artillery unit has 72x 76mm Guns and 24x 122mm Howitzers, plus some number of horse teams and trucks (this number is not too important right now)
76mm guns need 5 TV, but already have 2 TV in TOAW, so the 72x 76mm guns need 72 x 3 = 216 additional TV. So, 216 / 3 (equipment3, because 76mm guns can be horse-drawn) = 72 equipment3 need to be added to the TO/E
122mm howitzers need 6 TV, but already have 2 TV in Toaw, so the 24x 122mm howitzers need 24 x 4 additional TV. So, 96 /9 (equipment9, because 122mm howitzers require trucks) = 10 equipment9 need to be added to the TO/E
Next, the number of transport units will need to be adjusted to carry those equipment3 and equipment9 equipments, which will in turn require more equipment3 and/or equipment9 equipments (depending on the kind of transport units being used), and so on, until the TO/E is refined to the nearest 3 TV.


As you can see, this will be a very painful and tedious unit-by-unit process. And this is why I'm not certain I want to put myself through the torture needed to give players the trustworthy TVs they deserve for E47.

[cathar1244]

Victor,

My apologies, I was unclear. What I am asking is how you determined, for example, the game reckons a jeep and a larger vehicle have the same transportation cost -- what did you query in the game to see the transport cost for a jeep or a tank?

Cheers

ORIGINAL: VHauser

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Victor,

How are you determining the individual transport cost of a piece of equipment?

Cheers

Cathar, see post #161 above.

[VHauser]

I've been messing with a spreadsheet for several hours and I think I can streamline the process (and thus reduce my pain and suffering).

I'm still struggling with equipment slots though. I know I can free up a few slots, but it doesn't help to free up 2 slots only to find out that I need 4 more.

Some good news. I can now simulate heavy-horse teams. Currently, horse teams have a base movement rate of 13 and fast horse teams have a base movement rate of 16 in E47. I'm planning to give heavy horse teams a base movement rate of 11 (the horse equivalent of slow motorized). This might sound trivial, but it allows me to transport larger equipments without having to use trucks. [Of course, the current TOAW allows any transport to carry any equipment. But since this is ridiculous, and now I can model transportation more plausibly, so I will.]

[VHauser]

Cathar, I used trial and error.

In the Edit Deployment mode select a unit and use the 'U' key to bring up the Unit Information screen. In that screen you and add or remove equipments. Add 100 of any equipment and you will see the transportation value of the unit change.

For example, add 100 French FT-17 MG tanks to a unit and you will see the transportation value of the unit increase by 525. Thus, the transportation value of a single FT-17 MG tank is 5.25. You can do this for any equipment (and I have, for pretty much all of them).

[cathar1244]

Thanks Victor. Sounds like a lot of work to get that data for more than a few equipment items. I wonder if the transport cost is related to the equipment weight (but maybe not). The game must be calculating the cost somehow based on certain equipment characteristics, else the game would not know how to reckon the transport cost for a new item of equipment added by a scenario designer.

Cheers

[VHauser]

Cathar,

The problem is that the transportation values are NOT rational. They make no sense and seem to be completely arbitrary and random. They are inconsistent and not trustworthy. And that is why I'm agonizing whether to even continue with this project. Since there is no way to edit transportation values, I'm forced to try painful methods to achieve a level of trustworthiness and consistency. As it stands now, I wouldn't even play my own scenario because I don't trust the transportation values.

I'm working hard (and losing sleep) trying to change that, but as of today it is still very unclear whether I can save my scenario from broken transportation values. I could live with broken armored DFs as well as a number of other issues (like in-hex rivers) because even though they degrade the playing experience they don't truly break the game. Not so with transportation values. The human player is totally at the mercy of those transportation values. And if they are not consistent and trustworthy, then neither is the scenario, and, thus, not worth playing.

[VHauser]

Self-propelled weapons.
I've been working on my TV spreadsheet. It is still in a very primitive condition. I'm trying to develop TV algorithms. I plan to simply sum the TVs for (gun+transport) for self-propelled weapons.

Some examples:
SP 20mm AAA = 7 (3 for the gun + 4 for the light motor transport)
SP 81mm mortar = 6 (2 for the mortar + 4 for the light motor transport)
Cossack Tachanka = 4 (1 for the HMG + 3 for the fast horse team)
Wespe = 12 (5 for the howitzer + 7 for the halftrack)
Hummel = 14 (7 for the howitzer + 7 for the halftrack)
M40 Long Tom = 18 (9 for the gun + 9 for the prime mover)
[I've learned that often I cannot find an equipment that has a TV equal to what I want. In those cases, I use the closest approximation (e.g., if the closest I can get to a 12 for the Wespe is a 12.75, then I must use the 12.75 since I can't edit TVs.]