Russo-German War 1941-45

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lobster

The program will only use the original colors. Ignores what you do to change them. All you are changing are the graphics that are seen in the game. The original colors are still used for things like cooperation. It's hard coded unless something has changed that I'm not aware of.

I'm perfectly clear on that. The change is purely for the benefit of the player- who doesn't want to see red, green and blue German infantry just because they're withdrawn by different "withdraw army" events

Yup. [;)] Was replying to:

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Only because we are forced to. It used to be MUCH easier by using 'copy color' in any graphics program. 'Color Swap' would require one program and three clicks-done. The new process for IV requires eight programs and is cumbersome and time consuming. Plus it restricted the game to using only one set of counters. Plus it ruined many scenarios that used custom icon sets. These are contributing factors to why so many designers have left to work on other games.

It was not easier, and the results sucked. You had to have a graphics program, and learn how to use it. And you still couldn't mod the edges of the counter. Now you only need to mod a NUMBER and you get perfect results.

Eight programs? All you need is an xml editor and the windows calculator.

And one countersheet is plenty for 99% of scenarios. Everyone else but that 1% is hugely benefited.

Where were the counter color optimizers (like Cpl GAC) back in TOAW III?

Edit: And it didn't require 3 clicks and done, either. You had to click all 128 counters on the sheet individually. And that was just for the background color. Repeat for the icon color.

2nd Edit: Oh! I forgot: Then do the above twice more for the small and huge versions. That's 128 x 2 x 3 = 768 clicks!

[Cpl GAC]

I just ran a test - Lobster is correct. The recolored COL file is a cosmetic layer. It is not the actual unit database. (If it were, then what I posted would be a solution to Golden's dilemma; each scenario having a COL file-driven unit ID - it's all just data).

- Not to minimize how much I enjoy the game and what's been improved over the years.

[Cpl GAC]

Frankly, I never even thought about altering colors in TOAW III nor my prior version. I've always been a huge fan and just got IV in July. Poking around the forum piqued my interest.

[Cpl GAC]

the various tank units for Soviets that seem to only get 1 movement point per turn.

Yes - those. Am I supposed to disband them to wait for the brigade restructuring or just use them as an integral part of a static defense line? I hate to waste the KVs and T34s like that. (Turn 6, currently 5 divisions - I railroaded one to near the front to test the static defense idea).

I've had to create a map (a spreadsheet with movable JPEGs) just to keep track of where I'm mustering armies and which are ready for their turn on the front.

Thanks again to everyone involved in making this scenario.

[sPzAbt653]

Am I supposed to disband them

Do what you want with them.

Giving some of those units even 1 movement point is charitable given their historical performance!

[Cpl GAC]

In transparency - I didn't give Elmer help - "none" under Handicap/Cheat as it's the first time I've really immersed myself in a huge scenario. Elmer appeared to be making its 1941 main thrust in the South (I was getting flashes of Panzer troops moving in Rumania during his early turns). Betting on that I adjusted, held Kiev and Odessa, and when winter started pocketed, by my guess, two Panzer Groups deep in the Dnepr bend. (I know that type play is Elmer's Achilles heel but rationalized it as Hitler declaring Festung Dnepr) Also, I supported/loaded Odessa with four Armies via naval transport. I used the winter to tear the south open, then when that stalled opened up the northern offensives.

It's now mid '42 and I'm working west. To my point; The railheads aren't moving with me. I think the Northwest advance rail line is coming along a bit at a time, but the West, Southwest, and Southern railheads have not changed.

Is that to be expected because it's 1942 and the "3 auto rail repair chance" is low odds or is this just the road to Belin? I have 1,712 rail repair crew On Hand but only 9 Assigned. (And I can't find to whom the 9 are Assigned...). On the sunny side, I have 7,100 Trucks On Hand and 6,601 Assigned.

Any suggestions? Am I missing something? (Also - what a great scenario. Thank you.)

[sPzAbt653]

only 9 Assigned. (And I can't find to whom the 9 are Assigned...).

I found them, they are in this unit, which doesn't help anything as the unit can't move. Must be an oversight.

[sPzAbt653]

So I searched for Rail Repair Crews on the Soviet side and other than those shown above I didn't find any. I think they are supposed to be in these units [pictured below]. I've tentatively added some to these six units. They start with 0/48 and replacements start in January 1942.

[sPzAbt653]

This may have been something that was overlooked, or maybe there is something else involved here, but I can't think of what that possibly could be at this time. Maybe something will come to light, but otherwise the above fix will be included in the next version.

Three of us are working on a new version. This will be tested more as a two player version than ever before. The other two contributors may know something about the Soviet Rail Repair that I am missing right now [as they have played H2H and I have not].

Thanks for bringing this up.

[Cpl GAC]

Question; If you edit units in the SCE, and then load an existing .SAL, the existing SAL does not reflect the edited SCE?

Using the TOAWXML editor I added rail crews, 0/48, to 4 of the 6 RVKG Construction brigades (two of them show red font, "locked" so I left them alone), left the 9 in the Salla Garrison unit, and did not change the turn start for rail crews: When I start the SCE these edits are now what it shows, When I load the saved game (turn 104.sal)there is no equipment addition in the 4 RVKG units.

Basically, is there no way to edit the equipment and start moving railheads forward? Not sure it matters but Trusted PBM is Off.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Cpl GAC

Question; If you edit units in the SCE, and then load an existing .SAL, the existing SAL does not reflect the edited SCE?

No. The .SAL (or equivalent save file) contains the whole contents of the scenario, the original scenario file is never referenced by the engine and you do not have to have it accessible to your computer at all (e.g. if you received a PBM turn by email for a scenario you don't have)

Basically, is there no way to edit the equipment and start moving railheads forward? Not sure it matters but Trusted PBM is Off.

In theory, it's possible to convert a .SAL back to a .SCE file by changing the file extension. This used to be trivial in older versions of TOAW, I explored it a bit with IV and is possible but you'd probably need Trusted PBM turned On.

If you did do this, you'd need to make a lot of changes to the file to get back to where you were as one thing that isn't preserved in the conversion is the turn number. So e.g. if you converted a save on turn 2 and opened it in the editor then started a new game with it, you'd be back on turn 1 and events would trigger again, reinforcements and replacements would be offset, etc.

I've only ever used this SAL -> SCE -> new game approach to run a campaign game with linked scenarios, with input from an external ruleset in between scenarios. I wouldn't recommend it unless you're starting with a scenario intended for the purpose as it's very cumbersome.

[Curtis Lemay]

You can turn the .SAL into a .SCE (turn it into a new scenario starting on the current date). But then you have to edit everything with a date associated with it. A real project.

[Tiberius K]

forum software was interpretting the date in the subject line as a phone number and not letting me post.
How is it going with this scenario? I was beginning a solo game and thinking it might make a great head to head when I saw about the rail repair bug. I'd love to play head to head, solo or playtest a new version if it is ready.

[sPzAbt653]

Got your PM also. Still working on it, but I can send you a file that you can use. I think the only thing left is to add in some alternate Victory Conditions. But you don't need those to play it. Click my name at left<< and you will see my e-mail address, e-mail me and I can send you the zip file. You know how to use the .sce file? [You need to replace the original .sce file that came with the link on Page 1 Post 1].

[Cpl GAC]

This scenario is fantastic. The curveballs the PO has for the 1941 advance are very exciting. By the time I figured out the axes of the main thrusts I had a hard time getting the kitchen sink into the Valdai Hills to throw at them. One thing I noticed but did not document (sorry) - right around turn 7 of both games I've played as the Soviets during the Axis PO move the game crashes. The program just closes - and runs fine again when I restart the saved.

Elmer is non-existent at attempting to break out/reconnect to their supply when I can effect a breakthrough and envelop. They just sit where stopped until I let them rot a bit and can have at them. It's become reducing them at an accelerating rate of one stalled starved Corp at a time as I start pushing back west. Any suggestions or adjustments to playing to make pocketing the Axis less easy or less efficient?

Also, I'm enjoying using the PO to run a couple of offensive sector armies/tank corps.

[sPzAbt653]

Thanks for the PO comments.

I don't believe the crashes are scenario specific because no one else is reporting them.

The Axis Human Player has a difficult time keeping a continuous front, and the PO is no better at it. Same as historically, there just aren't enough units.

Designers can't influence surrounded units to break out as far as I am aware. The PO could use some programming help in these cases. As it is now, it seems that the PO's desire to not suffer Disengagement Attacks has caused some amount of caution within pockets. And possibly he is being less aggressive when out of supply, although I have no proof of that, its just a feeling.

One suggestion to give the Axis PO a little bit of help would be to keep a continuous line of units on the Soviet side [no vacant hexes in the front line], even when surrounding units. You couldn't be expected to apply this during Barbarossa. It's not an historical rule at all, but otherwise I think most players can defeat the Axis by the end of 1942.

[Meyer1]

Hey Steve, echoing an earlier question: if I want to play against the Soviet PO, do you recommend this or D21 instead?

[sPzAbt653]

Either or, you choose which one you like.

[Meyer1]

Thanks.