Hierarchy Module Document

[Curtis Lemay]

Here, before the fix, elements of the Union I Corps have started to arrive. Note that the superior unit (not the subordinates) arrive in supply:

[Curtis Lemay]

Note that that superior unit has three subordinates (one detached). But note that the subordinates are unsupplied! That's not right:

[Curtis Lemay]

If I now move that stack as shown, they lose, permanently, several squads due to straggling. And those losses are to the dead pile, not the pools => a consequence of being unsupplied:

[Curtis Lemay]

Now, after the fix, the subordinates still arrive. The superior is still in supply. But, now, the subordinates are also in supply. Movement puts stragglers in the "On Hand" pile instead of the dead pile:

[Curtis Lemay]

I've fixed Hierarchy bug #40: Embarked units couldn't disembark. This was caused by the addition of the SEAL Team feature. That was supposed to allow SEAL Teams to be the only units that could disembark in deep water. Well, I bungled it so that SEAL Teams were the only units that could disembark whatsoever! Fixed that.

Sorry for the long break in work on this. Lots of other stuff that had backlogged finally had to be addressed. I'll try to catch back up ASAP.

[Curtis Lemay]

OK, Hierarchy bug #37 wasn't a bug. Instead, there were three scenarios in the Hierarcical Scenarios folder that were "Incomplete" (had formations without any objectives). Fixing the scenarios cures the issue.

[Curtis Lemay]

Finally got all three incomplete scenarios completed.

[Curtis Lemay]

I fixed Hierarchy bug #41. The new 32-character names couldn't fit into the old Unit Panel that is optional for the game and still used for the Editor in deployment mode. I fixed it by changing the font used from the Editor Equipment Font to the Small Supply Font.

[Curtis Lemay]

Here's a comparison of the Unit Panel (both cases) before (right) and after (left). Later I changed the Unit Info part too (Force Name can be = 32 characters too).

[Curtis Lemay]

I fixed a couple of legacy bugs (#36 & #37) that were discovered in the hunt to fix Hierarchy bug #41. The Huge Supply Font was not used and three font parameters were not changable:

[Curtis Lemay]

Here is a shot of the Supply Trace in Huge Map Mode. Note the before (right, made by scaling the Supply Font) and after (left, made with the Huge Supply Font):

[Curtis Lemay]

And here is the same comparison for a Supply Point in Huge Map Mode. Left is with Huge Supply Font and right is with a scaled Supply Font:

[Curtis Lemay]

Hierarchy bug #35 is somehow caused by Non-advancing Attacking Units being left in Attacking Status. I can't get the error to occur often enough to zero in on where this is taking place. However, I've added a check after the Combat Phase is over to reset any units that are left in Attacking Status against OFFMAP locations, if any. Hopefully, this will stop this issue. We'll see.

I also added code that ignores such attacks if they do still crop up.

[Curtis Lemay]

I fixed enough errors with the Formation Manpower calculation to think that I've fixed Hierarchy bug #19:

[Curtis Lemay]

Here are the before and after shots of the Formation Report. Note the erroneous result before and the correct result after. I noticed this scenario's error way back when and only just got around to investigating it. Hopefully this fixes this issue others suffered that I never could reproduce before.

[rhinobones]

Formation Manpower

What does the number "Formation Manpower" represent? Wha information does it provide the player?

[Curtis Lemay]

Formation Manpower

What does the number "Formation Manpower" represent? Wha information does it provide the player?

It is an estimate of the manpower of the formation.

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 3#p5201783

[rhinobones]

Note the Manpower Estimate added at the top. Equipment Manpower is estimated as per the following:
1. Support flag = 50
2. Command flag = 5
3. Shock Cavalry or Infantry flags (infantry & cavalry squads) = 10
4. Ground movement & Long Range (artillery) = Shell Weight, minimum = 5
5. Ground movement & High-Altitude AAA = 10
6. Ground movement & not Long Range (light guns) = 5
7. Ground movement & Transport (transport vehicles) = 2
8. Other Motorized (combat vehicles) = 5
9. High Altitude Aircraft (bombers) = 8
10. Low Altitude Aircraft & Torpedo Bomber (torpedo bomber) = 3
11. Other Low Altitude Aircraft (fighter-bombers) = 2
12. Helicopter Movement = 3
13. Carrier Naval = Defense Strength x 7, minimum = 200 (CV, CVL, CVE, fractional CVs)
14. Heavy Naval = Shell Weight x 2, minimum = 500 (Battleship)
15. Medium Naval, Shell Weight > 200 = Shell Weight x 3, minimum = 300 (Battlecruiser)
16. Medium Naval, Shell Weight < 200 = Shell Weight x 6, minimum = 200 (Heavy Cruiser)
17. Light Naval = Shell Weight x 7, minimum 25 (Light Cruiser, Destroyer)
18. Riverine Movement = 15
19. Anything not covered = 5

It appears that you made up some numbers, assigned them and use a summation to express combat value. It would be interesting to see the empirical data you used to come up with the values. About as realistic and informative as the Scenario Complexity numbers.

Don’t know why you needed to fabricate numbers when the game engine generates over 48 discrete values as shown in the Counter Values Editor. All you needed to do was use the game’s values and sum them up for the formation, just like the game does for unit stacks. At least by using the game values you’d have a basis for what you call Manpower Estimate.

Regards

Unit Values.JPG (132.7 KiB) Viewed 305 times

The illustration below shows simple stack (formation for your purpose) attack and defense values. Using the selection of values generated by the engine you could customize the manpower estimate for values pertinent to air, armor, cavalry, infantry, naval, et al.

Stack Values .JPG (131.12 KiB) Viewed 305 times

[Curtis Lemay]

Actually, the values do accumulate to something that approximates reality:

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 0#p5201820

[rhinobones]

Actually, the values do accumulate to something that approximates reality:

Add scenario complexity to that spreadsheet and you'll have all the funny numbers in one place. What does a number like 43,853 actually mean?

Maybe you should ask your scenario beta testers and see if they find your numbers more, or less, informative than what I proposed. After all, the prime function of the beta testers is to give you input, recommendations and changes to incorporate.