Hierarchy Module Document

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Tue Oct 13, 2026 5:39 pm

Here's what the problem looked like before the fix: All clouds, battle explosions, exclusion zones, crossed swords, anchorages, peaks, impassable hexes, reconstitution hexes, and density lights are bogus. All bogus tiles were in Hills terrain. All introduced by my addition of the grey-colored path graphic.

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Tue Oct 13, 2026 5:41 pm

Now that this is fixed, time for a updated version (accessable by the playtesters only, of course). I'll try to get it out today.

Edit: New version was posted on the Development site.

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Tue Oct 13, 2026 11:16 pm

Here's a shot after the map problem was fixed. Note that Hills terrain is much better:

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Thu Oct 15, 2026 4:29 pm

I had delayed completing the subordination of the Carrier Air Groups in my MIdway 1942 and Pearl Harbor 1941 scenarios that the Additional Feature #23 allowed because of the Hierarchy bug #52. I couldn't be sure that that bug was caused by a Scenario File bust, so making the mods to those scenarios before that bug was fixed could have risked making those scenarios unrecoverable. Turned out that wasn't the issue with that bug, but I didn't know that at the time. So, now that that bug is fixed, I've finally completed the mods to those two scenarios. Here are shots of the Japanese Hierarchy after the Midway 1942 scenario was updated and the US Carriers after they had their Air Groups subordinated, then detached (because the Air Groups were "Ready for Orders" but the Carriers were "In Reserve". Detaching the US Air Groups allows them to be used on turn one. Players could have detached them themselves but the PO (and beginners) wouldn't have been able to make those changes. Now they are built in to the scenario. On turn two, the US player can reattach them since the Carriers are "Ready for Orders" on that turn.

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Thu Oct 15, 2026 4:32 pm

The Pearl Harbor 1941 scenario was more problematic because the Air Groups were combined in "First Strike" and "Second Strike" formations, not Carrier-specific formations, shown in these shots:

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Thu Oct 15, 2026 4:35 pm

Here is the updated hierarchy with new formations that split the "First Strike'" and "Second Strike" into Carrier-specific formations that will allow air groups to be subordinated to their specific carriers. I then needed additional commanders for the new air group formations:

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Thu Oct 15, 2026 4:37 pm

Here is the Japanese Hierarchy after the Air Groups are subordinated to the Carriers. And here I show the Japanese Carriers after the changes. Air Groups are subordinated:

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Thu Oct 15, 2026 4:51 pm

This process revealed the need for a new feature, #31 shown here.

My instruction has always been to Finish the entire OOB before creating any part of the Hierarchy or subordinating units, and creating all commanders before making any commander assigments. That is because adding units to the OOB may screw up what units are subordinated to who, adding formations may screw up what formations are subordinated to who, and adding commanders may screw up what commanders are assigned to who, etc. And there may be no way to undo the damage once saved to disk.

The problem is that the above rules are easy to forget. I know that because I forgot them in the above process. I split formations up while the originals still had hierarchical links and I added commanders while the original commanders were still assigned. I could have avoided any issue by deassigning all commanders and de-linking all hierarchical links first. But...I forgot. Fortunately, I wasn't saving the changes to the original file => instead temporarily saved them to a different folder. Had I not done that, I would have had a real bust. If it's that easy for me to make that mistake it must be very easy for anyone else to do so.

Therefore, I need to add an option in the Editor to do a complete clearing of all hierarchical links, all unit subordinate links, and/or all commander assignments, for when this issue crops up, as it will, for other designers.

Stay tuned.

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Fri Oct 23, 2026 1:11 am

Continuing with my Scenario Update plans, I"ve now created a brand-new scenario in my series of Guadalcanal Naval Battles. This one is the "1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal 1942". This is the first new (non-variant) scenario I've designed since January 2022.

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Fri Oct 23, 2026 1:14 am

This shot shows the Force Deployments. The ground forces are just for show. It's the Naval Forces that matter. Note that the two naval forces have blundered into each other in the night.

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Fri Oct 23, 2026 1:16 am

Here are the Hierarchies of each side with the Commanders:

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Fri Oct 23, 2026 1:17 am

Here are the Commanders for each side:

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Fri Oct 23, 2026 1:18 am

Here's the beginning of the Briefing, with the Scenario BMP. The ship shown is the Kongo (same ship class as the two Japanese BBs in the scenario: Hiei and Kirishima).

Curtis Lemay · Post by **Curtis Lemay** » Fri Oct 23, 2026 1:40 am

Here is the strength comparison between the two fleets. They seem about equal, but underneath are the armor and shell weight values, which give the BBs a significant edge. Plus, the US have 5x the Critical Hit scalar (modeling the Jap Torpedo edge) I haven't tested it yet. That will be down the road.