Game only recognizes devices 250 and 251 for build purposes

[treespider]

[Second Edit] In the second instance Device slot 250 is type 25 -Vehicle. Device Slot 253 Motorized Support is also Type 25 -Vehicle. The game engine appears to be recognizing devices with Type 25 units all as engineering vehicles. I just ran a test and this is NOT the case. I'm not sure what is happening in CaptCraft's example...perhaps the AFV's are functioning as Engineer vehicles?

[Herrbear]

So that is why in Scen 15, all armored units have 252 Support instead of 253.

But if Dev 253 is Motorized Support and builds as it is a type 25, and Engineer Vehicles build and are a type 25, you say that Dev 251 Engineers is type 24 and will build but Engineers squads which are type 24 but they will not build.

If it is hard coded based on type, then should not both be able to build?

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

So that is why in Scen 15, all armored units have 252 Support instead of 253.

But if Dev 253 is Motorized Support and builds as it is a type 25, and Engineer Vehicles build and are a type 25, you say that Dev 251 Engineers is type 24 and will build but Engineers squads which are type 24 but they will not build.

If it is hard coded based on type, then should not both be able to build?

EDIT

So it appears that 253 will not build and 250 will build and 251 will build and Engineer squads will not build.

So is the only problem then in CHS is that the Phillipine unit was set as type 23 and should be type 24?

[treespider]

EDIT

So it appears that 253 will not build and 250 will build and 251 will build and Engineer squads will not build.

So is the only problem then in CHS is that the Phillipine unit was set as type 23 and should be type 24?

The Philippine unit should be set to type 24....but they will not build even if they are type 24. The only units used for building are Device slots 250 and 251.

[treespider]

I just ran another test by giving the 71st Res Div at Tug 600 grant tanks and removing any other engineers type...No building took place

I also tested by exchanging the engineers with motorized Support and no building took place.


So we have Good News! My chicken little act from earlier today was all for nothing. I don't have a good explanation for what Captain Cruft is experiencing with his mysterious fort building but it certainly is not because of motorized support or AFV's

[Captain Cruft]

I'm not convinced. Maybe it requires the presence of engineers to "activate" the motorized support. Maybe it's a bug ...

How about a test of one unit with X engineers (and nothing else) versus another unit with X engineers and Y motorized support (and nothing else)? X needs to be >= 10 or else building will not happen.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

I'm not convinced. Maybe it requires the presence of engineers to "activate" the motorized support. Maybe it's a bug ...

How about a test of one unit with X engineers (and nothing else) versus another unit with X engineers and Y motorized support (and nothing else)? X needs to be >= 10 or else building will not happen.

Give me 10 minutes...

[treespider]

We have a winner[:@][:(]

Evidently when Engineers are present with Motorized Support the Motorized Support functions as Engineering vehicles. This was just tested and i can confirm.

I'm not sure if this will be the case if the motorized Support and Engineers are in seperate units...haven't tested that yet.

[treespider]

A possible work around may be to reclassify Motorized Support to the type 22 - AFV instead of type 25 - vehicle. Only repercussion maybe AP/AK load costs.

[Captain Cruft]

Well, I'm pleased that my powers of deductive reasoning are OK ... but it still sucks. It does explain why we haven't seen this effect with the arty units that Oleg mentioned.

I suppose the only answer is not to put engineers in those few units which have motorized support. If you define the device as being AFV type then it will probably mess up the combat routines.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Well, I'm pleased that my powers of deductive reasoning are OK ... but it still sucks. It does explain why we haven't seen this effect with the arty units that Oleg mentioned.

I suppose the only answer is not to put engineers in those units which have motorized support.

It still may crop up if the are in the same hex albeit in different units...my suggested work around is to re-type motorized Support from Typ 25 vehicle to Type 22 -AFV.

[Captain Cruft]

Yes but then they will count as tanks in ground combat and vastly increase the defense value of the unit. At least I think ..

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Yes but then they will count as tanks in ground combat and vastly increase the defense value of the unit. At least I think ..

Wouldn't that depend on the values assigned to Anti-soft etc...?

[Captain Cruft]

Well yes I suppose so. I'm not too familiar with how it all works to be honest. What I am thinking is that somewhere in the process the enemy units will fire at the motorized support, and if they are AFVs then the "tank" routine would be used rather than the "infantry" one.

[Don Bowen]

A possible work around may be to reclassify Motorized Support to the type 22 - AFV instead of type 25 - vehicle. Only repercussion maybe AP/AK load costs.

Just a guess but I believe that any changes made to 250-series devices in the editor would be ignored by the executable. I'd bet it is all internal and the exposure of the devices in the editor is only to facilitate their assignment to units.

Don

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

A possible work around may be to reclassify Motorized Support to the type 22 - AFV instead of type 25 - vehicle. Only repercussion maybe AP/AK load costs.

Just a guess but I believe that any changes made to 250-series devices in the editor would be ignored by the executable. I'd bet it is all internal and the exposure of the devices in the editor is only to facilitate their assignment to units.

Don

Nope.

Just ran another test...

Test 1 Give 71st Res Div at Tug., Phillipines 12 251-Engineers, and 1000 253 -Motorized Support. The Motorized Support being Type-25 Vehicle. Set to Expand Fort - reads - Fort 3 Build 0%. Run one turn. Now reads Fort 3 Build 18%.

Test 2 Give 71st Res Div at Tug., Phillipines 12 251-Engineers, and 1000 253 -Motorized Support. The Motorized Support being Type 22-AFV. Set to Expand Fort - reads - Fort 3 Build 0%. Run one turn. Now reads Fort 3 Build 1%.

Conclusion: The game engine checks whether Ports, AF or Forts are set to expand in a given hex.

If yes the game engine then checks for the presence of Devices 251 -Engineers or 250 - Engineer Vehicles.

If these are present the game engin then totals the number of units in Device 251 that are Type 24 and adds that to the total number of Type 25 units in the hex (as opposed to the number of Type 25 units in Device 250) and expands the base

In the second test since the Device 253 Motorized Support was re-"typed" as Type 22 -AFV it did not figure into the Expand Fort calculation as it was no longer Type 25.


The work around may work but it would affect the load cost of units with motorized support, and who knows what the combat effects would be.

[Herrbear]

What units have 253 Mot Spt now? I don't think it is many.

[Don Bowen]

Nope.

Just ran another test...

Test 1 Give 71st Res Div at Tug., Phillipines 12 251-Engineers, and 1000 253 -Motorized Support. The Motorized Support being Type-25 Vehicle. Set to Expand Fort - reads - Fort 3 Build 0%. Run one turn. Now reads Fort 3 Build 18%.

Test 2 Give 71st Res Div at Tug., Phillipines 12 251-Engineers, and 1000 253 -Motorized Support. The Motorized Support being Type 22-AFV. Set to Expand Fort - reads - Fort 3 Build 0%. Run one turn. Now reads Fort 3 Build 1%.

Conclusion: The game engine checks whether Ports, AF or Forts are set to expand in a given hex.

If yes the game engine then checks for the presence of Devices 251 -Engineers or 250 - Engineer Vehicles.

If these are present the game engin then totals the number of units in Device 251 that are Type 24 and adds that to the total number of Type 25 units in the hex (as opposed to the number of Type 25 units in Device 250) and expands the base

In the second test since the Device 253 Motorized Support was re-"typed" as Type 22 -AFV it did not figure into the Expand Fort calculation as it was no longer Type 25.


The work around may work but it would affect the load cost of units with motorized support, and who knows what the combat effects would be.

Very interesting. But all this begs the question: what is Motorized Support? I had assumed (that ugly old word) that it was a form of SUPPORT for mechanized units. If so, would it still provide support if changed to AFV??

I am rapidly coming to the opinion that the less we change the better off we are.

Don

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Very interesting. But all this begs the question: what is Motorized Support? I had assumed (that ugly old word) that it was a form of SUPPORT for mechanized units. If so, would it still provide support if changed to AFV??

I am rapidly coming to the opinion that the less we change the better off we are.

Don

Yes. Wouldn't it be better/safer to just remove the type 251 engineers from units that currently have motorised support? Or does that still not solve this problem?

[michaelm75au]

I also remember a test done a while back that found that in order to get Motorised Support to behave like a EngVehicle it required the presence of some Engineers. Otherwise it was just Support.

I bet if you changed the 12 x Engineer to something else, the first test would not build anything. Your conclusion would also be true.

The 250 series devices are another case of where the deivce number has special meaning to the code.

Michael

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

A possible work around may be to reclassify Motorized Support to the type 22 - AFV instead of type 25 - vehicle. Only repercussion maybe AP/AK load costs.

Just a guess but I believe that any changes made to 250-series devices in the editor would be ignored by the executable. I'd bet it is all internal and the exposure of the devices in the editor is only to facilitate their assignment to units.

Don

Nope.

Just ran another test...

Test 1 Give 71st Res Div at Tug., Phillipines 12 251-Engineers, and 1000 253 -Motorized Support. The Motorized Support being Type-25 Vehicle. Set to Expand Fort - reads - Fort 3 Build 0%. Run one turn. Now reads Fort 3 Build 18%.

Test 2 Give 71st Res Div at Tug., Phillipines 12 251-Engineers, and 1000 253 -Motorized Support. The Motorized Support being Type 22-AFV. Set to Expand Fort - reads - Fort 3 Build 0%. Run one turn. Now reads Fort 3 Build 1%.

Conclusion: The game engine checks whether Ports, AF or Forts are set to expand in a given hex.

If yes the game engine then checks for the presence of Devices 251 -Engineers or 250 - Engineer Vehicles.

If these are present the game engin then totals the number of units in Device 251 that are Type 24 and adds that to the total number of Type 25 units in the hex (as opposed to the number of Type 25 units in Device 250) and expands the base

In the second test since the Device 253 Motorized Support was re-"typed" as Type 22 -AFV it did not figure into the Expand Fort calculation as it was no longer Type 25.


The work around may work but it would affect the load cost of units with motorized support, and who knows what the combat effects would be.