Editor Questions

[Zovs]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I should have mentioned that although that video was created with TOAW III, everything still applies, except some of the the Formation stuff, which is currently broken as far as - you cannot move formations around inside the oob nor create new formations within the oob without knowing a precise way to do it. I think adding formations at the end of the oob is ok to do.

Yes you can move formations around.

Click "Edit" and then "Forces"

On the Available Systems side, click on the third button (fourth from last):


Left click on a unit in the formation you want to cut/copy (I generally select the first unit in the formation):


Click cut (or copy) current formation:


Scroll where you want to insert the copied/cut formation (again I usually do this on the starting unit)


Click "Edit" and then "Paste Formation"


Now you see the results of the pasted (moved) formation:


Your all done. Easy peasy...

[sPzAbt653]

In fact Steve dude, why not post that bad boy on the new scenarios thread?

It's being tested [8D]

[Zovs]

Steve maybe we should add my post above to the TOAW IV manual showing how you can move formations around in the editor.

[sPzAbt653]

Your all done. Easy peasy...

Don, I'm pretty sure that didn't work, but I really didn't want to get into all the steps involved. What I mean is, it may look like it worked, but actually it just messed up the whole oob, and I just wanted to point it out so that folks don't see it here and think they can do it that way, because if they do and they save it without a backup, they are screwed [:(]

[Zovs]

How so (I mean it looks like it worked to me) I also did this in other scenarios (I know it also did it back in COW)?

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

How so (I mean it looks like it worked to me) I also did this in other scenarios (I know it also did it back in COW)?

Well actually...

I just tried it and it did work. Never used to.

[Zovs]

I know for IV and version .21 it has been working right along. I think the only 'bad' thing that happens is that the units may get sent to un-deployed status and you'll have to redeploy them.

Cutting and pasting units works as well.

[Lobster]

It has always worked for units. Formations were the problem. Maybe a stuck cog managed to unstick. [;)]

[DD696]

Another editor question:

When editing an existing scenario to insert new units into the OOB, will I have a conflict with events? Take D21 for example. I add a new unit and do what is required to use it in the game. However, does this interfere with the event process for those units that are slated to disband/withdraw? When I have done so, it seems that the wrong units are subsequently withdrawn being offset by the new unit/units added.

When coding the event disband, the name of the unit is designated. It appears to be programmed so that the unit slot number is then referenced during game play for the required withdrawal, and when the time for the withdrawal to occur the unit that is in that slot is withdrawn rather than doing the withdrawal by the name of the unit.

Example: 3 units in an OOB, a, b, and c. I insert unit aa between a and b. Unit c was been set up initially for a disband event, but with the OOB change unit b is now withdrawn as it is now the 3rd unit in the OOB.

Is this how it works or am I mistaken?

[Zovs]

General observation suggestion. If your add new units to an existing scenario unless you know exactly what your doing then only add those new units to the end of the list of the original OOB for either side.

During creation of my scenarios after I set some editor properties referencing existing units in a formation but when I added in new units in the middle/top or whatever it screwed up the event editor and I had to redo the units that were tied to those events. PITA. So put them at the end of the OOB otherwise you'll have a big mess to clean up.

[DD696]

Thanks. That's what I figured and feared. I hoped that since events are tied to unit name there may be a magic button that would have the editor recalculate slot numbers - just seems like an easy thing to do, but we must blunder on thru the dark ages.

[Zovs]

It’s not as dark as it seems, but the code base is over 20 years old from what I understand.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: DD696

Thanks. That's what I figured and feared. I hoped that since events are tied to unit name there may be a magic button that would have the editor recalculate slot numbers - just seems like an easy thing to do, but we must blunder on thru the dark ages.

Like Zovs said, it's a 20 year old game. All you can do is attempt to modify 20 year old code to do things it was never designed to do. And actually there never was a computing dark ages. Not yet anyway. [;)]

The English (DD 696) was decommissioned by Taiwan the year after TOAW came out. Some old things that have served us well tend to not be honored. Both people and things. [;)]

[Simon Edmonds]

For a game using 20 year old code to be one of the top two games in its genre; that's not a bad achievement. Imagine what it will be like when they get around to updating the code. Scary Good! What language do you think they will use?

[DD696]

I know the history of the USS English well. My father served on her during WWII.

I also know that I was learning and programming using SPS and Fortran back in 1965 and went on to a career in computer work, so this old thing may have a bit of knowledge regarding computer programming.

Thank you for enlightening me.

[DD696]

Some old things keep going and going. Some people think they are better than what is new.

[Zovs]

Those are very nice vettes! I love the last one she looks great.

[Lobster]

Not a real good look at the last one but it looks a lot like my old 64 roadster. Road pipes are exactly the same but I can't tell if the wheel wells are radiused and flared. It was forest green. Had lots of fun in that thing. I picked it up for only $800 in 1971. The engine was blown. As a temporary measure I put in a 307 with a two barrel carb. I could still beat those piece of junk factory Mopar 340 six packs with that sad setup. [:D]

ORIGINAL: DD696

[DD696]

Yes, they are very nice. Not shown in that picture is a red 1964 coupe, an '86, a 2006 and a 2009 Z06 bought new. The 1960 I bought back in '78, so she and I have been having major fun for 41 years. The '67 is stock, except that the 327 has had a horsepower boost in it's internals. No flares and such crap to the body. They were ready for a local parade. I seem to have no shortage of people wanting to drive one.

Corvettes and war gaming - and retiring young - has made for a good life.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: DD696

No flares and such crap to the body.

For $800 I was not going to pass it up even with that 'crap'. [:'(]