Hierarchy Module Document

[Curtis Lemay]

Here's a shot of the toggle button and Unit View (in Group Composition Mode):

[Curtis Lemay]

Before the fix, clicking the toggle button in this mode had no effect. Now, it works: The Unit View Panel disappears.

[Curtis Lemay]

Toggleing again brings the Unit View back. But...it has reverted to Unit Stack view. (I had to make that flip to get the toggle to work).

[kutaycosar]

Toggleing again brings the Unit View back. But...it has reverted to Unit Stack view. (I had to make that flip to get the toggle to work).

oh day and night indicators. it really needed

[Curtis Lemay]

Toggleing again brings the Unit View back. But...it has reverted to Unit Stack view. (I had to make that flip to get the toggle to work).

oh day and night indicators. it really needed

Better illustrated here:

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 2#p5201832

[Lobster]

And just because someone else created bugs doesn't make it someone's job to pass on fixing them.

I had begun work on the new features under the knowledge that Ralph was handling the bug list, and was two years into its development. You can't jump around from one thing to another in coding. The legacy bugs had to wait.

So you had no code that you hadn't changed? Everything was modified and you didn't have anything left from before you started modifying? Could have, should have, would have. I guess we have to live with don't have.

[Curtis Lemay]

And just because someone else created bugs doesn't make it someone's job to pass on fixing them.

I had begun work on the new features under the knowledge that Ralph was handling the bug list, and was two years into its development. You can't jump around from one thing to another in coding. The legacy bugs had to wait.

So you had no code that you hadn't changed? Everything was modified and you didn't have anything left from before you started modifying?

Correct. Remember this:

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 4#p4995524

Ralph was handling code backups. Not that I would have abandoned the new feature. As I said: you can't jump around from one thing to another in coding.

[Curtis Lemay]

I've now fixed legacy bug #9. So, while the BTS still impacts the unit's MPs, it no longer impacts the unit's readiness or supply. As it shouldn't: the BTS represents time the unit would be waiting for the path to clear, so it wouldn't be using supply or readiness during that wait.

[Curtis Lemay]

Here's a situation where a unit is about to enter a BTS. First, I check the MP cost without the BTS. It's Motorized Movement into a Sand hex that started enemy controlled. The cost (sans BTS) is 3, as shown in this shot:

[Curtis Lemay]

Now I show the cost to move into the hex with the BTS: It's 22 MPs (19 due to the BTS - the overrunning unit came from a long way away):

[Curtis Lemay]

Here's the Unit Report of the unit before moving. Note the MPs, Readiness, and Supply of the unit (63, 99, 97):

[Curtis Lemay]

Here's the same unit's Unit Report after moving into the BTS hex BEFORE the fix. Note its new MPs, Readiness, and Supply (41, 96, 75):

[Curtis Lemay]

Now, here's the same unit after entering the BTS hex, but AFTER the fix. Note its MPs, Readiness, and Supply (41, 98, 94):

Note that the MP cost is retained while the Readiness and Supply costs are removed.

[Cpl GAC]

That's a big one - thank you.

[Curtis Lemay]

I'm working on item 10 about dialog sorting issues. First step is to determine what columns have sorting issues. I've finished investigating that and the total is shown in the attached spreadsheet, with 22 columns with issues spread over 10 dialogs.

[Curtis Lemay]

I've fixed item #10 on the Legacy Bug List. The number of columns with issues rose to 32 by the end. Who was the idiot that put this item on the "easy to fix list"? Oh, wait, it was me.

Also,note that I remembered one more legacy bug, added in item 23:

[Curtis Lemay]

Here's the final list of columns with issues. All have been fixed.

[Curtis Lemay]

I've canceled Legacy bug #21 as incorrect.

My Shiloh 1862 scenario has gunboats with ranges of 1km (scenario hex-scale is 0.25km), and my tests show that they work normally.

This bug was reported by 76mm:

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 6#p4690916

I have no idea what prompted him to so report, but it appears to be erroneous.
Finally, I made the effort to find such a limitation in the code but could not find anything obvious. That doesn't count for much of course but for what it's worth...

[cathar1244]

I've canceled Legacy bug #21 as incorrect.

My Shiloh 1862 scenario has gunboats with ranges of 1km (scenario hex-scale is 0.25km), and my tests show that they work normally.

This bug was reported by 76mm:

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 6#p4690916

I have no idea what prompted him to so report, but it appears to be erroneous.
Finally, I made the effort to find such a limitation in the code but could not find anything obvious. That doesn't count for much of course but for what it's worth...

Hello Bob,

I think 76mm's comment addressed something I found while looking at how TOAW generates anti-shipping ratings. As you know, one cannot directly assign an anti-shipping rating for a piece of equipment. I found three cases in which anti-shipping capability was generated depending on other aspects of the equipment file being edited.

The final case is quoted in the text below (bolded), and is the one in which the 5 kilometer range for the equipment was found to be a minimum for the generation of an anti-shipping capability.



Anti-ship capability for artillery, as auto-generated by TOAW.

Once again, with the antipersonnel rating (AP) as entered by an external editor into the equipment file:

Anti-ship capability is the square root of (AP divided by 2), rounded down.

Example: The common equipment 150mm howitzer has an AP of 260 in the equipment file. Divide by 2 to obtain 130. The square root of 130 is 11.4018, or, rounded down --> 11. This is the anti-shipping capability.

Edit to add: Note that guns need a range of at least 5 kilometers for the anti-ship capability to manifest.

Edit to add: Apparently, unit icon also limits which units can fire on ships.

[Curtis Lemay]

I've canceled Legacy bug #21 as incorrect.

My Shiloh 1862 scenario has gunboats with ranges of 1km (scenario hex-scale is 0.25km), and my tests show that they work normally.

This bug was reported by 76mm:

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 6#p4690916

I have no idea what prompted him to so report, but it appears to be erroneous.
Finally, I made the effort to find such a limitation in the code but could not find anything obvious. That doesn't count for much of course but for what it's worth...

Hello Bob,

I think 76mm's comment addressed something I found while looking at how TOAW generates anti-shipping ratings. As you know, one cannot directly assign an anti-shipping rating for a piece of equipment. I found three cases in which anti-shipping capability was generated depending on other aspects of the equipment file being edited.

The final case is quoted in the text below (bolded), and is the one in which the 5 kilometer range for the equipment was found to be a minimum for the generation of an anti-shipping capability.



Anti-ship capability for artillery, as auto-generated by TOAW.

Once again, with the antipersonnel rating (AP) as entered by an external editor into the equipment file:

Anti-ship capability is the square root of (AP divided by 2), rounded down.

Example: The common equipment 150mm howitzer has an AP of 260 in the equipment file. Divide by 2 to obtain 130. The square root of 130 is 11.4018, or, rounded down --> 11. This is the anti-shipping capability.

Edit to add: Note that guns need a range of at least 5 kilometers for the anti-ship capability to manifest.

Edit to add: Apparently, unit icon also limits which units can fire on ships.

Ah! My test was done against ground targets. Once I knew to look for anti-naval strengths I found it quickly. I haven't tested it yet (requires a scenario design) but it was obvious that you only got an anti-naval value if the range was >= 5. I changed that to 1 and now the gun boat has an anti-shipping value. Here's the before and after shot of the equipment report for the gun boats in my Shiloh 1862 scenario: