Matrix Games Forums

a) In the scenario editor, I'm getting an error message every time I move (Alt-M) a corps. Sometimes the error specifically refers to something about low supply level for the square, but mostly its just "not allowed".

b) When trying to move a unit *from* a corps with 8 units (A-H) the game won't let you transfer that unit directly to another corps, you have to transfer it to an HQ then to the destination corps. This occurs in the scenario edit mode too, so its not an issue of readiness.

c) Can someone double check the tank pools at the beginning of the Campaign '41 scenario for accuracy? It looks like the Campaign '41 scenario was edited by the game's scenario editor which automatically adds tanks to the pool. There were only 200 R35 tanks in the tank pool at the start of Campaign '41 in the older game (no other tanks for *either* side). Should Germany really start the invasion with 800 PzIIs and several hundred PzIIIhs already in the pool????


Small requests (Ok, they aren't all small):

1) Can we allow the plots to be a little longer, say by 2 spaces? It seems the plot length is too short for some complicated, but perfectly normal, moves. I don't understand this arbitrary limit.

2) Why are the number of HQs so restricted? The Germans could really use a couple of extra HQs for air defense of important locations (but I'm advocating we alleviate this restriction for both sides, not just the Germans). There is no logical reason why we need an Army Headquarters organization just so we can station fighters at Ploesti. Making air groups independant of HQs is ulitmately the answer, but for now the simple solution is to allow both sides more HQs, maybe 3-5?

3) The Urals can hold one more factory over its current limit (the limit being the alphabet), why not let it hold one more? I've haven't checked this, so if you've made changes to the number of factories which eventually will be in the Urals, then ignore me here.

4) How about letting the player decide the strength of the formula for the shattering of the West and Italian fronts? How about letting the player decide the denominator for the formula, as an example? Just add the feature in the EditWir program, nothing fancy is needed. (Using a debugger I was actually able to do this with the older game)

5) Can we get a "what if" set of options that the player can try. For example, disabling partisan activity and allowing towns to keep all or some of their population as a benefit to the conquerer in the example of a hypothetical "benevolent" Germany. How about no West and Italian fronts, no bombing from the West, and no Murmansk for the "Soviets are on their own" hypothetical scenario? What about a "preserve factories" option that allows a conquerer to use captured factories instead of them being automatically destroyed (is that historical btw?). The factory is reset to "1" with a *long* startup time, of course.


That's it ... for now.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

c) Can someone double check the tank pools at the beginning of the Campaign '41 scenario for accuracy? It looks like the Campaign '41 scenario was edited by the game's scenario editor which automatically adds tanks to the pool. There were only 200 R35 tanks in the tank pool at the start of Campaign '41 in the older game (no other tanks for *either* side). Should Germany really start the invasion with 800 PzIIs and several hundred PzIIIhs already in the pool????

Hi Ed,

Check out this site for information regarding German tank strength by division, plus reserves http://www.freeport-tech.com/WWII/011_germany/_afv_41-06-22.htm. It shows the Germans had around 1700 total tanks in reserve, which I believe is similar to at least one other source I have seen.

Thanks

------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi

Originally posted by RickyB:

Hi Ed,

Check out this site for information regarding German tank strength by division, plus reserves. It shows the Germans had around 1700 total tanks in reserve, which I believe is similar to at least one other source I have seen.

Wow. So the Germans had at least 1500 additional tanks of all makes, and they still had PzI's in the field which aren't even covered by WiR. This still means that WiR gets the starting amount of tanks wrong.

Thanks for this URL, its a gold mine.

(Now I wish there was a similar site for the Soviets)


[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited August 28, 2000).]

Hi Ed, Try here for the Red Army OOB June 1941. http://history.vif2.ru/library/battle_02.html
Also heaps of info on Soviet equipment.
Cheers, Brian

(Now I wish there was a similar site for the Soviets)


[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited August 28, 2000).][/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Brian Sowman:
Hi Ed, Try here for the Red Army OOB June 1941. http://history.vif2.ru/library/battle_02.html
Also heaps of info on Soviet equipment.
Cheers, Brian

A good list, but it lacks any listing of tank strength. I just added some numbers up, and WiR adds *6,000* tanks to the German tank pool in Campaign '41. Thats not even close to being realistic. It also adds a bunch to the Russian pool as well.

We've also got another problem, too. The same problem exists for aircraft as well. The editor will add AC to the plane pools of both Germany and USSR. I don't think these numbers are realistic either.

I suspect the scenario editor would add these items assuming its working on a later scenario where a pool of these items makes sense, but it also adds them in an early scenario, too.

Hi Ed,

WOW, you've been busy, huh?

I'll go through and answer these as best I can, if you want to reply, send it over to the Bugs thread, okay?

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

a) In the scenario editor, I'm getting an error message every time I move (Alt-M) a corps. Sometimes the error specifically refers to something about low supply level for the square, but mostly its just "not allowed".

b) When trying to move a unit *from* a corps with 8 units (A-H) the game won't let you transfer that unit directly to another corps, you have to transfer it to an HQ then to the destination corps. This occurs in the scenario edit mode too, so its not an issue of readiness.

This may be a function of changes in the Special Supply rule however. The error message you mention sounds VERY MUCH like the message Arnaud said would appear if Special Supply was inadequate to cover the requested event. Why this would work the same in the Editor as the game, however is beyond me.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

c) Can someone double check the tank pools at the beginning of the Campaign '41 scenario for accuracy? It looks like the Campaign '41 scenario was edited by the game's scenario editor which automatically adds tanks to the pool. There were only 200 R35 tanks in the tank pool at the start of Campaign '41 in the older game (no other tanks for *either* side). Should Germany really start the invasion with 800 PzIIs and several hundred PzIIIhs already in the pool????

See the posts in the Bugs thread, but I think some of this is due to more accurate information we were able to access as to tank totals at the start of Barbarossa.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Small requests (Ok, they aren't all small):

1) Can we allow the plots to be a little longer, say by 2 spaces? It seems the plot length is too short for some complicated, but perfectly normal, moves. I don't understand this arbitrary limit.

You could modify the actual max value in the code fairly easily. The problem would be in how those extra plots are stored in both the memory and to a save file. Extra moves requires extra memory allocation for all the units in a running game. Save files would have to have those extra moves written to the file somewhere, with the associated actions for each of the new moves. The data structures would have to be completely rewritten as the offsets now would change. My guess is that the original game was limited in doing this due to the DOS memory limitations. We'd have the same issues without a DOS extender, which would require licensing as well. A good idea, but dsometimes the things that seem easiest to impliment are the most involved from a coding standpoint.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
2) Why are the number of HQs so restricted? The Germans could really use a couple of extra HQs for air defense of important locations (but I'm advocating we alleviate this restriction for both sides, not just the Germans). There is no logical reason why we need an Army Headquarters organization just so we can station fighters at Ploesti. Making air groups independant of HQs is ulitmately the answer, but for now the simple solution is to allow both sides more HQs, maybe 3-5?

The header file limits the maximum number to 50 HQ's - 25 Axis, 25 Soviet. Without being redundant, I'm guessing the difficulties as to making this change are as above.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
3) The Urals can hold one more factory over its current limit (the limit being the alphabet), why not let it hold one more? I've haven't checked this, so if you've made changes to the number of factories which eventually will be in the Urals, then ignore me here.

Arnaud was wokring on modifying the factories just prior to release, so it is possible that this has been changed. Look to the '41 Campaign sceanrio to check thisout. Unfortunately, a good portion of the game data is written to the Scenarios files, so any data change in one file has to be manually written to ALL the files to make it work across the board.

BTW - the maximum number of factories allowed in the game is 400. There are several dozen slots currently left open. If thee is a version 3.0, we had hoped to take full advantage of those extra spaces.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
4) How about letting the player decide the strength of the formula for the shattering of the West and Italian fronts? How about letting the player decide the denominator for the formula, as an example? Just add the feature in the EditWir program, nothing fancy is needed. (Using a debugger I was actually able to do this with the older game)

Not a bad idea - maybe several of these types of vaiables could be included to simulate "what-if" types of scenarios.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
5) Can we get a "what if" set of options that the player can try. For example, disabling partisan activity and allowing towns to keep all or some of their population as a benefit to the conquerer in the example of a hypothetical "benevolent" Germany. How about no West and Italian fronts, no bombing from the West, and no Murmansk for the "Soviets are on their own" hypothetical scenario? What about a "preserve factories" option that allows a conquerer to use captured factories instead of them being automatically destroyed (is that historical btw?). The factory is reset to "1" with a *long* startup time, of course.

That's it ... for now.

These are all grat suggestions - I had thought about a setup similar to the preferences setting you find in Steel Panthers 2, 3 and SP:WaW. This kind of end product takes a lot of new code to be written and debuged. In many cases when you make large scale to the game engine and try to do it using an exisitng structure, you are almost better off to rewrite the whole code from scratch. These were things we had thought about for Ver. 3.0...we'll have to see what we can do with the existing code and Aranaud's time.

Thanks for the post Ed.


Nick

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

A good list, but it lacks any listing of tank strength.

Ed I have just totaled the lend-lease from the Russian site, they are as follows:-
Tetrarch-20,Matilda-1084,Valentine-3782,
Churchill-301,Stuart-1665,Lee-300,Sherman-183,Wolverine-52.
Total = 7387 afv's
How does this compare with the game data??
Cheers, brian

Originally posted by Brian Sowman:
Ed I have just totaled the lend-lease from the Russian site, they are as follows:-
Tetrarch-20,Matilda-1084,Valentine-3782,
Churchill-301,Stuart-1665,Lee-300,Sherman-183,Wolverine-52.
Total = 7387 afv's
How does this compare with the game data??

Hi Brian,

To answer your question: Not good. The game only has the Grant, Valentine, and Sherman. It provides these from a "factory" in Murmansk. This means the Russians get roughly the same amount from all three types (3 factories each producing one tank), although your numbers suggest something very different.

How about this: Matilda, Valentine, and Stuart. There should be 3 factories producing Valentines, 1 factory each for the other 2 types, except the factory for the Stuarts starts out at a higher production rate than the Matilda factory.


[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited September 02, 2000).]

[QUOTE]
How about this: Matilda, Valentine, and Stuart. There should be 3 factories producing Valentines, 1 factory each for the other 2 types, except the factory for the Stuarts starts out at a higher production rate than the Matilda factory.

A good start Ed. I would also suggest that the Stuart change to Grants and the Matilda change to Churchills at some stage. Both of these fought,in small numbers, at Kursk in '43.

Cheers,Brian

[QUOTE]
Ed I have just totaled the lend-lease from the Russian site, they are as follows:-
Tetrarch-20,Matilda-1084,Valentine-3782,
Churchill-301,Stuart-1665,Lee-300,Sherman-183,Wolverine-52.
Total = 7387 afv's

New Information Ed from Red Steel http://www.algonet.se/~toriert/index.html
which gives the Lee/Grant total as 1386 and the Sherman total as 2007x75mm + 2095x76mm.
The others listed as above.
This totals 12,392 afvs.

This makes more sense as I thought that the Sherman total was complete bollocks.
Cheers, Brian

Originally posted by Brian Sowman:

Ed I have just totaled the lend-lease from the Russian site, they are as follows:-
Tetrarch-20,Matilda-1084,Valentine-3782,
Churchill-301,Stuart-1665,Lee-300,Sherman-183,Wolverine-52.
Total = 7387 afv's

New Information Ed from Red Steel http://www.algonet.se/~toriert/index.html
which gives the Lee/Grant total as 1386 and the Sherman total as 2007x75mm + 2095x76mm.
The others listed as above.
This totals 12,392 afvs.

This makes more sense as I thought that the Sherman total was complete bollocks.
Cheers, Brian

This complicates things, the game doesn't distinguish between a Sherman/75 and a Sherman/76, so we would need 2 tank type slots to cover them. We'd also need program support to do the Sherman switchover, as it does now with, for example, the T34/76 to T34/85 switchover. As for the Lee, I don't think we should bother supporting it if there really were just 300 used.

Damn, we can't fix this with just changes to the Campaign '41 scenario (mucking about with factories in Murmansk), it would need changes to the game itself too.


[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited September 03, 2000).]

As for the Lee, I don't think we should bother supporting it if there really were just 300 used.

ED you misread my previous post, there were 1386 Lee/Grants.
Note that 12000 afvs = approx. 60/ turn over 4 years.
Cheers, Brian

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

This complicates things, the game doesn't distinguish between a Sherman/75 and a Sherman/76, so we would need 2 tank type slots to cover them.

Only one really, as ONE of these versions is modled in the game data. Based upon Availability Date and Attack Factor rating, the game is modeling the M4A2(W)76. The M4A2 with the 75mm began deliveries a coulple of years earlier.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

We'd also need program support to do the Sherman switchover, as it does now with, for example, the T34/76 to T34/85 switchover. As for the Lee, I don't think we should bother supporting it if there really were just 300 used.

Damn, we can't fix this with just changes to the Campaign '41 scenario (mucking about with factories in Murmansk), it would need changes to the game itself too.

You got it Ed...the game can have several more tanks added in its current configuration, but the problem is with the "upgrading" routines in the code. We had already identified this tank, plus MANY more for possible inclusion in a Ver. 3.0.

Most of the Lend-Lease tanks would not really make too much sense for inclusion - we're talking about a few thousand tanks to a country that managed to produce over 100,000 during the War itself. And how and if these tanks were used is another story...

Regards,

Nick

Originally posted by Brian Sowman:
ED you misread my previous post, there were 1386 Lee/Grants.
Note that 12000 afvs = approx. 60/ turn over 4 years.
Cheers, Brian

Ok, your lumping the Lee's and Grant's together. I see.

Most of the Lend-Lease tanks would not really make too much sense for inclusion - we're talking about a few thousand tanks to a country that managed to produce over 100,000 during the War itself. And how and if these tanks were used is another story...

I'm not going to worry about this too much, but I figure for tanks that numbered more than 1500, and were actually used, they ought to be represented. You could stick to adding the simple stuff without doing the things that require code additions. All of this is really for the AI, human players won't bother with Shermans at all, so getting this improved shouldn't be a high priority. Everything you mentioned in the Notes and Patches post (YES! You guys are awesome!) is more important than Lend Lease tanks.


[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited September 04, 2000).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
I'm not going to worry about this too much, but I figure for tanks that numbered more than 1500, and were actually used, they ought to be represented.
Ed the important point is the 60 lend-lease afvs / turn the Russian player should receive.The type of afv is not really important, stick with what you have just up the quantity.
Everyone who has studied this war will know that the 351,000 trucks and 78,000 jeeps received by the Russians were of much more use than all the afvs, but from a wargamers point of view the 60 afvs/turn are much more useful.
Cheers, Brian

Originally posted by Brian Sowman:
Ed the important point is the 60 lend-lease afvs / turn the Russian player should receive.The type of afv is not really important, stick with what you have just up the quantity.

I would like to see them in for the variability it bring to the game. But, production would have to be capped at some number to match "historical" allotments. Then again there was the issue of the actual usage. IIRC, the Soviets hated the Matildas, never used the Tetrarchs nor the M10's. I'm not sure about the Churchills, but they were in pretty limited quantity.

With the limited Tank slots available, I'd be infavor of adding the more widely shipped tanks, and ading in some marks not in the game. The marks of the German tanks could be significantly improved with better armed or armored variants. If you have the IS-3 "Pike" available, why not put in tht Maus? How about the IS-2M that had the improved armor slope and thickness. Lots of nice possibilities!

Regards,

Nick