PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts - Questions & Commentary

[HexCode]

Two Hobby Tendencies

In the absence of a collective, hobbyist phenomenon such as PG2's / OG's "Campaign Challenges", actual play under PGF is, well, terra incognita. One can speculate about it ad nauseam...

Since PGF's inception and subsequent release, the "publicly" manifested main focus has been on SSI's "flagship" PG1 / AG content and its close modifications / emulations. Most likely, this tendency will persist throughout PGF's second decade. Hobbyists sticking to this tendency employ SSI's terminology without variations or exceptions. In the future, I'll be referring to this tendency as PGF-SSI. One can reasonably assume that PGF's Developer / Programmer fully intended to gift his PGF-SSI to the "hobby" and, probably, not much else...

Now, let me state the obvious:

PGF's Developer / Programmer never bothered to provide the hobby with much detail regarding the wargame's play system. At the same time, for something like 10 years, the "hobby" couldn't care less about such... unimportant matters ! This state of hobby affairs reminds me of the rather well known "don't ask, don't tell" approach to certain sensitive subjects.

The preceding notwithstanding, PGF's second decade has already witnessed a very "public" appearance and persistence of a markedly different tendency. For some time now, two or three hobbyists are known to have been treating the wargame as a computerized Content Design & Play Platform (CD&PP) of the Abandoned and Cryptic (A&C) kind. Hobbyists championing this rather "offbeat" tendency have already deviated quite a bit from straightforwardly employing yesteryear's SSI terminology. In the future, I'll be referring to this tendency as PGF-CDP where "CDP" stands for Content Design Platform. One can say that PGF's Developer / Programmer did gift his PGF-CDP to the "hobby" rather... unintentionally !

As far as I'm concerned, PGF's "public" future largely hinges on treating the wargame as a computerized CD&PP. In fact, this Platform is both Abandoned and mostly Cryptic...

A Counter-Intuitive Silver Lining

Admittedly, PGF's programming is somewhat "rough". In fact, it exhibits quite a few generally undesirable features / behaviors.

BUT

PGF's Developer / Programmer did NOT stay around long enough to progressively render the wargame's play system increasingly... "canned", likely to be egged on by the hobby's "traditional" tendency. Thanks to his relatively early "departure from the scene", hobbyists pursuing their interests within the context of the second tendency are able to do all kinds of "offbeat things" that, in all probability, PGF's Developer / Programmer wouldn't have been interested in facilitating.

SO

Early abandonment of a piece of wargaming software isn't necessarily without some unintended... merit (e.g., PGF-CDP's "discovered" capabilities) !

[HexCode]

In the immediately preceding post I've introduced the acronyms PGF-SSI and PGF-CDP.

As PGF's second decade progresses, all kinds of knowledge "advances" will be coming the hobby's way. As time goes by, the knowledge contained in SSI's PG1 / AG manuals and the one empirically ascertained through the mere act of playing SSI's "flagship" PG1 / AG content under PGF will be gradually superseded by a much larger information "vista".

BUT

This does NOT mean that the "old givens" (PGF-SSI) are somehow separate from the emerging, enlarged information "vista" (PGF-CDP). Rather the latter contains the former as a core subset !

IN ANY CASE

Participants involved in discussions taking place within the context of PGF-CDP should be extra careful not to be quick in stating "old givens" as PGF-CDP "facts". Yeah, mea culpa... Does all this require one to unfailingly pay strict attention to detail and conduct adequate experimentation / research before communicating / posting his findings or conclusions ? You bet ! The bar has just been raised considerably higher...

[HexCode]

Elsewhere in THESE OG forums:

... forums lack some historical section but it is now irrelevant and would be vacant as well ...

Easily and quite invitingly generalizable !

[Cat Leon]

Does anyone know from what Mod this tacicons.bmp is?
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/6nAa/6zcqafNVm
I was unable to find anything on Jorge44 PGF Center! Maybe it's something converted from PG1a long time ago...

[Jorge44]

Hello Cat Leon:

The file you indicate does not belong to any mod that I know of. I'm sorry I can't help you. By the way, does anyone know what happened to the Eastern Panzer Assault mod? I would very much like to include it in the next update of my page.

A cordial greeting:

Jorge

[Radoye]

These look like PhilipChamp's icons from his Japanese PG1 campaign (unfinished). His French General 1 and 2 and Kaiser General campaigns are included in PGF. There was a number of half-finished projects available for download on his website back in the day, and this was one of them. Unfortunately i no longer have a link and Google is of no help either, i guess it's probably no longer online...

[Cat Leon]

These look like PhilipChamp's icons from his Japanese PG1 campaign (unfinished)

Thanks for the hint! This really is JAPANESE CAMPAIGN - Beta.01 by Phil CHAMP and I've found it
https://pgfanatics.pagesperso-orange.fr/

[Radoye]

Glad i could help.

And you managed to find the link to his site i lost long time ago, so thank you as well!

[mikematotski]

I have noticed that you can upgrade strength above 15 on some units, have managed to go to 21. Is this a bug in the game or is it intentionally for the game mod. I running PG Forever 1.021.

Thanks in advance
Mikematotski

[Radoye]

Could you please describe in more detail what is happening?

What scenario / campaign, what mods (eqp file, other modifications - if any) are used, what are the exact circumstances when this happens?

Strength markers in the default game files go until 20; this can theoretically be achieved if the unit experience is fudged with in the scen files (under normal circumstances the exp value does not grow beyond "5 stars" where each full "star" equals to 100 exp points and allows for one extra overstrength point for the max of 15). Strength of 21 is impossible due to missing graphics if the default files are used, it would cause a CTD.

[mikematotski]

Sorry if I opened in wrong post.
Ok here it is, play 1939 scenario, running PG Forever 1.021. The game let me upgrade some units above 15 and one was upgraded to 21. The game didn't crash and the 21 strenght unit started count from 1 on its strenght indicator on map. (If I knew how to add picture I could shown you:)

Cheers
Mikematotski

[Radoye]

The default 1939 scenario(s) from the PG campaign path which are #1 Poland and #2 Warsaw have all their pre-placed units with no "stars" (experience = 0). It is not possible to accrue so much experience on a unit in these scenarios to be able to overstrength so much. Maybe up to 11 if you're very lucky.

Or am i misunderstanding?

I am not aware of any way to achieve experience > 599 (5 "stars") under normal circumstances in a game play, be it single scenario or campaign play, on any unit that started out with experience < 5 "stars". And any overstrength (> 10) is dependent on the number of "stars".

It is indeed possible to modify the scenario file and preplace units with strength > 15, and i just checked, even > 20, but i am not aware of any way to get there through normal game play...

[HexCode]

The game let me upgrade some units above 15 and one was upgraded to 21.

Upgrading and overstrengthening units are two completely different things and independent of one another. So, any preexisting unit can be upgraded irrespective of its strength (Number of Strength Factors).

The game didn't crash and the 21 strength unit started count from 1 on its strength indicator on map.

Yes, the wargame doesn't crash. In fact unit strength way higher than 20 can readily be accommodated. It's just that, due to the absence of appropriate unit strength labels, the wargame visually presents the player with a false indication of unit Strength Factors.

[mikematotski]

The game let me upgrade some units above 15 and one was upgraded to 21.

Upgrading and overstrengthening units are two completely different things and independent of one another. So, any preexisting unit can be upgraded irrespective of its strength (Number of Strength Factors).

The game didn't crash and the 21 strength unit started count from 1 on its strength indicator on map.

The units that can go beyond 15 in strenght still have maximum experiance of 599.

Yes, the wargame doesn't crash. In fact unit strength way higher than 20 can readily be accommodated. It's just that, due to the absence of appropriate unit strength labels, the wargame visually presents the player with a false indication of unit Strength Factors.

Correct, the game is using the next set of labels in line and start from 1.

So back to my original question, is this how the game should work. I played this a lot in the past but never encounter that you could go beyond 15 in overstrenght units.

(How can I add pictures in a post, I couldn't figure out this).

Cheers
Mikematotski

[HexCode]

... is this how the game should work ?

This is a rather... philosophical question ! The contents of

[EPH] The Emerging, "Public" Bifurcation
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174&start=250#p12758

[EPH] Necessary & Helpful Acronyms
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174&start=250#p12796

aim at clarifying matters a bit. Clearly, there's more than meets the eye here...

[Radoye]

(How can I add pictures in a post, I couldn't figure out this).

You can upload your pics to one of the free hosting sites (such as https://postimages.org/ - but there are others that will do just as good), then get the URL ("link") for the uploaded image and paste it between the [ img][ /img] tags (no space, i added that so that the tag will show up as text). To get the tags, you can either type them or click the "insert image" button above the textbox as you type your post...

[mikematotski]

The game let me upgrade some units above 15 and one was upgraded to 21.

I tried to recreate this again from a save I have and I can do it further. It's only units on desert terrain who are possible to go beyond 15 in strenght. The other odd thing is that I can ugrade those units on desert terrain above 15 without have any prestige points left. This results in negative prestige. This must be a bug. When I did this I played El-Alamain scenario as German.

Cheers
Mikematotski

[HexCode]

It's only units on desert terrain who are possible to go beyond 15 in strength. The other odd thing is that I can upgrade those units on desert terrain above 15 without having any prestige points left. This results in negative prestige.

This must be a bug.

You're very observant ! Whether consciously or not, you've entered bona fide PGF-CDP territory. PGF's Online Library says:

Desert... Super-Easy Unit Over-Strengthening
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=555#p9110

From PGF-SSI's standpoint, what you've observed is an "undesirable" oddity, even a bug. However, from PGF-CDP's standpoint, it's an "interesting" feature; hence, the... phenomenological distinction !

[mikematotski]

From PGF-SSI's standpoint, what you've observed is an "undesirable" oddity, even a bug. However, from PGF-CDP's standpoint, it's an "interesting" feature; hence, the... phenomenological distinction !

Thanks for your answer though I didn't like it. For me it's a bug which is undesirable for the game. Just my opiniun.
Otherwise it's a great game and you guys have done a very good job into it so thanks.

Cheers
Mikematotski

[Jorge44]

Hello everyone:

Here I leave a small modification: Zerstorer V.3. I have changed icons and colors of Wehrmacht units. Enjoy it: Jorge

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lyxuvwqzd5g63 ... 3.bmp?dl=0

[HexCode]

Elsewhere in THIS PGF forum:

... I can hit Alt + N and rename a unit in the PGF game, though I suspect that info is just for the PGSAV file?

Keystroke combo "ALT+N" allows a player to change a unit's alphanumeric ID descriptor in-game. All such effected changes are dynamically recognized by the program's memory which instantaneously updates its contents accordingly. Should a player effect a "Game-State" snapshot in-game save, the last effected memory change to the ID descriptor is automatically registered in saved file *.PGSAV. In any case, the contents of file EQUIPMENT.PGEQP remain completely unmolested.

[Mustang19]

I just finished the pg campaign. Was way harder because the ai spends all its prestige. In the original game the ai prestige is a equation, like spend 10% a turn, giving it all to the ai makes the first level impossible as they spam polish light tanks. However it is barely possible to get a major victory on every scenario except Washington, because you get 15k prestige and not 30.

Was a good game, ran fine technically, that's the important part. Did not notice a single bug.

Kuk general was fun too. I was able to save Austria Hungary.

[Mustang19]

As a question to anyone here, is it even possible to get a major victory in the allied general Germany scenario? I can see getting everything by turn 20 but by turn 14 seems totally impossible.

[HexCode]

Thanks for your answer though I didn't like it. For me it's a bug which is undesirable for the game. Just my opinion.

Take a look here:

Embarkation City Naval Presence
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=554#p11572

Now, it's pretty clear that, barring very few exceptions, the hobbyists (content designers and players alike) who bother to post about SSI 5 Star General wargames and their emulations would never accept the notion of a wargame serving as a Content Development Platform (CDP) per se. All they wish to do is design and play SSI-like content the SSI way. PGF is no exception.

It just so happens that I've been the sole, consistently and persistently dissenting voice in forums such as these... Frankly, I've stopped looking for... converts since 1999 !

[Mustang19]

Here are a set of replays for every PG scenario that is winnable.

https://github.com/ingrahammark7/test

[HexCode]

Was a good game, ran fine technically, that's the important part. Did not notice a single bug.

Yes, when it comes to the software itself, NOT necessarily some specific content, the wargame's engine is quite acceptable re: enabling and facilitating play of SSI-like content.

I just finished the pg campaign. Was way harder because the ai spends all its prestige . . . replays for every PG scenario that is winnable . . . it is barely possible to get a major victory on every scenario except Washington, because you get 15k prestige and not 30 . . . is it even possible to get a major victory in the allied general Germany scenario? I can see getting everything by turn 20 but by turn 14 seems totally impossible.

You may wish to look at PGF as a modding platform of sorts and NOT as a preordained, "canned" wargame. Twelve years ago, PGF's Developer / Programmer "technically married" his engine to SSI's PG1 / AG content and left things at that ever since... Consequently, de facto play quality is in the eye of the beholder; hence, modding, modding, modding...

So, twelve years later, a reasonable working assumption is that, hobbyists who STILL bother to post in THIS forum, are modders or "seriously" aspire to become such ! Finally, oftentimes, hobby... graveyards turn out to be ideal grounds for all sorts of "offbeat" innovations to sprout and, possibly, spread !

[HexCode]

Granted, PGF's combat calculations are quite complex. Nevertheless, one would expect a certain Cartésien consistency, even simplicity, to what actually happens to a typical unit Strength Factor's (SF's) battlefield readiness status; namely, "Elimination" OR "Suppression" OR "No Effect" (OR being an EXCLUSIVE OR here).

More than a decade ago, PGF's Developer / Programmer wrote:

[Q] In the combat log I can see die rolls for kills and suppression but the total number of suppression points is bigger. Why is that?

[A] Each kill also gives you a half-point of suppression which gets added to the sum.

Why this mathematical superadditivity ? Don't get me wrong; this feature is hard-coded into PGF's engine. Hence, if one doesn't like it, well, he may have to resort to conducting precise, hexadecimal... surgery while keeping his fingers crossed all along the way.

My intent here is quite different. Can anyone think of some representational rationale to "explain" PGF's Suppression superadditivity ? The only thing I can think of is that witnessing "comrades" getting "killed" saps the morale of soldiers who just happen to fare better during the very same combat engagement.

[Cat Leon]

I wrote some time ago:

After some testing I can say that If you give an unit 'Sea Transport' instead of 'Land Transport', this unit will only be able to move along a roads and through a cities! When moving that unit uses his own movement method and movement quantity. The options 'Mount'-'Dismount' don't work. I think this trick can be useful in some cases. For example you can use armoured train which will only move along the roads or for 'anchoring' some units if needed!

Now I see this is not necessary! To represent an armored train I just use the unit of AT class with 'Naval' movement type and this unit moves only along the roads. For anchoring an unit (out of roads) I use the unit of 'Fortification' class as 'Land Transport' but also with 'Naval' movement type. This unit ('Blockhouse' in my Efile) can also be used as usual unit of the 'Fortification' class...

[HexCode]

I'm NOT a video wargamer ! I'm a former board wargamer who takes advantage of PGF's technical machinery to design and play extremely challenging, board wargame-like, ahistorical content. I'm not interested in the least to render historical theme representations more "accurate". Most importantly, MY "hobby" ONLY includes that rare hobbyist who seriously interacts with me. NO ONE ELSE !

This is the 4th year of PGF's 2nd decade. By now, important trends have become rather obvious...

1) As far as I'm concerned, the Hobby at Large, if it actually exists, is irrelevant to MY "hobby"; a non-issue.

2) If some hobbyist ever desires to interact with me re: PGF, he will have to put in the effort to seriously post herein or write to me via PM or email.

3) Unless demonstrably proven otherwise, my technical blah-blah-blah which is STILL hosted in THESE OG forums is intended for my very own, daily, practical use.

4) Any other posts of mine in these OG forums should be viewed as remnants of a past, multi-year experiment which has ended in spectacular failure. C'est la vie... More on this here:

[OMK] My Posts In These Forums
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=350#p11315

Whether just one reader or a million readers actually read my "stuff" makes absolutely no difference to me. It's only the hobbyists who bother to seriously interact with me that can ever impact MY "hobby" or, more generally, interest me.

To summarize: With respect to unknown and / or uncommunicative wargamers / forum post readers...

a) Do I care about them ? NOT IN THE LEAST !

b) Do I feel the need to show some "hobbyist camaraderie" towards them ? NONE WHATSOEVER !

Finally, I'm NOT a(n) "SSI-orthodox" content designer. Am I, then, a(n) "SSI-heterodox" one ? Well, THESE OG forums are rather hostile to... "philosophy". SO, I'll encapsulate it like this:

A generation ago, a seasoned board wargamer came across SSI-PG1's play system. Ever since, he's been taking advantage of the computer to design and play content light years apart from SSI's "ways" and those of the overwhelming majority of VIDEO wargamers ! I'm talking about myself, of course.

Over and out !

[HexCode]

Even prior to the emergence of PGF, quite a few content designers had been adapting SSI's PG1 / AG content to suit their particular needs. More often than not, the focus had been on "fixing" map and unit "discrepancies". However, no definitive, "universally accepted", "cleaned up" content version has ever emerged...

Wearing the hat of content "tinkerer", PGF's Programmer adapted SSI's PG1 / AG content and rendered it playable under PGF. Over the years, a few attempts were made to "clean up" the aforesaid content. Quite a few years ago, FPGE's last Programmer of record did generate a bunch of "cleaned up" SSI PG1 / AG scenarios. In more recent times, similar efforts were undertaken as per the contents of a "pinned" [DEV] topic in THIS PGF forum.

"Tinkered with" SSI PG1 / AG map and unit content lies at the heart of PGF-SSI, the "canned" wargame. On the other hand, each content designer and player applies his own criteria as to when exactly content adaptation crosses into PGF-CDP territory. In any case, I doubt it very much whether some definitive, "universally accepted", "cleaned up" SSI PG1 / AG content version will ever emerge...

[Radoye]

In any case, I doubt it very much whether some definitive, "universally accepted", "cleaned up" SSI PG1 / AG content version will ever emerge...

(hee hee hee, now i'm showing my age - i'm pretty sure this will fly over the heads of many young ones here )

Yes, i agree there likely never will be "the one" - universally accepted flavor of PGF. But i think it's a good thing, as long as people tinker with it the game is alive. Once people stop modding, you can replay the same content only so many times before it becomes boring (i'm talking about one human player vs AI play, not human vs human - but even H2H has it's limits and can become repetitive if played against the same one opponent).

[HexCode]

... as long as people tinker with it the game is alive. Once people stop modding, you can replay the same content only so many times before it becomes boring (i'm talking about one human player vs AI play)...

I've already commented on fixing SSI's "flagship" PG1 / AG content. This post exclusively focuses on fixing SSI-like custom content.

As I've written on multiple occasions, I am NOT a video wargamer but rather a board one. To this effect, I believe I can be reasonably objective about matters directly pertinent to PGF-SSI due to the obvious "hobby distance".

Prior to the emergence of PGF as well as during more recent times, a considerable amount of SSI-like content was generated by designers, playable under PG1 / AG. In the distant past, FPGE's last programmer of record converted a good chunk of the aforesaid content so that it could be played under PGF. In my opinion, quite a few of such and similar conversions / adaptations have been rather "rough"...

SO, instead of forever tinkering with SSI's good ol' POLANDs and SIDI BARRANIs, what stops "SSI-orthodox" designers from tinkering with such custom content, thereby "cleaning" it up or, even, substantially "improving" it ? Wouldn't such ventures combat the inevitable "boredom" that THIS PGF forum's Moderator alluded to in the above quoted text of his ?

[HexCode]

Preface

SSI's PG1-DOS was released in the mid-1990s. It's a... historical fact that PGF appeared on the wargaming scene something like 15 years later. PGF's Developer / Programmer "publicly" stated that he intended for his wargame to accomplish two very important "things":

a) Allow wargamers to unimpededly play SSI's "flagship" PG1 / AG content under Microsoft Operating Systems of more recent vintage than Windows 95 / 98.

b) Replicate SSI PG1-DOS' play system as much as possible (FOR HIM).

Over the years, various posters have often referred to PGF as a PG1-DOS "replica".

From my point of view, although of more recent vintage, on balance, PGF's play system is more "primitive" compared to SSI PG1-DOS'. The former lacks quite a bit of the detail and nuances one often encounters in the latter. To be fair, Linux General is the most "primitive of them all" by many, many miles...

Ok, Do Details & Nuances Really Matter ?

Although more "primitive" than SSI's PG1-DOS, PGF sports plenty of details and nuances of its own. Do they matter ? Really ?

1) PGF players who duke it out with the AI need not to be concerned at all. The AI never takes advantage of play system details and nuances. Similarly, human players DO NOT need to know anything about such details and nuances in order to prevail over the AI, especially when it comes to SSI and SSI-like content fare.

2) PGF players who engage in H2H play utilizing content markedly different from SSI's (or SSI-like) DO need to know the ins and outs of the underlying play system in order to have a fair chance of prevailing over an equally well versed human opponent.

My past and continuing "public" presence in THIS PGF forum and in the one hosting PGF's Online Library falls squarely as well as unapologetically within the hobby confines stated under preceding point (2). In a nutshell, a late 20th Century, quite derivative, play system has been put to "good" use by a 20th Century board wargamer; retro hobby interests ? You bet !

[Cat Leon]

Does anyone use purchasable units with movement of 0 in the Efile? If Yes, did you notice some oddities when deploying such an units on map after purchase?

[Radoye]

Yeah, it's a known bug...

[Cat Leon]

Yeah, it's a known bug...

Unfortunately this known bug was unknown to me. This is really strange! In order not to change a lot of scenarios I'm forced to make the units with zero movement nonpurchasable (for scenario maker) and add same units with movement of 1 in the Efile (for player)...

[Radoye]

It won't work Leon... the MOV=0 units will still be able to withdraw after attack and move onto "strange" terrain (like ocean etc).

This is one of the most annoying bugs in PGF which cause me a lot of headache, in the end i decided not to have any MOV=0 units - except of course those in class ID #7 (fortifications) because these do not withdraw.

Instead of placing MOV=0 units on the map, better consider using an "anchor" as a transport for any unit that you don't want AI to be able to move. Our friend @HexCode found a solution how to do this.

Here's what i have in my efile to serve as an anchor:

Code: Select all

XX	ANCHOR	11	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	0	0	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	-1

(just paste it in your efile; 1st column - unit ID - to be replaced with proper number; cannot use unit ID= 0 "RESERVED", it wont work but it will work if you place it under any other ID#)

Assign this in your scenario as a transport for all units you want to simulate MOV=0, this will keep the unit largely in place. It will however be able to move but only limited to hexes with roads on it - which is also an interesting feature for modeling armored trains, railway guns and such.

Of course, if you place an "anchored" unit in a city or port or such, the human player will be able to upgrade its transport into something else and thus make it mobile...

[Cat Leon]

As for trick with anchoring.
I know about that but it is not necessary to use an unit of submarine class (11) as an 'anchor'! For example, I use the unit of fortification class with movement of 0 and naval movement type of 6. This unit can be used as an "anchor" or as fortification. As for armored trains, railway guns, they are land units but with naval movement type in my Efile so they can only move on roads!

About the units with zero movement.
I mainly use some antitank guns with zero movement in defensive scenarios for AI side. Unlike anchoring units these AT guns can not move along a roads but can withdraw after attack. This is not a disadvantage but the advantage in this case! As for withdrawal onto "strange" terrain (like ocean), scenario maker have to exclude such a situations as far as possible...

[Radoye]

"Anchored" Garrison Units
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=540#p8971

I knew it was in the library but couldn't find it quick enough

[HexCode]

[OPN] What Play System ?
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=503#p8281

invites the following modder's "axioms":

The requisite level of deep / detailed knowledge of PG1's / PGF's internals is directly proportional to the degree to which a modder wishes to deviate from SSI "flagship" content's canon.

The practical helpfulness of support utilities (e.g., FPGE) is inversely proportional to the degree to which a modder wishes to deviate from SSI "flagship" content's canon.

[HexCode]

Hello Gentlemen,

I happen to perceive a "gap" in the otherwise robust topic structure (bravo Rad for not budging an iota on this ! ). Let's see...

1) This topic and "Panzer General 1: Omnibus Posting - Questions & Commentary" are about ephemeral posts; clear enough.

2) The Library and "[ADV] Advanced Play System - Questions & Commentary" focus on play system and related technical matters.

3) "[EDT] Content Editors: Tips & Tricks" and "[AI] Observations, Wishes & Proposed Solutions" are highly focused, each in its own particular way.

This brings us to [DEV] territory. So far, all [DEV] topics contain some reference / link to actually existing content. That's very, very good.

However, I'm of the opinion that something is missing; namely, a [DEV] topic which will host posts regarding content... "vaporware". To this date, such posts have been appearing under topics the foci of which have been assigned to markedly different hobby matters.

So, I've just set up

[DEV] Content Generation - Ideas, Approaches & Discussions
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=956

which I've prefaced as well.

[Dimitris GR]

Sorry for the silly question, but i am not proud for my English and maybe is off topic..... What is DEV?

[Radoye]

Sorry for the silly question, but i am not proud for my English and maybe is off topic..... What is DEV?

{DEV} headings in titles denote a topic that is devoted to mod development

[HexCode]

Courtesy of Father Time's Jurassic Archives...

Let's start with an example of extreme hobbyist precaution:

a) The very niche nature of H2H-AC wouldn't have made its hobbyists targets of legal action provided one, of course, was dealing with a rational, profit-maximizing entity and not some... vengeful, even psychotic, Developer !!

b) Almost all H2H-AC scenarios were privately available and certainly NOT downloadable. Yeah, that's a good, private defense too...

c) All H2H-AC PBEM play was, well, private, what else ?

Such were the ways of "hobby"... heresies and heretics !

There's some interesting context as well as subtext to the above. Clearly, the H2H-AC crowd didn't stop at and rely on the "not-for-profit", usually resorted to, "defense". They went all the way past "fair use" arguments and adopted a "behind the curtains personal use" ultimate "defense". Why this... paranoia ?

Well, here's the context. As far as I know, SSI / Mindscape / The Learning Company / Ubisoft have NEVER bothered or, even, contacted anyone involved with PG1 World hobbyist affairs in regards to copyright concerns...

BUT,

the hostility the SSI's "Living Battlefield" customer crowd has repeatedly shown and directed at the good ol' "Research Centre" convinced us that it was better to go "off the Web". In other words, "out of virtual... visibility, out of... annoyances or, even, vindictive (?) legal threats"...

The preceding example splendidly illustrates the fact that, for the most part, commercial entities tend to behave rationally. On the other hand, their customers may have their own... ideological (?) or strictly personal (?) axes to grind; NOT for money, of course...

[Lettos]

Absent a friendly airfield on the map, PGF's AI doesn't move its air units at all. Aircraft carriers don't seem to matter; ditto for enemy airfields...

One can easily mod a hex somewhere on the map's edge to visually display some "innocuous" terrain like sea / ocean while sporting a "concealed", underlying airfield terrain. To spice up custom content design experimentation a bit, what happens if the hex were to be designated neutral territory ?

# Radoye # would add a whole bunch of airfield hexes masked as ocean hexes, with one single ocean hex in the middle of it all; he'd then park an aircraft carrier unit right in the middle so that it can't move - to give "things" the "right looks" as well.

Ok, this is a modding subject deserving some... "serious research" !

This good old cow seems to have enough room to stick in ten syringes with an injection of hidden upgrades ... to become a dream mustang for a moment.

I found a way to have the AI escort a group of its ships with a fighter for the first few turns, when the ships are moving in a straight line to the nearest AI Victory Hex (Defensive scenario).
I'm not talking about the brutal variant where the AI sees the entire map.
But still the trick requires AI to see the path to the airfield on land. And it is desirable that the AI then forgets about this path, leaving the ocean without its observation.
The trick requires:
1) A fighter in equipment file with an MVT roughly equal or at least comparable to the MVT of ships. For cover, it is better to have a naval fighter with MVT=6-7 than none.
2) Some sort of ship with spotting roughly equal to the ships MVT. A completely useless hitherto useless aircraft carrier can be used for this purpose. Let it better be a scout ship using its air group than just a useless turd on the scenario map.
3) A player unit called Clouds (see WiH campaign, equipment file) with very specific parameters AA, AD, MVT, FUEL, Spotting = 0.
4) Editing the FUEL of the Clouds unit in the scenario file, depending on the location of the unit in the path of the squadron of ships.
5) Small pieces of land (1 hex) on the map, placed below the Clouds, and disguised as ocean.
6) Gaming Ethics on the Player's part. Obligation not to touch or move these Clouds.

When the ship squadron and airplane(s) pass along the route, the Clouds will disappear. Only hexes of land will remain, which can in no way interfere with a naval battle should one arise later in this part of the map.

Details in PM or in a future release of a new script in which this was and is all being tested. As of today, this method works.

At least the fighter is in its place and has been preventing the squadron from being attacked from the air for some time. Especially considering that the player's fighters just don't reach the remote corners of the map in the ocean, and you have to somehow prevent the AI squadron from being beaten by the player's Tactical and Torpedo bombers alone.

[HexCode]

Kindly read through

[EPH] The Emerging, "Public" Bifurcation
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174&start=250#p12758

In particular:

PGF's Developer / Programmer did NOT stay around long enough to progressively render the wargame's play system increasingly... "canned", likely to be egged on by the hobby's "traditional" tendency. Thanks to his relatively early "departure from the scene", hobbyists pursuing their interests within the context of the second tendency are able to do all kinds of "offbeat things" that, in all probability, PGF's Developer / Programmer wouldn't have been interested in facilitating.

SO

Early abandonment of a piece of wargaming software isn't necessarily without some unintended... merit (e.g., PGF-CDP's "discovered" capabilities) !

Relatedly, elsewhere in THIS forum:

Sorry to be creative...

From where I've always stood, creativity should be encouraged and celebrated ! Period !

[Lettos]

From where I've always stood, creativity should be encouraged and celebrated ! Period !

We know that

"As for aircraft carriers - it is unfortunate that the AI is unable to use them"

In fact we have on the playing field a useless floating piece of iron in the hands of the AI. We have nothing.

So, let's conclude that something is needed that the AI can use at least in the limited role of an aircraft carrier.
At the moment I just tested a little bit the "Dual-purpose" unit combination - fighter+land transport (MVT TYPE = naval). The transport icon is an aircraft carrier. But... we'll never see it on battle map but only when click on unit.
I have assigned the same MVT values to Fighter and transport. If you switch to transport mode even once, each time a unit moves, its clone will remain on the map in its previous location hex. But the first tests showed that AI is not stupid, and does not switch to transport mode at all.

Fighter moves only on the ocean. If placed in the middle of a squadron of ships, this fighter will simulate the fighter air group of an aircraft carrier.
We can draw also the fighter+air carrier icon. But this strange unit can be destroyed only as an Air target, not as a naval target. That's bad. I would like to see a torpedo fired by a submarine.... Alas, I don't see how that can be accomplished yet.

I haven't seen this unit in combat yet. But I think it will provide air defense for ships on neighboring hexes.
If the player destroys this fighter, it won't really destroy the aircraft carrier. But what is combat value of an aircraft carrier without its air group? Let this aircraft carrier be conditionally (for gameplay) sent for repair, for replenishment with aircraft - to Alexandria, to New York, to Hawaii - to anywhere away from battle place. It simply disappears from the battlefield, as in reality for the Germans and Italians suddenly disappeared Illustrious from the Mediterranean Sea, leaving Malta for a port somewhere in the USA.

I am guided by the principle - it is better to have something than nothing at all. Your thoughts, possible alternatives?

[HexCode]

PGF-SSI does feature Dual Mode Composite Units (DMCUs), of course. However, the Hobby at Large never paid too much attention to them...

PGF-CDP is very much interested in such content design matters. My own approach has been excruciatingly... minimalist. Let me explain.

A) I start with a Unit Type-Related requirement.

B) I, then, make every effort to address the requirement in the context of constructing a Single Mode Unit Type.

C) If I cannot solve the "problem" as per point (B) above, I turn my attention to DMCU-Based solutions.

Let's take Aircraft Carrier Class Unit Types for instance. The unique capability of such Unit Types is a Class-Assigned one: the ability to resupply friendly air units "hovering" over them. Attributes such as Target Type, Movement Type, Spotting Range and so on are not unique to Aircraft Carrier Class Unit Types.

Bottom line: unconsciously perceiving such Unit Types the SSI "way" may stand in the way of coming up with satisfactory solutions. Remember, Single Mode Unit Types feature quite a few attributes in their own right. Tinker with those first.

Single Mode ==> Elementary School
Dual Mode ==> High School

[Lettos]

Bottom line: unconsciously perceiving such Unit Types the SSI "way" may stand in the way of coming up with satisfactory solutions. Remember, Single Mode Unit Types feature quite a few attributes in their own right. Tinker with those first.

And do you have any idea how to get the AI to use the Air Carrier? Can you share it?
I don't have any other ideas on the Air Carrier topic right now. I need a creative impulse.

[HexCode]

And do you have any idea how to get the AI to use the Air Carrier? Can you share it? I don't have any other ideas on the Air Carrier topic right now. I need a creative impulse.

Under PGF-SSI, the AI module benefits from the particular Unit Type's enhanced Spotting Range. However, this isn't a Unit Class-Assigned property. In other words, similar capabilities could be obtained via some combination of other Unit Types sporting adequate Spotting Ranges. Now, PGF-SSI puts units on the map primarily to "vaguely" address historical representation requirements. In fact, the "traditional" segment of the "SSI Hobby" has never digested a rather obvious fact: namely, play involving the AI Module is quality-wise highly asymmetrical. Instead, they have kept on perpetuating the "myth" that SSI-style scenarios can be meaningfully (?) played in Dual Purpose Symmetrical Mode. Over the years, this sort of doctrinaire stubbornness has invited quite a few battlefield comedies...

Under PGF-CDP, a unit should be put on the map for good play reasons (i.e., design for effect). If the AI Module cannot meaningfully use a unit, the unit shouldn't be put on the map, "vague" historical representation be damned. Consequently, the AI Module's inherent inability to utilize Aircraft Carrier Class Unit Types to Resupply / Provide Replacements to friendly air units calls on the content designer to no longer be thinking in terms of an "Air Carrier". Once that psychological step is taken, the sky is the limit as to what can be accomplished in Single or Dual Mode unit construction.