PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts - Questions & Commentary

[HexCode]

This post strictly pertains to my future posting approach. Others may do as they please, of course.

PGF's Library is no longer hosted in this forum. Nevertheless, from time to time, I'll continue to post under certain "predefined" topics in an ongoing... aesthetic effort to minimize forum "clutter" over time.

When it comes to my future posts, I'll always preface them with one of the following codes:

[ADV], [AI], [DEV], [EDT], [EPH], [LIB], [OPN] or [PG1].

To boot, I'll continue the practice of employing titles specific and dedicated to each post's contents.

The overall aim here is to make it very easy for readers to instantly decide whether a post could conceivably be of interest to them or not; efficiency which, hopefully, will cut down the number of unnecessary views tracked by the forum's software over time ...

[HexCode]

I confess that I much like the current looks of this forum.

1) There's a clearly demarcated "sticky zone" in which [DEV] issues can readily be discussed.

2) Immediately below, six topics accommodate diverse [ADV], [AI], [EDT], [EPH], [LIB] & [PG1] posts.

3) The rest of the forum's topics are intended to accommodate rather rare, "special purpose" posts (if any).

Now, an additional opinion and a wish of mine:

a) Opinion || The recently completed "Library Transfer" didn't really take away... "anything" from this forum. On the contrary, it mightily assisted in rendering this forum, well, "normal".

b) Wish || But, there's "normal" and then there's... "normal". I sincerely hope that the forum doesn't become "normal" in the way that "other" (now defunct) Web venue was... I mean, that's precisely why the open-ended / "ephemeral" [ADV], [AI], [EDT], [EPH], [LIB] & [PG1] topics are around !

Finally, a strictly personal note. Ever since the PGF Library was functionally transferred to another forum, I find it much, much easier and "incredibly cleaner" posting "around here"; no hassles !

[Radoye]

For all it matters, i'm running PGF on a 16:9 1920x1080 screen with no issues whatsoever.

[PepaDrobny]

better verify every little detail and assume nothing !

[Lettos]

Elsewhere in these forums:

The front of a unit is either two faces of its hex, or three. Faces bordering the front, "right" and "left", are considered flanks. Depending on the location of the unit on the hexagonal map, it has either one or two faces, which can be called "rear".

Quite a few ancient warfare play systems pay a lot of attention to unit facing during combat. In such play systems, units attacked on their flanks or, god forbid, the rear fight at considerable disadvantage. Also, units cannot change the direction in which they are facing instantaneously.

A hypothetical, reworked PGF play system addressing the above battlefield situations would render the play system more tactically nuanced, of course. If so, company-sized units may be way more appropriate, scale-wise ?

In my opinion, a blow to the rear is equally terrible for a company, a battalion, and a division.

By the way, have you ever dug trenches according to the rules of military regulations? It is even impossible to shoot in the opposite direction from a "correct" dug trench for 10 people without digging additional sectors for each infantryman to fire. The only thing that a company can manage to do when attacking it from the rear is more or less quickly, by joint efforts to dig ten people for one machine gun, to deploy all its machine guns in a new direction.

And where are the battalion's ammunition stockpiled? In the army regulations there are many rules where, at what distance to place warehouses in relation to the front line. An attack from the rear, among other things, will immediately lead to AMMO = 1-2.

Division ... in the rear is absolutely everything that makes a division a division, and not a simple set of 10,000 brave infantrymen. Artillery batteries, ammunition depots, medicine, cartography, headquarters, radio communications and codebreakers, engineering services, and most importantly for a soldier, a military kitchen!

I don’t know which is worse - a blow to the wrong trench, which can somehow be repelled, or to a food warehouse, when all the bacon and the cooks will disappear

[Cat Leon]

I tried to use such a settings in the scenario:

Axis Stance - offense
Allied Stance - defense

# Victory conditions
AXIS VICTORY 0 2 (23:34)(25:36)
ALLIED VICTORY -1 -1

It means I have to capture at least 2 VPs with coordinates (23:34) and (25:36) from all the VPs marked on the map if I play for AXIS but it doesn't work in the game! In reality I must capture all the VPs to win anyway... What am I doing wrong?

[Radoye]

I'm not sure those settings in the .pgscn file do anything for single scenario play. The kind of setting you're trying to set up would work in campaign play but they would need to be set up in the .pgcam file.

[Cat Leon]

I'm not sure those settings in the .pgscn file do anything for single scenario play. The kind of setting you're trying to set up would work in campaign play but they would need to be set up in the .pgcam file.

No, it actually works in a scenarios! I have understood my fault. When testing I captured those 2 VPs in several turns and I was puzzled why I didn’t won! I had to capture these two VPs and just to play the scenario to the end without trying to take other VPs and then I win. That's all!

[Radoye]

OK thanks that's good to know!

[Cat Leon]

Apropos. My testing shows that coordinates so called 'mandatory' targets are not used in the game! In my example it is enough to capture and hold at least two any targets to win...

[Cat Leon]

Apropos. My testing shows that coordinates so called 'mandatory' targets are not used in the game! In my example it is enough to capture and hold at least two any targets to win...

I was mistaken because I specified the wrong coordinates of mandatory objective, sorry... Actually, a mandatory objectives work both in standalone scenarios and in campaigns.

Give "us" a specific example from PGF's shoehorned, "SSI PG1 / AG" content. Also, clearly specify whether your testing was carried out while in Campaign OR Standalone Scenario Play Mode (both, perhaps ?). This is an evolving, purely technical discussion requiring clarity and precision. Therefore...

Ok!
Standalone scenario
I have tested 001.pgscn (POLAND) with small changes.
Turns - 3
Objectives (or victory points) - Breslau (initially German) and Kalisz, Lodz (19:11)*, Kutno (initially Polish)
* 19:11 are the coordinates on my modified map (13:8 on the original map).
Axis - Player, Allies - Player
# Victory conditions
AXIS VICTORY 0 2 (19:11)
ALLIED VICTORY -1 -1
So I have to capture at least 2 VPs including Lodz (19:11) as mandatory objective and hold them till the scenario end.
The results.
1. I capture and hold 2 VPs including Lodz (19:11) and I win after 3 turns.
2. I capture and hold 2 VPs but not Lodz and I lose after 3 turns.
3. I capture and hold 3 VPs but not Lodz and I lose after 3 turns.
It means that mandatory objectives work in a standalone scenarios!

Campaign - 1939, the 1st scenario is the same 001.pgscn (POLAND)
1. The scenario description in pg.pgcam
# Major Victory condition Minor Victory condition
# Label Scn File Turns remaining Objectives to hold Mandatory objectives Turns remaining Objectives to hold Mandatory objectives
POLAND 001.pgscn 0 3 0 2
It means I have to capture and hold at least 3 VPs for Major Victory and 2 VPs for Minor Victory.
The result. I win after 3 turns if I capture and hold 3 VPs (Major Victory) or 2 VPs (Minor Victory) if even I don't capture mandatory objective (Lodz) specified in the scenario file.

2. # Label Scn File Turns remaining Objectives to hold Mandatory objectives Turns remaining Objectives to hold Mandatory objectives
POLAND 001.pgscn 0 3 (19:11) 0 2 (19:11)
The result. I win after 3 turns if I capture and hold 3 VPs (Major Victory) or 2 VPs (Minor Victory) but only if I capture mandatory objective (Lodz) specified for the scenario in pg.pgcam.
Thus, if you want to use Mandatory objectives in campaigns you must to specify their coordinates for corresponding scenarios in pg.pgcam.

[Cat Leon]

Too bad PGF doesn't support reinforcements and I can not contrive something to imitate it in the game...

[Radoye]

If the map is sufficiently large you can have sort-of reinforcements by placing some units in a far corner of the map so that they arrive to where it matters just in the right time. Might take a bit of experimenting to time it correctly.

[Lettos]

Too bad PGF doesn't support reinforcements and I can not contrive something to imitate it in the game...

Hi Cat Leon!

Pls read this thread viewtopic.php?f=95&t=470#p7953 and below about how to create an Event in PGF with a reinforcements. I hope reinforcements in Your scenario will arrive at time

[HexCode]

"Self-Indulgent" Talk ?

Possibly; but certainly NOT "OT"...

There's been a major "historical" difference in the evolution of modding interests regarding PGF as compared to its older "sibling", PG1-DOS.

In the case of PG1-DOS, a few technically knowledgeable hobbyists explicitly regarded the engine's code as a hybrid of active code and passive content. To this effect, visualizing and actually modifying the passive content encountered within the executable was regarded as a "legitimate" and useful part of modding.

In the case of PGF, its programmer as well as the "Hobby at Large" have viewed PGF's engine as... inviolable. I know of just one... heretic who has taken the opposite view and acted upon it. The... heretic "publicly" admitted to have committed the penultimate... unforgivable sin of having actually hex-edited PGF's executable ! No doubt, in the afterlife, he'll find himself in the august company of Judas, Brutus and Cassius (courtesy of good ol' Dante).

A Sea Change

The 10-year period subject to the... "statute of PGF limitations" has expired. I'm very glad to see the "public" emergence of serious interest in:

a) Hex-editing PGF's executable, thereby rendering it just another content-specific, E-file component.

b) Designing equipment files specific to individual scenarios.

c) Subjecting historically themed content playable under PGF to old-fashioned "grognard" scrutiny.

Am I biased ? You bet ! As far as I'm concerned, the "sea change" is all about content quality enhancement via imaginative innovation based on the availability and accessibility of reliable technical information.

Superannuated... Talk

Many, many years ago, I wrote:

The following "burdens" are placed on the shoulders of prospective H2H play oriented scenario authors:

A) Being "friendly" to all-human play.

B) Being familiar with a wargame title's advanced mechanics and internals.

C) Being technically knowledgeable so as to utilize all available Modding "tricks" rather than be "enslaved" by the Modding tools (if any) that come bundled with or are closely associated with the wargame titles.

D) Aiming at scenario uniqueness (as opposed to campaign uniformity) and repeat playability (easier said than done).

AND

"Boutique" Standalone Scenario design treating a wargame's main executable as just another content file is totally consistent with truly unique, custom Standalone Scenario play demonstrations and challenges.

[Radoye]

You have pre-empted me a bit with this latest post.

Together with our friend Lettos i've been working on a new "expert" campaign mod for PGF WAW aiming to reduce the total amount of prestige available to the player by some 60% in total as they progress through the campaign. Which in most cases involves things such as negative prestige awards in the .pgcam file to balance out the positive prestige provided in the .pgscn files (since the actual scenarios are shared between the "normal" campaign and "expert" one). And yes, it works without any issues.

[HexCode]

Roughly speaking, this forum's existence has coincided with the second decade of the 21st century. In my... books, the previous decade was subject to the "statute of PGF limitations" (a term I've recently coined). Recent postings have given me some hope that the current decade will witness significant, qualitative improvements in content design.

Important: For the purposes of this post, a composite unit isn't the same as a dual-mode, composite unit.

From time to time in the distant past, the issue of "rationally & accurately" arriving at a composite unit's stats has certainly been "publicly" discussed within the context of SSI's 5-Star General wargames content. However, very few content designers have been willing to devote the requisite, incredibly long hours to methodically and credibly accomplish such a task.

Way back in 2010, Bill Guevremont (a.k.a. "Sapper") released his final (?) version of an extremely detailed study focusing on composite unit specification of WWII battalion-sized units. His spreadsheets were something else to behold ! Here's a brief excerpt from his documentation:

The entire reason to make this BATTALION ORGANIZATION AND DOCTRINE based E-file is to recognize that war at the battalion level shows a variety of equipment within the same unit. For example a German Panzer Battalion in 1941 had a mixture of PzKw II’s, PzKw III’s, PzKw 38(t)’s, and PzKw IV’s, and multiple versions (D’s, E’s, A’s, F1’s etc) to boot. I’ve made my units portray these ‘mixed’ units; for excruciating detail on how I built each unit – check out my EXCEL file (Sappers-KG-Org-data-v2010.xls.)

Now, how come a H2H play mode guy who designs ahistorical scenarios for his private enjoyment "bothers" to post about obviously "grognard" matters ? Well, it appears that the guy isn't irredeemably "self-indulgent", after all ! No sir !

[Lettos]

Way back in 2010, Bill Guevremont (a.k.a. "Sapper") released his final (?) version of an extremely detailed study focusing on composite unit specification of WWII battalion-sized units. His spreadsheets were something else to behold ! Here's a brief excerpt from his documentation:

The entire reason to make this BATTALION ORGANIZATION AND DOCTRINE based E-file is to recognize that war at the battalion level shows a variety of equipment within the same unit. For example a German Panzer Battalion in 1941 had a mixture of PzKw II’s, PzKw III’s, PzKw 38(t)’s, and PzKw IV’s, and multiple versions (D’s, E’s, A’s, F1’s etc) to boot. I’ve made my units portray these ‘mixed’ units; for excruciating detail on how I built each unit – check out my EXCEL file (Sappers-KG-Org-data-v2010.xls.)

It's very interesting for me to take a look inside file and to documentation too
Is this file is still available for download somewhere?

[HexCode]

Elsewhere in THIS PGF forum:

I'm sincerely grateful to my friends here for their high ethics and patience with my linguistically illiterate posts.

It's all a combination of good will and a sincere desire to understand; not some godforsaken opportunity to "manufacture" reasons for attacking, denigrating, ridiculing etc.

Here's an "interesting" case, courtesy of Father Time's Jurassic archives. Something like 10 years ago, a poster directly addressed PGF's programmer in the following manner:

Rudankort, your supply rules are outlined very well. They conform to my play experience. If I wasn't busy working on scenarios, I'd say more. Btw, your English is quite good - almost too good. Have you gone to school or worked in a country where English is the main language?

Frankly, it's rather difficult for one to put his finger on some implied subtext here. Nevertheless, a subtext might have very well been there... Ok, then, here's another poster's response:

Let us parse things a bit, shall we?

Rudankort, your supply rules are outlined very well

Hey, it was PGF's Programmer (i.e., "talented sucker") that documented them, right?

They conform to my play experience

How very reassuring... A one sentence... "imperious" confirmation, wow !!

If I wasn't busy working on scenarios, I'd say more

Absolutely !! The poster's custom content was way more important than PGF's play system, right? Besides, the poster would have said "more"... I wonder, what about? Technical dreams and supernatural revelations, perhaps?

Btw, your English is quite good - almost too good

This is the key sentence, I should think...

Have you gone to school or worked in a country where English is the main language?

The usual smoke screen...

Clearly, the preceding, superannuated postings did hit a nerve somewhere on the Internet. Easy. lightning fast, written communications on the Web aren't a panacea !

[HexCode]

The below strictly pertains to mods attempting to meet high standards of historical realism. In particular, it pertains to battalion-sized units (and some conceptual / organizational equivalent applicable to air and naval units).

1) No matter what, one will have to define the dimensions of a typical hex and live with the consequences; ditto for the time interval represented by a "typical" turn.

2) PGF's play system doesn't allow the stacking of multiple surface or air units. However, a typical unit's Strength Factors (SFs) can be viewed as being stacked in their own right.

3) An Under-Strength unit will still "occupy" an entire hex to the exclusion of other units. To boot, an Over-Strength unit will still "occupy" just one hex.

4) Unit Movement Allowance, Spotting Range and Shooting Range stats must strictly conform to the fundamental specifications as per preceding point (1).

5) One may be tempted to view a unit's SFs as functionally diverse so as to infuse the composite nature of battalion-sized units with much needed historical realism. Unfortunately, PGF's play system is "deaf" when it comes to such visualized and wished for differentiations. In a nutshell, PGF's play system treats a unit's SFs in an identical, "cookie-cutter" manner.

6) Sadly, preceding point (5) points to just one practically feasible solution here. Namely, one may attempt to develop a methodology to derive battalion-sized unit's stats by "judiciously" combining "micro-specs" of functionally differentiated constituent components (e.g., Bill Guevremont's methodology and output).

To conclude, never mind iconic depictions, a "tank" isn't really just one tank and an "airplane" isn't really just one airplane; BUT, they used to be when PG1 / AG / PGF were reasonably popular...

[Lettos]

There is a questions about unit classes 0, 1, 2, 3

Infantry 00 0
Tank 01 1
Recon 02 2
Anti-Tank 03 3

How do the classes differ from each other in game in terms of the PGF engine?

The AT seems to have an advantage in the city? AT always hits second if it attacks - is this true?
Are there differences in ENT for classes? Or are there none?
Tank has reduced defense in the city - is this true? Or is it only if it is attacked in city by infantry?

Is there a unit class comparison chart somewhere that describes what they can and can't do, where and when they have advantages and where units are weaker, etc.?

The question arose because of speculation on the topic: can some tank units, especially light tanks, and some heavily armed armored vehicles be moved to the AT class, so that they hit last in AI half-turn?
I understand that there are a large number of side effects here... but now I want to understand the main fundamental differences for the same unit in terms of parameters, being in class 0/1/2 and 3.

Please help!
=====

And another more global question related to AI MVT Priorities.

We know that the AI moves units and attacks them in a certain sequence.

1. Tac Bombers
2. Level Bombers
3. Fighters
4. Recons
5. Tanks
6. Anti-aircrafts
7. Guns
8. AD
9. Infantry
10. ATG

I address my question primarily to the esteemed Expert Hexcode : Is it possible to find the fragment in the PGF code where this sequence is described and change it?

This is a huge issue for debate, what priority should be. I would like to see something like this for the first experiment:

1(8). AD
2(6). Anti-aircrafts
3(3). Fighters
4(1). Tac Bombers
5(2). Level Bombers
6(7). Guns
7(10). ATG
8(4). Recons
9(5). Tanks
10(9). Infantry
or even:
8(4). Recons and some added to this class heavy tanks
9(9). Infantry
10(5). Tanks (light and medium)

Is it possible to change this in the code?

[Radoye]

- In close terrain (such as cities, forests) infantry attacks not the GD but the CD value of the enemy; since CD is usually significantly lower than GD this gives infantry an edge in these kinds of situations.

- Antitank units have an initiative penalty when attacking / they're better defending from enemy attacks.

- In later games recons got "phased movement" (you could move them forward part way, then move them back or some more forward) but this doesn't yet exist in PG / AG (so it's not in PGF either).

[Lettos]

- In close terrain (such as cities, forests) infantry attacks not the GD but the CD value of the enemy; since CD is usually significantly lower than GD this gives infantry an edge in these kinds of situations.

- Antitank units have an initiative penalty when attacking / they're better defending from enemy attacks.

- In later games recons got "phased movement" (you could move them forward part way, then move them back or some more forward) but this doesn't yet exist in PG / AG (so it's not in PGF either).

Thanks a lot for info!

Yes, I've seen it all in the game and used it many times. But... without a system. Caught a tank in the city, in the woods or in the mountains - hit it with infantry! But now I understand why this is so.

- In close terrain (such as cities, forests) infantry attacks not the GD but the CD value of the enemy; since CD is usually significantly lower than GD this gives infantry an edge in these kinds of situations.

Let the infantry attack as it is now, there is no need to change the CD parameter to a larger one. It is too much work to adjust if I'll put tanks in the infantry class.

- Antitank units have an initiative penalty when attacking / they're better defending from enemy attacks.

Is it now in front of your eyes really all the problems associated with the AT class? Or is there some other secret moments?

It looks like I should move some of the tanks (light tanks and some medium tanks) to the AT class. And let them finish off the defeated enemy after all the other units are hit. Because the AI in 1939 is trying to use them as assault tanks like the Tigers of 1943, and that's not the role these light tanks were designed for.
Well, raise some INI, decrease some GD. Will the performance of light tanks and Recons change much from this? They are good only for hitting enemy Soft targets STR=1-5, which should just finish them off.

[HexCode]

There is a question about unit classes 0, 1, 2, 3

Infantry 00 0
Tank 01 1
Recon 02 2
Anti-Tank 03 3

How do the classes differ from each other in-game in terms of the PGF engine?

The AT seems to have an advantage in the city? AT always hits second if it attacks - is this true? Are there differences in ENT for classes? Or are there none? Tank has reduced defense in the city - is this true? Or is it only if it is attacked in city by infantry?

Is there a unit class comparison chart somewhere that describes what they can and can't do, where and when they have advantages and where units are weaker, etc.?

From my perspective, it's sad that, when it comes to knowledge and documentation of PGF's internals, 10 years have already gone by without the "Hobby at Large" ever having registered a serious need for such "things". In fact, PGF's programmer himself "publicly" opined that such "things" were unnecessary...

The ever expanding Library is an exception. Why ? Because it treats PGF as a computer assisted / moderated / enhanced board wargame. As such, it's going to take quite a long time for it to be completed. Persistently coming across iffy, seat-of-the-pants, technical commentary has been all the rage in video wargaming quarters, of course. Nevertheless, that's where the Librarian drew the line in the sand...

In the meantime, I would suggest the following complementary approaches:

1) Do consult the PG1-DOS manual to get some general idea of what types of internals may be relevant to your query. That said, quite often, one draws blanks. After all, PG1-DOS is a video wargame...

2) Utilize PGF's information depiction interface to the max. For example, on-screen explanations of combat results can be very helpful.

3) Consult the Library, paying particular attention to algebraic, procedural and tabular explanations. For example, initiative determination is already fully covered therein.

[Lettos]

We know that the AI moves units and attacks them in a certain sequence.

1. Tac Bombers
2. Level Bombers
3. Fighters
4. Recons
5. Tanks
6. Anti-aircrafts
7. Guns
8. AD
9. Infantry
10. ATG

I address my question primarily to the esteemed Expert Hexcode; Is it possible to find the fragment in the PGF code where this sequence is described and change it?

Although theoretically possible, it's going to be incredibly difficult. The coding underlying PG1-DOS's engine was no shining star. However, when compared to the coding underlying PGF's engine, PG1-DOS's engine is the best thing that happened since the invention of sliced bread ! In other words, the coding underlying PGF's engine is a holy mess which, no doubt, would have earned a failing grade in any undergraduate computer science course...

By the way, even in cases of "neat" coding, deciphering computer games' AI subroutines is way more difficult than deciphering any other type of subroutine one is likely to come across in games' engines.

It is clear that the MVT priority is not prescribed as 1-2-3-4-5... but simply described classes by number and then somewhere there is a formula "Move "1", then the previous class +1", then "another +1" and so on. And - most likely - you can't swap classes because their number is used in a thousand and one more places in the code... bytes were saved in the days of PG1. Too bad... we write in wish list 2100 - change the MVT sequence. Would add two chocolates and a tasty donut to the AI IQ.
If changed, the AI would get smarter immediately, without even interfering with his other oddities. I would venture to say - the AI would be revolutionarily smarter ...

[Lettos]

1) Do consult the PG1-DOS manual to get some general idea of what types of internals may be relevant to your query. That said, quite often, one draws blanks. After all, PG1-DOS is a video wargame...

I read. And I want to reread it again. But it doesn't make much sense. Then I suddenly find out that PGF is not some PG1, and things have changed in it... So at this point, practice takes precedence over theory.

2) Utilize PGF's information depiction interface to the max. For example, on-screen explanations of combat results can be very helpful

I hope you remember the results of fighting 200 units in the sandbox. These predictions don't work...
Or I'll give you one completely criminal idea, an assumption.

First a preface.

I recently played the same scenario several times in a campaign. First I played it on the "Advanced AI" setting, then on the "Intermediate AI" setting. And everything was like music notes: a AI fighter came to a bomber covered by my fighter, and didn't attack. Waiting for my fighter to disappear on its own. I of course, attack that enemy fighter on my next turn, if it is to my advantage.
I got tired of playing these AI intelligence levels a few times.
I'm thinking about trying Basic, which everyone has forgotten.
And.... surprise! At this beginner level, the AI fighter attacked my bomber! Well, it was a shock - like if the sun suddenly rose in the West tomorrow! I had a very limited amount of PP and played also with the "No Replacements between Scenarios" rule. Those STR=3 that the damn fighter stole from bomber was very painful.
And then I wondered... what are we playing at? And are we choosing our computer opponent correctly? But after all, it's primitive Basic! And it's harder for me now than Advanced.
I also noticed that the attack loss stats are kind of weird. Since we already know about the saddle Gaussian, the strange statistics can also be explained by the strange distribution of random. I can't say definitively that Basic is what caused the change in Gaussian. We need experiments in the sandbox. But I still have a slight suspicion about different distribution of random depending on the choice of AI difficulty level...

And on the background of these assumptions, how should I consider the suggestion to look at predictions of the outcome of an attack? Has anyone looked at these results in different AI modes? More importantly, will the actual results always be statistically equally different from the predicted results?

3) Consult the Library, paying particular attention to algebraic, procedural and tabular explanations. For example, initiative determination is already fully covered therein.

Will go to read! Thank You!

[HexCode]

Prologue

The current posting activity in this forum is quite refreshing ! At the same time, the interests expressed and discussed herein have very little to do with what the "Hobby at Large" has been all about for many, many years. Does this somehow render the current forum goings-on "illegitimate" ? I don't think so. BUT, such interests and discussions should be divorced from yesteryear's perceptions and musings regarding SSI's market(ing) objectives and # Rudankort's # personal aims. Frankly, SSI and # Rudankort # have had absolutely no reason to concern themselves with the potential emergence of rare interests and angles; and vice versa.

The way I draw a line is quite simple and certainly not intended to be in any way... brutal. PG1-DOS, AG and PGF are software which I've come across and have taken "it" from there; no questions asked re: how the software came about and whether they were popular or not with this or that wargamer segment. In other words, the only thing that has mattered to me was and continues being what these software can do for my wargaming interests and angles (if anything).

Misinformation

Being a... double agent all but requires being able to deal with an admixture of accurate and inaccurate intelligence. Relatedly, in certain movies, the Devil is being portrayed as engaging in identical practices.

PGF's case is rather, well, pedestrian ! Namely, the "Hobby at Large" took the position that the SSI PG1 / AG manuals were more than enough. "Let's play now. Shall we ?"

Bottom line: let those sporting rare interests be concerned with misinformation !

Randomization

PGF's engine utilizes randomization in quite a few cases. Some of the better known such cases are:

Combat Resolution
Weather Determination
Paradrop Air Drift
Submarine Detection

Absent the deciphering of the relevant subroutines, it would take quite a bit of statistical analysis to draw any useful conclusions. Frankly, currently, PGF doesn't even enjoy anything like full coverage of its many deterministic components; venturing into significantly more demanding areas would be akin to putting the proverbial cart in front of the proverbial horse.

AI Matters

When it comes to PGF's three (3) AI level options,

[ADV] *.PGSAV (SECTION 15)
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=553#p9092

is the best place to start. There's solid evidence that a lot of AI's behavior is circumscribed by those FOUR (4) settings...

[Radoye]

Switching the topic momentarily - i had an idea recently about adding a Refugee unit. Basically it would have no combat attributes (all attack and defense stats would be 0), would have a huge negative prestige price (so killing them would be bad), they would be unpurchaseable and in one of the classes that can't capture stuff and i would add it to the AI side but assign to the human player's nation. So basically there will be a bunch of units that a human player can't control but which wander about the map and disrupt movement; also, they could give some additional spotting to the AI side to make it "smarter". What do you think, am i totally crazy here or could this actually work?

[Lettos]

Switching the topic momentarily - i had an idea recently about adding a Refugee unit. Basically it would have no combat attributes (all attack and defense stats would be 0), would have a huge negative prestige price (so killing them would be bad), they would be unpurchaseable and in one of the classes that can't capture stuff and i would add it to the AI side but assign to the human player's nation. So basically there will be a bunch of units that a human player can't control but which wander about the map and disrupt movement; also, they could give some additional spotting to the AI side to make it "smarter". What do you think, am i totally crazy here or could this actually work?

I don't know if this might work, but I had a similar idea to make many retreating Red Army units in the Barbarossa scenario. Such small units STR = 1, which are located somewhere on the map. The AI will not have any PP currency, it will all be swallowed up by a "black hole", so let them roam and interfere with the movement. I don't know what will come of it, but let the idea itself be alive for now

[HexCode]

Switching the topic momentarily

This is [EPH] territory. There can't be any restrictive adherence to topic continuity.

... am i totally crazy here ... ?

When it comes to modding under PGF, nothing's "crazy" !

i had an idea recently about adding a Refugee unit.

Yes ! Why not ?

Basically it would have no combat attributes (all attack and defense stats would be 0)

Check !

... would have a huge negative prestige price (so killing them would be bad)

Play system-wise, check ! However, in terms of "reality" representation, it depends on what sort of combatants we're talking about...

... they would be unpurchaseable

Check !

... and in one of the classes that can't capture stuff

Check !

i would add it to the AI side but assign to the human player's nation. So basically there will be a bunch of units that a human player can't control...

I'm afraid you've lost me here. Ok, assigning it to the AI side makes sense. BUT, what about "the human player's nation" reference ? If you wish the AI to be controlling such units, their nationality itself must also be consistent with whatever nations the AI will be controlling. Right ?

... which wander about the map and disrupt movement; also, they could give some additional spotting to the AI side to make it "smarter"

Refugee units accidentally bumping into the human player's units could result in unfavorable prestige loss outcomes for the latter. An MA value of ONE (1) would solve this problem, of course. On the other hand, giving these units Spotting Range ZERO (0) would be more realistic... While we're at it, it's just too bad that PGF doesn't have a unit-specific setting which would allow one to nix its ZoC. Oh well,...

[Radoye]

i would add it to the AI side but assign to the human player's nation. So basically there will be a bunch of units that a human player can't control...

I'm afraid you've lost me here. Ok, assigning it to the AI side makes sense. BUT, what about "the human player's nation" reference ? If you wish the AI to be controlling such units, their nationality itself must also be consistent with whatever nations the AI will be controlling. Right ?

Please see my modifications to the PG Torch scenario (#012) in PGF WaW. In fact this scenario actually depicts the so-called Run for Tunis, where both the Allies and the Axis rushed into Tunisia and Algeria trying to take control of the French possessions in North Africa after the Vichy regime collapse.

I have the following nations defined in the scenario:

Axis:

#8 Wehrmacht
#13 Italy
#96 SS

Allied:

#10 USA
#23 UK
#29 Free French
#44 British India
#94 Royal Navy

But - all my Axis controlled cities actually belong to nation #7 (Vichy) France at the beginning of turn 1 - note that there is no #7 nation assigned to either Axis or Allied in my scenario definition. Both sides are capable of capturing the French owned cities and airfields and turning their flag, after which they can purchase units at these cities as normal. But, the Axis side is able to resupply their aircraft at Vichy owned airfields even without actually capturing them!

In addition, i added a couple of units to the Allied side which are assigned to nation #7 to depict the Vichy troops switching sides (most Vichy units simply remained in their barracks and let the battle take place, waiting to see to whom they should surrender, but a certain number took up defensive positions against the Axis and started actively fighting them). Now - here's where things become interesting: These Allied-Vichy units are fully controllable by the Allied player, and they can turn the flag on cities captured by Axis back to Vichy #7 ownership but do NOT actually switch the side ownership / the cities remain Axis, as it can be seen in the strategic map by the white color of the victory hexes (as opposed to the Allied green).

In any case, from the above it appears to be possible to have units (and city flags) assigned to a side which do not belong to any nation actually assigned to that particular side (as in - have Vichy-Allied units on a map with Vichy-Axis cities, where Vichy #7 nation isn't actually assigned to either Axis or Allied).

So, with that in mind, here's my idea for Refugees:

Say, i'm designing a campaign to be played from the Allied side, trying to defend from the German blitz through the Western Europe in spring / summer 1940. Masses of French and Belgian civilians are clogging the roads, trying to escape before the invading Germans thus making it difficult for the Allies to shift their troops where they're needed.

For this thought experiment, let's say i only have nation #8 (Wehrmacht) assigned to Axis and only nation #7 (France) to Allies. Both sides control some cities and have military units assigned to their respective nations, French to Allies and German to Axis. The human player controls the Allies, the Axis are controlled by AI.

Now. i add a bunch of Refugee units (as defined in my previous post), assign them to the Axis side, but actually give them flag #7 (France). So i have a bunch of "French" (as in "friendly") units which are not actually controlled by the Allied player wondering around the map under AI control, getting in the way; killing them is not recommended because it would carry a hefty prestige penalty, they cannot capture any cities (so the French owned cities remain Allied French even if these manage to wander into them), they just move about the map and are a general annoyance. Having them in or beside an Allied city could have an impact on the ability for the Allies to purchase units there, which isn't necessarily a downside - let's say the city mayor was unable to comply with orders to raise local military units due to the need to provide necessities of life to civilian refugees in the area...

So, am i actually onto something here or have i finally lost my mind?

[HexCode]

The discussion concerning Refugee "units" has hit upon a most interesting, advanced topic.

... am i actually onto something here or have i finally lost my mind?

I assure you, you're quite sane as well as innovative. That's the idea; yeah !

I fully intend to cover this topic in great detail down the line. For the time being:

1) PG1-DOS sports a surprisingly "sophisticated" play system "default" mechanism underlying ""Nominally Owned Hexes & Aligned Units"" (NOHs&AUs).

2) PGF also sports a similar, albeit, somewhat less "sophisticated", such mechanism.

For the time being, congratulations are in order. The requisite documentation will eventually eventually follow.

By the way, there're plenty of advanced topics that cry out for reliable research and documentation. Sometimes, it's difficult for me to decide which topic's number should... come up. Mind you, the second decade has just started...

[HexCode]

Elsewhere in THIS PGF forum:

Amphora of fine Samos wine to our wise friend Hexcode !!!

... the specific changes in MVT types to meet the needs of some scenarios and campaigns will inevitably cause different and incompatible versions of the PGF file. I don't see anything technically difficult about playing individual campaigns with their specialized PGF.exe file.

Huge thanks to Hexcode for such a useful insight into the PGF file!!!

I'm certainly grateful for the effusive compliments. Now, what's this all about ? On the face of it, it's about a very specific, technical subject. However, as far as I'm concerned, there's much more to it. Essentially, besides myself, another poster just suggested the hitherto... unthinkable; namely, what if one were to view PGF's executable as a "legitimate" candidate for E-file inclusion ? Well, yeah ! Prior to the emergence of OG and PGF, quite a few technically oriented hobbyists modding within SSI's 5-Star General play system paradigm would have considered such proposals to be both logical and practically useful.

Now, PGF's programmer has been on "public" record "asking" PGF aficionados to not hex-edit his executable. As usual, I can only speak for myself. I don't consider myself to be... morally bound by this gentleman's 10-year old "wishes".

[Cat Leon]

BTW. I never tested this before but it turns out a submarines can not attack each other! So if you want to make for example 'Sea Mines' unit able to attack both surface ships and submarines you should put that unit into 'Destroyer' class. However in this case 'Sea Mines' can be destroyed not only by destroyers but also by other ships...
Hmm, same for PG2 and OG! An units of 'Submarine' class can not attack enemy submarines while 'Sea Mines' unit is in 'Submarine' class in all Efiles I know... So a submarine won't be damaged if a 'surprise contact' with enemy sea mines occurs!

[Radoye]

The attack submarine concept is post-WW2. There was only one case in WW2 where a submerged submarine successfully attacked another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_U-864

[Cat Leon]

But somehow or other a submarines attacked and sank each other quite often. And it doesn't matter if they were submerged or not!
As far as I know German U-boats sank 3 Soviet submarines. Several German boats were also sank by Soviet submarines. Just an example https://military.wikia.org/wiki/German_ ... 144_(1940)
US Gato-class boats sank four Japanese submarines: I-29, I-168, I-351, and I-42 while USS Corvina was sank by Japanese I-176.
For sure I could find another examples too...

[Radoye]

But somehow or other a submarines attacked and sank each other quite often. And it doesn't matter if they were submerged or not!
As far as I know German U-boats sank 3 Soviet submarines. Several German boats were also sank by Soviet submarines. Just an example https://military.wikia.org/wiki/German_ ... 144_(1940)
US Gato-class boats sank four Japanese submarines: I-29, I-168, I-351, and I-42 while USS Corvina was sank by Japanese I-176.
For sure I could find another examples too...

Yes, submarines were able to sink each other while on surface, either by ramming or by using deck guns, sometimes even torpedoes. If you wish to model a combat where one or both submarines are on surface, i suggest you check out my World at War PGF mod.

In there, i created a "surfaced submarine" unit in the Destroyer class, which i assign to regular submerged submarine (submarine class) as a ground transport. The surfaced submarine has greater movement and spotting, and also is able to use deck guns for HA / SA, but of course is very vulnerable to surface attack by any naval class. But, a surfaced submarine can attack other submarines, submerged or not - and a submerged submarine can attack a surfaced sub. You switch between submerged and surfaced modes by toggling the ground transport button.

So basically all modes of combat between WW2 submarines are covered - the only thing that doesn't work is two submerged submarines, which as we see wasn't really a thing in WW2 anyway

So maybe you can do something like that for your own purposes.

[Radoye]

By the way, I assume that, in its surfaced state, the dual-purpose submarine unit is always "spottable", right ?

Yes, it acts just as any regular destroyer class unit.

[Cat Leon]

I'm having a conceptual problem here. Ok, I can see how a Surprise Collision / Contact would work. BUT, are we talking about a minefield which proactively attacks adjacent enemy naval units ?

Yes, it looks like a motionless submarine but I don't see other way! Assume that 'Sea mines' is the unit of Submarine class (that is probably the best variant). As "Surprise Contact" between a stationary unit of Submarine class and any naval units except Destroyers is impossible the only way to damage or sink these naval units is the attack adjacent enemy naval units in next turn! It may mean that cruiser (for example) stopped in time in front of a minefield and was not blown up by a mine in previous turn but the insidious minefield is near and cruiser couldn't avoid colliding with a mine in next enemy turn! But it also means that destroyers must escort your heavy ships and destroy enemy sea mines before your cruiser or battleship is blown up in next enemy turn. So I don't see the big conceptual problem with such interpretation...

[Radoye]

a) Structure Units located in friendly City / Port hexes can readily be the beneficiaries of Unit Replacement or Over-Strengthening SFs as per the usual rules applicable to Land Units.

b) Structure Units located elsewhere on the map are denied any Unit Replacement or Over-Strengthening SFs.

I am placing garrison units strictly inside cities / ports.

[HexCode]

I guess I should have been way clearer...

When I wrote:

Ok, I can see how a Surprise Collision / Contact would work.

I didn't mean that PGF would be able to handle this feature. Reason being, it would clearly violate NUCA #1. I just wanted to convey that such a feature would be subject to a "straightforward" interpretation.

When I wrote:

BUT, are we talking about a minefield which proactively attacks adjacent enemy naval units ?

all I wanted to convey was a certain feeling of "unnaturalness" to possible interpretations; not that such interpretations would be impossible or utterly indefensible.

Now, I do approach PGF from the standpoint of a board wargamer focusing on Hex-Based, Turn-Based play systems. In such play systems, the two back-to-back half-turns comprising a whole turn are invariably interpreted as specifically modeling event simultaneity within one and the same time period; by sheer practical necessity that is.

Therefore, a minefield unit which proactively attacks enemy naval units during the 2nd half-turn seems to be much closer to the preceding interpretation as opposed to one which proactively attacks during the 1st half-turn. In practice, though, it doesn't much matter either way. Wargames such as PGF are de facto playable in successive half-turns...

[HexCode]

OG and PGF...

1) These days and for all practical purposes, posting activity in the OG forums is all about OG and PGF.

2) OG's programmer maintains a prominent presence in these forums. PGF's programmer doesn't maintain any presence; ditto for FPGE's last Programmer of record.

3) From my perspective, PGF's play system essentially represents the "alpha" version of SSI's 5-Star General paradigm. OG represents the "omega" version.

4) OG is way more tactically detailed than PGF.

5) OG is way friendlier to modders than PGF.

6) The future of OG's play system is in the hands of its programmer. The future of PGF's play system is in the hands of those souls knowledgeable enough and willing to hex-edit PGF's executable.

7) In both wargame cases, modders might wish to tweak their content to take advantage of emerging play system modifications and "researched discoveries".

The third decade of the 21st Century is still quite... young !

[Cat Leon]

OG and PGF...

It seems that OG absorbed now all the features that player can imagine! So I think the future of OG more depend on makers of scenarios, campains, icons etc. As for PGF I doubt that it is possible to significantly improve executable file using hexadecimal editing! It would not be easy to do if even you have the source text of the program...

[HexCode]

What the PGF "hobby" is sorely missing are dedicated, capable programmers who will just focus on this one wargame and stay with it for the long haul.

It would be highly desirable if such programmers were to code "things":

A) Without introducing restrictions of the type -- "SSI's flagship content does it like that".

B) With advanced and detailed knowledge of PGF's play system as well as its true technical properties and capabilities.

NOW:

1) Speculating about a potential "public" release of PGF's source code won't do "us" any good, will it ?

2) FPGE needs to be significantly polished by specifically targeting PGF and not a gazillion "cousin" wargame titles. FPGE's source code is in the public domain.

3) PGF could use a Game-State editing utility. The internal structure of *.PGSAV files has already been deciphered and "publicly" documented.

4) Selectively disassembling various subroutines "hidden" inside PGF's executable would give the "hobby" significant insights into the complex board wargame "hiding" under the hexadecimal code.

5) PGF could certainly use an Engine editing utility as well. Without such a utility, hex-editing PGF's executable tends to be rather time consuming and prone to modders making fatal errors; unless one is super-careful, that is.

Admittedly, the foregoing wishes are sort of irrelevant when it comes to "pure players"; at least, directly. Nevertheless, a few Veteran Modders (VMs) would stand to gain a lot if some, if not all, of the above mentioned wishes were to actually materialize in the years to come.

[HexCode]

It seems that OG has absorbed all the features a player can imagine! So I think the future of OG more depends on makers of scenarios, campaigns, icons etc.

Over the years, OG's programmer has given the "hobby" many, many play features, thereby tremendously expanding SSI PG2's "universe of possibilities". When it comes to PGF though, it's the "hobby" itself that has been engaging in on again, off again "research & discovery" activities aimed at coming up with creative solutions to envisaged / desired play features. All this is old hat, of course.

NOW:

A) When it comes to ahistorical, strategy wargaming, the more play system features and content design options around, the better. Representation realism is essentially irrelevant.

B) When it comes to "hardcore" historical wargaming, an actual plethora of available play system and content design options may easily become a de facto... curse ! Reason being, all around consistency and scalability representation realism's demands become THE overarching concern. To this effect, given a particular scenario or set of scenarios, invoking some such options may be grossly inappropriate.

C) When it comes to just "historically-themed" wargaming, well, the jury is still out. Frankly, I don't expect those jurors to come back into the... courtroom, returning some... verdict anytime soon ! All I can say is this: To each content designer, his own. Pretty simple, eh ?

[HexCode]

This is the last time I'll be accessing Father Time's Jurassic archives about such matters. After all, PGF's second decade is presently ongoing and still quite young !

Jurassic Commentary...

OG naturally inherits PG2 spirit, for better or worse. But at the same time, it is probably the only true product made "by modders for modders"; it has a huge array of options available to designers, and so will remain the ultimate tool for veteran modders. PGF is a good attempt to keep the old PG/AG content alive on modern equipment. Each game is targeted at a very different audience.

PGF is probably the closest one can come to recreating the original and adapting it to modern realities without having its source code (which was apparently lost over the years). But eventually it became obvious to me that my original dream to make PGF a 100% viable alternative to PG was not going to happen. I replicated game rules, but I could not replicate the AI; and in such a game, the rules, content and AI all work together to create the playing experience.

I often hear that PGF is a raw and unfinished product; this sounds like a big surprise to me. It has its share of bugs no doubt; but in my opinion, it probably can hold its own against PG-DOS which had a lot of bugs both in the engine and in the scenarios.

It is not all that important to know internal game mechanics. Exact PG2 game formulas were not known until I researched them for Luis, a few years ago. Which did not prevent the enthusiasts here from creating a lot of great campaigns for PG2. Only file formats are important, because these are needed for creating modding tools. In PGF's case many formats are text-based and open; so I don't see a problem with creating tools for it (in fact, some already exist).

I'm not a big fan of "creative" uses of unit classes; in my opinion they create more problems than they solve...

When Panzer Corps is retired, releasing its source code might not be a big problem, and even a logical next step. But before that it is unlikely to happen.

My Simple Takeaway...

For something like ten years, PGF has allowed players to keep the old SSI PG1 / AG content (and its close emulations) alive on hardware and operating systems of more recent vintage. That's basically it !

If I can help it, PGF's second decade will be markedly different; at least "publicly" !

[eskimo68]

My kid finally is old enough to enjoy PG/AG and PGF would be the easiest way to go and the multiplayer server is gone?

I remember mailing with the original dev back in 2010-2012 (especially when the server changed ip). Had some good conversations.

So apparently the server is down for good now? No chance of hosting it yourself (I would)?

I would have a look at the source but I'm guessing everything isn't available, otherwise someone would have put up a replacement already?

So, a few comments:

- is it know that the server is down for commercial reasons or something similar? Or just minimal load, no point keeping it up? Basically, curious if PGF couldn't be considered a good way to get people attracted to the genre and PC/PC II.

- is everyone in Discord because traffic here is so low? Personally I disklike Discord as it's a chat platform, not really an archive like a proper forum (which is needed for old games).

- I'll check out www-open-general.com . Maybe it is similar/good enough for multiplayer purposes. If it is, I'll happily contribute.


Will do another Player vs Player with him tonight, sigh.

Sorry for the quickie post, promised the kid I send off a query today.



Moderator Edit: Unfortunately, the requisite server necessary for PGF's Online play mode to work is currently unavailable.

[HexCode]

This is the third and last post of mine on PGF's past as well as currently envisaged and hoped for future.

[EPH] PGF: First Decade Intentions & Realities
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174&start=150#p10022

has dealt with PGF's past.

[EPH] PGF: A Technical Wish List
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174&start=100#p9934

has dealt with currently envisaged, programming requirements which may or may not materialize in the future.

{Open General} is probably the only true product made "by modders for modders".

As far as I'm concerned, PGF's "public" evolution during its second decade is bound to be "by modders for modders" as well. Personally, I'm not particularly interested in the "General" part. On the other hand, all kinds of "open"ness certainly turn my crank.

Selectively disassembling various subroutines "hidden" inside PGF's executable would give the "hobby" significant insights into the complex board wargame "hiding" under the hexadecimal code.

Envisaged serious experimentation aimed at learning quite a bit about the underlying "complex board wargame" can be carried out at any one of THREE (3) Levels.

Level 1: One can set up all kinds of situations on scenario maps just using PGF's H2H Play Mode. No special technical expertise is required. The "researcher" just observes PGF engine's response.

Level 2: There are instances where Level 1 experimentation is unable to generate the requisite situation on some scenario map. One may have to appropriately edit some external support file to accomplish this. Quite a few such files are text-formatted. To this effect, not much of technical expertise is usually required. In any case, once again, the "researcher" observes PGF engine's response.

Level 3: A "researcher" may commit the... sacrilege of hex-editing PGF's executable. So far, I'm one of two posters who "publicly" admitted to having done exactly that. After hexadecimal... surgery, always hoping for the best, the "researcher" observes PGF engine's response.

By the way, I don't consider PGF's AI to be a logical part of the wargame's play system itself. The AI module just emulates a human player's behavior; for better or worse... All play is supposed to take place within the confines of just one and the same underlying, "complex board wargame".

Finally, there's PGF's Online Library which I'm curating. "Advanced" content design activities within the context of PGF's underlying, "complex board wargame" can hardly be technically innovative and successful in the absence of reliable documentation.

[HexCode]

Elsewhere in THIS PGF forum:

Or maybe he wasn't thinking at all. Or maybe he was thinking too much. Both processes lead to the same result - he wrote some illogical crap.

1) I like a man with a good sense of humor; especially the self deprecating kind.

2) Given the "seriousness" of many posts, what the heck, [EPH] territory can certainly accommodate the "hobby's" Lighter Side.

3) The "Open Mike" topic hosted within the "Pub" already contains quite a few posts focusing on wargaming's Lighter Side as well.

For the curious, here's an exhaustive listing:

[OMK] Chess Café
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=150#p7405

[OMK] Roman Affairs
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7540

[OMK] Political Passions
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7546

[OMK] Only the Stupid... Reveal
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7566

[OMK] You Cheaters, You
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7569

[OMK] Kill, Kill, Kill
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7588

[OMK] I Dare You, Pull That Trigger
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7596

[OMK] Give Me Something Else
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7605

[OMK] Deep Satisfaction
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7610

[OMK] Generals: A Dime a Dozen
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7622

[OMK] People At... War
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7640

[OMK] Racial... Preoccupations
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7643

[OMK] Historically Counterfactual Narratives
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7656

[OMK] Role-Playing, History & Political Ideology
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7675

[OMK] I Hate You, Period
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=200#p7679

[OMK] After Hours Wargaming Preoccupations
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=250#p8834

[OMK] Broom Stick & Baklava
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=250#p8884

[OMK] Baklava Invasion
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=300#p9086

[OMK] The Meaning of... Soup
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=300#p9380

[EPH] Paraphrased Movie Dialogue...
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174&start=200#p12629

[Lettos]

OG and PGF...

3) From my perspective, PGF's play system essentially represents the "alpha" version of SSI's 5-Star General paradigm. OG represents the "omega" version.

The sequence of Air and Ground unit class movements in three games:

PGF(Conditionally proven to be almost 100%):

1. Tac Bombers
2. Level Bombers
3. Fighters
4. Recons
5. Tanks
6. Anti-aircrafts
7. ATY
8. AD
9. Infantry
10. ATG


OG (Tested based on observations in two scenarios, AI ver.0.91)

1. ATY
2. AD
3. Tac Bombers (Level Bombers not observed. Probably should be somewhere here, 3-4)
4. ??? --- TB or LB --- ???
5. INF
6. AT
7. Tanks
8. Fighters
9. Recons
10. AA
11. Couple INF and alone tank


PG1

0... sometimes one ATY unit (this step often is missed)

1-3. Definitely: Tac Bombers, Level Bombers and Fighters, in mixed order

4. Definitely: ATY (Self-propelled often but not always shots first)

The next block is much more complicated and cannot be structured in all accuracy:

5. Definitely: Tanks (approx. about two-thirds of their total number) (looks as more expensive or more INI units very often shots first)
6. AD (almost all) (and somewhere here, may be before AD or after, AA)
7. One-two INF units
8. All Recons
9. Almost all of the remaining tanks
10. Definitely: all AT
11. Remaining AD (and AA?) (this step can be missed)
12. Definitely: Last remaining tank units with the smallest tank INI/or price. (not investigated)
13. Sometimes one-two INF units.

What we have is what we have. It's not funny and it's not sad. It's just that the AI who doesn't know what units are as objects on the map, doesn't assess their importance in the complex for attack or defense, but just shoots according to a simple or more cunning scheme.