PGF: "Ephemeral" Posts - Questions & Commentary

[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.

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.

I assumed that:

In general, it turns out to be very useful to play the same scenario at different AI levels playing for both sides and, if possible, in all three games: PG1, PGF and OG.
I guess I should have some serious fun with the Stalingrad scenario for this purpose.
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=470&start=50#p10048

In three games - PGF, OG, PG1 played scenario Stalingrad. AXIS = AI, Allied = Human.
Standard settings, both sides 100% PP. In PG1 - Medium.
PGF and PG1 scenarios are the same. The adapted OG scenario (tested in ver.0.91) has minor differences. As far as we will see, these differences do not affect the experiment to test different AIs.

Number of turns to win Allied:
PGF - 8, OG - 8-9, PG1 - 12-13.

The easy part was winning at PGF.

Slightly harder to beat in the OG. It's possible that this is due to some tuning of the standard scenario. But I didn't see any fundamental difference in their behavior.
Yes, of course, the order of movement of unit classes is different. But on the battlefield this different order in one case gives the AI some "smartness", and in the other - illogical stupidity.

The hardest thing was to win in PG1.

The main reason is the actions of the AI aviation.
In PGF and OG I destroyed all AI aviation by about turn 5. In PG1 one very strong AI fighter was still flying by the time I won.
The AI AXIS aviation in PG1 sees the whole map. The AI immediately attacks my fighters from turn 1. The AI was finishing off my fighters that had flown to the rear airfields.
The AI bought new planes. It wasn't very painful, but still, these new purchases did me some damage.
A less significant reason was the more appropriate actions of the ground units. They sometimes even had a sort of "complex interaction".

Shouldn't we open a thread dedicated to AI?
The purpose of such a branch is a preliminary discussion of the principles of the new AI in PGF2100.

I've formulated it this way for myself:
Do you want the AI to "think" the "right" way? Understand how you think during the game, and explain it to the AI in a language he understands.
Understand how you think in the game ...

[HexCode]

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".

I believe a very important bifurcation can be made here which can streamline posting:

1) PGF's underlying, "complex board wargame" needs to be further "researched".

2) PGF's AI Module needs to be "experimented with" further.

Shouldn't we open a thread dedicated to AI? The purpose of such a branch is a preliminary discussion of the principles of the new AI in PGF2100. I've formulated it this way for myself:
Do you want the AI to "think" the "right" way? Understand how you think during the game, and explain it to the AI in a language he understands. Understand how you think in the game ...

A) I think that a topic strictly dedicated to AI Module behavioral matters has long been overdue "around here". I just may do something about it !

B) To my knowledge, there's only one Programmer in the 5-Star General "emulation universe" who has bothered to code successive versions of AI for his wargame. I'm talking about OG, of course. If I'm not mistaken, AI Version 3.0 is the latest. It seems to me that posting wishes & ideas in the wargame-appropriate forum may be more meaningful than contemplating the appearance of some capable and dedicated programmer to appear out of the blue circa year 2100 !

[HexCode]

Preliminaries

From time to time, and certainly not exclusively in these forums, one comes across posts directly or indirectly berating "philosophy". What such posts focus on is the rather widely held belief that wargames should just be played, period. Well, this is PGF's second decade. I'll certainly make no apologies for heavily focusing on Veteran Modders (qua Veteran Players) and intending to continue doing so in the future.

PGF's Underlying Play System

PGF sports an underlying, complex board wargame. All play is subordinated to it.

[ADV] Advanced Play System Commentary
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=470

is dedicated to the identification of the play system's finer points. Eventually, such information will be incorporated into PGF's Online Library.

PGF's AI Module

Players may use, misuse or even... abuse PGF's play system. PGF's AI Module is a player; a special one at that ! Why ? Well, human players tend to be adaptive learners. To boot, they can be persuaded to observe certain "House Rules". Unfortunately, this isn't the case with PGF's AI. There's no reasoning with it. Simply put, if a content designer wishes that the AI abstain from engaging in certain behaviors or "consider" engaging in some others, he will have to force compliance. That's where the topic

[AI] Observations, Wishes & Practical Solutions
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=597

comes in.

SSI's Parlance / Terminology

By the way, SSI's parlance specifically developed within the context of its flagship content is not necessarily... sacrosanct ! There're all kinds of custom content, some almost begging for a markedly different terminology... For example, there's no more "PGF" in my private modding "universe". It's been replaced by "CDP"; Content Design Platform. Relatedly, all technical references to "PG" have been replaced by "DP" etc...

[Lettos]

Preliminaries

From time to time, and certainly not exclusively in these forums, one comes across posts directly or indirectly berating "philosophy". What such posts focus on is the rather widely held belief that wargames should just be played, period. Well, this is PGF's second decade. I'll certainly make no apologies for heavily focusing on Veteran Modders (qua Veteran Players) and intending to continue doing so in the future.

I can't say anything definite about "philosophy"... just an example:

I recently had the opportunity to talk to a young man of 27 old who is into computer games like "hit him over the head with an axe and buy another axe".
I asked, "what do you know about the war that took place in this area where you live?"
He: "I didn't study well. It's... I know, the Cold War."
Me: "No, the 'hot' one".
He: "I don't know anything. It must have been a long time ago. It's more important to remember what you had for dinner yesterday."

This is already a big part of the big problem.

The territory of the grognards will soon, at best, be limited to the grognards themselves. In doing so, they should not be sick and distracted by other extraneous things like viruses, heat, making money, gardening, etc.
I'm not going to tell anyone at all about some war that once was.

But how to get out of a stalemate is another big part of the same big problem.

[HexCode]

# Lettos #

Your last post would have been great had it appeared under "Open Mike". However, this catchall topic will do as well.

"Grognards" have long been seen as hobbyists very much focused on historical details. I'm talking stuff that Ph.D. theses' in military history are made out of.

Your conversation with the young guy points to a very "serious" problem that transcends wargaming. It's a civilizational manifestation mightily abetted by globalism. To make a long story short, globalism abhors... history; unless some historical narrative can be seen as heralding the "inevitable" triumph of globalism, of course. Actually, this is not entirely new territory. For instance, hefty doses of historical determinism were all the rage in yesteryear's Soviet historical narratives.

[HexCode]

# Lettos #

Because I want to keep the [AI] topic focused on PGF's current AI Module realities, I'm responding in here.

If the task is to create a really adequate AI, PGF is interesting as a testbed, but no more. It is convenient to work when you know the amoeba's reaction to a stimulus . . . What I see in PGF, OG, PG1 shows that the AI was of little interest to the creators of these games at all. But I think two years ago Luis outlined the theme - working on the AI. All those standard algorithms that can be developed within PGF can be transferred to any 5-star game with roots in SSI . . . And coding is a purely practical task, after all... if only there were something to code.

To my knowledge, there's only one programmer in the 5-Star General "emulation universe" who has bothered to code successive versions of AI for his wargame. I'm talking about OG, of course. If I'm not mistaken, AI Version 3.0 is the latest. It seems to me that posting wishes & ideas in the wargame-appropriate forum may be more meaningful than contemplating the appearance of some capable and dedicated programmer to appear out of the blue circa year 2100 !

Seriously, why not make a... grand entrance in OG programmer's backyard ? "Things" have been rather quiet over there.

You specifically concluded:

What I see in PGF, OG, PG1 shows that the AI was of little interest to the creators of these games at all.

There's a delicious irony here. More often than not, developers / programmers of computer wargames have been "accused" by board wargamers of being careless, even unimaginative, regarding the underlying play systems' logical consistency and overall representational quality. Part of the critique (unfortunately often having degenerated into outright criticism) focused on "excessive" resources being spent instead on:

A) cosmetic "bells & whistles"; and

B) AI Module development, especially given the universally resultant, poor performance.

[HexCode]

# Radoye #

Once again, because I want to keep the [AI] topic focused on PGF's current AI Module realities, I'm responding in here.

Strictly hypothetically speaking - it might be possible to hack the PGF.exe with some hex editing where it calls its decision making routines to redirect this call to an entirely external module programmed from scratch, by-passing the current AI altogether. The new routine would have to be coded so that it accepts exactly the same input parameters and returns exactly the same type of output as the original one, but the "black box" of decision making within could be whatever we want.

This all would have to be in an external executable file of some sort - either as a separate module that is called from the current .exe or as a wrapper .exe that is actually running the current .exe within itself.

Again, it's a matter of available time and resources (and of course technical knowledge)

The concept of externalizing the AI Module has been around for awhile. After all, there's a rather good reason why the term "Module" has often been used over the years.

Theoretically speaking, here's a line from Coppola's "Godfather II":

Very difficult but not impossible !

NOW:

A) Given that we're talking about a "deeply retro" game, fewer and fewer hobbyists with adequate programming skills would be willing to even consider touching it with the inexorable passage of time.

B) Externalizing an AI module without the benefit of the main executable's source code would be akin to coding in... hell !

C) I wonder if someone would volunteer to just ask OG's programmer whether OG's AI Modules are truly externalized as opposed to residing within OG's engine. For rather "esoteric" reasons, I can't do it myself...

[HexCode]

One can usefully view SSI's flagship content as the ideal content to be "shoehorned" into PGF's play system. This is hardly surprising. PGF's play system is an extremely close variant of SSI PG1-DOS' play system. Specifically, SSI's programmers coded PG1's and AG's play systems to directly address the obvious, practical requirement that SSI's flagship content be eminently playable under SSI's play systems.

What about custom content, though ? How easy or difficult is it to "shoehorn" such content into PGF's play system ? There's a pretty good rule of thumb here. Namely, the more some custom content deviates from SSI flagship content's paradigm the more challenging it is to "shoehorn" such content into PGF's play system.

[Lettos]

In the sequel, I'll use a particular type of custom content to contrast "things".

SSI's flagship content is "historically themed". Currently, the possibility of "shoehorning" "hardnosed historically defensible" (HHD) content into PGF's play system is being actively discussed elsewhere in this forum. Irrespective of whether feasibility can practically be demonstrated, I can safely predict that the requisite "shoehorning" won't be a walk in the park; far from it.

Agree! This content cannot be inserted into the SSI model!
Or rough assumptions are required - we look at this with one eye closed, the other with almost both eyes closed

On the other hand, I have, for the sake of curiosity, looked and played a bit in various PG1/PGF/OG scenarios from many modders, compared to which WAW by Radoye looks much more historical.

I can explain my criterion for historicity in a few sentences:
I don't want to see victory won by King Tiger II super tanks.
I want to achieve unit specialization on the battlefield.
I don't want to see victories by repeatedly replenishing my units during the scenario.

If the unit parameters exclude all the miracles so beloved by gamers...
About miracles.
By the way, there is such a miracle tank KV-2 in World of Tanks, and there is a video, where one gamer uses this miracle weapon in the most effective way in the game, at full speed turning the turret and firing right and left at an angle of 90 degrees to the movement.
In reality such firing led to complete jamming of the turret's swivel mechanism, and an instruction to tankers was issued that prohibited firing from the tank on the move with turret rotation of more than 13-15 degrees (I do not remember exactly. Looks 13 degrees) in relation to the direction of movement.
Well, gamers race their tanks by jumping over pumpkins, jumping off bridges... playing with toys for 5-year-olds.

But PGF/OG isn't WOT, is it, like, something more serious?

Even these new maps, which can be drawn very accurately it's not really the main thing about historicity.
Well, 35 maps will be created for the Barbarossa scenario and an independent jury will choose the top three. And then what happens? Draw a 36th Barbarossa map?

All these "historically" drawn maps will sooner or later become familiar to the last hole and bush and... boring.
How many times can you fight on the same map?

We are still a long way from this stage of gourmet saturation, but ... doing something, it's not bad to look a little further ahead.

Looking ahead, the first thing I do is look back, so as not to reinvent the wheel, and think of a game like Warlords II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlords_II
Remember there was such a Random map creator?
I really liked the way it worked!

You could set the percentage of forests, mountains, rivers, the number of cities and the game would draw a new map. One or more islands, roads, clear terrain. What more could a virtual strategist need? Naval and airborne troops, a navy battles, a lot of space for tanks, fortified garrisons in ports and mountains, and a sophisticated plan to outflank the enemy and jam his uber units into his capital or a major city, which is also a Supply center.

Take our well-configured historically true PGF/OG units, and place them on good-quality Random map. There will be a hundred times more historicity there than PG1 scenario Ardennes from SSI with King Tiger I/II as new model of extreme good snowmobiles.

SSI's main marketing target was customers who love to play campaigns. This was also the case with PGF's programmer. However, from a content "shoehorning" perspective, campaigns are just derivative manifestations of scenarios. When it comes to HHD content, the key issue is whether such scenarios can individually be "shoehorned" into PGF's play system.

SSI's main concern was to offer its customer base an "acceptable" AI; ditto for PGF's programmer. However, when it comes to HHD content, PGF's AI may not be up to snuff. In other words, a human playing the "shoehorned" content against PGF's AI Module may conclude that the goings on are unacceptably, historically counterfactual. By the way, PGF's AI is absolutely the worst possible opponent to have in instances where retrograde Kriegsspiel constraints loom large.

SSI cannot be faulted for somehow having ignored H2H play. They didn't. They gave the hobby both PBEM and an Online Play Mode. In contrast, PGF's programmer just focused on an Online Play Mode. What does all this have to do with "shoehorning" content ? Well, it may just turn out that all the great "shoehorning" in the world won't be enough to "rescue" HHD content involving PGF's AI Module. H2H play may be the only way to go.

There is one problem with H2H mode. There is one problem with H2H mode. We are too busy, and it is unlikely that we will be able to think about the next turn in the evenings for three weeks.
But the H2H mode will be extremely useful during the final debugging phase of the AI's Alpha version

[HexCode]

# Lettos # & # Radoye #

Participants

By now, it's rather obvious that almost all challenging discussions in this forum will involve just the three of us. To this effect, whenever appropriate, I'll be addressing you as "gentlemen".

Full Disclosure

Although I don't consider myself to be a practicing "grognard", I've had plenty of experience interacting with "grognards" within the context of board wargaming; playing as well as rewriting play rules.

[OMK] Yesteryear's Atlantic Wall...
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=50#p2409

should give you some idea about my wargaming activities in the distant past...

A Key Conceptual Difference

Board wargames came with rules, of course. However, whether the title author was the "great" James Dunnigan or not, the rules were just a starting point. "Grognards" invariably changed them to suit their perceptions of historical realities as well as to (hopefully ) enhance playability. No "shoehorning" of "anything" into "anything" was taking place. Key observation: the wargame's author didn't stand in the way of anyone. Frankly, he was irrelevant.

PGF is a computer wargame. Although its programmer himself isn't standing in the way of the "hobby", his wargame title certainly does. The underlying, complex board wargame resides in the source code and, by technical extension, in its hexadecimal manifestation (i.e., the executable). To boot, the source code isn't in the public domain. It's here where "shoehorning" custom content becomes critical. Unlike yesteryear's "grognards" who had full freedom to do anything they pleased with their board wargames, computer "grognards" are forced to always look over their shoulders to the "dictatorially imposed" play systems residing within computer wargames.

Degrees of Historicity

First, a couple of relevant paragraphs coming to us by courtesy of Father Time's Jurassic archives:

THE WHOLE AND ITS PARTS

In some "extreme" hobby quarters, no wargame is "historically legitimate" unless all of its aspects are individually, "historically legitimate". To boot, if any "important" aspect is just missing, well, this invalidates the wargame title as a whole...

THE "FETISHISM" OF SOME PART(S)

Quite a few hobbyists choose to almost exclusively focus only on a few wargame aspects in attempting to either find or induce "historicity". They aren't very much bothered by (many ?) other title aspects that may also be "historically questionable".

Not being a "currently practicing grognard", I'm not bothered at all by the so called "fetishism"... In fact, I consider historicity degrees to be quite acceptable within the context of wargame playability.

Take our well-configured historically true PGF/OG units, and place them on good-quality Random map. There will be a hundred times more historicity there than PG1 scenario Ardennes from SSI

This is a most important statement. It opens up the discussion in an unexpectedly refreshing way. My next post will deal with the above statement's far reaching implications.

At this point, I kindly ask you to take a quick look here:

[OPN] Six "Computer Somethings"
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=503#p8278

[HexCode]

gentlemen,

5 Star General Wargames: What Did "Grognards" Do ?

In the immediately preceding post, I wrote a bit about historicity degrees. My own experience informs me that each wargamer has his very own pet "red lines" (or none at all ) that he's not willing to cross. Long time ago, a certain "grognard" wargamer segment decided that 5 Star General wargames were "beer & pretzels toys". Consequently, these "grognards" have kept their distance. However, other wargamers decided to attempt to turn "beer & pretzels toys" into reasonably, but subjectively... respectable, historical gaming experiences. Historically, the "red lines" associated with 5 Star General wargames (and their emulations) had very little to do with the play systems per se. Rather, it was the Developers' Efiles (e.g., unit stats) which bothered the hell out of some wargamers. Over the years, unsurprisingly, a lot of effort went into refashioning those Efiles so as to render them and only them historically meaningful to wargamers who saw historicity problems in them. All these efforts involved certain wargamers seeking to establish a priori historicity in a very targeted sense. Equally important, as long as some such "reconstructed" Efile didn't cross any "red lines" perceived by some content designer or player, the said wargamers could very well invoke these "acceptable" Efiles in scenarios and campaigns of their choosing.

Any Other "Red Lines" or Concerns ?

This is where "things" become really interesting !

The issue of map scale consistency comes up from time to time. A perceived "red line" has to do with the aimed for (?) historicity connection between any Efile and the relevant scenario map(s) where play would be unfolding. Once again, this isn't something that springs directly from the play system(s) per se. Practically speaking, it just poses a very real question: "Hey content designer; how far are you willing to go in generating maps, all as per the same fixed scale ?"

Now, wargamers who may have some concerns regarding historicity are also players. What if they are truly "hooked" on the the 5th "computer something" (i.e., computer-glorified) ? If so, these hobbyists may not want to touch any custom content which takes them away from their "glorious generalship"... It follows, then, that custom content which doesn't feature, say, Berlin or Moscow, may be outright rejected. On the face of it, such rejections might be explained as historicity "red lines", right ? Personally, I believe that the explanations lie in the psychological realm.

Once again:

Take our well-configured historically true PGF/OG units, and place them on good-quality Random map. There will be a hundred times more historicity there than PG1 scenario Ardennes from SSI

Because of my current, ahistorical wargaming orientation, I consider # Lettos' # reference to good-quality random maps to be both welcome and refreshing. However, if a wargamer is "hooked" on historical maps (never mind scale consistency now), he wouldn't want to touch such play. He would be having a hard time psyching himself up to serve as a "General of... Something Random".

In fact, it might get... "worse". PGF's play system clearly supports quite a bit of weaponry differentiation. As such, divisions better be represented by collections of specialized component units. If one were to place himself in charge of just one such division throughout an entire campaign, how could he... singlehandedly take Berlin / Moscow etc ? Well, quite a few auxiliary units will have to be present as well. This takes us to nearly Standalone Scenario Play Mode territory...

Finally, what about "typical engagements in unspecified locations somewhere on some specified front" ? This isn't unknown wargaming territory, far from it. Fifty years ago, "Panzerblitz" did exactly that. Ok, how about contemporary PGF fans ? Would they be interested in achieving "glory in unspecified locations" ? I mean, PGF's play system literally begs for battalion / company size units. Yet, SSI's flagship content has been pushing the "big stuff". I've made up my mind about all this many years ago. It's up to each PGF aficionado to do the same and live with consequences.

[Radoye]

Speaking only in my own name, my personal "fetish" is the eqp file, but more in the sense of coming up with a set of formulas which would allow me to calculate stuff that was not included in the original SSI eqp file so that it can stand side by side with the stuff that is already there. If it requires the original content to be recalculated under the new formulas, so be it - as long as everything is in relation to everything else, and the resulting set of statistics is within the same ballpark with the original SSI (not necessarily identical, but thereabouts).

Since my goal is to expand the PGF world to include all sorts of often overlooked "small" nations with their exotic and outdated equipment i need to have a way to model all of that without breaking the integrity of the eqp file as such. One possible approach could be to just wing it and pull the stats out of thin air, but i prefer a bit more "scientific" approach. People are free to disagree with my choices and to try to change my mind if they can put up a good enough argument.

[HexCode]

# Radoye #

... my personal "fetish" is the eqp file . . . the resulting set of statistics is within the same ballpark with the original SSI (not necessarily identical, but thereabouts).

Ok, one doesn't have to read much in between these quoted lines. As a designer qua play tester qua player, you're interested in crafting material along the lines of SSI flagship content's paradigm (e.g., WaW). Playing such content under one and the same equipment file is very important to you. Basically, you unapologetically place your pet "fetish" in a priori historicity territory. On top, you're trying not to deviate too too much from SSI's equipment file(s). Allow me, then, to identify two "red lines" of yours:

a) A bunch of your scenarios, even campaigns, better be played using one and the same equipment file; yours, or... else !

b) Your equipment file's stats better be reasonably close to SSI's or... else !

I hope I've done a reasonable job further "clarifying" key content design preferences of yours.

...my personal "fetish" . . . coming up with a set of formulas which would allow me to calculate stuff that was not included in the original SSI eqp file so that it can stand side by side with the stuff that is already there. If it requires the original content to be recalculated under the new formulas, so be it, and as long as everything is in relation to everything else

This is strictly a methodological concern "internal" to your content design process. Will most players be interested in or appreciate this... "fetish" ? I doubt it. BUT, I am. Why ? Well, I'm a Cartésien wargamer. A play system's internal consistency is very important to me. Therefore, it's only natural that I view and appreciate your methodology as a meaningful Cartésien exercise.

Now, I can only speak for myself here. Why is it that Cartésien approaches to wargaming turn my crank ? It's a deeply seated aesthetic preference of mine.

Clearly, Cartésien preferences can serve as powerful "red lines".

Since my goal is to expand the PGF world to include all sorts of often overlooked "small" nations with their exotic and outdated equipment i need to have a way to model all of that without breaking the integrity of the eqp file as such. One possible approach could be to just wing it and pull the stats out of thin air, but i prefer a bit more "scientific" approach.

Because you're dealing with quantitative data, interpolation may be the way to go in some instances. You see, adding records to your equipment file certainly expands it. BUT, from the standpoint of the unit stats that each such additional record sports this isn't exactly terra incognita. Judicious, relative comparisons may be all that's needed.

P.S. Remember; technically, PGF's engine cannot deal with combatant nationality index values exceeding 255 ...

[Radoye]

Allow me, then, to identify two "red lines" of yours:

a) A bunch of your scenarios, even campaigns, better be played using one and the same equipment file; yours, or... else !

b) Your equipment file's stats better be reasonably close to SSI's or... else !

Nah, not really. I actually encourage people to take my stuff and modify it to their liking. I first got into modding by tinkering with other people's work and maybe some new generation of PGF modder is equally inspired by what i've been doing and join the fun.

Or, as one of my favorite musicians Mike Watt says at the end of every concert - "Start your own band!"

As for b) - not necessarily, but i just find it easier to build upon something which i already know works reasonably well rather than go too far down a different path only to find out it goes nowhere.

That doesn't say i'm not open to experimentation and thinking out of the box. Just not experimentation for the sake of experimentation with no practical applicability.

Of course, everything can be improved, even my work , and it's OK to have different opinions and design philosophies.

And occasionally, i've been known to even listen to other people's ideas.

P.S. Remember; technically, PGF's engine cannot deal with combatant nationality index values exceeding 255 ...

I'm currently at 114, there's still some way to go!

[HexCode]

Having experimented with this topic for almost two years, I'm quite satisfied with its current forum role and overall utility.

Why Do "We" Mod ?

Easy. "We're" not making any money out of such activities, right ? Therefore:

a) The modding process per se with all the "internal" challenges it entails is sort of fun too.

b) Playing "our" very own "babies" better be fun too.

c) "We" may be getting some satisfaction knowing or merely assuming that "others out there" are playing "our babies" and actually enjoying them.

Can "We" Let "Our"... "Babies" Go ?

In the past, the issue of derivative or downstream modding has reared its beautiful / ugly head on occasion.

A) Historically, not every modder has appreciated # Radoye's # beautiful permissiveness in such matters. Personally, I'm 150% in # Radoye's # camp on this.

B) A modder's discomfort invariably manifested itself in his stubborn unwillingness to share his technical "secrets" with others...

A Matter of Taste

Some content may exhibit, say, tremendous historicity. No matter. Once the content gets "publicly" released, its "fate" will solely depend on what others may (or not) be doing with it and for whatever reasons. The "publicly" released content is the equivalent of a scenario's OoB. It's "fate" is essentially circumscribed by others (re)modding / playing it.

[newavenriquez]

...Now, even if, for whatever reasons, PGF's Online Play Mode is no longer accessible, the Discord could still be useful to H2H play fans who wish to arrange / discuss PBEM games (yes, they're doable).

Yes, online play has been gone since at least Oct 2019. PBEM is the way to go and yes the discord could be helpful for such arrangements. Text and voice are supported and new people join regularly.

[Radoye]

It has been happening precisely because of # Lettos' # presence and the responses his presence has engendered.

Indeed!

[HexCode]

Many centuries ago, Plato came up with the "Cave" allegory to illustrate the nature of human knowledge. His point was that knowledge is recollection. Oops, this isn't "Open Mike"...

A few hours ago, our Moderator reminded me of a technical nuance which I'd come across many years ago but had, since, forgotten.

SO:

A) Contrary to what some forum readers may think, I'm not a walking encyclopedia of "things" PGF, far from it.

B) PGF's underlying board wargame, operationalized via its source code, is very, very complex. Hence, it's quite impossible for one human mind to remember "everything".

C) Consequently, some PGF aficionados need access to reliable documentation to make sure they understand various "things" correctly (e.g., PGF's Online Library).

D) Active forum discussions among interested participants are essential contributions to the accumulation of knowledge regarding PGF's underlying board wargame.

At the moment, "things" PGF look rather promising; at least, "publicly" !

[Lettos]

This post has long been overdue. For some months now, anyone perusing these forums must have noticed the extraordinarily lively status of the two forums dedicated to PGF. This hasn't "somehow" been happening. It has been happening precisely because of # Lettos' # presence and the responses his presence has engendered.

Irrespective of individual hobby interests, # Lettos' # posts have triggered wide ranging investigations into virtually all of PGF's nooks and crannies. To this effect, this forum's Moderator and I have also been pitching in.

As a result:

A) PGF's Library was granted its very own forum and it's steadily expanding therein.

B) Tremendous progress has been made in identifying PGF AI Module's behaviors in great detail.

C) Many innovative ideas relevant to custom content design have been put forward and discussed; some have also been implemented.

D) PGF's play system has been put under the... microscope. Consequently, quite a few advanced features have been identified and discussed.

E) PGF game-state file's internal structure has been practically "deciphered" in its entirety.

Not bad for a... 10 year old, "abandoned" wargame.

Indeed!

Gentlemen!
What can I say in return to my friends - thank you very much for the recognition of my merits!

Please note that we work in an environment created by our collective minds. The thought of one of us causes similar thoughts to resonate, which are simultaneously different, but on the same theme. Simply put, there have already been situations here where two people, 10,000 kilometers apart, have written almost simultaneously about almost the same thing!
This kind of creative mode is not often found in work teams, so what has already been created I greatly appreciate and try to develop creatively.

[Lettos]

PGF's Unit Class Typology is hard-coded in PGF's executable. There are EIGHTEEN (18) technically "recognizable" Unit Classes (UCs).
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=547#p8995

They have numbers from 0 to 17 in Equipment file.
What happens if you assign unauthorized class numbers to units?

Here is a list of the following class names. Some classes even can attack ground targets but can't be attacked. I labelled them as A.

18 - Soft
19 - Hard - A
20 - Air
21 - Naval
--------------
22 - Track
23 - Half-track
24 - Wheel
25 - Leg
26 - Towed
27 - Air - A
28 - Naval - A
29 - All-Trn - A
30 - Amtrack
31 - Seep
32 - Mount

On the 33rd the PGF crashes.

Maybe this information can somehow help to find information in the code of the engine about the classes and the order in which they move?

[HexCode]

PGF's play system is quite agnostic when it comes to interpretations. It's content playable under PGF which provides "us" with, hopefully, plausible representations of real life phenomena.

Traditional Views

SSI PG1-DOS manual states:

Prestige rather than money is the medium of exchange in PANZER GENERAL. Prestige points represent the influence you have earned with the high command by taking . . . cities, destroying enemy units, and winning battles as quickly and decisively as possible . . . You can exchange prestige points for new units, replacements, and new equipment for existing units.

Prima Publishing's "Panzer General: The Official Strategy Guide" states:

In its simplest form, prestige may be thought of as money. It is used to either reinforce or upgrade existing units as well as to purchase new units. On a more esoteric level, it is a reflection of your abilities as a Panzer General and the faith the German High Command places in you based on your success in the field.

Commentary

1) SSI's flagship content makes it clear that a campaigning human player plays the role of a general. Never mind that quite a few video wargamers see themselves as singlehandedly winning the... electronically enabled war.

2) In my opinion, clearly separating the "general" from the "German High Command" was a smart move on SSI's part. In doing so, they "sanitized" the "general" from having some direct (uncomfortable ? ) connection to the... Third Reich / National Socialism. Similarly, the Russian "general" has absolutely nothing to do with the USSR / Communism...

3) SSI's flagship content is both pseudo-operational as well as just historically themed. It would be unreasonable for one to expect the incorporation of developed, economic aspects into it. Besides, video wargamers are known for their fixation on tactics...

4) SSI "operationalized" prestige by expressing it in "points". This is hardly controversial in hex-based, turn-based wargames. Since the beginning of board wargaming, points for "this" and points for "that" have been all the rage (e.g., ammo & fuel "points").

[HexCode]

Antipodes

Ten years or so ago, PGF's programmer posted:

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 can't imagine anyone faulting PGF's programmer for expressing such sentiments. His "market" wasn't that different from SSI's earlier one. Both "markets" were dominated by wargamers who viewed SSI's PG1 / AG titles as self-contained games, period.

It so happened that the PG1 / AG / PGF "markets" did not include wargamers such as myself. No big deal.

To date, I've been the only PGF aficionado who has ever "publicly" stated that he's been employing PGF's technical capabilities to design and play ahistorical content. Some readers may feel that this post's contents are... self-indulgent. Well, so be it. I'm the only wargamer I'm aware of who views PGF in almost exactly the opposite way than PGF's programmer and those in the "market" he was addressing. To this effect, here's my antipodal statement:

Whether it's been SSI's PG1 or # Rudankort's # PGF, the underlying playing systems have been more than adequate to support my content design and play (CD&P) interests. I view PGF's engine and external support file structures as a CD&P platform; definitely not a "game". Being a H2H play aficionado, PGF's AI Module is irrelevant to me. And yeah, PGF's play system and my content do create a fun playing experience; for me.

Prestige: My View

1) There's absolutely no role playing in my CD&P "universe". My humans are behaving like "classic" wargamers of yesteryear's board wargaming kind. Consequently, "prestige" has nothing to do with some military / political hierarchy of decision-makers.

2) "Prestige" has been renamed to "Support". Support is measured in Points. Resupplying units with Ammo / Fuel Points is free. Most other Support actions require the expenditure of Support points.

3) My custom content is Grand Tactical in scale. To this effect, economic considerations aren't directly relevant.

[Lettos]

Preliminaries

Hobbyists who visit this forum more or less regularly should already be reasonably familiar with:

a) Custom content design on the basis of "A priori historicity" versus "historicity for post facto effect".

b) The... historically observable "fetishism" of the contents of file(s) EQUIPMENT.PGEQP.

SSI's flagship content refers to the Prestige Point (PP) cost of purchasing a new unit as "Cost". Like virtually all other unit stats, this "Cost" has been focused on by content designers exhibiting "grognard" tendencies, on occasion. Invariably, their attempts have revolved around assigning monetary values of some sort to units' procurement "prices".

Commentary

1) In my opinion, it's rather futile to methodically introduce economic thinking into the determination of units' procurement "prices". PGF's play system will just... shrug at any such attempts if carried out from the vantage point of "A priori historicity".

I totally agree!

2) On the other hand, dealing with such stats from the vantage point of "historicity for post facto effect" seems reasonable to me as well as doable. Practically speaking, particular content design situations may call for "Cost" specifications appropriate to the former in a very specific sense. A few ideas / suggestions revolving around historically known relative scarcity of Unit Types follow:

A) Let such knowledge guide custom content designers in deciding whether certain Unit Types should be rendered purchasable / upgrade targets or be outright unavailable (other than being prepositioned). In the first case, a designer must determine the "Cost" value which, in his opinion, would reasonably reflect a Unit Type's scarcity applicable to that particular situation (i.e., the post facto historicity effect).

B) Whether a content designer "constructs" self-contained units or dual-mode, composite units, it may be a good idea to somehow reflect any scarcity of some underlying, constituent component in the overall unit purchase "price".

C) Depending on whether the "player" gets glorified or is just another "historical"... Joe (no, not that Georgian ), scarcity may apply to him (or not) by fully intentional design ! All this will be reflected, among other things, in the unit-related options actually available to him.

And I totally agree with that, too!

These PPs are actually scalable.
There are several scales of scale:
Explanation:
MIN - PP is almost unnecessary, we don't think about them, or we think about them last
MAX - PP is seen as a component of even the economy

MIN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MAX

Company - Battalion - Division
Single Scenario - Campaign
Game Fun - Historic

No dogma! Move the sliders on these scales according to your personal preference.

[Lettos]

In the SSI game Universe, the units of the two opponents always fight equally bravely.

Regardless of whether the course of battle leads to imminent defeat, even in the most fantastic game scenario.
Regardless of historical reality, that is, the specific period of the war, the general strategic situation, etc.
In the case of the game, such uniformity of morality leads to a predictable result. Even the fact that at the end of the scenario 10 supercats will kill a thousand stupid counter-attacking mice is also a predictable result... For which the author of the scenario is already prepared, and is forced to take into account the inevitable rapid increase in the EXP of his units, and the increase in his PP. The logic of the scenario is based on the same typical player behavior - gather all his cats in as large a crowd as possible by the end of the scenario and take the last fortress of mice.

In the case of a historical scenario, sometimes it is simply impossible to make it truly historical.

A very typical example is the invasion of the Netherlands in 1940.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_in ... etherlands
Look at the strength of the opposing forces and the losses.
It is impossible to do that on the SSI playing field.

Now I'm going to dream a little about PGF2100. If there was a "Morale" parameter that would set the unit's "self-destruction" threshold when the STR decreases to some value?
After all, the real smart commanders necessarily took into account the morale of their troops and the enemy troops!

From War Journal of Franz Halder http://militera.lib.ru/db/0/pdf/halder_eng6.pdf

28 June 1941
What strikes one in all these battles is the singularly small number of prisoners compared with the large booty (including fuel), e.g. 35,000 prisoners along with 1,300 tanks.

29 June 1941
Reports from all fronts confirm previous indications that the Russians are fighting to the last man. Sometimes treacherous methods are used, especially where Mongolians are among the troops (Sixth Army, Ninth Army). A singular note is, that as a rule only very few soldiers are taken with captured Battrys, etc. Some let themselves be killed, while others run away, get rid or their uniforms and try to make their way back as "peasants". Morale of our troops everywhere is described as very good, also where they had to go through hard fighting

Gen.Ott (Inf.) reports in particular on his impressions on the battlefield of Grodno. Now, for once, our troops are compelled, by stubborn Russian resistance, to fight according to their combat manuals. In Poland and in the West they could take liberties, but here they cannot get away with it.

Bidermann, G.H., ... und litt an meiner Seite!. Krim—Kurland mit der 132. Infanterie-Division 1941-45. — Selbstverlag, 1995. RU edition: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/german/bidermann_gh/05.html

Translated by DEEPL

Chapter 5.
As we began our campaign against the Soviet Union, we found ourselves face to face with an unpredictable enemy whose actions, resistance, or loyalty could not be foreseen or even appreciated. At times we encountered the fanatical resistance of a handful of soldiers who fought to the last cartridge and, even after exhausting all their supplies, refused to surrender. It happened that we had before us an enemy who surrendered in droves, offering little resistance, and for no apparent reason. When the captives were interrogated, it turned out that these variables had little to do with education, place of birth, or political leanings. The common peasant resisted desperately, while the trained military commander surrendered immediately after contact with us. The next skirmish showed just the opposite, though no system or explicit reason was seen.

But how does one take into account such a complex psychological factor as morality, especially in distant hindsight?
No psychology. Only real combat statistics.

War Journal of Franz Halder http://militera.lib.ru/db/0/pdf/halder_eng4.pdf

12 June 1940
17:00 Report received that IX French Corps, which was cut off on the coast near St.Vallery, has surrendered after heavy fighting. Together with their troops were captured the CG of IX Corps and the Commanders of the French 40th, 31st Mt., Second and Fifth Light Divs., as well as a British general. Bloody casualities of the enemy are very high. 20,000 prisoners have been counted up to noon; immense booty.

Four divisions = a minimum of 40,000 men. 20,000 of them surrendered. Self-decay threshold = 0.4-0.5. And here is an example of the bravest French units!

How to determine the self-destruction threshold of Red Army units in the 1941 battles described above is unknown. Some units fought to the last soldier and some surrendered almost immediately. I.e. 0.1-0.9.

This is very interesting! This leads to the idea that the threshold should not be fixed for all units, but rather the average value should be heavily modified by randoms.

In the setting of the France'40 PGF2100 scenario, this could look like this:
Morale AXIS = 0.1 (Unit will not self-destruct until STR=1)
Morale modifier AXIS = +/- 0 (no random changes)
Morale Allied = 0.6
Morale modifier AXIS = +/- 0.2 (randomly changed for each unit)

That is, in case we want to leave everything classically unchanged, as for AXIS in this example, we can do it.

Should the player be able to see his troops' morale?
Yes, he does.

Must the player see the morale of each enemy unit?
Only those units that the player's unit has made contact with. And the morale should not be shown very accurately. So, roughly.

Can there be a morale bonus?
Yes. If a unit has its own unit nearby. Add Morale!
In SSI games we see Surrenders in situations where a unit is surrounded by friendly units. But in war, such a unit, seeing its neighboring heroes, is less likely to want to surrender. But a unit alone somewhere far away in the woods is much more likely to be tempted to scatter into the bushes.

Can I influence the morale of my troops before starting a scenario?
Yes. Spend PP on propaganda.

Can I influence enemy troop morale before the start of a scenario?
You do not need to do that. Attempts at propaganda sometimes can lead to the opposite result.

Can basic morale change during a scenario?
Logically, yes. The number of VHs occupied by the enemy, or conversely, held in defense, should somehow affect overall morale.
It doesn't have to change morale significantly at all.
It wouldn't necessarily be a drop in morale. Sometimes it can be a gain. This can be done by randoms - say, losing half a VH will cause morale to drop by 0.2 75% of the time, and morale to increase by 0.2 25% of the time. Etc.

A field for experimentation with Waffen SS troops, Japanese kamikazes, commissars, and just plain cowardly or brave soldiers.

[Radoye]

SSI Pacific General had a nice feature called unit special abilities. Beside regular unit stats you could assign a special ability to a unit in the eqp file which would make it able to do something differently compared to a more plain unit of the same class. Some of these added AA support fire, some added movement bonuses, some were "on" all the time while others could be switched on/off... But two of these were quite interesting from the perspective of describing high morale elite units. One ("Fearless") prevented the unit from withdrawing and surrendering - they always fought until death. The other ("Banzaii") when invoked sacrificed unit's defensive stats and added them to their attack stats, creating an unit which could perform overwhelming attacks against the enemy but at the price of heavy losses to itself. Combining these with regular unit stats (INIT, HA/SA, GD/AD) allowed to distinguish between different tiers of units from the super elite ("high morale") to disorganized rabble ("low morale").

I understand this is not exactly what is being discussed here (you're proposing a Morale value in the sense of a current state of any particular unit rather than a stat defined in the eqp file, so more like current strength or entrenchment level or how much ammo / fuel remains), which would certainly be a nice addition to the play system. Also, good point on the bonus an unit should receive if surrounded by friendlies (and lose if surrounded by enemy).

[HexCode]

When it comes to board wargames, there's no a priori limit to how many features a play system may sport. Practically speaking though, at some "cumulative" point, a board wargame may become, well, unplayable. In any case, it doesn't take much for interested wargamers to morph a board wargame's skeleton into a full fledged Content Design & Play Platform (CD&PP).

Computer wargames are quite different. Obviously, programmers always have the last word on play system features to be included / excluded. Way more importantly, not every programmer is even remotely interested in coding in support of a wargaming CD&PP worth its salt.

Earlier under this topic, a few posts appeared drawing some parallels between PGF and OG. Let me continue on this tack a bit:

a) Compared to OG, PGF was essentially coded as a self-contained wargame, period. It's programmer spent a couple of years on it and then moved on for good. On the other hand, OG has been in development for at least 10 years and continues being so. It's programmer is still "around".

b) When it comes to PGF, any requests for adding / modifying play system features fall on... deaf ears. In contrast, OG's programmer has been continually enriching the wargame's play system by actively interacting with hobbyists proposing additions / modifications of all sorts to OG's play system.

c) Content designers under PGF have no other option but to squeeze every ounce out of its existing play system in order to model a diverse set of "situations". Relatively speaking, content designers under OG just have to... talk to the wargame's programmer.

d) With respect to content design, whether certain "oldtimers" consider OG to be OPG2 or not dosn't make much of a practical difference. The plethora of tactical features gradually incorporated into OG's play system de facto render it very supportive of CD&PP activities. Similarly, the fixation of most PG1 / AG / PGF aficionados on the self-contained games themselves makes absolutely no difference to the activities of content designers under PGF. They just keep on doing their "thing".

P.S. Speaking of Parallel "Universes", I still haven't found a practical way to incorporate Mr. Spock's goatee and the globe vertically pierced through by a sword (i.e., original Star Trek series images) into my private design "universe"...

[Lettos]

I put a 1941 Wehrmacht tank division on the battlefield against two infantry divisions of the first wave (model 1935-1941) . The exercise was conducted on a battalion scale.
Unit STR=10 equals:
INF = an infantry battalion of 700 men
Tanks = company (20 tanks)
ATY and ATG = 12 guns
Recon = 1 Recon battalion

Standard Equipment file used

A tank division consisted of units:
1 PzIVD
3 PzIIIE
3 PzIIA
3 Pak 37mm
1 HW40
1 HW40 emulating motorcycle battalion
3 Wer39
2 10.5 Gun
1 15.0 Gun STR12
1 Recon

Infantry Division
9 Wer39
3 7.5 guns
1 10.5 guns
1 Recon
3 Pak 37mm
Two such INF divisions were deployed.

All infantry and artillery units without transports. Troops are lined up in two or three "long" lines like the battles of Antiquity. That is, a primitive echelon formation is created.

Exercise rules: No unit reinforcements. Supply allowed. A tank division is active, advancing. The game is played in H2H in Auto-Hot-Seat mode.

In military operational plans it was usually assumed that an armored division was equal to 2-3 infantry divisions.
The results of "military exercises" show that a tank division at the battalion level of the PGF is not capable of defeating even two infantry divisions in 10 turns.
What is left of the tank division on turn 10 has no chance of victory.
That is, two infantry divisions are guaranteed to win or hold their defenses for much longer than 10 turns.

Note: I did exercises and one tank division against one infantry division. A tank division wins in eight or nine turns. But what is left of the tank division would no longer be capable of defeating another infantry division.

These Army exercises are somewhat biased and subjective.
But the reasons for the inconsistency between the game model and the real situation seem to be as follows at this point:
- The inability to move a tank division's artillery to the right place in combat. Limited by Towed MVT=1.
- Low mobility of the tank division's infantry.
Providing the infantry and artillery of a tank division with Organic transport does not, in my subjective opinion, lead to victory in any way. On the contrary, it could very likely cause even greater losses of infantry, ATG, and tanks (when attacked by enemy ATGs).
- I would not draw any conclusions about the underestimation of SA tanks yet. Because the game looks classically flawed - tanks break through enemy defenses, but infantry of the tank division can't support them in the breakthrough because of low mobility. Transporting on trucks or armored personnel carriers, again, will only result in the infantry of a tank division being attacked in a transport position, and never being there, next to the tanks, where it is needed as a motorized unit.

All this must be tested in experiments.

1) For example, do the same thing, but in the mode Human Tank division vs AI 2 INF divisions.
2) Try to change MVT parameters of motorized infantry and artillery.
3) It is possible that the ATY parameters are now overestimated. Or one division of three batteries (3 x 4 guns) may not be a STR=10 unit.
4) It is possible that the parameters of tanks are now underestimated.

Otherwise, the game implements the model of almost all armies of the world in 1939, except for that particular army of the Wehrmacht, which was the first in the world to understand the difference between motorized infantry versus transported infantry. And I'm not just talking about the usual Human vs AI mode, but to the same extent about the H2H mode as well.

And only by adjusting the battle model of ground units, you can introduce the impact of aviation. Otherwise we get just a hodgepodge of unanalyzable impact factors.

[HexCode]

In military operational plans it was usually assumed that an armored division was equal to 2-3 infantry divisions. The results of "military exercises" show that a tank division at the battalion level of the PGF is not capable of defeating even two infantry divisions in 10 turns. What is left of the tank division on turn 10 has no chance of victory. That is, two infantry divisions are guaranteed to win or hold their defenses for much longer than 10 turns.

Irrespective of the current experimentation's preliminary results, I perceive a major, welcome shift in how HHD content design applicable to PGF might be evolving in the future. It's no longer that satisfactory to generate HHD OoB representations and, then, let PGF's AI Module loose all over a map... Only H2H (definitely including AHS) play modes have a hope in hell in dynamically generating battlefield events and outcomes which might be viewed post facto as reasonably plausible.

[Lettos]

Given PGF's weaponry differentiation capabilities, breaking down historically reflective divisions into constituent battalions / companies is the logical way to proceed experimenting.

Yes. SSI made the games in battalion-division scale, setting the parameters to their scale pretty well.
But automatically dragging units with the same parameters to company-battalion scale looks... well, very unreasonable, to say the least.
The unit parameters have two problems:
1) Parameters within a class. The problem was more or less solved in the past and is solved now.
2) Matching individual class parameters to interclass interactions. "Class struggle", but in this case without "Capital" from one bearded struggle's classicist.

At this point I see that the class struggle of the units does not correspond to the actual reality of the fronts. Read more below.

Choosing a battlefield somewhere along the Eastern Front also makes a lot of sense.

Terrain, unit Entrenchment Levels and Weather conditions may impact the battlefield goings on, especially time-wise. Thinking, perhaps, of Soviet Ukraine in the summer may render the experimentation "bare bones".

I forgot to write that Terrain Clear, no roads.
So, yes, the first exercise was on level steppe.

Ignoring PGF's AI Module is the way to go here. Given the experimentation's explicit aims, play-testing under an AHS play mode is highly desirable.

Yes. AI introduces an element of chaos into the system. This element of chaos can be taken into account - but only later, when the system is already configured.

Troops are lined up in two or three "long" lines like the battles of Antiquity.

That's also fine; provided the infantry division constituent units are prepositioned in a logically defensive manner as per PGF's play system. Similarly, the tank division constituent units should be prepositioned in a logically offensive manner as per PGF's play system.

It looked like this

No unit reinforcements

Are "we" talking nixing the procurement of brand new units here ? Are "we" also talking nixing the replacement of lost unit Strength Factors as well ?

There is no purchase of new units, and you cannot use Replacements.

By the way, what sort of prestige grants does the experimentation entail ?

EXP is also an element of controlled chaos. That's why I've used EXP=0 for now.


Based on yesterday's observations, I have some more preliminary conclusions:
(Opposing sides: "AX" vs "AL")

The task in reality would look like this:

AX must strike one or two AL infantry units with artillery in a narrow frontal area, preferably in the center of a vertical line. Destroy these infantry units and hit the ATY with tanks. Take the tanks to the rear of the AL line and quickly attack the ATY units of the AL with tanks from the rear, moving the tanks up and down from the front break place.

The AL must react quickly to the tank breakout and cover the ATY from the tanks with infantry and ATG units. It is possible that in doing so also counter-attack ATY units AX.

In the exercise the ALs did the job, but the AXs did not.

In my opinion, the main reason for this is the disproportionately high Ground Defense of infantry and ATG units that don't have ENT.
AL quickly move INF units back and cover ATY from the rear. So it turns out that the INFs leave their trenches, run back out into the flat steppe, and still be able to defend!
That the AL has time to move the ATG. I'll even say - ATGs should move faster, especially if we use the scale of 1 hex = 1km.
But the abnormal thing is that the ATG is also taken to the flat steppe, and thanks to the inflated parameter Ground Defense can withstand tanks!

If the terrain is more complex, AX has no chance at all.

If I move the positions of the AL regiments (groups of 3 battalions each) in a line without gaps, it will be incredibly difficult for AX to break through the line. There is no way to go around the line from below or above, because it would require 3-4 turns with the existing MA parameter for tanks. And in 3-4 turns the AL will have time to prepare an anti-tank barrier from below to above.

In reality, the ATY AX would quickly advance to fire range, as close to the front line as possible, and make artillery preparations on INF and ATG. Then the infantry would attack and knock out the remaining enemy ATGs. Only then would tanks rush into the breach.
It is difficult to implement such clever actions of the attacking side.

The problem is the ATY units. They need to be able to fire either before or after movement, and still have Indirect Fire capabilities.
Again, the game now features a slightly distorted, but still realistic, model of pre-WW2 combat, as imagined by French, British, American, Soviet, and Polish generals.
Tanks approach enemy infantry. They stand and provide a "wall". Artillery follows the tanks and is positioned to strike on the next turn. The infantry is there as well.
On the next turn, the artillery strikes. But then the artillery has nowhere to go because the tanks and infantry have not yet had time to break through the defense. The artillery waits another turn before catching up with the tanks, which have built a new solid wall near the next enemy positions.

If you use a Dual-purpose unit and forgo the usual trucks, the problem is solved simply. Motorized ATY unit with MA=5-6 + Organic Transport with same parameters. Ranged fire capability in both modes.

The artillery of the armored division of the Wehrmacht is an offensive weapon. ATG - too. AD guns - too!
This is Guderian and his concept. By 1943-44, having learned from their defeats, this concept had been understood and learned to be applied by all the armies at war.

[Lettos]

I promised to write about bifurcation points.

Part 1

The bifurcation campaign "The strategy of indirect approach" or "Thucydides'46
Note: about Thucydides and the Peloponnesian war see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... nesian_War

Lest I, as the author of this strategy, be considered... at least just a detached sci-fi fanatic, first just an army anecdote from the book

Bidermann, G.H., . und litt an meiner Seite! Krim-Kurland mit der 132. Infanterie-Division 1941-45 / (Joachim Hilsenbeck). - Selbstverlag, 1995. - 248 Seiten.
http://militera.lib.ru/memo/german/bidermann_gh/08.html (RU)

From Chapter 8.

"There was a joke that reflected the general atmosphere and the place that the front men occupied on the Russian front. Suppose the victorious armies were returning from the East and a grand parade was being held in Berlin to mark the occasion. The marching columns are watched by thousands of spectators lined up along Unter den Linden, and under the Brandenburg Gate the magnificent rows of troops march in all their grandeur. Ahead of them all ride the generals and their staffs in dazzling, gleaming staff cars with their regimental banners flying. Immediately behind them are the commanders of the formations, accompanied by their staffers, with their glittering awards on their chests, and their uniformed sabers at their sides. Behind them roll the trucks of signalers and supplies. Then come the field artillery batteries and heavy cannons dragging all-terrain vehicles and harnesses of well-groomed horses, whose harness is polished to a shine and in perfect order. The entire procession is led by Reichsmarshal Goering, dressed in a magnificent white uniform, edged in crimson and gold. An Iron Cross with oak leaves hangs from his neck to his chest. His entire entourage is seated in all-terrain vehicles for greater effect.

The parade ends, the music eventually fades, and the crowd, properly impressed, begins to disperse. And then, at a distance from the majestic parade, a ragged soldier, one of the perennial EFCs, comes into view. His cracked and worn boots testify to the distance he has walked from the steppes of Russia. In tattered and faded uniforms, complete with bits of Russian military equipment, he flaunts week-old stubble and is laden with a gas mask, tent tools, a kettle, a tent coat, a rifle, and hand grenades. The frayed and wrinkled battle ribbons pinned to his uniform speak of the many battles and wounds he sustained. As he approaches the Brandenburg Gate, he is stopped and asked what he contributed to the victory. He shakes his head, his face expresses confusion, and the reply follows, "Nix понимаю!" ("Понимаю, RU = understands) He, the only survivor of the defeated infantry regiments, having fought for many years on the Eastern Front, has forgotten the German language."

Translated by DEEPL.

I have read several literary works on alternate history of WW2. These books detail events that could have happened. With historical realism, etc.
In contrast to these works, I will lay out my alternate version outline, as a scenario for the PGF campaign.

Bifurcation points are those little stretches of time in history when the entire further course of events over several years, if not more, can change from efforts made (or, conversely, not made) in the short span of "now."

Proceed to Part 2

[Lettos]

Part 2

1) August 1940. Operation Sealion in its original plan is deemed unrealistic for many reasons.
But the chaos in England at the same time literally provokes to some active actions.
The decision has been made to land several paratroopers with limited objectives.
Large losses of the German navy ships. Very serious losses of the British air force and navy (from aircraft and submarines)
Several small bridgeheads are captured. It is decided to expand the Cornwall bridgehead, the hilly terrain of which is suitable for defense. Transport aviation is used to supply units at the bridgehead.
The area of the bridgehead allows the placement of airfields in places safe from the fire of battleships.
Moreover, German air action against the English fleet becomes a threat, and the fleet withdraws from the coast of Cornwall.
Germany can conduct its air warfare more effectively.
The forces to occupy and hold Cornwall are the same divisions that were stationed on the north coast of France and the islands. Virtually no additional resources were required.

Great Britain got a very serious problem.

The fantastic thing about the situation is that the German army had accumulated experience in such operations only by 1942-43. The Demyansk Pocket, supplying the 6th Army at Stalingrad, North Africa, Tunisia. In 1940 the German headquarters did not know how to plan such operations. The capture of Norway is only an isolated and very risky example.

2) 1941. Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete, North Africa - British forces are dwindling.
Greater success for Rommel than it was in reality. But only slightly more, as Rommel did not get additional forces.
Cornwall is successfully dropped, inflicting very heavy losses on the enemy.

3) June 22, 1941, Barbarossa - no change.

4) September - early October 1941. Wehrmacht in Russia passes to the defense. Already in October 1941 it was clear to everyone on the Eastern Front, from a soldier to a Field Marshal, that the campaign would not end in 1941. The November and December exploits were madness on orders from Berlin.
And someone in Berlin must have been thinking ahead in September, much more realistically than in reality.

This is the second fiction. Berlin was too far from the front for anyone there, except general staff officers, to think realistically. And the leader at the end of 1941 began to become inadequate.

5) The winter of 1941/42 on the Eastern Front - successful operations in a flexible defense.
Minor additional reinforcements were sent to Rommel, which amounted to more than the real ones in history.

6) Spring, Summer, and Fall 1942.
Eastern Front - victory in Crimea and Sevastopol. On the Stalingrad and Moscow front - flexible defense. The Caucasus is not a target of the summer offensive at all. An offensive is not planned at all.
It may be that Leningrad is taken and a united front with the Finns is formed. The capture of Murmansk. The northern supply line is cut.
Cornwall is barely hanging on. Cornwall may be lost.
North Africa. Additional substantial reinforcements are sent to Rommel. Cairo is taken, Rommel captures the Levant.
Mediterranean Sea - Malta captured.
Gibraltar captured from French North Africa, without the help of Spain.
The Mediterranean Sea became an inland sea of Germany and Italy (except Turkey).

7) Winter 1942/43.
Eastern Front - flexible defense. Gradual loss of small territories.
Rommel's successes in Iraq. From this point on, the slogan of all Germany: "Get all the oil out of there"! The fuel problem begins to lose its relevance.
There is so much oil that even Italy gets it.
Rommel is sent the kind of reinforcements that the Eastern Front would have eaten up in reality.
Rommel is on the border with Iran and threatens the Soviet Union's southern supply route. If that route is cut, there is no more, except for an air bridge across Alaska and a yet-to-exist route from India through Central Asia. The Far East is blockaded by Japan.
Cornwall is evacuated.

A fantastic point: oil production and transportation capacity still needed to be increased. There is no doubt that Germany and its allies would have done everything possible to pump oil at maximum volumes. But this does not happen in one month. That is, any fiction has physical limitations

Proceed to Part 3

[Lettos]

Part 3

8) Spring-summer-autumn 1943.
Eastern Front - virtually all along the front is a flexible defense. The Red Army is not as strong as it was in reality, because some important industrial items and armaments under the Lend-Lease program cannot be delivered. USSR industry is beginning to lack some very important raw materials.
Iraq-Iran - Rommel strikes to cut the southern route. Rommel's army is reinforced (including the occupation divisions of the Mediterranean region) and has no problems with fuel and supplies.
The Caucasus is probably the only German offensive on the Eastern Front. A strike from the Rostov area and Rommel's strike from Iraq.
If the Caucasus is captured, the USSR begins to have serious oil problems. Counter-strikes by Soviet troops against the Wehrmacht's Caucasian grouping are quite likely.
It is possible that Turkey enters the war on the side of Germany according to the "Finnish" model.

9) Winter 1943/44.
Eastern Front - virtually all along the front is a flexible defense. The front line shifts toward Germany to the Dnieper-Western Dvina line. But the USSR army is experiencing arms problems and is close to exhausting its mobilization potential.
The Soviet and British counter-strike against the German army in the Caucasus and Iraq. (And from Ethiopia too?)
An attempt to deprive Germany of oil.
Most likely the counter-strike was unsuccessful.

10) Spring-Summer-Autumn 1944.
Eastern Front - flexible defense. Planned retreat to the Germany-USSR border in 1941.
Great Britain and the United States conduct a landing operation south of Morocco.
Heavy bombing of Germany. Synthetic fuel plants are badly damaged.
Great Britain maintains most of its troops on the "island. Public opinion is against a major landing operation and a pointless war in Europe.

11) Winter 1944/45.
The Eastern front stabilizes roughly along the 1941 German-Soviet border. The offensive potential of the USSR is exhausted.
Iraqi oil fields are partially lost to Germany and destroyed in the offensive of the U.S. and British armies.

12) Spring-Summer-Fall 1945.
Germany retreats to the Levant and Morocco.
The Eastern front is frozen on the border.

13) Winter 1945/46.
Germany uses nuclear weapons against some city in Great Britain or even in Northern Ireland.

14) The USSR, Great Britain and USA conclude an armistice with Germany. The USA continues the war with Japan until victory.

15) A few years later... make it up for yourself, if you are interested in the above.

Note: I have not touched on the problems of France, Free France, German satellite countries, etc. This is enough for a general concept, and the details can be worked out later.

[HexCode]

AI introduces an element of chaos into the system. This element of chaos can be taken into account - but only later, when the system is already configured.

There's a fundamental issue here underlying PGF AI Module's role (if any) and historicity concerns.

PGF's AI Module Plays

On one hand, a designer may spend a lot of time rendering his content a priori HHD and not "worry" about what actually happens during play involving the AI Module (i.e., "chaos"). In other words, this is the time honored content design approach exhibiting particular... "fetishes". The expected play dynamics can't be anything else but grossly historically counterfactual.

On the other hand, a designer may focus on developing content which specifically targets PGF's AI Module. This would be designing content for post facto effect. For the most part, the expected play dynamics will be grossly historically counterfactual as well. But, some end point outcomes may still be somewhat historically... recognizable.

Two Humans Play

In my opinion, the fundamental question regarding content historicity is this:

If two human players, reasonably familiar with PGF's play system, were to use their intelligence and skill to "win" (or "not lose"), would this be sufficient to ensure HHD play dynamics and outcomes ?

Concluding Remarks

For starters, I regard dual-purpose HHD scenario design as an exercise in... futility. Now, when it comes to HHD scenario design exclusively targeting H2H play modes, scenarios will be fully dual-sided; by definition. However, all this may not be enough. To date, no one I'm aware of has ever designed HHD content which validates an affirmative answer to the earlier posed fundamental question.

[Lettos]

In my opinion, the fundamental question regarding content historicity is this:

If two human players, reasonably familiar with PGF's play system, were to use their intelligence and skill to "win" (or "not lose"), would this be sufficient to ensure HHD play dynamics and outcomes ?

Absolutely yes!

[Parabellum]

...
Good ol' AH Panzerblitz introduced an interesting feature: Panzerblitz Assault. In essence, crack infantry is actually riding on the rapidly advancing, friendly armor. It's very easy to model this sort of thing under PGF. All one has to do is "construct" dual-mode, composite unit types encompassing both armor and Engineer / Pioniere combat modes.

There are already solutions for this in some e-files.

On the one hand, the Flammpanzer III (SdKfz. 141/3) is combined with [E]. It has high SA values and low HA values (the main armament 5cm gun is missing).
On the other hand, in the AT class there is the StuG III G with infantry and the additional special feature [E]. It has higher SA values than the simple StuG III G and is considerably more expensive to purchase.

[Lettos]

Under PGF's play system, it's not easy to effect armored breakthroughs combined with a rapid, subsequent occupation of enemy owned urban centers; reason being, such objective hexes are invariably garrisoned by well entrenched Infantry Class units sporting dangerous Experience Levels to boot. When in mechanized / motorized mode, friendly Infantry / Artillery Class units are quite vulnerable to enemy ground and air attacks and, hence, may find it difficult to exploit the breach, let alone safely keep pace with the rapidly advancing, friendly armor.

Good ol' AH Panzerblitz introduced an interesting feature: Panzerblitz Assault. In essence, crack infantry is actually riding on the rapidly advancing, friendly armor. It's very easy to model this sort of thing under PGF. All one has to do is "construct" dual-mode, composite unit types encompassing both armor and Engineer / Pioniere combat modes.

I want to remind you that we are interested in the battalion combat model. That is, maximally specialized units performing their specific tasks on the battlefield.
The 1941 Wehrmacht Panzer Division had at most one engineer-sapper battalion (or even a company), and four motorized battalions. Three battalions of infantry on trucks and one battalion (or even one company of one battalion) on Sd.Kfz.251 (i.e. "rapidly advancing, friendly armor").
In Army exercises we need to lead not two, but all five of these battalions through the AL front line breakout point. In practice the Wehrmacht was able to do this. In our PGF it has not yet.
In the current PGF model, two battalions on armored personnel carriers can somehow break through, but three on trucks cannot.
The problem is that the movement and combat phases are separated by one turn.
They drove the armored personnel carriers to point X, unloaded the barbecue and beer, had a little picnic, and ended up stuck for one turn.
On the second turn, we packed all the beer cans and barbecue into the armored personnel carriers and went to fight on foot.
I'm looking for a way to get as far away from this nonsense as possible.

On the one hand, the Flammpanzer III (SdKfz. 141/3) is combined with [E]. It has high SA values and low HA values (the main armament 5cm gun is missing).
On the other hand, in the AT class there is the StuG III G with infantry and the additional special feature [E]. It has higher SA values than the simple StuG III G and is considerably more expensive to purchase.

You can make any combination units you want. Tank+ATY, ATY+ATG etc. This has already been written about on the PGF forum, and these are good ideas! You could also glue extra bonuses to these units. Surely OG gives such possibilities. It's all a great patch, but...

... but until we solve the main problem - infantry in armored vehicles going to war with tanks or just for a picnic, the game will mimic the endlessly outdated "pre-1939" strategy.

I've seen this in PG1/PGF/OG:


Now I want to see this in the game model:

[randowe]

[...]
I've seen this in PG1/PGF/OG:

Since you mention OG. In my Efile i have infantry units, the germans are called Grenadiere, but other nations have such units as well, that dismount after movement and then can fight. So the Grenadiere can ride in their transport Sd.Kfz. 251 alongside the tanks, dismount and fight in the same turn. Actually the 251 is faster than most tanks, going 7 hex. Of course, when the infantry unit dismount after movement the transport looses somewhat of its importance.
Then add some Kradschützen and command (radio) vehicles your picture is complete.
If you drop your towed units, these formations can travel great distances pretty fast together.
[EDIT: of course towed units can ride along, but you don't have to wait one turn for them to fight...you know what i mean]

Then there are units that combine the Sd.Kfz. 251 and infantry in one unit. Icon shows a 251 with 2 soldiers alongside. There are different versions with flamthrower too.
Then you can use the various Sd.Kfz. 251 version from AT and Recon class to go alongside your tanks.

I dont know if it is available in PGF, but it sounds like you would need something like "dismount after movement", no? At least that's how i understand the problem.

[Lettos]

[...]
I've seen this in PG1/PGF/OG:

Since you mention OG. In my Efile i have infantry units, the germans are called Grenadiere, but other nations have such units as well, that dismount after movement and then can fight. So the Grenadiere can ride in their transport Sd.Kfz. 251 alongside the tanks, dismount and fight in the same turn. Actually the 251 is faster than most tanks, going 7 hex. Of course, when the infantry unit dismount after movement the transport looses somewhat of its importance.
Then add some Kradschützen and command (radio) vehicles your picture is complete.
If you drop your towed units, these formations can travel great distances pretty fast together.
[EDIT: of course towed units can ride along, but you don't have to wait one turn for them to fight...you know what i mean]

Then there are units that combine the Sd.Kfz. 251 and infantry in one unit. Icon shows a 251 with 2 soldiers alongside. There are different versions with flamthrower too.
Then you can use the various Sd.Kfz. 251 version from AT and Recon class to go alongside your tanks.

I dont know if it is available in PGF, but it sounds like you would need something like "dismount after movement", no? At least that's how i understand the problem.

Had a look at the first turn of your "From Alamein..." campaign.
Yes, that unit with the two soldiers and the armored personnel carrier is exactly what I'm talking about here.
Respect, colleague!
Very correct decision!

We have learned a lot in PGF in the last half year. Now we can do such things in PGF as well.

You raised a good point about Towed Units. If you remember that the towed Flak "8-8" had a 2 minute lead time, then... is it really the same Towed unit as the 10.5-15.0 cm field artillery? We've had conversations here on the PGF sub-forum about this as well.

About these MVTs - better not to touch this topic yet, at least without serious familiarity with the topic viewtopic.php?f=95&t=516
"7" looks no more logical than "17" or "27" in this battle, where tanks go "5" and infantry goes to "3".

In the OG, infantry who drive up to the battlefield in trucks, when attacked, automatically jump to the ground and start fighting. This is both good and bad at the same time.
Good because it is historically correct in the case of trained infantry.
Bad - because it is impossible to separate the trained motorized infantry from the ordinary soldiers of the Allied armies who were brought to the battlefield by the same trucks and maybe even managed to unload them as a pile of vegetables in front of the attacking enemy tanks.

Well, overall, thanks to the Randowe campaign and E-file , my opinion is further reinforced that the OG is much more flexible for battalion-scale battle problems than the PGF.

By the way, one more minor point - against the monotonous desert hexes the units are quite possible to see without dislocating your eyes and brains... predictable, but still a pleasant surprise

[randowe]

Had a look at the first turn of your "From Alamein..." campaign.
Yes, that unit with the two soldiers and the armored personnel carrier is exactly what I'm talking about here.
Respect, colleague!
Very correct decision!

I must admit, i am not the first to use these kind of units. And there are many more icons with vehicles + infantry.
I use a lot of the tanks + infantry for infantry class units as well.

In the OG, infantry who drive up to the battlefield in trucks, when attacked, automatically jump to the ground and start fighting. This is both good and bad at the same time.
Good because it is historically correct in the case of trained infantry.
Bad - because it is impossible to separate the trained motorized infantry from the ordinary soldiers of the Allied armies who were brought to the battlefield by the same trucks and maybe even managed to unload them as a pile of vegetables in front of the attacking enemy tanks.

It is possible to take away the "dismount when attacked" ability from infantry units at efile level. Then it is a reverse usage of the "dismount when attacked" special, which can be given to any unit.

But i don't remember if i ever saw such a infantry unit in OG, which uses this reversed special and does not dismount when attacked

[Lettos]

Had a look at the first turn of your "From Alamein..." campaign.
Yes, that unit with the two soldiers and the armored personnel carrier is exactly what I'm talking about here.
Respect, colleague!
Very correct decision!

I must admit, i am not the first to use these kind of units.

As a researcher, it always makes me happy to invent something new. But I get much more joy when I find out that the wheel I invented has already been invented a long time ago and rides beautifully in working products

And there are many more icons with vehicles + infantry.
I use a lot of the tanks + infantry for infantry class units as well.

I will explain the situation. Complex units are begging to be implemented in the game. The larger the scale, i.e., moving away from a company and coming to a division, the more sense complex units have.
But now we decided to take the experimental route of creating a specialized set of units at the company-battalion level. And avoid complex units as much as possible. This is especially true for such mutants as tank+infantry (which are more than logical to implement at the division level).

It is possible to take away the "dismount when attacked" ability from infantry units at efile level. Then it is a reverse usage of the "dismount when attacked" special, which can be given to any unit.

But i don't remember if i ever saw such a infantry unit in OG, which uses this reversed special and does not dismount when attacked

With all due respect to these brave fighters, I don't want to call them motorized infantry.


The motorized infantry looks like this:


But even those trained motorized infantry units of the tank divisions, which were provided with trucks rather than armored personnel carriers, did not drive the trucks onto the battlefield. They dismounted in advance 2-3 km from the front line and attacked on foot.

[Radoye]

I'm picking nits, but technically motorized = truck transport (unarmored), mechanized = APC / IFV transport (armored).

EDIT: AFV -> APC

[Lettos]

I'm picking nits, but technically motorized = truck transport (unarmored), mechanized = AFV / IFV transport (armored).

You are right. Terminology is very important in this case.

[Lettos]

While working on something that should at least remotely resemble something "historical", I came across a problem of not
very real, and even very unreal values of ENT units in the game.
It's all subjective. I may be wrong about that. I need to check in practice.

Very much want to change TBEL for some types of terrain and UCER for some types of units.
UNIT ENTRENCHMENT: viewtopic.php?f=100&t=544#p8987

Dear Hexcode, can you tell me if it is possible to do this and how exactly?

[Lettos]

Required reading:
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=470&p=10508#p10500
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=470&p=10508#p10508

So, we can change to one degree or another:
- Classes that will dig differently
- The speed at which the Classes will dig
- Terrains the Classes can dig at

A little video information for initial thoughts:

How To Make A Marine Corps Fighting Hole: https://youtu.be/ZFq---9EopM
Shows the easiest way to dig a trench - digging while standing.
Terrain looks as Rough? Or even Clear?

A more difficult way to dig is to dig while lying down: https://youtu.be/Xxl6jPgg4pw
A my brief commentary on timing:
Digging a foxhole to shoot lying down = 2 hours +/- 30 minutes depending on the ground.
Deepening the foxhole to the lap position will take another 2 hours.
Deepening the trench to a standing shooting position will take another 2 hours.

After digging an individual trench, the soldier began digging connecting trenches. Then the soldier dug trenches connecting the first, second and third lines of defense.
Then the soldier dug out the reserve positions.
Artillerymen dug holes for the cannons during this time, and even tank unit personnel dug, too.

The soldier on the WW2 Eastern Front in general was either walking or digging all the time.
The MG-34 used up its ammunition in 5 minutes of combat. Sixty rounds from a rifle is also 5 minutes. The rest of the time is devoted to digging, camouflage, and getting some sleep and food. If a soldier has not dug a trench, he will most likely die, and neither sleep nor food will ever be useful to him again.

Even in the swamp, there are slightly elevated places where a soldier could dig a little down and build fortifications up at the same time. In my opinion, the only places where a soldier could not dig anything up are the quicksand desert and the ocean.

[Lettos]

Editing the exe did not cause any problems! Everything works! Thanks, Hexcode!

My version of how units should be entrenched.

Changes:

Dig speed and changes in classes.
INF = "5" instead of "3". It's much faster to dig. Nice to see.
ATG, ATY = "3". So I made artillerymen dig faster too.
Recon = "1". It would be nice to make the Tank class the same as the Recon class, but as far as I understand, it's impossible.

Changes in Terrain

Port Facility = (3)
Rough = (2)
Clear, River, Air Field, Rough Desert = (1)

[HexCode]

References

A) Elsewhere in THESE OG forums, I wrote:

Developers / Publishers of computer wargame titles for profit have absolutely no incentive or reason to concern themselves with the desires / needs of the odd content designer focusing on conducting Historically Defensible Kriegsspiel (HDK) exercises. Such offbeat interests aren't money makers; plain and simple !

Hobbyist Developers / Programmers of computer wargame titles aren't that different when it comes to supporting (or not) HDK interests. It's not a matter of money, of course. It's a matter of hobbyist interests and preferences per se. Invariably, hobbyist Developers / Programmers do enjoy playing historically-themed wargames but wish to go no further, thank you very much.

AND

B) Elsewhere in THIS PGF forum, I wrote:

The two programmers who successively coded FPGE's many versions did all this, no doubt, out of pure hobbyist interest and dedication. In any case, FPGE's source code is "publicly" accessible.

Having perused FPGE's source code, I've reached some definitive conclusions about the utility as it specifically applies (or not) to PGF:

1) It was coded without a solid understanding of PGF's technical specifications, strengths and weaknesses.

2) It observes many restrictions broadly applicable to PG1-DOS and routinely subjects PGF to those very same restrictions as well; unnecessarily so.

Implications

It would be a most helpful thing for PGF hobbyists wishing to significantly deviate from SSI's flagship content paradigm to internalize the following hard truths:

a) Even if a gazillion programmers were to descend upon the PGF hobbyist scene, the chances of them ever being willing, let alone being able, to code utilities to address "offbeat" content modding needs will be next to zilch. I know of no hobbyist programmer who has ever combined adequate coding skills with a compelling dedication to supporting "out-of-the-box" content design.

b) Consequently, PGF hobbyists willing to engage in "out-of-the-box" content design and attendant play better learn to use a capable hex-editor always in the context of having familiarized themselves with quite a bit of relevant technical information.

[Lettos]

In my opinion, the fundamental question regarding content historicity is this:

If two human players, reasonably familiar with PGF's play system, were to use their intelligence and skill to "win" (or "not lose"), would this be sufficient to ensure HHD play dynamics and outcomes ?

Absolutely yes!

I made a "Army Exercise ver.2.0" Battalion scenario for Hot-Seat/H2H mode.
Download link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1weTe1g ... sp=sharing

1 hex = 1 km. 1 day = 8 turns. Date: July 1, 1941. Weather - clear (play with "no weather" settings). Somewhere on the Eastern Front, on the section of Army Group Center.

A 1941 Wehrmacht tank division advances against two infantry divisions. The infantry divisions under development are a sort of mix of Wehrmacht infantry divisions with the addition of some Soviet Army units.
The AXIS goal is to capture Snake-Town in approximately 20-24 turns, that is, no later than three days.
The Allied objective is to resist.

AXIS at the beginning of the scenario receive air support from Aux bombers and cover fighters, as well as an overview of Allied positions with the AUX Ju-86 from Rovel's group. Bombers are needed in other sections of the front, so they cannot stay in your tank division (one of the 20 on the Eastern Front) for more than 4-6 hours.
Do not refuel planes (even if it seems possible) with a red square on the icon.
The AXIS core has a small bomber squadron and reconnaissance planes.
Allied has some Aux fighters, which should be disposed of wisely, preventing as far as possible the bombing of positions at the beginning of the scenario.

Almost all units in the scenario are Dual-Use. This is how I see the historical battle.
Parameters of the units have been changed significantly. Please check unit's parameters before you start

EXE file has been edited: ENT, Terrain INI Cap, MVT.

German Bridge Engineers have "All-Terrain Amphibious MT" which is the same as Leg now except added possibility to move to River terrain for only this single unit in Scenario.

Bocage terrain fully re-worked and in this scenario mean Bocage/Russian village with wooden houses. MVT on this terrain are very similar to City and Clear.

Prestige is irrelevant in the scenario, so it is permanently negative. No replacements, no purchases. We fight with what we have until it runs out.

If anyone would share their impressions of this scenario, I would appreciate it!

[Lettos]

New version 2.1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16xTEkP ... sp=sharing
Changes:
ATY SA and HA parameters in ATY mode are significantly reduced.
Reduced anti-tank attack parameters for ATY (in transport mode).
Some minor adjustments of parameters.
Everything gradually becomes like some more or less real reality .
- A win in 12-15 turns, i.e., two historic days.
- Fewer losses for the tank division, which implies its further offensive after breaking through the front of the two infantry divisions.

Hexcode!

I'm positively delighted that you've fearlessly gone down this path. Frankly, it was about time; I mean, PGF's second decade and all... I took a preliminary look at your Mod. Clearly, this is no SSI-like stuff. Your Mod deserves the full respect board wargamers once reserved for individual board wargames sporting titles such as "Assault on Crete". It's going to be a while before I comment further. I really need to study the Mod. Yeah, like... 30 years ago.

# Lettos #, you've definitely crossed the content designer's Rubicon river. You may find it quite hard going back to SSI-style content authorship. In any case, just pursue your hobby interests to the max. The past is, well, the past ! Speaking of the past, I also wrote:

The bargain with the... devil was just a... disembodied piece of software (i.e., PGF) hosting an "embedded" board wargame. A certain human decided to investigate its "innards"; that's all. It was an intellectual endeavor as pure as such challenges come.

One does not interfere with the other here. You can also make single scenarios for professionals, but you can also use some of the work from those scenarios in some kind of game campaign.
At least after these army exercises I have a clear conviction that with Dual-purpose units you can greatly improve both playability in classic mode and real and imaginary historicism.
I recommend that you play version 2.1 at once.
2.0 is too unrealistically brutal.

[Radoye]

Unfortunately i've been totally swamped with work and have no time for hobbies at the moment, but i am keeping an eye on all this and am very interested to see where it will lead.

[Lettos]

... and am very interested to see where it will lead.

I'm interested in that myself.
I've seen a very dynamic game, because almost every move Ground unit involves not only movement, but also combat action.

The whole campaign can be designed, but the AI is an idiot, and the entire design will need to be adjusted for him. Breaking any historicism at the same time.

You can make a campaign H2H or for Auto-Hot-Seat mode, but this is unlikely to resonate with the masses of players. So to speak, a specific dish for a professional gourmet, no more than that.
The point of the battalion campaign is unclear to me. The plots will be the same:
1 Core AX division vs. two or three AL divisions, or
1 Core AX division + 1-2 AUX AX infantry divisions against 4-5 AL divisions.
A river on the side of the map, or a river in the middle, a lot of forest or little forest, or a group of lakes with marshes, or hills behind a river, etc.
Such scenarios can actually be made by the dozens and hundreds, because fiddling with the map is minimized, and working with icons of units is a mass production by simply cutting and copying images.
What should be in the final of Campaign? The division repeatedly saved the entire front and even entire groups of friendly armies, and after destroying 1,000 enemy divisions on the Eastern Front, surrendered somewhere in Austria? I have no ideas about that.

or

You can also create single huge "historical" battalion scenarios like Kursk in 8-10 days, i.e. even 80 moves.

or

You could start expanding one map, even from Army Exercises 2.1, up-down-right. And build somewhere through 30 hexes to the right another ALLIED line of defense, which you also need to break through. Or/And put an AXIS and ALLIED infantry division front up and down 20-30 hexes to the north and south. And give the armored division the task of going to the rear of the infantry divisions and destroying the warehouses, and only then begin the offensive with AXIS infantry divisions.
At the moment this area of work seems to me the most interesting.

But the Army Exercise revealed objective problems that interfere with the historicity of what is happening on the map.

MAJOR:

- There is no "Deception" parameter.Logically, increasing the ENT of a unit should lead to a significant increase in its invisibility on the map to the moment of direct contact. Air units should not see Ground units in the forest at all, regardless of the ENT.
- There is no division of AMMO for Ground units into Hard and Soft.
- No separation of AMMO for Air units on Air and Ground.
- The previously discussed lack of AD/AA fire altitude, and bomber altitude.AD/AAs should not be able to fire on Fighters unless the Fighters have attacked the hex with an AD/AA or adjacent.
- Missing "Firepower" from the ATY.Because of this, ATYs either shoot with killing power every time, but rarely, or should shoot a lot, but with little power. It should be so that before each shot the Player can set "Firepower" and, accordingly, spend more or less AMMO.
- There is no "Morale" of the unit. It, by the way, in H2H or AHS mode can be emulated by rolling a dice. For example, in your half turn for all units STR<=3 "1-3" on the dice means "Disband".

MINOR:

- Tanks(and cannon and mortar Recons) with organic vehicles that have more Range (1-2) but less SA and HA is realistic and effective. But the game lacks double switching per turn for such units. Tank - > Organic Tr-t, movement and fire -> Back to Tank(Recon) mode.
- Tanks with AMMO=0 should retain the ability to Soft Attack (significantly reduced, of course). Panzer Generals know why this is so. The brutality of war, alas.