Discussion Threads of Open General
http://spapel.com/
Bridges can be blown up by agreement between two players. But it doesn't matter.
Now I would venture to suggest you play in H2H mod one my scenario, it's a Low Countries. Low Countries should win independently of who of us will play for Wehrmacht.
I have in mind PBEM.HexCode wrote: ↑2021-01-29 03:28, Friday 1) What kind of H2H play mode do you have in mind, PBEM or Online ? If it's PBEM, you may want to look here:
PBEM Mode
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=211#p1138
I never play PGF online.
Sure! I am currently planning to work on 2-3 new scripts. We can return to the topic of the game H2H even after a few months.
I'll explain my vision of problem on example of OoB Low Countries Scenario.HexCode wrote: ↑2021-01-29 03:28, Friday 3) Are you shooting for dual-purpose scenarios (i.e., either H2H or against the AI) ? Moreover, is your design aiming at play symmetry or not ? You may want to look here:
Modding: A Personal Opinion
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174&start=100#p7657
Thanks! I read it. These changes have a very little or no effect on my main, "large" Scenarios.HexCode wrote: ↑2021-01-29 03:28, Friday 4) Since you've recently approached PGF coming from PG1-DOS's "direction", you may also want to take a look here:
PG1-DOS... Twisted (PGF)
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=213#p6978
Thanking to Community it was very easy to do it.Kas Narayda wrote: ↑2021-01-29 10:41, Friday I liked the fact that after completing the next scenario at the beginning of the next one, the strength of the units does not automatically rise to 10 points. Thus, the player himself needs to replenish the units and spend prestige points. How did you do it?
Look, sooner or later you'll have to take a clear position in regards to the "big picture". Here're the overarching issues:Lettos wrote: ↑2021-01-29 10:19, FridayI'll explain my vision of problem on example of OoB Low Countries Scenario.
H(Axis) vs AI(Allied). PG and I hope PGF too sumptuously emulates an average actions of average generals. With the same mistakes as it was in historical reality.
H(Allied) vs AI(Axis). No chances for Axis. Because AI is very far from historical very talented Heer commanders.
H2H - if Allied will continue the same strategy what General Prioux have started at the battles of Hannut and Gembloux, Allied should won. And WWII will be stopped in May'1940.
I'have checked all three modes. And only playing mode H2H begs the question: "Was I objective when playing both sides? Maybe I consciously and unconsciously helped one of the sides?"
So, when it comes to your mod, are we talking about historical recreation ? If so, what's the purpose of "playing" ? If, on the other hand, you allow for the possibility of historically counterfactual, yet plausible, outcomes, how do you control a campaign which, the longer it runs, the more likely it is that it'll generate "unacceptable", historically counterfactual outcomes. I know of no "grognard" approach which has ever found a satisfactory solution to the foregoing. In any case, whatever "necessary compromises" you'll eventually adopt, you'll have to live with them and their practical consequences, for better or worse.SPECULATIVE OR COUNTERFACTUAL ?
Some hobbyists are willing to entertain notions of "alternative history", provided certain "safeguards" are in place. Thus, as long as a wargame provides "assurances" that play will by necessity generate speculative (i.e., "historically plausible") outcomes, such hobbyists are willing to "tolerate" such "deviations". Otherwise, the wargame title just amounts to a... toy that generates "plainly" counterfactual outcomes. Such outcomes, some hobbyists contend, are, well, ... rubbish.
PLAY BALANCE IS IRRELEVANT
Some hobbyists consider a wargame's play balance issues to be detrimental to "historicity". Basically, they say, one is either "into history" or he just plays, psychologically egged on by some form of "historical connection". In fact, many such hobbyists claim, no "historical connection" at all is better than "hybrid monstrosities" which are responsible for serious "historical misconceptions"...
Cheer up, though; it's only a game. 1) Recreate the battlefield environment in which the battle(scenario) took place.
Fully moderated historical model. External intervention at the end of each scenario: PP award, Victory Hexes in next scenario, price for new units etc.HexCode wrote: ↑2021-01-29 18:24, Friday If, on the other hand, you allow for the possibility of historically counterfactual, yet plausible, outcomes, how do you control a campaign which, the longer it runs, the more likely it is that it'll generate "unacceptable", historically counterfactual outcomes. I know of no "grognard" approach which has ever found a satisfactory solution to the foregoing. In any case, whatever "necessary compromises" you'll eventually adopt, you'll have to live with them and their practical consequences, for better or worse.
As we know, Wermacht started Barbarossa with 17 Panzer divisions and a lot of special companies and battalions with 4500 tanks and got more than 2000 as replacements till 31 December 1941.From pages 215-216:
"By 1 January 1942, the nineteen German panzer divisions on the Eastern Front were in a very sorry state. The Germans had kept attacking until their panzer divisions were totally spent and then the retreats had cost them dearly. Panzer-
Regiment 203 - which had only arrived in Heeresgruppe Nord on 17 December - was the strongest German armoured formation left on the Eastern Front, with about sixty operational tanks at the beginning of January. Otherwise, most of the
panzer divisions were reduced to five to fifteen tanks each, for a grand total of perhaps 300 operational tanks spread across the entire Eastern Front. The Schiitzen-Regiment in most of the panzer divisions were gutted, with personnel
losses between 50 and 80 per cent and vehicle losses even higher. More than half of the trucks and prime movers had been lost in the 1941 campaign, which severely reduced the mobility and logistical sustainability of many units, particularly the motorized infantry divisions. Some examples of the very limited combat effectiveness of the panzer-divisionen at the start of 1942 include:
* The 1.Panzer-Division had five operational tanks and less than two battalions of infantry.
* The 3.Panzer-Division had fifteen operational tanks in I/Pz.Regt 6 (one Pz.II, eleven Pz.IIl, two Pz.IV, one Pz.Bef).
* The 4.Panzer-Division had one company with ten tanks, which was increased to two companies with a total of sixteen tanks by 21 January.
* The 6.Panzer-Division had no operational tanks and had lost 80 per cent of its infantry and most of its prime movers. The only combat-effective element was Kampfgruppe Zollenkopf, equivalent to a reinforced rifle battalion.
* The 7.Panzer-Division had five operational tanks (four Pz.38(t) and one Pz.IV).
* The 8.Panzer-Division had a mixed panzer kampfgruppe with twelve tanks (eleven Pz.38(t) and one Pz.IV) and about 15 per cent of its infantry remaining.
* The 11.Panzer-Division withdrew its remaining tanks to the rear at Gzhatsk. It is not clear how many were operational, but no more than ten to fifteen.
* The 18.Panzer-Division had a small number of Pz.III and Pz.IV operational.
Von Kleist’s 1.Panzerarmee reported in mid-January that it still had 458 tanks, but only 166 were operational (twenty-two Pz.II, 111 Pz.III, thirty-three Pz.IV), plus fifteen StuG III assault guns - making his command the only Panzerarmee still worthy of the name on the Eastern Front. While this might sound like a combat effective force, he also reported that there was only 0.25 V.S. of fuel with the front-line units - barely enough to turn the engines over a few times a day. Von Kleist did benefit from the fact that after his defeat at Rostov he did not retreat far - so little equipment was abandoned - and that the Red Army left his forces relatively unmolested for the rest of the winter. Elsewhere along the Eastern Front, most panzer regiments formed a mixed company or two with the remaining tanks, while the other panzer companies were disbanded and the personnel assigned to alarm units to deal with enemy partisans or raids. A few ‘unhorsed’ panzer crews were sent back to the Ersatz-Abteilungen (replacement battalions) in their home Wehrkreis, but most were pressed into the line as ad hoc infantrymen.
The remaining tanks were used strictly in the infantry support role, stiffening the hard-pressed German infantry at key points. A few assault guns remained in service too, but not many. German supply services all but collapsed for a time
during the winter of 1941-42, with the railroad system almost paralyzed when most German-made trains proved unable to withstand the cold in Russia and the roads blocked by snow that could be one meter or more in depth.
Although there was no major armoured combat during the winter months, German tank losses remained heavy during January-February 1942 as tanks were abandoned due to retreats and lack of recovery vehicles. Deliveries of new tanks did not begin in earnest until February 1942, by which time the Soviet Winter Counter-offensive was beginning to run out of momentum. The German Werkstatt units were finally able to start repairing some tanks and vehicles as well, but throughout the winter the Germans had no appreciable mobile reserves on the Eastern Front."
Now the scenario is "defensive" because "they" attacked and "those" were attacked. This is historical truth. 
I believe that technical solutions can be found here. The key aim should be to ensure that the AI isn't able to mount too too many units and rush them forward willy-nilly. Basically, let numerous Soviet tank formations rush forward and "attack" while everybody else moves forward at a much slower pace.
There's the air war, of course... Finally, quite a bit of "interventionist", technical know-how is required in order for one to successfully utilize 5-star-like wargames in conducting retrograde, historical Kriegsspiel exercises. The software simply were never programmed to do such "specialized things"...From an intended play quality perspective, it is very important . . . to clearly indicate whether their custom content should be viewed as playable:
1) In single- or dual- purpose fashion. Single-purpose play should either be H2H or H2AI / AI2H but not both; dual-purpose play can entail both.
2) Against PGF's AI module and, if so, whether in single- or dual-sided fashion. Single-sided play should either be H2AI or AI2H but not both; dual-sided play can entail both.
Radoye wrote:you will have to find a way to keep some of the AI units defending their victory hexes.
Yes, first of all some "anchored" FORT units. And probably not only INF but ATY, ATG and AD too. In reality, some units of 1941 were formed in this way: they managed to receive guns, but did not manage to receive trucks and tractors, and even horses. From the point of view of PGF, these are FORT units.Hexcode wrote:There's "publicly" accessible documentation galore on this very topic, "anchors" and all !
Hexcode wrote:I believe that technical solutions can be found here as well. The key aim should be to ensure that the AI isn't able to mount too too many units and rush them forward willy-nilly.
AI will have available only units deployed at the start of Scenario. Units deployed in cities in the rear mainly will be "anchored". Available reinforcements will have STR=1 and wait for PP "Injection" Event.Hexcode wrote:Basically, let numerous Soviet tank formations rush forward and "attack" while everybody else moves forward at a much slower pace.
Just an air war does not cause any difficulties. In reality, intense battles took place for 3-4 days, after which the Soviet Air Force was left practically without fighters. The Luftwaffe has secured a "clear sky". The Soviet Air Force continued to strike with bombers alone, suffering huge losses. The bombers also ran out quickly. No replacements. No new "units".Hexcode wrote:There's the air war, of course...
I am a pragmatist and not a supporter of "fanatical heresies"!Hexcode wrote:As usual, give the AI a few "things" that it can "practically use" and forget about dual-purpose scenario design (i.e., a modder's "Holy Grail") or even switching sides...
Moreover, the difference in the two AI tactics is already quite well understood.Absolutely agree! The task looks really creative!Radoye wrote:My point exactly - it might not be possible to design a scenario in such a way while still adhering to the high standards regarding historicity (completely accurate OOBs on day 1 / turn 1) etc. You need to use some creative scenario building techniques to pull it off.
I considered your valuable idea!HexCode wrote: ↑2021-02-13 20:55, Saturday I'm thinking Retrograde Kriegsspiel here, not SSI !
# Lettos #, there're two more tools potentially at your disposal which might help you micromanage your Campaign so that it is in line with historical realities as much as technically possible:
1) You can use various Cheat Codes to instantaneously modify some of the Human side's realities, in-game.
I suppose that in the scenario Moscow'41 may be somewhat cloudy, rainy, dirtier and more snowy than in the classic one from PG 1. In general, the weather conditions in PG1 are implemented more or less acceptable only for summer, and not for autumn-winter in Eastern Europe ...weather #N
Sets current atmospheric conditions (0=Clear, 1=Overcast, 2=Rain, 3=Snow).
ground #N
Sets current ground condition (0=Dry, 1=Muddy, 2=Frozen).
In Scenario without replacements these codes allows to transfer Strength, Ammo and Fuel between units. If Strengths were transferred there is possibility to adjust EXP of "increased" unit after transfer.fuel #N
Sets the selected unit's current, remaining fuel to #N.
ammo #N
Sets the selected unit's current, remaining ammo to #N.
exp #N
Sets the selected unit's current experience to #N.
str #N
Sets the selected unit's current strength to #N.
- Probably each transfer can cost some PP "penalty"?prestige #N
Adds #N to current prestige points. #N can be negative.
Waiting for it!!!
Depending on a scenario's / campaign's particularities, the designer must always choose between two alternatives:Lettos wrote: ↑2021-03-09 09:57, TuesdaySince PG1 in this VERY IMPORTANT UNIT, "God of war on battlefields in 1940-42", the "soft" has been separated from the "salty". Where it was not necessary, PG1 developers mixed two different substances, but where it was necessary - no. But it would be nice to mix and see what happens.
How can a class be created? I did not know about such a possibility. Are there any materials on the topic somewhere?
In this case, I am using a unit class that already contains a dual purpose. Unit class is Anti-aircraft, but all ground parameters adjusted as for powerful ATG or ... may be we can call it as strange tank which can attack tanks and almost can't be attacked by tanks with good results for tanks.HexCode wrote: ↑2021-03-09 14:52, Tuesday 2) Create a dual-purpose unit type where one of its manifestations technically appears as transport.
In the particular case you're "researching", a dual purpose unit would be AT (or, even, TNK ?) class with an AA class organic transport or vice versa, right ?
Depending on a scenario's / campaign's particularities, the designer must always choose between two alternatives: ... Create a self-contained unit type sporting some stats "hybridization".
I believe in your abilities so much that I decided that I had missed the information about creating a new class somewhere.HexCode wrote: ↑2021-03-09 17:01, TuesdayDepending on a scenario's / campaign's particularities, the designer must always choose between two alternatives: ... Create a self-contained unit type sporting some stats "hybridization".
I was misunderstood. I wasn't talking about coming up with a new unit class; just a new unit type. That's exactly what you've already done. Instead of creating a dual-purpose unit based on transport, you've designed a self-contained unit the stats of which adequately meet your criteria.
I'm assuming we're talking about the same thing?Radoye wrote: ↑2021-03-09 17:11, Tuesday Since PG1 campaign is generally concerned with being on the offensive, purely defensive weapons such as the 88 towed AT/AD are at a distinct disadvantage. Such scenarios favor mobility and while towed ATY still has some advantages (mainly range) the AT and AD roles are equally well covered by tanks, fighters and/or self propelled AT and AD units neither of which suffers from the same mobility problems towed AT and AD does.
If someone would set up a mainly defensive campaign where core unit slots are plenty but prestige is tight and rather than trying to chase after enemy victory hexes as quickly as possible the player has to sit back and defend, then the towed 88 would suddenly become more interesting, as it was in real life for the same reasons.
I find myself buying 88s and other towed AT or AD when defending Berlin for example. They are quite useful and more cost effective than fighters, which are usually cleared from the skies by overwhelming Allied air superiority anyway. And they can still hold their own against tanks too, if backed up by ATY.
In 1941 and 1942 Wehrmacht used these guns for strategical offensive actions. There are were some tactical defense actions but not for defense purposes. It is a very difficult situation in simulating. If we talking about battalion-level model the 8.8cm guns are defense weapon only. In case if scale is one inf. division on hex or two hexes for panzer division, 8.8cm ATG are unique Offensive weapon.Another example from North Africa battles in 1942. Would Rommel have gone far if he hadn't used Acht-acht as heavy breakthrough tanks?Oddly, the 6.Panzer-Division was not expecting a major Soviet armoured counterattack, even though reconnaissance aircraft from Panzergruppe 4 had spotted tanks approaching from Kedainiai. Thus the Germans were doubly shocked on the morning of 24 June, when not only were they attacked by a large Soviet armoured group, but also by three different types of tanks that they did not even know existed. Solyankin directed his main effort - two tank regiments and part of a motor rifle regiment - against Kampfgruppe Seckendorff. The Soviet tanks attacked in waves, with the light BT and T-26 types out front, followed by T-34s and then the KV heavy tanks. Although shocked by the appearance of T-34, KV-I and KV-II tanks, the German panzerjager followed doctrine and did not engage with their 3.7cm and 5cm Pak until the Soviet tanks were within 200 meters. The German AP rounds simply bounced off and then the Soviet heavy tanks overran the panzerjagers and part of Kradschiitzen-Abteilung 6. No German infantry had yet been overrun by enemy tanks in the Second World War and this was terrifying. After bashing their way through Kampfgruppe Seckendorff, three KV heavy tanks led by Major Dmitry I. Osadchy forded the Dubysa River and attacked part of Schtitzen-Regiment 114. The KV tanks managed to overrun part of a German artillery battery before being engaged by direct fire from 15cm howitzers. Although the howitzers could not penetrate the KV’s thick armour, they managed to blow off the tracks, immobilizing them.
The 6.Panzer-Division was shocked by the violence of this attack. Most histories of the Battle of Raseiniai depend upon Erhard Raus’ account, even though he was only lightly engaged in this action.’ Raus’ account focuses on his efforts to destroy a single KV-2 that managed to get behind his kampfgruppen and sever his supply line, but says little about the decimation of Kampfgruppe Seckendorff. The Soviet attack subsided when the commander of the 3rd Tank Regiment was killed by shell splinters and his tanks ran low on fuel and ammunition. The Soviet pause granted the Germans a short reprieve. Due to constant Soviet bomber attacks on the German supply columns crossing the Lithuanian border, Panzergruppe 4 had kept its available 8.8cm flak batteries in the rear and none were available near the front at Raseiniai. Reinhardt quickly ordered a flak battery to move forward to support 6.Panzer-Division and, in the meantime, Landgraf was on his own against Solyankin’s tanks. Oberst Richard Koll, commander of Panzer-Regiment 11, led a counterattack with his diminutive Pz.35(t) light tanks and a handful of Pz.IV against the Soviet tanks pounding on Schtitzen-Regiment 114, but this was a hopeless gesture and Koll broke off the attack after suffering significant losses.
Another odd thing about the Battle of Raseiniai is the absence of the Luftwaffe; the arrival of Stukas might have tipped the balance, but they were nowhere in sight.
Solyankin launched six separate attacks on 24 June, which considerably upset the Germans, but Soviet armour power waned as fuel and ammunition were exhausted. Soviet combat logistics fell apart. Most of the T-26 and BT-7 light tanks, as well as the motorized infantry, were lost early in the battle, leaving the remaining KV and T-34 tanks unsupported. The Soviet heavy tanks made one last effort to break through to Raseiniai late in the day, but by this point an 8.8cm flak battery and a 10cm heavy howitzer battery had arrived and they succeeded in immobilizing several tanks, causing the attack to falter.
Everything you wrote is correct; however i'm not discussing history here but PG gameplay. There is no way to make towed 88s more useful than tanks and/or fighter planes in the context of the game.
I offered not towed but wheeled MVT=2. At least something closer to reality
You are right! This uber-unit must to have some weak places. And this unit can be successfully attacked by enemy artillery, infantry and during transportation. But.. thinking about transportation... Acht-Acht's readiness to fire from wheeled position in 1-2 minutes... is it equal to any tank's readiness to engage in combat? Commonly yes. And what happens if we'll create very expensive transportation unit (as purchasable unit during Campaign!) with average Hard Attack (about 7-8-9)? Can we use for it something like Sdkfz.7 adding 8.8 gun icon? If Player will decide to upgrade any Inf unit's transport to this type of transport what Player will get as a result? Better and safer unit's transportation to front line? It's not bad result!
But where from this result? Can we think in this direction? Yes. But those who have done these campaigns in the distant past have put a huge imbalance in the game. For playability.
Why not launch a missile or a nuclear bomb? It is possible that someone has already pressed the red button. I don't know... but: 
The military theorist here is talking about the maximum possible theoretical distance in practical terrain. In reality, this distance should be reduced by at least a third, or even twice.Moving in a marching order, observing the appropriate rules of combat and material-technical support according to the degree of constant readiness for battle, is the only way for tank forces to move on the battlefield and when approaching it. At the same time, a tank unit or formation covers an average of 80-100 km in one day, spending 8 hours on movement and 2 hours on halts, retaining the ability to conduct combat, and in three days - up to 400 km, followed (if the situation allows) a break for the rest of the personnel and putting in order the material part.
The average daily speed of movement of a unit or compound of medium (heavy) tanks in marching order is 60-80 km.
Such a speed of movement in a marching order provides the ability to move entire tank formations from the depths to the front and cast them from the area of one army to the area of another within 24 hours. The ability of tank troops to move under their own power at the speed indicated above makes them independent of vehicles (road, rail and water) under conditions of a front operation and allows them to be concentrated in the required number on the decisive direction of the front during the time allotted for preparing an offensive operation.
Full citation here: viewtopic.php?f=10&p=9172#p9172"In 15 hours, 150 kilometers were covered. As it was proudly noted in the daily summary of the 36th Tank Regiment, "it was a daily march, which until now has not been possible for any tank regiment in Russia." But as a result, the fuel ran out! Our tanks were deeply wedged into the gaping gap formed in the enemy front, and now they could not budge!"
So, the first problem is to decide on the scale and not change it during the campaign. The solution is simple - the scale does not really need to be changed.HexCode wrote: ↑2021-04-10 01:07, Saturday The Campaign feature lies at the heart of the 5 Star General play system paradigm. Aside from the past, empirically confirmed market appeal, the feature "simplifies" matters by utilizing a one-size-fits-all equipment type roster throughout a particular Campaign. To boot, geographical scale remains "indeterminate" as one moves from one scenario map onto the next one. As for OoB, well, we've already discussed this at length...
. I'm all for it"! The creation of a Campaign does not interfere with the creation of separate scenarios for the H2H mode. We have already talked about this in relation to the Low Countries scenario. Of all the scenarios I have worked with, this scenario is the only one promising for the H2H game. The only scenario where I still don't understand who should have won if played correctly ...HexCode wrote: ↑2021-04-10 01:07, Saturday Interestingly enough, the very same critique has been leveled at the aforesaid play system paradigm for an entirely different reason. Namely, high quality H2H play was conceived as Standalone Scenario play where each such scenario would be chock-full of particularities. Technically, each such scenario would be a wargame in and by itself. The conceptual connection with traditional tabletop board wargames should be rather obvious.
I will express my preliminary thoughts on the "Campaign", which can be both historical and very interesting and difficult for the player at the same time.
Both. And as much as possible. But with one good principle in mind:
"c) GHq troops: Artillery: We shall still have to put up a fight to retain a substantial GHq Artillery, incl.Observ.Bns. and Corps Artillery Hqs, to facilitate exercise of control over operations. The argument that modern war is waged no longer with Artillery, but with tanks, is fallacious. "
General George S. Patton, commander of Third Army, also praised the artillery, stating, “I do not have to tell you who won the war. You know. The artillery did.”
The topic of artillery is really huge. You have asked good questions, which I will try to answer in the very near future in great detail.HexCode wrote: ↑2021-05-13 22:37, Thursday The Soviet Army (and Josef Stalin himself) apparently coined the expression "God of War" in reference to artillery.
Just focusing on Campaign Play, when it comes to the use of artillery, there're two design sides to the content under current development:
1) Should the Third Reich Core consist of "more" artillery units ? What about Axis Aux artillery units ? Also, should artillery units' stats be significantly modified ?
2) The issues raised immediately above under point (1) should be relevant to the Soviet side as well, right ? However, the thorny problem of making the AI put the "God of War" to good use still remains, right ?
Naturally, this expression was invented. But not from scratch. It is believed that this expression appeared after November 19, 1942.
Approximately 3700 guns on front sectors with total lenght about 40-50 km."At 07:20 Moscow time (05:20 German time) Soviet artillery commanders received the codeword "Siren ", prompting an 80-minute artillery bombardment directed almost entirely against the non-German Axis units protecting the German flanks. At 7:30 , the Katyusha rocket-launchers fired the first salvos and were soon joined in by the 3,500 guns and mortars stretching along the few breakthrough sectors in front ".
In the current version, the AI will not change either its purchase priorities or the sequence of attacking unit classes. There is nothing to even think about here - as he was a reflective idiot, he will remain so until he is improved. The question is whether the player will see something different, more "interesting" in the aggregate of the AI reflexes. In my opinion, it is unlikely that anything will change, but it is still possible.
All answers here will logically follow from a very detailed answer to the main question:HexCode wrote: ↑2021-05-13 22:37, Thursday Just focusing on Campaign Play, when it comes to the use of artillery, there're two design sides to the content under current development:
1) Should the Third Reich Core consist of "more" artillery units ? What about Axis Aux artillery units ? Also, should artillery units' stats be significantly modified ?
2) The issues raised immediately above under point (1) should be relevant to the Soviet side as well, right ?
should artillery units' stats be significantly modified ?
It's been something like 25 years since SSI released PG1-DOS. It stands to reason, then, that a minority of wargamers would want to really experiment with the... outer limits ! Personally, I keep on referring to the present exercise as a Kriegsspiel. Why ? Because, for the purposes of experimentation, one has to really set the SSI "tradition" aside.Lettos wrote: ↑2021-05-15 10:43, SaturdayNow I want to step aside from the general line that SSI has defined. And try to enter into the system not tuned, but very strongly changed parameter values. Those that are more logical from the point of view of reality. No restrictions or thoughts "what will happen to the game balance". That is, I deliberately want to bring the system out of the state of its unstable equilibrium. And to see what this system is worth with the real values of the parameters, and what happens on the playing field. For example, will the player have an urgent need to start thinking about a maneuver, bypassing all strong cities from the rear, or will the player start buying fewer tanks and replace them with artillery and infantry, etc. An experiment out of curiosity.
Glorious generalship can be a byproduct of experimentation. I don't think about it now. Here, so far, there is only a goal to play at least one serious scenario.
I've written before that I've tested all OoB scenarios in Player versus AI, Player versus Player (by myself). So the testing mode is clear for meHexCode wrote: ↑2021-05-15 14:41, Saturday 2) Forget about PGF's AI module.
3) Both sides should be "played" by one or two humans. A gazillion "house rules" should be specified and religiously adhered to.
4) The player(s) should be collaborating in recreating battlefield history. H2H competition should be subordinated to history's recreation.
Something in between, with a bias in one direction or the other, depending on the results obtained.HexCode wrote: ↑2021-05-15 21:00, Saturday I guess I'm still not clear about the overall experimentation focus here.
Are we talking "retrograde walk-through" (i.e., strict historical recreation) or not ? If strict historical recreation is, indeed, the intended aim, how can PGF's AI Module be "forced to collaborate" ?
If, on the other hand, the experimentation's aim is to actually "play" while at the same time ensuring that various modeled content components reflect a high degree of realism, well then, it's strictly up to you, the content designer, to pursue your own interests and satisfy (or not) your curiosity.
"Napoleon's motto was, 'On s'engage partout, et puis l'on voit,' which must not be taken to mean that he began a battle without any definite plan at all, but rather that his system of fighting was so elastic that it could bend itself to suit the altered circumstances of any particular case."
https://history.stackexchange.com/quest ... is-on-voit
The Germans did not read the Internet and therefore do not know that the Soviet 122 mm M-30 howitzer was "too heavy for horse towing."
Yes! There needs to be a distinction between target types for stationary forts and armored vehicles. Both are today "hard targets" but that just breaks down with regards to artillery - the same gun that is good in killing tanks isn't necessarily enough to kill a bunker, and the one which is good at killing bunkers likely can't hit a moving tank.(FORT ATTACK parameter can be added to wish list 2100)
The problem here is that a half-track vehicle in the Russian mud would gobble up all the synthetic gasoline in Germany. And if the Germans decided to acquire a sufficient number of powerful tracked transports, then a lone infantry would go on the attack in 1943 on the Kursk Bulge."The mobility of American artillery was a sharp contrast to Germany’s situation. R. L. Dinardo’s excellent book, Mechanized Juggernaut or Military Anachronism? Horses in the German Army of World War II, covers the topic quite well. The relative lack of mobility of Germany’s artillery was caused by the limitations of the German economy, desultory planning, and the initiation of hostilities long before the planned expansion of the Wehrmacht was complete. The reliance on horses caused substantial problems in terms of speed of movement, low cargo capacity, short radius of action, and the disproportionate number of men needed to care for the animals. German horse-drawn artillery could only move at a rate of perhaps twenty-five miles a day for several days before the horses needed to rest."
U.S. and German Field Artillery in World War II: A Comparison Written By: William G. Dennis
https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german- ... omparison/
I am thinking now to assign Target type = Soft for FORTS. Significantly increase Ground Defense.Radoye wrote: ↑2021-05-16 17:43, SundayYes! There needs to be a distinction between target types for stationary forts and armored vehicles. Both are today "hard targets" but that just breaks down with regards to artillery - the same gun that is good in killing tanks isn't necessarily enough to kill a bunker, and the one which is good at killing bunkers likely can't hit a moving tank.(FORT ATTACK parameter can be added to wish list 2100)
I see a partial solution to the problem in the following steps:Radoye wrote: ↑2021-05-16 17:43, Sunday Other similar issues - different target/attack types for high and low flying aircraft - 20-40mm AA guns were great at offering support against fast flying strafing fighters and ground attack planes but were useless against strategic bombers, where big guns (like the 88 and larger) were incapable of tracking low flying planes but were the only ones capable reaching the high flying ones.
Yes! I know ... as outraged as you are! To my design luck, cruisers do not float through forests and swamps
. So for now, I ignore the problems of the fleet. I would like to deal with the ground forces The next rule for the player is not to buy horses for guns heavier than 3 tons (or for guns with caliber over 122 mm).Rule for the Eastern Campaign: wheeled vehicles cannot transport artillery for almost 10 months of the year. (Will be implemented in PGF 2100).
Moderated rule for the AXIS player: Please do not buy for artillery trucks. Either horses or half-track vehicles. Moderated (cheated) upgrade of core ATY's transport is necessary before to start Barbarossa. It mean disband unit, add PP, buy new unit with new organic transport, add EXP and STR if exists.
technical details at the hexadecimal level. 
Was thinking the same.
Unfortunately, while this could fix the issue of small caliber guns firing on high flying planes it doesn't solve the issue of large caliber guns not being effective against low flying planes.
Not such a bad company compared to those who did nothing at all. There, Dante also wrote about such people - they seemed to be not even allowed into hellHexCode wrote: ↑2021-05-16 23:36, Sunday With respect to Movement Types' specs,
Movement Point Expenditure Table
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=551#p9044
documents the... gory
I know of no poster other than myself who has ever "publicly" admitted to have committed the penultimate... unforgivable sin
. And if we understand that in a combat position the gun moves across the battlefield by its artillerymen and at the same time organic transport, then it is even more logical to accept the type for 150mm MVT guns as half-tracked or tracked, and for 122mm and less - leg.Lettos wrote: ↑2021-05-16 22:21, Sunday More logical for ATY with horses or half- or full-track transport is MVT Type = 03 (Leg).
And MVT values:
Calibers 65-122 mm if weight less than 3 tonns: MVT = 2
Calibers more than 122 mm and less than 170 mm: MVT = 1
Calibers 170 mm and more: MVT = 0, except guns and howitzers with tracked carriage which should have MVT=1.
) Let's revisit things down the line, ok ?