[DEV] Content Generation - Ideas, Approaches & Discussions

[Lettos]

Without Organic transport this unit can retreat to ocean.

As far as I know, this unfortunate behavior has been observed in instances where the unit's Movement Allowance (MA) is ZERO (0). Why resort to such specification? Just give adequate NEGATIVE SFPs to the unit which will definitely last until the very end of the scenario.

It's possible that I've overreacted while working on the scenario!
Checking in tests now and I see no difference in the behavior of a unit with Negative Listed Fuel Capacity depending on whether it has transport or not. But it's the tiniest little thing. Getting that Zero MVT transport out of the scenario is a few clicks.

I've already written about SFC - it slows down the work in the scenario creation process, when you have to change the position of units on the map very often.
It's easier to make a clone of the unit in the eqp file. When the scenario is complete, you can replace the clone with a normal unit with negative SFP. But why do this if the clone has already been created, and the eqp file size looks unlimited at this point?
Also, scenarios will never be completely finished. There will constantly be some sort of tweaking going on. And then we'll have to use the clone again at the design stage, and then replace it with a normal unit again... a lot of unnecessary mechanical work, which will only make sense if it suddenly turns out that the behavior of clone units with negative LFC and normal units with negative SFP differs in some way. So far they look the same in behavior.

That's why I use SFC only for slow start of individual units, but not for mass stationarity of garrisons and batteries.

[Lettos]

ENT Level can be set in pgscn to values much greater than the allowed nine.
In tests, even a three-digit ENT number does not cause any problems in the interface and executable program.

Assigning for certain units the ability to ignore entrenchment was already discussed two years ago.
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=150#p12712

The idea to use 'ignore entrenchment' ability by long-range and heavy guns is questionable for me ! This feature is more suitable for rocket artillery...

Generally speaking, a missile is just a means of delivering a certain mass of explosive packed in a certain type of container at a certain speed to a target.

Gustav/Dora, Karl, Thor, TallBoy bomb, 1000kg bomb, 356/381/406/456 mm shell - their effect on fortifications is very significant.
Engineers haven't guns but have flamethrowers. Flamethrower tanks - can they have ability to ignore entrenchment too?
These issues are decided by the scenario designer himself.

And the general theme is that if you need to destroy some unit with ENT=30, or 99, then the usual means in the form of multiple strikes that reduce the ENT level will be extremely ineffective.
Of course, there remains the notorious PGF engine principle that any weak unit can someday do a little damage to a strong one.
The remedy to this principle is to give the fortress/bunker unit not only a very high ENT, but also as much STR as possible (20). Weak units will not be able to quickly destroy such a fortification.

Until the player brings some heavy guns to the fortress, or brings Engineers or flamethrower tanks, the fortress will remain a fortress. It's a plug fortress on an important road or, for example, a coastal battery like the Todt or fort "Maxim Gorky".