Panzer General 1: Omnibus Posting - Questions & Commentary

[HexCode]

INTENT & UTILITY
===================

The present topic will be strictly dedicated to PG1 matters. To this effect, I exhort potential posters to exclusively utilize this topic and not to pepper the forum with ad hoc topics re: PG1. Kindly remember: this is a forum essentially dedicated to PGF...

Note: There's a good chance that some of this topic's contents will be incorporated here:

[VP] PGF vs. PG1-DOS : Play System & Technical Differences
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=534

in due course.

[HexCode]

... I was redirected here by Parabellum, so here I am.

It's quite possible that # Parabellum # wishes these forums to behave exactly like the ones over at that "other" Web venue.

There doesn't appear to be any other place here for PG-DOS stuff.
. . .
The question is, would it be appropriate to move that thread here? PG-DOS is sort of PGF ...

My personal opinion is that opening the doors to other PG1 "World" titles would do way more harm than good. Elsewhere in THIS PGF forum I wrote:

I very much like the sharp focus of the forum. PGF comes in only one flavor, Version 1.02 for "MS Windows". This avoids the inevitable confusion and absence of focus arising out of accommodating a bunch of "similar" titles, some being native to diverse operating systems and having been released in diverse media.

However, should you (or anyone else) be interested in launching another forum to accommodate PG1, I suggest that you (they) get in touch with the forum Administrators and make your (their) case.

... my mod should convert to PGF ...

Once your mod gets converted to PGF the sky should be the limit around here.

[HexCode]

Earlier, under this topic, I wrote:

My personal opinion is that opening the doors to other PG1 "World" titles would do way more harm than good.

. . .

However, should you (or anyone else) be interested in launching another forum to accommodate PG1-DOS, I suggest that you (they) get in touch with the forum Administrators and make your (their) case.

Well, an Administrator was kind enough to provide us with some direction. I quote him:

it's like the opengen subforum: it's not a "pg2 + opengen" forum, but pg2 is the ancestor of opengen, and it's impossible to completely separate them, so there will always be posts and threads about pg2 issues in the opengen subforum, same for pg1 vs. pgf

... i think we should show some tolerance for not 100% on-topic threads or posts. if or when there will be enough users, posts, threads about pg1, then we create a dedicated subforum for it

In an attempt to balance competing objectives, I've launched the present topic intended to be strictly dedicated to PG1 matters. To this effect, I exhort potential posters to exclusively utilize the present topic and not pepper the forum with ad hoc topics re: PG1.

[HexCode]

Elsewhere in THIS PGF forum:

... it's nice to know that someone other than Pepa Drobny is playing my mod. (One of these years we are going to finish PacPG.) . . . The DOS version is done, but I can't even upload that.

Well, whoever desires to post re: PG1, this is the "place" to do it. You know, some of us may still remember one or two things re: PG1-DOS...

[JediKnight007]

For the past year, I have been working on my mod, so I have not been actually playing PG-DOS. However, I do have a few random observations from my modding adventures...

- the RESERVED unit is weird. I tried to use it as a normal unit (US Jeep), and it would not show up in the Purchase screen. Even stranger, it made the other US recon units not appear, either. I then tried it as an air transport (so it would not be in the NUPL), and while it functioned properly, it did not appear when examining the unit it was transporting. Don't know if that's the case with PGF.

- why does Torch have both sides on offense? Take one look at the battlefield, and it's clear the Axis should be digging in. Even the briefing suggests a defensive posture.

- quite a few units in the EQP file don't actually appear in any scene. In Luftwaffe General, every unit (except the aforementioned RESERVED one) will make at least one appearance. Mostly to show off the 400+ icons I worked so hard on. No, really, I try to keep historical accuracy when possible - you won't see many Stugs in the desert because they were mostly found on the Eastern Front. But hypothetical scenarios might have some liberties taken (like Italian planes in Sealion 43).

Regarding PacPG, Pepa told me in an email that he has been working on it, since this pandemic has given people a lot of free time. I also directed him to some technical info on how to hex edit pgf.exe, because his mod uses different movement and weather tables than standard PG/PGF. (Previous attempts to convert PacPG to PGF failed because of this.) So maybe, just maybe, this project will see the light of day.

[Radoye]

- why does Torch have both sides on offense? Take one look at the battlefield, and it's clear the Axis should be digging in. Even the briefing suggests a defensive posture.

The PG Torch scenario is basically Run for Tunis.

Basically, with the Vichy collapse in North Africa both Allies and Axis ran unopposed to capture as much territory as possible before the other. The remaining Vichy troops didn't offer much resistance to either at first, but later joined the Allies / Free French.

So technically the map should be all French at the start of the scenario with each side capturing cities and turning them to their side. And both sides should indeed be on the offensive - at least at first, until further Axis advance is stopped by overwhelming Allied forces.

[JediKnight007]

- why does Torch have both sides on offense? Take one look at the battlefield, and it's clear the Axis should be digging in. Even the briefing suggests a defensive posture.

The PG Torch scenario is basically Run for Tunis.

Yeah, I learned that during my research. AG Torch is more historically accurate than PG Torch. In my mod I renamed it Tunisia. I also renamed El Alamein to Gazala Line for the same reason. Radoye's suggestion for Torch is a good one - perhaps someday I will do a "Luftwaffe General Redux" with new/highly modified maps and/or scenarios. (Not anytime soon, though.)

More random observations...most of these are well-known oddities...

- air transports with an Air Attack > 0 show in the examine screen with brackets around it, meaning they can't actively attack, only defend themselves. But, in the game, they can initiate aerial combat. I was going to leave this in anyway (German Ju 52 was armed), but decided against it, since the stupid AI (and maybe some stupid human ) might try to dogfight with it.

- air transports ignore Fuel ratings, they have unlimited fuel. Often I find myself using excess infantry units as throw-away recon units, spending nearly the entire battle just tooling around in their plane, maybe seizing an undefended airfield here and there. I wanted to eliminate that, but nope.

- Axis has 3 air transports (Ju 52, Me 323, Italian Sm.82), but only the Junkers is used. A waste of precious EQP slots (only 449 + RESERVED in DOS). Especially the Italian one - both PG and PGF only allow 1 type of transport per side per scenario.

Here's something that might be new. I noticed a map error in Middle East. The lake near Basra (59,23 I believe) is mislabeled as "Ocean". Fortunately, one is not able to embark sea transport from the port there.

[Radoye]

- Axis has 3 air transports (Ju 52, Me 323, Italian Sm.82), but only the Junkers is used. A waste of precious EQP slots (only 449 + RESERVED in DOS). Especially the Italian one - both PG and PGF only allow 1 type of transport per side per scenario.

Yep, there is only one kind of air transport per side that will be used when embarking units during the scenario. However, when designing a scenario you can have as many different air transports as you have embarked units (obviously practical limitations due to finite eqp file size remain).

So you could design a scenario where all your Italian auxiliaries have their own transport, paratroopers are in Ju 52's and artillery and such is in Me 323's, and this will work for the units initially placed on the map but any further units that you embark at airfields would all have the same default air transport (usually Ju 52).

Same goes for naval transports, you can have many different types but there's only one default per side in a scenario and this is the one that will be given to your units when embarking in ports.

[HexCode]

PG1-DOS ==>

This is Underlying Terrain Representation (UTR) territory. All UTR specifications associated with bodies of water (excepting river hexes though) behave exactly the same.

1) A "City" hex adjacent to a "Lake" hex could be assigned a non-naval (i.e., no "Port", "Port Facility" or "Embarkation") UTR designation (i.e., "plain vanilla" City hex).

2) Alternatively, one may still retain the pretty picture (i.e., Terrain Iconic Representation (TIR)) while assigning "Escarpment" UTRs to underlie any "Lake" hexes...

3) Whether a hex'es Geographical Location Name (GLN) reads "Ocean", "Lake" or whatever makes no difference whatsoever when it comes to the hex'es actual terrain properties...

Ah, the "old" days...

[HexCode]

PG1-DOS ==>

1) While a transport unit is actually transporting some unit, it doesn't consume any fuel whatsoever, irrespective of some corresponding zero or non-zero fuel capacity designation in file PANZEQUP.EQP.

2) Transport units appearing in custom scenarios solo (i.e., not transporting anything) exhibit some rather interesting behaviors...

[Jorge44]

Hello HexCode:
I am writing to ask you a favor: Well, I have been playing PG1 DOS for quite some time and the truth is that from my page you can download the Efile Zerstorer and the Marius savegame editor that works on modern systems. But I am looking for a save game editor that allows more possibilities, such as changing the date of the scenario, the number of core units, the prestige of each side, the available units, etc ... The Brash Polish Editor did all that, but unfortunately it does not work in modern systems like windows 10. Could you help me or advise me about some program? Thanks in advance. Take care of yourself: Your friend Jorge

[HexCode]

Instructions:

1) If you're not computer-savvy, get some real retro technical help.

2) Install / place DOSbox (D*FEND).

3) Get Win 3.1x and place it here C:\WINpt1x

4) Make DOSbox (D*FEND) "recognize" Win 3.1x via file DOSBOX.CONF.

5) Place and run Win 3.1x programs "inside" Win 3.1x.

Final comment:

One really needs computer expertise painfully acquired in the early 1990s...

[Jorge44]

Hello HexCode:
Thank you very much for answering. I will try to follow in his footsteps, but I promise nothing, I am a true computer illiterate. Now, I have two questions in mind: The first is if you can advise me on all PG1 DOS editors that work on windows 10 or modern operating systems. Why am I asking you this? Well, you see, I plan to add more PG1 content to my page and I do not want potential users to go crazy doing, as I say, authentic back-plumbing. Download and play, that's my philosophy. The second question is related to the animations of the game. What folder are they in, what format do they have and especially how can I view them without starting the game?
That's all for today. Take care, my friend. His companion and faithful follower: Jorge

[HexCode]

I plan to add more PG1 content to my page

I only "know" some technical stuff re: PG1-DOS. I never bothered with PG1-Win'95 etc.

I plan to add more PG1 content to my page and I do not want potential users to go crazy doing, as I say, authentic back-plumbing. Download and play, that's my philosophy.

Kind of challenging with PG1-DOS; we're talking about a 25 year old computer game which isn't native even to Win 3.1x ! Easiest solution: keep a Win XP or older machine around...

[Jorge44]

Well, if you allow me I have more questions: What does it say about the animations of PG DOS, how can I enjoy them without turning on the game? How can I alter a PG DOS save game without any specific program? As you can see my friend, I am a sea of doubts. I hope I don't bother you with my questions and take good care of yourself and your family: Your friend Jorge

[HexCode]

One question at a time...

How can I alter a PG DOS save game without any specific program?

"Saved Game" Files: GAME.SV? (or PBM.SV?)

These are binary files. Without some dedicated editor utility one will have to hex-edit them. This requires precise technical knowledge and adequate facility / experience. Once upon a time, the requisite technical information was "publicly" available. As far as I know, this is no longer the case...

P.S. With the eventual advent of PGF, heavy-duty technical documentation and discussions ceased being in vogue. Just look at this "new" forum's evolution...

[Jorge44]

Hello

"Save Game" Files: GAME.SV? or PBM.SV?

I was referring to games saved against the computer (AI) GAME.SV

Surely you can help me. In PGF you can modify the files with open office. With PG DOS I have no idea what to do next. Take care of yourself: Your friend Jorge

[HexCode]

... the animations of PG DOS ... what folder are they in, what format do they have and especially how can I view them without starting the game?

The PG1-DOS animation files reside in the DAT directory. Their filename format is:

A_mmm_n.SHP

where "mmm" ranges from "001" to "104" and "n" ranges from "1" to "9".

These files contain images coded as per the SHP format (an old format). One would need an old fashioned SHP viewing and / or editing utility to look at these images. Even then, the displayed images will be static, not dynamic.

[Jorge44]

Many thanks my Friend:

[Radoye]

I was referring to games saved against the computer (AI) GAME.SV

Surely you can help me. In PGF you can modify the files with open office. With PG DOS I have no idea what to do next. Take care of yourself: Your friend Jorge

It's completely different in PG1 compared to PGF, pretty much all file formats are different (some notable exceptions - mapnames and the map terrain files which are reused from PG/AG). You won't be able to edit any PG/AG files using a plain text or spreadsheet editor.

As HexCode pointed out, to look inside PG/AG files you'll need a hex editor

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor_hexadecimal

And even then, what you'll see is not user friendly - in most cases there are no labels with names etc that clearly indicate what is what. You really have to know what you're doing if you decide to poke into binary files, because it's very easy to make mistakes and mess things up. I'm afraid there's no easy way to edit PG/AG files especially for a beginner.

[Parabellum]

...
PG1-DOS caps Accumulated Prestige at 60,000 points. PGF doesn't feature an Accumulated Prestige cap at all.
...

PG2 (PG3D) caps at 65,536 points ... and then ...

In another forum on January 08, 2014:

"If prestige goes higher then 65535 it will role over to 0"

http://306611.homepagemodules.de/t84865 ... uot-8.html

[HexCode]

PG1-DOS caps Accumulated Prestige at 60,000 points. The cap is specifically hard-coded in its executable.

PG2 (PG3D) caps at 65,536 points ... and then ...

In another forum on January 08, 2014:

"If prestige goes higher then 65535 it will roll over to 0"

http://306611.homepagemodules.de/t84865 ... uot-8.html

SSI has repeatedly flouted solid coding practices in more than one of their 1990s wargame title releases...

The aforementioned "bug" is the "forward looping prestige bug".

Technically speaking, the coding problem was this. Accumulated Prestige was encoded in 16-bit fashion. Therefore, its maximally allowable (hexadecimal) value was FFFFh. Now, upon any additional prestige amount which would have been expected to leave the Accumulate Prestige amount at its maximally allowable (hexadecimal) value FFFFh, the wargame's engine would loop the "resultant" amount back into 0h territory instead.

By the way, in the reverse case of the much complained about (in certain PBEM circles) "backwards looping prestige bug", the looping was taking place in the opposite direction. With a player's Accumulated Prestige already hovering around 0, a tiny prestige loss due to enemy level bombing of some objective hex of his would suddenly cause the player to possess a practically monstrous amount of Accumulated Prestige...

All in all, somewhat sloppy commercial programming...

[PepaDrobny]

By the way, in the reverse case of the much complained about (in certain PBEM circles) "backwards looping prestige bug", the looping was taking place in the opposite direction. With a player's Accumulated Prestige already hovering around 0, a tiny prestige loss due to enemy level bombing of some objective hex of his would suddenly cause the player to possess a practically monstrous amount of Accumulated Prestige...

Hallo,

I have the same experience in different matter. When you have in initial deployement more air transport units than slots for air transports possible (can be so in custom scenario, not in original scenario, where always: number of slots >= number of all transport units on map). There is variable in scenario "transports available", visible when you move mouse cursor over own airfield or port. When you lose transport by enemy fire (means not by disbanding or disembark/dropping of para), this variable is dropping by 1. When "transports available" is 0, in such situation next value is calculated by 0 minus 1. In real world is result -1, but in PG world result is jump to 255

[HexCode]

In PG1-DOS, enemy-owned or wrecked airfields / ports / embarkation cities can STILL be used for embarkation by friendly units. Naturally, the only friendly ground units which can be the beneficiaries of such program... largess are the ones whose very presence in those hexes doesn't automatically trigger an ownership change (e.g., artillery, air defense and anti-aircraft class units).

[Radoye]

In PG1-DOS, enemy-owned or wrecked airfields / ports / embarkation cities can STILL be used for embarkation by friendly units. Naturally, the only friendly ground units which can be the beneficiaries of such program... largess are the ones whose very presence in those hexes doesn't automatically trigger an ownership change (i.e., artillery, air defense and anti-aircraft class units).

If a city or airport is "neutralized", AFAIK only disembarked infantry can "repair" / capture it, correct me if i'm wrong?

So technically it would mean that even some other units beside ATY, AD and AA could embark onto transports (providing all other conditions for them to be able to do so are met) from wrecked ports / airfields without capturing them?

[HexCode]

If a city or airport is "neutralized", AFAIK only disembarked infantry can "repair" / capture it, correct me if i'm wrong?

Yes. Only unmounted infantry class units can carry out restorative "repairs".

Now, the truly finer points...

So technically it would mean that even some other units beside ATY, AD and AA could embark onto transports (providing all other conditions for them to be able to do so are met) from wrecked ports / airfields without capturing them?

Precisely. Any unit finding itself in an Organic Transport (mounted) state could take advantage of this program quirk. Of course, when it comes to air embarkation, the transported unit itself must be suitable (e.g., infantry, light anti-tank / artillery units).

[PepaDrobny]

I am collecting source photos for all PG/AG/PacG pictures.
This funny, but uncompleted COLLECTION IS HERE
Can anybody help?

During this activity I have found Czech track in Allied General - sreen for "Axis victory".





German soldiers marching with Sudeten girls on parade during Adolf Hitlers visit of city Asch (Aš), in the Sudetenland, non-combat performance of Fall Grün, former Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic),
October 3, 1938.
On April 20, 1945, Hitler birthday, Aš was liberated as first Czech city by US Army.

[HexCode]

Some Novice Modders and, hopefully, all Veteran Modders operating within the confines of SSI's 5-Star General wargames and their emulations know that map tiles have absolutely nothing to do with how the engines "view" maps. That was not always the case. Lets' take a trip down memory lane when PG1-DOS ruled the roost...

I invite you to take a look at SSI-PG1-WARSAW (Scenario #2). SSI's (stock) WARSAW, hex < 19 , 03 > is identified on the screen as "Clear". When one loads the file into PZGMAPED though, Charles Tyson's editor identifies the UTR as hexadecimal terrain that... changes every time the scenario is loaded into the utility !! In fact, a question mark (?) highlights that there is a problem with the hex...

The "Celebrated WARSAW Hex Anomaly" triggered reasonable, almost expected, queries. Hexadecimal research buffs started experimenting with TIRs other than "Clear" placed "on top" of the aforesaid anomalous hex. All this did not matter an iota to the program which continued to treat the anomalous hex in all respects as "Clear" terrain...

Bingo ! A strong empirical case was made to the effect that TIRs and UTRs are code-wise independent from one another in PG1-DOS (i.e., totally decoupled). Further experimentation confirmed this important technical finding !!

In the overwhelming majority of cases, anomalies such as the "Celebrated WARSAW Hex" one are quite unintended and, hence, undesirable. Unless one is super vigilant, such map anomalies can be very easily introduced into a custom scenario...

HOWEVER:

There could be instances where a custom scenario author purposely introduces such map anomalies. It is somewhat noteworthy to mention David Smid's custom scenario "CZECHOSLOVAKIA". This early pioneer showed the adventurous slice of the Hobby the way to... liberation via the power of technical demonstration !!

By the way, I am more than happy to report that, upon "foreverization", PGF's
programmer and his Team caught the "Celebrated Warsaw Anomaly" and took appropriate remedial action... In technical terms, the... absurd "03 05" byte values encountered in SSI's file MAP02.STM were replaced with "00 00".

[HexCode]

Once upon a time...

The Team focused on SSI-PG1-POLAND ("Scenario #1"). The Team's members conscientiously commenced the map's technical "audit" re: "things" observable while "playing". They let loose those trucks and came upon... hex < 04 , 07 > !! To make a long story short, the engine's observable behavior totally ignored the map tile's roadwork depiction.

Naturally, this empirical observation called for Charles Tyson's PZGMAPED editing utility to be called upon and, hopefully, shed some light into the situation. Upon loading the SSI-PG1-POLAND scenario technical specification, PZGMAPED revealed the total absence of roadwork "under" the map tile. In fact, the "discrepancy" came across as a... capricious road "discontinuity".

Here is where things become decidedly important:

1) Mr. Kroegel's visible maps trump whatever the engine "understands", at least in terms of content authorship intentionality.

2) Ideally, SSI's quality control activities should have zeroed in on this "discontinuity" and corrected it prior to officially releasing PG1-DOS.

3) Once such "discrepancies" are both identified and technically understood, no harm is done if some... brave souls were to fix them. But, at least as far certain... adventurous Modders are concerned, sweeping the understanding part under the rug would have been akin to a hobby... crime !

By the way, it should be obvious that Mr. Kroegel's maps were / are just for... show. The engine always has "its" own "ideas" as to what those "maps" are all about !!

Once again, I am more than happy to report that, upon "foreverization", PGF's programmer and his Team caught the above "discrepancy" and took appropriate remedial action...

[zjorz]

So when looking trought the AG equipment file I noticed that it contains 2 AT units that seem to be similar.

JagdPanzer 38
Hetzer

Can anybody explain what the difference is between them? As far as I know the Jagdpanzer 38(t) was the official name and the Hetzer is the unofficial nickname it got after the war? It would mean we have 2 units that are actually the same thing. But that is strange since they have different stats in the equipment file.

[Radoye]

It is correct that Hetzer was just an unofficial nickname for JPz38(t).

Same two units exist in the PG efile, with slightly different stats compared to AG (as usual, the German units a bit toned down / Allies a bit amped up in AG).

Based on the stats, it appears that the "Jadgpanzer 38" unit (available from 1/45 in the efile) represents the attempt to rearm the standard Hetzer (available from 4/44 in the efile) with the long L/70 gun from the standard L/48. See the similar JPzIV variants ("Jadgpz IV/48" and "Jadgpz IV/70") for reference.

In reality, only a handful of such Panzerjaeger 38(t) mit 75mm L/70 prototypes was ever produced and it was found they were impractical due to the longer gun being too heavy for the chassis. In my efile i replaced this with the Flammpanzer variant of the Hetzer. Other possible options would be the sIG33 Hetzer variant or the planned but never produced Jpz38D, if you're looking for a suitable replacement.

[zjorz]

The Jagdpanzer 38D sounds the most fitting considering the weapon stats. I was thinking about the E-25, but that would not fit considering the date of the quipment file. Replacing the unit itself by another one is not an option since i want to stick to all the original equipment file. I'm only renaming it. Anyway, thanks for the info

[Radoye]

No problem mate, glad i could help!

[PepaDrobny]

Similar is German 8.8 gun - the same once as AT, once as AA

[Radoye]

Also Soviet self propelled AT /ATY (SU/ISU 122, 152 and such) - these are exactly the same vehicles, where in PG/AG we have a repeat in AT and ATY role.

Although, with the 8.8 there were a few variants around, the earliest exclusively AA, the main few versions multirole AA / AT / ATY, and the latest exclusively AT. Same basic gun, different types of mount, different ammo. So maybe that one does warrant separate units.

[zjorz]

Need some help for the renaming of the equipment file. France has the HF II fighter in its unit roster. After doing some research I think it is supposed to be the Hawker Fury Mk II. But that was never used by france So I'm looking for a replacement that matches the unit model.

So far the Loire 45 seems like the only aircraft with a similar look that got used by france during WW2, but not completely convicned it's the right choice. Preferably I would like to have a biplane for that. Any suggestions?

[Radoye]

SPAD S.510 perhaps?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bl%C3%A9riot-SPAD_S.510

And you're right, that was supposed to be the RAF Hawker Fury but someone decided to make it French for some reason.

For Norway, Fokker D.XXIII should be a Gloster Gladiator (there is an unused icon just for that).

For Belgium, no PZL P.24 - not sure what would be a suitable replacement though.

[zjorz]

For Norway, Fokker D.XXIII should be a Gloster Gladiator (there is an unused icon just for that).

I actually renamed the Norwegian fighter to the Fokker CVD based on this source: http://www.nuav.net/norwair1940.html

Would be interested in using the unique icon for the Gladiator. Is it specificly made for Norway?

For Belgium, no PZL P.24 - not sure what would be a suitable replacement though.

Looking at their used airplanes my first thought is to use that Gloster Gladiator icon for the Belgian airforce. It fits the equipment they used according to this source: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/04/1 ... orce-wwii/

[zjorz]

So after posting my reply I looked at the scenario and graphics roster.
1: i actually think using the Gloster Gladiator icon and the name for the Norwegian equipment makes sense. Especially if it was unused before.

2: Both aircraft used by Belgium seem to be specific for that scenario, and could be changed to something more fitting. As long as its a Monoplane and a Biplane that fits the used stats. I will have to check if they are actually used for any other nation/scneario later.

3: Is the PZL P24 of the equipment file actually used for any scenario at all?

[Radoye]

Would be interested in using the unique icon for the Gladiator. Is it specificly made for Norway?

Yes, those appear to be Norwegian AF markings. There is another unused biplane icon with what looks like Danish AF markings too.

3: Is the PZL P24 of the equipment file actually used for any scenario at all?

The Belgian one - not that i'm aware of. Might be interesting to reassign to Greece, which used PZL 24s?

[PepaDrobny]

PG1 BUG DEFINETLY SOLVED

(1) There was a strange thing which PG1 modders encountered when made custom campaign.
Each scenario starts on date, which can be setted in scenario file (gameXXX.scn) - by hand in hexadeciamally or by editing tool (FPGE, Pzgmaped etc.)
But there was one exception. When you use for new custom scenario slot No5 (original scenario France), strange thing occurs. If you play this scenario as SINGLE scenario, your playing this scenario will be OK, game dispalys exactly the same date like you made settings in editing tool and saved in scenario files. But when you play this as CAMPAIGN, the date scenario files settings is ignored and nosensely starts on 5th June 1940. This was really frustrating. After years I had found this date in panzer.exe, so this could be modified, but still yet disturbing (must pay attention to this matter). And there was not explanation what was the reason for existence of this .

(2) The bug is in time/date discrepancy between scenarios Low countries and following France when Minor or Allied victory in Low countries occurs.
Low countries date: 10.5.1940 - 8.6.1940 (30 turns, 1turn per day)
France date: 5.6.1940 - 30.6.1940 (26 turns, 1turn per day)

Victory or Lose in last turns of Low countries causes TIME LOOP , because next scenario France starts BEFORE previous Low countries ends.

In case of Major victory in Low countries, meaning victory up to 26th turn = 3rd June 1940, everything is OK





Campaign briefing for Minor or Lose of Low Countries gives a hint, what was the intention of original PG makers. Briefing says, that the task is to take all strategic points in France up to 30th July 1940, what is not consistent with last date of scenario France 30.6.1940. So, in case of Minor or Lose in Low Countries, there was intended the France scenario to be postponded and run in JULY, meanig not enough time for Sealion 1940. France should have in this case the starting date one month later, 5.7.1940 (to finish on 30th July 1940).



In case of Major victory in Low countries, campaign briefing says correctly final date as 30th June 1940.



And finally, I have found in panzer.exe procedure for using the "hardcoded" 5.6.1940 as in (1) article. Algorithm asks for result of Low countries and in case of MAJOR victory, directs to use the "hardcoded" date for France. And THERE is the bug. If fact, this judgement is doing nothing, because value 5.6.1940 is the same as scenario seetings. It is double bug. Wrong "hardcoded" date and wrong point for using. Correct judgement for "hardcoded" is not in case Major victory but in case MINOR/LOSE and not to be value 5.6.1940 but to be 5.7.1940. Both I found as editable, so this bug can be complexly fixed

[Radoye]

So, you're saying that in PG in this one case it is possible to have the same scenario file use different start dates? That's a neat trick!

Thanks for your investigation, i will make adjustments to my modded PGF files to get rid of this "time loop".

[PepaDrobny]

So, you're saying that in PG in this one case it is possible to have the same scenario file use different start dates? That's a neat trick!

Yes. Exactly. Just so.

Thanks for your investigation, i will make adjustments to my modded PGF files to get rid of this "time loop".

You're welcome. Yeah, go ahead. Technically clear solution for such adjustment I have already posted:

So, SOLUTION of this bug for PGF is to create another (additional) version of scenario France for PGF, name for example France(July), and set the starting date to 5.7.1940 and modify the campaign tree to use this scenario in case of Minor or Lose in Low countries (in case of Major victory, stay the existing France scenario).

[PepaDrobny]

Another bug in PG1

In the original briefing texts for the campaigns, the designation Operation Waldteufel appears before the Battle of Budapest. However, this operation did not take place north of Lake Balaton in Hungary, but took place in Croatia, south of Lake Balaton, although after crossing the river Drava it also went to Hungary.
The Battle of Budapest in PG corresponds to Operation Fruehlingserwachen (Spring Awakening), and this will be corrected in my next release of corrections .







https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... _Awakening

BTW: the tactical map above is after my correction of Budapest scenario, the original one was wrongly rotated:

[zjorz]

@PepaDrobny: Very nice rotated conversion. Was it possible to keep the rest of the terrain identical to what it was before?

About the fix you created for PG, is there a way to convert this to PGF?

[Radoye]

About the fix you created for PG, is there a way to convert this to PGF?

FPGE editor offers automatic conversion from PG to PGF file formats. It works reasonably well, although sometimes small errors can happen and in extreme cases the whole thing crashes with no resulting output. But in most cases it will work without much hassle.

[Radoye]

Thanks for your investigation, i will make adjustments to my modded PGF files to get rid of this "time loop".

You're welcome. Yeah, go ahead. Technically clear solution for such adjustment I have already posted:

So, SOLUTION of this bug for PGF is to create another (additional) version of scenario France for PGF, name for example France(July), and set the starting date to 5.7.1940 and modify the campaign tree to use this scenario in case of Minor or Lose in Low countries (in case of Major victory, stay the existing France scenario).

The pg campaign tree already has a separate "France2" slot for the minor vic in Low Countries - but it references the same scenario file as the "regular" France (after major in LC). This will be an easy change to make.

I think i'll do some extra modifications to the "France Late" scenario, beside just the date change though.

[PepaDrobny]

@PepaDrobny: Very nice rotated conversion. Was it possible to keep the rest of the terrain identical to what it was before?

Yes, is was possible and of course it was done so. That was my strict target.

About the fix you created for PG, is there a way to convert this to PGF?

Yes, as Radoye correctly commented.

By the way, the Budapest is not only scenario to be corrected by rotation (see pictures). The most challenging was Sevastopol. Rotation anglel was not 90° or 180° but only 45°

in PG - Kiev, Sevastopol, Market-Garden

==>

==>

==>

in AGPG - Overlord, Cobra

==>

==>

[PepaDrobny]

The pg campaign tree already has a separate "France2" slot for the minor vic in Low Countries - but it references the same scenario file as the "regular" France (after major in LC). This will be an easy change to make.

I think i'll do some extra modifications to the "France Late" scenario, beside just the date change though.

That's great. I supposed that it will be simple.

[Parabellum]

So when looking trought the AG equipment file I noticed that it contains 2 AT units that seem to be similar.

JagdPanzer 38
Hetzer

Can anybody explain what the difference is between them? As far as I know the Jagdpanzer 38(t) was the official name and the Hetzer is the unofficial nickname it got after the war? It would mean we have 2 units that are actually the same thing. But that is strange since they have different stats in the equipment file.

Here is a small addition:
Ralf Raths, director of the German Tank Museum Munster, talks about the Hetzer (subtitles available).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwjKW51Bt3g
Second video in english language
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTkXi5XHWgQ