[DEV] PGF 1.021

[zjorz]

Hello everybody,
There havent been any official updates to PGF for years, so I decided to create my own. Its an update to the core game package from http://www.pgforever.info/.

Changelog:
Added the most recent 0.7.5 version of FPGE.
Added Waffen SS campaign version 1.5 made by Radoye.
Added Luftwaffe General demo 2 made by Jediknight007.
Cleaned up the game files and removed unused duplicate files.
Renamed GB to UK in all descriptions.
PG:
Replaced equipment file with the AG version.
Replaced manual with high quality PDF version.
Fixed road connections for all scenarios.
Fixed unlogical unit facing for multiple scenarios.
Fixed incorrect flags of Rumania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria.
Fixed Norway missing coastal tile.
Fixed Low Countries incorrect Maastricht name and converted city and garrison to Dutch owned. Changed Belgian forts from French to Belgian flag.
Fixed France northern river/road issue.
Fixed Torch both sides being the attacker. Axis set to defender.
Fixed Market-Garden allied occupied cities starting as Axis owned.
Fixed Berlin East Soviet flags on Swiss cities.
AG:
Added PSX AG music.
Fixed road connections for all Russia campaign scenarios.
Renamed Russia campaign to USSR.

The new version can be downloaded here:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/6y3zvogx4 ... 1.zip/file (updated 8-4-2020)

Important: the online multiplayer is down permanently untill somebody manages to fix it.

For anybody looking for a great singleplayer mod I can really recommend the World at War mod by Radoye:
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=149

[zjorz]

So I'm thinking about what can be done to improve PGF even more. There seems to be a lot of room to improve the scenarios. Many of them are different and their conversion hasn't been 100% faithfull to the original. Converting them all by hand could improve the experience of replaying the campaigns.
If thats done it also opens up the option to create a unified equipment file for both PG and AG. This file can be expanded with pacgen units later on.
Does anybody have any other suggestions?

[Radoye]

...create a unified equipment file for both PG and AG. This file can be expanded with pacgen units later on.

That's kinda been done already

[Radoye]

Without any intentions to hijack the topic, just to bring some of the discussion from the private messages out to the public because this is important information for any PGF player:

You cannot play AG scenarios / campaigns with the PG eqp file, but you can play PG scenarios / campaigns with the AG eqp file (as converted to PGF). There are some differences in stats (late war stuff has been generally toned down, Soviets have been buffed up, trucks now have 0 attack, some unit availability dates have been adjusted) but the game plays without any hiccups. There are some extra units in the AG efile that are absent from PG but everything else matches up perfectly so AG eqp file works with PG. So in a manner of speaking AG eqp file is already unified with PG.

[zjorz]

Really helpfull info, thanks for the post (and pm). Im already working on a new version with more improvements.

I'm thinking about adding your waffen SS campaign and the Luftwaffe General mod and possibly remove kaiser and kuk general. I'd rather focus on the dedicated PGF mods since they seem to use a lot more of the PGF features. While Your WAW mod is excelent, the file size is simply too big to add it. I feel like adding a 100MB mod to a 20mb base game might be overkill. The SS campaign is all extra units, so the larger size might be justified. Choices choices

[Radoye]

If you omit the Sound folder from my mod that would save you a ton of space. But you'd then be left without my beautiful new sounds and music!

You might want to get rid of the two mp3 files only (that's the music) and keep the sound effects. Whatever you decide it's fine with me

[Perras]

Hi zjorz

Thanks for the PGF update!

But the download link soesn't work for me, I get this error "The key you provided for file access was invalid. This is usually caused because the file is no longer stored on MediaFire."

Best regards

Perras

[Radoye]

Yes, i can confirm this - the file seems to be removed.

[zjorz]

Sorry guys, I removed the old file some time ago when I started working on the next version. The link has been updated now.

I added the luftwaffe general and waffen SS campaign and removed the KuK and Kaiser general ones. I think these campaigns show of the technical capabilities of the PGF engine really well. Also they offer a nice twist on the original campaign scenarios.
PG and AG now use the same equipment file with the superior AG rebalancing.
I've corrected the incorrect "Russia" and "Great Britain" names used for the allied sides and replaced them with USSR and UK for all scenarios and units.
The road connections for the russia/ussr campaign have been fixed.
The online botton has been added to the interface again just in case somebody wants to try to fix it.

I'm not fixing the western allied scenarios because they are using overlapping scenario files for the UK/USA sides.(stm ?). I edited them in the past but ended up corrupting them so dont want to touch them until i find a solution. The facing is really weird in a lot of the scenarios, so they do need fixing. Will need to investigate that at a later point.
I was also trying to fix the Finland scenario since it lacks any snow. In PG the early turns have snowy ground, and not sure why that isnt working for PGF.

Anyway have fun with the file, and stay healthy!

[Perras]

Thanks for the new version zjorz

[Radoye]

I'm not fixing the western allied scenarios because they are using overlapping scenario files for the UK/USA sides.(stm ?). I edited them in the past but ended up corrupting them so dont want to touch them until i find a solution. The facing is really weird in a lot of the scenarios, so they do need fixing. Will need to investigate that at a later point.
I was also trying to fix the Finland scenario since it lacks any snow. In PG the early turns have snowy ground, and not sure why that isnt working for PGF.

.stm are map files (terrain info, hex ownership / flags, etc). Multiple scenarios can absolutely share one stm file.

I also succeeded in cloning these - it involves some hex editing but it can be done. Been a while since i last tried, but i can look into it.

I also believe there is a setting one can set for a scenario to start with frozen terrain. I got too many things on my plate at the moment with the extraordinary circumstances around the world with the virus pandemic, working from home extra long hours etc, but i will take a peek when i get a chance.

[IAF_Gustie]

Thanks for updating the game! looking forward to trying it!. In my modified Italian campaign, I also updated the Greek flag to match the one from 1940

[PepaDrobny]

There is a bug in PGF, transferred from original PG.

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 the France scenario should have 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.

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).

Solution for original PG has been already developed too and will be presented in topic PG1: Omnibus Posting

[zjorz]

@pepadrobny thank you for your post. Over the years i've realised that many of the PG scenarios contain inconsistencies that could be fixed. So might have to do with the conversion to PGF while others might be from the original game. There seems to be a lot that could be improved by converting them again by hand, but that would take a lot of time to do.

For the date issue you mention I feel like the suggested solution sounds quite complicated for the problem. I myself would prefer to edit the briefing file and change the sentence a bit. For example you could remove the last part "by no later than July 30th." and it would solve it. Pretty sure most people would not notice.

I would love to hear more of any bugs, inconsistenties and anything else you find. It's really helpfull to me!

[zjorz]

So after a long break I started working on improving PGF a bit more where possible. Radoye's excelent mod includes a lot of historic flags and inspired me to improve the original flags. After doing some research I found out many of them are incorrect post war flags. And all of them have the wrong colors. I assume thats a relic from the limits colors in the original DOS version. I have redrawn all of the using the official RGB colors and changed them to the historic flags.


The upper row is the new flag, the lower row contains the original flag included in PG.

Currently working on fixing the last AG scenarios. After that going to take change the PG equipment file and extend the names of the different unit types. The PGF engine allows longer names, so want to take advantage of that. Example is changing Spit I to spitfire I. Not going to touch any of the actual stats of the units though to keep it vanila.

[PepaDrobny]

@pepadrobny thank you for your post. Over the years i've realised that many of the PG scenarios contain inconsistencies that could be fixed. So might have to do with the conversion to PGF while others might be from the original game. There seems to be a lot that could be improved by converting them again by hand, but that would take a lot of time to do.

You're welcome. Yes, a lot of time and effort.

For the date issue you mention I feel like the suggested solution sounds quite complicated for the problem. I myself would prefer to edit the briefing file and change the sentence a bit. For example you could remove the last part "by no later than July 30th." and it would solve it. Pretty sure most people would not notice.

I am not sure if you really realized fully the problem. Because your idea is more close to ignoring problem than make a soltution. Removing "by no later than July 30th." from briefing doesnt avoid to play LC up to 8.6.1940 and then play next scerario France starting non-logically on 5.6.1940
Or if you want to ignore this important issue, you can ingore less important July 30th in briefing too.

Basically, this is very very special case in original PG. No other scenario than only FRANCE is intended to be played in two different times. It has a logical reason.
Major Low countries -> great victory, which allows you to beat France in June, just in time to be prepared invasion to England. Major France->Sealion.
Minor or Lose Low countries -> failure, invasion to France must be postponded to July, and it means operation Sealion is impossible. Althought Major victory in France, Sealion is impossible.

I would love to hear more of any bugs, inconsistenties and anything else you find. It's really helpfull to me!

For me is helpful your bugs detections too. For example, about Maastricht in LC scenario I did not know about. Great!
And I think you were inspired by my bugfixes too Norway hex tile for example.

You write you working on fixing the last AG scenarios. Did you take as base my correction files? For example, I named all rivers in AG scenarios for AGPG.

Have you some detail list about all your changes as me?
http://hartmann.valka.cz/panzergeneral/ ... index1.htm
http://hartmann.valka.cz/panzergeneral/ ... index2.htm

I have focused now for mapnames correction.
litte sample:
1331 Meltopol -> Melitopol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melitopol
1332 Lovoago -> Lozovaya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozovaya
1333 Berislav -> Beryslav https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryslav
1334 Shakfltinski -> Kamensk-Shakhtinsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamensk-Shakhtinsky
1335 Tsymiyanskava -> Tsimlyansk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsimlyansk
1337 Kaloch -> Kalach-na-Donu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalach-na-Donu
1338 Pitkaranta -> Pitkyaranta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitkyaranta

[zjorz]

And I think you were inspired by my bugfixes too Norway hex tile for example.

You write you working on fixing the last AG scenarios. Did you take as base my correction files? For example, I named all rivers in AG scenarios for AGPG.

Have you some detail list about all your changes as me?
http://hartmann.valka.cz/panzergeneral/ ... index1.htm
http://hartmann.valka.cz/panzergeneral/ ... index2.htm

I have focused now for mapnames correction.
litte sample:
1331 Meltopol -> Melitopol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melitopol
1332 Lovoago -> Lozovaya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozovaya
1333 Berislav -> Beryslav https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryslav
1334 Shakfltinski -> Kamensk-Shakhtinsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamensk-Shakhtinsky
1335 Tsymiyanskava -> Tsimlyansk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsimlyansk
1337 Kaloch -> Kalach-na-Donu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalach-na-Donu
1338 Pitkaranta -> Pitkyaranta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitkyaranta

Yeah i was actually inspired by your corrected files! I tried to use as much you found as possible. But some fixes seemed to be specific for PGDOS so i wasnt able to do them. Also i am not that familiar with FPGE, so any advanced editing is beyond my ability right now.

For me the main aim is to preserve the core gameplay (even if often unhistorical) intact and only enhance things that improve that. So while historical changed maps are great, it would change the scenarios from what they have been from the original game. And I don't want to do that. Same as why I won't change any unit stats or units that are deployed on the maps. I do love improved names for the scenarios, so those are welcome changes! Are you making the changes for the PGF scenarios? Or for the original PG?

[PepaDrobny]

Yeah i was actually inspired by your corrected files! I tried to use as much you found as possible. But some fixes seemed to be specific for PGDOS so i wasnt able to do them. Also i am not that familiar with FPGE, so any advanced editing is beyond my ability right now.

For me the main aim is to preserve the core gameplay (even if often unhistorical) intact and only enhance things that improve that. So while historical changed maps are great, it would change the scenarios from what they have been from the original game. And I don't want to do that. Same as why I won't change any unit stats or units that are deployed on the maps. I do love improved names for the scenarios, so those are welcome changes! Are you making the changes for the PGF scenarios? Or for the original PG?

Great to hear and confirm you used some of my ideas.
Yeah, bux fixes has several levels of depth. I understand the low level to preserve the core gameplay. To concentrate for technical bugs like road connection, exact correct flags etc. not influencing gameplay. Map names are also issue to be used without fear of influencing gameplay.
Adding battleship to Leningrad as I did is another story, it slightly changes the gameplay.
I am developing new version of corrections for PG and AGPG. When finished, can be converted to PGF.

Do you have take care to have units the same order numbers in scenario exactly the same like in original game? Example: is 12th Wehr Inf unit in original scenario also in PGF scenario 12th Wehr Inf? (not for example 9th Wehr Inf)

[zjorz]

Great to hear and confirm you used some of my ideas.
Yeah, bux fixes has several levels of depth. I understand the low level to preserve the core gameplay. To concentrate for technical bugs like road connection, exact correct flags etc. not influencing gameplay. Map names are also issue to be used without fear of influencing gameplay.
Adding battleship to Leningrad as I did is another story, it slightly changes the gameplay.
I am developing new version of corrections for PG and AGPG. When finished, can be converted to PGF.

Do you have take care to have units the same order numbers in scenario exactly the same like in original game? Example: is 12th Wehr Inf unit in original scenario also in PGF scenario 12th Wehr Inf? (not for example 9th Wehr Inf)

Well I only edit the names in the equipment files to match actual unit types. A lot of ..mm gun and many incorrent historical names that can be fixed. I'm not going to focus as specific as the eample of the 12th wehr infantry. the PGF engine is not an exact copy of the original engine. So its not a perfect reliable replacement to get the exact same gameplay.
But I think we can improve a lot of details in the scenarios that were not there at the time they made the game. Improved equipment names, improved historical river and city names etc. Its some extra polish that people that replay the game will apreciate.

[PepaDrobny]

Well I only edit the names in the equipment files to match actual unit types. A lot of ..mm gun and many incorrent historical names that can be fixed. I'm not going to focus as specific as the eample of the 12th wehr infantry. the PGF engine is not an exact copy of the original engine. So its not a perfect reliable replacement to get the exact same gameplay.
But I think we can improve a lot of details in the scenarios that were not there at the time they made the game. Improved equipment names, improved historical river and city names etc. Its some extra polish that people that replay the game will apreciate.

Is your ambition is to use historical mapnames (or unit names in eqp) including diacritical marks like me, or just "simplified to English"?
Can PGF handle special chars?

For example:
Compiegne -> Compiègne
Bialystok -> Białystok
Dunafoldvar -> Dunaföldvár
Mezoszilas -> Mezőszilas

[zjorz]

You should test it. For units the types of chars seem limited, so i assume that is also the case for city names. Even if we lack some special characters it wont be a big deal. If the names are sorta accurate, thats a big improvement

[Radoye]

Some of the place names are clearly misspellings, some are inside jokes (Great Vermouth for Great Yarmouth for example), others follow spelling from German and other period documents which don't conform with the modern spelling (so not necessarily inaccurate but still odd looking)...

[PepaDrobny]

Some of the place names are clearly misspellings, some are inside jokes (Great Vermouth for Great Yarmouth for example), others follow spelling from German and other period documents which don't conform with the modern spelling (so not necessarily inaccurate but still odd looking)...

Yeah, thats explanation of why misspellings occurs - creator was drunk from Vermouth
In my corrections will be mapnames in English (almost all exist), of course name valid in the time of scenario. A lot of cities were renamed after war.
Czech version will be names in the Czech language.
Both including special chars.

You should test it. For units the types of chars seem limited, so i assume that is also the case for city names. Even if we lack some special characters it wont be a big deal. If the names are sorta accurate, thats a big improvement

If not possible, it will be another reason why to prefer PG1 before PGF
We will see I hope I will not have to programm convertor txt2txt (txt understandable by PG1 to txt understandable for PGF )

[zjorz]

If not possible, it will be another reason why to prefer PG1 before PGF
We will see I hope I will not have to programm convertor txt2txt (txt understandable by PG1 to txt understandable for PGF )

Your PG1 project sounds great. I might have to try it out mysefl just for the effort you put in perfecting it! Are you working on the DOS version or also for the windows version?

[PepaDrobny]

Your PG1 project sounds great. I might have to try it out mysefl just for the effort you put in perfecting it!

Thank you

Are you working on the DOS version or also for the windows version?

Only DOS version. When finished, then can be (minimally partly) converted to PGF of PGWin95

[zjorz]

When you are finished i would love to try and use your historic names for PGF. Will have to research how to do it efficiently though. Not sure if i can just convert a file and replace an ingame file of some sorts

[PepaDrobny]

When you are finished i would love to try and use your historic names for PGF. Will have to research how to do it efficiently though. Not sure if i can just convert a file and replace an ingame file of some sorts

Don't worry about it, the conversion PG DOS files to PGF is relatively simple, just neen to give it time and effort.
Would you want to participate on historic names? I have almost finish it but when once doing this, it would be great search, find and add names for airfields. Means to not have just general name "Airfield" on all airfileds, but the exact name.

Like for example in our project Pacific Panzer General, scenario Saipan.
There are three airfields in this scenario and all have its own name:

Aslito Airfield (today Saipan International Airport) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saipan_In ... al_Airport
Marpi Point Field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marpi_Point_Field
Susupe Airfield https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q101089203

Work for very enthusiastic and skilled modder .

[PepaDrobny]

I have redrawn all flags of the using the official RGB colors and changed them to the historic flags.

There are two mods for colors of flags. Visible and fog of war. It means every flag has two shades of colors.
Which of these mods is your scope od modification to official RGB?

Color of flags in PG is one big topic. Special care have to be given to most eye-breaking white color
and yellow collor for blinking frame: Colors of flags in PG

[zjorz]

I have redrawn all flags of the using the official RGB colors and changed them to the historic flags.

There are two mods for colors of flags. Visible and fog of war. It means every flag has two shades of colors.
Which of these mods is your scope od modification to official RGB?

Color of flags in PG is one big topic. Special care have to be given to most eye-breaking white color
and yellow collor for blinking frame: Colors of flags in PG

As far as i can see the only color that we can choose in PGF is the main one in the flags bmp file. The rest seems to be handled by overlays in the game. This seems to be a detail out of our hands in PGF. The game itself is in many ways different from the dos version and cannot really be considered a remaster or something like that. I consider is a sort of remake that is "close enough". It does add a bit more freedom to change a few things around though.

[zjorz]

Still working on renaming the equipment file. Discovered that the AF AD etc slots are all connected to a specific nation and could in theory be converted to a nation specific alternative name. But it turns out the scenarios themselves contain units and fortifications that are from the incrrect nations and had the flag changed to fit the scenario. For example the low countries scenario contains forts that are connected to norway in the equipment file.
I assume this was a mistake made during the creation of the scenarios because there is no way to see what AF AD unit fits what nation. So things got mixed up and corrected afterwards. No idea if this is a PGF artifact or already in place in classic PG

[Radoye]

PG had something called NUPL - the New Unit Purchase List - basically, the entries in the eqp file were not associated by any nation (only Axis / Allied side by virtue of their unit icon orientation, which is plainly cosmetic and doesn't affect actual game play). The nation assignment was handled separately, by a table inside the exe file itself. This table associated the entries from the eqp files to nations that could purchase them. Any single entry from the eqp file could be assigned to 0, 1 or multiple nations (0 would mean nobody can purchase it but it could still be placed on the map and assigned to a country; many units were shared between many nations so that there was just one entry in the eqp file).

PGF does things differently so that it contains the nation assignments in the eqp file itself. It first repeats the PG eqp file entries in order and associates them to the first nation on the NUPL list (where -1 means no nation), then adds repeats for each additional NUPL entry. Therefore, what used to be a single unit entry shared by many nations is now broken up into multiple units each with their unique national assignment - but still, being copies of each other, they all have the same name and stats.

Keep in mind that this national assignment for a unit only affects purchasing new units and upgrading existing ones. It has nothing to do with what flag this unit can carry in a scenario - that is handled in the scn files and you can place on a map a German unit assigned to Poland or a Soviet one assigned to Italy or some such. As far as the game play is concerned, the unit will behave as any unit of the nation whose flag it carries, it will capture cities and all. So when PG scenarios were converted for PGF, the unit numbers used were same as in the original PG scenarios, always using the first occurrence of a given unit in the efile (even if now assigned for purchase to a "wrong" nation) rather than one of the copies which is "correctly" assigned. Keep in mind that originally they all used to be the very same unit, so unless one starts changing names and stats they would still play and behave exactly the same. Even if the "wrong" one is used it would still have the "correct" flag.

Now, if you really want to have unique names for all units (like i did in my mods) and are bothered when the "wrong" unit pops up in a scenario, you'll actually have to go into each scenario file, find the "offending" unit and change its ID number from pointing to the first occurrence / original unit entry to one of the copies that is assigned to be purchased by the "correct" nation. Which is a bit more work, but still pretty simple to do.

Just keep in mind that unlike the eqp file, PGF scn files do not like being open in Excel or similar spread sheet editor - please use Notepad when editing scenarios! And always keep backups!

[zjorz]

Very interesting, thanks for explaining! For now I'm going to stick to the country codes in front of the equipment as they are to make sure i won't break any scenarios. Might be one of the final things to look at once the other things are done.

[Radoye]

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).

After a lot of thought, i decided against going with two France scenarios. It just makes no sense for the Germans to sit for an entire month before continuing onto France just because they're 5 days late to capture their objectives in Belgium.

Instead, i have reduced the number of turns for the Low Countries scenario to make sure it finishes on June 4th the latest. This means that MV here is a bit harder to achieve, the player must hurry. I like it better this way!

I've also fixed the briefings to both say June 30th rather than July.

[PepaDrobny]

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).

After a lot of thought, i decided against going with two France scenarios. It just makes no sense for the Germans to sit for an entire month before continuing onto France just because they're 5 days late to capture their objectives in Belgium.

Instead, i have reduced the number of turns for the Low Countries scenario to make sure it finishes on June 4th the latest. This means that MV here is a bit harder to achieve, the player must hurry. I like it better this way!

I've also fixed the briefings to both say June 30th rather than July.

You forgot that France scenario is coming not only in case of Minor victory, but also in case of Lose. Lose means also you take no any enemy strategic point. Just think about it and it will make you sense (I hope ). It is not about that Germans are sitting for month, it is about that another commaner saved the bad situation caused by unsufficcient commnad of player and during this month took Low countries instead of player.

Sorry, your solution is only half way and invading by change the original files.
And in extreme case, when lose on 4th by taking all German initial strategicpoints by Allied attack and next day 5th attacking France, it is stupidly comic .

[Radoye]

OK then i'll terminate the campaign after a defeat in Belgium.

[PepaDrobny]

OK then i'll terminate the campaign after a defeat in Belgium.

Yeah, this is possible. It is against philosophy to keep original game but you have another policy

[Radoye]

Yes, i have diverged from the original game already by quite a big margin, i'm afraid that ship has sailed a long time ago.

In any case, thank you for the info, even if i didn't implement it in the way you proposed it still served the purpose to improve my campaign. I always believed two heads are better than one and that great things can come from cooperation!

[zjorz]

So another equipment file detail I need some advice on. The USSR has a seperate infantry unit named "conscript". This is kinda strange since the USSR had general conscription and almost all regular infantry units were conscripts. Been trying to figure out what to do with them. So far i found the following infantry types:
Border infantry
NKVD
Shock infantry
Rifle (regular)
Guards Rifle (guards inf)

The issue is that the conscripts are quite numerous in some of the scenarios. That could make it quite misleading since the regular / rifle infantry should be the most common. Any suggestions?

[Radoye]

I treat "conscripts" as raw recruits who did not yet pass training (partially, or fully), possibly also lacking some of the equipment that the fully formed "regular" units would have available.

[PepaDrobny]

So another equipment file detail I need some advice on. The USSR has a seperate infantry unit named "conscript".

Exactly as Radoye said, units with no training or poor training. Built in lack of time.

[zjorz]

Thanks for the advice. I'm almost done with the equipment file project now. I would like to have somebody review it and see what can be improved before including it with a new release. Let me know if you are interested and I will send the file via PM.

[PepaDrobny]

Thanks for the advice. I'm almost done with the equipment file project now. I would like to have somebody review it and see what can be improved before including it with a new release. Let me know if you are interested and I will send the file via PM.

You are welcome.

I am interested. Do you have complete change log?

[zjorz]

I've send you a PM. A changelog about this all would be a 200+ row list of changed letters, numbers and changed names. I've send both the old and new file for reference.

Update: I had some time so made a changelog after all, have send that.

[PepaDrobny]

Some of the place names are clearly misspellings, some are inside jokes (Great Vermouth for Great Yarmouth for example)

ID 1523 "100 acre wood" - fictional land from childbook inhabited by Pooh Bear (Hundred Acre Wood)

working on Mapnames correction continues

[Radoye]

ID 1523 "100 acre wood"

Now i wonder if this was ever actually used on a map, and if it was where exactly in the world can one find it

[zjorz]

Some great discoveries PepaDrobny! Now to figure out how to convert it to pgf and use it

[PepaDrobny]

I have for you a little Christmas gift.

I have finished huge job lasting for almost 2 years - checking and correcting all PG + AG original mapnames, one by one checking in all scenarios, with real ww2 military and geographical maps/books and wikipedia with other sources. Result is HERE.

In today stage, total in 539 bugs in 1570 original records detected. From total 1353 original used are wrong 398.

Maybe althought deep study I overlooked something or you have idea how to find "not found" items. Your help is welcome. Please post it here or PM. Thank you in advance.

[zjorz]

Thanks for the great post! I will certainly use this to improve PGF. WIll just need to figure out what file i can edit in notepad do use these corrected names.

[JediKnight007]

...
I added the luftwaffe general and waffen SS campaign and removed the KuK and Kaiser general ones. I think these campaigns show of the technical capabilities of the PGF engine really well.
...

Interesting...what exactly about LuftGen shows off the capabilities of PGF? Because I developed the mod in DOS, for DOS. I converted it to PGF just so that more than 2 people (myself and PepaDrobny) would possibly play it.

[zjorz]

So an update on my work on PGF. My original plan was to improve the content of PGF as much as possible while sticking true to the original. So far have finished the following things:
-Change flags to historical ones - Done
-Change equipment file names to historical ones - Done
-Add faction specific equipment slots - 90% done. Will have to check every scenario to see if there are exceptions not covered by the current equipment. For example Belgium using french heavy artillery under Belgian flag.

To do list
-Implement Pepadrobny historical map names
-Fixing scenario units to match equipment file. PG/AG use a lot of generic units, so changing those means checking every scenario and see if the units placed are from the right nation.
-Fix AG Soviet scenario road connections.

It really is a A LOT of work, and i kinda burned out on continuing for some time now. Not sure if I will have the motivation to continue later. So if anybody is interested, I can send them what I have so far and they can see if they want to pick up where I left.