[DEV] Historical Content Representation - Pilot Projects

[Lettos]

Download link: https://www.mediafire.com/file/vwp7ekrx ... D.zip/file

Description is here: viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&p=17466#p17466
Last updated 2023-11-14, Tuesday

2023-03-11, Friday

Interim results of the OoB project:

- Very large experimental studies of AI PGF have been carried out
- There is an understanding of what the parameters of units should be for their historical realism
- New more believable maps and a large number of additional Terrain Tiles have been created.
- There was an understanding of the simple fact that PGF in its current state cannot serve as a full-fledged tool for the realization of the originally stated OoB principles. PGF is too "small" to cram absolute historical realism into it.

Therefore, I am transforming the OoB project into the War in History (WiH) project.

WiH is built on the following basic principles:

- PGF is a game, not a model. Historical realism in the game is understood as a "general spirit" rather than a specific article of law.
- Scalability is not a strict principle. A unit contains some "historically explainable" number of real combat aircraft, tanks etc.
The number of units on the map does not have to correspond exactly to the historical battle order. Otherwise, in PGF an attempt to represent the real troop density leads to the fact that it is impossible to place all units that participated in historical battles on the game map. Units start to get in each other's way. "Partial weeding" in such cases is necessary.
- Very significant, sometimes radical changes in unit parameters.
- The game is built as one AXIS campaign beginning in 1936 (special thanks to Radoye for the excellent Spain Civil War!). To play stand-alone scenarios the Player will need to edit the amount of AXIS Starting PP in the *.pgscn file as recommended.
- The campaign takes place in an environment with very few Prestige Points and without free Elite replacements. The basic principle is to fight "sparingly", without spending much on replacements. Destroying enemy units often gives more PP than capturing Objectives and Victory Hexes.
- "Intermediate" scenarios without battles are sometimes created to acquire new units, upgrades and replacements of existing units in the Core. Sometimes "Intermediate" scenarios with hard battles will be "plausibly historically realistic" built in between full-fledged scenarios involving Ground and Air units to reduce EXP of the Player's Air units only. This is due solely and only to the fact that the PGF contains a highly unbalanced EXP growth model. The difference with EXP Cap is that during an intermediate scenario some Core air unit can die.
- A Campaign contains both the course of events that happened in history and an alternate version that could have happened under certain circumstances.
- The AI will very rarely buy new units and will usually use what it has at the start of the scenario.
- Dual-Purpose units are used, requiring the player to follow some simple rules when buying such a unit.
- Some very specific non-combat units used in some scenarios to tweak PGF-engine shortcomings.
- PGF EXE file is modified (MVT Types, Terrain INI CAP, Unit Class ENT, Weather conditions sections).

=====================================================================================================================

Obsolete section!

2021-01-10, Sunday

Hi all!

I'm working on historically correct Scenarios in PGF. For now time gap 1939-1941.
Nobody knows how it happened even if he will live in libraries and archives. We can just be a little closer to historical reality.
I decided to prepare more correct maps, correct quantity of units and deploy them on map in relatively correct places. I prepared new Equipment file.
Now I want to share 8 historical scenarios.
Prepared maps allowed to use by anyone.
All Scenarios checked in Panzer General 1 in four modes: Axis Human vs AI, Axis AI vs Human, Human vs Human and Axis Human vs AI in whole Campaign.
Now I moved all 8 to PGF and testing as Campaign. Due to the exporting to PGF some prestige adjustments should be sligthly adjusted. But it's just a "minor" issue for better gameplay purposes.
At this moment all scenarios looks as playable in Scenario mode.
Choosed scale is:
1 hex mainly is equal to 10x10 kilometers.
1 infantry or cavalry unit = 1 WW2 divison
1 tank unit = 100 tanks
1 artillery unit = 100 guns
1 aircrfat unit = 100 aircrafts

Download link deleted 2023-10-11, Friday. Replaced with WiH Campaign

Comments for each Scenario are below.
If You decided to test whole Campaign almost all Scenarios must be winned on MAJOR. So victory conditions are the same as in PG1 but in some scenarios turns quantity was reduced.
Core units quantity is the same as in PG1.
To win is strongly suggested not to lost any Axis units, even Auxiliary.

1) 001 Poland
10 turns.
Tip: be care about counter attack possibility from Posen.
2) 002 Warsaw
20 turns.
Tip: pay Your attention to take Kutno at time.
3) 003 Norway
22 turns instead of 25.
First of all this Scenario not for panzers. So use this Scenario mostly to gain experience for air units and collect prestige points.
For historical realism please unload Sea transports only in port or to ports.
Tips:
- transport units from Danmark territory and move battleships from open Noth Sea so fast as possible. Move all naval units to north from Bergen to prevent any Royal Navy offensive actions.
To do: probably Trondheim needs to be added to Victory hexes
By the way, really Allies deployed more Destroyers than in Scenario.
4) 004 Low Countries
27 turns instead of 30.
Remember about huge airwar during first phase of Battle for France.
5) 005 France
18 turns instead of 30. Only MINOR Victory is available.
Note: about 10-15 Heer infantry divisions just not placed on map.
Tip: after Weygand line will be crashed France almost will not have reinforcements.
6) 021 Balkans
Now same 25 turns. Will be reduced after testing to approximately 20-22.
Tip: Greece can't mobilize additional units due to the very weak economy and lack of conscripting mans.
7) 022 Crete
11 turns instead of 13.
This Scenario not for panzers and not for Heer regular infantry at all. After conquering of Balkans and Greece Your Panzer and motorised divisions were immediately moved to Eastern borders to use them as core of Barbarossa plan.
For realism please not deploy any Your Core units neither in Greece neither on Crete after taking first city or airfield.
8) 023 Barbarossa
Same 23 turns.
Notes:
- all what You see on map is true quantity of units.
- Because in PG1 and PGF now not realised idea of "Event" I placed group of Soviet tanks on the north of Smolensk in swamps to slow down their movement to West. These Soviet 5th and 7th motorised Corps (about 1200 tanks and recons) were moved to Orsha-Smolensk region from another fronts at the beginning of July'1941.

[Lettos]

Talking about "Historical" scenarios first of all I need to define what is it PGF from simulation point of view.
Some articles contains a lot of info about wargames history and basic principles:
Kriegsspiel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsspiel
Military simulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_simulation
Wargame: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargame

PGF definitely isn't a full emulation model of warfare but a very nice Kriegsspiel (Military Wargame) for limited war theater and limited time.
It mean if someone will create Scenario using a Europe and USSR European part map, with 1400 turns, about 1000 units from each side, and will start warfare in mode AI vs. AI, the results on finish will be incredible different from historical.
It's ok for "Fantastic General". But original PG scenarios are specified as WW2 war theatres and not called as "Unknown Poland", "Strange Warsaw", "Thousands naval ferry barges in Weserubung", "Not Belgium, not units in LC", "Still powerfull France", "Industrial Balkans", "Tanks attacking Fortress Crete", "No one in Barbarossa" etc.
We know how warfare was happened in historical reality. But sometimes we have ideas to check process from inside and even try to change some actions. Unfortunately this is almost impossible in such "Fantastic General".

For these purposes four main things are obligatory in good historical Kriegsspiel:
1) Geography (Map)
2) Order of Battle (Deployment hexes and deployed units, Victory hexes)
3) Units parameters (Equipment file)
4) Algorithm and rules to count loses/kills (implemented in PGF exe file).

Algorithm and rules are relatively good now. Sure a lot of extras can by added to improve it. But anyway this is good product in "as is" stage.

Unit parameters can be edited. But some parameters such as Movement allowance, Movement method, Fuel, Fire range can be defined correctly only if we have one Map scale for all Scenarios.

Talking about 1)Geography and 2)OoB I'll explain a situation in existing original PG scenarios below.

001 Poland ("Unknown Poland")
Wrong map at all. True fantastic map. No rivers and wrong rivers.
Unit quantity - almost good. Vict.Hex in Kutno is a historical mistake.
But this starting scenario defines Scale: 1 hex = 10x10km, 1 unit = 1 inf.Division. At least something clear about the this Kriegsspiel emulated world.

002 Warsaw ("Strange Warsaw")
True fantastic map. No cities, no rivers. Unit quantity - almost good. Polish reinforcements during Scenario looks very strange. How it is possible to produce unit "ATG Bofors 37mm gun"? How to prepare artillery division personnel if Poland can't continue full mobilisation after 10th September?
But the Scenario scale is the same as in 001 Poland.

003 Norway ("Thousands naval ferry barges in Weserubung")
Map corrupted for interface purposes. No claims.
But I'm asking again, where are the rivers? Where are mountains?
German tanks on Transport ships close to Alesund? All Core units can be deployed on sea hexes close to Oslo and Stavanger? Unload tanks and guns on coastal line from sea transports?? Have someone from this map developers visited Norway or just take a look to photo album with Norway coast line photos?
Where is Royal Navy? German cruisers and Battleship succesfully attacking British fleet in North Sea?
If Scale of Kriegsspiel is the same as in Poland and Warsaw, how Norway can to conscript 10-15 divisions during Scenario?
Player used At least seven Heer infantry and 3-5 panzer divisions to occupy Norway? Not to much? Remember what at this time all wermacht preparing for "Battle for France".
Conclusion: it is even not "Fantastic" scenario but "Utopic unreality".

004 LC ("Not Belgium, not units in LC")
Wrong map. Rivers... where are rivers what were are a big problem for wermacht in LC Campaign? Looks as map developers don't like rivers at all. And not like canals too.
But again - where is Dyle river to organize so called "Dyle defence line"? Brussels on clear terrain and no any rivers around??
Units quantity reduced at least twice. Or... one infantry unit now is equal almost to two divisions? But this unit still occupying on map hex 8x8 km? One soldier seating on another man's shoulders?
Where are the aircrafts from British Expeditional Forces? Where are French fighters?
Very strange fantastic scenario and very easy to win even on Hard.

005 France ("Still powerfull France")
On this totally wrong no-river map I see 8(eight!) German infantry divisions.
On 5th June 1940 on front line from La Manche to Maginot line Wermacht prepared 79 inf.divisions. Ok, some of them, about 20, should be placed more to right on map. But where are remaining 60 divisions instead of eight.
In this scenario we see very weak Wermacht and over powered France. Very strange fantastic scenario.

021 Balkans ("Industrial Balkans")
Map corrupted for interface purposes. No claims.
Wrong cities location. Rivers!!
Scale is 1 hex = appr.20 vertical km x 13 km by horizontal. It's acceptable, no claims.
We see what again 1 unit is equal to 1 inf.division and about 2/3 of Panzer division.
But in this scenario Greece is strong industrial country with unlimited conscription ability and unlimited demography.
Yugoslavia really have a manpower to produce new infantry units. But what about artillery? Are Krupp, Schneider and Shkoda opened branches in Yugoslavia?
And where are Yugoslavia and Greece aviation?
Regia Marina, so called "fleet in being", is extremely active. Probably wants take revenge for Taranto.
Some small mistakes (Bulgarian troops involved, Italian aviation over powered, AF Partisans operating, GB aviation over powered).
Partly fantastic scenario.

022 Crete ("Tanks attacking Fortress Crete")
Small map with some mistakes. Obviously, in Crete case the rivers did not stop the map developer from thinking. But too much Clear terrain on Crete.
Geographical Scale is 1 hex = 5x5km. Hm, ok... but what about units?
16 GB Infantry units = historically 50 000 mans maximum. It mean one unit = 3000 soldiers.
But we see 10 German paratroopers. Should be 10 thousands Fallschirmjagers. One unit = 1000? Ok, I need to admit strange fact what one paratrooper is three times better than Australian soldier.
But what here doing Fantastic... ups, sorry, not Fantastic but Panzer General's divisions in scale 1 unit = 1 infantry division? Transporting to mountain coastal line 7 infantry and 5 panzer divisions by sea transports? Germany had not capability to transport more than 7000 infantry soldiers by all available vessels including greeks fishing boats.
Much more utopic scenario than Norway.

023 Barbarossa ("No one in Barbarossa")
There is no correct map again. There are no rivers. There are no infantry units. As a result no Front line at all!
German troops deployed:
10 inf.units, 9 tanks, 1 recon, 7 aircrafts
In historical reality (I'm not sure now - is it still true? or became just simply another true? ) on this war theatre Germany deployed on 22 June 1941: 1600 tanks, more than 50 infantry divisions, 1400 combat aircrafts.
So German scale is:
1 inf.unit = 5 inf.divisions (placed on one 12x12 km hex!!!)
1 tank unit = 1 panzer division (less than 200 tanks)
1 aircraft unit = 200 aircrafts.
Soviet Union forces:
21 inf.units, 6 tanks, 0 recons, 10 aircrafts
In historical reality Soviet Union forces on this theatre was about:
54 infantry divisions, 3000 tanks, 500 recons, 750 to 1000 ready fo combat aircrafts
So Soviet Union scale is:
1 inf.unit = 2.5 inf.divisions
1 tank unit = 500 tanks
1 aircraft unit = 75-100 aircrafts
Impossible to compare these armies. Impossible to understand nothing. Only possible to play as Fantastic warfare.

And sure it is possible to repair, edit, tune and create much more true historical mode "Order of Battle"

[Lettos]

Equipment parameters in OoB.
Main changes are:

1) Aircrafts.
1.1 Movement. For now MVT counted approximately depending on real speed of aircraft on real flight height (not close to the ground).
250-320 km/h = 8
320-400 km/h = 9
400-450 km/h = 10
450-500 km/h = 11
500-560 km/h = 12
I understand what some aircrafts in OoB Equipment file now have MVT which probably needs to be corrected by +/- 1.
And Cruising speed very differs from Maximum speed.
1.2 Fuel. Range divided to 10. Note: for some bombers is very difficult to find Ranges with and without Bomb load.
1.3 Air attack, Ground and Air defence. There are VERY SPECULATIVE parameters. I defined them for each unit by speculative comparison to another "same" unit.
Examples:
Me109E = Spitfire I
Me109F = Spitfire II
Me109E is better then Hurricane I
Not correct always define Air Attack parameter basing only on armament specifications.
For example, to answer question "Is Spitfire IB with 2x20mm guns and 4x7.69mm was better than Spitfire IA with 8x7.69mm" - pls read Johnson J.E. Wing Leader. Chapter 3.
Air Defence parameter is even harder.
Example: Ju-86P reconnaissance and bomber. Flight height is more than 10000 meters. What is correct AirDefence parameter in 1941 on Eastern Front? May be 40. Impossible to shot down Ju-86P because Soviet fighter can't flight so high till 1942.
Another example: FW-189. Air Defence = 15? 20?
1.4 Initiative. Specific SPECULATIVE parameter.
Example: Compare Initiative of FW190A and Me109F/G.
FW-190 is more maneuvrable on heights about 10000 meters. Perfect for Western Front. Me-109F-G more maneuvrable on less heights 2000-4000 meters, and it is ideal solution for Eastern Front where air battles mostly occurs on these heights.

2) Tanks. MVT for some tanks reduced.

3) Artillery and ATG. ATG 37,47,50mm and 75mm Guns now have MVT=2.

4) All anti-aicraft units are Air Defense Class now. Firing range 20-40mm = 1, 75-88- mm = 2.

5) Fort's Naval attack increased. It was necessary for Norway Scenario.

6) Naval units.
U-boat Ammo = 4
Firing Range, Ammo, Fuel and MVT for all ships are adjusted.

In all Classes almost for each unit a some parameters have been tuned.
Works will continue.

[Lettos]

Prestige points in OoB

AXIS units in OoB are very expensive.
Only Italian S-Boat and U-Boat are very cheap. It was necessary for Crete Scenario.

Prestige points for Axis at the start of Scenario have been significantly cutted down in some scenarios.
Allied starting prestige significantly reduced or just cutted to zero in all Scenarios after Warsaw.
Allied prestige per turn has been significantly reduced in seven Scenarios. Only Barbarossa's tuning is in progress now.

I don't know now what is better strategy for General.
One way is to buy more cheaper units. Gain experience in combats and spend prestige for Elite reinforcements several times during hard Scenarios. Wait so long as possible for next unit's upgrade. As a result You will have weak but more experienced units on Barbarossa. And You will spend less prestige points to overstrength units.
Another way is to buy only what You really need to win in next Scenario. Accumulate the prestige points for better unit's upgrade. Delay air units purchasing so long as possible because in further air units can gain experience relatively fast.

Ideal strategy is somewhere in middle so try and see what happens!

[HexCode]

Hey Lettos

I'm very glad that you've taken the time to essentially critique in great detail SSI's flagship content and, indirectly, play system.

Although "Kriegsspiel" directly translates to "Wargame", I much appreciate your precision in defining "things":

... four main things are obligatory in a good historical Kriegsspiel:
1) Geography (Map)
2) Order of Battle (Deployment hexes and deployed units, Victory hexes)
3) Units' parameters (Equipment file)
4) Algorithms and rules to count losses/kills (implemented in PGF's exe file)

There are significant drawbacks to employing SSI's 5-star General play systems within the context of any historical Kriegsspiel, serially utilizing a number of maps (i.e., a campaign).

By the way, there's a limited number of tiles "publicly" available to generate a map. This imposes severe constraints on a map's geographical accuracy. For example, have you noticed that roads never traverse terrain other than "clear" ? Similarly, rivers never meaningfully flow through "terrain" other than "river"...

Even if one were to build the "perfect" historical scenario, the construct would just be a starting snapshot. Once one gets into the inevitable, dynamically evolving conflict, all historical bets are off. To begin with, SSI's 5-star General play systems aren't anything like "serious" military simulation mechanisms. Worse, there isn't much "historical" about the way in which PGF's AI "plays"... Mind you, though, a rather interesting question could be whether humans could (or would be willing to) "play" in some "historically prescribed / constrained" manner...

[Lettos]

Hey HexCode!

I'm very glad that you've taken the time to essentially critique in great detail SSI's flagship content and, indirectly, play system.
Although "Kriegsspiel" directly translates to "Wargame"<...>

I'm glad too to join to PGF Community!
Wargame - accepted. But if Kriegsspiel = Wargame, Panzer = Tank? Joking

Scale Consistency & Scalability
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=229&start=100#p3330

In PGF PG Campaign Scalability is defined by Poland Scenarios. 1 inf. or panzer division during 1939-1942 usually have front about 10-12km. With division's rear parts (Headquarters, depots etc) one unit occupying one hex in such scale. If change scale from division to regiment or battalion the map should be 1 hex = 3-4 km for regiment or 1-2 km for batallion.
But here are more questions about other unit's classes: artillery, ATG, AD, naval units...

discusses what, in my opinion, are the most significant drawbacks to employing SSI's 5-star General play systems within the context of any historical Kriegsspiel, serially utilizing a number of maps (i.e., a campaign).

We have an average tool to reach target. We haven't time to made another much better tool or wait for it. Why not to use strange item in our hands to do at least something?

Even if one were to build the "perfect" historical scenario, the construct would just be a starting snapshot. Once one gets into the inevitable, dynamically evolving conflict, all historical bets are off.

I agree with You. It is not a dynamic model but only wargame which is need to be moderated after each step (Scenario).

To begin with, SSI's 5-star General play systems aren't anything like "serious" military simulation mechanisms. Worse, there isn't much "historical" about the way in which PGF's AI "plays"...

I understand all limitations and disadvantages of PG wargame. No illusions about it.
I'm asking myself now only one question - what I can do to improve the crooked tool?
I'm asking You is it possible to make a changes in PGForever.exe file. For example to implement new principles of AI strategy? I have some ideas but need to know if it's possible to realize them in .exe? If Yes I can participate in this work. If No - we can just to theoretically discuss a strategy and tactic and store the result for further generations.

Mind you, though, a rather interesting question could be whether humans could (or would be willing to) "play" in some "historically prescribed / constrained" manner...

I'll never ask true gamers about if they will play historical scenarios. What each man doing with his personnel computer it's his free and not limited choice .

[Lettos]

By the way, there's a limited number of tiles "publicly" available to generate a map. This imposes severe constraints on a map's geographical accuracy. For example, have you noticed that roads never traverse terrain other than "clear" ? Similarly, rivers never meaningfully flow through "terrain" other than "river"...

Sure I noticed. But I not thinked about this problem before read Your post. Thanks for idea!

We have 4 types of terrain without rivers. Rough, Forrest, Swamp, Mountain. Bocage can be ignored. And sure no deserts with river.
River is geographical border for movement and unit crossing river have to move only for 1 hex. What happens if we will prepare hex with both terrains?

MMovement.
1-2) River+rough and River+forest = ... still 1 hex MVT for unit? or not? I'm supposing what movement on this hex is still available as on River.
3) River+Swamp and River+Mountain = zero movement? Movement not allowed.

Attack and Defence.
In case of attack unit deployed on River+Forest or River+Rough attacking unit have to be as deployed on river. But defending unit as deployed in forest or rough.
Not realisable without modifying exe file.
So at this moment 1-2) mean just prepare new tiles for nice look.

But is possible to realise 3)River+Swamp and River+Mountain giving to tiles Type=36 (Escarp).
By the way some swamps already needs to have class 36 because even infantry can't cross them.

TACMAP file without modifying exe haven't possibility to add new row with tiles. Is it correct or I'm mistaking?
For new tiles River+Swamp and River+Mountains we need 24 tiles.
List of tiles which potentially can be replaced with new ones. I'm not talking about the job to do this replacement on existing maps. Just available quantity for new maps developers:
EMPTY = 3
Bocage = 2 (and one remains)
Bocage with road = 3 (and 4 remains)
Clear terrain = 3 (and 3 remains)
Escarpment = 10? (6 remains? Total q-ty is 16)
Deserts = 10? (4 remains?)
Swamps = 2 (2 remains)
Fortification without roads = 9 (only 1 tile with "stars" will be available. Not good, but 9 tiles will be freed up)
Fortification with roads = 4 (And 4 remains. At least on OoB maps was enough to have 4 Fortified tiles)
Total quantity is 46 tiles. Pretty enough.

I appreciate Your great Idea, HexCode! And I'll prepare new 24x3=72 tiles(Normal, Snow, Muddy) and use these tiles in OoB.

[Radoye]

I love the new maps, they are a great improvement over the original ones

Re: map scale and hex size - have you taken into account what would that mean for artillery ranges? If your hex size is ~10 km across, and you have the 10.5 leFH 18 with range = 3 that would mean it can fire up to 30 km away?

I notices some typos in unit names - StuGs are now SUuGs, Ostwind is OSUwind, Stirling is SUirling etc.

[Lettos]

I love the new maps, they are a great improvement over the original ones

Should be. A lot of job with Geographical maps is done Thanks!

Re: map scale and hex size - have you taken into account what would that mean for artillery ranges? If your hex size is ~10 km across, and you have the 10.5 leFH 18 with range = 3 that would mean it can fire up to 30 km away?

Sure I know about this problem. Why 30km? May be only to 21.5km?
Fire range calculated as:
0-6000m = 1
6km-11(12)km = 2
More than 12km = 3
And I'm not planning now to give fire range 4 for any guns

I notices some typos in unit names - StuGs are now SUuGs, Ostwind is OSUwind, Stirling is SUirling etc.

Sorry for technical mistake. Corrected now. Some mistakes in fortifications in 023 Barbarossa repaired too.
OoB.81 ready for download

[Lettos]

"Modders are just left with an assortment of band-aid "tools & solutions"(c) HexCode

I prepared new 24 tiles. 12 River+Mountains and 12 River+Swamp. At this moment in Dry weather file only.
Replaced all "Escarpment" and some "Desert" tiles.
I decided what it's acceptable "band-aid" solution to play a non-desert scenarios with one better tuned Tacmap file set. Scenarios in desert regions can be played with another one set (Original or modified by someone for his own purposes).

Download link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/111NtAX ... sp=sharing

[HexCode]

Hmm, terrain tiles eh ? Ok, some... historical facts. No, not those; I'm talking about 25 years of modding under PG1-DOS and PGF !

First off, no matter how many terrain features a particular hex tile displays, the relevant engine is rather very... simple minded; namely, it only sees one and only one underlying terrain type. Exceptionally, roadwork traversing the hex just modifies unit movement behavior. All this leaves "us" with geographical... aesthetics which the engine can't "understand".

Over the years, the hobby has attracted a number of icon makers invariably focusing on depictions of specific military hardware. Interestingly enough, though, icon makers never really bothered with map terrain tiles, at least not "publicly". There was one notable exception I know of which, unfortunately, hasn't generated anything usable, partly due to the icon maker's rather difficult personality...

In any case, if one were to seriously contemplate expanding the number of SSI's map terrain tiles, I would recommend that they complete the set of coastal tiles first. Yeah, SSI didn't bother to generate all possible directional facings of such tiles...

[Radoye]

There's no need to replace any of the existing tiles, the tacmap_XXX.bmp files can easily be expanded, just like the tacicons.bmp. I don't think there is a hard limit to how many tiles can there be. Of course, the number of underlying terrain types is fixed.

You should talk to newavenriquez, creator of the Total War mod viewtopic.php?f=95&t=198 he's already done some work towards expanding the terrain tileset, maybe the two of you could combine your work? No need to reinvent the wheel every time, and with some standardization between different content creators we could build a common base between us for others to further build upon in the future (if any such ever appear).

[HexCode]

There's no need to replace any of the existing tiles, the tacmap_XXX.bmp files can easily be expanded, just like the tacicons.bmp.

Yes, absolutely ! Augmentation as opposed to (in-place) replacement should be a "seasoned" modder's modus operandi.

I don't think there is a hard limit to how many tiles there can be.

Confirmed !

... he's already done some work towards expanding the terrain tileset, maybe the two of you could combine your work? No need to reinvent the wheel every time, and with some standardization between different content creators we could build a common base between us for others to further build upon in the future.

I wholeheartedly second the above suggestion. I mean, guys, it's been 25 years...

[Radoye]

Augmentation as opposed to (in-place) replacement should be a "seasoned" modder's modus operandi.

Backwards compatibility is important, if for no other reason than to already have some working content for your modded stuff. If backward compatibility is preserved, at least you'll have the stock SSI PG / AG scenarios and campaigns done and ready to play, and then you can expand from there. Keep adding extra stuff leaving the original in place (you can adjust the original stuff, even replace like for like, but don't replace a battleship with a tank or infantry with an airplane, if you know what i mean) and it's a great shortcut to give you a head start to wherever you're planning to go.

(And same works for every type of file, not just eqp as in my example above)

[Radoye]

I have no site, forum or anything like that going.
So, anyone who may want to have a go at those tiles just drop an e-mail address at this topic or if preferred at the forum's private messaging and I'll try to send the whole lot or just a part if something from what I describe seems offensive. Or just plain useless...

Would you consider putting them up onto mediafire or some other such free file hosting service, we can publish the link here somewhere for anyone who'd be interested - if that's OK with you of course?

[Lettos]

Until we will be able to change terrain types there are two ways how to improve original PG map's:
1) Improve the appearance
2) Add the new tiles with already implemented in exe terrain types.

Appearance can be improved with thousands of tiles. Probably some authors of these new tile sets will hear what Radoye called on:

Would you consider putting them up onto mediafire or some other such free file hosting service, we can publish the link here somewhere for anyone who'd be interested - if that's OK with you of course?

Some words about new tiles with "new" type. Type = 36, Escarpment. Good terrain type for Eastern Europe geography.
1) Impassable swamps. It's enough to have one or two tiles. These tiles must differ on map from passable swamps.
2) River+mountain and River+swamp = impassable
3) Probably add an impassable forest. This kind of landscape still exist in nature.
And...

just sheer oddities like double thick river

wide rivers.
As I know now - pls someone correct me - wermacht haven't possibility to cross very wide rivers.
A widest river what bruckpioneres crossed with the their prepared bridge is Loire in France. 375 meters bridge asked 22 hours of job.

Wermacht expected a big problems to cross a wide rivers such as Dnepr river and... Volga. Even if Stalingrad conquered.
"Volga, Volga, mutter Volga"(DE). Song sounds good but... how to cross it after victory in Stalingrad? 900 meters of water!!!
Photo of Volga in Volgograd(Stalingrad): https://tochka-na-karte.ru/photo/Volgog ... Volga.html

So to emulate some hexes of wide and impassable rivers (type = 36) I'll need to draw some new tiles. At least 5 tiles should be drawn for rivers flowing in south-north direction. And probably to add some horizontal tiles for river Danube.

And also I need to prepare some tiles showing Mountain lakes on rivers for Norway scenario.

Talking about coastal tiles.
I'll prepare later a 13 new tiles to expand existing "Clear terrain on coasts" tiles set with "Mountain terrain". It will not affect nothing because in OoB German troops never will disembark to coasts. Just for appearance.

[randowe]

As I know now - pls someone correct me - wermacht haven't possibility to cross very wide rivers.

Depends on what you mean by "crossing" a river. The Wehrmacht had rail transportable Pionierlandungsboote (kl. Labo 39/40/41) with capacity of 20t - 40t or would use Sturmboote (le. Stubo 39) to cross rivers. The Sturmboot can carry 2 crew and about 7 or 8 men or so.
They had some havier equipment too, but i am not sure if all of them were transportable by rail. So basically they could cross "all" rivers.

Dnepr crossing at Kremenchuk:

[Lettos]

As I know now - pls someone correct me - wermacht haven't possibility to cross very wide rivers.

Depends on what you mean by "crossing" a river. The Wehrmacht had rail transportable Pionierlandungsboote (kl. Labo 39/40/41) with capacity of 20t - 40t or would use Sturmboote (le. Stubo 39) to cross rivers. The Sturmboot can carry 2 crew and about 7 or 8 men or so.
They had some havier equipment too, but i am not sure if all of them were transportable by rail. So basically they could cross "all" rivers.

I'm sorry for brevity talking about Wermacht possibility to cross rivers. I'll explain.
"Crossing rivers" as it is emulated in wargame PG-PGF, to do it in one day/turn.
I kindly ask to read two articles in Russian (using Google translate):
"Means of the Wehrmacht for overcoming water obstacles"
Part 1 http://army.armor.kiev.ua/engenear/nem-pontony.shtml
Part 2 http://army.armor.kiev.ua/engenear/nem-pontony-b.shtml

Conclusion:
Wermacht had a big problems to move heavy tanks using temporarily bridges.
"From the article author. Nevertheless, by the beginning of the war, this park can be considered obsolete, although it was put into service in October 1934. At the same time, it should be noted that, on average, the samples of ferrying facilities change once every 20-40 years. In terms of carrying capacity, this fleet still ensured the crossing of Pz Kpfw I, Pz Kpfw II, Pz Kpfw III tanks, but the heavier Pz Kpfw IV tanks weighing 25 tons are no longer there. Those German experts in the field of engineering weapons did not work for the future and did not take into account the development of armored vehicles. In the Red Army, around the mid-thirties, there were pontoon parks with a carrying capacity of 60 tons."

In wargame it mean what we need to have in Equipment file one additional descriptor for unit "possibility to cross rivers" (0/1).
If we haven't it - ok, it's just limitation of existing wargame, not more.

[randowe]

I'm sorry for brevity talking about Wermacht possibility to cross rivers. I'll explain.
"Crossing rivers" as it is emulated in wargame PG-PGF, to do it in one day/turn.
I kindly ask to read two articles in Russian (using Google translate):
"Means of the Wehrmacht for overcoming water obstacles"
Part 1 http://army.armor.kiev.ua/engenear/nem-pontony.shtml
Part 2 http://army.armor.kiev.ua/engenear/nem-pontony-b.shtml

Yeah thanks, the articles look interesting
We don't need to argue about bridging capabilities because the factor time plays a big role here.
Sorry for the interruption, i just got triggered by the word "Dnepr"

[Lettos]

Some words about Air Defence in PG/PGF wargame.

As usually first of all some data:
List of anti-aircraft guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... craft_guns

There is one very important parameter which not realized in existing wargame. This is Firing range by vertical.

Checking all guns we can see the following Fire ranges:
1) Guns 7.62-12.7-20mm have range till 2200 meters.
2) 37-50 mm - till 5000m
3) Some obsolete 75mm - till 6000-8000m
4) Newer 75mm and all guns till 120mm can shot to 10000-14500 meters.
So there are 4 or 5 classes of AD guns.

It is very logically what Oerlikons 20mm with Fire range 1 (1000 meters) can't protect against Level bombing from height 10000 meters at all.

Bombers should have a Bomb-dropping height classes:
1) Skip-bombing level. 0-2000 meters. All AD guns are effective against this kind of bombing. Huge losses of bombers. But also very good precision for dropped bombs. Soviet IL-2, German Ju-87 can attack only on this level.
2) 2000-5000. Tactical bomber's level. Not so good for precision but at least saves from 20mm AD guns. Player before attack should have possibility to choose in attack pop-up menu the tactical bomber's attack height: is it "Tactical" or "Skip-bombing". On Skip-bombing level bombers will expect more losses but a very good Ground attack bonus.
3) 10000 and more. Level bombing. Player should have In pop-up menu three choices: Level, Tactical or Skip-bombing. Some Level bombers can't change their bombing height, but some (as Ju88) can.

All ground units (I'm not talking about AD guns now) should have three Air Defenses parameters.
1) Against Skip-bombing (all units will have something more than zero)
2) Against Tactical bombing (some units)
3) Against Level bombing (rare units or not at all).

AI will understand so complicate war arithmetic after an improvement in PGF'2200.
But even in 2100 year players will be able to use new features in Human-vs-Human mode :

[Lettos]

To Wish List:

Airfields should have 2 types of runways: concrete and grass. May be 3rd type needs to be added - an airfield with fortified caponires.
After a weather is Rain and terrain has been changed to Muddy the Grass Airfields remains inoperable during 1-2 next turns.

In case if an enemy aircrafts are positioned on airfields or nearby Your bombers and fighters should have possibility to attack them as ground targets ! This is very dangerous and risky kind of attack but... sometimes it worked. If Your bombers will succesfully attack an airfield hex the runway will be damaged. And on next turn all enemy aircrafts placed on airfield hex and on hexes nearby to airfield will be inoperable.

Player should have a two choices for fighters moved to his airfields: Refill or Patrolling. Patrolling unit will be inoperable in next turn but will defend the airfield and any refilling aircrafts. It's clear what more than one fighter unit can be assigned for patrolling.

If an enemy bomber's attack of airfield is broken by patrolling fighter or/and Air defense fire the airfield still remains operable on next turn.

In Year 2100 this option works only in Human-vs-Human mode.

[Lettos]

Transport units.

Transport units should have a transported weight parameter.
At least three classes, (1)(2)(3)
(1) mean transorting infantry, light guns, and probably light tanks.
(2) transporting almost all.
(3) transporting absolutely all.

Naval: boats(1), Siebel ferries (2) and regular Cargo ships (3).
Air transports: pls compare Ju-52(1) and Ju-290 or Ju-390(2).
Ground transports: some heavy guns can't be transported by horses(1) or wheeled trucks (1) but only by more powerful half-tracked or fully tracked units(2).

All ground units should have the transportation weight. There are three classes:
1 - can be transported by all transports. (For example, infantry and light guns)
2 - can be only transported by transports with class 2 and 3 (light and other non-heavy tanks, recons etc).
3 - can be only transported by transports with class 3 i.e. Cargo ships. There are almost all heavy tanks.
0 - transportation of unit not available. Examples: Panzer VIII Maus, tank E-100.

Otherwise I'm providing now Opel's transports for 17 cm Kanone 18 https://world-war-2.wikia.org/wiki/17_cm_Kanone_18 and starting my summer voyage in Soviet Union

[Lettos]

Going much more to the point, if my experience messing with tiles is worth anything, the more you strive to embellish tiles the more likely it is that you get into trouble, specifically, the "prettier" the tile, more chances there are that at least some of the equipment icons become "invisible" over some terrain type.

I understand theese and never will try to paint new tiles. I'll just Select-copy-past from existing tiles to new ones..

If I suppose right, and this is what you're talking about in this point the good news are that we aren't thinking of spending much time and effort with aesthetics (of the tile itself, which actually was always relatively low on my priorities no matter how coining me to have the opposite idea was handy for someone in the past), and even more good news is that some of those tiles exist.
In the case of PGX, unless something drastic happened in the last weeks its a question of downloading it and look for mapl.bmp file, inside "BMP" folder.<...>

Could You please give a link to PGX download? I'm very sorry for it but I'm a newby in Community and can't understand what is PGX.

Some words about new tiles with "new" type. Type = 36, Escarpment. Good terrain type for Eastern Europe geography.
1) Impassable swamps. It's enough to have one or two tiles. These tiles must differ on map from passable swamps.
2) River+mountain and River+swamp = impassable
3) Probably add an impassable forest. This kind of landscape still exist in nature.

I'm not exactly clear on what you're about here...
What seems to make sense to me is that you're thinking of "diversifying" by using "escarpment" TT to introduce, visually, other impassable terrain types.

I'm talking about possibility to have a terrain type which can't be occupied with any ground unit. Only one existing type of terrain meets theese specification. This is "escarpment" terrain's type 36. Unit can be placed on this terrain by scenario modder at the start of scenario. After it unit can move once away from this hex. I'm personally don't need this movement extras. I only need on maps some hexes which are not available for movement at all. Hexes-obstacles, or dummy hexes, uncrossable hexes or call them as You like.
I described how these hexes looks on nature - Rivers with swamps on coasts, rivers + mountain coasts, very wide rivers. Blietzkrieg from tactical point of view was war for bridges first of all.

I prepared also 12 coastal hexes with mountains. Please take a look to PGF map with new tiles:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gj1ZWp ... sp=sharing
Some problems with tile's borders but the tiles are usable.
If You will provide link to PGX tiles set I'll appreciate it and replace my home-made tiles with better ones.
Thank You in advance!

[HexCode]

Having a rather austere, technical orientation...

I'm talking about the possibility to have a terrain type which can't be occupied by any ground unit. Only one existing type of terrain meets these specification. This is "escarpment" terrain's type 36.

Or underlying terrain type 35.

A unit can be placed on this terrain by a modder at the start of a scenario. After that, the unit can move once away from this hex.

Yeap, there's "advanced" modding thinking for you !

I personally don't need these movement extras. I only need some map hexes which are not available for movement at all. Hexes-obstacles, or dummy hexes, uncrossable hexes or call them as you like.

Time honored terminology:

A hex may be enterable. Alternatively, it may be unenterable. Hex enterability is an important consideration when it comes to "advanced" modding. By the way, hex enterability is relative to a unit's super-class. Thus, Escarpment terrain is unenterable by ground / land and naval (super-class) units but enterable by air (super-class) units. On the other hand, hexes designated as neutral territory are totally unenterable, period.

Keep up the good work.

[HexCode]

Wasn't there a "rough desert" terrain type in PG? Wasn't it impassable too?

Yes ! "Rough Desert" (or "Impassable Desert"): Terrain Type 34

These hexes are unenterable in identical fashion to "Escarpment" terrain hexes.

[HexCode]

Earlier, under this topic:

... there's a limited number of tiles "publicly" available to generate a map. This imposes severe constraints on a map's geographical accuracy. For example, have you noticed that roads never traverse terrain other than "clear" ? Similarly, rivers never meaningfully flow through "terrain" other than "river"...

http://hartmann.valka.cz/panzergeneral/ ... y/hexy.php

[Radoye]

Just came from newwavenriquez's topic and either I scanned through it too hastily or he doesn't mention it (expanding tileset).

Well, i found out about it by actually checking out the files in his mod... I noticed he included tiles in the Graphics folder (PGF has a "Default" folder with all the commonly used files, but if a duplicate exists within the particular mod's folder structure this will be used instead) and when i compared it with the original i noticed it was larger and included additional entries (mostly coastal tiles).

[Lettos]

First of all I like to said "Thanks" to my Community comrades Bombast the Blue, Radowe and HexCode for participation in discussion about new tiles.
Next excuse me for not answering personally to each comrade.
Below is short conclusion of this discussion (sure, from my point of view only, not more).

Theoretical and Philosophic part:
1) Thanks for Bombast of Blue for entering to PGX world. It was a great idea... but it was dropped in 2015. Anyway, as a result some invented products from PGX can be used still year 2100 (Two thousands one hundred, it is not typo).
2) Existing Tile set in PGF, AG or in Mods.
We still have a very primitive tool from 1990 to make a map for wargame. Pls not request from this set a possibility to emulate a true terrain. Just put a nice looking "Safety matches box" on your PC screen and be sure that it is "Building looks as Factory". The rest is true fantasy even we'll choose scale 1 hex = 2 km for battalion.
3) Already prepared "more thousands tiles" needs to be defined as:
- 3a) tiles for new terrain ideas
- 3b) tiles for existing terrain types.
Now I see a lot of tiles for 3b) and no one for 3a).
3b) is great visual improvement but not more.
3a) now is in investigation process now.
4) Both types of tiles, 3a and 3b, for PGF purposes needs to be divided for at least some Biom zones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biome. But to create the maps in PGF we are not a biologists, not a scientists, so using our knowledges about world's bioms we need to merge some regions to simplify them for Scenario builder's purposes. For example there are two zones: Desert-Tropical zone and Forests-Taiga-Swamp zone. And in both zones are available mountain's ranges.
5) An Ergonomics for Scenario-builder.
Pls be patient. Scenario builders have a very limited time to do something what You use as Freeware. Any additional mouse clicking and finding in tile's set a necessary tile causes a spending of lot of time. Much better is to spend this time not for tiles and hex-maps but for families and childs.
For all who understand the PGF tile problem I'll confirm what I'm not a newby in map making (pls take a look to OoB maps).
We have an unique FPGE tool now. If in FPGE a Scenario Builder need choose a tile he will go to tiles set. And will look for a necessary tile for some terrains. It takes a while, yes?
If You have a 240 tiles in Basic version, one modder can add to tile's set even a 300 tiles with isles and coast lines. And probably he will not expect a problems if he will work to create a new map using his own tiles? But what if he will have a 1000-3000 new, visually unknown, and added by another modder tiles?
A 14th century philosopher Occam told about this: "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity".
I'll join to Occam.
6) Merging p.4 and p.5:
So I'm supposing what the TILES SET shouldn't be larger than 1200x1200 pixels. One click close to the bottom narrow in FPGE and map's developer will see additional set 600x1200 pixels. And I'll never click again to look to pixel number 2354 and after return to pixel 654.
1200x1200 mean a to have 240 additional tiles for map's development. It's not much to emulate a true terrain but enough to improve a wargame's battlefield.
So one tile's set 1200x1200 pixels (Basic 240 + modded 240) is enough to emulate a tropical isles in Pacific Ocean, and another one - to emulate Taiga zone with swamps, forests etc which is located on territory from Northern Spain on West to Pacific Ocean on East.
An example: Japans in some Campaign in 1943 decided to start offensive to USSR. In 1942 Japans have to fight in tropical zone but in 1943 they will have on map Amur river, taiga etc. When Player playing the Campaign will start first Scenario'1943 for Japans he should just copy new tacmap maps to Graphics folder. If in year 2100 PGF will became a commercial product I can't see any problems to have a software patch which will automatically replace a necessary bmp files in Player's Game folder.
7) About the Scale and map's readability in wargame.
If the scale was choosed as 1 hex = 10 km the existing rivers are too wide. In case if 1 hex is equal to 1-2 km for battalion action's emulating purposes some rivers on existing PG map are too wide.
So first we need to answer to question: which scale we need to see now?
For scale 1 unit = 1 inf.division all already drawed rivers are extremely wide.
But a wargame's map is readable and understandable by Player. All units are clearly visible. All terrain types are understandable. Is it possible to have a better looking maps? No doubt, in PGF'2100. But what it will change for hex-wargame? Nothing.

What I've done:
8) In my map's designing I has been stopped now in Barbarossa scenario. Because next Scenario Kiev should have a tool to draw a Dnepr River on map. And After Moscow Wermacht will fight Stalingrad on Volga. Large rivers needed...
Some days ago I offered to draw 5-7 tiles to put large rivers on map. For straight rivers it was looking enough but... how are with bridges, with cities on rivers etc? Erroneous assumption!
But the "bazillion" tiles is erroneous assumption too!
54 tiles for wide river and 24 are enough to connect a wide river to existing in PGF. 78 = 6 or 78 = "bazillion". Strange mathematics of modders .
Please take a look to new Dry, Muddy and Frozen tiles and to the explaining example. Just a 30 hours job per three days and few hours to think. I'm tired a bit.
Also I'll add some tiles for coast lines, Rough with roads and something else what I'll need. But anyway this file will not be larger than a 1200x1200 pixels.
Download link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1teFIjM ... sp=sharing
I not tested if Muddy or Frozen map works at all. Should work... pls check and advice:

Help needed!

1) How can I test new prepared tiles in Muddy or Frozen map in Scenario without clicking "End turn" and waiting for Rain or Frost in some winter scenario such as Ardennes? Can I input "Winter" or "Rain" conditions in Scenario settings from 1st day?
2) Could You please to help me to understand the "Rough" terrain bonus for defending side? Is the defending unit have it? Playing I sure understood that defending unit have some bonus.
But the question is - is the "Rough" initiative bonus for defending unit is less than on "Mountain" hex? 5 against 8?
And what mean 4 on swamp for defending unit? On Swamp is better defense for unit located on swamp than for located in city or in fortification? I can't understand these values at all. Bonuses somehow works in wargame but they are against any WW2 logic. Or I'm not understanding these parameters now.
========
From PG FAQ:
Effective Initiative = Base Initiative or Initiative Cap (whichever is smaller) + Experience Bonus + d3
Initiative Cap Values for Defender's Terrain
Terrain Type Initiative Cap Value
City 1
Forest, Bocage, Fortifications 3
Swamp 4
Rough, Port Facility 5
Mountains 8
===========

Thanks in advance!

[HexCode]

Can I input "Winter" or "Rain" conditions in Scenario settings from 1st day?

Unfortunately not ! As was the case with PG1-DOS, PGF's technical design is neither very sophisticated nor balanced; far from it...

I'm not understanding these parameters now.
========
From PG FAQ:
Effective Initiative = Base Initiative or Initiative Cap (whichever is smaller) + Experience Bonus + d3
Initiative Cap Values for Defender's Terrain
Terrain Type Initiative Cap Value
City 1
Forest, Bocage, Fortifications 3
Swamp 4
Rough, Port Facility 5
Mountains 8
===========

PGF's internals aren't even close to having been minimally documented. If you can get hold of Prima Publishing's "Panzer General -- The Official Strategy Guide" you may be able to make some sense regarding such "obscure" technical matters. To boot, keep in mind that the "Hobby" never developed an appetite for or appreciated such esoterica; au contraire...

The specific text you've quoted has to do with combat initiative determination. In the past, it took a rather lengthy post to methodically explain the underlying, cascading mechanics. Oh, before I forget; those were PG1-DOS mechanics...

[newavenriquez]

Howdy

I've only edited attributes for tiles on existing scenarios (ex: I gave infantry entrenchment advantage on the roads in the Ardennes Forest of the "Low Countries" scenario, it had something to do with applying #21 somewhere in FPGE) and have added a few ports and airfields on maps.

[Lettos]

The pre existence of a million tiles doesn't compel anyone to use them all and even less to use them all simultaneously.
It does provide choices either for different modders using different tiles or for a single modder using different sets for different projects.

Exactly!

Now, if you need to produce your own, as the deteriorated state of my eyesight screams, a principle of economy and lots of pauses during tile work are very good ideas.

Depending how much time You have for hobby. I can't give any prognosis about my free time talking even about this spring. So each one can choose his own way looking for ideal compromise between time, quality and result.

Of river on city I have produced 16 tiles.<...>

Thank You! If I'll have the free space in my tacmap file 1200x1200 I'll add some tiles!

Want to test Muddy, you feed the game with 3 TACMAPs of Muddy while renaming one as clear and another as snow.
No matter how's the turn weather/ground state all you'll see will be mud.
Same drill for Snow, only difference in names.

Everything great is simple! It's a very nice solution! Thanks a lot!

[Lettos]

PGF's internals aren't even close to having been minimally documented. If you can get hold of Prima Publishing's "Panzer General -- The Official Strategy Guide" you may be able to make some sense regarding such "obscure" technical matters. To boot, keep in mind that the "Hobby" never developed an appetite for or appreciated such esoterica; au contraire...
The specific text you've quoted has to do with combat initiative determination. In the past, it took a rather lengthy post to methodically explain the underlying, cascading mechanics. Oh, before I forget; those were PG1-DOS mechanics...

Only if this esotheric book contains any digital coefficients ...

Today I've tryed to use a Statistical method.
I've prepared a "nursery" scenario with two infantry units.
Placed them in few vertical columns from 20 units against 20 staying face-to-face. Offensive units has been placed on Clear terrain. Defensive units were placed:
- on Clear terrain with Entrechment 1 to 6. It mean 6 columns 20-vs-20.
- on Rough, Swamp, Port, City, Mountains, Forest and Fortification. 7 columns.
In all 13 columns I've attacked a one Defensive unit with one Offensive. 13x20=260 clashes. After it was done I've summarized all units "strenght" of each side in each column.
To obtain much more statistically correct result I repeated the experiment 4 times. So totally for each column I got a 5х20=100 clashes.
Link to xls file with data and processing results:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZRdhcJ ... lbh4c/view
I got the ratio of losses on different terrains and for ENT1-6 on Clear.
Now I know what mean 1 ENT for infantry unit. It is approximately +30% to enemy losses. By the word approximately I mean a relatively small interval, 1.25 - 1.35.
2 ENT = + 60-70% (or multiplier x 1.6)
3 ENT = + 90-105% (x 1.9)
4 ENT = + 120% (x 2.2) (this is one unique case in my experiment when the results were less (only +80%) and very differs from interpolation on chart. There are many reasons causing it - bug in PG model, or some errors in random numbers generator, or non-linear chart must be used)
5 ENT = + 150% (x 1.5)
6 ENT = + 180% (x 1.8)

For Inf. unit on each type of terrain I've statistically calculated a following bonus multiplier comparing with Clear and Unit ENT = 0:
Swamp (ENT 0) = 1.16 (Accuracy is about +/- 5% from 1.16 i.e. 1.13-1.18)
Rough (Unit ENT 1 by default) = 1.16
Fortification (ENT 4) = 1.93
Port (ENT 1) = 2.24
Forest (ENT 2) = 2.60
Mountain (ENT2) = 2.73
City = 3.48

Default ENT for each terrain used in my experiment are known:
Swamp = 0, Rough = 1, Fortification = 4, Port = 1, Forest = 2, Mountain = 2, City = 3

First strange fact. Unit with ENT1 placed on Clear terrain kills more than unit with ENT1 placed on Rough or Swamp. Even with automatically assigned initiative bonus.

So now the last dividing:
Terrain bonus with ENT / Unit ENT bonus = TERRAIN BONUS
Terrain bonus is with included initiative bonus. I can't detach Initiative bonus from Terrain rate what I got with statistic method.
So this Terrain+initiative bonus has been calculated in Column K in xls file.
Rough, Swamp and Fortification = 0.9
Clear = 1
Port, Forests and Mountains = 1.6-1.7
City = 1.8

Yes, Fortification really has the bonus minus 10%! In PG it is compensated with default ENT=4 for each unit entering to FORT hex.
But it is understandable what if Player have choice where to place an infantry for defense, in the city or in fortification, he need to choose placing in city.
SSI invented very complicate algorithm to calculate Defense unit Attack power. But at least now is clear why infantry unit with ENT=9 is very hard target when located in city.

Nursery scenarios: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KKxL5r ... sp=sharing

[HexCode]

There's a hot-key combo which allows one to get rather deeply into PGF's combat results calculations (predictive, not post facto).

Say you intend to use your unit A to attack enemy unit B. Select unit A and just hover the mouse (sword) pointer over unit B (i.e., the target) but don't click (i.e., attack) yet. Instead, press the Ctrl key down and, while maintaining that pressed key state, just click on the target (i.e., make believe attack). You'll be presented with lots of predictive technical info...

[Lettos]

There's a hot-key combo which allows one to get rather deeply into PGF's combat results calculations (predictive, not post facto).

Say you intend to use your unit A to attack enemy unit B. Just hover the mouse (sword) pointer over unit B but don't click yet. Instead, press the Ctrl key down and, while in that pressed state, just click. You'll be presented with lots of technical info...

I'll take a look to this option. Thank You!
But... on nursery battlefield during my experiment I saw a lot of strange results after clashes in one column.
For example, an offensive unit attacking and have a very successful result 10-4 and next unit attacking with a result 4-10. War is the statistics of millions...
Before I've started experiment with 100 clashes I hoped what even 10 clashes will be enough. When I compared 10 results with 20 I got a statistically forecasted shock.
Now I can approve what even 100 clashes not enough.
But I got at least something data to talk about terrain bonuses much more precisely and not as "I'm supposing" or "I saw a miracle", "usually but not always" etc.
First usable result of my experiment: yesterday I've had idea to use a Rough terrain tile to prepare something like Road in mountain valley. Wrong idea! Unit on Rough with road will not have a Defense bonus like in Mountains.
Now I'm working in Select-copy-pasting 13 Road tiles in mountains to one "generic" mountain tile to use them later in Scenarios such as Caucasus, and probably Crimea(Sevastopol). Tacmap_dry is ready...
And now I finnaly know how I will tune Norway and Balkans maps.

[HexCode]

Elementary modding fact: As far as PGF's engine is concerned, terrain tiles are just... sitting pretty. All PGF's play system cares about are the underlying, abstract terrain type designations and roadwork (if any). These babies are, well, invisible to the human eye but readily comprehensible as far as the software is concerned. Therefore, any apparent mismatch between what a tile visually depicts and what's "abstractly hiding under it" is always resolved in favor of the... invisible realm, pretty tile be damned.

[Lettos]

Elementary modding fact: As far as PGF's engine is concerned, terrain tiles are just... sitting pretty. All PGF's play system cares about are the underlying, abstract terrain type designations and roadwork (if any). These babies are, well, invisible to the human eye but readily comprehensible as far as the software is concerned. Therefore, any apparent mismatch between what a tile visually depicts and what's "abstractly hiding under it" is always resolved in favor of the... invisible realm, pretty tile be damned.

My rules for myself preparing new tiles are very simply:
- use only PG/PGF palette.
- not draw but only Select-copy-paste
- all prepared tiles must be readable and understandable using PGF standart de-facto.
- same scale as in PG/F. All new tiles must be compatible with PG tiles.
- Not to draw GIS-map but just to put a nice sign "no walk there, dangerous" or "safe to go here, General"

And the artist who painted the tiles for the PG is a very talented person!

[Lettos]

There's a hot-key combo which allows one to get rather deeply into PGF's combat results calculations (predictive, not post facto).

Say you intend to use your unit A to attack enemy unit B. Select unit A and just hover the mouse (sword) pointer over unit B (i.e., the target) but don't click (i.e., attack) yet. Instead, press the Ctrl key down and, while maintaining that pressed key state, just click on the target (i.e., make believe attack). You'll be presented with lots of predictive technical info...

I've compared now predictive information about losses with my statistic from experiment based on 100 clashes.
Predicted PG Attk killed (Defender's losses) / Predicted PG DEF killed (Attk losses) / Battle DEF losses / Battle Attk losses

CLEAR ENT0 __ 5 3 4.3 2.0
CLEAR ENT1 __ 5 3 3.8 2.3
CLEAR ENT2 __ 4 3 3.3 2.65
CLEAR ENT3 __ 4 3 3.3 3.1
CLEAR ENT4 __ 4 3 3.0 2.5
CLEAR ENT5 __ 4 3 2.8 2.9
CLEAR ENT6 __ 3 3 2.4 3.1
ROUGH ______ 4 3 4.45 2.45
SWAMP ______ 4 3 4.3 2.3
FORTIF______ 4 3 3.0 2.7
PORT _______ 6 6 4.0 4.2
FOREST ______ 6 6 4.0 4.7
MOUNTAIN ___ 6 6 3.8 4.7
CITY ________ 6 6 2.9 4.6
----
CITY (ENT9) __ 5 6 2.85 4.0
FORTIFICATION (ENT9) __ 3 4 1.6 3.7
----------------------------
CLEAR (Bridge Eng ENT0) __ 1 4 2.0 4.0 -----(based on 60 clashes)
CITY (Bridge Eng ENT9) ____ 5 6 2.9 4.8 ------(200 clashes)
FORTIF (BrEng ENT9) ______ 0 4 0.3 4.8 ------(200 clashes)

I see what something incorrect is in formula for predicted results. In six cases it work good with an accuracy less than 1, in seven cases accuracy is more than 1 and less than 2, and six cases are with accuracy 3.3-4.6. Inaccurate predictions are in City, Fortification, Mountains, Port, Forest terrains.
One strange fact. For not specialised inf.unit with ENT=0 City is more better for defense than Fortification. But for same unit with ENT=9 defense in Fortification is more effective than in City.

And some words about chance of Rugged defense.
Example: in prediction I see 30%. PG/PGF have for this thirty percents a distribution similar to orange curve on this image:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... DF.svg.png
30% from 20 clashes is 6. It's a very rare case to have a six Rugged defense's cases in 20 clashes. Mainly there are 4-5-6-7-8 cases. 3 or 9 happen not so often. I saw also 2 and 11 cases instead of "predicted" 6. And even during 5x20 clashes Rugged defense can be more or less than 30% (i.e. in 100 clashes only 20% and in another hundred 40%). This is the reason why sometimes we have "unlucky" turns in Game.

[Radoye]

PG / PGF are no chess, there always was a certain randomness involved with the battle results. It's normal

[Lettos]

PG / PGF are no chess, there always was a certain randomness involved with the battle results. It's normal

Exactly!
By the way chess also already have a mod named Dice chess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice_chess

[HexCode]

By the way chess also already have a mod named Dice chess:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice_chess

For the... philosophically inclined:

Chess & Wargaming: Musings & Angles
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=281

PG / PGF are no chess, there always was a certain randomness involved with the battle results. It's normal

Tabletop wargames did generate combat outcomes subject to probabilistic variation. However, their die rolls applied to a unit counter as one entity (i.e., all strength factors). SSI's (and, hence, PGF's) formulas, on the other hand, subject each individual strength factor to a separate probabilistic combat outcome resolution. As a result, the joint probability distribution of, say, 10 pseudo-random, individual probabilistic combat outcomes is bound to have quite long right and left "tails". Hence, some observable combat outcomes are expected to be quite extreme...

[Lettos]

Tabletop wargames did generate combat outcomes subject to probabilistic variation. However, their die rolls applied to a unit counter as one entity (i.e., all strength factors). SSI's (and, hence, PGF's) formulas, on the other hand, subject each individual strength factor to a separate probabilistic combat outcome resolution. As a result, the joint probability distribution of, say, 10 pseudo-random, individual probabilistic combat outcomes is bound to have quite long right and left "tails". Hence, some observable combat outcomes are expected to be quite extreme...

You are right!
In my first impression of observing the experiment, there are not only long tails, but the middle of the Gaussian is concave down!
In some "twenties" of clashes I don't saw predicted result exactly as it was predicted. Instead of something close to average there a lot of very extreme results. And only summarised them on very long distance (200 clashes or more) statistic will be stabilized somewhere close about predicted.
Example:
Wermacht 39 Inf EXP=0 attacking from Clear terrain Soviet Bridge Engineers EXP=0 ENT=9 located in city.
In 20 clashes 5 times result was: Attackers 8-10 and Defenders 4 and knocked out from city. In the rest 15 clashes results 1-5 Attk and 8-10 Defenders. Extremely long tails! And no results in the middle at all. It looked as if one day one side received a barrel of schnapps, the next day sober up, but the other side was delivered a barrel of vodka and it is not able to fight.

[Lettos]

Keep up the good work.

I've prepared 208 new additional tiles for all weather conditions. All tiles in the same palette as in PG.
Description below:
3 tiles - from PG (2 river mouths and 1 river)
1 airfield with concrete runway and 6 tiles for coastal line (_Dry tiles are from PGX, Muddy and Frozen are made by me because an another palette was used in PGX)
12 - river in mountains
12 - river in swamps
13 - roads in forest
13 - roads in mountains (I'm not sure if we need 300 tiles if 13 work good )
30 - roads on coastal line tiles (only some roads can be located on these tiles because... in reality the roads are usually just parallel to coast line. And the rest roads can be "drawed" on PGF map using existing coastal line tile "Ocean" and terrain with road "behind" it)
14 - coast with mountains
14 - road on coast with mountains (why not? If it's possible because PG map developer already prepared tiles for it?)
78 - wide river (my own investigation, terrain type = 35 or 36)
8 - bridge on wide river (in this case terrain type should be as "River")
4 - specific coastal tiles to "draw" wide river mouth

So 9 tiles prepared to make map developing easier.
1 tile with airfield tile can be used in Scenario with defined Supply airfield. For same purpose I'll try to prepare one City tile which will differ from common city.
30 roads on coastal line - may be someone have already prepared these tiles. Doesn't matter. These simply tiles don't required a huge job to prepare them. 1 coastal tile used for 8 tiles is taken by me from PGX tacmaps.
The rest 168 tiles are not a self-targeted graphic improvement but a real PGF functionality improvement.

Anyone can use my tiles set for his own Scenarios without any limitations.

Screenshot: https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ZeDVn ... sp=sharing

Download link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GuKPV_ ... sp=sharing
In zip-archive are:
Graphics folder:
tacmap_dry
tacmap_muddy
tacmap_frozen
tacicons
Scenario folder:
034 Scenario named "Map new tiles" is a sandbox. Look around on map. Here is a my fantastic sandbox map prepared as an example to check how new tiles looks on map in PGF.
Make a backup copy of your original files first, or prepare a "testing" folder with game.

There are no any terrain types, only images. Some units placed on map to see how units will be seen in game.
_Tool_13 Roads Folder with file which can help to anyone to prepare his own road tiles.

Some place in 1200x1200 tacmap file will left to add 35 tiles in future.

Personally for me everything now all is clear how to prepare good-looking tiles using select-copy-paste option in GIMP.
It's not complicate but require some skills and especially thinking if I'm talking about limited quantity in tile set for ergonomic purposes.
And also is very clear how to achieve as a result good looking map with very limited by ergonomic but incredibly powerful tools.

[Radoye]

Thanks, this looks great!

[Lettos]

Thanks, this looks great!

Updated version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TyuVB_ ... sp=sharing
Added:
1 tile for supply center. City with white road by diagonal. If someone have better idea how to draw this tile better please share this idea!
2 tiles for rivers from PG set "4 o'clock to 9 o'clock" using Flip by horizontal option.
8 tiles with bridges on mountain rivers.
2 tiles with lake. Lakes have a possibility to connect them to a river.

This job is finished for now. Remaining 22 tiles I'll keep now for extra needs.

[Kas Narayda]

Interesting scenario. I think increasing the cost of units is the right approach. After all, mass production in the Third Reich was not established. That was one of the reasons for the defeat of the Third Reich in World War II.

[HexCode]

# Lettos # wrote:

Based on # Radoye's # investigation about FORT unit with movement "0" I've prepared a unit called "bridge". It can be used especially in cases:
- if You are player in Defensive scenario against AI. Destroy Your own bridges after the retreating of Your army by disbanding bridge unit.
- if You playing against AI and in Scenario some bridges on AI territory are deployed by Scenario's developer I suppose AI will use them for unit relocation. And I hope it will be very helpful for Human player to destroy these bridges.
- If Human is playing against Human they both will use and keep in mind a possibility to destroy bridges.

These bridges can even be repaired by replacements for unit "Bridge"!

Some limitations:
- Sure that ground units can't be placed on such bridge
- Bridge can't be "used" or "occupied" by enemy.
- Bridge can be shifted after an attack of ground unit.

I've prepared a new icon for bridge unit. To make a bridge over wide river I prepared 2 tiles for usual river and 4 special tiles for road. I've used them in new 034 sandbox scenario's map.
There's are even possibility to have a chain of bridges. As in example on map - 2 bridges over new-invented wide river with terrain type 35.

if You will open my scenario 034 You will see a double bridge connecting on small island on wide river.

Practical usage in PGF scenario:
One side, i.e. Soviet army in 1941 or Wermacht in 1944 can use their set in Scenario "bridge" units as bridge and retreat fast. After retreating they can disband bridge units. Offensive side will need 2 turns to prepare new bridge using bridge engineers.
It's a some kind of band-aid to emulate a reality.

I'm sure that all parameters of unit "Bridge" should be adjusted later by Community.
MVT=0
Price - I don't know now. If some cases it should be about "zero", then in other cases this unit should be a very expensive.
Attk = 0
Defense parameters = it is a question now.
Entrechment = ?
Unit strength when placed = 5? 10? or 1?

So first of all I'm kindly asking You to take a look at scenario, map, tacmap and tacicons files. Download link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lc4LXG ... sp=sharing

About bridge units. I've created two river tiles and 2x2 tiles for tacicons file to create a "horizontal" 2-part bridges.
Please take a look to new files and to hexes 27,22 and 28,22. Looks good but not excellent. I've prepared a 4 new "icons" for bridge units and 2 tiles for rivers what can be used independently from bridges in map design. This task was very complicated for tiles drawing. Unfortunately now two rose-color pixels still are seen on map. Probably I'll solve this not Critical but Major problem later.
But anyway as a result now we can build a "horizontal" 2-parts bridges.
Download new upgraded version:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1psYbiw ... sp=sharing

So now I'm finished my work with bridge units. Sure the icons and tiles can be upgraded and added. But it isn't a Critical but just a Major issue for future, not more. For experiments in scenarios, what is enough.

[Radoye]

I've been thinking about this bridge-fort feature, and while i absolutely encourage any sort of experimentation in PGF (because this is what breeds progress in scenario creation, new ideas from different designers with different perspectives) I'm still not fully decided on the issue.

If this bridge would be a "true" bridge that both sides could use (or destroy), that would open a lot of possibilities for scenario design (like: side A has to capture and hold a number of bridges until reinforcements arrive, side B has to blow the bridges up to prevent the same reinforcements - Market Garden anyone?). But with limitations of the PGF game engine in place, i don't see why an ordinary bridging unit couldn't be used for the same purpose, and rather than disbanding the bridge-fort the player would just move the bridge engineers (or a bridging tank) off the river hex, achieving the same effect?

Of course, with PGF allowing unlimited new unit slots in the eqp file, there is no reason not to have a bridge-fort unit too, since there's plenty of room for it...

[Lettos]

But with limitations of the PGF game engine in place, i don't see why an ordinary bridging unit couldn't be used for the same purpose, and rather than disbanding the bridge-fort the player would just move the bridge engineers (or a bridging tank) off the river hex, achieving the same effect?

It is very likely that the AI will send its bridge engineers to attack the enemy
But if we'll prepare bridge engineers with MVT=0 how we'll differ them on map from usual bridge engineers with MVT=2?

[Radoye]

OK i see what you mean, but AI won't be able to "blow up" its bridges / disband the fort-bridges either. It's just too stupid for that.

[Lettos]

Interesting scenario. I think increasing the cost of units is the right approach. After all, mass production in the Third Reich was not established. That was one of the reasons for the defeat of the Third Reich in World War II.

Thank You!

Talking about mass production, there are some data about reinforcements available at June 1941, and also about allocated reinforcements from June to 31st December 1941
Source: Nigel Askey. Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis, and Military Simulation. Volume IIB.
https://books.google.com/books?id=UmwwBwAAQBAJ

"OKH Reserves
2nd Army (deployed behind Army Group Centre), 12 divisions and 239,000 personnel (total in the
German Army, Waffen SS, Luftwaffe ground forces, naval ground forces in coastal artillery, and railroad troops). Approximately 200,000 personnel were allocated to Deployed (D) combat units.
4 infantry corps HQs, 11 infantry divisions (including the SS Police Division) and | mountain division.
6 armoured cars of all types (including armoured radio cars).
1,686 (28-600mm) artillery pieces (including anti-tank guns, and excluding coastal and rail guns, and
rocket systems), 78 (20-10S5mm) AA guns (including all SP AA guns), and 1,593 (S0-81mm) mortars.
Approximately 30,300 motor vehicles (excluding halftracks, armoured cars and motorcycles), and
271 halftrack prime movers (excluding halftracks used as self-propelled guns)."

Compare with deployed on East Front

"3 Army Group HQs, 4 Panzer Group HQs, 8 army HQs, 34 infantry and mountain corps HQs, and
10 motorised (panzer) corps HQs, with 3,359,000 personnel (total in the German Army, Waffen SS,
Luftwaffe ground forces, naval ground forces in coastal artillery, and railroad troops).

Approximately 2,665,000 personnel were allocated to Deployed (D) combat units.

138 divisions made up of 91 infantry divisions (including the SS Police Division), 17 panzer divisions,
9 motorised divisions, 3 Waffen SS motorised divisions, 1 cavalry division, 4 mountain divisions,

4 light infantry divisions and 9 (small) security divisions.

4,445 fully tracked AFVs (* - Armoured Fighting Vehicle) of all types. These comprised 3,795 tanks, command tanks and flame tanks,
301 assault guns, 257 light tank destroyers and SP guns, and 92 pionier (combat engineer) and
ammunition transport vehicles. However, it should be noted that only 1,457 fully tracked AFVs (33%)
were tanks or assault guns with 50-75mm calibre guns (i.e. were Pz IIs (50mm), Pz IVs or StuG IIIs),
and only 1,748 AFVs (39%) had guns with a calibre greater than 45mm. In addition, 642 fully tracked
AFV (14%) had only MG armament or no mounted armament at all, while another 817 AFVs (18%)
were light Pz IIs with only 20mm cannon armament.

1,367 armoured cars of all types (including armoured radio cars), and 1,055 semi-tracked AFVs
(including APCs and armoured observation vehicles).

19,666 (28-600mm) artillery pieces (including anti-tank guns, and excluding coastal and rail guns, and
rocket systems), 3,769 (20-105mm) AA guns (including all SP AA guns and 622 8.8cm Flak guns), and
17,081 (S0-81mm) mortars.

At least 577,200 motor vehicles (excluding halftracks, armoured cars and motorcycles), and
10,748 halftrack prime movers (excluding halftracks used as self-propelled guns)."
------------------------------
Data about new tanks manufactured from 22 June to 31 December 1941:
Pz Kpfw II – 181
Pz Kpfw IIF - 36
Pz Kpfw III (50mm) – 1201
Pz Kpfw IV - 330
Pz Kpfw 38(t) – 401
StuG III Assault Gun – 348
Pz Kpfw 35R(f) 47mm – 93
Pz Kpfw 35R - 80 refurbished
Pz Kpfw B2 – 26 refurbished
Pz Kpfw B2 (F) – 10
Pz Kpfw 35-S – 53 refurbished
Pz Kpfw 38H – 119 refurbished
-----------------------------

If in Scenario 1 unit = 100 tanks, using PGF terminology only 12 Pz III units were available as reinforcements and for purchasing as new units for whole Wermacht! For example, 2-3 units for Army Group Nord, 2-3 for South... and for Army Group Center for 3 Scenarios (Barbarossa, Kiev, Moscow'41) should be allowed to have not more than 6-8 reinforcement units Pz III (or 60-80 unit's strenght in total). It mean only 20-25 strenghts for each scenario!

And what about Luftwaffe?
Reinforcements allocated to East front from 22 June to 31 December 1941:
Bf109E - 24 aircrafts
Bf109F - 38 aircrafts
Me110 - 61
He111H - 121
He111H-3 - 60
He111H-6 - 12
Ju88A - 47
Do17z - 12
Hs-126 - 9
Ju87 - 0

Unit of Bf109 with 6 strenght, Me110 STR=6, He111 two units STR=10...

Incredible...