pzgndr

I'm also expecting the previous v1.01 version mods to run OK under v1.02. If not, players may want to open and resave the campaigns under the latest v1.02 editor. If there are still any issues and modders need to repost stuff, it would be nice to know that. I will say that the v1.02 patch DOES affect AI performance, for the better. I ran my A3R 1942 campaign as Axis over the long weekend and the Allied computer opponent was noticeably more challenging than before. :cool:

FYI, I am not planning to update my A3R campaigns for the v1.02 patch. The v1.01 updates appear to be working fine, better in fact. The various AI improvements in this patch are pretty significant IMHO. Subs and bombers perform better, and there are also some other improvements to air unit rebasing that make the computer opponent more challenging. :cool: If anyone does spot something odd or has suggestions, let me know. I'll consider another update if one is warranted. Otherwise, I'm going to be spending my limited free time working on a new Army-level ETO campaign.

When you import a scenario, you should also copy and update the localization.txt file for the scenario. Global has more country slots than PDE, but you can still update the country list to what was used in the imported scenario. This is way easier than trying to reset tile ownerships...

Good thoughts. Re #1 & #5. More important than entrenchment, AI should garrison major capitals with army or tank units, not corps. But yes, once placed, leave them. Re #2. Increasing operational movement cost tends to decrease unnecessary AI moves. I've done this with my A3R mod and it seems a little better. Re #3. Agreed, AI air unit redeployments could use some attention. I've provided comments to Hubert over the past year about this. In offensive situations, air units should advance to about 1/3 range from front and provide priority support to scripted and/or generic land offensive objectives. In defensive situations, air units should retreat to about 2/3 range from the front and provide intercept support. I'll add a #6 regarding transports and amphibious transports. If only a single unit is scripted, the priority should be a corps. For multiple units, then include army and tank units. Too often I watch high value tank units sent off on low priority missions like invading Denmark and Norway. Problem with Norway is once there, they stay as garrison, so it's a waste to have a tank sit out the game like that.

OK a v1.01a hotfix for the Russian Winter events is posted to the repository and should be up shortly. Version notes: Assuming that I do a v1.02 update one of these days, I will probably circle back to this and use a global variable to link the separate strength and supply events together. I was thinking about this as the files were uploading... If anyone else spots something odd like this rare Russian Winter hitting in August or anything else, let me know. I'm curious what others think about the latest v1.01 changes. Spot on, still too easy, much harder, etc.?

FuChu, I'm going to rework the Russian Winter scripts and post a 1.1a update later today or this weekend. I had changed the winter only flag to all seasons to possibly allow an earlier winter (before Dec 21). At 75% chance per turn it should not have been delayed as long as August but statistically there you go. A higher trigger % should ensure Russian Winter only during winter. LampCord, the Polish garrison requires Konigsberg, Warsaw and Lvov all be garrisoned in 1940 and then also the Polish border in 1941. Not all border tiles but at least a unit or two in the north, center and south adjacent to certain tiles. From the mobilization_2 script: mgdpublic, I still have an early WAW version of A3R around but I don't support it and won't recommend it. I've also moved beyond the PDE version. Too many shortcomings. The current Global Conflict version is the way to go.

FuChu, I agree about the Finns but the event affects all Axis forces regardless. I'll recheck what I did with Russian Winter scripts. There are both supply and strength events for winter of 41-42 and variant events for 42-43. Winter in August shouldn't be happening!

Thanks! The file is unit_sprites_military in the custom \bitmaps directory for my mod. I'd recommend you backup the regular file in the game's \bitmaps directory (rename it as unit_sprites_military_original or something), copy my file into that directory, and then use MS Paint to edit as desired. Good luck!

OK looks like the updates are all available now at the repository under the same filenames. The version is updated to v1.1, so anyone who downloaded the original v1.0 version should redownload the latest files. Enjoy.

I have just uploaded v1.1 updates to all four Advanced Third Reich campaigns to the SC2 WWII Global Conflict repository. Since the v1.1 patch fixes an AI transport error regarding LOOP positions and disconnected COASTAL POSITIONS from embarkation points, this allowed me to delete the workaround I was using and restore the Allied reinforcement transport scripts to Iraq. So, my v1.1 updates require the v1.1 patch. Version notes are as follows: The USA research is now working correctly, which means IT research and increase in Allied MPPs. Where this wasn't working correctly before and the Allied AI was being starved of MPPs, players should now see more normal behavior. The other significant thing I finally got around to revising was strategic warfare. Subs were being too aggressive in conventional naval battles and bombers were being distracted by ground targets rather than focusing on production resources. By restricting these undesireable behaviors with reduced CTV attack values, I've noted improved convoy raiding by U-boats and resource bombing by Allied bombers. Subs are also a bit more surviveable now, so strategic warfare is more challenging for both sides. Again, I would recommend veteran players looking for a challenge to play on the Intermediate +1.5 difficulty levels, working up to Expert +2 as necessary. Enjoy! Also, some news. Unless a future patch provides something new and/or player feedback provides compelling suggestions for improvements, this is about as far as I can go with A3R using Global Conflict. Finally, I'm pretty pleased with results. But I'm not giving up! I have shifted my sights from this corps-level campaign to an army-level ETO campaign, which will be a little more abstract but have fewer units and should play fast. Stay tuned... :cool:

I disagree, based on the Panzer General style game mechanics. The game is an abstraction, not a combat simulator for what happens between specific units during a single attack or single turn. Since the game only allows sequential single-unit attacks versus single defenders, it should matter not who got in the kill shot or how. Is it OK for an air attack to inflict a 2-3 strength loss at the start of an attack sequence but not at the end? I don't worry about this. What's more important is what happens between a group of opposing units over the course of several turns; are the overall outcomes reasonable or not. There are other options available for reducing certain bloody combat results, where air power or something else may be too powerful. Adjust the CTVs, change research, revise the force pools, etc. Something Hubert could consider for the future is to create a separate air combat loss evasion category. Right now it's just land and naval combats, and no good way to set loss evasion for certain unit types against just air attacks.

And Tiger Woods also has some significant personal issues to overcome... Again Rambo, so what? Who cares? :confused:

Rambo, do you need recognition or what? We could take up a collection and get a bumper sticker for your mom & dad's minivan: OUR CHILD IS THE STRATEGIC COMMAND WORLD CHAMPION I mean, we don't want to stifle your self-esteem or anything. That's against the law in the USA nowadays.

I cannot speak for the other playtesters who developed and tested the default GC campaigns, but I will offer a response from my perspective. It's difficult enough to keep up with game code and editor changes during alpha and beta testing, trying to verify the game itself works. Then there's the challenge of trying to verify campaign setups and scripting all work. And at some point Hubert and Battlefront decide things are good enough to go gold, not perfect but good enough. What gets missed in this game and practically all new wargames is a thorough workout of all strategies, in all the campaigns, for complete games start to finish. It's difficult enough to get basic historical strategies to work in some cases, much less try to cover all of the various aggressive ahistorical (gamey?) strategies. Who has time? Post-release, as play balance weaknesses arise, patches invariably make tweaks and adjustments to help make the game more challenging and balanced, and the v1.01 patch for GC will do this too. It's just a game fellas. Hubert shoots for a happy medium of challenge for most players, and that's worked well for the series. It's obviously not challenging enough for a few. Too bad. Make your own challenging mod, a tournament level campaign, whatever? But to thump your own chest about being the world champion for Chutes & Ladders or any other game, how juvenile! So what? Get a life.

Non sequitur, as usual.

C'mon, get beyond your comfort zone and rise up to the challenge. Print out all of the AI scripts and lay the paper end-to-end across a large room. Master Kan says, "When you can walk the AI scripts without tearing them, then your steps will not be heard, and you will be a Kung Fu modder."

I'd recommend you copy the entire campaign folder and .cgn file for a given campaign to a renamed campaign folder and .cgn file, and then edit that. That way you retain all of the localization information and scripting for further editting. If you just save the cgn file under a new name, it doesn't have any of the supporting information that should be in a new campaign folder, thus no path.

I second. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "If people don't want to play Strategic Command, nobody's gonna stop 'em."

My Advanced Third Reich mod is pure ETO, 24/7.

Agreed. +0.5 really doesn't help much; I recommend +1.0 or +1.5. +2.0 gets kinda weird. The Intermediate and Expert levels affect some plunder MPPs and spotting ranges, but the computer oppoent really needs the additional experience bonus to overcome its generic AI weaknesses (eg, reckless overextension of some units resulting in unnecessary losses). Bottom line: crank it up a notch or two and see how it goes! Skipping the opening campaigns and starting with the 1941 or 1942 scenarios also tend to be a little more challenging.

Hi fellas. I will be working on an update over the next few weeks. I've noted a couple Global Variable errors in my production and research scripts that I want to fix, plus Hubert resolved an issue in the upcoming patch that I can use. There are also a couple of other minor issues I plan to work on. I'm looking for feedback. Anything not working quite right? Any suggestions for improvement? Let me know. Thanks. Enjoy!

I think it comes down to having lots of plausible and semi-plausible variants to keep every game a little different and interesting. Certainly that's been my intent with my A3R mod. I've gotten some questions about France sometimes not entering the war right away, Russia choosing not to invade/annex Baltic States, etc. But if you really want to get out of the rut of predictability, then you need to introduce variants and allow each game to run its own course. Modest variants though, not extreme things to significantly upset play balance for an enjoyable game.

No problem! I have my plain vanilla grognard preferences. Certainly others have different preferences and may like more research, roads and railroad networks, different units, etc. Whatever.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. :confused: Methinks whatever sense of WWII realism and historical accuracy you might have once had no longer exists? Fantasy games are in another department... See also: http://www.wonderlandblog.com/wonderland/2010/03/sid-meiers-gdc-2010-keynote-notes.html#more

Uh-huh. My suggestion to you and others would be to play a couple/few games from both the Axis and Allied sides and see some of the variations. Like I said in an earlier post, every game has a few surprises.