Battlefield

Hi Xenon 141 All files work properly on my system. Also in the download packages from the "File Repository" I could not find any corrupted files. Seems to be an individual file error while downloading or just a matching error between the game and the newly added mod. In the latter case, a renaming and saving of the campaign in the editor would be helpful...

Nice to hear Xenon 141! But unfortunately you can not hear all the new sound effects! ;-) I will look at the "naval_attack" sound file inside my package. If you do not like to download the entirely files again, then try it to separately replace the "naval_attack" file in the sound folder with a copy the of the original file.

Hi Xenon 141 Your error messages could indicate damaged or corrupted files. Tonight I will once again control my packed original files. If I can locate a damaged file in the data packet I will upload the base files again. If not, then there could be errors occurred during the data transfer (upload / download). A resaving of the campaign under a new name is only useful if all files are intact! Hi dtreller If the mod is running on your system without any problems, then the data of "Xenon 141" may have been corrupted during the download...

Hello everyone! I just uploaded my Battlefield Europe files. If all goes well, this should be available for download shortly. 1939_Battlefield_Europe_for_AoCv102 File Version: 1.0 This scenario is essentially based on the "1939 Storm Over Europe" campaign Romania is now a separate major nation along with the United Kingdom, France, USA, USSR, Poland, Germany and Italy Added minors: Slovakia and Croatia (DE) Relocated some loops. Others are disabled in multiplayer. (Sorry allies, no avoidance of the German u-boat threat by directly "looping" into the North Atlantic and Arabian areas of tension! But you will win anyway...maybe ;-) Added/changed few events and sounds... Units: Evented "elite" units for Germany (Waffen-SS) and USSR (Red Army Guards/NKVD) [Altered 3D unit icons and adjusted unit values. This minor based, additional units have improved combat values and may not be reproduced. Use them wisely! In the alternative, Heavy Tanks, Corps, Mechanized Infantry, Special Forces and Pioneers were blocked for minors!] Deployment if DE Waffen-SS "yes": 1939 - 1 Inf. Corps. 1940 - 1 Inf. Corps; 1 StuPio Reg. 1941 - 1 Mech. Div. 1942 - 1 Tank Group; 1 Inf. Corps 1943 - 1 Tank Group; 1 Mech. Div.; 1 StuPio Reg. 1944 - 1 Tank Group 1945 - 1 Inf. Corps Deployment if DE Red Army Guards "yes": 1942 - 1 Tank Group; 2 Inf. Corps 1943 - 1 Tank Group; 1 Mech. Div.; 2 Inf. Corps 1944 - 1 Tank Group; 1 Mech. Div.; 2 Inf. Corps 1945 - 2 Inf. Corps Evented foreign Waffen-SS (France; Nederland; Latvia) Evented NKVD HQ renamed to Army HQ [Altered 3D unit icons] Garrison [Altered 3D unit icons and carefully increased the soft defense value] Division changed to Mountain Infantry [Altered 3D unit icons and adjusted unit values. Compared to regular infantry divisions, these units have longer training times, better defensive values against infantry, weaker against tanks, are quickly on foot, but can not be motorized! Corps changed to Infantry Division [Altered 3D unit icons and unit values] Mechanized changed to Mechanized Division [Adjusted unit values to field them as divisions] Army changed to Infantry Corps [Altered 3D unit icons and adjusted unit values to represent two infantry divisions.] Anti Tank changed to Tank Destroyer [Altered 3D unit icons and adjusted unit values for more "Panzerjägerabteilung" and less "lonly AT in the woods" in mid and late games. Dangerous tank hunters but at the same time prey to (almost) all enemy infantry units!] Light Tank changed to Armored Recon [Adjusted unit values] Airships changed to Coastal Bombers [Altered 3D unit icons and adjusted unit values accordingly AoD] Special Forces [Partially altered 3D unit icons and adjusted unit values. These units represent all of the US Marines to the italian Bersaglieri and does not constitute "Commandos" in the strict sense] Tank Group [Partially altered 3D unit icons. (Germany; Romania; USSR) Changed order of appearance for German Tanks: Pz. II; Pz. III; Pz. IV; Pz. VI; Pz. V; Pz. VI Ausf. B] ...and few more fine adjustments! Added, changed and altered lots of pictures and sprites. Too many to be listed here... Last, but not least: All new military unit sprites. These hybrids are zoomed out into nato symbol units. All newly added or modified 3d units were selected and designed to fit harmoniously as possible in the existing units set. Hints: Best played as axis against allied AI or multiplayer "Soft Build Limits": Off Because of the predefined settings in the event script the Waffen-SS (or the RA Guards) remains initially "neutral" after a positive decision and joins the respective main power during the circular shift of rounds. So be patient... Have mercy, this is my first (published) modification... ;-) Cheers Battlefield

You are busy on all fronts, Mike! PS: Your Seaways mod runs in AoC.

Hi Mike You speak of a King Tiger from your mod, right? Otherwise there is no Pz. VI Ausf.B in the SC2 game series. The last upgrade for the Tank Group in the vanilla game has been provided with a picture of the Pz. V "Panther". That's okay, because the "Panther", as a medium tank, entered series production relatively late and was used until the surrender. Nevertheless, in my B.E. mod I have provided the upgrades for German battle tanks with the icons of the historical order (Pz II, Pz III, Pz.IV; Pz VI; Pz V; Pz. VIAusf.. For this I have taken out the icon of the Czech Panzer 38 (t) to get a free slot in the end. I am very satisfied with the way in which the developers has shown the armored force in the game. Above the regimental level - at least in the German armored forces - everything was used, what was operational. The most up to date versions of the Panzer III and IV fought alongside with Tigers and other armored weapons. I do not think that the game in its division/corps/army level needed a distinction of light, medium or heavy and superheavy tanks. Hubert's concept works fantastic as part global or global strategy game. All attempts to transform it into an infantry platoon/battalion level will inevitably fail, because of the lack of some (micro)strategic details (bridges, land mines, level changes, day/night change, etc), which play no role in a global strategic game. For this reason I have changed in my mod the light tanks to armored reconnaissance (like the cavalry) and the ATG to "Panzerjägerabteilung" (or Tank Destroyer on the Allied side.) Both, in Icons and in the values. Undeniably! A strategy jewel that can continue to evolve over time, because the player community and the developers have joined in a unique way, thus enriching "our" game with ideas and constructive criticism. I'm really looking forward to SC3. But I have premonitions of evil in terms of the multi-player functions. Matrix/Slitherine accommodate great strategy games. They are particularly very concerned about the development and maintenance of turn-based strategy. Unfortunately, there is lately efforts to eliminate mercilessly the LAN-play features (to enforce the "revolutionary PBEM++ play via server" idea) of the games. I am part of the under-represented network-game community, which is adopted piece by piece from the turn-based strategy. This development is very unfortunate. Neither PBEM or Hotseat are a viable alternative. All three game options have a right to exist ... side by side. But maybe the developers make it here, to set an example for all players!

Hi Mike Good approach. We should mentally separate from the original reasons why a particular mathematical-technical tool was once installed in the game. A loop was indeed originally intended as a tool to connect two separate map segments but it can also shorten a march (to simulate faster ship movements) or just slow down (to simulate a stalled supply of Troops or similar). Same for damage evasion. That was originallly a tool to simulate distance independent attacks without or with reduced resistance of the target, right? (Artillery; high flying bomber attacks, etc.) So why not also damage evasion with individually different values​​ across all units and so to provide another -then also strength dependent- tool for further diversification of units in addition to the pure attack and movement values. The larger/stronger the unit, the higher the evasion value. Could equally be well addressed reversed. The smaller and more maneuverable the unit, the greater is the evasion value and the larger/stronger units receive in return a more significant gap in combat values. Works surprisingly (and sometimes even to tear out hair) well with the small partisan units. If you can grab them with stronger units, they can be wiped out quickly. Or they dance (with the addition of annoying losses on your side) around on the nose. Just like in real life. What about our beloved naval units? Greater evasion values for bigger ships? Is there a chance for a capital warship to strike a smaller (or equal in size but eqipped with longer ranged guns) one without being in range for a counter attack? And submarines? Is there always a chance of counter strike (for a surprised ship) after getting hit by some well placed torpedos? Even in case of a attack after prior approach to the target? And how big is the chance for a submarine whose location has been identified, to escape an opponent's attack, or worse, a successful opponent's attack? The vanilla game cut of (almost) all first strike values of the sub unit and simultaneously pumps the "taker quality" unrealistic. We have "alarm dive" for submarines as a ingame defensive value. What about a submarine with higher evasion and attack values for offensive actions and zero defense (next to the alarm diving also zero defensive evasion) values? We should not have great fears of a shift of game balance or playability. A tank and an armored infantry unit with two! attacks also appear initially overpowering. In fact we will always try to adapt the strategy to the capabilities and weaknesses of the respective units. And who is attacking two times, may suffer losses two times...and where we're on the subject: Two attack actions should initially simulate a significant superiority of weapons (tanks against infantry, etc.). And the unit size? An army/corps = two corps/divisions = attack twice with the power similar of the smaller (infantry) unit and same evasion? Think about it for once...

Hi Mike Wow, there is no blindness on my side and it works exactly as you have discribed it! For the attacker (outside of the tile with defence bonus) the hard/soft type matters but not for the defender? Why? The game is not so abstracted that only armies are set up with a differently high proportion of "hard" units. Then it would no matter what type of unit sits as a defender in the "city". However, it would also be no matter what type (hard or soft) attacks this unit. Just only army against army. But it is not. There are several infantry units, even armored infantry and armored reconnaissance (Light Tanks). There is an algorithm (for the attacker) which distinguishes between HT and ST. There is no simplification. Fortunately. In view of the precious diversity of units in the game - with all authority. But for the unit in the target area, everything is different? Why? This unit will be the (second) attacker in the same strike! Yet almost the same algorithm, or not? I was more expecting something like this:

Hi Mike Ok...so I still seem to be blind. Probably also my hope for a "additional function" of the AoD version is broken, when I once again look (with glasses) in the "Defence Bonus Menu". Strange. Thank you...I will tell you about my surprises or (in case of persistent blindness) send you a screenshot of my menu, on which you can accentuate my question setting with red color.

Hi Mike That's exactly the way how I build up my mountains. More action points, longer training times and no motorising upgrade. But I would prefer vanilla settings with fewer deductions due to terrain and weather cionditions... Ok...probably again my shortcomings in the English language...I had found and understood (I hope so) the menu "EDIT DATA DEFENCE BONUS". When I enter there a city's defense value of +3, then my infantry has a logically improved defensive value. (Because they entrenched themselves in the houses) At the same time the Tank Group receives an identical value. Although these units lose an essential part of their traditional benefits such as line of sight, agility and massive use in urban combat. In this case it would be more to expect a zero value, realistic even a penalty. In an urban environment Armoured act rather than individual "assault guns" and should give adjacent attacking infantry units a slight bonus. A distinction between hard and soft units in this menu would probably also weaken considerably the problem of formation garrisons by air units, which was already described in the forums. Or am I just too blind to see the settings for "hard" and "soft" units in this menu. Is there a submenu? :confused:

Hi Mike Since I have no copy of AoD on my computer, I'll try to open your mod in the AoC Editor and then save it as a AoC file. I suppose the two extensions (AoD & AoC) are technically so similar that it should work this way. By implication even my "1939 Battlefield Europe" mod would then be playable for the honorable AoD community. After perusal of your seaways-readme is quite clear: "Naval Distance March" would be an "Seaways Loop", ultimately bound to the particular unit! By the way, is it ever noticed that: ...in the determination of defense values (resources and landscapes) there is obviously no difference between soft and hard targets and thus, for example, armored units in cities (and forests) enjoy the same advantages as the simple infantry? ...when setting the marching behavior of the land units in landscapes and weather-related substrates, no exceptions for certain units (eg mountaineers, etc.) can be set? Or have I missed something in the editor settings?

Maybe the distinction of deep-sea and coastal-sea fields would be a way. A quick breakthrough, for example through the English Channel, would no longer be possible. (Deep sea = "travel/distance move")

Ok...now I see the "blockade runner" problem ... will think about it! :eek:

Hi Mike I would continue to use the current way how the game calculates a "chance encounter" at sea. Units which you would encounter at the end of "traveling move" located in "patrool move" and therefore get an attack advantage. During the "traveling move" ships would ignore all the opponent's units and thus simulate a "prevention strategy". (Just as in your loop) My history with the intercepted destroyer group was obviously somewhat misleading ... this unit was attacked at the end of the "traveling move". This flotilla reached the target only approach from a slightly different direction!

Oh oh...definitely a bug. But obviously in my files. After deletion of all sound files and a replacement from my backup files now both units have an individual sound. Strange thing all this, but my modders heart rejoiced again. The work continues... :cool:

Hi Mike Now comes the second part... "...so I might need strengths of 16, 8, 4, 2 or even 32, 16, 8, 4 if you want to allow units to take damage without being totally destroyed... ...So I would not agree that naval warfare is so much about the allocation of strength units..." Of course you're right in principle. Considering the strength value of a unit isolated as a simulation of the sheer number of soldiers or, even more abstract, as a reflection of the absolute size of a unit, then numerical values ​​can arise very quickly that are barely playable. And these absolute numbers should even more difficult to bring warships into relation than ground troops or even aircraft. This is all quite true. Hm...Maybe we should change our viewing angle a little and first slide the pure aspects of the unit quantity in terms of strength points slightly backwards...we try it the other way around: Just imagine you want to participate in a bike race. You walk into a bike shop and the salesman shows you a great road bike with 12 (where we only know this number?) Transitions and says to your astounding: Hey, we have the gear always set to "10" - for the sake of simplicity. We have made ​​an optimal setting by fine-tuning the handlebar height, seat height, wheel size and the weight of the materials used in. This bike is guaranteed to get you to the finish. If nothing should go in the final sprintup, then the circuit automatically rattles to zero. Yes. Exactly. Will probably work. You bought this high quality, cool bike and what is the first thing you do at home after a few funny trial runs? Correctly, you start to screw on the gear shift around. And why? Because it is an additional tool to customize your ride even more individual to the route. Finally, variable strength values ​​of certain units could be exactly the same. Another resource to represent a unit more realistic in the use, abstracted in their interaction with other parts of the game and most important: Playable Until then...

Interesting point. The "forced march" for land units finds also no use in the AI? This mode is dependent on readiness and morale of the units and can also be used tactically! The idea with the elimination of offensive potential for excessive use of movement distances is held regularly in games, which map the movement and attack actions to a fixed value of total points. A tank then has, for example, 20 Action Points. He could now attack twice for 10 action points each, move for 10 points (map tiles) and shoot once or, as in your example of a naval unit, move all 20 points and hold still. Not bad. I think the developers mull over similar problems...

Hi Mike Again, many approaches to make yourself thinking about real strategic fundamentals and (fun) playing techniques. (And once again, a lot of work for my google translator and my over the years spilled School English.) "Forced March would I think need to consider on which turn the unit arrives as deciding which side has the opportunity for the "first attack" is an important issue in naval warfare." Of course it would not be done with a simple transfer of the "forced march" of ground troops. If you would so easily handle it, considerable problems for the game balance would result. I try once in a fictional, but in terms of a naval unit specific description of the naval action "travel move". ("naval forced march" would somehow promote the erroneous expectation of a massive slump in readiness and morale, which is unlikely to occur for a fast traveling warship in the 40s.) Ok. Now here is the British battleship "Warspite", which has just left the port at Rosyth. It travels in the set by default mode "patrool move". Although this involves only a limited range of action, but also allows for any time an attack on a perceived enemy. The "Warspite" is part of a task force that granted a group of destroyers (located in the Norwegian Sea) the necessary protection from the German capital ships. Intelligence and loss reports suggest the presence of a German cruiser in the middle Atlantic, which successfully and so far unchallenged attacked the British convoy routes. Due to naval battles taken place recently, the "Warspite" is the only battleship with a readiness of at least "85", which is the minimum value for the activation of the mode "traveling move" from the context menu of the unit. Well, the "Warspite" recently leave its home port and therefore still has a rediness value of "97". The strategic decision of relocating a Battleship (and two other destroyers groups) in the middle Atlantic is not without a risk. UK does not have its own port in the target area and at the end of the turn (in the mode "traveling move") the unit has lost "15" points of rediness. An immediate return to the territory of the North Sea (because there could also worsen the situation) would not be possible without a previous port stay. In addition, the unit can not initiate a standalone attack immediately after this long distance turn. We are taking a risk and send the three units on their dangerous mission. The Warspite and the first destroyer group access without interference and within a turn (14 days), from the British East Coast to the sea area south of the Canary Islands. The second destroyer was less fortunate. Coming from the sea area south of Iceland, it follows a slightly different roadmap and runs directly on this German cruiser. A direct hit from this encounter battle reduces the strength value of the unlucky bird to "4" and also costs the enemy cruiser three points. In the following naval battle the battered destroyer is lost. But also the cruiser "Luezow" begins (accompanied by a last salute from the only slightly damaged battleship group) his final journey to the bottom of the ocean. The second British destroyer group put the kill shot and had no damage. As a veteran with a strength value of "11" and a remaining rediness score in the amount of "86", they will return to the North Sea with "traveling move" in the next turn. The Warspite marched off with "patrool move" towards the Mediterranean. Always hoping to reach the nearest British port even without an ugly encounter with a German U-boat... I'm pretty sure that it could work this way.

Quite right SeaMonkey! But you can not freely choose the destinations of the fleet with loops. So then you have yet again slipped to the other end of the map with "patrool speed". I think the loops should make parts of the map navigable that are not connected with each other. Some loops are also welcome to help the AI in the lossless merging of maritime and landing forces to a special map point. But selecting two basic speeds, we call them once "patrool speed" and "naval forced march", should then logically be linked to the naval units. The call for realistic ocean voyages would be met, just as the game tactical need for separation of "movement" and "attack" in case of a long distance travel. Classic loops and a slightly modernized model of the ship's actions then also promote the game fun for everyone...as well as any other small novelties with which Hubert has enriched the game in the past. Cheers

Hello friends of neat turn-based strategy In a test game with my modification, I found a sound bug that could crash my campaign completely. After some work I was able to locate a damaged sound file and replace it. Now with my nose deep sunk into the sound files from AoC and the base game GC, I found there to my surprise the file "anti_tank_attack". A file "rail_gun_attack" is stored in the sound folder of AoC , which shows up as identical in content to the "anti_tank_attack" file during playback. I remembered now that the ingame battle sounds of of the units AntiTank and Railgun are the same. My modders heart rejoiced and I thought I could give the anti-tank unit its own cannons thunder. I changed the contents of the file "anti_tank_attack" and...surprise...I still heard the Railgun. A reciprocal exchange of the "rail_gun_attack" sound finally revealed the solution: The AntiTank unit in the base game GC directly accesses to the file "anti_tank_attack". But AoC seems to address both, the Railgun and the Anti-Tank, with the new "rail_gun_attack" file. Although it includes all else needed files, except the newly added sounds, from vanilla GC. Is this a bug or a feature? :confused:

Hi Mike Yep, that's what I meant. Until then, and good luck with your work!

Hi Mike On the issue of naval movements, I'm completely on your side! Military units on the high seas are generally limited only by the forces of nature, total failures due to material wear or even a revocation of the marching orders. This differs significantly from all land units and because of its large fuel capacity also of the air units. After a move, intended to reflect an a period of 14 days, longer ranges would be expected. A simple inflation of the range of motion for naval units would lead to a fleet omnipresence of all parts (march and strike). Which would destroy the game concept and thus the gameplay. Loops are currently the only way to transport naval units to specific locations and to separate march and attack. Unfortunately, too many (labeled) loop points leave the playing surface appear somewhat cluttered and visually unprofessional. Moreover, their Rigs in the script concept is not just a "drag and drop". I assume, that they were originally intended to connect (play)technically separate map parts. Well, "forced march" for land units has long been integrated into the game, so it is already a part of the game engine. Is it not possible, in view of the already approaching SC3 at least in the editor, to optional set up such a function also for naval units? The naval warfare would benefit a lot and also feel more "realistic"... I think the question of "realistic" playback of supply routes and their cost is very closely interwoven with the game engine and are likely to be difficult to mod without a deeper engagement. Of course, it is also now possible to script various types of undersupply of units and places. I think of the examples "Malta effect" or "Russian Winter". The effects of military enclosures are also displayed more realistic in the last two expansions. It is all on a pretty good path. Nevertheless, sometimes I wish the opportunity to present a form of air transportability of supplies. Perhaps as a purchasable and through research expandable extension for headquarters. Once added to a HQ, these units could (maybe by MPP charge) cause a type of airdrop. According to the laying of a parachute unit with preparation and the threat of enemy fighters. Each target field, located in the radius of the action "Airdrop", could then be operated with an appropriate supply level over a limited period of time. This level could be limited, for example by varying transport capacity and injuries by enemy influence (Fighters). Another SC3 dream, I know... The weighting of the artillery in multiplayer games is only a matter of availability, combat performance and price. To bring the AI to a reasonable use of this unit is a different matter. Quite true. The unit "artillery" in itself is then probably more a matter of conditioning and philosophy of the game. The larger the scale, the more important the appearance of a separate artillery unit. In the case of SC2 (which is very good created as a global game) I would prefer an integrative solution to accommodate the many separate support units (artillery, air defense, anti-tank, pioneer, etc.) in the various divisions, corps and armies. Available via the context menu of each unit, this purchasable and through research expandable "Integrated Regiments" could bring the same actions and abilities to the battlefield as the current, separate units. Without the need to call back "stacking" by half of the gaming community and that the other half, induced by the choice of map scale, complain the misplacement of a single anti-tank gun...well, this time SC4 One other thing I have noticed in the intensive employment with the game. It seems unnecessarily difficult to represent the size of a unit just by varying their combat values​​. The successful introduction of the "garrison" unit was still an important step to simulate smaller units by changing the strength! Why stop there? The editor already allows an "elite" unit increase up to a strength of 15. If we subtract the three "elite" strength points, used in the standard playing, leaving a maximum strengh of 12 for the award at the largest military unit. (Corps / Army). The other units could be then classified in predefined intervals (eg 3/5/8/12). No interference with the game physics when the editor ​​interpreted that values as the maximum strengh of the unit. It still works with the garrison! The combat values ​​could then relate primarily to the training and equipping of troops and better reflect the relative strength of equivalent but in size different units (eg. Infantry Division/Infantry Corps). Even the distinctions of naval units would greatly benefit, in my view. Although a flotilla of submarines may be extremely dangerous in attack. However, compared to a task force of capital ships she goes to war with very fragile hulls. A equality strength of 10 to 10 takes a little too short, right? What do you think?

Hi Mike Interesting approach. Just for my own modification (link below ), which I have developed based on the Breakthrough campaign "Storm Over Europe" and then transferred in AoC. Although this is by default created with a maximum of "3" infantry levels. But even here, the SU should have only a research level "2" at the earliest time of a possible attack on Finland. Would be also quite balanced. And a slight weakening at level 3 would be not necessarily ahistorical for a minor. Since I have a little more tiles for a staggered formation of the Finnish units on this map, I'll try it first with the default values ​​and with one or two destructible fortifications. If that was not enough to slow down an initial attack as appropriate and to enable unit upgrades on more then wreckage and refugees, I'll come back to individual combat values....very nice idea Mike. Thanks for the explanations. PS: Even though it may appear otherwise, I have more trouble with the English language as the technical understanding of the game. So again thank you for your patience!

Hi Mike To more accurately describe what what my thoughts were... For example, this could mean for Iraq: By March 1940, the country would be in a neutral diplomacy value of "0" and automatically get an infantry research value of "0". Just because, for example, the Italians (or others) still have such a low level. After the pro-Axis coup and now with a 40% focus on the Axis powers, the level of technology would depend on the state of research in the major country affiliated in the editor. Suppose that this would be Germany, equipped with a current infantry level of "2". Then Iraq will, in the event of an Allied attack, also field units with this technology level. Nice thought, when the British fields themselves only a level "1" Infantry. The Germans, for their part, would now be confronted with the results of its own military support. In the event of an attack on Iraq, they stood against a technically equal opponent. This would enhance even strategic impact of diplomacy. Anyone who bothers to automatisms: Even a transfer of military technology over a diplomacy window, event or similar would be possible. Ok. Back to the current game engine... You reduce the levels of development in the area of infantry warfare on the level "2", right? At a maximum level of "3", like in many vanilla games, small countries would be again weaker in the end (For a benefit of 0.5 per research level and an initial combat performance advantage of 1) Was the price advantage described by you intended to compensate the weaker units in later games?

Hi Mike An individual improvement of the combat values ​​is of course a way to simulate a higher technology level. A regular automatic adjustment of the neutral countries to the state of research (attack/defense values) of the weakest major would also be an alternative. Maybe in SC3... :cool: