Jump to content

WimO

Members
  • Posts

    418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WimO

  1. I get reproducable CTDs with CMBN when I load multiple huge scenarios in succession. This is due to not allowing my computer sufficient time to for the previous scenario to be completely cleared out of memory.
  2. My version of Closing the Ranville gap loads no problem. There are no Designer's Notes nor has the author included their name. BTW: The scenario is quite a significant abstraction of the event. The map is flat whereas the terrrain in the area between the bridge over the Orne ("Horsa") and the Chateau St. Come gradually climbs from 6m to 60m. The elevation difference between the British positions around Ranville, Le Bas de Ranville and the high ground just east of the Orne and the German start line was approximately 20 meters of elevation. The Germans also had a great view of the whole area of Dropzone N and beyond from the steeple of Eglise St. Pierre in Breville-les-Monts which sat at 54 m elevation plus the steeple.
  3. As the titles implies, I am trying to find the name of the author of the above named scenario. I would like to ask them some questions about sources for the names of the assigned defensive sectors. Any help would be appreciated.
  4. You can load the graphic into the free Greenfish Icon Editor and then use the eraser too to make any part transparent.
  5. I would like to agree with Centurian52's comment regarding player expectations. I remind myself that the CM series are simulation 'games' and a lot of fun to play. Although there are numerous quirks that I personally don't like, I can live with it, comforting myself with the knowledge that my opponent (real or AI) is experiencing the same issues. Graphically the series is dated and constructing maps and scenarios is like working with Lego blocks but ... what other game gives me an editor to create new maps and scenarios? Maybe not ideal but still wonderful! Very wonderful. Although the orthogonal and diagonal constraints of the map building blocks frustrate me daily, it still remains my 'go to' game and editor. If there is something in a scenario that you don't like, just load the scenario into the editor and change it (then save as a revised version). You can do that with campaigns too but that is a heck of a lot more work.
  6. Yes, I know the cause and solution for that problem. It means that you also have the 'original' version of the Kohlenklau's HORSA MOD installed. The problem resides in the fact that the mod replaces a British truck mdr and moves the passengers and that not ALL of the incuded files have been appropriately mod-tagged [horsa]. There are two solutions that work equally well ... OPTION ONE: uninstall all files pertaining to the Horsa mod OPTION TWO: keep the horsa mod (which is necessary for my Operation Coup de Main campaign) and ADD the missing [horsa] mod tags. The sub-folder with the"horsa textures" does not need to have the mod tags added. The remaining files should be as follows: bedford-qld-gs [horsa].mdr damaged horsa b [horsa].mdr glider [horsa].xcf gmc-cckw [horsa].mdr icon british blue truck 1 [flicw horsa]. bmp ... this graphic was added by me icon british blue truck 1 [horsa].bmp ... this graphic was added by me icon british blue truck 2 [flicw horsa]. bmp ... this graphic was added by me icon british blue truck 2 [horsa].bmp ... this graphic was added by me obedford-qld-gs [horsa].mdr silhouette bedford-qld-gs [horsa].bmp To Summarize: The original mod forgot to add the [horsa] mod tag to one or more of the mdr files, so when you choose the truck, the program is calling the mdr for the horsa instead because it is lower in the list of files in data/z, and combining it with the gfx for the truck. Chuckle.
  7. Have played the original. Thank you for the revised version. Looking forward to checking it out.
  8. @kohlenklauThat's a great question given that Steam members can use the mods and scenarios that we have created and posted off-steam! There should be reciprocity. Personally, given that PBEM was working find off Steam, from a player's viewpoint I see no use for a Steam version. I assume that it was a business decision, hope for greater market exposure, wider distribution etc. Understandable.
  9. It has been suggested by others on this forum that Experience levels affect only rate of fire and accuracy and that setting these to Green for nearly all infantry regardless of real experience, yields more realistic ROF and accuracy. Motivation affects willingness to stay put or move under enemy fire and thus this is the more important parameter for charging across the causeway when both sides are shooting less and less accurately. The players referenced above, also suggest that any value higher than 'normal' yields behaviour that is significantly braver than normal higher than 'real normal' and even perhaps, that 'normal' is rather exceptional. I have taken their comments at face value and used Motivation and leadership values to be the primary distinguishing factor between troop types. And because this matter might be erroneous or at least debateable, I have created two separate revisions. Have I tested the impact? No. Not going to. Just put it out there as an 'option', one of three if including the original.
  10. ALERT! My apologies. I had to remove/unpost the two variants due to issues with not seeing the core units file. My bad.
  11. I have just posted two variants to the original 82nd Airborne campaign at FGM's Scenario Depot. Both variants correct errors in my original values for Refit, Repair, Resupply and Rest. In the original I had place the values under the wrong battle numbers, i.e. they were all shifted one entry lower in the list. This has now been fixed and the values changed as well based on further analysis. The version labelled v4RG, i.e. "Green" globally reduces rates of fire, casualties, spotting and reckless behaviour by reducing the values for Experrience, Motivation and Leadership more in line with the values proposed and discussed on this forum, i.e. virtually all troop types Experience is now 'Green' with differences between types primarily depending on Motivation and Leadership. Should be interesting. Cheers,
  12. The Red shades and Blue shades colours are best avoided for the A.I. side when creating single player scenarios. I setup the A.I. using one of two methods. The first method is to paint yellow setup squares on the map. The second is to place units directly on the map without yellow setup squares. I use the second option when I want units to closely hug the bocage or a wall or deploy properly inside a building. Units in yellow setup squares do not always deploy inside a building when a building sits partially on a yellow map square. Similarly they do not hug the bocage if a yellow setup square is beside the bocage. Also, if a yellow square straddles the bocage or a wall, you never know on which side the unit will deploy. I only use the yellow setup square in fields or woods. No need for yellow setup squares. Even when you setup your units without yellow setup squares, you can still use the yellow squares for 'movement' orders. Unfortunately it is still very difficult to get units to move very close to linear cover. This takes a bit of movement manipulation. I NEVER use blue or red setup zones for the A.I. side. I usually start by setting up my units directly, broken down into squads. Then I paint a number of yellow squares equal to the number of squads. These will all have the same group number. For example if an American platoon breaks down into 9 squads plus its HQ, then I paint 10 yellow setup squares. During their movement orders I try to maintain the same number of yellow squares for each movement step to prevent the squads merging back together again - unless that is what I want them to do. TIP: Movement orders can also be used to turn shooting ON and OFF without moving the units. For example. At time 00:10:00 the 9 squads and HQ unit A14 move 'normal' to a new location indicated by 10 yellow squares where they are told to be 'active'. However, at 00:12:00 they are told to be 'cautious' without moving out of position. Thus they were shooting wildly for two minutes during their arrival after which they changed to only shooting at confirmed targets.
  13. @EZ Also a thank you from me EZ. Your uniform mods have made the game look so much better.
  14. The CMBN campaign "Operation 'Coup de Main'" has been completed and posted at FGM's Scenario Depot. This is my final contribution to CMBN scenarios, campaigns and mods.
  15. Great spotting that manual entry Piere. Very helpful!
  16. Final Scenario casualty data does not match GUI feedback! At the end of one test scenario the final report indicates KIA = 21 and WIA = 9. But the GUI shows the following when I click on the German sections: Casualty text with accompanying wound dot (or cross) = 24 (3 more than KIA reported) and Light wound dot (or cross) only = 18 (9 more than reported). That means a complete disconnect between the overall report and the GUI feedback. That means that 3 of the "casualties" somehow got better as did 9 of the light wounds. Anyway, that's the end of it for me.
  17. @PEB14 Yes, I have assumed that lightly wounded soldiers are the same as more seriously wounded soldiers. I am not aware of anything in the manual to indicate that the WIA troops at the end of the scenario are exclusively serious wounds. They could well be as you say. Yes, list of troops in each of my scenairos are the 'at start' numbers that were the result of each scenario after the first refitting at the 50% rate. And yes, I agree with your final expression regarding lack of 'comprehensive' documentation to assist map creators and scenario and campaign authors.
  18. I forgot to attach my pdf last note. Here it is.4Rs Test Case.pdf The red numbers in the pdf chart are wounded soldiers carried forward. Nine such appeared at the start of scenario #2 eventhough at the end of scenario #1 the number of WIA reported was 18. This means that 9 died between scenarios. In some scenarios the number of wounded that appear at the start of a scenario sometimes exceed the number reported in the previous scenario. This means that some wounded troopers are carried foward through multiple scenarios. This suggests that there is much more computing going on behind the scenes than we can easily determine. My scenario #1 uses the whole of the Core Units file. And yes, I was suggesting that replacement percentages are being calculated by multiplying losses "to date relative to the original Core Units File value". That is what I understand my data as suggesting. I am receptive to changing my understanding ...
  19. Stimulated by PEB14's work I also ran a mini campaign to try to determine exactly against which parameter the R values are calculated. I have attached a pdf summary of my exel table. In conclusion the following is a near exact result. Replacement Value = (Core unit value - End of scenario value) X R% Example One: Number of soldiers in CORE Unit "A" = 100 End of scenario "Good Order" soldiers (i.e. not KIA, WIA or MIA) = 80 R value for "Refit" = 50 Calculation thus: (100-80)0.50 = 10 Again, the above is a close enough approximation. The real formula is very slightly more variable. Example Two: If example number one seems too straight forward, what about when we are at about scenario four and the units have gone through a number of strength reducing combat? Number of soldiers in CORE Unit "A" = 100 Number of soldiers still alive at start of scenario #4 = 65 good condition + 3 wounded = 68 End of scenario "Good Order" soldiers (i.e. not KIA, WIA or MIA) = 42 R value for "Refit" = 50 Calculation thus: (100-42)0.50 = 29 As a result, in the next scenario the unit could start off a wee bit stronger than it did in the current scenario, i.e., 29 replacements + 42 good order surivors + an undertermined number of wounded = >71 vs previous scenario's 68. ==== As has been noted previously by PEB14, myself and others, the 10 reinforcements are randomly distributed across the unit. Thus not all sections will receive exactly 50% replacements; some more, some less. ========= Other observations: 1. Units will never be topped up in excess of their original Core unit value 2. Sections that are wiped out completely may reappear 3. Some of the casualties noted as WIA at the end of a scenario will die and become KIA between scenarios without you being notified. 4. Some (or all?) of the casualties noted as WIA at the end of a scenario that survive, appear in the next scenario as wounded (less than perfect "Fitness"?) in the next scenario. ------------ Unresolved: I have not been able to determine if the WIA solders who become KIA are included in the "R" calculation. It does not really matter to me as a scenario designer because what i have learned from the formula above is adquate for my design needs. Hope that's reasonbly clear. Good enough for my needs.
  20. @PEB14 Thank you for the research. Much appreciated. I will have to reread your results a few time to understand them better. A comprehensive example with each statement would be very helpful to make you points very clearly. I might do a similar experiment. The artillery bombardment test is a good idea and could be done without any other contact between opposing ground units. I like to try to work with the 4Rs because but they are definitely not clear to work with, absent adequate manual instructions. Also the results need to be exaggerated upwards to compensate for the fact that the game inherently produces more casualties than in real life in many or most instances. That is to say, the troops don't know when to retire or keep their heads down properly. For designers who do not like the 4Rs and wish to work without this mechanism, an easy alternative is just to work without a core units file or create one with units that will never be used in the campaign, and then create whatever units you want for each scenario individually, manipulating their strength percentage and fitness.
  21. COMING SOON! "Operation Coup de Main" should be done for Christmas. As of today all individual (12) scenarios have been completed and tested 'free standing'. Appear to play okay. Tested in both "scenario author" and "iron" modes. Campaign compiles okay after discovering that one should not substitute the word 'and' with '&' in the syntax. The next and final phase begins tomorrow and will consist of evaluating if the Refit, Repair, Restore and Rest values strike an appropriate balance between the situation and game flow.
  22. I bought and external disk drive to connect to my laptop via USB. Good to have one around.
×
×
  • Create New...