View Full Version : Europe 1950 by John Long
Has anyone else seen this scenario, available at RD: http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=724 and here: http://www.xtreme-gamer.com/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=1276?
My first thought was, YAY! :hurray:
I checked it out at RD to see what version it was for; RD said it was for ME (Matrix Edition/TOAW III). So, I started it up looked it over, and then flipped the turn to take a look at the Germans, only to discover that I, apparently, was still playing with the Allies...hmmm, strange, yes?
So, after some tinkering, I discovered that clicking onto any German unit would then put me on their side, grand. I then went into the editor, deleted the offending unit and flipped sides in the editor...same problem, different unit of the same formation, so I deleted the whole flippin' formation and...nothing, it moved onto the next formation...
So, I am quite perplexed, here's a screen shot of what I see after I have flipped from Allied to Axis player.
Very strange...
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/1374/europe1950uj5.jpg
Very strange. Now I'm hesitant again... :laugh:
Very strange. Now I'm hesitant again... :laugh:
Well, it has not happened with any other scenarios I have opened in TOAW III...Nor have I seen any other mentions of this sort of thing elsewhere. Hopefully someone will be able to coroberate, or tell me I am insane soon. :laugh:
More fun with it: after switching to the Axis side, click O to have the OOB panel pop-up and select the first Axis unit in it. And voilą! there you again in Tripoli with your semi-invisible British formation.
Weird, definitely.
More fun with it: after switching to the Axis side, click O to have the OOB panel pop-up and select the first Axis unit in it. And voilà! there you again in Tripoli with your semi-invisible British formation.
Weird, definitely.
Yes, I did that as well. :laugh:
Any ideas what the dillio is? And, thank goodness I am not alone!
I thought RD tested these scenarios to ensure that they started up properly before posting them...?
EDIT: Having just moved the scenario over to my aCoW scenarios folder and started aCoW to try to get into it that way, I coudl not find it on the list of avail scenarios, which woudl seem to indicate that it is, at least, made with TOAW III...
Fact is, in the Axis turn, after falling on the British 10th Army in Tripoli, invoking the OOB panel allows you to play again your first Allied move.
Here's a game where you could have an infinite loop and keep playing the Allies constantly, always at the first turn :smoke:
More seriously, there were occasions with CoW when you could inadvertently switch sides in the middle of a turn, but it usually required odd combinations of air units, illegal stacking or overstacking. This one's new indeed.
Very strange. Now I'm hesitant again... :laugh:
Hey, that's a feature you're seeing here... :D
Well, ok, getting beyond the fact that there is some major issue going on...:laugh:
Any ideas why the proficiencies are set so low? (Yes, I could ask John Long, and I think I will, unless I can get an instant response here! :D) I couldn't find a single unit with a proficiency over 30%.
Secadegas
05 Nov 06, 19:18
This one's new indeed.
New and dificult to understand...
Probably nothing to do with it but a scenario with 22 programed events, 25%-30% forces proficiency, 100% forces supply and 100% formation supply & proficiency might need extra work...:surprise:
I've fired an email at the author asking whether he had encountered any oddities during playtest. I'd really like to have an explanation for this one.
New and dificult to understand...
Probably nothing to do with it but a scenario with 22 programed events, 25%-30% forces proficiency, 100% forces supply and 100% formation supply & proficiency might need extra work...:surprise:
Yes, it seems a very interesting concept, but not fully fleshed out. Yet, I hope.
New and dificult to understand...
Probably nothing to do with it but a scenario with 22 programed events, 25%-30% forces proficiency, 100% forces supply and 100% formation supply & proficiency might need extra work...:surprise:
Probably ;).
I was wondering at first whether the incriminated formation might somehow have ended with too many units, but at first glance the 32-slots limit is not reached anywhere.
Looking at the scenario dump, it appears that the 210 RE unit is present in both forces:
as a normal unit in the Allied force
as an invisible one in the Axis force, right before the Italian 1st Army with which the Axis OOB is supposed to begin (see below, italics mine)Force:Axis.
( Axis) [pre-conjugated force name needed for localized scenarios].
Proficiency:25%
Supply Level:100%
Assigned units:
Formation:Allied Ren (0)
Proficiency:100%
Supply Level:100%
Support Scope:Internal Support.
General Orders:Attack,Limit Losses.
Objective-1:64,145 (Syracuse).
Unit:210 RE,Br 10th Army (400)
Location:49,163 (Tripoli).
General unit type (from 2d icon symbol):Ferry Engineer
Size Equivalent:Platoon, weight:279.
Proficiency:20%, untried
Readiness:60%
Supply Level:70%
Anti Armor Strength:1
Anti Personnel Strength:1
Anti Air Strength (High):0
Anti Air Strength:1
Defense Strength:2
Movement:12.
Reconstitute? Yes
Equipment:
Engineer Squad:20/20.
Motorcycle Squad:10/10.
Jeep:10/10.
Rifle Squad:5/5.
Ferry-Bridging Team:50/50.
Support Squad:15/15.
Halftrack:10/10.
Command Group:2/2.
Truck:20/20.
Formation:1st It Army (1)
Proficiency:100%
Supply Level:100%
Support Scope:Free Support.
General Orders:Attack,Limit Losses.
Objective-1:55,140 (Palermo).
Unit:It 1st Army,1st It Army (2000)
Location:63,143 (Catania).
General unit type (from 2d icon symbol):Headquarters
Size Equivalent:Army, weight:158.
Proficiency:10%, untried
Readiness:50%
Supply Level:70%
Anti Armor Strength:1
Anti Personnel Strength:2
Anti Air Strength (High):0
Anti Air Strength:1
Defense Strength:1
Movement:5.
Reconstitute? Yes
Equipment:
Support Squad:120/120.
Dual 35mm AA Gun:6/6.
Rifle Squad:5/5.
Motorcycle Squad:3/3.
Military Police Squad:3/3.
Command Group:2/2.
Truck:2/2.
Porter Squad:1/1.
Unit:It 1st Army Eng,1st It Army (2001)
Location:63,143 (Catania).
General unit type (from 2d icon symbol):Engineer
Size Equivalent:Regiment, weight:180.
Proficiency:15%, untried
Readiness:50%
Supply Level:50%
Anti Armor Strength:1
Anti Personnel Strength:2
Anti Air Strength (High):0
Anti Air Strength:1
Defense Strength:2
Movement:6.
Reconstitute? Yes
Equipment:
Engineer Squad:50/50.
Rifle Squad:10/10.
Dual 35mm AA Gun:6/6.
Carro Veloce L6/40:4/4.
Support Squad:30/30.
57mm / 6 Pounder AT Gun:5/5.
Ferry-Bridging Team:10/10.
Medium MG:10/10.
Heavy MG:5/5.
Command Group:2/2.
Truck:10/10.
A possible hypothesis could be that there was a change in sides and the Allied unit previously on side 2 was cut. But the related information somehow remained there, in an undetected way.
I need to do some testing on this one.
Looking at the scenario dump, it appears that the 210 RE unit is present in both forces:
as a normal unit in the Allied force
as an invisible one in the Axis force, right before the Italian 1st Army with which the Axis OOB is supposed to begin (see below, italics mine)
A possible hypothesis could be that there was a change in sides and the Allied unit previously on side 2 was cut. But the related information somehow remained there, in an undetected way.
I need to do some testing on this one.
Could it also be that he edited the OOB in a scenario dump and thus accidentally evoked the error?
buff111la
05 Nov 06, 22:41
When I was developing the OOB for this scenario, I had a problem ( I am assuming the problem was with the AI) with the Allied OOB. After I had placed all the Axis units, the AI would go to the middle of the Allied units for placement. Well, these units had been place already. I went back and deleted the Allied units where the AI was going to after placing all the Axis units. When I did this, the AI did not jump to the Allied units after placing all the Axis units. I thought this action had corrected the problem. Actually, I haven't found this to be a problem. My son has played this scenario as well and not mentioned any problems. I'm quite perplexed on how to fix this problem. This is version 1.0 and plan to update it with time. I'm open to all suggestions. Thank for the catch of the problem.
buff111la
05 Nov 06, 22:51
I knew someone would catch this. I was very curious on how well the AI could truly replecate real life. No unit in history has ever has a proficiency greater than 40 per cent. After spending a number of years in the US Army and then, retiring out of the US Air Force, I found most units had a proficiency level of ~30 per cent. In the WWII era, supply was a problem. Readiness is all about training. This the reason Air Force and Naval units have a higher readiness; these two services, out of necessity, train in peacetime much like wartime requirements. After all flying is flying to a degree, and sailing is sailing, so readiness is high for these two services. The first battle in war is a shock. Anyone who has been there knows this and many units do have serious problems. So, this is the rationale for the ratings in these areas.
Thank for the catch of the problem.
You're welcome. I just happened to be crusing through the d/l section and spotted this scenario. Looks very interesting if you can flesh it out a bit.
I knew someone would catch this. I was very curious on how well the AI could truly replecate real life. No unit in history has ever has a proficiency greater than 40 per cent. After spending a number of years in the US Army and then, retiring out of the US Air Force, I found most units had a proficiency level of ~30 per cent. In the WWII era, supply was a problem. Readiness is all about training.
It may be that TOAW, as a game engine, needs higher proficiency settings. Also, wouldn't many of both the Allied and Axis armies be veterans of their resective wars? Would that not indicate a higher unit proficiency?
Readiness is all about training. This the reason Air Force and Naval units have a higher readiness; these two services, out of necessity, train in peacetime much like wartime requirements. After all flying is flying to a degree, and sailing is sailing, so readiness is high for these two services. The first battle in war is a shock. Anyone who has been there knows this and many units do have serious problems. So, this is the rationale for the ratings in these areas.
Not sure if you are still refering to proficiency here or actually talking of readiness, but if the later: Do you realize that setting the readiness of those two branches will only really affect things for the first few turns, as readiness will increase as the units are allowed 'down time'. It is not a more permanent setting liek proficiency, which changes, but much more slowly.
This is version 1.0 and plan to update it with time. I'm open to all suggestions.
I'm sure you'll soon have many moe suggestions than you even dreamed of :clown: as this is a pretty helpful community of people.
On that note, my own small list fo suggestions:
A) The briefing could be fleshed out a bit more.
For instance: Without prior experience with the scenario, it is impossible to plan out an invasion strategy owing to the fact that unless you go into the editor, there is no way of knowing where to land to have a supplied beachhead.
Further: A basic low summation of the scenario's vital parts (km/hex, length of turn, unit colours, etc.) is always nice. :)
Further: The alternate history is entertaining, but things like why SPain joined the Axis could be added to make it even nicer. (Unless I just missed that part! :laugh:)
B) Have you ever played Eurpe Aflame? Well, if you have, you'll know just how many options Mark has put into the game through the use of theatre events. It really gives you the feeling that you are in control. You should start up a game, just by yourself, and have a look at even come of the options for the first few turns. Alternately, a read through EA's briefing will give you some good ideas, as well.
C) I'm more than sure that some of the more knowledged designers will have other tips for you, but those are my initial two cents. :D Good luck with developing this scenario.
piero1971
06 Nov 06, 15:50
something like that happened to one of the very first scenarios that I designed. I think that having units with the same names on both sides and events related to them, makes the system go bonkers...
buff111la
06 Nov 06, 20:15
The AI probably does require a higher proficiency setting just for playing sake. The second post I made yesterday was relating to readiness. I forgot to thank Piero for the map. I lost who had developed it. Actually, it was one of the first things I did regarding the scenario. As far as options, with time, I hope to refine this scenario, more options, a better briefing, and more involved event engine input. Have to admit, right now, developing another scenario. This one took about 5 months or so, the one I'm working on is going to take about the same time. Also, Piero, what did you do to have the AI stop accessing both forces? I thought I had fixed the problem by deleting an army and then, recreating it. Obviously, that didn't work. When I play this scenario, there isn't a problem, but others are having problems. I am curious as to how you fixed the problem.
buff111la
06 Nov 06, 20:17
Telumar thanks, I'll check into it, also, check notes on unit development.
Has there been any development on this very interesting project?
When I was developing the OOB for this scenario, I had a problem ( I am assuming the problem was with the AI) with the Allied OOB. After I had placed all the Axis units, the AI would go to the middle of the Allied units for placement. Well, these units had been place already. I went back and deleted the Allied units where the AI was going to after placing all the Axis units. When I did this, the AI did not jump to the Allied units after placing all the Axis units. I thought this action had corrected the problem. Actually, I haven't found this to be a problem. My son has played this scenario as well and not mentioned any problems. I'm quite perplexed on how to fix this problem. This is version 1.0 and plan to update it with time. I'm open to all suggestions. Thank for the catch of the problem.
For what it's worth, I had a similar problem when I was creating 'American Front 1940'. The US Orbat would flip over to the Confederate Air Force, and it was possible to scroll through the Allied Orbat. This carried over into the game itself, and eventually, every game crashed.
I ripped my hair out finding a solution, until I gave up and just re-entered the whole feckin' orbat again; one reason why it took the best part of three years to do this scenario. I'm not sure if there's an easier solution. On the plus side, re-entering from scratch allows you to update your TOEs.......
buff111la
29 Jun 07, 12:58
for what its worth, version 2.0 should be out in July 2007 for anyone interested. I had to rebuild the Allied forces from scratch. I'm just about finished with one problem: I'm trying to put Sea Vampires with a fleet with 4 aircraft carriers, and the AI states with equipment is incompatable with assigned equipment. this is so frustrating!
Are you trying to put them in the same unit? That won't work. You need to make a fleet, then you make an air unit and put them into that fleet's air unit.
I feel you already know this, so hazard to mention it, but it is all I can think of that could be causign that problem. As well, Aircraft carrier capable and non-carrier capable air units will not go into the same unit.
Silvanski
29 Jun 07, 13:52
for what its worth, version 2.0 should be out in July 2007 for anyone interested. I had to rebuild the Allied forces from scratch. I'm just about finished with one problem: I'm trying to put Sea Vampires with a fleet with 4 aircraft carriers, and the AI states with equipment is incompatable with assigned equipment. this is so frustrating!
Bio-ed may be the solution... add a carrier bourne Sea Vampire to the equipment list.
Bio-ed may be the solution... add a carrier bourne Sea Vampire to the equipment list.
CHecked. The 'Sea' Vampires are carrier-borne. Hence 'Sea' before the name.
Silvanski
29 Jun 07, 14:48
Okidoki, didn't know there is a Sea Vampire in the list... I usually don't go past WW2 equipment LOL
Neither do I. I just did a quick check to make sure I wasn;t saying the wrong thing. :bite: :laugh:
buff111la
04 Jul 07, 13:00
version 2.0 is ready for playtesting. if anyone is interested in being a playtester, pls contact buff111la@prodigy.net thx
version 2.0 is ready for playtesting. if anyone is interested in being a playtester, pls contact buff111la@prodigy.net thx
If I didn't already have too many PBEM games going, I'd definately take you up. Maybe in a few months...*shrug*
Menschenfresser
10 Jul 07, 21:38
D/Led 2.4 and had a look at it in the editor. Comments...
At the very minimum, you should include Allied supply hexes in the briefing. Otherwise players will spend a few turns gathering forces and preparing an awesome invasion only to find they are landing on an unsupplied hex.
Question on various Axis countries. Should players limit these forces to specific parts of the map? Should an Axis player be allowed to move Croats to Denmark, or Spanish to Greece?
Unless I'm goofed on my EvilEd training, I think taking Ploesti reduces Axis supply to 0. Event 4 triggers event 8 which has a Supply 2- effect with a variable of 100. Meaning (if I'm right) that taking Ploesti reduces Axis supply by 100.
I think you should add in some incentive to taking out Norway. I couldn't find any supply reduction in the EvilEd. Otherwise, I'm not sure why the Allies would risk troops there.
I also noticed that almost all units have support and command squads. Most scenarios don't do this. I'm not sure it has any effect to put these in any place other than HQ units, but I'd have to consult the TOAW oracle to be sure.
The low force proficiency means that it will be harder to get longer turns on average. Not sure the exact formula here how force proficiency figures into the percent calculations. But most scenarios use a much higher (usually double) what you have.
High supply values means that your units will pretty much stay very, very supplied. Coupled with the fact that turns might not last so long, you're looking at very green forces and very fast resupply. Also most of your units start with less than 100% supply on hand. I'm guessing by the time the Allies hit the beach all your Axis forces will be at 150% supplied even if they move around, so there's little use in have them with less supply at the start of the game.
Low unit proficiency will probably result in more evaporations. That's been my experience with 20-40% unit proficiency, but that is usually in combat where one side has a higher proficiency.
All this is speculation. I've yet to play a turn. Just speaking from experience with other scens.
That said, I offer these bits because I really like the scope of the scenario. Could be a very cool one.
buff111la
11 Jul 07, 00:07
Thanks for the feedback. I asked for a playtester or two but didn't get any offers. I agreed with the majority of the critiques. I've changed and posted and updated scenario. The changes are: listing of supply for both Allies and Axis. Changing the supply reduction for taking Ploesti from 100 to 25. Also, including a reduction of supply for the Axis if the Allies take Oslo. Although, with Copenhagen being a supply point for the Allies, taking Norway would be an excellent invasion point into Denmark for the Allies. But agree, there should be a reduction in natural resources. I did up the proficiencies a slight bit for both sides. Yes, at the beginning, with lower proficiecy, units are going to have problems during initial combat, but that's exactly what happens in combat. That inital contact usually means many units break. Quite honestly, proficiency is generally very limited for any military unit. Also, I reduced supply for both sides at the beginning.
As far as moving units around a controlled area, i. e. putting Bulgarian forces in Spain, that's a commander's decision; if he feels this is the best way to deploy his forces, so be it.
Support forces are interesting critters. Those who dole out bullets, band aids and beans, don't get much credit, but having been in 3 wars, I found them absolutly imperative. Therefore, I included them for realism sake. If they aren't there, war doesn't happen. As General Grant said, "the logistics tail wags the war dog."
So, I really appreciate input and appreciate anymore that you or anyone else many have. Thx.
Menschenfresser
12 Jul 07, 19:09
No playtesters! Shame on us. I volunteer here and now.
We can play or someone else can jump in. Send me the latest version you have to menschenfresser@rcn.com
No playtesters! Shame on us. I volunteer here and now.
We can play or someone else can jump in. Send me the latest version you have to menschenfresser@rcn.com
How's the playtesting going?
buff111la
27 Jul 07, 20:21
received some input and critiques and incorporated most of them and made it a better scenario. still could use some work but it's playable and human v human could be pretty interesting.
received some input and critiques and incorporated most of them and made it a better scenario. still could use some work but it's playable and human v human could be pretty interesting.
Did you and Mensch end up running a playtest?
Did you and Mensch end up running a playtest?
I'm just waiting for Mensch to get back from vacation - we'll give it a ride:yummy:
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.