Jump to content

Gopher

Members
  • Posts

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gopher

  1. I played a littel with your file Tony. Hopefully you don't start to screeming. There are the basic question; shall the XML replace the scenario file and/or replace the commondb? From my point of view is the currend splitting of the scenario file and commondb very useful and I would keep it. So the annex entries shall be in a separate XML. In a scenario XML could the datas be structured on a hyrarchical way (as you did) or on a flat way were all untis are in one set, all goups are in one set and the commanding structure is describe just the organisation like meta data how they are nested(?). With which software did you create the XML? 2014-11-19_scen.scq.xml
  2. There is still Warsawa twice als AAa and AIa. What's about to cover the russian south side toward ukraina to prevent deep strikes? P.S. Played someone the NATO side and was successful?
  3. Just discoverd the test.scq.xml There are 16 Annex's. What is the topic of each Annex? From my point of view, the Annex structure of Subs, Ships, Lorrys and Airplanes shall be be the same, because sometimes it is difficult to have a clear line between this units. Example, a LCAC can swim an run on ground. Some subs from WWII have a gun and some an aircraft. Or Flying boats, they can swim, run on land and fly. I guess the Groups structure and units structure isn't finish so far. There is missing the group path, group heading(?), group mission, group patrol area, group speed, sensor status ... The same for the units with more parameters. By the way, could it be possible to implement some generic supply points, or points were reinforcement appears at a predefined time? In area like WestPac it is easy to just to add an additional group or base far away and it take time till the reinforcement appears. But in smaller BattleSets is the reinforcement available from beginning and this could unbalance the game. A solution could be to go toward multiplayer solution. Should I create a counter proposal?
  4. Its a good idea to redesign the database structure. From my point if view Harpoon2/3 had a good approach. They splitted it up to Propulsion, Sensors, Comm Devices and Warheads for the lowest level (See attachement H3.JPG) and cleaned some points up. For example the "Edit Loadouts" Annex in the data base editor. Each aircraft has more or less a different number of pylons and its limitation. And the same loadout configuration on a F-15 leads to a different range than on a F-16. So, the number of loadouts could be reduced if the range value is added or calculated in the Aircraft Annex (what happend in the H3-database). Or lets define the loadout configurations in the Aircraft Annex (see Weapon 1, 2, 3 on Fighter_Mobhack.JPG) On the top level was the country. This made it easier for non-expert-scenario writers. I guess for skilled scenario writers the country annex is obsolet. The second top level should be from my point of view the Installation-Groups like ports, airbases and bases. This Installation-Groups are just virtual groups like a battle group and include fixed installations like docks, HQ's, Runways, open parks and so on and they could also include mobile elements like ships, tanks, aircrafts. To make the life easier it would be goof when this groups could include also some other Installation-Groups like an airbase and mobile groups which may patrol. Also here I guess for skilled scenario writers the Installation-Groups are obsolet, but it makes the life easier for non-expert-scenario writers when they use in the database. The third top level are the Facilities, some with a defined geografical location, some generic (international). With the Facilities start the issue with the hosting capacity like Carriers? Submariens? Ships? Aircrafts? Tanks? Platoons? Fuel? Ammunitions? How much? Therefore I added a picture from Mobhack for WinMBT (LCAC_Mobhack.JPG) where the LCAC has an own Size, Weight and capacity (Carry). It is interessting to see, that they selected also the area for the capacity as on Harpoon 3 with the Hangar space. The next level are the Groups. In Harpoon are no groups predefined. For expert is this no problem. But it is harder for novice to have no proposals. Then we arrive on the level of the mobile units like Ships, Submarines, Aircrafts, Tanks, LCAC, Lorries, Solider. Some units could hosting other units. For HCE it is questionable to have an own database Annex for Magazine (Weapon-Containers), Mounts and Fuel-Containers. At least an own Weapon Annex has sense. I never understood why HCE used a own database independend from Harpoon 3. I hope Tony this help a littel. Cheers Edit: Correction of attachment and made the text more readable.
  5. I'm not surprised. There are multiple reasons. We (the western world) don't have the culture any more to develope to a low price. One example of a simple screw in a hospital or manufactruing building (or maybe carrier): Manufacturing cost for a screw 1.00 $/€ Benefit margin 8.5 % Resulting Benefit 0.09 $/€ Sale price to mechanic 1.09 $/€ Stock benefit margin of mechanic 8.5 % Stock benefit 0.09 $/€ Internal sale price to mechanic 1.18 $/€ Benefit margin of mechanic 8.5 % Benefit of mechanic 0.10 $/€ Sale price of mechanic 1.28 $/€ Benefit margin of facility management 8.5 % Benefit of facility management 0.11 $/€ Benefit bonus for the management 0.11 $/€ Sale price of the new "service" to lodger 1.49 $/€ Benefit margin of lodger 8.5 % Benefit of lodger 0.13 $/€ Benefit bonus for the management 0.13 $/€ Sale price to health assurance 1.75 $/€ Benefit margin of health assurance 8.5 % Benefit of health assurance 0.15 $/€ Benefit bonus for the management 0.15 $/€ Sale price to end Customer 2.05 $/€ And this include only the price of the screw and no work done and no tax included! If you do a bussiness with a benefit margin of only 8.5% then you will never get a credit from a bank. They expect at least a margin of 15%! So each physical part cost at least 3.34x as manufactured! So if carrier with 80Kt steel had a price of 800 Mio.$ (only the main structure with hull) in the past would cost today 2.6 Mrd. $. And on the electrical and equipement sides it is could be the same factor. Does someone know the five Rings of Warden? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden%27s_Five_Rings If I look to the sic benefit margin in europa then it is easy to destroy the economic of a country.
  6. So far the red a/c at the base's and carriers are sitting around and don't attack. So an easy sceanrio.
  7. Also from my point of view there is room for both. This speek for scriptable AI. So no way. I like this kind of games with an approach step. So in peace I could regroup the CBG and then approach to the 1'000 A/C. It is not faire to have a scenario with zero chance of survive for the carrier. I saw it once with in a epic battle over the atlantic and back. I managed the fist scenario from the US coast to Gibraltar with low losses. But the next scenario at Gibraltar started only with 1/3 A/C! Thats the point were I like the idea of Tony with the shameless move around the world.
  8. gemerson, it seems you uploaded the old scenario version from 19.07. with no victory condition. With 40 hours it is possible to transit the group ZUS to the patroling area, but then are only 20 hours left for patroling. Victory condition? The airfiled issue was addressed by rainmen ...
  9. Thank you Tony that's it.
  10. Hi Tony Winharp32_2008-044.exe Winharp32_2009-042.exe Winharp32_2009-064B.exe Winharp32Sides_2011-013B.exe at all four it failed. Was you able to get the min vic?
  11. Just analised the scenario Block2 and player with the victroy condition. To me it seems the game engine or database has a bug. I someone with the attached file able to get the min. vic. condition? BLOCK2t.zip
  12. Gopher

    National Anthems

    Some are free: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_anthems
  13. gemerson, I insist, there is no way to kick them down in 12 hours. Someone any idea?
  14. Nice scenario, except the instant actions. I like more a peacefull approach. I see an other challenge to meet a minimum victory condition: The game time is 2 day and 12 hours. The group ZUS has to patrol with the tow LHD in a certain area for 48 houres, 2 days. So there are 12 hours left to move to the paroling area. But the starting point is to far away to reach the paroling area within 12 hours. Any idea?
  15. Gopher

    Big ship

    Ok, now this explain it. Thanks.
  16. Gopher

    Big ship

    Hi Does somebody know if someone intend to build a long ship? To me it seems it will be a 600m (2'000 ft) long ship build in two parts. Picture Any other idea?
  17. So many F-35? to replace the 2'100 F-16, replace the F/A-18 C/D/E/F, replace the AV-8 and replace the A-10. (Un)frotunately I'm not US, but to replace the A-10 with the F-35 is like replace an agricultural tractor with a Mercedes (for farming?). An all-in-one device suitable for every purpose => not payable. From my point of view the Navy went in the right direction to push the developement of the F/A-18E/F and now push the X-47B. The key questions are; how many and how big are the airplane carrier when you have a big fleet of X-47B? And will the society still have the required culture and know-how in the future to maintain this kind of fleet?
  18. When Lockheed pay this cost by it self as retribution for bad cost estimation, why not. Why is the developement of new military planes so expensive?
  19. Maybe Tony shall play http://www.download-free-games.com/freewar...el_panthers.htm and Civilisation 4 for a while. From my point of view if it shall be very realistic, then each unit need in the DB the information of it lenth, with, hight and max. weight at nomals operating condition. Further for ferry there must be factors or dimensions for the lenth, with, hight and empty weight at transport condition, and the flag notes swimming capable and para jumping capable. If it shall transport other units or equipements, than the unit need in the DB the information of its cargo area with cargo are lenth, cargo area with, cargo door hight, cargo door with, number of cargo boxes and max. cargo weight. All other information shall be part of the GE so far. Inside of the game every unit shall be possibile to carry every unit which fit through cargo door, fit inside of a cargo bay and is not heavier then the max cargo weight so long the "mother unit" is not full (cargo area or weight). If a "mother unit" carry then a "child unit", the "mother unit" shall have a list of all "child units". All "child units" itself soll be "inactive" (for sensor, weapons, but still able to receive orders) and indicate the "mother unit", regardless if itself is also an "mother unit" for ther childs. With this apporach a Port-dock could "carry"(include) some an LPD. The LPD itself could include 1 - 2 LCAC's. The LCAC's iself 1 - 2 M2 Bradley's. The M2 Bradley itself a SAM team or a assault team to capture an enemine airstrip. To disload a unit there shall be the "child unit" selected in the order of battle and orderd to dismount. (Routine A/) If the "mother unit"(here M2 Bradley) is in ground then the selected "child unit" (here assault team) dismount to the ground. If the "mother unit"(here M2 Bradley) is in on a LCAC then the selected "child unit" (here assault team) dismount to the LCAC so fare there is empy space. If on the "mother mother unit" is not enought space, then the "child unit" (here assault team) dismount to the LPD so fare there is empy space. If on the "mother mother mother unit" is not enought space, then the "child unit" (here assault team) dismount to the Port-dock, or if on sea dismount to the wather (and maybe die if not swimming capable. The same (die) if unit dismount of a flying (speed > 0, AGL > 0) cargo a/c with not para jumping capability). (/Routine A) For a more efficient dismount the "mother unit" (here LACA) shall be selected in the order of battle and orderd to drop the "child unit" (here M2 Bradley). The GE shall then only drop all the "child unit" (here 2 M2 of the one LCAC) and not drop the childs from the childs (here the assault team remain inside of the M2 Bradley). If the selected "mother unit" is not on ground; the system shall follow the Routine A. In case of an "emergency" dismont the "mother unit" (here LACA) shall be selected on the map and trough short cut (F9 ?) orderd to drop the "child unit" (here M2 Bradley). The GE shall then only drop all the "child unit" (here 2 M2 of the one LCAC) and not drop the childs from the childs (here the assault team remain inside of the M2 Bradley). If the selected "mother unit" is not on ground; the system shall follow the Routine A. When child units are dismountet on the ground or sea an still alive the staff message could come up with the question to order the units. I guess this could be very painfull in bigger battles. Alterative to this; by order a dismount via "order of battle" there shall be a button inside of the "order of battle" to order the dismounting units. To load unit on the ground inside of an other unit on a simple way ther shall be a short cut (F10 ?) so fare it fit inside of the "mother unit" and the "mother unit" is not overloaded. In case of loading LAV-25, M2 Bradley's, Assault team's in a LCAC on a LPD, there for shall be inside of the "order of battle" selected 1st the child units, the a button "Load to" and then the "mother unit", or alternativly, 1st selected to mother unit and then the button "Load in" and then with Ctrl-multiselection all "child units" till the capacity is full. "The game data structures and AI have no clue how to operate with mirved warheads, launch Marines from LCACs from ships but human players do." when I compaire with other games, then a smart AI deals very well with units inside units.
  20. 9a, 11a & 14a added. 18. deleted.
  21. Quick played with 2011.006. The experiance: The scenario start is a step forward. I could select the green side an see how blue and red fight against each other. Also I could select no side as a Lurker and see how blue and red fight against each other. It is also possible to play as a human the red side human controlled against the blue side human controlled without using the "master mode"! In a released multiplayer version this must be disabled so that one or no side selection is possibile. The order text at beginning is the one of the blue side. For green players and Lurker there is no "sorry there is no order, but here you can red the blue and the red orders". Further, as soon the red side detect a target the AI lauche red a/c to attack it even the red side is human controlled (scenario Antaeus)! As red side player I receive the blue staff message's and I'm able to provide with this blue orders, but no red orders! The same as green side player and Lurker: I receive the blue staff message's with the possibility to provide blue orders and I get some red staff messages, but no green staff messages. Also as red or green player it is possible to join only with blue units/groups and it is not possible to join with groups from the own side (for green and red). I guess for multiplayer there shall be a check if the joining unit is a friendly side or not, an how could I get back my F-14 in my command after joining it with a friendly AI tanker unit? I guess this could be solved only when each unit has a flag which indicate who is the owner (similar to the flag by a/c with home base) and after splitting up (or landing at home) the owner get again the full command controll over his unit/group. As green side player I'm not able the get access on the unit DB by selecting the green units. But it is possible by selecting an (enemine) red or blue unit. Similar as Lurker it work only fine by selection of blue side units, but often by green and red units not at all. The displayed order of battle for the green side as green side player is no completed (scenarion Antaeus). There are missing some units. (How far it is correct to red side player and red units was not validated). Finally the "The enemies have achieved their minimum victory conditions, do you still want to play?" does not tell who has won? Who, the red or the blue one? But now let's enjoy the summer.
  22. Just played Butt1 & Butt2 as "worm-up". As blue side player it's nice. As red side player it is very hard so far. I'm not able to detect a blue unit before it launch an AMRAAM or Meteor. Finally, I lost all air assets.
  23. Gopher

    HOL Questions

    Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with HOL. When I look to other games like http://eu1.battlestar-galactica.bigpoint.com/ then I don't think that it will be good when all players on one side could handle all units with no asking. Inside of a good team it would work fine. But often inside of a team is one "selfish" player who jam the operations of his co-players. So from my point of view it shall be rather an option to handle all units than a standard. In every battle there must be at least one "regional" commander who care about low priority bases and familiar to this who care with prio about support, logistic and ferry missions. And why shall a multiplayer game be limited to 3 players on each side? The bigger the team then the bigger the fun effect. If on one side are 30 players and on the other side only 5; then the 5 players shall be supported by 25 smart (Tony like programmed) AI players with units. But first, let's please see a real through the internet playable multiplayer version with 1 vs. 1. Who is the owner of HOL? And why could we not get a trial period for it? For this has from my point of view today free multiplayer online game good approaches. On is, that the player define the behavior of the units when he is offline (which and how many a/c shall be ready for intercepting @ which range, ECON for each unit, how to act for ships when they are discovered or attacked (retread, or attack) and so on). By log out the AI finish the current orders of the units and then move the units to the predefined behavior till the player log in again (or all units are destroyed). An other approach is, that all player units retread when the player goes offline. And when the player goes online after a couple hours he start with his units from a safe place (or at least from the safest place) an has to ferry to the battle. An other approach is, that all player units are handed over to an other human player. If this player is overloaded with all units and don't hand the units over to an AI player, then a lot units loiter around or stay at the base till a new player goes online to whom the "surplus" units could handed over. If a new player log in to a running game, he shall be able to capture the role and units of an AI player. (My favorod solution, so a battle could go 3 to 7 real days and there it is then not necessary to stay the whole time online.)
  24. I've played it for more than "6 game time houres" and not won or losed. I was surprised to survive the first two houres. This is possible based on the fact, that red do not well prepared/organised attacks, and according the scenario editor it shall attack bases with 20 bombers but it didn't.
×
×
  • Create New...