Page 3 of 4

Situation Report and some questions...

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:42 am
by Paolo Sforza
Hi Sean,

Just thought I'd give you a report on how things coming along. Japanese fine, Chinese fine, Far East/Pacific terrain fine. Nothing new posted to website yet - by late Wednesday, I'd guess.

Q1. How big can I have trees? The spread - not the height? I suppose the question is really, how big can an object be? Jungle is the reason for the question.

Q2. While doing some Asian-type dwellings, I had a go at some North African mud houses. Interested? All that desert looks a bit bare and could probably do with some locals and palms trees sometimes.

Q3. Does the game generalise houses as single-story? I assume so - no problems if it does (or doesn't)

Q4. US Marine coming along OK. Australian/NZ I'm still thinking about whether separate nationality (for campaign purposes) or part of British, but data is OK. To some extent the same goes for USMC/US Army regarding capaigns. Any ideas? Indians will be subsumed within British forces, by the way. I'll get together some Indian family names.

Have got together information on Far East Dutch troops!

Q5. I have a much shortened (40 seconds) version of FDR's Day of Infamy speech/US declaration of war against Japan for Pacifc Theatre (as a counterpart to Chamberlain's British Declaration of War against Germany). Interested?

Q6. There don't seem to be sprites for bazooka teams - is that right?

Q7. Currently working out campaign data for Australian, British, US Infantry/US Marine, Japanese and Chinese (easy). What is the file structure for this information? Have you an example?

Q8. Given the .txt dat files, what is the releavance of the Excel spreadsheet files for gun penetration, tanks and infantry? These seem like a duplication.

Q9. What is the relavance of the SHELL= line on the gun .txt files? They seem to be referring to other data.

I know some folks have been asking for AT to be less effective against infantry or stop firing at infantry at all. I think AT should be toned down, and be less inclined to fire at infantry willy-nilly. However, many AT guns could fire HE, and did. Tanks seem to have a behaviour that they won't get too near AT guns until they or their crews have been dealt with. Could ATs have a similar behaviour, not to acquire infantry as a target unless (a) tanks have been dealt with or (b) the player specifically acquires an infantry target untiltold to cease fire. As soon as an enemy AFV is spotted then AT cease firing against infantry. I'm thinking that AT will be used in the Far East to destroy largely dug-in infantry targets and don't want to rule out that option. Also, some of this stuff was intially designed for a direct fire field gun role and was just filling in as an AT gun, so should be able to take on other targets (although a lot less effectively for mobile infantry than in the current game).

I've got data together for Poles in the European Theatre (but that's long finger stuff).

The original deadline still looking fine.

Cheers.

Re: Situation Report and some questions...

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:35 am
by Sean OConnor
Paolo Sforza wrote:Q1. How big can I have trees? The spread - not the height? I suppose the question is really, how big can an object be? Jungle is the reason for the question.


You could make them bigger than the current ones and I'd have to tweak the code - but I'll have to change the code to add jungles anyway. Try and stick to 4pixels = 1m though!

Paolo Sforza wrote:Q2. While doing some Asian-type dwellings, I had a go at some North African mud houses. Interested? All that desert looks a bit bare and could probably do with some locals and palms trees sometimes.


Yes please! I've always wanted to add more features to the desert campaign. Could you modify a jungle tree to look like a palm tree and I'll add oases too.

Paolo Sforza wrote:Q3. Does the game generalise houses as single-story? I assume so - no problems if it does (or doesn't)


They count as roughly two stories at the moment to give you a good bit of elevation over the surrounding walls and hedges.

Paolo Sforza wrote:Q4. US Marine coming along OK. Australian/NZ I'm still thinking about whether separate nationality (for campaign purposes) or part of British, but data is OK. To some extent the same goes for USMC/US Army regarding capaigns. Any ideas? Indians will be subsumed within British forces, by the way. I'll get together some Indian family names.


I'd have them as seperate nationalities like I do with the Canadians. USMC could be a seperate "nationality" from the normal US troops which would be helpful as they'd fight in th Pacific.

Paolo Sforza wrote:Have got together information on Far East Dutch troops!


Great!

Paolo Sforza wrote:Q5. I have a much shortened (40 seconds) version of FDR's Day of Infamy speech/US declaration of war against Japan for Pacifc Theatre (as a counterpart to Chamberlain's British Declaration of War against Germany). Interested?


Yes, but I won't add it until I've got the Japanese in or it won;t make a lot of sense.

Paolo Sforza wrote:Q6. There don't seem to be sprites for bazooka teams - is that right?


That was just me being lazy! Send me graphics and I'll add that.

Paolo Sforza wrote:Q7. Currently working out campaign data for Australian, British, US Infantry/US Marine, Japanese and Chinese (easy). What is the file structure for this information? Have you an example?


That stuff is all hard coded at the moment. If you send me the data as a Word or text file I'll add it in and eventually that will all become moddable too.

Paolo Sforza wrote:Q8. Given the .txt dat files, what is the releavance of the Excel spreadsheet files for gun penetration, tanks and infantry? These seem like a duplication.


The spreadsheets are generated from the .txt files and are just so people can see the data more readily on table form.

Paolo Sforza wrote:Q9. What is the relavance of the SHELL= line on the gun .txt files? They seem to be referring to other data.


That specifies what type of shell the gun fires. There's a full list of available options in the Help file.

Paolo Sforza wrote:I know some folks have been asking for AT to be less effective against infantry or stop firing at infantry at all. I think AT should be toned down, and be less inclined to fire at infantry willy-nilly. However, many AT guns could fire HE, and did. Tanks seem to have a behaviour that they won't get too near AT guns until they or their crews have been dealt with. Could ATs have a similar behaviour, not to acquire infantry as a target unless (a) tanks have been dealt with or (b) the player specifically acquires an infantry target untiltold to cease fire. As soon as an enemy AFV is spotted then AT cease firing against infantry. I'm thinking that AT will be used in the Far East to destroy largely dug-in infantry targets and don't want to rule out that option. Also, some of this stuff was intially designed for a direct fire field gun role and was just filling in as an AT gun, so should be able to take on other targets (although a lot less effectively for mobile infantry than in the current game).


That sounds a bit complex! How would the AT guns know that all the tanks had been dealt with? If you know of any AT guns that couldn't fire HE let me know and I'll modify the program.

Re: Situation Report and some questions...

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:59 pm
by Andy Brown
If you know of any AT guns that couldn't fire HE let me know and I'll modify the program.


The Brit 2 pdr is the obvious one.

PACIFIC WAR READY

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 1:54 pm
by Paolo Sforza
Available via http://www.sforza.150m.com

Apologies in advance for the irritating ads on this free web-hosting site!

Please ensure any comments go on the 'Pacific War' topic and not this one.

Cheers.

Re: PACIFIC WAR READY

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:59 pm
by sid6.7
Paolo Sforza wrote:Available via http://www.sforza.150m.com

Apologies in advance for the irritating ads on this free web-hosting site!

Please ensure any comments go on the 'Pacific War' topic and not this one.

Cheers.


no download 404 error

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:36 pm
by Quitch
Same.

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:25 am
by Guest
OK guys. Obviously the hosting is a bit flaky with multiple hits on large files. Or maybe they're having server problems. I'm uploading multiple copies to spread the load. Give me until 1am GMT and things should be OK (server problems permitting).

Sorry about the hassle.

Cheers.

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:30 am
by Paolo Sforza
That last message was from me, by the way!

Forgot to log in.

Cheers.

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:44 am
by Paolo Sforza
OK. New uploading done on the zip file (4 copies). I've been able to download each copy, so if you get a 404 it's a sign that the server is busy.

Could we close this topic 'Japanese troops???' and transfer all communication to the 'Pacific War' topic.

Cheers.

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:11 am
by Big Red One
Paolo Sforza wrote:

United States Marine Corps stuff (although not my area of expertise). Have you thought about whether you want to do the amphibious stuuf or have they already landed when the game kicks in?


Sean if you decide yes about the amphibious marine vehicles (ie. landing craft and amphtracks) you should have some new amphibious levels (deployment by sea) for europe/north africa campaighns. and i know how you answered a topic about ships and planes that you said no about big ships such as battleships so if you do make the level you should have the beaches and other areas have shell holes and a few dead enemys to represent the naval bombardment.

If you did a D-Day mission you would have to make bunker graphics and have a lot of HMG teams in the bunkers. I would be very pleased if you did such a thing. :D

Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:07 am
by Big Red One
[/quote]I didn't know the Marines were a country,[/quote]

The Marines werent a country. He means playing as the US in the pacific but you being the marine corps not the army.

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 11:52 pm
by Hadean
BR1 did you bother to check that the date on those messages are over 2 years old? There's already Japanese and a pacific theatre in this game.

Thanks for coming out though. :wink:

Re: Situation Report and some questions...

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:58 am
by Germany_Fan
Andy Brown wrote:
If you know of any AT guns that couldn't fire HE let me know and I'll modify the program.


The Brit 2 pdr is the obvious one.

Um, no actually the 2pdr could fire HE. Every AT 'gun' could fire HE. AT rifles could only fire tungsten though. The 2 pdr fired HE-T.

Re: Situation Report and some questions...

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:26 am
by Andy Brown
Germany_Fan wrote:Um, no actually the 2pdr could fire HE. Every AT 'gun' could fire HE. AT rifles could only fire tungsten though. The 2 pdr fired HE-T.


This contradicts everything I've ever heard about the British 2 pdr. Could you provide me with a reference to support it?

I know the US 37mm ATG had an HE round but that was a different weapon.

Andy

Re: Situation Report and some questions...

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:56 pm
by Germany_Fan
Andy Brown wrote:
Germany_Fan wrote:Um, no actually the 2pdr could fire HE. Every AT 'gun' could fire HE. AT rifles could only fire tungsten though. The 2 pdr fired HE-T.


This contradicts everything I've ever heard about the British 2 pdr. Could you provide me with a reference to support it?

I know the US 37mm ATG had an HE round but that was a different weapon.

Andy


Information from Wikipedia.
Available ammunition[1][2]
Type Model Weight, kg (round/projectile) Filler Muzzle velocity, m/s
AP-T AP/T Mk I Shot 2.04 / 1.08 - 792
AP-T APHV/T Shot 2.04 / 1.08 - 853
APCBC-T APCBC/T Mk I Shot 2.22 / 1.22 - 792
APCNR (used with the Littlejohn adaptor) AP/CNR (APSV) Mk I Shot ? / 0.57 - 1,280
APCNR (used with the Littlejohn adaptor) AP/CNR (APSV) Mk II Shot ? / 0.45 - 1,189
HE-T HE/T Mk II Shell 1.86 / 0.86 ? 792