My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Kurile islands theater

Moderators: Snake Man, Lone Wolf

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-15, 05:09:06 AM

Bear with my rough tweaking test, just hope it could be of some use to serious moddders.

- i removed two US carriers and all its carrier-borne ac at frist. well i thought blue side is too strong..later i found the move won't affect the test - the blue air power is strong enough.

- one of the test focus is trying THR creator. it works and i removed all river form thr file. however i still need the old thr for re-linking obj in TacEditor. i use no-river THR for campaign test.. have no idea about.. whether i should tweak THR first, or editing terrain with TerrainView first.

- i fire up Fred's Pathmaker tool again. i manually remove river and bridge section data, and re-create pure-road data on related tiles. save the tweaked Texture.bin. in FF4/RV, the pathmaker tool is directed to load tile.dds from Textxure folder.. the old tool can't read [dds format]. so the trick is UNZIP Texture.zip to a new folder, direct panthmaker to load the [old pcx format tiles] in new folder.

theoretically, with this tweaked Texture.bin, and remove all bridge obj/re-link neighboring obj, ground units should be able to move freely. i ran camapign at 64x, for most units..hmm.. there seems to be subtle movement for all units and more noticable free-movement for few units.

- i tweaked the road tile placement with Terrainview. mainly cheeking route bug from Wakkana to Sapporo, and coastal road along north, and west side of Hokkaido. with SM's tdf, i fixed some roads, and exclusively replaced [river-road cross tiles] with PURE [road tiles]. hmm.. 64x campaign check, it seems some coast roads are open now.. not quite sure tho.

As the road network is not completely checked..some ground units still refuse to move and most annoying thing is, their mission order changed to [ reserve -blank- ]. my experience about this [ blank ] order means the unit is LOST in campaign command chain. it won't be able to receive any order. in contrast, units with [ reserve -some city or obj name- ] order may turn into offensive later.

- Use TacEdit i removed all bridges and re-linked obj( not seriously) in Hokkaido... try to create a non-bridge( no such choking point obj) road network, for improving ground war movement in 2d world. i aslo use tweaked non-river THR file, combined the two..hmm.. there' seems to be subtle improvement too..

- combined the tweaks, i noted few blue units can move up to Bifuka?, then hold there. they just won't move north further, to the ultimate end point russian-hold Wakkana. i checked PAK map, Bifuka is the main center city of one PAK, and F4browse shows it has 96 point priority.. it probably explains why the ground units stop at Bifuka, and Intelligence page keep showing offensive/defesive priority is Bifuka.

i noted SM set TRI file, blue must capture Wakkana to win. In current campaign, blue has secured most wining point cities except Wakkana. so i change Bifuka priority to 80(should be even lower?) and Wakkana to 96. then in campaign, all air and land operations successful aim at Wakkana.

- Tho running campaign at 64x may cause abnormal/unrealistic result due to over-simplified campaign calculation, i hope the tweak/test results could of some use..

1. some units placed by TCL won't move at all. acutally thery are placed at center, moutaneous area of Hokkaido..guess mobile units won't be deployed there. i have not moved them to plain area or near a road yet.

2. combined prevous tweak, i noted ground units show moer activities. i tweaked TRI file to set Blue side on major offensive, BUT in sim it immediately turned into Defensive/consolidation. Even so, two( yes, always the two) infantry units bravely moved north, one to Bifuka, one to Omu and hold there. and always, at 19:20 Day 1, blue side launches major offensive. i noted 3-4 armour units moving north up to capture russia hold obj, then withdraw back to Bifuka, reserved there. the rest ground units did not join this offensive. This offenive move captured two russian obj - and no hot contact with red units yet.. i am monitoring if they could caputre more. On the red side i saw reduced ground units, and they all withdraw around Wakkana. hmm..i do wonder if blue units can move further and reach their ultimate goal.

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-15, 08:27:16 AM

i checked THR creator again.. the tool indicates it need [theater. l2 ] and [texture.bin] to generate a new THR file.

it clarifies the tweaking order..
1. use TerrainView, tweaking tile placement and checking road tile/road network.
2. use Pathmaker tool, tweaking tile definition.
3. once the two done, use THR creator to generate new THR => use this THR( or a non-river THR) to help/guide Obj-linking with TacEdit.

i could have messed up the tweaking order.. as during the obj-linking process, THR file may affect the [move cost value] between two objectives? or the calculation of [move cost value] is based on theater.L2 only?

On the other hand, i've erase river data from tiles with Pathmaker tool, and removed all bridge objective with TacEditor, i doubt [non-river THR] do any help in 2d war?

anyway i'll generate and use an updated THR once i touched theater.L2 with Terrainview.

User avatar
molnibalage
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-01-13, 07:59:02 AM
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Modeling
Location: Hungary

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by molnibalage » 2009-04-15, 08:57:45 AM

- Tho running campaign at 64x may cause abnormal/unrealistic result due to over-simplified campaign calculation, i hope the tweak/test results could of some use..
I have never flown in this theater but what you written sound me a general problem.

1. Does time accelerate count in 2D world? Result is not the same on 1x? Is result time compression dependent?

2. Modeling values are the problem as I see. This is also true for all Falcon version. MANPAD and AAA effectiveness "doesn't exist" in campaign because ATO create for low strike mission for red side. They effectiveness is very different from 3D world. Try it. One battalion that has Pegasus (K-SAM) can kill 2-3 J-5/6 from a 4 ship flight. In 2D world I have never seen any kill when I tested it...
Image
Core 2 Duo E7300, Gigabyte EP43, 4 GB RAM (1066MHz), Shappire Radeon HD4850 1GB

Snake Man
Commander-In-Chief
Posts: 8559
Joined: 2000-07-31, 10:01:01 PM
Gaming Interests: ArmA, ArmA 2, Falcon 4.0 and OFP.
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.
Location: PMC

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by Snake Man » 2009-04-15, 10:53:20 AM

Regarding time acceleration, its been said that you should not use more than 32x unless you are willing to allow some unpredictable 2D results.

When I test our theaters, I always use 32x time acceleration if I need to skip ahead.

Good job ccc for debugging yet another theater.
PMC since 1984

Editing knowledge, visit PMC Editing Wiki
Addon manuals, visit PMC addons/mods online manuals
View our videos in PMC Youtube channel.

PMC Tactical forum Advanced Search is power.

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-15, 12:44:12 PM

Snake Man wrote:Regarding time acceleration, its been said that you should not use more than 32x unless you are willing to allow some unpredictable 2D results.
IIRC, for better-or more realistic 2D war result, it's said to use 16x for max time compression, not 32x.

the reason i run 64x is, blue side has superb strong air and land power in this campaign..red side has no chance to fight back. such setting is ok for solely checking if blue units can move to Wakkana in the end.. but NO hot contact yet! Only we make blue side reach their goal in such a simplified war, then we can start fine-tuning the power of both sides.
Good job ccc for debugging yet another theater.
sigh.. Hokkaido is too big for me, and Taiwan is too complex. Hawaii sounds good.
hope i can ready a simple, straight route form Sapporo to Wakkana..and let blue-red dancing along it. ATM i just feel..Wakkana is " A town too far". :evil:

derStef
Banned user
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:22:45 AM
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Terrains
Location: Austria

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by derStef » 2009-04-15, 12:45:05 PM

Snake Man wrote:Regarding time acceleration, its been said that you should not use more than 32x unless you are willing to allow some unpredictable 2D results.
personally i go never faster than x16... i experienced also problems with x32, especially in the 128 theaters..

User avatar
molnibalage
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-01-13, 07:59:02 AM
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Modeling
Location: Hungary

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by molnibalage » 2009-04-15, 01:02:06 PM

personally i go never faster than x16... i
How can you do this? If you press on commit clock is running on x64...

Yes, you can do that you use 16 until your TOT will be close...
Image
Core 2 Duo E7300, Gigabyte EP43, 4 GB RAM (1066MHz), Shappire Radeon HD4850 1GB

Snake Man
Commander-In-Chief
Posts: 8559
Joined: 2000-07-31, 10:01:01 PM
Gaming Interests: ArmA, ArmA 2, Falcon 4.0 and OFP.
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.
Location: PMC

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by Snake Man » 2009-04-15, 01:27:45 PM

Oh was it only 16x, hmm yeah my bad :)
PMC since 1984

Editing knowledge, visit PMC Editing Wiki
Addon manuals, visit PMC addons/mods online manuals
View our videos in PMC Youtube channel.

PMC Tactical forum Advanced Search is power.

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-15, 03:52:31 PM

the test campaign ends on Day 2 0730, without any player intervention.
Image
during the offensive, there're two brief engagements against red infantry units, and finally one single infantry unit just captured Wakkana.

Actually i've two or three runs on this campaign lasting to Day 4, but failed to end. the bug is blue unit choked at last mile to Wakkana, one infantry unit exhuasted and surrendered, one armour unit followed the routine in second or thrid round of major offensive, and stopped at Wakkana factory obj(next stop is Wakkana!).
i think it could be obj placement or linking bugs, so i do some rough move-obj edits(more inland) and delete/re-arrange obj-linking, to streamline the route to Wakkana. and it did speeds the war and ends as pic shows - just one single infantry unit to end the war :shock:

anyway, in this extremely simplified case, the war is over... and best of all, i did not order any unit to capture the obj, all movement ordered by campaign AI.

Snake Man
Commander-In-Chief
Posts: 8559
Joined: 2000-07-31, 10:01:01 PM
Gaming Interests: ArmA, ArmA 2, Falcon 4.0 and OFP.
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.
Location: PMC

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by Snake Man » 2009-04-15, 04:53:15 PM

ccc wrote:anyway, in this extremely simplified case, the war is over...
Phewf, now we can all go home. :lol:
PMC since 1984

Editing knowledge, visit PMC Editing Wiki
Addon manuals, visit PMC addons/mods online manuals
View our videos in PMC Youtube channel.

PMC Tactical forum Advanced Search is power.

toonces
Brig. General
Posts: 484
Joined: 2008-07-20, 07:43:12 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by toonces » 2009-04-15, 10:57:06 PM

Nice work ccc.

Your results don't surprise me. I have achieved similar results in Nevada. I can get units to move up and capture an objective (like Las Vegas) if they don't run into too much opposition.

The problem I haven't seen solved by anyone yet is the type of ebb and flow motion you get in Korea where the initiative can shift back and forth between red and blue.

I'm glad you saw units go from reserve to offensive- I've seen this too and it seems to be triggered by friendly forces capturing an objective along the path to the main objective. For example, in Nevada I will have something like 8 batallions move towards LV, while another 8 go into reserve behind the front lines. However, as the offensive units capture bridges and junctions enroute to LV, the reserve units will change to offensive and move towards the objectives that were just captured.

Now, my thinking on all of this remains the same. I think the campaign engine looks at friendly objectives, garrison units, flanks, etc., and then determines whether units can continue offensively. I think Korea works because there are soooo many units that are behind the front lines (and organized in an intelligent division-brigade-batallion structure).

I haven't been able to prove this yet, but I hope to do so if I can pack Nevada enough. It's just too time-consuming to do until I get some time off from work.

Finally, I have been experimenting with tasking units in Tacedit (ie. setting some to "capture"). It doesn't seem to matter what I set; as soon as the campaign starts, the engine tasks the units however it feels. Again, this is why I think having objectives behind the lines properly garrisoned is vital.

Unfortunately, I don't understand the first half of your post re: fixing roads and bridges. That is something I simply have to learn. A working road/link network is the absolute first vital step before any of this will work.

Thanks for posting- I plan to reference this thread frequently in my own work in the future.

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-16, 03:28:31 AM

Your results don't surprise me. I have achieved similar results in Nevada. I can get units to move up and capture an objective (like Las Vegas) if they don't run into too much opposition.
Ah, the key point of my tweak is [ road network edit], not wining the war.
Compared with my post/pics in [kurile theater in falcon3.0] thread, my latest tweak makes the road network slightly more complete- or usable, so blue units can move up north to the NW tip of Hokkaido.. in default campaign it will stuck halfway.
For ending a simple campaign by ground units moving from A to B obj, it has been done and proved in various theater mod in past years..changing TRI victory conditoins, shortening the distance to target obj, or remove hostile units along the routes can help ending the campaign easily.
The problem I haven't seen solved by anyone yet is the type of ebb and flow motion you get in Korea where the initiative can shift back and forth between red and blue.
you may check default Korea TRI. it will show you..how to switch initiatives by capturing some obj, or changes in air/land/sea power ratio. this type of fierce fighting can be mostly seen along DMZ.
To reproduce such fight in non-korea theater.. you must set up a similar FLOT/DMZ, sufficient ground units for consuming, and a fine-tuned TRI. i've reported a rough test in Taiwan theater thread a while ago.. and yes it did show similar fighting but last briefly, possible reasons are shallow strategic depth, insufficient ground units for consuming, and lack of following reinforcments to provide an offenive momentum. i've to admit i don't like to add numerous units by hand..so my last test stopped there.
I'm glad you saw units go from reserve to offensive- I've seen this too and it seems to be triggered by friendly forces capturing an objective along the path to the main objective. For example, in Nevada I will have something like 8 batallions move towards LV, while another 8 go into reserve behind the front lines. However, as the offensive units capture bridges and junctions enroute to LV, the reserve units will change to offensive and move towards the objectives that were just captured.

Now, my thinking on all of this remains the same. I think the campaign engine looks at friendly objectives, garrison units, flanks, etc., and then determines whether units can continue offensively. I think Korea works because there are soooo many units that are behind the front lines (and organized in an intelligent division-brigade-batallion structure).
exactly. it appears [sufficient ground units] is a key point for massive ground operation. in my kurile tweak, i noted only very few units do the spearhead job and capture the obj.. the rest are mostly in reserve or defend status. As those in [ reserve - blank ] status, are totally non-responsive to any order. I concur your obsevation that ground units first secure some obj, advance further, secure obj, then advance.. it seems only surplus units are tasked for true offensive! in my past campaign experience, when your gorund units are low to some extent, it has no surplus unit to launch any offensive, and war hanging there.. till the timeout day. i've to say such ending is most boring and distressing.. you've air superiority, but you can do nothing.
Finally, I have been experimenting with tasking units in Tacedit (ie. setting some to "capture"). It doesn't seem to matter what I set; as soon as the campaign starts, the engine tasks the units however it feels. Again, this is why I think having objectives behind the lines properly garrisoned is vital.
yes. you don't have to assign order in advance.. campaign brain will re-assign new order immediately. default Korea units have no order in the begining.
Unfortunately, I don't understand the first half of your post re: fixing roads and bridges. That is something I simply have to learn. A working road/link network is the absolute first vital step before any of this will work.
this part is my focus in this test - tho i am not sure if it work "completely". currently the Kurile tweak has only one " combat route - from Wakkana to Sapporo". the road network at right half of Hokkaido has not been closely checked yet.

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-17, 08:34:50 AM

heck, bad luck in latest test.

i changed the victory condition in TRI file - ask Blue side to capture Wakkana, Hokkaido AFB, Eshashi, and Mineoka to win ( hope to create a second combat route along north to NW coast ). Also i manually move TCL-placed ground units closer to obj or road ( hope those standstill units respond to command). THEN i ran campaign at 64x.

the test result is diappointing..

- two infantry units moved to defind Bifuka and Omu since the beigining of war. both reached their targets.
- as usual, blue major offensive started on Day 1 1920. two more armoured units moved north and finally captured Esashi.. then withdraw to their starting point along the same route, or via north coast route to Omu.

The good news is, my tweaking in TacEdit( remove bridge and re-link obj) and Terrainview/Pathmaker( check road network and erase river/bridge data on tiles) seems work.. ground units can move along north coastline from Esashi to Omu - without bridges.

The bad news is, after the latest tweak in TRI and unit placement, it seems no unit want to move straight north to Wakkana. in previous report, the war ends on Day 2 - but the blue side appears somewhat stasis till Day 4..

- another finding is, after re-posititioning ground units, i found almost all of them got their orders, no more [ reserve - blank ] status. BUT- most of them moved to several city objectives and turned "secure" or " defend" status, refuse to join major offensive. On 2D map i saw these units tightly groupd around some cities or important obj at righ half of Hokkaido. Before doing the tweak, i found the same units stayed as TCL placement since Day 1, and last for many campaign days. Did my tweak make them "alive" and start receiving " campaign AI order"?

- i aslo checked Red unit movement - hmm..they seem more active/mobile and captured few blue obj around Esashi area in the first day, then started withdrawing back to Wakkana.. Tho Red launched major offensive since Day1 , their offensive seems hammered by air power.. and lack a strong drive.

-BTW i found the [force ratio] diagram at left side of 2D map is ALL empty. dunno if the bug affect the campaign. Also there do not have HQ unit..i dunno if ground force short of HQ or engineering untis affect the progressing of war.

- anyway the most frustarting part is, the ground posture has gone thru 3 more cycles of major offensive-consolidation-major offensive after four campaign days, yet no blue unit want to capture Wakkana :evil: hmm.. short of surplus ground units again?

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-17, 04:12:30 PM

As the tweak focusing on fixing road network, i found it's hard to see the road lines/tiles and the broken sites in TerrainView.

i dunno if you can see it clearly in your screen, but it truely hurts on my laptop at 1280x800. so.. i help myself with this - a texture.zip with roads highlighted in white color.

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n192 ... CXTEST.jpg

on the right, you can see list of tiles - road tiles, roads marked in wide white lines.
and on the left, a zoom-in window of a terrain section.. heheh.. i immediately see a broken point at first glance!

As terrainview only loads tiles from Texture.zip - which tiles in pcx format, so my editied texture.zip won't affect the tiles used in sim, which in dds format in FF4/RV.

in this way, if a theater use default korea tiles, it can use my tweaked Texture.zip to check the road network in TerrainView, immediately.
and same trick can be applied to other theaters.

Snake Man
Commander-In-Chief
Posts: 8559
Joined: 2000-07-31, 10:01:01 PM
Gaming Interests: ArmA, ArmA 2, Falcon 4.0 and OFP.
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.
Location: PMC

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by Snake Man » 2009-04-17, 04:59:53 PM

ccc wrote:i dunno if you can see it clearly in your screen, but it truely hurts on my laptop at 1280x800. so.. i help myself with this - a texture.zip with roads highlighted in white color.
In my terrainview tiles dir the ODS texture.zip contains PINK colored road tiles.
PMC since 1984

Editing knowledge, visit PMC Editing Wiki
Addon manuals, visit PMC addons/mods online manuals
View our videos in PMC Youtube channel.

PMC Tactical forum Advanced Search is power.

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-18, 08:28:37 AM

Snake Man wrote:In my terrainview tiles dir the ODS texture.zip contains PINK colored road tiles.
desert tile with PINK colored roads? hmm.. hope the contrast is ok for tiling work.

BTW.. another sidenote for sharing..

< Airbase tiles & road definition >

While checking tiles with [Pathmaker], i noted some airbase tiles have road definition... the road line circumscribing along one side of airfield margin, to help ground unit moving thru this objective.

it suddenly reminds me of an old bug - ground units running across runways when ac taking off or landing. imo The bug probably comes from the "spreading-out" formation of ground vehicles. if a ground unit just passing by the AFB in [ line formation ], it won't drive into runway, taxiing way or parking area. if the ground unit change its formation while maneuvoring, or spreading out for capturing/securing AFB, then the wider formation will interfere with ac operation.

To nail the bug, two solutions come to me..

1. Edit road definition on AFB tiles with Pathmaker: move the road line further away from airfield ( outside the AFB fences ), leave more space for ground unit spreading-out formation.

2. OR, Add [ River line definition ] on AFB tiles: by adding "invisible" river lines, we can set up an isloated "ac operation area" from " ground vehicle invasion", since ground unit can't pass the invisible river lines in 3D world.
The river lines can be set running along existing fence - so any ac( human player or AI) rushing thru fence will BOOOOM in flame... thus solving another unrealistic bug that ac can pass thru fence freely. The only shortcoming is, engineering vehicles won't be able to enter "ac operation area" anymore hahah.

toonces
Brig. General
Posts: 484
Joined: 2008-07-20, 07:43:12 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by toonces » 2009-04-18, 01:26:31 PM

ccc,
I can confirm the problems (and solutions) you had with TCL placed units. Placing units with Tacedit manually on objectives and near roads alleviates the non-movement for the most part.

However, I have my own bad news to report. I added a crazy amount of infantry battalions to garrison cities and objectives in my Nevada mod and as far as I can tell, it makes no difference in offensive ground movement. It has bummed me out pretty bad because I was sure that that was the problem.

I'm very frustrated. I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall.

Creating a linked set of border objectives DID change the ground movement, but it didn't seem to make everyone offensive like I had hoped.

I was thinking it might be an HQ problem or I don't have enough artillery, or maybe there's an air superiority criteria that has to be met....or it's something else entirely that we haven't even thought of (or at least discussed yet).

User avatar
Sherlock
Lt. General
Posts: 1167
Joined: 2006-05-24, 10:01:01 PM
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by Sherlock » 2009-04-18, 07:55:42 PM

toonces wrote:ccc,
I can confirm the problems (and solutions) you had with TCL placed units. Placing units with Tacedit manually on objectives and near roads alleviates the non-movement for the most part.

However, I have my own bad news to report. I added a crazy amount of infantry battalions to garrison cities and objectives in my Nevada mod and as far as I can tell, it makes no difference in offensive ground movement. It has bummed me out pretty bad because I was sure that that was the problem.

I'm very frustrated. I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall.

Creating a linked set of border objectives DID change the ground movement, but it didn't seem to make everyone offensive like I had hoped.

I was thinking it might be an HQ problem or I don't have enough artillery, or maybe there's an air superiority criteria that has to be met....or it's something else entirely that we haven't even thought of (or at least discussed yet).
Are the units you added built into a Division-Brigade-Battalion hierarchy? or are they just put in as sole battalions?
Sherlock
Victurous te Saluto

toonces
Brig. General
Posts: 484
Joined: 2008-07-20, 07:43:12 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by toonces » 2009-04-19, 01:27:40 AM

They are built into div-bde-bn.

For example, the 96th Division has 3 Brigades, each with 5 battalions of infantry. And so on.

I think, if ccc would let me, I'd like to take a look at his Kurile tweak and do some of my Nevada tweaks to it and see if the combination of his work and my work does anything magical.

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-19, 01:11:57 PM

I can confirm the problems (and solutions) you had with TCL placed units. Placing units with Tacedit manually on objectives and near roads alleviates the non-movement for the most part.
After i checking tiles wtih Pathmaker, i think i realize why TCL-placed units refuse to move.

Some tiles, have areas defined as " Thick forrest " or "water (means river or lake in land)". IF TCL code place units right on these areas, the units trapped and won't be able to move.
However, I have my own bad news to report. I added a crazy amount of infantry battalions to garrison cities and objectives in my Nevada mod and as far as I can tell, it makes no difference in offensive ground movement. It has bummed me out pretty bad because I was sure that that was the problem.

I'm very frustrated. I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall.
relax. and take a break :mrgreen:

to make a working campaign, i think - the basis is terrain -road network - obj linking first. if you start from adding units.. im afraid you're going in wrong direction. Apart from default Korea campaigns, there're other working campaigns- AF's Balkan. we may learn something from it.
I think, if ccc would let me, I'd like to take a look at his Kurile tweak and do some of my Nevada tweaks to it and see if the combination of his work and my work does anything magical.
i am still tweaking it.. no promise tho. if it works to some extent, i'll share the files.

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-20, 02:51:15 AM

more tweaking report..

First, blue side wins the campaign again - on Day 2 0200.. faster than previous test :shock:
the winning process like this, two infantry unit moving north, one captured and defened Bifuka, one to Omu. then on Day 1 2100, a major offensive launched - one infantry moved to capture Esashi (note- i did not set Esashi as win coniditon), and the other armour unit move straight north to Wakkana. the armour unit did make contact with several red infantry units -- and at 64x, i noted these red units soon "surrendered". so the blue armour unit did not suffer heavy loss. in the last lag of advance, the unit movement looks smoothly and fluently.

Beforing running this latest test, i did tweaks like..

-i reduced the TRI victory conditions to [capture Wakkana]. even so, blue units tend to capture Esashi as well.

- check road network on upper 2/3 of Hokkaido landmass, using my " road- highlighted tiles" textxure.zip. This method do help me alot.. in TerrainView, it just takes a quic glance and any broken or misplaced road tiles can readily idenified and fixed. i think most road network in main battle area is quite complete..but there're questions left : road network is good and continuous, but roads converged in a complex, or branched pattern... i truely doubt ground units can pick a right way thru the network ( alright i knew they check [ move cost value], but..)

BTW i've to say Skyfire's CATE do GREAT JOB. the road network automatically tiled by CATE looks quite good and continuous, The broken sites are few than expected in most areas-- yet the tool has its limit, the road-along coast tiling is bad, i manually tile most coastline roads.

- Once done the road check/fix, i use Pheonix711's THR creator to generate a new THR file- keep road and river data. ( i knew Fred's Pathmaker can generate THR too, have not use it yet).

-Then, fire up TacEdit to check obj linking, based on this new THR. yeah tweaking here and there, removing inadequate linking, and adding new linking. i found - if i fix a broken coastline road between two obj, i delete old linking and re-link the two obj, the NEW [move cost value] is much lower..it sounds obviously reasonable - the [move cost value] calculation function confrims my hand-tiling work hahaha :mrgreen:

- as im done( or boring) with basic work, i use TacEdit to " move TCL-placed units closer to obj or roads ". i do this tweak roughly- just hurry to run 64x test. the result is..many- or most units do move, the rest, tho have their order to [ secure or defend obj] effectively, still unable to reach assigned obj. I think the "unit placement" work needs more patience, and precision, to avoid put them on "thick forrest area" or "water area" on tiles. Of course, i may use Pathmaker to delete all such [blocking area] definition on all tiles..someday.

- now comes to another thought in campaign observation..Sherlock's point about [Div-Brig-Battlion] stuff reminds me.. As i reported, most time the blue unit movement is made of one, or two, or three units. i roughly checked their [ unit belongings, div, brig, battln number].. hmm i doubt the hierarchy system needs further tweak.. Biker may help us here? IIRC, long time ago it's said Division, division number has no function/response to AI command at all. it's Brigade as a unit that receiving true order from campaign AI.. once Brigade receive order, it's Battlion units will excute simutaneouly?. If it's true, it may explain the importance of a good [brig-batllion] setting, and thus make [larger scale advacning] in a major offensive. As for the questoin- is HQ unit a must-have in this commanding system? i dunno know, maybe it's just an eyecandy unit?

- in sim, campaign intel menu, i found no FORCE LEVEL stripe diagram at left hand UI(FF4/RV), and no such info show in FORCE LEVEL in popup window. Lost something data for generating the diagrams?

- While checking tiles with Pathmaker, i found.. one farm tile has unnecessary road definitiona data on it, and several city-road tiles has NO road definition data on them. Why i report this? when i checking terrain section with TerrainView, i found some broken road sites are tiled with this " defective city-road tiles". i dunno if the bug severely hammer the unit movement. The buggy tile definition stored in Texture.bin, means the Texture.bin is somewhat buggy too..maybe not that serious. ( hmm.. isn't the Texture.bin file the same as default Korea one?)

To sum up, i am about to close this round of test or exploration.. i'll pack the tweaked files and send to SM.

Closter
Captain
Posts: 154
Joined: 2007-01-07, 12:13:42 AM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by Closter » 2009-04-20, 11:11:58 AM

- one of the test focus is trying THR creator. it works and i removed all river form thr file. however i still need the old thr for re-linking obj in TacEditor. i use no-river THR for campaign test.. have no idea about.. whether i should tweak THR first, or editing terrain with TerrainView first.
i checked THR creator again.. the tool indicates it need [theater. l2 ] and [texture.bin] to generate a new THR file.

it clarifies the tweaking order..
1. use TerrainView, tweaking tile placement and checking road tile/road network.
2. use Pathmaker tool, tweaking tile definition.
3. once the two done, use THR creator to generate new THR => use this THR( or a non-river THR) to help/guide Obj-linking with TacEdit.

i could have messed up the tweaking order.. as during the obj-linking process, THR file may affect the [move cost value] between two objectives? or the calculation of [move cost value] is based on theater.L2 only?
It seems logical to me that the obj. linking process uses THR data to calculate movement costs between two objectives.
So before any linking, it has to be defined the last and ultimate THR file to be used, not only to make some aftermath tweaking.

IMHO
Image

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-20, 11:58:12 AM

Closter wrote: It seems logical to me that the obj. linking process uses THR data to calculate movement costs between two objectives.
So before any linking, it has to be defined the last and ultimate THR file to be used, not only to make some aftermath tweaking.

IMHO
Honestly the procedure listed is a rough guideline for first pass of terrain work.

in my recent tweaks, i still go back to Terrainview, tweaking road tile replacement, then generated a NEW THR with THR creator, then fire up TacEdit to tweak obj-linking. There's no so-called ultimate THR file - just be sure to use the updated one.

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-20, 04:18:23 PM

i sent the tweaked files to SM.

- save0.cam and save0.tri, go to campaign folder.
- kurile.thr, go to campaign folder - i think this one is only used for TacEdit, for obj-linking, obj placement adjusting, and move cost calculation.. so it does not seem that important in sim?
- textxure.bin, go to texture folder. this one contains the tweaked tile feature definition data. i remove all bridge and most river definition on tiles.

- and last, theater.l2 - i think it could be the same as original one..? As i've hand-tiled road system, i dunno what terrain files changed..

if i missed some tweaked files, let me know. if you got the files, pleast test run it at 64x, with PAK setting focus on NW pak of Hokkaido.
====================================

now more reports about my latest - or last kurile test..

1. i fine-tuned road network and obj-linking again.
2. i changed Wakkana priority back to 80 and Bifuka to 95.
3. i edited TRI file again. i make the battle focus on a main axis, from Wakkana down south to Shibetsu. both sides have to capture more obj to win along this main axis.
4. i changed the ownership of more obj to CIS in NW pak. the main city Bifuka still in the hand of japan.

combined the edits, i ran test at 64x, and blue side wins on Day 3 0440. in this test, i found..

- red units become more aggressive in the begining of war, move south to capture Bifuka. their menuvor is much more fluid.. sometimes it formed a line of defence.
- blue units also become more active, few more units move north, engaged enemies, retreated, then another unit took over and move north. blue units recovered Bifuka and took Esashi, then after one or two consolidation periods, two or more armour units launched another wave of offensive to north, one armour unit moved all the way to Wakkana and ended the war. it seems implying a larger, more organized ground force could make the fight hotter. meanwhile, i noted air and ground operation targets changing, and more A-G operations reported in info window. to sum up, it looks a bit more "alive".

toonces
Brig. General
Posts: 484
Joined: 2008-07-20, 07:43:12 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by toonces » 2009-04-22, 12:31:03 AM

I tell you, ccc, I wish you and I could get together for some beers and hammer this out together. You are literally thinking the exact same things I am right now.

I was thinking about the HQ thing for a while now. After I read your post, I ran my Nevada campaign for a few hours, and then took notes as to which units were diverging from the main offensive thrust.

I noticed two things: first, like you said, divisions seemed irrelevant for as far as how the units split up. They "sort of" stuck to a brigade structure, meaning battalions belonging to the same brigade sort of stayed together. However, I still found alot of stray battalions. Further, battalions without a brigade seemed totally random. So, I think brigades are important. But, I still think divisions have some impact, maybe for resupply or something.
Second, I tried to find an easy way to change out some battalions for HQs, but there doesn't seem to be any easy way to do it short of rebuilding a few brigades. So, Thursday when I have some free time, I'll rebuild like 6 of the brigades that are diverging from the main offensive thrust and see if that changes their tasking any.

On a separate note, in checking the brigades/battalions, I saw something interesting. When I build a brigade, I assign it to a division. Then I build the 5 battalions within the brigade page. But, I never added the division when on the battalion page. So, although the brigade is attached to the division, and if I click on the division tab within the brigade page it shows the brigade's 5 battalions within the division; if I click on the battalion by itself (in the unit page of tacedit for example), it shows "0" division, no the brigade's division, along with "no parent". I have no idea if this is significant (it probably is), but it is very interesting. I think, when I build the new brigades, I will take care to attach each battalion to the brigade's division. It will be time-consuming, but this seems to be the best way to test everything.

I hope this isn't hijacking your thread too much, it's just that we are truly working down parallel paths here and I think the exchange of ideas is useful.

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-22, 02:07:21 AM

I hope this isn't hijacking your thread too much, it's just that we are truly working down parallel paths here and I think the exchange of ideas is useful.
i am happy you joining here. we need more modders working on this field to get campaign rolling.
On a separate note, in checking the brigades/battalions, I saw something interesting. When I build a brigade, I assign it to a division. Then I build the 5 battalions within the brigade page. But, I never added the division when on the battalion page. So, although the brigade is attached to the division, and if I click on the division tab within the brigade page it shows the brigade's 5 battalions within the division; if I click on the battalion by itself (in the unit page of tacedit for example), it shows "0" division, no the brigade's division, along with "no parent". I have no idea if this is significant (it probably is), but it is very interesting. I think, when I build the new brigades, I will take care to attach each battalion to the brigade's division. It will be time-consuming, but this seems to be the best way to test everything.
exactly. i noted this " TacEdit bug?" when i tweaking ground units in Taiwan theater. TCL tool can generate the ground unit system easily.. but when you try to do it with TacEdit, you should follow the order, step by step, then the div-brig-battln system can be set up properly.. and yes - a true pain. i don't want to touch this field again, that's why i did not add new ground units in this Kurile test. :mrgreen:

Snake Man
Commander-In-Chief
Posts: 8559
Joined: 2000-07-31, 10:01:01 PM
Gaming Interests: ArmA, ArmA 2, Falcon 4.0 and OFP.
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.
Location: PMC

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by Snake Man » 2009-04-22, 09:51:15 AM

Guy please post a summary of the latest findings and conclusions to the Working and winnable campaign topic every now and then, so we have a single topic/post where to read whats up with ground unit movement.

Thanks.
PMC since 1984

Editing knowledge, visit PMC Editing Wiki
Addon manuals, visit PMC addons/mods online manuals
View our videos in PMC Youtube channel.

PMC Tactical forum Advanced Search is power.

toonces
Brig. General
Posts: 484
Joined: 2008-07-20, 07:43:12 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by toonces » 2009-04-23, 01:17:56 AM

ccc,
If you wouldn't mind, I would really appreciate it if you'd post the text of your .tri file up here. I'd like to use it as a template for my own .tri in Nevada to ensure I'm writing it correctly.

I've gotten .tri files to work for things like force ratios, but I can never tell exactly whether or not I've written the format correctly.

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-04-23, 09:07:19 AM

Code: Select all

//
//	PMC Kurile Theater save0
//
// Russians need to capture OBJ_ID - NAME:
// 555 - BIFUKA
// 599 - shibetsu
// 702 ashikisawa
//
// Japan need to re-capture OBJ_ID - NAME:
// 474 - WAKKANA  544 omu
// 169 hokkaido AFB, 470-mineoka 511-esashi

// This marks the ROK as initially on the offensive
#SET_EVENT 1
#RESET_EVENT 2
#TOTAL_EVENTS 4
#SET_TEMPO 255
#ENDINIT

// Event #1
// Combined forces go on offensive
// 
#IF_EVENT_PLAYED 2
#IF_ON_OFFENSIVE 3
#PLAY_MOVIE 106
#DO_EVENT 1
#RESET_EVENT 2
#ENDIF
#ENDIF
// 
// Event #2
// Combined forces go on defensive
// 
#IF_EVENT_PLAYED 1
#IF_ON_OFFENSIVE 4
#PLAY_MOVIE 107
#DO_EVENT 2
#RESET_EVENT 1
#ENDIF
#ENDIF
// 
//Event #3
// Japan controls WAKKANA
//
#IF_CONTROLLED 3 A 555 474 511 544
#PLAY_MOVIE 116
#DO_EVENT 3
#END_GAME 3
#ENDIF

//Event #4
// Russians controls BIFUKA, TSUBETSU and AKABIRA
//
#IF_CONTROLLED 4 A 555 702 544 599
#PLAY_MOVIE 116
#DO_EVENT 4
#END_GAME 4
#ENDIF

// End
#ENDSCRIPT

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-05-11, 09:29:12 AM

just for record..

as i said in previous post, i raise the priority value of Wakkana so Blue force will do their best to re-capture it and end the war in a reasonable way. i found if i tune down the priority to some extent, Blue units hesitate to go for it, and perfer to secure Bikufa forever. a recenl test run at 64x, up to day 6 or 8 and no progess at all.

It seems the rule is - the main obj(s) selected for victory condition, better has highest priority value and at the end of the combat route(s). The secondary obj(s) for vicotry condition, better located in the middle of combat route(s).

and..don't select a secondary obj for victory condition that located at the end of a branch route..campaign AI could miss this obj and make the war running endlessly.

toonces
Brig. General
Posts: 484
Joined: 2008-07-20, 07:43:12 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by toonces » 2009-05-23, 01:45:58 PM

Hey ccc,
Now that I've spent some time learning more about everything you wrote above, I get what you did.

We definately should finish this up and get it out the door with SM's permission.

I'll shoot you a PM with my email addy. I'd like the batch of files you sent SM- the final working version of all your tweaks. I'd like to tweak the OOB and then maybe SM can put it in the save1 or save2 slot.

Since we have a more or less late 80's working OOB right now, I'd like to tweak it up by using the FF5 database to add a bunch of JSDF land based air (we actually have 4 F-4EJ skins in FF5- they really are beautifully done), and edit the red OOB to add more MiG-21s and MiG-23s, plus some Backfires and Bears.

With all that, the air war will be really fun and more importantly, most of the planes will be flyable in FF5 on both sides!

Include some instructions on how to import the winter hitiles into the theater for those that wish to do it, write up some scenario notes and BAM, we're done!

After we get some feedback, maybe we can tweak the ground OOB further by adding reinforcements- SM can just run a handful of TCL scripts again but change the reinf time and flags appropriately.

What do you think?

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-05-24, 12:51:26 PM

file sent.

BTW be sure to increase Wakkana priority to 90, to draw all attention of blue ground force.

toonces
Brig. General
Posts: 484
Joined: 2008-07-20, 07:43:12 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by toonces » 2009-05-25, 11:12:09 AM

I got your files, installed them, and then tweaked up the air OOB some. I'm getting a weird error in both your version as well as my own. When I open up the .cam file in tacedit, I change the units, rebuild, save, close. When I go to open the save.cam again, I get this pop-up about the objectives being in different files, something like "Objective 5 ID same as campaign Objective 5 ID!" or something like that...I'll have to grab a screenshot if that doesn't make sense. But it essentially locks up the tacedit because the pop-up seems to cycle endlessly through the objects one by one. Last night, after I redid the air OOB, I exported the units so if the save.cam locks up again (which it will), I can try taking a save.cam, deleting all units, and then importing my .uni file; edit that, export, then save. This is a real pain way to do it, but I'm not sure what is causing the error.

Now, having said all that, there is some serious fun to be had in this tweak. I only flew for about 2 hours last night, but my initial impression is that there is alot of movement going on. I flew an escort sortie in the F-104J, escorting 8 BUFFs on a strike on an airfield on Kamchatka, and I brought home all 8 BUFFs and my -3 got a MiG-29 kill (but was also shot down himself). I got engaged by the MiG-29 flight and managed to evade two AA-10s. The F-104 might be among the worst turning jets I have ever flown, but doggone, that thing is a ROCKET! I landed with 300 lbs. of gas left!

I'll keep ya informed...I posted some screenies of some of my playtesting in PMC theaters over at FF5 forums- check 'em out if you'd like.

I'm going to work up an AAR for Kuriles I think.

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-05-25, 01:23:52 PM

something like "Objective 5 ID same as campaign Objective 5 ID!" or something like that...I'll have to grab a screenshot if that doesn't make sense
wierd.. such popup warning is the bug i reported in this thread, last post..
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21640

i'll check my files later.

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-05-25, 01:31:01 PM

i checked my Kurile save0.cam. tacedit can open it, no popup warning.

Toonces, please check if you can open my save0.cam file - if ok, maybe your tweak changed something.
or i missed some files for you?

toonces
Brig. General
Posts: 484
Joined: 2008-07-20, 07:43:12 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by toonces » 2009-05-25, 01:33:03 PM

Yes, that's the exact error I had. And just to reiterate, I had this error both before and after I used your files. I had this error when modding the original files also.

If the export units/import units function works, then it's not a huge big deal because I can just use that. If not, then it means rebuilding all the edits each time I want to change something- not good. But first things first. Let me see if export/import works (I'm at work, so I won't be able to test until tonight. p.s. good morning ccc!).

toonces
Brig. General
Posts: 484
Joined: 2008-07-20, 07:43:12 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by toonces » 2009-05-25, 01:36:09 PM

ccc,
The FIRST time I open any of the Kurile .cam files- yours or the originals, it works fine. I edit units, rebuild squadrons, save, exit, play the sim. The NEXT time I open the .cam file, I get the pop-up, both with your file and with the original files.

There are alot of things that can be causing this- not least of which is that I'm editing using the FF5 database, and I'm using the winter hitiles. So, it could be something totally unrelated to the original files or your tweaked files.

However, if you were getting that error in the Libya theater, then that suggests to me that it's something else altogether unrelated to my editing or hacks...

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06, 10:01:01 PM

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by ccc » 2009-05-25, 02:44:04 PM

hmm.. in my libya test i deleted all bridges, save , exit and re-enter, then popup warnings.

you may use my save0.cam, add or delete few units, then check if the popups back again.. if yes.. then you probably need TCL script to add units first, then move them to right place later.

btw.. maybe test with FF4 first?

User avatar
Sherlock
Lt. General
Posts: 1167
Joined: 2006-05-24, 10:01:01 PM
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by Sherlock » 2009-05-26, 01:22:27 AM

toonces,

If you haven't already done the following steps then try them next time you edit the .cam file:

1. --> Objectives --> Repair Objectives
2. --> Objectives --> Auto Flag Objectives
3. --> File --> Save (or just click the save button)

Doing this usually works for me in cleaning up any objective issues I have. Good luck!
Sherlock
Victurous te Saluto

derStef
Banned user
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:22:45 AM
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Terrains
Location: Austria

Re: My rough tweak on Kurile mod.

Post by derStef » 2009-05-26, 02:49:15 PM

uh uuh, but with autoflag you can also mess the whole thing up... that was also my experience..

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest