|
Post by valorius on Mar 8, 2021 7:49:02 GMT
How good is the Soviet AI at countering a massive air campaign? This good. This is what you call -all out- war. OUTSTANDING job on the Russkie AI Jeff. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by valorius on Mar 8, 2021 8:06:29 GMT
The Bastogne of the East! US Rangers backed by a dozen squadrons of B29s engaging in massive carpet bombing attacks hold the town of Novy Rogachick, 30 hexes west of Stalingrad, Sept 1. Approaching from the North are the lead elements of a major American Armored thrust composed of M47 Pattons and M93 240mm SP guns. At this point the Rangers, equipped with the latest M20 "Super bazooka" (circa 1945) have been holding out for 10 turns of intense close range combat against massive numbers of Soviet KV-2 Heavy armor and ZSU-37 SP AA guns
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2021 10:16:53 GMT
About posting screenshots as forum attachments...
The forum does allow file attachments but there is an overall ceiling at 200Mb. Each screenshot takes around half Mb of that. So, in screenshots that would make some 400 of them. That seems a lot but pretty soon it may be not much, particularly if/when more people show up. Those 200Mb should be spared for the kind of things that are very important and are posted just once or twice. Like the missing dll required to make PGX work in nowadays Windows versions. The game package, maps or e-files could be other good examples. Unfortunately, the game package - of about 14Mb - is off limits because there's also a 1Mb limitation on attachment maximum size. (Although if a new version only implies changes in pgx.exe and this could be compressed to under 1Mb... and it can - 652Kb with RAR) Things like maps or e-files, yes in theory, but only if there is a way of making them smaller than 1Mb. Or can be divided into a manageable number of 1Mb portions. The missing dll had to be compressed to fit.
This is why my alter ego Teophrastus posts screenshots via Google Photos instead of directly here.
For all that reasoning I intended to, and thought I had, set attachments to "staff" only. But I really left it set for "members and staff". So, this issue is really my mistake. I've set it for "staff" as I initially intended. Anything you feel should really be attached and conforms with the existing limitations, talk about it.
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Mar 8, 2021 16:16:22 GMT
I have the link to the VB6 runtime files on my web page. MS is still keeping that around, thank goodness. I have a copy or so, stored away for safe keeping too. I might put them on my web site itself someday.
Hopefully, I will get my butt in gear, and get the whole thing re-written in Visual Studio some day.
I have Visual Studio installed on my Work PC. So far, I hate it. It tries to do everything for everybody. It seems to be mainly focused on getting apps, web based apps, I am not even 100% positive I can compile, and distribute with the version I have. (It makes me sign in with MS account, and keeps bugging me about upgrades, etc. ) Argh, I hate change. It also seems to push C#, more than VB. I don't mind that too much though.
PGX uses API's for most of the graphics. They work much faster than the old VB graphics. BitBlt made PGX speed so nice. New Visual Studio has a graphics class that hopefully will work as nice. They are also pushing the 3D aspect a lot.
If we need to upgrade this forum some day. I have no problem with paying for the next best version. So far, it seems like we can get our messages back, and forth pretty well though.
One of the biggest reasons I have not forced myself to migrate too VC, or C++ is because, I can still get PGX to work on everything I have so far. It runs on Windows 10 for me too. Necessity is the Mother of Invention - but, I don't really need it yet !
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2021 23:03:35 GMT
If we need to upgrade this forum some day. I have no problem with paying for the next best version. So far, it seems like we can get our messages back, and forth pretty well though. For purposes of storage expansion there's a button to a price list. The problem with that list is that it indicates expansion of the total. But says nothing about the most important, the 1Mb maximum per file. Ok, next "plan" is Copper - 500 Mb total for 3$/month but maybe it would be a good idea to ask someone who may know if the rest of the parameters also goes up. With plan Free maximum file size is what we already know and Admin can tune for 1 to 3 per post. There's also the fee for ad-free access. That I think may apply to a forum or to an individual account holder. And there is a sort of business version without ads and allowing domain change and other tricks. This forum actually came ad-free for a month. But all in all, yes, as it is allows communication, despite demanding some discipline with resources. On the other end, of all the forums I've been in, that I know of, this is the second one that allows any file posting.
|
|
|
Post by teophrastusbombastus on Mar 9, 2021 0:06:52 GMT
I have the link to the VB6 runtime files on my web page. MS is still keeping that around, thank goodness. I have a copy or so, stored away for safe keeping too. I might put them on my web site itself someday. Hopefully, I will get my butt in gear, and get the whole thing re-written in Visual Studio some day. I have Visual Studio installed on my Work PC. So far, I hate it. It tries to do everything for everybody. It seems to be mainly focused on getting apps, web based apps, I am not even 100% positive I can compile, and distribute with the version I have. (It makes me sign in with MS account, and keeps bugging me about upgrades, etc. ) Argh, I hate change. It also seems to push C#, more than VB. I don't mind that too much though. PGX uses API's for most of the graphics. They work much faster than the old VB graphics. BitBlt made PGX speed so nice. New Visual Studio has a graphics class that hopefully will work as nice. They are also pushing the 3D aspect a lot. One of the biggest reasons I have not forced myself to migrate too VC, or C++ is because, I can still get PGX to work on everything I have so far. It runs on Windows 10 for me too. Necessity is the Mother of Invention - but, I don't really need it yet ! Yes, the VB page was still there a few days ago. That's where I went 7 years ago intent on discovering if I could find something about the (in)famous missing dll. I found nothing but then I saw a search field and typed the thing's name. And I found it after 2 or free attempts. Konzev posted he took weeks or months to find a working and virus-less one, so I was very lucky. Programming languages changes: Extremely out of foot in those waters. As you say PGX still works on everything you throw it onto It seems the advantages could be more on the side of allowing new things to get on PGX. than allowing PGX to get on new things.
|
|
|
Post by valorius on Mar 9, 2021 0:21:27 GMT
Only added screenies because i wanted Jeff to see how effectively the soviet AI was fighting back. I put the ring of forts and many of the AD units in moscow, but the rest of it the AI did. Pictures are worth 1000 words. Just a heads up jeff, there is a lot of info on bugs and AI commentary on the previous page of this thread- want to make sure you saw it all.
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Mar 9, 2021 15:22:37 GMT
A very quick path to victory with any of the major powers in PGX is to seize a forward airbase within range of the enemy capitol or oil resources, defend it, and then use it as a FOB (Forward operating base) to stage heavy level bombers to totally crush the enemies most strategic hexes. Really if you want to win quickly, land invasions are counterproductive. Just build enough land forces to defend your borders, buy the longest range fighters you can, airborne forces, engineers, and level bombers and you can absolutely smash any of the major powers arrayed against you in very short order. Spend all your R&D money, such as you plan to spend, on fighters. Hey isn't that kind of true. Look at the number of Armored, Infantry Divisions in the US Army now. Compare to WWII. The Soviets kept a large number of Tank, Infantry divisions throughout the cold war. But, I sort of feel like they were for just pushing into Western Europe fast enough to capture the NATO airfields. I am ignoring the Nuke factor completely too. The modern US Ground forces are sort of specialized Air dependent force ? Air Base levels ? That would be a good idea. I have thought of that. It kind of comes under the Supply/Logistics side of the game. The 'magic' always where you need them Air, and Naval Transports. Yikes ! That sometimes bugs me too. But then...when I start thinking about it. The game has an option to use the more realistic transport system. (Not sure if it still works, been ages since I tested it Ha Ha.) I remembered I just did not want to have to move dozens (?) maybe Hundreds (?!) of empty transport ships back, and forth across the ocean. Air Transports were not so bad ...there aren't as many, and they are faster. The full blown Logistic/Supply upgrade would fix the Air Field problem too. You would need to actually get the fuel, and ammo to the air base for the units to refuel, ready up. Personally I decided I didn't like shuffling all the supply depots around. That would be the job of my S3 (?) staff officers. I just wanted to drive the tanks man ! That is a bit of an over simplification. Ha Ha. Speaking of ammo. I even toyed with putting food into the game too at one point. Fuel, Food, Ammo. To get crazy, even spare parts. I use the supply rule where major cities, and ports are supply centers. I think a Zone of Control negates them ? It should...I think it does, but will have to check. Think of all the stuff I got to NOT code, by going simple. Much less moving those Transport ships full of goods to those ports. I got sort of thinking about these rules in the last game I played as Italy. I had like 100 subs, and was getting mouse button fatigue moving the subs from Italy to the Atlantic. The the damaged ones to ports, then back into the line. (I know you can use the attack/defend button to let the AI move some of your units, but I don't trust it. Ha Ha.) Wow, game theory. I can sure talk about this stuff all day. I love it. But, the Wife has risen from her slumbers, and demands coffee !
|
|
|
Post by teophrastusbombastus on Mar 9, 2021 18:28:47 GMT
Mar 9, 2021 15:22:37 GMT jeff said:Air Base levels ? That would be a good idea. I have thought of that. It kind of comes under the Supply/Logistics side of the game. Maybe talked about in the old days. What I do remember having invented to burden the programmer back then were city levels. When I say invented I mean I just picked it up in the Commander series with their 10 point destruct-able cities. Basically they made cities a sort of unit. Their damaged cities loose supply efficiency too so, a logistic aspect involved there. The primary / secondary PG / AG system... much simpler and already done. The "on map transport" option is still there but long ago you said you weren't supporting it anymore, if I remember well. I liked to use them. Biggest downside for me being they were specially prone to be assailed by bugs. It's been years since I tried those. Precisely because of the moving of all transports - land, sea, air, (space in later versions) - all the "normal" units, and all other things imagined throughout the years to clutter PGX with "detail" - and add the World map factor - that another invention was considered by some a pre-condition to all that. A mass move system, capable of handling groups of units. Otherwise it would be like thinking about building a house from the roof down... Much simpler as PGX is in it's classic ETO scenario form the need for such kind of thing already lurks around players moving their naval fleets. Specifically about bringing logistics units to the map instead of, or additionally to, the city linked slightly more abstract system. There were two great defenders of PGS - Panzer General Staff in the past. Konzev and myself. But actually, in my case, the "depot" idea isn't my favorite. The rear element, Factories, as they were debated years back, yes. For handling front unit supply my choice would be HQ units (on land). Mobile but designed to supply much more efficiently when static. Again, not my invention, comes from Vulcan. About ammo, at OG forum, once in a while, we still can read posts about introducing secondary weapon ammo counts in the game... Maybe it would be even more efficient to build an entirely new game project based on all those good ideas than adapting PGX to them.
|
|
|
Post by valorius on Mar 9, 2021 19:14:06 GMT
JEFF: I agree that too much logistics and moving huge fleets of transports is a drag. I do not use the "transports stay on map" option for that reason. Heck it would be great if you could drag a box over a whole group and move it all at once! I had a game about 2 years ago on an earlier version where i had to move my whole army out of spain, after conquering it, to position it for an attack on the soviet union. WHAT A DRAG! It took legit a couple hours of game play just to move my army into position! So i agree, too much logistics is TOO MUCH! lol
However, making airbases a scale-able thing is a lot more important IMO because it removes the "take one airbase deep in enemy territory and then move in 1000 aircraft to take the enemy apart from the inside out" 'hack'.
|
|
|
Post by valorius on Mar 9, 2021 19:18:29 GMT
LOGISTICS IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTION: One logistic feature that would be very neat would be creating a "resupply by air" button, whereupon cut off units, or units too far forward of the supply lines can still get a 25% resupply or something, via air drops.
I will say one thing that does seem excessive is how fast armored spearheads that have outrun their supply lines get attrited in total unit force. There are some places on the map where you just cannot help going beyond the supply zone of the most recently conquered city before getting to a new supply city, where your forces will get severely attrited.
The western approach to moscow is one such area. There are a lot of areas on the coastal roads in Africa that have the same issue.
"Airdrop resupply" would help with this issue a lot. Wouldn't even need a new button per se, as you could just have the resupply button only provide like 25-50% of a full resupply for units outside of resupply zones.
|
|
|
Post by teophrastusbombastus on Mar 9, 2021 22:16:54 GMT
jeff : I agree that too much logistics and moving huge fleets of transports is a drag. I do not use the "transports stay on map" option for that reason. Heck it would be great if you could drag a box over a whole group and move it all at once! I had a game about 2 years ago on an earlier version where i had to move my whole army out of spain, after conquering it, to position it for an attack on the soviet union. WHAT A DRAG! It took legit a couple hours of game play just to move my army into position! So i agree, too much logistics is TOO MUCH! lol The movement aspect is surely the one in which it is more apparent that mass handling tools could be helpful. A sort of "go to" feature for individual units would already be helpful, allowing to "forget" some units for some turns. There may not be the only one aspect. By the way I tried upgrading Italian 47mm ATs to Mk-1 and they really went from 8 to 9 Air Defense. Apparent snag is I can't read they're Mk-1 now. Probably there but the original unit name is already too long for the Mk-1 to show. Upgraded all I could find in cities for 1 production each. Now it's a question of rounding up the rest onto cities too until I've upgraded the whole... 171.
|
|
|
Post by valorius on Mar 10, 2021 2:06:17 GMT
PG has always had a problem displaying long names- and i make it worse by using actual specific units' names, such as M4A3E8(76)W for the Easy Eight sherman, etc, in my eqp file.
I basically just look at a units stats on screen with the info button, and then hit the purchase button to compare.
One thing that would help very slightly is to remove the "-" on the R&D upgrades, and switch it from Mk-2 to Mk2. I wonder if it would be possible to increase the number of characters the game displays on screen when you hit the info button.
Jeff: Still getting tons of "close" and "bomb damage" upgrades on units that cannot use those features. The reduced price R&D upgrade is the kiss of death cause it crashes the game when you try to buy or upgrade that unit subsequently.
The artillery enhanced AI is crazy, you'll see the AI's of every nation literally advancing with a dozen artillery pieces guarded by a slew of AD units. Which is not exactly historically accurate, but which sure can be super effective. If you don't have level bombers in droves, it's VERY hard to stop.
The AI for almost all nations seems to love fighters, but you see almost no tactical or level bombers.
If possible, a country like Italy should perhaps have it's AI tweaked to build less land units in favor of their excellent level bomber unit. Same for the US, and for the UK. Level bombers are tremendously effective units when used en mass. Probably the most powerful units in the game.
That said, getting AI to upgrade obsolete fighters is probably the single biggest tweak the AI needs in general at this time. If possible, have them upgrade en masse when a fighter with a higher initiative becomes available. And when buying fighters, always default to the fighter with the highest initiative possible, with the highest air attack rating being the tie breaker if multiple units with the same initiative are available.
Initiative is BY FAR the most important statistic for fighters IMO.
|
|
|
Post by teophrastusbombastus on Mar 10, 2021 14:08:03 GMT
PG has always had a problem displaying long names- and i make it worse by using actual specific units' names, such as M4A3E8(76)W for the Easy Eight sherman, etc, in my eqp file. I basically just look at a units stats on screen with the info button, and then hit the purchase button to compare. One thing that would help very slightly is to remove the "-" on the R&D upgrades, and switch it from Mk-2 to Mk2. I wonder if it would be possible to increase the number of characters the game displays on screen when you hit the info button. The number of characters available for names could surely be higher but I can also guarantee it shouldn't be very much more. In any event the name has to fit on screen among many other data and space between things. And yes, creating conventions for abbreviaton could help make do with what there is. Perhaps the first particle I'd see removed from many names would be the 2 national letters at the beginning. As in "IT 47mm ATG". Perhaps I should open the editor and just do it, as Julo said. That makes part of the reason why, prior to the existence of the forum I suggested a "player's choice" system. If the player chooses to invest on some attribute from which cannot result any effective bonus, well, it may yet have been a lesson. No coding out bad choices would be entirely mandatory. Although I imagine "players choice" of the stat would involve more complex coding and interface. Probably still more economic coding exceptions out of a random system. That problem with crashes from -12 cost bonuses is rather intriguing. Almost like the program is reading "cost -12" and that goes against some old hard coded PG / AG ban on negative costs. Production and experience I've seen expressed in negative values with no apparent issues. What happens if we define a unit cost as 0 or -X? Negative cost would result in what? Player receives prestige when purchasing unit? Did anyone at SSI ever thought about it and took preventive action? Yes, the Artillery clusters are getting very challenging. They may be called tending for some degree of historical accuracy in the case of some countries. Most notably thinking of the USSR (massed artillery), and second of the USA (target saturation). Isn't that curious? Precisely the two colossus with the vast territories, manpower, resources and industrial might to produce vast amounts of Artillery and all the rest. My observation too seems to point to massive appearance of fighters in the air - not new to this version. Some Level Bombers on a few locations. A pair of Soviet Tactical Bombers in Finland. But I haven't peaked beyond fog of war border...
|
|
|
Post by teophrastusbombastus on Mar 10, 2021 19:58:00 GMT
v768 Match 1 Turn 51
Turn 47 US of A declares war on someone on my side. I think - Axis is toast. Turn 49 U of the SSR declares war on Estonia. Ah, well, now we're saved.
One of those things of the game play differences between options. If I had played full equipment exchange again I would have some 3 ranger Artilleries in many of the Axis countries. With limited equipment exchange it's just Germany; eventually Italy will join in. The new R/D, theoretically, may solve that, provided the smaller countries find some to invest and Range is the ball coming down the chute.
Germany: North - Still some action against UK landings in the Netherlands. West - Finally able to destroy one of the defending 75mm and partially occupy Metz. Heavy factor losses in the process. East - Occasional full unit loss, including a 38(t) and heavy factor loss to Soviet Fighters supporting light ATs, this even without them Fighters stacking.
Turkey: Greece - Advancing in continent. Euboea, Rhodes and Cyprus captured but suffering counter landings. Syria - Cavalry from Cyprus landing further South captured third port (counting from North). First port (counting from North) captured by the column across the border but an inferior number of light ATs is tying down this Corp. USSR - Slow advance through eastern approach. Static battle with a force with superior support outside first objective in western approach.
Spain: Morocco - Capture of the westernmost primary objective has deprived of supply a number of French light ATs harassing Spanish Morocco. Their remnants are trying to escape by sea. French border - Entirely different matter. Two almost static battles are taking place and the only reason why there's little movement is the French are using 75mm ranged fire only. Purchased a Battleship intent on trying to press a flank on the western border battle.
Finland - Still some of them around but now they are even against a 152mm. The KV-1 and 76.7s weren't enough.
Romania - Lost a 75mm at the no supply zone and almost one or two other. Trying delay action from surviving units and support from the first PzIV in the match and aided by the fact that their withdrawal brought them back to supply lines. In the East, at the border lost a 37mm and almost a Bofors to 76.7mm fire.
Italy: Greece - Very slow advance. French border - Lost Infantry to pair of 75mm, and objective, but regained and counter attacking with transferred units. Malta- Continuing naval bombardment on and Fighter raids from. Cyrenaica - Crossed Egyptian border and captured first objective.
Netherlands - Lost primary recaptured by German capital ship. UK units still on territory.
Estonia - Waiting for the Red Storm.
More: negatory on IT 47mmATG name including the Mk-1 add-on but being out of limit. Seen ST 45mmATG Mk-1; same length as but it shows. Upgrade board allows pressing the button a second time next turn on the already upgraded unit for an announced cost of 1. Although it does not give a second dose of the bonus. The second production point I actually didn't catch if it is collected or not.
|
|