ACWGC
* ACWGC     * Dpt. of Records       * CSA HQ    * VMI    * Join CSA    
   * Union HQ    * UMA    * Join Union     ACWGC Memorial
CSA Armies:    ANV    AotW
Union Armies:    AotT     AotC      AotP      AotS     Union Army Forums
     Link Express
American Civil War Books, Magazines and Games for sale (See other items)
Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:48 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Improving the JTS/HPS Games!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 7:20 pm
Posts: 134
Location: USA
As John has alluded to in his previous post, the PDT has its limitations relative to the base game engine. While one can construct a different movement system or a standard Weapons Effectiveness -- never understood why weapon types should differ from one scenario to the next --, a standard PDT for use across all games is not possible. While a scenario file can be changed to reference a different PDT, it must carry the same name as the one designated when the SCN was built. One must build a new copy of the scenario otherwise. There is a good description of this process at the ACWCO Engineering site maintained by Ken Miller. As was stated previously in this thread, an individual is on their own in this regard.

I have played around with the PDT files since the Battleground days. I've always taken the approach that I can't modify the game engine, but I can identify historical inaccuracies in the PDT. Changing the latter can create more Civil-war like game play. In the process I have encountered things which I thought to be program bugs, but later revealed themselves to be undocumented aspects of the game system. For example, a unit incurs a downhill movement cost which is 1/2 its uphill. I only discovered this in the process of developing a more robust system of movement -- I pitched base 12 some time back. No where will you find this documented -- it is now at Ken Miller's website. It came as a surprise to me, as it was to both Ken and John. Who knows what else lurks?

_________________
MG Robert Frost
Army of Cumberland


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Improving the JTS/HPS Games!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 6:59 am
Posts: 266
Location: USA
Regarding the "Golden Morale" units from the old Talonsoft NiR game, I think that the HPS/Tiller games have the same ability to add that extra +2. It was in the Napoleon's Russian Campaign game (there were campaign decisions that would lower the morale if, for example, you chose not to fight at Smolensk). So it could be added here too.


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Improving the JTS/HPS Games!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:15 am
Posts: 296
Location: Australia
Robert Frost wrote:
As John has alluded to in his previous post, the PDT has its limitations relative to the base game engine. While one can construct a different movement system or a standard Weapons Effectiveness -- never understood why weapon types should differ from one scenario to the next --, a standard PDT for use across all games is not possible. While a scenario file can be changed to reference a different PDT, it must carry the same name as the one designated when the SCN was built. One must build a new copy of the scenario otherwise. There is a good description of this process at the ACWCO Engineering site maintained by Ken Miller. As was stated previously in this thread, an individual is on their own in this regard.

I have played around with the PDT files since the Battleground days. I've always taken the approach that I can't modify the game engine, but I can identify historical inaccuracies in the PDT. Changing the latter can create more Civil-war like game play. In the process I have encountered things which I thought to be program bugs, but later revealed themselves to be undocumented aspects of the game system. For example, a unit incurs a downhill movement cost which is 1/2 its uphill. I only discovered this in the process of developing a more robust system of movement -- I pitched base 12 some time back. No where will you find this documented -- it is now at Ken Miller's website. It came as a surprise to me, as it was to both Ken and John. Who knows what else lurks?


Fwiw, you can edit a scenario file like any text file and technically you can add in different PDTs that way (or maps) - but- it probably is not a good idea unless one has a lot of experience in it. I had to do that in Musket and Pike not too long ago... some REN scenarios that I posted to demonstrate to some guys that the engine was a little broader than they were giving it credit for; I guess ironically, it involved changing around OOB styles, and unit types, I also had to rename some weapons.

One reason that you have to have different weapons' slots (probably the main one) is that the number of weapons' slots are limited. In M&P for example, even though the engine is very closely related to NB you only have half the number of weapons' slots due to the need to have additional effectiveness ratings vs armoured targets.

Interesting info about the undocumented information; it makes one wonder how much else is out there -the only reason that I can think that this happens is that not many people play around with movement values ( I have no problem with ditching base 12 either - so I wonder what I will be coming across...). :)

Anyway - what Mr Frost wrote is exactly what I was meaning, some really informative material.

-----------
-----------

What Jim is writing about would be Fanatical ratings in the OOB file; I don't know that this is in the CWB engine - it is in the M&P engine and is a flag on the units lines. There are some documents available on how this works -I think maybe Bill Peters probably wrote some originally, although my main reference would be the one in REN which I have had to use pretty frequently. Actually it might not be the fanatical rating, now that I think of it - there are (iirc) 9 different morale ratings in both NB and M&P - with the higher ones = A, A+, A++, etc... and on top of that then you can rate lower morale classes as 'fanatical' which also has a similar impact.

_________________
[*]#72 LW Northern Apaches Hockey Team (2017)
[*]JTS Graphics Coordinator (one of them).
[*]JTS other duties as assigned...
[*]http://hist-sdc.com


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Improving the JTS/HPS Games!
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 7:20 pm
Posts: 134
Location: USA
Reading my previous post, I worded it rather poorly. The best method for incorporating new PDT values is to copy the existing SCN and edit it to point to the new PDT which one has created. This avoids the problem of modifying whatever passes as the "standard" PDT in a specific scenario. If one wishes to change the scenario in some other fashion, then the scenario editor is in order. I am wont to cut and paste parts of SCN files, but there are some things that cannot be done outside the editor for some reason.

_________________
MG Robert Frost
Army of Cumberland


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: