Mega New Elk WIP
-
Back to production, so when I drafted at first I had this as a vague approach. Taking the G40 territories and those production values, then doubled that production value before dividing and distributing the PUs among the new Polygons.
Example would be Germany in the smaller 1942 board is worth say 10, so then on G40 you get that same basic area split into 2 territories worth 5 each. Here I just thought that the initial value could be higher, so say 20 PUs rather than 10 at the start of that process for determining what those regions would be worth, so it could be divided up more readily.
Without that initial production increase x2 to ballpark, the larger board values were generally too low, and even on the reg G40 sorta too low (without objectives to pad the totals there). Creates some discrepancies going from the earlier iterations out to the more recent one. So say when Northwestern Europe was first added as it's own discrete tile out of what used to be just Western Europe, or a little further to add Denmark and split spots in France and Northwest Europe again. Or where the older territories of say E. Europe or Karelia get broken down further to add in a Baltic State, W. Russia etc. Or at any point when new tiles have been inserted. Usually that would be done requiring some minor adjustments to the production spread, so going a little higher seemed to make sense.
In much the same way, I'd think we'd want to ballpark TUV at sorta about double that standard amount, in many cases at least, in order to accommodate these splits. Here things can get pretty challenging though. Total number of hitpoints or TUV attack/defense power, gets weighted a little differently when it comes to aircraft. or bombers especially. Simple doubling might not always give us the best results for unit totals by type, but I think it would at least give us a bit of ceiling there to work from. Or a way to use the standardized forces at a given start date, say a 1940, might look like G40, just with twice number of total sculpts, or something under that amount, not over. I mean really almost the lower the TUV count at the start the better. Easier for both the player and the computer probably to get their bearings that way.
I think it's very easy and readily understood by the player if the starting purse is lower than the first turn production capacity, like it doesn't need to be 1:1 there, even though that does make for a cleaner stats window hehe. An easy way to hit the breaks on round 1, is just to go like half the regular purse, though after that recuring income and unit attrition/replacement via purchasing would have to drive it I think, just from the sheer number of PUs involved.
Doubling for Unit costs would also be a relatively simple thing to grasp I think. I do worry a bit though about some of the ready calcs and mnemonics and such, if adopting the x2 price point. I mean in the abstract it should make no difference at all, but I think psychologically it might be a tough sell. Especially since I want to try this other thing with the m3 factory rail concept cooked into it. Another somewhat simple to grasp idea would be for Repair costs to double or something similar.
Something like a DoW token, or a Tech token, some form of investment per turn could be a natural cash sink at some higher level, to even the scores.
Introducing Convoy mechanics, whether along the G40 model for that or the older schemes of say Europe 2000 is a bit of a sticking point. On one hand I like very much the idea of money being directly attached to the sea zones, because it does encourage both the player and computer to contest the lanes, but this is not the system that G40 deploys. There is a bit of a precedent from older boards, though there the money is always attached to a specific nation, as opposed to just allowing for sz control = 1 PU to whoever takes it over first. If not adding any additonal sea zone breaks it's at about 130-ish extra PUs per game round in contention on the water. They're not all as easily contested in the same way though. For example, it's challenging for Germany or Italy to continually disrupt the Atlantic sea zones, though they maybe have an easier time in their more core zones around the Baltic and the Med. Similarly Japan can sorta globe trot if left unchecked to claim sea zones cash, and it can give a reason for fleets to attempt a spread. This would be another big novelty, on par I think with introducing Factory Rail into the mix, so I worry a bit about going too big there or overly complex. I think the only downside really to the G40 system for convoys, is that it's rather hard to parse/calc since it involves counting unit totals, and coastal PU totals, also there can be rolls so it's quite involved. On G40 map is a bit more simplistic but here, quite a lot of coastal territories if trying to use that system, and it doesn't really do much for those intermediate transit sea zones, which is more where I imagined we'd want to create a back and forth, or at least deadzones being contested by fleets.
I think I would be more inclined to option on the sea zone system that just does a universal 1 PU and lets everyone try their best to collect on that, but in the standard order of phases, collect income comes last, so this is actually quite a bit of cash changing hands. A single convoy under that scheme could produce +1 PU multiple times if going back and forth between Axis Allies in the same game round. I'm not entirely sure which approach is best. Another method would be to have these zones dispersed and with more concentrated values for example +5 or +10 or quantified out for those PUs. I think the control flag concept works well enough to indicate ownership, similar to the paintovers on land. It is kinda cool to see the oceans more lit up that way.
In any case, that's about where it's at in terms of potential PUs in the water. I don't think I would go higher than 1 there, if trying to assign a value to everything, and then probably assigning control of many more starting sea zones to Axis, so that Allies must first move to reclaim that production before they can convert it to income.
Right then just trying to map it out a bit in my head, or kicking the ideas around, before trying to tackle it in earnest. Right now I'm still trying to get my head around some of the basic entry stuff like using those variables to group TTs by PU value, and to get the VCs on their separate line. Last time I tried it, I got the stars to show, but blanked the PUs. Plus there are labelling adjustments, so until that's all done, probably need to cool my jets. But it's fun to think on for me
-
@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:
Last time I tried it, I got the stars to show, but blanked the PUs.
Yea I seen that, this should correct that plus have the updated PUs changes for the '40:
Oops, it happens this is the (hopefully) good file:
mega_new_elk_1940.xmlCheers...
-
@wc_sumpton Badass! I was able to get that one to fire up and see what's going on there. Sweet!
Thanks man
I think I was having an issue there getting out of sync with xml, on account of labelling adjustments for the centers and such in that last folder I grabbed.
Initially I had provided a big block of text with all my naming suggestions that was pre-alphabetized. Since I typically had the City or Metro name coming before the more generic regional/state designation, it's fine if the first part of the name is the part chosen, but if it's the second part then that stuff will be re-ordered if doing a quickie replace.
For example Ploiesti-E. Romania was under "P" for Ploiesti, whereas Warsaw- Cen. Poland, was under "W" for the first portion of the label. That'd be relatively straight forward if always using the first label, but then there are other spots where I used a rather different convention - of combining 2 metros, or 2 regions into a single tile. Example would be a spot like say Arizona-New Mexico where I combined 2 US states with no Metro there. You could call it just Arizona to preserve the alphabeta on it, but then that would be a little weird sometimes if doing an earlier scenario. Initially I had in mind a late 19th century or WW1, so you had a slightly more sensible 'New Mexico' Territory label for that time period, still an anachronism since AZ and NM didn't happen till 1912, but sorta worked there. Similarly if bouncing between eras, there will be the more familiar issues, like whether to call it Leningrad or St. Petersburg, or Oslo vs Christiania, depending on whether the timeline is pre-1925 or not.
I'm not super particular about the names chosen, some are rather arbitrary or catch all, it's just that for the skeleton of the thing, clearly the labels need to get changed/knocked out first for the map display there, cause otherwise I get lost in the weeds hehe.
Also, I anticipate at least a couple typos here and there if doing a big switcheroo. Example right now Mecklenburg is missing the n reads Meckleburg, or any of those goofs I might have made early on that where later cleaned up in the GCD. Pinsk we already got, but you know, just needs that double checker first before we can bang out the rest of the stuff that relies on the center labels to be all consistent to fire up proper. I think next round on the GIT should be cleaner, Bill was trying to get it sorted so we wouldn't have so many extra game files from that first round of experimentation
-
yea I got the VC's sorted a few days ago but imagine wc's will be a cleaner look.
I haven't updated as I'm still trying to clean the games folder.I guess I will so we don't get too much duplicate action going.
Gonna battle git some more today. Ending up bingeing on Reacher yesterday since Amazon free this month lol
-
@beelee oh we'll get there for sure. I can see it now - see the daylight I mean.
Haha right on, I hear ya. Black coffee! 'Details matter!" hehe
I haven't caught up there for the latest special investigations, but I do miss Roscoe
I think I fell off when the T-1000 showed up last time. Somehow that dude is making a pretty nice comeback, doing the Yellowstone moves and that one and such.
I'm just watching DARK again with my dogs. It's their favorite I think. Everything is connected lol
-
yea Roscoe was pretty sweet
This one better than season 2. It was kind of a dissapointment.He's his usual ruthless self in this one. If you like that sorta thing
Stalin needs to attack the reich and then I'll get us up to date
Edit
Here's latest
https://github.com/beelee1/mega_new_elk
I haven't looked at wc's latest yet. I most likely will incorporate it in the next one, unless I miraculously made my stuff as clean as his always is
Doubtful
I got a pretty good idea what's happening with games. Just need that last bit of brain power to make it happen. Some days it works better than others lol
-
@beelee I did quick check of the names
Pelelui-Palau Is. should be Peleliu-Palau Is.
Prypriat should be Prypyat (or Prypiat)
Rio Grande Du Sol should be Rio Grande do Sol
Rzesow should be Rzeszow
Santo Domingo-Domenica should be Santo Domingo-Dominican -
@rogercooper Excellent catches! This was also my hope that if it did the map display thing, then if I goofed would be easier to catch my goofs. I'm very prone to typographical mistakes and in constant need of an editor.
Yeah all those corrections for sure! Good eye!
Hopefully we can get it dialed and then should be a little easier once it's set up in the bones. Thanks again for the help
-
@black_elk Would you like me to check geographical errors as well?
-
That would be rad!
We may have to make some compromises based on the needs of the gameplay, or how difficult it is to say change a label compared to redrawn stuff in the polys, but definitely if something jumps out as particularly conspicuous or just plain off hehe. When transcribing stuff initially, sometimes I would reverse particularly characters, but then it just wouldn't even register for me, like by brain would just blast past I guess. As if everything on land might have been just an abstraction the way sea zones are just some number. Ideally the contours in place on land should give an impression though, something that feels familiar enough to riff on for these target dates. Maybe set a few different time periods to cover without having to make too many poly adjustments for that. Sorta the ideal of one map with multiple potential games, but then the period target changed so many times over the years, there are like these little vestigial remains of prior attempts or things I'd have just missed in the port at whatever step. If anything though, kinda fun for maybe a where waldo or crossword puzzle for the history buffs and the double check. If we can spot the goofs early, gets the gold star cause then it's nice and tidy. Easier for the relief stuff. Even if stuff doesn't ultimately have to all display, nice to have the option off/on reading cleanly
-
I've got the xml's updated with @RogerCooper name changes, including centers, place, polygons and pu_place.
Next, I would like to work on units. I would like to replace "infantry" with "Infantry", "mech_infantry" with "Halftrack" etc.
Or maybe named units like "Panzer III", "Tiger II". This is up to you.Let me know.
Cheers...
-
@wc_sumpton Sounds awesome!
Hopefully, for some of the territory labels at least, the problem may go away when we shorten the names a bit for the map display on. Like if the error was in the second name and we can just crop it down to the first name and such. That sort of thing.
For unit labels/naming conventions, I think it would be helpful to default to whatever G40 uses for the standard roster. Just so as not to confuse players who come over from the basic G40 game with those sorts of unit naming expectations. This would be to retain the option to use whatever tech code or HR type options might be available from the standard games.
That said, if doing the rename on anything unit-wise, I think it would be optimal to choose names that don't have variant spellings in American vs British standards. For example Tank is always a Tank, compared to Armour vs Armor, or Harbour vs Harbor etc that sort of thing. Just so we don't have to start a spelling war where one could be avoided altogether if we'd just picked something different for that initially. We have "font map and color" in the game settings, I'm sure some users would prefer colour. Maybe hue would have worked, but it's just one of those things. Hard to go back once everyone gets used it being called 'such and such' all I was thinking.
I'm not the one to fight the spelling war though, like I'm just the most terrible typist in our whole squad probably. I'm happy to defer or delegate on that, for sure hehe
-
Having done a quick analysis of the views for GCD, over 10+ to 1 of the views come from the US so I would keep US spelling and Im an English man.
-
-
-
Of note in '40 the UK_Pacific was removed, there were no units and only India was listed as a Capital under British control. Unless the Pacific 40 territories are to be given, I don't see a need to add them back. All unit are changed over to British, so they basically have no movement or combat.
Cheers...
-
yea so this is what I had yesterday 1.343
Now I have
The xml says 1.34 also
Anyway, I'm not quite certain how to add that back as a merge will wipeout most of your stuff. We need the name_place, pu_place and place
I made a few name changes as well but not too many. They can be added in easy enough.
I'll see what it looks like in a bit.
-
I'm very sorry, I did not add the name_place file, also from viewing your pictures, I can see you downloaded before I move vc.prg back to the misc folder. The vc star you are seeing is the small default included as a default. The name_place has been readded. Please check, this is what I am seeing here:
Hoping this helps.
Cheers...
-
oh yay ! Looks as if we're back in sync
Edit
I'm not sure how to handle the multiple xmls going forward as I'll be continuing to change the names as I work through place and the PU locations.I guess I will just keep track of which names I change and make note of that in the PR comments. Then one can update the others at their leisure. Of course triplea will tell what's off when you fire it up but probably more efficient listing them going forward.
Right arm. I should be close to knocking G out tonight. Or mainland Europe anyways
Nice work wc
-
Really, really sorry about that! I had thought that I had downloaded your latest update prior to making any changes. But as we are not in sync again, as I am adding the captureUnitOnEnteringBy for Axis and Allied neutrals. Does not affect the main map but does '40 start.
Cheers...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login