I need to understand these things to make a scenario...

[rbodleyscott]

if the overlay was invisible, how would players know except mousing over the tile? I use impassible terrain as an overlay to create lanes to compartmentalize fighting. right now, the small issue is that the cliff graphic for impassible look exactly like the graphic for elevation.

Then you will have to make a different texture as a base tile, as there is no space for any more overlay tiles.

The base textures for each set are in Tex0.TGA and TEX0_M.tga. (the M version is the fog of war version).

The tile textures are numbered from the top left corner:

x = 0 - 7 from left to right
y = 0 - 7 from top to bottom

The beige tiles

x 4-7, y 5
and
x 0-7, y 6

are (as far as I know) not currently used. They have dummy definitions - Tiles 45-56 in the Base Tiles.txt. The definitions specify which x,y location in the texture the Tile uses.

You can replace any of these to make your Impassible texture(s)

[fogman]

question regarding routing %. I understand that unlike FoG where each unit is worth the same, here it's the unitsize value (and not actual number of men) that is counted. so for instance, if an army is composed of the following:

unit 1: 200 men, unitsize 500
unit 2: 150 men, unitsize 500
unit 3: 250 men, unitsize 400
unit 4: 400 men, unitsize 600

if unit 3 is routed, then that would make it 400/2000 or 20%, correct?
are there any other factors going into calculating routing % other than this?

[rbodleyscott]

question regarding routing %. I understand that unlike FoG where each unit is worth the same, here it's the unitsize value (and not actual number of men) that is counted. so for instance, if an army is composed of the following:

unit 1: 200 men, unitsize 500
unit 2: 150 men, unitsize 500
unit 3: 250 men, unitsize 400
unit 4: 400 men, unitsize 600

if unit 3 is routed, then that would make it 400/2000 or 20%, correct?
are there any other factors going into calculating routing % other than this?

Mounted are taken as worth 1.5 times as much as foot.

So if all the above were foot, it would be 20%, but if some were mounted then you would multiply their unitsize by 1.5 for the calculation.

Nothing else.

Troops that have pursued or evaded off the table do not count as lost.

[fogman]

so if unit3 was cavalry, in lieu of 400/2000, would it be 600/2000 or 600/2200?

i want to make to make an artillery type unit into an objective point (because it just 'evaporates' when routed), can i assign to it any value for unitsize or is there a limit to individual unitsize ? is there a limit also to collective unitsize?

[rbodleyscott]

so if unit3 was cavalry, in lieu of 400/2000, would it be 600/2000 or 600/2200?

600/2200

I want to make to make an artillery type unit into an objective point (because it just 'evaporates' when routed), can i assign to it any value for unitsize or is there a limit to individual unitsize ? is there a limit also to collective unitsize?

Even though it evaporates when routed it still counts towards % routed - but not very highly because it is only unitsize 200.

However, if you increase its unitsize you will increase its ability to shoot and fight.

If you want to give it more value towards the break points you will have to alter the PercentRemaining() function in the MoreScenarioTools.BSF script. (And put the modded version in your custom campaign).

[fogman]

how do you remove an overlay tile ? or anything you've put down by mistake?

[rbodleyscott]

how do you remove an overlay tile ? or anything you've put down by mistake?

Base Tiles: Go into Tile placement mode, place a different tile.

Overlay Tiles: Go into Tile placement mode, mouse over the tile and press Delete.

Objects: Go into Object placement mode, mouse over the tile and press Delete. (This will usually remove all objects from the tile).

Units: Go into Unit placement mode, mouse over the unit, hold down Delete and L-click.

[fogman]

where/how do you specify the number of turns and the victory conditions?

[rbodleyscott]

where/how do you specify the number of turns and the victory conditions?

In the scenario script. See the sample SCENARIOTEMPLATE.BSF script in the main directory. The comments in that are hopefully explanatory - in PreBattleSetup() and VictoryConditions()

[fogman]

this is ridiculously difficult for people who don't have a background in programming. i can't even figure out what line in the code is for number of turns and army break thresholds! and frankly i shouldn't have to as the editor interface should take care of these things. i hope it's in the work because there's no way there is going to be a large library of users made scenarios in these conditions. i have made 3 FoG scenarios in the time i've been stuck with this!

[Miletus]

My background actually is in programming, but I must admit that like Fogman I've found scenario building too complex to bother with so far. I daresay I'll have another go at it eventually, but it's not exactly fun to do - it feels like an awful lot of hard work to produce a single scenario, and I don't really want to spend my leisure time drilling down to that level of detail. Like most of these tasks I'm sure it's a lot more straightforward once you've built your first couple of scenarios, but I'm going to be sticking to Skirmish games for now. Life's just too short...

I don't know if it's possible to produce an easier interface for scenario builders in a future release, automating at least some of the tasks. It would almost certainly be a whole lot of work, but nonetheless it might repay the investment on the part of the development team if, as expected, they are going to produce versions for other time periods. Because for sure people will pick up on it as a negative factor if that doesn't happen, IMHO.

[rbodleyscott]

this is ridiculously difficult for people who don't have a background in programming. i can't even figure out what line in the code is for number of turns and army break thresholds! and frankly i shouldn't have to as the editor interface should take care of these things. i hope it's in the work because there's no way there is going to be a large library of users made scenarios in these conditions. i have made 3 FoG scenarios in the time i've been stuck with this!

Sadly, the downside of flexibility and modability is that many things are in scripts. Otherwise they wouldn't be so flexible and moddable.

I referred you to the ScenarioTemplate.BSF file which is quite well commented.

For example, as previously stated, the turn limit is set in the PreBattleSetup function. You can find this easily using a search. It is commented as below, which I think is fairly explanatory.

Code: Select all

// Needs to be set if scenario uses deadline (turn limit) - note that side 0's first turn is turn 0, side 1's first turn is turn 1, side 0's second turn is turn 2 and so on.
// If it is set at 0, or not set at all, the scenario will have no turn limit.
// SetUniversalVar("ScenarioDeadline", 32);

So just remove the comment marks from the "ScenarioDeadline" line and set the turn number to whatever you want.

The VictoryConditions function is commented in significantly more detail, and if you read those comments you will see where to put the army break thresholds as parameters to the StandardVictoryConditions function.

[rbodleyscott]

I don't know if it's possible to produce an easier interface for scenario builders in a future release, automating at least some of the tasks. It would almost certainly be a whole lot of work, but nonetheless it might repay the investment on the part of the development team if, as expected, they are going to produce versions for other time periods.

We will certainly look into it.

Apart from

1) Turns deadline
2) Breakpoints

what else should it contain?

[Miletus]

We will certainly look into it.

Apart from

1) Turns deadline
2) Breakpoints

what else should it contain?

That's the million dollar question of course

I can't answer it off the cuff, though hopefully other people will chip in with specific ideas. But going back to my IT days, I'd say that basically the ideal would be to create a user-friendly options screen for all the main points where, currently, scenario designers are having to find and alter scripts and values in scattered file locations. In principle I'm sure it's possible, though as I said above it would be time consuming.

Would it repay that time and effort in commercial terms? I suspect it probably would, in that you'd end up with a product that enabled your average user to create new scenarios. That in turn would provide a significantly greater replay value and longevity, and would also bring in its wake an expanded online community where people discussed and swapped their scenarios, effectively growing the customer base.

[Miletus]

NB
If you did go down this route I'm sure you'd have plenty of enthusiastic beta testers, me included!

[fogman]

FUNCTION PreBattleSetup()
{
// Set multiplier for unit strength reporting
SetUniversalVar("StrengthMultiplier", 50);



// Customise units for scenarios
CustomiseUnits();

// Set whether standard deployment rules apply and (if so) set standard deployment bounds.
SetUniversalVar("StandardDeployment", 1);
SetStandardDeploymentBounds();

}


FUNCTION VictoryConditions()
{
StandardVictoryConditions(GetCampaignVar("BreakPoint1"), GetCampaignVar("BreakPoint2"), GetCampaignVar("BreakPoint1"), GetCampaignVar("BreakPoint2"), 2, 0);

return 1; // VictoryConditions() must return a non-zero value so that the main program knows it exists and therefore not to use the default version.
}

// called every game tick.
// You would tend to use this for reactive logic and win situations etc
FUNCTION Tick(side)
{

}

This is what i see for Seminara:

In the PreBattleSetup, does that mean there is no turn limit?
In the StandardVictoryConditions, i don't see any percentages, does that mean it's the standard 40% and 25% more or 60%?

[rbodleyscott]

FUNCTION PreBattleSetup()
{
// Set multiplier for unit strength reporting
SetUniversalVar("StrengthMultiplier", 50);



// Customise units for scenarios
CustomiseUnits();

// Set whether standard deployment rules apply and (if so) set standard deployment bounds.
SetUniversalVar("StandardDeployment", 1);
SetStandardDeploymentBounds();

}


FUNCTION VictoryConditions()
{
StandardVictoryConditions(GetCampaignVar("BreakPoint1"), GetCampaignVar("BreakPoint2"), GetCampaignVar("BreakPoint1"), GetCampaignVar("BreakPoint2"), 2, 0);

return 1; // VictoryConditions() must return a non-zero value so that the main program knows it exists and therefore not to use the default version.
}

// called every game tick.
// You would tend to use this for reactive logic and win situations etc
FUNCTION Tick(side)
{

}

This is what i see for Seminara:

In the PreBattleSetup, does that mean there is no turn limit?
In the StandardVictoryConditions, i don't see any percentages, does that mean it's the standard 40% and 25% more or 60%?

Yes and Yes, but there is more to setting the latter up than copying the above code. Please look at ScenarioTemplate.BSF in the main directory, as previously suggested. You will find it much clearer if you do.

[TheGrayMouser]

I don't know if it's possible to produce an easier interface for scenario builders in a future release, automating at least some of the tasks. It would almost certainly be a whole lot of work, but nonetheless it might repay the investment on the part of the development team if, as expected, they are going to produce versions for other time periods.

We will certainly look into it.

Apart from

1) Turns deadline
2) Breakpoints

what else should it contain?

Considering this is 2014/20014 and the Stub engine is a newer engine the following should , at minimum be 100% accessable/executed from the editor itself:

*I should be able to use ONLY the editor to name a scenario and have access to that scenario whithout having to move BSF files or add the name of my new scenario to a text file so I can play it
*the basic skirmish AI should already be present (basically the engine shoudler create the BSF from when you save within the editor)
*same thing with simple victory conditions and turn lengths
*the UI is already present in the editor to assign "AI groups" add to this to allow simple UI scripting for example create a group, right click on hex you want the AI to advance this group to with whatever AI you chose (seek and destroy etc) The editor shoud be able to write this to the BSF file FOR you

More complicated scripting is of course up to to the desgner to figure out via coding ie units expoding, unit swapping ( ie Biococca) etc

[TheGrayMouser]

The Mouser's answer pretty much cover your questions.

I would add that although fighting strength is calculated from the UnitSize * Current TotalMen / Original TotalMen the maximum strength that can fight against any one opponent is UnitSize 600 for foot and UnitSize 400 for cavalry.

The additional UnitSize beyond those figures is assumed to be in rear ranks too far away to contribute to the fighting - so mostly provides spare men to replace losses in the front ranks. In a mixed unit the fighting troops will be assumed to be in the same proportion as in the whole unit.

So a Later Tercio with UnitSize 1000 and 60% muskets, only has 600 UnitSize in the fighting ranks and hence will shoot with a UnitSize of 60% of 600 = 360. Of course it can suffer UnitSize 400 losses before it suffers any reduction in firepower.

A normal pike and shot unit with UnitSize 600 and 66% muskets will shoot with 66% of 600 = 396 UnitSize at first, but as soon as it suffers any losses, its firepower will diminish accordingly.

Hi RBS, can you expand this a little?

When analyzing the concept Unit size vs max size that can fight per above, this is what I conclude(assuming just infantry for the moment):
Units with a unit size > 600 are "inefficient" if the # of men equals and or exceeds the unitsize
units with a unit size = 600 are 100% efficient if the # of men equals the units size
units with a unit size = 600 but #of men < 600 are xtra efficient???

so a typical P&Shot unit has #men 500 units size 600 and has 66% muskets... yet despite only having #men actually ARMED with muskets being 330, they fire as if having 396?

[rbodleyscott]

The Mouser's answer pretty much cover your questions.

I would add that although fighting strength is calculated from the UnitSize * Current TotalMen / Original TotalMen the maximum strength that can fight against any one opponent is UnitSize 600 for foot and UnitSize 400 for cavalry.

The additional UnitSize beyond those figures is assumed to be in rear ranks too far away to contribute to the fighting - so mostly provides spare men to replace losses in the front ranks. In a mixed unit the fighting troops will be assumed to be in the same proportion as in the whole unit.

So a Later Tercio with UnitSize 1000 and 60% muskets, only has 600 UnitSize in the fighting ranks and hence will shoot with a UnitSize of 60% of 600 = 360. Of course it can suffer UnitSize 400 losses before it suffers any reduction in firepower.

A normal pike and shot unit with UnitSize 600 and 66% muskets will shoot with 66% of 600 = 396 UnitSize at first, but as soon as it suffers any losses, its firepower will diminish accordingly.

Hi RBS, can you expand this a little?

When analyzing the concept Unit size vs max size that can fight per above, this is what I conclude(assuming just infantry for the moment):
Units with a unit size > 600 are "inefficient" if the # of men equals and or exceeds the unitsize
units with a unit size = 600 are 100% efficient if the # of men equals the units size
units with a unit size = 600 but #of men < 600 are xtra efficient???

so a typical P&Shot unit has #men 500 units size 600 and has 66% muskets... yet despite only having #men actually ARMED with muskets being 330, they fire as if having 396?

Eh? No.

All combat calculations are based on UnitSize, which is a measure of unit fighting power not related on a 1:1 basis to the number of men in the unit - for example cavalrymen obviously have more fighting power man for man than infantry do.
The number of men just keeps track of losses. So a Pike and Shot unit of UnitSize 600 and with 500 men is at full strength and fights at maximum effect. As it loses men it drops effect accordingly.
The 396 you quote above above is UnitSize (i.e. fighting power) not men.

A unit of original UnitSize > 600 fights (apart from possible keil bonus) as if it was of UnitSize 600, until such time as its losses (calculated proportionally) bring its effective UnitSize down below 600.

So the larger units are better at taking losses, but don't (unless they have a keil bonus) fight better. Of course Tercios and Keils also have the benefit of being harder/impossible to flank.