Market-Garden Pontoon Bridges

[Aetius]

Got it
My Market-Garden_alt.pdt was overwriten by the pdt file from Volcano Man's art pack - Also named Market-Garden_alt.pdt.

I went back to the CD and re-installed it. Now I can also see the Allied Pontoon value for the Pole Options scenario and others as 15 instead of zero.
That also means that I won't be able to play any VM scenarios with the intended pdt, tough.

Rui

[Engelbrekt]

OK, I see the my mistake now. The second PDT is named Market-Garden_alt so I thought this was the Volcano Man Alt file, not an original file.

It also seems the VM alt PDT file replaces the stock file, and thereby the Pontoon ability of the Allies.

Thanks Glenn.

Edit: saw Aetius post after pressing reply

[Volcano Man]

Hmm, what are the odds of that? I had no intent on overwriting an original PDT, I simply made the PDT what I always name it with "_Alt" on the end of it. In this case there was a stock PDT file that happened to have the same name.

That said, it has been like this for many years -- it is amazing that this was not noticed before. In any case, I will fix the problem. I will have all the _Alt scenarios point to a different PDT file which will be renamed and I will put the stock PDT file in the next update so that it is properly restored. Sorry about that.

Additionally, I think I will give the wait:15 allied pontoon bridge building level to all _Alt scenarios. I see no reason why the Germans have this ability and the allies do not in all stock scenarios (except for the ones that utilize the stock _alt PDT file). Also, it is even more curious given that the stock campaign that uses the _alt PDT does not mention that the allies have a chance to build pontoon bridges it only states:

"In this scenario, the Allied Player is given good weather, a variety of drop choices for the Polish Parachute Brigade, and 30th Corps is not fixed at night, allowing for a more balanced Human vs. Human game."

[Glenn Saunders]

Also, it is even more curious given that the stock campaign that uses the _alt PDT does not mention that the allies have a chance to build pontoon bridges it only states:

Not curious when you consider that the contents of the overview in question, the name of the game files and the designer notes were all under the direction of Greg Smith - and he does things the way he wants to do things, puts n only the notes he wants.

Glenn

[Volcano Man]

Well, obviously he does things the way he wants do them, as we all do. However, to say that everything is done for a reason without a chance or possibility for error is unreasonable.

I am not saying that it is an error, that is not what I meant to imply in the post above. But, since you mention it, no where in the designer's notes document does he mention anything about pontoon bridging; nothing about why the axis have the ability and the allies do not in all campaign scenarios but one, nor why the fact that five of the six campaign scenarios grant the allies the ability build pontoon bridges yet if you do not read over the PDT values you wouldn't know it. Complicating the matter even more is that scenario #0917_05s_Market-Garden entitled "Historical Campaign Game (Pole options)", which implies that the scenario is historical minus the fact that the polish airborne have options, also has the ability for the allies to construct pontoon bridges. Combine all of this with the fact that it says nothing about this major difference in any of the scenario briefings certainly creates the potential to leave it up to curious speculation by the user.

I think MG44 is an excellent game and I certainly do not believe that the designer must comment on every design decision made. I am just taking what is there and what is mentioned and what is not mentioned and making a conclusion on how to edit the _Alt scenarios.

[Aetius]

I now remembered a post from a few years ago that said that, and I confirmed, the reason for the disparity in these values and for the existence of two pdt files was that, in the historical campaign game, the probability of large bridge destruction (the Waal bridges at Nijmegen) is 0%. If I remember correctly, the designer assumed that if no bridges would blow up, no need to build an engineer one, as the pontoon value was 0.
Wherever the probability of destruction is 20% (the alt.pdt), the allies have the pontoon bridge capabiliy at 15.

I remember this from memory and checked the pdt's, but was unable to search for the post. Actually, I am unable to find anything older tham May-June 2006. Is there any way to acess those posts or were they lost when the website was revamped?

Rui

[Volcano Man]

If I remember correctly, the designer assumed that if no bridges would blow up, no need to build an engineer one, as the pontoon value was 0. Wherever the probability of destruction is 20% (the alt.pdt), the allies have the pontoon bridge capabiliy at 15.

Now that would make perfect sense! The biggest thing that causes speculation is of course that something does not appear in the designer's notes (but not everyone remembers to note each decision), it is that the years where people tend to forget these things. Glenn does the best that he can in remembering little things like this but it only complicates the matter given so many PzC titles, and the different designers. No doubt that it had since been forgotten.

This is another one of those things too: that if you did not look at the PDT file you wouldn't know that the Wall and Nijmegen bridges could blow in the other five of six campaign scenarios, until it actually happened of course. Oh well, the issue will probably come up again ten years from now. ;)

[Glenn Saunders]

Well, obviously he does things the way he wants do them, as we all do. However, to say that everything is done for a reason without a chance or possibility for error is unreasonable.

sorry - ...what I meant by that Ed was Sturm when he is doing something didn't pay a lot of attention to things that I would normally do or document in Notes ect.

LOL - truth be told, I think there was some things that I wanted or requested that he might not even do just to piss me off <G>. But seriously - as I've said before - there are things in titles like Bulge and MG44 which are done a certain way and are beyond my scope to change.

Glenn

[Volcano Man]

...LOL - truth be told, I think there was some things that I wanted or requested that he might not even do just to piss me off <G>. But seriously - as I've said before - there are things in titles like Bulge and MG44 which are done a certain way and are beyond my scope to change.

Yep, I remember a lot of things like that. :)

[Dog Soldier]

I remember this from memory and checked the pdt's, but was unable to search for the post. Actually, I am unable to find anything older tham May-June 2006. Is there any way to acess those posts or were they lost when the website was revamped?

Rui

In the upper section of the MB is a link to the archived forums.



Dog Soldier