Unit Symbols - Not Consistent?

[MisterMark]

I only have Salerno 43 but I'm sure this is an issue on many other titles... but can anyone explain why some unit symbols on the map are not consistent with the unit symbol displayed in the unit box?

In the screenshot attached labeled 'Grille' we see the selected unit on the map (indicated by a pink arrow) use the 'regular' self propelled artillery nato symbol, but in the unit box the symbol is the 'heavy' self propelled artillery nato symbol.

Furthermore, the 'heavy' self propelled artillery nato symbol is represented in screenshot attachment titled 2DSymbolsMag (identified again with a pink arrow), which is from the master map symbol file in the game directory for the magnified view.   So if this symbol is available to be used, then why doesn't the game correlate and use the correct symbol for the magnified map view?  This is just one example but there are several units with this issue that I have noticed with this title.

-Mark

[MisterMark]

I only have Salerno 43 but I'm sure this is an issue on many other titles... but can anyone explain why some unit symbols on the map are not consistent with the unit symbol displayed in the unit box?

In the screenshot attached labeled 'Grille' we see the selected unit on the map (indicated by a pink arrow) use the 'regular' self propelled artillery nato symbol, but in the unit box it the symbol is the 'heavy' self propelled artillery nato symbol.

Furthermore, the 'heavy' self propelled artillery nato symbol is represented in screenshot attachment titled 2DSymbolsMag (identified again with a pink arrow), which is from the master map symbol file in the game directory for the magnified view.   So if this symbol is available to be used, then why doesn't the game correlate and use the correct symbol for the magnified map view?

-Mark

Maybe I should be asking a better question...  is it possible to edit one of the values in the units file in the game directory to tell  the game which symbol to use from the 2DSymbolsMag file?  Or is the symbol designated by editing parameters via the pcoob editor?

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I only have Salerno 43 but I'm sure this is an issue on many other titles... but can anyone explain why some unit symbols on the map are not consistent with the unit symbol displayed in the unit box?

In the screenshot attached labeled 'Grille' we see the selected unit on the map (indicated by a pink arrow) use the 'regular' self propelled artillery nato symbol, but in the unit box the symbol is the 'heavy' self propelled artillery nato symbol.

Furthermore, the 'heavy' self propelled artillery nato symbol is represented in screenshot attachment titled 2DSymbolsMag (identified again with a pink arrow), which is from the master map symbol file in the game directory for the magnified view.   So if this symbol is available to be used, then why doesn't the game correlate and use the correct symbol for the magnified map view?  This is just one example but there are several units with this issue that I have noticed with this title.

-Mark

I'd say it is an honest mistake.  I don't think it has any bearing on game play.  There are so many things involved in game design that it's tough to catch everything.

[Xerxes77]

Maybe I should be asking a better question...  is it possible to edit one of the values in the units file in the game directory to tell  the game which symbol to use from the 2DSymbolsMag file?  Or is the symbol designated by editing parameters via the pcoob editor?

I checked the scenario and can confirm there are some issues. I noticed for example a Hummel (150H) unit that has the same problem; it shows as heavy arty in the unit card but regular arty on the map NATO symbol.

Good news is you can fix it. Using the .oob editor you can edit a unit to set it to the desired unit type and that will take care of the map symbol. For example, you can set the unit type of the Hummel to "Heavy artillery" instead of "Artillery", save the Salerno.oob and next time you open the scenario you'll see the black bar on the side of the symbol.

Now suppose the map symbol is correct and the Hummel is supposed to be plain Artillery (I'm not sure myself). In that case the NATO symbol on the map is correct and you'd need to modify the graphic on the unit card. The small NATO symbols on the unit card are not taken from a separate file, but are instead part of the unit image. These are located in the proper national subfolder, in this example: Installation folder/German/Units/Hummel (150H).bmp. Some Paint / Photoshop skills are required, but the symbol is so small that there isn't much room for errors :-)

[MisterMark]

Maybe I should be asking a better question...  is it possible to edit one of the values in the units file in the game directory to tell  the game which symbol to use from the 2DSymbolsMag file?  Or is the symbol designated by editing parameters via the pcoob editor?

I checked the scenario and can confirm there are some issues. I noticed for example a Hummel (150H) unit that has the same problem; it shows as heavy arty in the unit card but regular arty on the map NATO symbol.

Good news is you can fix it. Using the .oob editor you can edit a unit to set it to the desired unit type and that will take care of the map symbol. For example, you can set the unit type of the Hummel to "Heavy artillery" instead of "Artillery", save the Salerno.oob and next time you open the scenario you'll see the black bar on the side of the symbol.

Now suppose the map symbol is correct and the Hummel is supposed to be plain Artillery (I'm not sure myself). In that case the NATO symbol on the map is correct and you'd need to modify the graphic on the unit card. The small NATO symbols on the unit card are not taken from a separate file, but are instead part of the unit image. These are located in the proper national subfolder, in this example: Installation folder/German/Units/Hummel (150H).bmp. Some Paint / Photoshop skills are required, but the symbol is so small that there isn't much room for errors :-)

Ah thanks Xerxes!  This is exactly the kind of answer I've been looking for.  And yes I have already been modding the symbols on the unit cards myself here and there... It's not so bad when you are zoomed in. 

Some of these corrections will be fairly easy to do and are pretty logical when it comes to what symbol they need to be edited to.  Others are a bit more confusing... for instance I see now that there is a StuG III in my scenario and it's map icon is 'Armor' but on the unit card is it designated as a 'Tank Destroyer'.  In doing some research I see the StuG III had a pretty good reputation as a tank killer, but I've always thought of the StuG III as more of a self propelled infantry assault gun.  So then uncertainty and questions come up...  Should the StuG III be symbolized as a tank destroyer or an self propelled infantry gun?  Or should it just stay the generic 'Armor' icon? 

Thoughts?

-Mark

[Xerxes77]

Ah thanks Xerxes!  This is exactly the kind of answer I've been looking for.  And yes I have already been modding the symbols on the unit cards myself here and there... It's not so bad when you are zoomed in. 

Some of these corrections will be fairly easy to do and are pretty logical when it comes to what symbol they need to be edited to.  Others are a bit more confusing... for instance I see now that there is a StuG III in my scenario and it's map icon is 'Armor' but on the unit card is it designated as a 'Tank Destroyer'.  In doing some research I see the StuG III had a pretty good reputation as a tank killer, but I've always thought of the StuG III as more of a self propelled infantry assault gun.  So then uncertainty and questions come up...  Should the StuG III be symbolized as a tank destroyer or an self propelled infantry gun?  Or should it just stay the generic 'Armor' icon? 

Thoughts?

-Mark

That's a good question, unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable enough to provide an authoritative answer... I do know that there were a few variants of the StuG III, and a quick peek at how a game like Panzer Corps handles them tells me that they do have different roles (StuG IIIB being classed as artillery and StuG IIIG as anti-tank).

If in doubt, I'd personally follow the OOB/map symbol and just modify the component image, as changing a unit's type in the oob may have unintended effects on its stats.

[Xerxes77]

Duplicated post, apparently don't have permission to delete it - sorry!

[Ricky B]

By 1943, the StuG variants were pretty universally armed with a longer barreled 75 and used to fight tanks. Early in the war, they were more of an infantry support weapon with a short barreled weapon. The ratings should be a good clue also, if the HA is fairly high, "tank destroyer", low HA would be a SPG/Inf support focused.

[Xerxes77]

Ok, thanks Ricky, with your information I dug a bit deeper into Salerno and I think I found the source of the issue - the NATO symbols on the unit cards seem to be based not on the stock .oob but on the McNamara Alt .oob.

Hence, the scenario Mark is playing (#430909_03_Salerno_Alt_1.scn, based on Salerno.oob) won't match the symbols on the map. For that to happen he should play instead #430909_03_Salerno_Alt_1_Alt.scn (yes, an Alt of an Alt), which uses the McNamara .oob (Salerno_Alt_McNamara.oob).

Using the StuG IIIg as an example:

- For all Salerno 43, the stock unit component is classed as "Armor" and has a HA of 24.
- In Salerno.oob, all StuGs are nerfed to a HA of 18, still under the "Armor" type.
- In the Salerno_Alt_McNamara.oob, however, the StuGs have a HA of 33 and their type is "Anti-Tank". The Hummel is also classed as Heavy Artillery, matching the NATO symbol on the card.

Moreover, there's a design document explaining the changes in the McNamara .oobs, which includes the following passages (bold is mine):

-Instituted the McNamara standardized database.  After years of research, the unit ratings used in Talonsoft’s old Campaign Series was taken and, through a mathematical formula, the data was converted into a database relevant to the Panzer Campaigns system. 

Many vehicles and guns were more or less the same ratings but where it differs is in the hard attack strengths of later war tanks and the defense strengths of some units and the overall lower assault ratings for armor (making infantry more powerful assets, vital for successful assaults).  Most of the deviation from the stock values begins to occur in the middle and late periods of the war.

and

Anti-tank guns, for the most part, are much more powerful now and have longer ranges.  But by the same token, they are also more vulnerable to artillery strikes and are almost completely impotent against infantry (except for a select few anti-tank guns who are now also useful against infantry as well).

Assault guns (AGs) and tank destroyers (TDs) are now very anemic in the assault category.  This is primarily due to the fact that they have no turret and must pivot steer in order to aim their weapons systems.  This makes them extremely vulnerable to infantry assaults.  Keep this in mind, as you would do better to think of tank destroyers and assault guns as “armored self propelled anti-tank/infantry guns”, which, in all actuality, is what they were. 

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

By 1943, the StuG variants were pretty universally armed with a longer barreled 75 and used to fight tanks. Early in the war, they were more of an infantry support weapon with a short barreled weapon. The ratings should be a good clue also, if the HA is fairly high, "tank destroyer", low HA would be a SPG/Inf support focused.

The assault gun version eventually became the stuH42.  I'm assuming the H was for Howitzer since it's main armament was a 105mm Howitzer.