Total War in Germany 3.0

[Hadge]

Hi

ACE Mobile Force HQ is now in the "Canadian" Units Folder

Cheers

Chris

[Aaron]

Ok back on dry land and just check the link and everything is there so if theres any other problems let me know but i believe all the graphics r there except for 2 or 3 which i can post if someone can tell me what they r. And yes i know it was a pain it was my first scenario and i have learned from it, on my new scenario with the new oob i built with the help of 5 others from different countries as soon as the oob was done we started working on the graphics and i already have finished the graphics pack for the next time around and theres about 50 new icons, and i dont think some have ever been seen before with the new eqiup in the game.

Aaron

[Elxaime]

Hi Aaron -

Just had an interesting exchange with Glenn Saunders over how the infantry "patrolling" function works in Modern Campaigns vs. the deception effects of Spetznaz.

According to Glenn, patrolling effects only PARTISAN type enemy units deception effects, not INFANTRY (which is the unit type Spetznaz are flagged as). So NATO infantry, for example, placed on "patrolling" have no impact on the deception effects of nearby Spetznaz.

But here is a question - should it? It is really a subjective design issue. Does it make sense to re-categorize the Spetznaz as PARTISAN unit types so that NATO has the option of securing key roads by putting infantry in "patrolling" mode? This would bear in mind that there are other impacts for partisan unit types, if you were to re-flag the Spetznaz. Would it be a better reflection of reality to re-flag them? Or is it better simulation to leave them as is?

I pose the question since I know you are working up a new alternative campaign, and may also decide to revise Total War 3.0 further. So this is something you may want to consider. I am not sure what the right answer is.

[Elxaime]

[Aaron]

Hot fix on that supply source, thanks Elxaime,good call

Aaron

[Aaron]

I actually flagged spetsnaz as COM in the new oob, Just took a look at partisans since i didnt have much exp with them and its easy enough to change spetsnaz to partisans and they would have the same values and still be used the same way but as for should it be changed, i will have to talk to the people who have been helping me build the new game and c what everybodys thoughts r. If anyone has any thoughts on it please post.
3.0 is latest version been working on the new scenario in my free time. Hot fix is above on the supply issue, it was overlooked b/c there was a 100 vehicle supply unit on the same hex and it was assumed it was a supply source not trucks.

Aaron

[CptCav]

Tazaaron and Elxaime,

The PDT file already has a chance of detection built into the deception units. So, it is really a question of how easy do you want the deception units to be found.

Personally, I have made the Special Forces units classed as engineers in scenarios that I have designed so that they can damage bridges in their conventional mode. Although, I do not believe that players will use that feature much, but as they can perform that type of mission, I thought that it would be good to give them that feature in the game.

Regards,
CptCav

[Aaron]

Hey Cav, ya i have seen that in the pdt and when i added the 10SF group to the game i added values for nato deception. In the oob editor i made spetsnaz and the greenies demo capable as COM units. Does it have to be ENG to damage bridges, i thought u could just add it in the oob editor by checking demolition.

Aaron

[greg]

i try this in my own scn and a unit with demolition wish is not engineer could not destroy anything...

[CptCav]

As Greg points out, the DEMOLITION code does not work as we would think. I believe it is for the German robots used in one of the PzC games. It does not allow for blowing up bridges; only engineers have that capability in the game.

Regards,
CptCav