ACW Supply

[-72-]

Fwiw, personally, I wouldn't touch that Overland scenario - and it would be unwise to use that as any sort of metric, largely because if one reads through its tons of house rules (relative to anything else), and the rules (that in my opinion most people might simple dive into and overlook) that is a work around to a replacement system that relies on the honour system .... well, it's just not workable. I think I might have mentioned that in the test for it.  Not a fan, so personally I would find the longest scenario in any other title than Overland...

When working on a M&P project intended for publication, it involved coding the PDTs, OOBs in a simple text editor. I preferred Notepad ++ (too cheap for UltraEdit which is nice, but well ... maybe someday ...), but also had to do some troubleshooting when I was testing out the last round of engine changes in Musket and Pike (well last round for me ... that was I guess about a year and a half ago) ... what happened was when introducing the additional numbers of sides the engine was still calling up the old numbers (which included Ammo Levels, A/I coding, and VPs (I think), in SCN files in a text editor as well.

There isn't any secret manual for it either, it was all trial and error (at least for me) even when doing some work for JTS.

As it stands right now, I am working on a personal project, and waiting on an updated build of the engine. The one I have is a development build that doesn't work with all of the optional rules making it impossible to put together OOBs and test out combat modelling without switching to the Renaissance title. As the sides are a bit different between titles, I made the executive decision not to code any additional OOBs in REN, as I was facing having to redo them all in another title (read that to mean that the sides from each title are not using the same slots) ... made a bit more confusing by the actual nation names are all aliases so you have to keep several sets of names straight (which doesn't always happen.).  I have been working on some things with a Wabash 1791 OOB; I have this habit of using 'non-standard' use of units (meaning it is allowed in the engine, regardless of if a published scenario designer had made use of it... learned some stuff too).

But sure- I will agree with you on documentation, but the thing is, it isn't hidden away. It doesn't exist. Not the manuals at least.

[2-81 Armor]

Fwiw, personally, I wouldn't touch that Overland scenario - and it would be unwise to use that as any sort of metric, largely because if one reads through its tons of house rules (relative to anything else), and the rules (that in my opinion most people might simple dive into and overlook) that is a work around to a replacement system that relies on the honour system .... well, it's just not workable. I think I might have mentioned that in the test for it.  Not a fan, so personally I would find the longest scenario in any other title than Overland...

When working on a M&P project intended for publication, it involved coding the PDTs, OOBs in a simple text editor. I preferred Notepad ++ (too cheap for UltraEdit which is nice, but well ... maybe someday ...), but also had to do some troubleshooting when I was testing out the last round of engine changes in Musket and Pike (well last round for me ... that was I guess about a year and a half ago) ... what happened was when introducing the additional numbers of sides the engine was still calling up the old numbers (which included Ammo Levels, A/I coding, and VPs (I think), in SCN files in a text editor as well.

There isn't any secret manual for it either, it was all trial and error (at least for me) even when doing some work for JTS.

As it stands right now, I am working on a personal project, and waiting on an updated build of the engine. The one I have is a development build that doesn't work with all of the optional rules making it impossible to put together OOBs and test out combat modelling without switching to the Renaissance title. As the sides are a bit different between titles, I made the executive decision not to code any additional OOBs in REN, as I was facing having to redo them all in another title (read that to mean that the sides from each title are not using the same slots) ... made a bit more confusing by the actual nation names are all aliases so you have to keep several sets of names straight (which doesn't always happen.).  I have been working on some things with a Wabash 1791 OOB; I have this habit of using 'non-standard' use of units (meaning it is allowed in the engine, regardless of if a published scenario designer had made use of it... learned some stuff too).

But sure- I will agree with you on documentation, but the thing is, it isn't hidden away. It doesn't exist. Not the manuals at least.

This is really a pretty useful discussion I think.

At times I admit I do get frustrated, and wish for tools and other things I doubt we'll ever see.

In the past I had a somewhat brief association with WDS, and when I was there I did see how stretched the tiny staff was (just one programmer who was part time, one person doing detail work on maps, and various designers with access to some but not all tools for a particular project. Then there were playtesters. That was about it.) to my knowledge nobody was getting a salary, and John Tiller needed to make any major game system changes to the source code.

I've been using Tiller products since the ancient times when he was with Talonsoft. The very first thing of his that I can remember was a very early sort of PzC/PzB clone that dealt with the Battle of the Bulge. The title escapes me though. There were also the very early renditions of the ACW and Napoleonic series. When HPS was his publisher I remember playing the first release of PzC, "Smolensk '41", and later on the very first ACW title "Campaign Corinth". I think I'm talking about things that were 20+ years ago now.

All these games/series have a somewhat common system, that with modifications can be adapted to just about any time period or situation. Sometimes with varied success, but it does work. This is nothing new really. There is another well known designer dating back to the 1980's (now with Matrix Games) who has been using the same basic system all along for mostly monster sized games, and with success.

Where I get frustrated is when it appears to me that the Napoleonic/ACW series get less attention than Panzer Campaigns, Panzer Battles, First World War, and even Modern Campaigns. Why this is so I don't know, but I do suspect that has to do with popularity, sales, and programming time.

I'll also admit that I can be somewhat harsh when frustrated. I just can't see why the Black Powder games can't have a rudimentary replacement system like PzC, or a supply system like that series has. As I mentioned, they seem to all be working from the same basic engine. If PzC, and other series have the ability to set a replacement % for units within formations using the OOB editor, I don't see why the Black Powder games shouldn't too. The same feeling extends to the supply system, and even nit-picky details like having "real" engineers/pioneers with real abilities rather than just a name.

So, I get frustrated when working with something as large and complex as the Atlanta scenario I mentioned. I got even more frustrated when some things being buried in the source code got mentioned.

Comment was made about that 1390 colossus from Overland. It's very true that it is pretty much unplayable without a lot of book keeping, house rules, work arounds, and player trust. The designer (I think it was John Ferry) made a valiant attempt working with what was available. He most likely could have gotten a lot further if he had the features I talk about two paragraphs above. I'd never attempt to play it myself, but it sure is something to look at in the editor. Sort of like what Richard Berg's old "Campaign In North Africa" game was to the paper/counter genre.

In closing, sorry about sounding antagonistic. I also know that the likely hood of ever seeing any of the features from PzC being transferred to Black Powder is about nil. That's just life, and in the end JTS/WDS is a business.

[Gary McClellan]

Lots in here, and it's fairly complex.

I'm not privy to the sales numbers, but my understanding has always been that the Panzer Campaigns games have always led the way in terms of sheer sales and popularity. I have no real sense of the newer Panzer Battles, or Modern Campaigns games, and how they fit into that.

I think one source of your frustration is that there is a certain disagreement between people of what the blackpowder games are. Are they simply a tactical game, or are they operational/tactical? That really does make a great deal of difference, and many of your frustrations (like replacements and supply system) are born of that. Those are considerations that really come into play as the engine gets pushed further and further into being operational games.

One thing I noticed working with John over the years, is that he always very much had his idea of what the game was, and in the end, he made the final call. I could request something, but if it didn't meet his vision, it didn't happen. Now, I never worked on NAP/ACW, and there weren't really any 2 day battles in the Seven Years War, so I never pushed into that aspect of things, so I'm not sure if that preference for tactical vs operational/tactical was something that came from John, or just a reflection of the specific pushes and requests from the designers of those games.

I do think that for a whole raft of reasons, the core blackpowder engine (M&P, EAW, NAP, ACW) really struggles as you try to push into operational concepts, and I'd rather see new games with a truly operational focus than trying to expand into a blended Operational/Tactical approach.

[2-81 Armor]

Lots in here, and it's fairly complex.

I'm not privy to the sales numbers, but my understanding has always been that the Panzer Campaigns games have always led the way in terms of sheer sales and popularity.  I have no real sense of the newer Panzer Battles, or Modern Campaigns games, and how they fit into that.

I think one source of your frustration is that there is a certain disagreement between people of what the blackpowder games are.  Are they simply a tactical game, or are they operational/tactical?  That really does make a great deal of difference, and many of your frustrations (like replacements and supply system) are born of that.  Those are considerations that really come into play as the engine gets pushed further and further into being operational games.

One thing I noticed working with John over the years, is that he always very much had his idea of what the game was, and in the end, he made the final call.  I could request something, but if it didn't meet his vision, it didn't happen.  Now, I never worked on NAP/ACW, and there weren't really any 2 day battles in the Seven Years War, so I never pushed into that aspect of things, so I'm not sure if that preference for tactical vs operational/tactical was something that came from John, or just a reflection of the specific pushes and requests from the designers of those games.

I do think that for a whole raft of reasons, the core blackpowder engine (M&P, EAW, NAP, ACW) really struggles as you try to push into operational concepts, and I'd rather see new games with a truly operational focus than trying to expand into a blended Operational/Tactical approach.

There's a lot to think about here but I do believe you are right. The longest ACW scenarios that I've either played or heard discussed were anywhere from 2-3 days in length. Ones that seem to work well anyway.

Anything longer is going to probably need things that just aren't provided or intended. I'm wondering if even the full Seven Days scenario in Campaign Peninsula isn't close to breaking things?

Time to stop the grand projects and get back to earth. The upside is that I've learned a lot about how things work even under the hood.

The Black Powder games do seem like a hybrid mix of tactical and operational. HPS has a series called Marching Eagles that I may look into. It seems to be more geared towards what I desire for longer, ongoing battles. I should stick to the JTS titles for a more tactical fix, and stop trying to push the editor that does exist into doing things it can't

Now, if Marching Eagles could someday expand to the Civil War.......

[-72-]

I don't know, straggler recovery falls into a more tactical category than operational, so it isn't as clear cut in my mind. It also isn't in the engine, so I mean there's that.

I haven't actually tested out the new engine changes in the Napoleonic series, although I am interested in the application of night fatigue.

To me a multi-day scenario can different thing from a multi-day battle; it all depends upon if the forces involved can be set up so that they only can basically sustain a day's combat, regardless of how much time is allotted to scenario length. I mean the idea being allowing a force to march to and find, then set up a place to make a stand -and have multiple places where that might be (with a different set of advantages/disadvantages). It's not automatically an operational situation, but rather what tactical advantages do you see in the landscape (and the guesstimate if you might have enough time to set up before your opposite number can locate you).

It was sort of central to the idea that I was wanting to work with, as opposed to a chessboard of set piece battles, which in my mind are boring by their lack of dynamism.

Operational --- someone send me a roadnet around Narragansett Bay dating from about 1776-78; I'd settle for just the major roads... I got Aquidneck Island covered, but it occurred to me that there had to be some sort of a roadnet that went from at least Warwick RI, through Providence, over to Slade's Ferry and then on to Hovland Ferry ... as that was the route of march for a couple of campaigns that the Patriots took. But I only have snippets- but the road network on Aquidneck Island is pretty well covered... silly Rhode Islanders probably preferred to most of their bay based transport via ship... so all of the maps focus on that.  (Disclaimer ... I seem to be related to half of those 'silly Rhode Islanders' at the time -so that was by no means supposed to be serious... it is what it is sometimes.).

I don't know - if it were me, I wouldn't abandon it - personally I think you might be nailing it; consider it a stretch goal maybe?  Being totally fair, not many go where you've been to 2-81.  I'm impressed just by reading you write in that way.

[2-81 Armor]

I don't know, straggler recovery falls into a more tactical category than operational, so it isn't as clear cut in my mind. It also isn't in the engine, so I mean there's that.

I haven't actually tested out the new engine changes in the Napoleonic series, although I am interested in the application of night fatigue.

To me a multi-day scenario can different thing from a multi-day battle; it all depends upon if the forces involved can be set up so that they only can basically sustain a day's combat, regardless of how much time is allotted to scenario length. I mean the idea being allowing a force to march to and find, then set up a place to make a stand -and have multiple places where that might be (with a different set of advantages/disadvantages). It's not automatically an operational situation, but rather what tactical advantages do you see in the landscape (and the guesstimate if you might have enough time to set up before your opposite number can locate you).

It was sort of central to the idea that I was wanting to work with, as opposed to a chessboard of set piece battles, which in my mind are boring by their lack of dynamism.

Operational --- someone send me a roadnet around Narragansett Bay dating from about 1776-78; I'd settle for just the major roads... I got Aquidneck Island covered, but it occurred to me that there had to be some sort of a roadnet that went from at least Warwick RI, through Providence, over to Slade's Ferry and then on to Hovland Ferry ... as that was the route of march for a couple of campaigns that the Patriots took. But I only have snippets- but the road network on Aquidneck Island is pretty well covered... silly Rhode Islanders probably preferred to most of their bay based transport via ship... so all of the maps focus on that.  (Disclaimer ... I seem to be related to half of those 'silly Rhode Islanders' at the time -so that was by no means supposed to be serious... it is what it is sometimes.).

I don't know - if it were me, I wouldn't abandon it - personally I think you might be nailing it; consider it a stretch goal maybe?  Being totally fair, not many go where you've been to 2-81.  I'm impressed just by reading you write in that way.

An attempt at playing the Atlanta monster has been made and my opponent and I both encountered a situation where it looks like we're having some "turn jump" where what should be turn 2 somehow became turn 3. No reason why this should happen, and I have never seen that before.

Also, on my end I'm having a lot of lagging and delay when the map is scrolling. Sometimes it jerks instead of scrolling.

I'm attempting to run this on a desktop with an I7 processor running at 3.6 ghz and 16 GB of ram. The graphics card is an Nvidia 1070. While not a super computer, it certainly has more than enough power to run the scenario I think.

I'm no programmer of course, but to me the problems indicate that the game engine is being stressed to it's limit, and errors are popping up. The scrolling issue most likely is again the engine straining to process things and slowing down.

Whether or not the scenario is too big, in the future I do think I'm going to have to limit my ambitions and keep the length down to maximum 2-3 days (20 min turns) and somehow determine what the biggest map size is that the engine can handle without getting laggy.

Anyway, a lot has been revealed and learned. I really do appreciate everyone's input and help.
Now though it's time to put this Frankenstein out of it's misery and move on.