SCENARIO BITMAPS:

Got an interesting idea about a new scenario design? ...or maybe you just need some help with the Scenario Editor; this is the place!

Moderators: AlexS, Run5 Staff, SSG Staff

SCENARIO BITMAPS:

Postby Ian » Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:58 pm

I am working on new scenario and I am busy with the bitmap for Germany.

When looking at country bitmaps for the Market Garden scenario I noticed a green box as indicated by the red arrow "PIC B". What does it mean? Also, not all scenario bitmaps have this "PIC A".

Can someone please explain how the game interprets this information?

Thanks
Ian

PIC A:
Image

PIC B:
Image
User avatar
Ian
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Postby Roger Keating » Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:37 am

Well. ... that took a few minutes to work out. I think we thought at some meeting that we may need the extra box so it was put in, then at a subsequent meeting decided we didn't needed it. It is not used for anything now. Now I am wondering what we discussed to have the extra box....
User avatar
Roger Keating
SSG
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:32 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Robjess » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:12 am

Wasnt that for the 'raiders of the lost ark' feature that was talked about for a while? That is if Indy lost the ark and it ended up in german hands then those units with that flag setting would be indestructible? Or maybe I have been out of the loop too long :)
User avatar
Robjess
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5126
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 5:33 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Noakesy » Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:20 pm

Robjess wrote:Wasnt that for the 'raiders of the lost ark' feature that was talked about for a while? That is if Indy lost the ark and it ended up in german hands then those units with that flag setting would be indestructible? Or maybe I have been out of the loop too long :)


Nah, I reckon you've been on the loopy juice more like :D
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Noakesy
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: UK

Postby Ian » Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:09 pm

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your input...now its full steam ahead with creating the German units

The German Oob for my scenario looks something like this:

• 4 Panzer Army
• • 312 Artillery Kommando
• • 2./413 Bridging Column
• • 671 Bridging Column
• • 922 Bridging Column
• • 2 SS Panzer Corps
• • • 1LSSAH Panzergrenadier Div.
• • • 2SSDR Panzergrenadier Div.
• • • 3SST Panzergrenadier Div.
• • • 132 Artillery Kommando
• • • 1Lehr Rocket Launcher Regt.
• • • 55 Rocket Launcher Regt.
• • • 861 Light Howitzer Abt.
• • • III/818 Light Howitzer Abt.
• • • 11 Light Bridging Col
• • • 2./41 Light Bridging Col
• • • 21 Light Bridging Col
• • • 31 Light Bridging Col
• • • 573 Light Bridging Col
• • • 840 Med Bridging Col
• • • 929 Bridging Column
• • • 627 Eng/Pioneer Bn
• • • 666 Eng/Pioneer Bn
• • • 680 Eng/Pioneer Staff zbv
• • 48 Panzer Corps
• • • 11 Panzer Division
• • • 167 Infantry Division
• • • 3 Panzer Division
• • • GD Panzergrenadier Div.
• • • 101 Heavy Howitzer Abt.
• • • 122 Artillery Kommando
• • • 144 Artillery Kommando
• • • 3./731 Heavy Artillery Abt.
• • • 616 AA Battalion
• • • 70 Artillery Regt.
• • • 842 Light Howitzer Abt.
• • • I/1 Heavy Rocket Regt.
• • • I/108 Light Howitzer Abt.
• • • III/109 Mortar Abteilung
• • • 22 Light Bridging Col
• • • 609 Light Bridging Col
• • • 639 Light Bridging Col
• • • 640 Light Bridging Col
• • • 641 Light Bridging Col
• • • 642 Light Bridging Col
• • • 643 Light Bridging Col
• • • 644 Light Bridging Col
• • • 645 Light Bridging Col
• • • 646 Light Bridging Col
• • • 647 Light Bridging Col
• • • 648 Light Bridging Col
• • • 649 Light Bridging Col
• • • 676 Light Bridging Col
• • • 841 Med Bridging Col
• • • 938 Bridging Column
• • • 1Lehr Eng/Pioneer Bn
• • • 48 Eng/Pioneer Bn
• • • 515 Eng/Pioneer Staff zbv
• • • 10 Panzer Brigade
• • • 39 Panzer Regiment
• • • 51 Panzer Battalion
• • • 52 Panzer Battalion
• • • 911 Sturmgeschutz Abt.
• • 52 Corps
• • • 255 Infantry Division
• • • 332 Infantry Division
• • • 57 Infantry Division
• • • 137 Artillery Kommando
• • • 23 Light Bridging Col
• • • 80 Light Bridging Col
• • • 677 Eng/Pioneer Staff zbv
• • • 74 Eng/Pioneer Bn
• 6 Army
• • 16 Panzergrenadier Div.
• • 243 Sturmgeschutz Abt.
• • 277 Sturmgeschutz Abt.
• • 17 Corps
• • • 294 Infantry Division
• • • 302 Infantry Division
• • • 306 Infantry Division
• • 29 Corps
• • • 111 Infantry Division
• • • 15LW Infantry Division
• • • 17 Infantry Division
• • • 336 Infantry Division
• • • I/53 Light Howitzer Abt.
• • 4 (Mieth) Corps
• • • 3 Mountain Division
• • • 304 Infantry Division
• • • 335 Infantry Division
• Army Detachment Kempf
• • 603 Bridging Column
• • 310 Artillery Kommando
• • 781 Artillery Regt.
• • 3 Panzer Corps
• • • 168 Infantry Division
• • • 19 Panzer Division
• • • 6 Panzer Division
• • • 7 Panzer Division
• • • 153 AA Regiment
• • • 3 Artillery Kommando
• • • 54 Rocket Launcher Regt.
• • • 612 Artillery Regt.
• • • 857 Heavy Artillery Abt.
• • • 99 AA Regiment
• • • II/62 Light Howitzer Abt.
• • • II/71 Heavy Howitzer Abt.
• • • 1./505 Light Bridging Col
• • • 110 Light Bridging Col
• • • 2./411 Light Bridging Col
• • • 2S Light Bridging Col
• • • 602 Light Bridging Col
• • • 842 Bridging Column
• • • 843 Bridging Column
• • • 9 Light Bridging Col
• • • 127 Eng/Pioneer Bn
• • • 601 Eng/Pioneer Regt
• • • 651 Eng/Pioneer Bn
• • • 674 Eng/Pioneer Regt
• • • 70 Eng/Pioneer Bn
• • • 228 Sturmgeschutz Bde.
• • • 503 Heavy Tank Bn.
• • 42 Corps
• • • 161 Infantry Division
• • • 282 Infantry Division
• • • 39 Infantry Division
• • • 107 Artillery Kommando
• • • 2./800 Heavy Artillery Abt.
• • • 77 AA Regiment
• • • 620Mtn Eng/Pioneer Bn
• • • 560 PanzerJager Bn.
• • Raus (XI) Corps
• • • 106 Infantry Division
• • • 320 Infantry Division
• • • 153 Artillery Kommando
• • • 4 AA Regiment
• • • 48 AA Regiment
• • • 52 Rocket Launcher Regt.
• • • 7 AA Regiment
• • • I/213 Light Howitzer Abt.
• • • I/77 Light Howitzer Abt.
• • • II/1 Heavy Rocket Regt.
• • • II/54 Artillery Regt.
• • • 102 Light Bridging Col
• • • 151 Heavy Bridging Col
• • • 2./407 Light Bridging Col
• • • 2./410 Light Bridging Col
• • • 2./60 Light Bridging Col
• • • 20 Light Bridging Col
• • • 297 Light Bridging Col
• • • 610 Light Bridging Col
• • • 666 Light Bridging Col
• • • 7 Light Bridging Col
• • • 8 Light Bridging Col
• • • 18 Eng/Pioneer Staff zbv
• • • 52 Eng/Pioneer Regt
• • • 393 Sturmgeschutz Bde.
• • • 905 Sturmgeschutz Bde.

Not sure if I’m allowed to post so much info. :shock:
User avatar
Ian
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Postby JSS » Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:48 pm

This will be interesting. Your OOB seems more appropriate for BII (unless you're not listing component units of divisions)... :shock:

I'm convinced that BF is best served by smaller battles... am very interested seeing how battles larger than Crusader/MG/Gazala play out.

Still methinks the larger battles are best done in BII.
User avatar
JSS
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby Captain Cruft » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:56 am

Not all of us have BII. Having played TAO2 a lot some years ago I decided against purchasing any of the subsequent DBII titles since although I loved the look and feel this was negated by several annoyances, of which the lack of C&C was the main one. Then, when BF arrived I bought it thinking perhaps naively that as this new engine essentially "fixed" most of what was missing in the earlier games it would supercede them.

This didn't happen though, and now we have a delightful schism between what are essentially two versions of the same thing. With hindsight I think calling it a "new" engine rather than releasing it as the fourth in the Decisive Battles series may have been an error.
Captain Cruft
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:23 am
Location: England

Postby Ian » Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:03 pm

JSS wrote:This will be interesting. Your OOB seems more appropriate for BII (unless you're not listing component units of divisions)... :shock:

I'm convinced that BF is best served by smaller battles... am very interested seeing how battles larger than Crusader/MG/Gazala play out.

Still methinks the larger battles are best done in BII.


You may be absolutely right about that…

That being said I might be going at this the wrong way…since I only have BF I don’t know any better.

Because of the amount of different type units my battle requires, I decided to have only two counter types for Germany. Gray for army units and black for SS units. As apposed to a different counter color for each army and division in the stock battle included in BF.

Of course army, corps division and some regimental patches will be used to create the formations.

You have me a bit worried now, am I wasting my time or can this actually work?
User avatar
Ian
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Postby Captain Cruft » Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:23 am

I wouldn't worry too much. The games are very similar, and BF is not restricted in terms of scale.

The main differences I am aware of are:

a) Command and Control - BF has this feature but BII does not. I can see where with a very large OOB this might be a problem, but you don't have to use it. Just have one central HQ with a massive attack supply radius.

b) Artillery and Air - these work totally differently, but in either case it is surely just a matter of fiddling to achieve what you want.

Perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree though.
Captain Cruft
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:23 am
Location: England

Postby Ian » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:21 pm

Captain Cruft wrote:The main differences I am aware of are:

a) Command and Control - BF has this feature but BII does not. I can see where with a very large OOB this might be a problem, but you don't have to use it. Just have one central HQ with a massive attack supply radius.


Thanks for your input about Command and Control.


Okay, I thought that “Prokorovka” would be an appropriate title for my battle. I estimate a total of 400 – 500 German units. Probably even more for the Russians.

That poses another problem. It will not always be possible to finish a turn in one sitting while playing PBEM. Does the game allow for returning to an unfinished PBEM turn and continue where you left? I read somewhere on this forum something about using Alt+F4 but that closes the program, when I start BF again I can’t continue the current PBEM turn.

Can someone please explain this to me :?
User avatar
Ian
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Postby JSS » Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:20 pm

Ian wrote:
...It will not always be possible to finish a turn in one sitting while playing PBEM. Does the game allow for returning to an unfinished PBEM turn and continue where you left? I read somewhere on this forum something about using Alt+F4 but that closes the program, when I start BF again I can’t continue the current PBEM turn.

Can someone please explain this to me :?


There are two PBEM security settings (secure/non-secure)... only the secure mode PBEM allows restarting later. There is not an actual button to do this (you simply close BF program with the turn on-going). Once you want to restart the turn you have to 'load secure PBEM'.

In a non-secure PBEM game you must play thru to end turn in one 'session' (i.e. you have to leave that PBEM game open until you finish the turn...)
Current PBEM Games
1. Sealion (Air Parity) t11 out

User avatar
JSS
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Washington D.C.

Postby Noakesy » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:04 pm

Ian wrote:Okay, I thought that “Prokorovka” would be an appropriate title for my battle. I estimate a total of 400 – 500 German units. Probably even more for the Russians.


I'm no techie at all (and I don't know how many units are in Crusader and Gazala for example). I would have thought 400-500 units would be a lot to move when you can't "select the whole stack" and have to move each individually (then again, in Fall Gelb I think on Gen's last turn he made 270 moves so maybe it's not too bad).
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Noakesy
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: UK

Postby Ian » Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:27 am

Maybe 400-500 units is too much…I can always tune the battle down a bit later. I don’t know if it is just me but I like my battles big, very big and down to company level. Talk about micro manage. I’m still new at does and very eager.

I included two screenies for those that might be interested.

1 SSLAH PzGren Div units moving out of Belgorod
Image

4 Pz Army bridging units deploying pontoons
Image
User avatar
Ian
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:37 pm
Location: Cape Town, South Africa

Postby Noakesy » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:55 am

Ian wrote:Maybe 400-500 units is too much…I can always tune the battle down a bit later. I don’t know if it is just me but I like my battles big, very big and down to company level. Talk about micro manage. I’m still new at does and very eager. I included two screenies for those that might be interested.


I was just making a point regarding the scenario size Ian, believe me I'm sure most everyone will be interested in this.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Noakesy
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: UK

Postby Captain Cruft » Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:14 am

Very ambitious! :)

Now we know what it is I think there's no doubt that BF will be the better engine for it. When people talk about big battles and BII they mean large geographical area more than lots of units.

I would certainly include C&C in this.
Captain Cruft
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:23 am
Location: England

Next

Return to Battlefront Scenario Design

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron