Slitherine

Moved lower down

Thanks for the tip, Richard.

Isn't there a specific icon for the crossed swords? If not I try to it with a cut and paste job somehow ...

Adebar wrote:Thanks for the tip, Richard.

Isn't there a specific icon for the crossed swords? If not I try to it with a cut and paste job somehow ...

Yes, it is in that folder. It is called Icon_CrossedSwords.dds.

I would recommend downloading XnView and using it to browse textures - it will show thumbnails of all the textures in the selected folder, and you can double click on them to view them more closely.

Perfect! Thanks again.

fogman wrote:The dds file i put in the breitenfeld scenario screen gives this. there must be something with the formatting i don't know about.

Breitenfeld screen.jpg

The engine automatically stretches the icon .dds to fill the screen. If you don't want it to do so (because it it does it will be hard to read the text), you therefore need to put the graphic you want to display in the middle of a transparent background. Also you need to squeeze sideways the aspect ratio of the graphic you want to display so that it does not look too stretched when displayed on wide screen resolutions. However, I suggest you also also test it at 1024 x 768 which is the aspect ratio used by the iPad, so that you can check that it won't look too squashed on the iPad. It is impossible to get the aspect ratio correct on all screen resolutions so you need to go for the best compromise.

For examples see:

ICON.DDS in /Campaigns/1ThirtyYearWar
Lutter.DDS in /Campaigns/1ThirtyYearWar/Scenarios.

jomni wrote:

fogman wrote:

jomni wrote:I use this tool to mess with dds files. It can convert dds to bmp for editing and repackage back into dds (DXT).
http://www.mwgfx.co.uk/programs/dxtbmp.htm

beware: the download file is a trojan.

Really? But I've been using that tool for years without any problems. I checked the download link and it looks fine on my end.

Regarding your picture, in think you need to blacken the image yourself but I'm not sure because I haven't done a scenario yet.

I also downloaded the file and installed the program, all OK, for my antivirus AVAST, all OK!

Jomni it seem to be a great program very light and functional. thanks for the link !

Well, it took a lot of patience and perseverance, but I got somewhere, with even a touch of originality.

Bravo! You even went beyond the original layout.

fogman wrote:Well, it took a lot of patience and perseverance, but I got somewhere, with even a touch of originality.

Well done sir.

obsolete

does the designation 'axis' or 'allies' have bearings on anything? or axis units must always be side1 (AI, far side) and allies units side0 (player, near side)?

fogman wrote:does the designation 'axis' or 'allies' have bearings on anything? or axis units must always be side1 (AI, far side) and allies units side0 (player, near side)?

That is pretty much how it is with the current release version of the engine. That nomenclature is the only hard-coded WW2 thing in the engine. You can reverse it by changing the sides.txt round before you start placing the units in a new scenario. In one of the campaigns you will find a file called sides (reversed).txt. Replace the contents of Sides.TXT with the contents of that and it reverses the sides' unit lists. Then when you want to change it back, swap in the contents of Sides (normal).txt

Thankfully, the latest version of the engine (which will be used for the next release version of the game) allows you to press Shift when you select the Unit Placement button, and will then show both sets of units for each side, allowing "Axis" units to be used for Side0 and vice versa.

how is 'overlapped' determined? how can one unit overlap one another when fighting one on one?

Basically a function of unit size. The bigger unit will overlap the smaller one. But the exact mechanics can be explained by Richard.

jomni wrote:Basically a function of unit size. The bigger unit will overlap the smaller one. But the exact mechanics can be explained by Richard.

Certain weapon types get an overlapping bonus when their unit is larger than that of the enemy, because those types are trained to emerge from the main formation and exploit the edges of the enemy formation. (e.g. Halberdiers or two-handed swordsmen in a pike keil)

There is a fixed +15 POA bonus if there at least approximately 100 UnitSize worth of the overlapping type in the larger unit.

what is the AI criteria for attacking? it seems to me the AI unit would not attack if it has the odds on impact against it, even though the odds will be in its favour for the subsequent melees. an elite gendarme unit right now would sit in front of a below average spear unit without attacking.

fogman wrote:what is the AI criteria for attacking? it seems to me the AI unit would not attack if it has the odds on impact against it, even though the odds will be in its favour for the subsequent melees. an elite gendarme unit right now would sit in front of a below average spear unit without attacking.

It takes into account both phases, weighting melee twice as much as Impact, because there are usually more rounds of melee.

you may want to look into designating some troops as 'shock', or allow the designation to be applied to assault units in the editor, that always attack (subject to a certain level of casualties). right now, the AI is too timid and cannot be depended upon to lead an assault.

fogman wrote:you may want to look into designating some troops as 'shock', or allow the designation to be applied to assault units in the editor, that always attack (subject to a certain level of casualties). right now, the AI is too timid and cannot be depended upon to lead an assault.

There really isn't much point in troops being "depended on to lead an assault" if the odds are that they will lose without achieving anything. (Though I appreciate that many historical generals were not deterred by this, resulting in many pointless historical debacles).

I understand that your prime concern is exact historical simulation, but as you yourself have previously noted, the simulation aspects of this game are deliberately balanced with game aspects.

The AI is therefore programmed to behave as intelligently as we have been able to achieve. It is not "too timid". It correctly weighs the combat odds and attacks when it has a reasonable chance of winning. (And has a 10% chance of attacking even when it hasn't).

Some troops are already designated as "shock troops" (see manual section 24.3.3) but they are not programmed to commit suicide. If you want to force the AI to suicide its shock troops, then to be realistic (and fair) you will need to force the player's shock troops to do the same (even against the player's wishes).

If you want certain troops to attack in a suicidal fashion (which I agree may sometimes be historical) you will need to script it. (As we have done for Bicocca).

i think i know why the ai wouldn't attack.

the unit in question (that the ai gendarmes wouldn't attack because of the spears i thought) is on 'impassible' even though it is not in the editor something's going on...