[Hoogley]

Does anybody know the extreme limits of the data file entries for LSA in particular?  It would save me experimenting.

I want to know just how far I can push the data files.  Specifically, Soldiers, AlTeams, GeTeams, and Weapons.  I noticed in particular that the Soldiers files for LSA and TLD don't look like they're at their maximum entries.

Thanks,
Hoogs.

[DAK_Legion]

hi!


I'm working on CCMT and have not found limits

data files are also excel style

I think we can expand all you want

[Hoogley]

Ok, so dicking around with the data sources, there seems to be good news and bad news.

The good news: most of the files seem to be able to be stretched past their arbitrary limits without crashing the game.  From what I can tell, without actually having tested it properly by referencing any of the new data.

The bad news: the BG limit is most definitely set.  64, and that's it.

Still, that is mostly good news for the mod.

[southern_land]

Remember in LSA you also have the BO units.  I'm not sure if these have any limits apart from one per map

[schrecken]

so that's 128 Bg's, wowser!

[Hoogley]

Yeah, me ol' schrecksie, but 64 of those are restricted to placement on a specific map, can't move, and don't have any unit identification outside of "b.o".  These 'static units' are only useful in particular circumstances.

So, ostensibly there's 128, but the reality is nothing like that makes it sound.  I wish there were 128 BG spots.  That would be awesome.

The data checks were also only cursory; I've increased the range of data, but I've not referenced it anywhere.  So, basically, the info is in the txt file, but the game isn't asked to use any of it.  If you try to increase the BG limit the game just crashes, so I'm hoping it would have done the same for the other data files as well.  Unsure at this stage.

[schrecken]

I wish there were 256

or 512

or 1024

there's 64 + 64


The question is can the second 64 be named other than B.O?

[Hoogley]

Well, looking in the staticBG.txt file, all of the static BGs are named.  But, on the map they just show up as "b.o.".  I guess the question is how the BG icon referencing system works.  So, I look into the gadget file, and there are only 65 BG icons; the last two are "static" and "b.o.".

I can't find the number 65 anywhere in the data, so I don't yet know how the icon referencing works exactly.  It may be hard-coded, except that doesn't explain what the "static" icon is for... oh, hang on... there's a value called "fixed map".  I wasn't sure what it meant to begin with, but I can hazard a guess now:

If the value for "fixed map" is -1 (no), then the units can be merged into passing BGs and shows as "b.o." on the map, but if the value is 0 (yes), then they are locked to the map and can never be moved/merged, and so show as "static" BGs.  None of the units in LSA have the value 0, which is why none are shown as "static" BGs.  I bet I'm right.

That's pretty clever on the part of S3T.  I'm impressed.

So, unfortunately schrecken, though you were on a good line of thought there, it doesn't pan out.  Static/B.O. units will only ever be identified in-game as such, rather than being named BGs.

Oh, and, I was kidding about 128 BG limit.  That's ridiculous; you'd run out of maps to fit them all on.  Still, you've got 64 maps; 2 BGs from each side to a map; that's 256 BGs to completely fill the strategic map and  make the game entirely unplayable.  Back it down a bit, and I reckon you could still get away with, say, 80 BGs in total.  That's 40 a side.  There is a possibility of cramping/traffic jams, granted, but... still... from a modding standpoint, it's nice to have choices.  I'm just saying.

But, as you say, there's 64+64, so that's what we work with.

[Hoogley]

On closer inspection, I think that I am wrong about the "fixed map" element.  It looks like that might be to do with the fixing of certain teams to a set position on the map, like the Flak team in Son.  Is that it?

So, the question then arises again: what determines Static vs BO?  

The only other thought I've got is one which I have yet to test: If a team that is fixed to a position on the map is not able to be merged with a mobile BG, then fixing all units to the map would cause it to be listed as Static.  The best way I can think of to test this is to delete every entry but one and have it attached to a fixed map position.  That's a lot of work just for a pretty useless piece of knowledge.  I doubt I'll bother.

[Hoogley]

For anyone like me who just had to make sure, I tested FPools, AlsTeams, and Soldiers for meaningful limitations.

Got 26 for FPools, which shows the 25 entries in the original file is not the limit, as it was in the old days.  Pretty sure you'd be able to go up to 64, which is where it maxes out with merging.

AlsTeams: got up to 246.  Soldiers got up to 328 entries.  Both of these were just doubling the current entries.

So, I think the TLD workbook comment about no set limits for most data is correct.  Bring it on.  

[schrecken]

If the allied side are fixed do they become static?

[Hoogley]

Oh, yeah, I see what you mean schrecken.  Static (English) vs BO (German).  I have to admit I don't actually know what BO stands for.  That probably should have been the first thing to determine, before displaying abject ignorance of both military terminology and the German language.

[7A_Woulf]

BO ="Bodenständige"

From Feldgrau.com: "Bodenständige: Static. Used as an adjective (and not capitalized when used) to indicate a unit was not fully field-mobile."

So 'Static' or 'BO' is just a display difference, not anything about function?  

[Hoogley]

This is why other people are in charge of research for the mod.    I just sort the data, construct mod dev' sites, and make pretty pictures.

So, Allied static teams show as static, Axis static teams show as bodenständige.

A way simpler answer than I was looking for.  It's looking at all of these numbers in the data files; starts making you try to find abstruse connections instead of simple answers.   :roll:

7A_Woulf - Should we stick with "bodenständige" or use "sperrverband"?  There seem to be suggestions that the latter denotes an "elite" blocking force, rather than just any blocking force.  Was the term used during OMG to denote any of the defending formations?

[7A_Woulf]