Quote:
Originally Posted by csThor
Quite honestly the idea of stuffing most things into the template was proven insufficient by DGen years ago. It was not flexible enough to depict changes of aircraft types (i.e. the switch from Bf 109 to Fw 190 within a sub-campaign, not between two of them) or sudden transfers to other locations for reasons you as a player had no control over, a thing which later happened so frequently (i.e. transfer of parts of Fliegerkorps VIII from Kharkov to Orel during Citadel).
I, personally, believe that only certain things should be defined on the template:
- airbase locations (i.e. deactivating air bases which weren't in use at a certain time)
- major railway lines (= primary supply lines)
- major railyards
- if applicable shipping lines (= major supply lines)
- major roads (= secondary supply lines)
- major harbour installations
- minor harbour installations
- bridges (weak spots of supply lines)
[ - Army Group or Army Level Supply Dump location(s) ]
... basically all things that are mostly static or cannot be moved somewhere else. Anything that is mobile or even semi-mobile should be defined in another file. I mean I am a rivet counter when it comes to historical details and I would invest considerable time into adding such details. But not everyone would do the same and I understand that. But if you cram all such things into the template and don't use external files you're automatically limiting the amount of historical details, accuracy and flexibility your tool can generate.
|
The good thing is that the new engine allows to calculate the waypoints for ground units on the fly, so there is no need to define roads, railroads and bridges. (IIRC destruction of bridges can't be logged at the moment). Airfields are also directly available, of course I can't disable a airfield.
I agree it would be practicable to define the locations of cities, rail yards and harbors for every map (the default definition can be overwritten by every campaign). But this would be a "map template" (location of map characteristics) opposed to a "campaign template" (location of units).
I still have some problems with adding "scripted events", of course I can define that unit x was transferred to airfield y at date z. However, what happens if airfield y is already in enemy territory? We see that "events" won't work in combination with a dynamic frontline. Of course a dynamic frontline is not desired if you want to create a historical campaign. So basically if you want to create a historical campaign you want to define the frontline and location of air units and maybe even for ground units. I don't think you want to define that for every day but let's say for every week. Between these dates the frontline may develop dynamically. But what happens if a unit is destroyed? Will it reappear with the next define situation?
I think it would be very possible to add "reinforcement events" to a dynamic campaign that define which air or ground units become available at a certain time. It may be even possible to define a "preferred location" for them that is used if it is in friendly territory.
It would be cool to add some "special events" where a scripted mission is loaded, e.g. to stage a scripted paratrooper operation or a key assault. But then again this would produced problems with the dynamic front line.
One solution for the front line dilemma would be to link the events to the front situation, i.e. they only happen if the corresponding area is still in own hands.