bigus wrote:I'll post additional scenarios and updates here from now on.
This will be the only way to update my scenarios. No new or updated scenarios by me will be included into the "official" patches.
I'll also try to keep this thread up to date to keep it from sinking into oblivion.
Vicksburg: ... Changed the NM for the cities (Vicksburg is now worth 35 and Port Hudson is worth 15).
Atlanta: River Blocking. Removed Balloons (No Balloons after early 63).
Moved French back with his Corps. Checked OOB.
WIP.............New scenario. To be named in a while (grab your sea legs).
I'm also trying to get together a web page and tutorial on scenario creation.
Web page is almost done but tut is yet to be started.
berto wrote:Maybe Rafiki can sticky this?
berto wrote:
Is supply perhaps too harsh in this scenario?
bigus wrote:Again many thanks for this Rafiki
bigus wrote:For the Atlanta scenario I had this planned. For the Union I don't think it's much of a problem but for the South yes. I think it should be harsh.
If your talking about the North supply then I might have to have a look at how I set the supplies for them.
BTW I can send you the OOB for the Red River Campaign if you like.
The tutorial might be ready (in rough form) by sunday.
Rafiki wrote:But to what extent does/will this overlap with http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=9125 ?
lodilefty wrote:I think each modded scenario, model set, etc. should have a unique separate thread so a simple search on thread titles will locate the mod and any updates. Update data in first post of thread, with any 'bump' messages to notify people.
berto wrote:The other site is for all forms of modding. (And no offense to Brett, but his site is off the beaten path and easily overlooked.) I think Bigus' idea is a special place here to focus just on scenario creation.
lodilefty wrote:I think each modded scenario, model set, etc. should have a unique separate thread so a simple search on thread titles will locate the mod and any updates. Update data in first post of thread, with any 'bump' messages to notify people.
Long threads with multiple data sets get messy and hard to find things....
bigus wrote:I don't understand your reasoning here. If each scenario is a seperate file posted to the first post of the thread then who cares what model files it has if it even has one. You can either download it or not. Not all scenarios posted so far are modded. They are Updates. The Vicksburg scenario is the only modded scenario and is clearly stated as such.
If you want to use the scenario then you can easily find it in the first post. This is a lot easier than looking through pages of posts or doing a search to find one particular scenario.
It does not make sense to me but it is what it is. Thank god it's only a game.
Life goes on....
lodilefty wrote:Semantics.
- Start a thread with title of the scenario
- Put the scenario files for it in first post.
- Put changes to it in subsequent posts.
- Don't put multiple scenarios in same thread.
..and if it's a variation from 'official', it's mod.
...and an update to a mod is a mod.
..and for me, I need clear understanding what's changed: additions, deletions, etc. so I can decide if I want to use the mod....
bigus wrote:So theoretically you feel having 20 seperate threads for 20 seperate scenarios...is the way to go?
Good one.
These are updates for my existing (now) vanilla scenarios. How can these be considered as Modded scenarios?
Since this thread is no longer stickied, I'll decide what I want to tell people about deletions and additions. I'll also post as many different scenarios as I see fit. If you feel this isn't good enough for you personally then don't download.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Interesting. As an AACW beta, you recently wanted your work to be "officialized" but when asked for this same information regarding the changes and deletions made, which has always been the AGEod policy, you kind of gave me this same answer/attitude.
Like I continually stated in our PMs, I'll accept your work to be "officialized" and updated quite willingly as long as you give me supporting documentation to enable me to find all the changes you made. Without the information, it can't be accepted for the updates. I will not spend hours on each of your individual files searching them line by line just to find your changes, and especially deletions when all you have to do is document them as you make them, reducing the necessary copy/paste work to just a few minutes.
JastaV is courteous enough to provide supporting information regarding changes he makes to NCP files. (sometimes to the point of overload, ), but at least he gives the requested information. Might I politely inquire why, as a member of the AACW beta team, you won't provide this simple supporting information for your scenarios that AGEod has given you the honor of including in their official game scenarios?
bigus wrote:<snip>
You don't want to sticky this thread....fine.
It was a request that was denied. I can live with that....
bigus wrote:I'm also trying to get together a web page and tutorial on scenario creation.
Web page is almost done but tut is yet to be started.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Then why did you give permission to AGEod to include your scenarios in the "official" game patches?
What is really going on here, is that you, for some reason, have decided that you want to maintain your scenarios as MODs, and bypass the update process, which I have absolutely no argument against, though I'm not sure how AGEod will perceive it, since you previously gave permission for them to "officialize" your scenarios. Personally, I'm recommending that they be relinquished back to you to do as you see fit, since you don't want to support the normal update process. A process which incidentally has always been the same as long as you provided the information to find the changed lines either by highlighting, or supplying separate documentation to allow the changed information to be easily found so as to be imported into the "official" versions of your scenarios. Anyone having to import work from one file into another file can understand why some sort of way to identify the changes would be necessary.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Back to you bigus:
Your paranoia over these scenarios has even gone so far as to cause you to send me PMs accusing me of making changes to your scenarios without your permission. At those times, I actually thought I had made an accidental change and spent well over a day trying to ascertain when I might have done the change(s). I installed every update from the time of your scenarios' first inclusion. In these cases, each time I found out that the particular setting was exactly as you had submitted it from the very start. For everyone else's information reading this, this happened more than once. After the second time, I resolved not to bother checking again... (Boy who cried "Wolf" syndrome). Above you state "Not once did I force or recommend these scenarios be made Official" and yet somehow they are... Is this another memory lapse?
Gray_Lensman wrote:For your information and everyone else's, barring my separate RR work and efforts to remove bugs and other deficiencies, you have enjoyed the most influence in regard to game input. You completely designed 4 scenarios from the ground up, and reworked the 1862 East and West single theatre Scenarios, all of which are now included in the game, because at some time or other you gave AGEod permission to "officialize" them, and then you willingly submitted them to AGEod to have them included in the game patches.
Like I said above, I personally have absolutely no problem with your scenarios being relinquished back to you to do with as you see fit, but I will no longer tolerate the insinuation that you want your scenarios back because I was somehow blocking your work. In reality, you were just too darn stubborn to supply the necessary information to make it easy for me to actually import your work. This is not good beta behavior, since the idea of a beta is to actually supply not withhold information for the overall enhancement of the game.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Finally, your comment above "Gray_Lensman's American Civil War" would normally be taken as a compliment towards me, but it is easy to tell that it was not made in that regard... The ironic thing is that for all the work I have indeed done for the AACW game, my name is not to be found anywhere in any of the data files, nor do I care, yet every scenario you touch and submit to me has been altered by you to show your name in blazing green and white standout colors, even those which you did not originally author. The ones that you didn't author actually do get edited back to the original author but your own designed scenarios retain your flashy credit in the .xls files
berto wrote:I hope that the controversies about sticky this and multi-thread that haven't derailed this web page initiative. However it's organized or presented, collaborative effort on scenario creation should be encouraged to continue.
Not to start another controversy, but rather than launch a (new?) web page, would it be better to add a tutorial and other stuff about scenario creation to the existing AACW Wiki?
But if you mean this to be graphics-intensive, and if the Wiki or this Forum won't accommodate your plans, if a "Web page" is called for, so be it. Will this be hosted at the Brett Schulte's "TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog" website? Or a new website?
Barker wrote:Here is an example that I consider a Scenario not a mod to the Vanilla: What if the bond drives in the south were excellent, what if the volunteer rate went through the roof, what if the supply at the start were phenomenal. Afew more generals at the start. Well that is what I did. I gave the CSA more money, more men, more supplies and more generals. But after the initial shock of superiority the south peters off after the mid point 62. Generals got killed etc. I did this in the 2 campaign April Scenario.
Gray_Lensman wrote:First off, just because you make changes to a scenario, doesn't make you the scenario author. It's the reason I never place my own name in any of the database files, and believe me, I have made more corrections and changes to these files than you could ever dream of. Fortunately, (or unfortunately depending on your viewpoint), I have kept records of all database changes done over the last year.
To perhaps help you to recall since you obviously only want to remember things for your own convenience, I have attached below 5 examples of Shiloh, a scenario originally authored by Philippe Thibaut way back when the game was first released. The first example is a screen shot of the last time it was properly credited to Philippe before you started changing these names (v1.10b dated 20080531). The next three examples got by me and were included in the "official" AACW_DB files. Finally the last example was caught by me and corrected back to Philippe Thibaut's name for the current database files (v1.12a dated 20081203). I don't know what your intentions were but this is a form of plagiarism and is another reason I started insisting on full documentation of any changes you were making to the scenario files, so that I would not miss any more of these and inadvertently forward them to the official AACW_DB files for public release.
I'm sorry to expose your dirty laundry like this, but your public answers only put forth your particular viewpoint and conveniently leave out the things you don't wish to acknowledge, making me look like the obstacle here.
Finally, I am a voluntary coordinator for a reason. That reason is to help reduce the workload of the AGEod programmer/developers so that they can put their time into their more important work of actual game code implementation. If, for example, I work 200+ hours on AACW for them, I have saved the actual programmers the same 200+ hours. I also think it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone that has actually accepted beta status to cooperate by furnishing supporting documentation of his own individual changes.
.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests