F&E Vassal Module 2.0 work

by on June 11, 2014 at 7:29 pm
Posted In: F&E

Crossposted from the SFU blog on BGG.

One thing that has been on the back burner for the last couple years is the proposed version 2.0 Vassal Module for F&E. In addition to just not doing much with F&E lately, I’ve been trying to get some new features done for the module, and they have not been happening.

The first one was reporting the number of ships, and the Ship Equivalents separately (that was easy enough), and adjusting the SEs for crippled ships. Extensive testing has shown that Vassal 3.2 just can’t handle non-integer numbers in the stack viewer in any form. Here’s hoping for 4.0.

The second one has been the major roadblock. I’ve been hoping to get the fleet markers to report the stats of their contents in the stack viewer. I figure there’s two potential routes to this: Since you can see the totals in an inventory window, it seems like it should be possible to just query for the sum of, say, SE in a particular zone/map and use it directly; sadly, this doesn’t seem to be supported. The second method would be to keep track of the numbers in a global variable which gets adjusted as units are moved into/out of the box. Recently, a demo module was done showing exactly this. So far, I have not been able to get it to work in my F&E module, and even if it does work, it could very well bog down performance to keep track of all stats of all the fleets with hundreds of units sending data out.

However, I’m writing this because I do now have a new feature that is working!

I now have a submenu for ships that allows you to flag a ship as ‘captured’ by a particular empire, so that it will report as belonging to that empire in the inventory, and there is a visible marker to show its status on the counter.


How about we just trade back and call it even?

And no, I’m not planning on adjusting AF to account for Hydran hybrid wackiness. gulp

So, this is about where things stand:

New features:
x Choice of regular and large-scale maps. (Hope to figure out an Early Beginnings set up…)
x Stack viewer & inventory counts *ships* and *SEs*
x Flag captured ships to new empire.

Not appearing in this module:
– Crippled SE values (non-integers not possible under Vassal 3.2)
o Display fleet stats on hover over. (still being worked on, but will probably bog down module, even if it works)

Still planned:
* Large Fleet markers. May need a second set for the ‘small’ map.
* Fix ‘crippled’ reporting on single-sided units.

Needs thought:
* How to mark captured planets, etc, on LSM: bigger markers, smaller planet symbols, what?
* Mark the Cordon borders like the sector borders? (And how to keep it from being too busy?)
* Mark EW/AF status for ships that drop AF for EW and vice versa.
* Mark repaired/built ships as capable of free Strat Moves (wipe automatically when moved?).
* Mark hexes for retrograde (some sort of ‘done’ version for battle hexes?)

As always, feedback is appreciated, and as this module is still being pounded into shape, its easier to do something now than later.

└ Tags: , ,
 Comment 

FB7 The Terror of the Castle

by on June 5, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Posted In: ASL

Patch and I headed back to Budapest after our second desert adventure, reaching the end of January 1945 with FB7 “The Terror of the Castle”. Having been the defense the last two games, I took the attacking Soviets, and while the ROAR/Archive record is a little thin, it is showing a pro-Russian tilt, so I gave Patch the Hungarian balance (an at-start Hero).

Even for Festung Budapest, this is an unusual scenario. The Hungarians are defending against a Russian assault that will take them to the base of Castle Hill and have three different setup zones (four squads + MMG & HMG in the Postal Palace, two squads in the victory buildings, and six squads in most of the rest of the available map). The Russians have twelve squads (three of which are 628 assault engineers) a MMG, two FTs and two T-34/85s, entering from offboard. But, up to six squads (three each, in two buildings) can set up on-board, within the Hungarian setup area. The scenario is nine turns long, with control of the Z12/BB11 building Locations evaluated every three turns to grant one VP. Best two out of three wins.

A large part of the strangeness is the fact that the side that claims a VP goes last for the next three turns, meaning that the turn order will flip somewhere along the way (probably turn 7, as the Russians start out going first, and are unlikely to get the first VP). Finally, both sides get to purchase reinforcements (which appears in several FB scenarios, but this is the first we’ve gotten to that does it), with the Hungarians getting theirs on turn 4 and the Russians getting theirs on turn 7. Oh, and on turn 7 the Hungarians get a flamethrower in the possession of any unit they wish. The Hungarians are up to Ammo Shortage level 3, and as ever, there is ground snow.

Looking at some on-line discussions of the scenario revealed that one of the Russian set-up buildings, CC15, was essential for the Russians to use to suppress likely Hungarian defenses. Naturally, the pre-game rubble checks knocked down eight of the thirteen hexes of this block, including the entire useful SE end (mostly thanks to falling rubble taking out further hexes). I didn’t quite like the direct, close, route to the victory buildings, with a large number of Hungarian ‘?’ lined up along the Bela-Kiraly ut, and ended up entering my forces on the north end, with the MMG, a FT and best leader in the CC15 block, ready to advance into the intact Y14 area, and the FT and DC in the Postal Palace, out of immediate LOS and ADJACENCY to the Hungarian defenders in the upper floors.

Despite my best efforts, Patch could see most of my movement, and I lost a Dummy stack in W17. A pot-shot pinned a squad in R14 as they tried to reinforce the Postal Palace. My main stack entered along the Vermezo ut in Armored Assault, but HMG fire from the Postal Palace broke both the 458 and 628, even after the 8-1 passed. Further fire also broke the leader who was going to guide the backup troops through the high MF cost rubble, but the squads were okay. The HMG got several ROF shots, pinning the 8-1 and CRing the 458 on its last shot. The 8-1 self-broke to stay with his men, while my 8-0 was wounded trying to find safety in R6.

FB7 1R
Situation, Russian Turn 1. Colored hexes are off-board entry areas (red=Russian, blue=Hungarian; yellow and green only have one legal entry hex). North is to the left.)
↓ Read the rest of this entry…

└ Tags: , ,
 Comment 

Two Rounds of Himera

by on June 3, 2014 at 10:08 pm
Posted In: CC:Ancients

Patch and I did our usual between rounds of ASL game of C&C:A tonight. This time was the Battle of Himera from Expansion 1. It’s a little unusual, with an Syracusan MC+leader (Eumachus) starting adjacent to the Carthaginian camp, and a Carthaginian leader (Hamilcar) by himself nearby. There’s some ramparts with poor flank protection, and while the Carthaginian army isn’t bad, it is lighter and disorganized.

I had the Carthaginians first, and Patch led off with Order Two Center, which he used to move one MC up, while Eumachus charged in and killed Hamilcar. I moved up the HCH, and Eumachus evaded back out of the camp. Patch followed up with a Line Command to bring his left flank into contact, and forced me off the ramparts over there.

I used a Line Command to bring that flank up, and followed with Order Medium to start an engagement, but ended up losing three blocks on each of two units in return for three on the Med they were attacking, plus one loss on a MC. Patch Ordered Three Left and finished off the two weakened units, while shuffling his out of the way. I then Double Timed to get my remaining leader (Terillus) + Hvy into contact. I took out a LS in return for two hits on an Aux, and Terilus wiped out the Syracusan leader-lead heavy (I had just been counting on the rampart to make an uneven exchange), and then momentum advanced and finished off the Med from last turn (sadly, his leader survived both times).

Patch came back in the center, took out the weakened Aux, and then wiped out a three-block Med on Momentum. I Ordered Light, and blew part of my turn on a mistake: seeing a leader and heavy on the wrong side of the ramparts, I thought it was Patch’s for a minute, instead of my own successful commander. I did get a couple blocks with archery and forced a Med and MC back.

Patch Ordered Four Right, and moved into contact, and I Counter Attacked (I had units over there, but no cards). But my heavy chariots failed to kill a two-block Med, and they got him on the battle back. 3-6

Himera 1

For the second game, I Ordered Three Center, and went after Hamilcar. Sadly, I could not get a leader hit, and he evaded to the HCH. I played two Coordinated Attacks in a row, and took as many blocks as I inflicted, losing Eumachus’ MC in the process. Patch played Inspired Center Leadership to move most of the main Carthaginian force up, and I played Line Command to move up the left flank, now that I had it better deployed. I drove him back from the ramparts, but still didn’t give much better than I got.

Patch finished off my flank Med before I could play a second Line Command and finally knocked out a unit, while also forcing a Med next to Terillus to retreat after killing two blocks. Patch used Move-Fire-Move to reshuffle both flanks, but couldn’t get any hits. I used Leadership Any Section (my only leader card) to press forward, and got Terillus’ heavies down to to blocks and reduced two other units to one block each in exchange for three blocks.

Patch countered with Clash of Shields, which was good for six units. He knocked out a three-block heavy with a pair of attacks (one hit on seven dice followed by five on six!), but only after they had taken Terillus’ unit to one block. He took a block off another heavy, but lost an Aux, and had a Light reduced to a block.

I pressed forward with Order Three Left, and finished off his heavy, though Terillus escaped, and finished off a LS. Out of cards that did me any good, I played I Am Spartacus next, and got a heavy, light and a wildcard (used on a Eumachus’ MC). I managed to finish off a Aux on the right, but lost the MC when I tried to take out the MCH on momentum, but finished off a weakened light on the left flank. 6-4

Himera 2

Afterword:
It’s actually an interesting scenario, with how different the two armies are. If the Carthaginians had a decent line at the start, Syracuse would have a rough time of it. The ramparts make certain areas important, but since their flanks are in the air, they aren’t that helpful.

└ Tags: ,
 Comment 

Samurai Armies

by on June 1, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Posted In: Books

Osprey’s Men-At-Arms book Samurai Armies is a pretty good introduction to the warring states period of Japan. The series is more focused on men and equipment, and that is what you get here, though the three-page summary of the period is not bad.

It is a bit primitive in a couple ways, so it must be remembered that this is a 1979 book. Steven Turnbull turned into a fairly popular author on Japan in the ’80s, and is still writing today, but this was his first book. Also, Osprey was still just moving away from the stiff figure illustrations that had dominated military uniform books in the ’70s and earlier, and while the people in the color plates are shown in a variety of activities, backgrounds that might give more context of the world of these people are almost entirely absent still.

As is often the case with Osprey, the book suffers a bit from being too short; it has a good introduction to the use complicated formations in Japanese warfare, but no practical examples of how it worked out in practice, it gives a whirlwind tour of the evolution of armor styles, but you have to read very carefully to catch everything being said. On the other hand, there’s a nice three-page reproduction of a Japanese print showing how to put on armor, and another page with a print showing various ways of lacing the helmet (the reproduction isn’t so good on this one).

In all, it still stands up as a good beginning book on the subject, which is remarkable given how much more has been written on the subject since.

└ Tags: , , , ,
 Comment 

Song of Wrath

by on May 25, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Posted In: Books

J. E. Lendon’s history of the Peloponnesian War differs from the usual treatments in two ways: First, instead of tackling the entire 27-year period, he (after pointing out that the “Peloponnesian War” is really four different wars traditionally grouped together) only covers the first ten years, from the outbreak of hostilities to the treaty between Athens and Sparta in 421 BC (he calls this the Ten Years War, whereas others call it the Archidamian War). And second, he challenges the traditional view of what the war was fought over (first put forward by Thucydides) in favor of one based on a study of Ancient Greek culture.

He starts with an overview of honor/glory/worth, or timē, which is how ancient Greeks ranked and competed among themselves, and by extension how the intensely competitive city-states measured themselves against each other. To have timē was to be of importance, to have importance, to have other cities look to you; to be the hegemon. Status for cities was a mix of current strength and past glories, and Sparta stood tall in both in the fifth century BC, allowing it to lead an alliance (to be the hegemon) of many of the Greek states against the Persians.

Athens’ past was not considered nearly so glorious, but in the aftermath of the Persian Wars she became the head (hegemon) of the Delian League; a collection of overseas territories in the Aegean that banded together for protection against Persia. Athens slowly converted this mutual defense league into more of an empire, taking money tribute instead of the loan of naval forces, and establishing a firmer say in the internal affairs of its members. Thucydides (and most everyone follows his lead) claims that the Pelopennesian War started because of Sparta’s fear of Athens’ growing power.

Lendon points out that this was a controversial argument at the time, which is why Thucydides spends so much time elaborating and defending it. He believes that the war actually stemmed from an argument more readily understood by the Ancient Greeks, but more obscure to us. Athens now considered itself to be Sparta’s equal in timē, and wanted Sparta to admit it (without which, convincing anyone else would be difficult).

The bulk of the rest of the book is Lendon playing connect-the-dots with what we know of the events of the Ten Years War, and interpreting them in terms of timē. He constantly refers back to this theme, as if afraid it might go somewhere without him. But since it is, at best, a very nebulous concept, this is essential, though it might have been better handled.

The major weakness of the thesis and book is that since timē is all in the minds of the people involved, it is very hard to prove that it really had the bearing on events he says it does. Even worse is the fact that it is more of a ‘groupthink’; a collection of what the entire Greek world thought of the relative standings of Sparta and Athens. But, towards the end, he finally brings forth his answer to that problem. If Athens (who is the city with something to prove) can get Sparta to act like Athens is proving its point, then the rest of the Greek world will tend to follow the line of the two principles.

Despite the fact that the book is inevitably nebulous in some particulars, it really is a convincing reconstruction of events based on what we know of the culture, and I highly recommend it.

└ Tags: , ,
 Comment