Czechoslovak OOB37 and Slovak OOB01

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by SaS TrooP

I would however consider adding Czechoslovak Army in the West into the OOB. It is in fact already there, as from July 1945 PHK Corps are available for Czechs with most of the tanks. It would be nice to see some more infantry organized on British pattern. Units would be added only late war and should not take much time.

It would be good, but there would have to be a will... It would sure need some work. The Belgians and the Dutch were lucky to get their tiny 1944-45 forces from the beginning of the game. Contrary to the mentioned nations, the Czecho-Slovak forces had "real" armoured brigade, however it spent all the war, from 10/44, besieging Dunkirk...

Anyway, in case it's needed, they used:
- Cromwells IV/VII from 2/44 as main tanks,
- Cromwells VI CS from around the same time,
- Sherman Ic Firefly in 8/44-5/45
- Challenger from 5/45
- Crusaders III for training from 1943? until some 8/44
- M5A1 Stuart from 2/45
- Humber scout cars

What's interesting, as soon as in May 1945, they packed their toys and drove home on their tanks

[DRG]

I'm just curious.......did you even bother to check the Czech OOB ???? I have to assume NO as will find the majority are already there just not in the same time period. We added them for post war "what if"

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by DRG

I... the majority are already there just not in the same time period. We added them for post war.

Well, that's the tiny difference I admit I checked the OOB two years ago, only to find, that there is no British armour available in 1944. I can't remember if there were Cromwells post war...

[DRG]

Just curious..... do you ever actually PLAY the game or do you just troll through the OOB's looking for things to "investigate" It's unclear if you look at any of this in the actual game because if you did the explanation for the PKH formations is built into the games information tab including the Dunkirk info.

There really was no good reason to include them at all since the ONLY reason anyone would use them is in a scenario NOT a generated battle and for that they can easily be built from the Brit OOB then renationalized to show the Czech ID tag..........but we did ( why ?? IDK.....but I'm close to certain they were added before we introduced the "Allies/ Captured" function to the game so I'm going to bet that was why) but there is NO reason whatsoever to backdate them ( if anyone has actually played a game with or against those units I'd be interested to hear about it )....

[Pibwl]

Sometimes I PLAY scenarios. I admit I haven't ever played Czechoslovakia. But note, that this time it wasn't me, who demanded adding Western allied CS units.

BTW: thank you for calling my efforts to improve historical accuracy, "trolling through the OOB's". Unfortunately, it's a kind of addiction, that reaches back to SP1 times. It's unfortunate for me first of all, because I'm wasting time for researching, without any support - to say the least. Yes, I know nobody asked me. And most of the hints I give seem easier to fix, than to complain about, especially, that usually I write not only, what is wrong, but what should be done. Of course, sometimes I'm wrong as for game mechanisms or I demand too much work (if I could demand anything), but then you can just ignore it.

[DRG]

I guess One mans "efforts to improve historical accuracy" is another mans "trolling through the OOB's"

You produce these huge lists and the ONLY way anyone can produce a list like that is to sit down, load a unit with MOBHack then crack open a book or books looking for differences from what we have entered vs whatever your book says ( most of which seem only available to you ) and I have found many cases where your source differs from other sources when I try to double check the change you are saying needs to be done.

Also whatever time you take to investigate it takes me just as long or longer to confirm and make sure it doen't disrupt a formation (or AI picklist !! which NOBODY but us takes into consideration with those "To be removed IMO") unless I feel it's not worth cross checking so much of the time I would like to spend doing things to advance the game is spent re-arranging data that in the vast majoity of cases I KNOW will not make an impact to the game play or to the majority of players so every year I end up investing a significant portion of the time I have available changing ( for example ) aircraft introduction dates by a month or two " helpful" suggestions on what gun Icon would be best when I KNOW the differences are Only apparent in MOBHack NOT the game and endless fussing over which photo you think would be best ( most of which I ignore but it still takes time to consider the change ).

I know for all the hundreds of hours I put in every year wading through all of this the actual impact on gameplay is minimal yet I continue to at least go through every suggestion you or anyone else makes but I toss out more and more every year. Yes, I could just ignore them..... Andy does and he's the original OOB guru..It's safe to say Andy would have been happy still playing with the OOB's we had when we release the first windows version.... I just inherited the job ( that I DO NOT enjoy ) when he moved to programmer

And yes Micheal you are right about one thing YOU made the decision to do this without encouragement from Camo Workshop so don't complain about being under appreciated.

Now.... that all said I DO think the OOBs ARE better than they were from a detailed accuracy POV than they were a decade ago but the overall effect on gameplay is minimal

Don

[DRG]

Originally Posted by griefbringer

would those infantry units organised in the british pattern differ from british infantry units in the british oob, which can already be purchased as "captured allies" by anyone wanting to construct such forces for a scenario?

EXACTLY correct

The armour was added for what ifs, the infantry was not and there is little need for them anyway except in scenarios and there are ample ways built into the game to added them seamlessly from other OOB's for scenario use

[SaS TrooP]

I some sort of inconsistency here.

At one point you intentionally add PHK Corps for "what if" scenarios, just to make them accessible for what if scenarios, even if 1945+ CSLA scenario is highly unlikely - and yu make all your work to do that even if people can buy UK units in captured mode.

Then you literally refuse to add 1-2 additional companies of infantry on the very same basis and shift availability to 8/44 to make them historically accessible - by argumenting that you can buy units in captured mode.

Maybe I get into your way, I do scenarios - not TOEs. But for the love of God, if it is few minutes work and adds significant amount of units to one of the nations - why not? Won't that make the game better?

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by SaS TrooP

... But for the love of God, if it is few minutes work and adds significant amount of units to one of the nations - why not? Won't that make the game better?

...better don't annoy Don, sure he's got much work anyway

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

Sometimes I PLAY scenarios. I admit I haven't ever played Czechoslovakia. But note, that this time it wasn't me, who demanded adding Western allied CS units.

BTW: thank you for calling my efforts to improve historical accuracy, "trolling through the OOB's". Unfortunately, it's a kind of addiction, that reaches back to SP1 times. It's unfortunate for me first of all, because I'm wasting time for researching, without any support - to say the least. Yes, I know nobody asked me. And most of the hints I give seem easier to fix, than to complain about, especially, that usually I write not only, what is wrong, but what should be done. Of course, sometimes I'm wrong as for game mechanisms or I demand too much work (if I could demand anything), but then you can just ignore it.

If you went through each OOB & suggested the top half dozen adjustments for each they would probably be actioned & in the game by now.
You persist in giving huge lists rather than limiting it to the important changes.
The time to check & implement them is massive, longer than you spend doing the research & the designers have many other calls on their time improving the game which is I would guess why your lists never get actioned.
Try submitting your Top 50 changes next year & they might just get in, OOB work is incredibly boring I know I have done it & I for one prefer Don to spend the time refining the game system.
Realistically they are not going to do so for much longer so let them do what they are good at, OOBs we can tinker with ourselves.

You could build your own OOB's & post for anybody that's interested.
Include a text file listing the changes & or mark changed unit formation names with a symbol so changes stand out.
We can delete the symbol if we wish.
If you cant use things like @ or# put a capital Z or P for Pibwl at the end of the name.