[Release] Dynamic Campaign Generator 2.5 and all 2.5 Packs

[Jason1]

Dynamic Campaign Generator for Men of War Version 2.5

This is the release thread for the following files:

1) Dynamic Campaign Generator (DCG) Program version 2.5
(4 MB)
Mirror1: http://www.gamefront.com/files/20061574/DCG_v2_5_Part1_Program_7z
Mirror2: http://www.moddb.com/mods/dynamic-campaign-generator-dcg/downloads/dcg-v25-part-1-program

Choose ONLY ONE Map Pack below:
2) Map Pack version 2.5 Standard
(100 MB)
Mirror1: http://www.gamefront.com/files/20046812/DCG_v2_5_Part2_Maps_7z
Mirror2: http://www.moddb.com/mods/dynamic-campaign-generator-dcg/downloads/dcg-v25-part-2-maps-standard
--OR--
2) Map Pack version 2.5 Enhanced (includes new ambient sounds by Ty2903)
(211 MB)
Mirror1: http://www.gamefront.com/files/20046859/DCG_v2_5_Part2_Maps_Enhanced_7z
Mirror2: http://www.moddb.com/mods/dynamic-campaign-generator-dcg/downloads/dcg-v25-part-2-maps-enhanced

3) Unit Pack version 2.5 (formerly Vehicle Pack and Infantry Pack, now merged)
(107 MB)
Mirror1: http://www.gamefront.com/files/20046891/DCG_v2_5_Part3_Units_7z
Mirror2: http://www.moddb.com/mods/dynamic-campaign-generator-dcg/downloads/dcg-v25-part-3-units

4) Hotfix for Unit Pack version 2.5 (see list of fixes in the included file "readme_vehicles.txt")
(<1 MB)
Mirror1: http://www.gamefront.com/files/20124871/DCG_v2_5_Part3_Units_Hotfix_7z
Mirror2: http://www.moddb.com/mods/dynamic-campaign-generator-dcg/downloads/dcg-v25-part-3-units-hotfix
(Copy this Hotfix over the main Unit Pack and overwrite files when prompted)

***
Please visit the separate release thread by Ty2903 here to obtain the Realism Pack for DCG version 2.5:
http://www.digitalmindsoft.eu/forums/viewtopic.php?f=138&t=9455

***
A patch for using DCG with Men of War: Assault Squad is available in the new Dynamic Campaign Generator Forum for Men of War: Assault Squad located here:
http://www.digitalmindsoft.eu/forums/viewforum.php?f=153
If you want to use DCG with Men of War: Assault Squad you must visit the above forum and obtain the upgrade patch. Do NOT use ANY other DCG Pack with Men of War: Assault Squad.

***
See the included readme.txt file for information about installing and playing DCG.

Delete any old versions of the mod before installing this one.

You MUST have Men of War Patch 1.17.5.1 (Hotfix 1.17.5.1) installed in order for this program to function properly. You can get a Full Patch 1.17.5.1 with Hotfix here:
http://www.1cfiles.com/menofwar/update_setup1.17.5.1-en-fr-is-sp-1c-full.exe

If you are running Windows Vista or Windows 7 you will find installation much easier if Men of War is NOT installed in the C:\Program Files\ folder.

If you have a Steam version of Men of War, you may find installation to be tricky; be prepared to read the readme extra closely, search other threads in this forum for answers, and post questions if you need help.

***
Visit the DCG page at moddb here: http://www.moddb.com/mods/dynamic-campaign-generator-dcg

Many thanks to the team - be sure to thank them for all their hard work!
Zeke Wolff, Ngvede, Kohlrabi, Trog, and Ty2903/guitarist2903
Thanks also to all the people who make posts here with bugs, comments, suggestions, criticism and praise (these are really important - consider posting your impressions, especially if you have never posted before)!

:toast:


DCG Version 2.5 Changes


- Map nation and date restrictions now possible
- Completely rewrote waypoint code so each unit has its own set of waypoints (they are no longer shared and units may clump less)
- AI off-map artillery spotters start in AI setup area, have a waypoint to move towards, and must be alive and in contact with some of your forces to call in artillery
- Rarity overrides added so vehicle rarity can change over time
- Added rarity column to purchase screen; items which are unavailable are now indicated in light gray
- Fixed some bugs with how the AI chooses vehicles
- Added new mission type which gives the player a limited amount of time to capture one objective; the player does not have to hold the objective, however, only clear it once before the timer runs out to win
- Added new maneuver plan for the computer in which troops form a line rather than move to the objectives
- Airplane altitude fixes
- Added small purchase price discount for each vehicle player already has of the same type to reflect easier support for like types
- Platoon deployment and movement added for vehicles (platoon members share waypoints)
- Removed commander tag from 1st wave computer squads so they can seek cover if they are not in contact when they reach their final waypoint
- New possible victory bonus for some infiltration missions prevents the computer forces from attacking anywhere on the operation map the following day
- New possible victory bonus for some infiltration missions on airbase maps prevents the computer from conducting airstrikes for the remainder of the operation
- Moved xml files to a subfolder
- Fixed crash bug when continuing a campaign between operations and all dropdowns are not selected yet
- Infiltration missions only occur at night now unless "No Night Battles" option is checked
- No 2nd wave computer troops are present in infiltration missions
- Computer squads do not get assault orders in infiltration missions
- New easier missions setting on Settings form which ignores the unitsrandomcomputerbonus setting when calculating the number of computer units for a mission (this is equivalent to changing the unitsrandomcomputerbonus setting to 0 in the Settings.xml file)
- Added some region-specific generic (random map) operations and removed a few old ones
- Units in generic operations are now assigned a random category type
- Code improvements and fixes
- Added file with gameplay information named "instructions.htm"


Map Pack Version 2.5 Changes


- Added new operation based on historical situation:
* Operation Skorpion, North Africa - March 24 to June 17, 1941
- Removed duplicate maps and updated affected operations (suburb and warehouse are smaller versions of suburbs3, dubovka and moscow are smaller versions of the ones in multi) from Maps.xml


Unit Pack Version 2.5 Changes


- Fix for Pz 35t and Pz 38t MGs
- Kolrabi's infantry pack merged with vehicle pack (see separate infantry pack readme)
- UK breeds that can level up
- Updated Japanese breeds
- Tankman breeds for all nations with leveling up ability
- Weapon skills to all nations breeds
- Several Vehicle and weapon fixes
- Several Description fixes
- Diesel tag added to vehicles that use diesel
- Improves DCG compatibility with Ty's Realism Mod


The compression format for the releases is 7-Zip which is a free download from here:
http://www.7-zip.org/

You MUST have Men of War Patch 1.17.5.1 (Hotfix 1.17.5.1) installed in order for this program to function properly.

***

DCG requires you to install three Microsoft files to run. If you have used previous versions of DCG be sure to check below as the XNA and J# files require updated versions. All the required Microsoft files are listed below:

***

You MUST have Microsoft .NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable Package installed in order for this program to function properly. Note that the .NET Framework 2.0 is included as an OS component on Windows Vista and the .NET Framework 3.5 is included as an OS component on Windows 7, so this step is not necessary in those or later operating systems.

This update is available for free from Microsoft's website. You can find it here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=0856EACB-4362-4B0D-8EDD-AAB15C5E04F5&displaylang=en (Not needed with Windows Vista or Windows 7)

If you have a 64 bit version of Windows, you should use the following link instead:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=B44A0000-ACF8-4FA1-AFFB-40E78D788B00&displaylang=en (Not needed with Windows Vista or Windows 7)

You MUST also have Microsoft XNA Framework Redistributable 3.0 installed in order for this program to function properly.

This download is available for free from Microsoft's website. You can find it here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=6521D889-5414-49B8-AB32-E3FFF05A4C50&displaylang=en

You MUST also have Microsoft Visual J#® 2.0 Redistributable Package – Second Edition installed in order for this program to function properly.
(You may be prompted to uninstall a previous version of the Visual J# 2.0 Redistributable Package before you can install this)

This download is available for free from Microsoft's website. You can find it here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=E9D87F37-2ADC-4C32-95B3-B5E3A21BAB2C&displaylang=en

If you have a 64 bit version of Windows, you should use the following link instead:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=42C46554-5313-4348-BF81-9BB133518945&displaylang=en

***
See the included readme.txt file for more information about installing and playing DCG.
***

A note about difficulty:
To get the most challenging experience out of DCG you will want to do the following things:
1) Always save your mission result and continue, even when you lose the battle or lose all your men
2) Play MoW with "Fog of War" set to realistic
3) Activate the mini-mod included with DCG called "minimapfix"
4) Play MoW on "Hard" difficulty

***

DCG includes an operation map screen that allows you to see the maps in the current operation and drag and drop your unit where you want to attack or defend. A new feature (not shown here) allows you to start an infiltration mission by dragging your unit to a map which is NOT adjacent to one you control.

A screenshot below explains the operation map screen:
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3609/instructionsx.jpg

For additional instructions on the operation map screen, open the file named "instructions.htm" in the mod folder

***

Visit http://www.moddb.com/mods/dynamic-campa ... erator-dcg (http://www.moddb.com/mods/dynamic-campaign-generator-dcg) for additional screenshots.

***

[barecgesh]

Yeah! best mod(game by its own right) keeps on gettin better now if there was only way to tie this together with forgotten hope 2 :wow:

[Andrey A.]

Registered for what to say to you, thank you for your work, thank you, I really liked your mod, you are very talented.

You made the game much more interesting and dynamic. After this mod-game the other strategies boring and simple.

:typing:

[Trog]

@Andrey A. I felt the same way first time I played this mod. glad that it has made an impression, hope you will let us know what we you like the best, and if you would like to see any other features.

[theking497]

so when is 2.6 coming ? xD................................................ ............................ na just skrewing with ya all :)

now if i only could get my pc back..... :shady:

[purg_GER]

Hail to the king! THX!

[The Soldier]

I got this error mesage:


define not found (esdlreader.cpp, 326)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>main
>file "set/stuff/gun/100mm_d10c"

5: (range_maximum"<<)
6:
7: ("speed" s(1100))
8: ("calibber_maximum")
9: {projectileDamage170}


Men of War: Assault Squad Editor - v1.81.1 - editor
2011.01.31 15:32 - 0x008E45B9

I'm using Steam, ad I followed all the directions. Making a new campaign worked. I have Steam in "Program Files (x86)".

[Ty2903]

Looks like your using it in Men of War Assault Squad. Only part 1 of the download and the (AS) patch are designed to be used in Assault Squad.

We also have a DCG release thread for Assault Squad HERE (http://www.digitalmindsoft.eu/forums/viewtopic.php?f=153&t=9460url). Please post AS related issues there to avoid further confusion.

[Slimak81]

Well a category type of units for AI is not a good idea . In 2.4 there was a good mix of ai inf , ATGs and tanks (when play 10 + units )
Now my tank division faces only infantry + trucks + some guns or only tanks with no inf support .
If i face infantry division this is an easy win , if armoured - a crushing defeat (
2.4 was much more balanced .

Its good for me i could change categories back to random )

New ai pathfinding and behaviour got better .
Overall impressions are good .

[Ext3rmin4tor]

Is there a way to increase the max force size points (now set on 40) or is it hardcoded?

[Ty2903]

After each operation you complete it grows (if I remember correctly, by 8 points). The max size isn't hardcoded, it's in the settings xml as something like "<unitbase>5<unitbase/>". Increasing this number increases your force size but also increases the enemies the same amount.

[Ext3rmin4tor]

Ok, thanks :)

[Trog]

<unitsbasemin>5</unitsbasemin>
<unitsbasemax>10</unitsbasemax>


The <unitsbasemin>5</unitsbasemin> This equates to 5x8=40 command points, Each operation you win will increase your command limit upto the max, 10.

If you adjust these numbers you could end up with a some results that are outside the design.

I have experimented and put in 100 for base min. and I faced 97 squads and 22 vehicles, I wondered why my game was lagging. I had fog on and did not see the start up.

We are aware of the balance between a battle that is over too quickly and one that you just can't win.

But the trick is how to have one mission lead to the next that makes sense and tells a story.

[Ext3rmin4tor]

The problem is that playing 1941-42 campaigns with Germany is next to impossible if you focus on tanks (which is historically inaccurate). If you play Eastern Front you must face a swarm of T-34 after 3 rounds which are virtually unstoppable by Panzer III Ausf. F (Late) and if you play North Africa you must face swarm of Matildas which are even worse, since the 2 punders is more powerful than it was in the real world. So I simply avoid buying tanks and I buy a Flak 18 which rapes everything the AI will send me (both infantry and tanks).

I suggest that you somehow limit the number of medium tanks the AI can buy during the early years of war, since in 1941 most of the soviet amrored batallions were formed by T-26's and rarely you could see a T-34. The T-34 entered mass production in late 1941, not talking about KV-1 and KV-2. Same for Matilads, they were infantry tanks so they were not built in great numbers, most of 1941 British tanks were Crusaders.

[Jason1]

I suggest that you somehow limit the number of medium tanks the AI can buy during the early years of war, since in 1941 most of the soviet amrored batallions were formed by T-26's and rarely you could see a T-34. The T-34 entered mass production in late 1941, not talking about KV-1 and KV-2. Same for Matilads, they were infantry tanks so they were not built in great numbers, most of 1941 British tanks were Crusaders.

Aha! That exact problem bothered me for the longest time, so I fixed it in the most realistic way I could think of in v2.5: namely, that is the purpose of the new feature which assigns unit types on the operation map. Basically, when you are playing Germans 1941 you need to look at the unit icon of each Soviet division and bypass or else surround and destroy armored units rather than continuously take them on directly (infantry, motorized, and mechanized units will not have tanks). I also added rarity overrides to the .xml files in v2.5 so that the T-34 is now somewhat rare in June 1941 and doesn't become common until late in the year.

[Slimak81]

Jason1 could you please tell is <unitcategory>99<unitcategory> a random division for AI ?
if possible could you wright down here available categories , i remeber that 0 is inf + guns , 1 light tanks etc .. but do not remember them all (

[Ext3rmin4tor]

Aha! That exact problem bothered me for the longest time, so I fixed it in the most realistic way I could think of in v2.5: namely, that is the purpose of the new feature which assigns unit types on the operation map. Basically, when you are playing Germans 1941 you need to look at the unit icon of each Soviet division and bypass or else surround and destroy armored units rather than continuously take them on directly (infantry, motorized, and mechanized units will not have tanks). I also added rarity overrides to the .xml files in v2.5 so that the T-34 is now somewhat rare in June 1941 and doesn't become common until late in the year.

Another question, why do Soviets have Japanese tanks? I know some tanks might have been captured during the war in China in 1939 but Japanese barely had enough steel to build their ships, their production wasn't focused on tanks, so I really doubt that Soviets managed to capture so many enemy tanks to mass use them on the battlefield. Personally I would remove them.

Besides I would rework the Panzer III Ausf. F (Late) stats to match the real counterpart. It had 60mm of hull frontal plate (30mm + 30mm of additional blended plate) like the Ausf. H (now it's 30mm) and 50mm in the turret front, because now it is really a useless tank: it can't take out a T-34 or a Matilda from any direction, including the rear, and that's the only tank you can build.

[Ty2903]

Soviets have Jap Tanks by mistake.. this problem is listed to be resolved in the hotfix. About the tanks penetration and armor values... are you using Realism 2?

[purg_GER]

Against the russian tank-waves i prefer 88Flak and infantry-units (about 3 men) with antitank-grenades. It works because of the good hiding possibilities.

[Ext3rmin4tor]

No, I'm not, but I noticed that the Panzer III Ausf. F penetration (the one related to the KwL 38 L/42) has been decreased compared to Men of War 1.17.5, as well as several other tanks. This is because the guy who did that, used the penetration data (at 100, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 meters) as it is, but penetration tables consider a 30° sloped armor, while game value consider a 90° penetration value. To get the correct penetration you must use the formula:

Tn = Ts / cos 30

I reworked some values, including the FlaK 18, and now it is way better. Besides there is also another error: the Panzer III Ausf. J is available since February 1942, but it was deployed since January 1941. In that way you could counter somehow T-34's, becuase the Panzer III Ausf. J has a better gun (the longer KwK 39 L/60) and better turret armor. I also reworked the armor plate values of the Panzer III Ausf. F, which had 60mm of hull frontal armor and 30mm of turret armor and now at least it doesn't get destroyed by ****ty 45mm tank guns and it is more resistant even to the 76mm ZiS-2 of the T-34 (if they hit the turret they destroy it, but most of the shots usually hit the hull front).

I also reworked the penetration for the KwK 40 L/43 and KwK 40 L/48 (and StuK 40 counterpart) to match the correct penetration value.

[Zeke Wolff]

The Pz.Kpfw. III Ausf. J Early were introduced in March 1941 and production ended in July 1942. During that period 1,549 examples were made. These Early Ausf. J´s had the same 5 cm L/42 gun as the uparmed Ausf. G and F.

In December 1941, the Ausf. J Late were introduced. This one sported the longer 5cm L/60 main gun, which still had problems taking out T34´s at longer ranges. The production of the Ausf. J Late ended in July 1942 (the L/42 and L/60 production ended at the same time) with 1,067 examples produced.

Both the L/42 and L/60 versions shared the same turret, body etc and the same armor thickness.

After the Ausf. J, the better armored Ausf. L version appeared. This one had better turret front armor (at 57mm instead of 30mm).

Both Ausf. J versions and the later Ausf. L could be seen with the spaced frontal turret armor, but none of the Ausf. J Early or the Ausf. J Late in DCG has this spaced armor.

Books regularly lists the Ausf. J Late as appearing late in December 1941, and thus we decided to let it be available in January 1942, since DCG only let vehicles be available in the correct month, instead of an exact date.

The short 5cm L/42 were a joke when facing KV1 and T34 in Russia.

You seem to be pretty sure on how the penetration system (calculation) do work - are you absolutely sure on how it work, or is it just your guess?

Some of our DCG penetration values are better than vanilla MoW (I dont know about MoW:AS files since I havent studied those files yet) values and some are worse.

~Zeke.

[Ext3rmin4tor]

This site is quite reliable for WW2 equipment and vehicles stats:

http://www.tarrif.net

In Men of War there is an inaccuracy reguarding the Panzer III. The Panzer III Ausf. F mounted the first 37mm KwK 36 L/46.5, the Panzer III Ausf. F in Men of War is actually the Ausf.H (which entered production in October 1940) and had an additional 30mm armored plate bolted to the hull front and rear, and the new KwK 38 L/42 cannon.

Reguarding the penetration values, the problem is that DMS didn't look at the penetration tables, or at least they looked only the maximum penetration values, the other values are wrong. I think they made this to balance the multiplayer, since a Tiger could take out any tank except maybe IS-2 with a single shot. For example the Tiger at the distance of 85 game units, has a penetration of ~76mm and has troubles in penetrating a Sherman M4A2, which is simply ridiculous.

The penetration forumla can be proved as follows:

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7366/slopedarmor.jpg

Let us consider an armor sloped by a degrees from the vertical (showed in blue in the picture), and an AP shell penetrating the frontal plate (showed in red in the pictured). The line Ts represents the sloped armor value (for example when we say that the T-34 has 45mm @ 45° we have a = 45° and Ts = 45mm). We want to find the amount Tn of armor the shell has to penetrate to pierce through the sloped armor (showed in green in the picture), because the shell will likely travel along a straight path, which is like saying that Tn is the equivalent amount of armor the shell has to pierce at 90°.

I'll refer to the angles from now on as i,j and k, starting from the shell impact point and going clockwise. We have that

i = 90° - a, because their sum is the right angle formed by the dotted vertical line and the green segment Tn

j = 90°, because the segment Ts (black) is the distance between two parallel lines (which are the edges of the sloped armor plate)

Therefore, since the sum of the inner angles of a triangle must be 180°, we have that


180° = i + j + k
k = 180° - i - j = 180° - 90° + a - 90° = a


Now we have a right triangle, whose hypotenuse is Tn. So if we find the length of the hypotenuse we have what we are looking for. Since we know the lenght of Ts (which is the sloped armor thickness) and the measure of k (which is equal to a, that is, the sloped armor angle), so recalling the definition of cosine we have:


cos(a) = Ts/Tn
Tn = Ts/cos(a)


So you can see that the formula I used is correct.

Now game units are like 10 units = 1 meter, so you can use 10, 50, 100, 150 and 200 as distance values to set the correct penetration.

For example the T-34 has 45mm @ 45°, so the equivalent vertical armor is

Tn = 45mm/cos(45) ~ 64mm

The Panther Ausf. G has 80mm @ 35°, so the equivalent vertical armor is
Tn = 80mm/cos(35) ~ 98mm

The Panzer III Ausf. J kwK 39 has a penetration of 57mm @ 30° at 500 meters away according to the tables, so the equivalent penetration @ 90° is

57mm/cos(30) ~ 66mm

[The Soldier]

Sounds complicated. But it might tilt the game towards Germany, who had superior armor penetration with the 88mm and high-velocity 75mm guns. I count four tanks in ther German arsenal from MoW: AS with the 88mm and HV-75mm guns, while the Americans have only one tank with a 90mm gun (excluding the Super Pershing, which is a Hero Unit), and no tank destroyers are equiped with it. Britain has only one good tank, the Centurion, equiped with the HV-75mm gun. (I don't count the Sherman HV-75mm becuase they lack armor, not really being a good tank v. tank armor unit). The Soviet Union doesn't even have a gun larger than an 85mm untill the ISU-152 comes out. If the armor change was implemented, then why not make the most common and well-known tanks of the Allies cheaper, so at least make them able to overwhelm the superior German tanks at sime intervale, but not cheap enough to spam them.

[Ext3rmin4tor]

Dont' the Russian have IS-1 and IS-2 in Assault Squad?

[Zeke Wolff]

This site is quite reliable for WW2 equipment and vehicles stats:

http://www.tarrif.net

Well, I couldn´t care less for online sources... I rely on my 500+ book collection when it comes to WW2 equipment.

~Zeke.

[The Soldier]

Dont' the Russian have IS-1 and IS-2 in Assault Squad?
Yes, they do. The IS-1 has an 85mm gun. The IS-2 and IS-3 have a 122mm gun.

[Ext3rmin4tor]

Well, I couldn´t care less for online sources... I rely on my 500+ book collection when it comes to WW2 equipment.

~Zeke.

Well, look there for real values (and I don't understand why a book should be more reliable than an online site for this matters since most of the info comes from those books), but the proof of the sloped armor forumla can't be argued since it is basic maths. Besides you confirmed what I told before: that the Panzer III Ausf. J1 entered service in January 1941, while in the game it is available since February 1942. I don't know about the Panzer III Ausf. F frontal plate, you can look for it in the books.

[Zeke Wolff]

Pz.kpfw. III Ausf. F were introduced in September 1939, just as it is in our DCG mod.

We do not have a Early Pz.Kpfw. III Ausf. J in our mod - the Late Ausf. J enters (which we do have in our mod) in March 1942. It is a bit later than December 1941/January 1942 though, and we probably should change this sooner or later, but it isnt a game breaking thing right now (and this mean that I didnt confirm that the Pz.Kpfw. III Ausf. J Late entered service in January 1941...).

Both the Ausf. F and Ausf. J Late had 30mm thich turret front armor as standard. Hull front armor for the Ausf. F were 30mm, whilst the Ausf. J Late had 50mm as standard. The Ausf. F in the mod has got the armor upgrade added to the turret (so it now has 50mm thick front turret armor) but it didnt get it to the hull, since not all uparmored/uparmed Ausf. F got both turret and hull upgrades. If this is a problem, just change the values to whatever you want in the .def files for the Ausf. F. Just open the files with notepad and change them.

There isnt anything 100% sure about gun penetration values - 45mm Russian guns (by manufacturers) were listed as being able to penetrate up to 35-40mm at 500 metres, whilst firing test showed that certified penetration were about 18-20mm at 500 metres. AP ammunition for this gun also had a tendency to break when hitting armor instead of penetrating. None of these two facts are included in the game.

It is after all a game, and not a 100% historical battle simulator/history revisited. For instance, the game doesnt include the fact that the Germans had better radio communication between their tanks, and neither does it include that early Russian tanks were suffering from overtaxing the tank commander (who in several Russian early tanks not only commanded the tank, but also loaded and fired the main gun(s)/coaxial machinegun(s) etc) which meant that German tanks were able to outmanouver the Russian tanks.

~Zeke.

[Ty2903]

I second Zeke on the penetration values subject. I've seen that website your talking about but I don't typically use it.

There are other websites out there that I think do a better job. Battlefield.ru (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbattlefield.ru%2F&act=url) is a great resource.
I know GSM creator Blub0r2k uses this Website (http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/introduction.htmlurl) which is really good.

About the math,
Cos (30) = 0.15425145
57/0.15425145 = 369.5265104

I know that there is a formula that can achieve your result but I'm not sure if it was posted right.

Your right that we don't account for the angle in the penetration stats however, we also don't account for the varying types of armor that tanks were made from, nor the different qualities of that armor. Neither do we adjust for that fact that the Germans had different standards for calculating what is considered a penetration than the Russians or the USA. (I read somewhere on the battlefield website that germans considered a tank penetrated when %50 of shell shrapnel was inside of the tank while the Russians didn't consider it penetrated unless over %80 of shell made it through). So we can't really compare the 2 nations data even though we do since we plug them into the same game.

In all honesty there is a myriad of factors that go into tank combat that the game nor we can account for and this is probably why penetration data varies so much in books and websites. In WWII they didn't think, @ 50m I can penetrate that tank but @51m I cannot, like we do in MoW. There was a lot more grey area in real life and the game can't calculate that.

So we can argue all day till were blue in the face about what it should be, and we could support our answers either way and the truth is we're both probably right and wrong.

About the T-34 and when it came out... read the articles on the Russian battlefield website. They report several hundred examples were produced in 1940 and a few thousand were made throughout 1941. In the summer of 41 they started unofficially putting in the F-34 gun, replacing the L11 that originally was in the obr. 1940 model.

The early T-34's were also plagued with mechanical failures and lack of spare parts to repair them. In DCG 2.5 we attempted to replicate this by removing repair kits from the crews of the early T-34s. I'd also suggest trying to play with Realism 2. It adds extra tank scripts so that tank crews will abandon vehicles after a few minutes if crews don't repair the vehicle. Also T-34's have there ROF reduced much close to how they were in real life 4-5 RPM.

[Ext3rmin4tor]

The problem is that the game engine DOES ACCOUNT the angle, so if you want realistic penetration you must normalize them to 90°, because the game engine does that for you in the game.In fact the T-34 has only 45mm (like the Stuart if I remember well) but a Stuart can be taken out easily by a Panzer III while a T-34 can't. So if a table reports the penetration data of a 30° sloped armor, you have to normalize them otherwise your penetration is decreased even more due to internal engine calculating the penetration angle.

Reguarding the usage of the formula, you are using RADIANTS in your calculator and not DEGREES, you must use degrees because the armor angle data are measured in degrees. If you use radiants, 30° = PI/6, where PI is the same constant used to compute the area of a circle (that is PI = 3,1415926...). The proof is there (few posts upwards), and the proof is general, it works for radiants, degrees, gradiants, you just have to understand it, have the patience to read it and use the correct reference system for angles, it's just basic geometry and trigonometry (Ok, I used degrees in the constants in the proof but you can replace 180° with PI and 90° with PI/2 but it doesn't matter because they are cancelled when computing the angle k).

If you use radiants and your calculator supports radiants only, you must convert the angle measurement from degrees to radiants with the formula

rad = (PI * deg)/180

Besides most of the tables are consistent because they report the same data. If you want another site, here's one which reports sources the penetration data were taken from (all books).

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns/37-mm.asp

I agree that it is not universal what is considered penetrated and what is not, but if you get the data from the same source the data are consistent, no matter what definition of penetration it is used. I don't want everything to be accounted, like mechanical problems, missing radios in Soviet tanks and so on, but if there is an error with penetrations why not correct them :)? I did edit the files, and it is better now.

[Ty2903]

Ahh.. I forgot about Radiants. Its been a few years since my last trig class.

The wwiivehicles.com is another website I do use, though it does have quite a bit of missing data when your looking for info on every gun in MoW.

I think I'll look into recalculating the penetration values in Realism and adjust for the angles they were measured at.

[Jason1]

The problem is that the game engine DOES ACCOUNT the angle, so if you want realistic penetration you must normalize them to 90°, because the game engine does that for you in the game.

Yes! Yes! I always thought that Men Of War played fast and loose with this by normalizing some armor values and not others, but I never put in the effort to try and prove it -- thank you for that!


I think I'll look into recalculating the penetration values in Realism and adjust for the angles they were measured at.

Super! "DCG, now with extra trigonometry" :realbig:

[Jason1]

The mirrors for the Hotfix for Unit Pack 2.5 have been added to the first post.

[Ext3rmin4tor]

Yes! Yes! I always thought that Men Of War played fast and loose with this by normalizing some armor values and not others, but I never put in the effort to try and prove it -- thank you for that!


The game normalizes every armor if it is sloped, or if the impact angle is not 90°, in fact a strategy with German tanks is not showing the full front to your enemy but angling it, so that the impact angle is not right but something less. In that way you artificially create a sloped armor even if the armor itself is not sloped. It is a good strategy with Tanks with a good side armor, like Tigers, it is more risky with Panzer IV's since they have a good front armor but only 30mm in the side armor.

The question was that, if you set the penetration values of a cannon with sloped armor values, you reduce the effeftiveness of the cannon even more, because the engine will assume it is a normalized value, and recalculate the pentration, instead the value is already reworked for sloped armor.

For example, if you enter the penetration value of the KwK 39 at 500m at 30°, which is 57mm, the game will compute the penetration for the armor of a T-34 (45° sloped armor) considering 57mm as it was the penetration at 90° (which is not, because tables usually report penetration data at 30°), so you have

Ts = Tn * cos(45) = 57mm * cos(45)~ 40mm

So this is the main problem, the game already applies the formula to sloped surfaces, so you must revert the measures back to 90° to give the program a correct input datum, otherwise it will recompute a sloped penetration value on a penetration value already relative to a sloped surface .

[alex0809]

I think you misunderstood something there.
Most penetration data of WW2 guns is based on a 30 ° angled impacts. That means the penetration values are less than at no angle.
However, in Men of War the penetration values are not set for 30 ° angle but for no angle. So they are actually less than they were in reality (because the Devs for most guns just used the values for 30 ° angle without recalculating it to correct values).

[Jason1]

I do get that the game does the trigonometry to calculate actual armor width taking into account angles. I mean that I think sometimes the developers have been inconsistent in the vehicle definitions and used armor thicknesses at right angles sometimes and at sloped angles at other times.

At one point in the past I came to believe that was the case with the T-34 which had a front hull value that already included sloping in the def file, so the game engine then adding the sloping bonus again, doubling it. Whereas the panther has the right angle value for its front hull, so it only got the benefit of sloping once, when added by the game engine.

Here is my favorite site for tank specifications - this is the Tiger I page (click the "Specifications" tab and scroll down to armor thicknesses - with citations! I bet Zeke has those books! Handy...):
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tanks-heavy/pzkpfw-vi-e.asp

[Ext3rmin4tor]

I think you misunderstood something there.
Most penetration data of WW2 guns is based on a 30 ° angled impacts. That means the penetration values are less than at no angle.
However, in Men of War the penetration values are not set for 30 ° angle but for no angle. So they are actually less than they were in reality (because the Devs for most guns just used the values for 30 ° angle without recalculating it to correct values).

It' what I've been saying all the time :)

Yes the penetration is inconsistent, it's for balance reasons, because a Tiger could rape every tank except IS-2 at any distance (and it is like that with my reworked stats in the DCG), while in Men of War it has some troubles to penetrate a M4A2 Sherman and M4A2 76(W) frontally, because it has 76mm sloped and the penetration of a Tiger at 80 game units is around 78-80mm. But I think it is not balanced either that the 76mm M5 keeps the real stats, that is 110mm at 50 game units, because Hellcats and Sherman M4A2 76(W) rapes everything up to a Tiger. I've always thought that the greatest balance is what it was in real world :)

[Trog]

That is what we strive for here, not balance but to see how each level leads to the next as the war progresses.

That there are going to be times where you are out gunned or out manned or just in a no win situation, this is where the true full range of options come in. Since we have more than one map to play on, we can afford to loose a map or two if it can bleed the enemy, laying mines setting up traps,

We are not there yet but we are progressing this direction.

[erom]

maybe this link can help in calculating the relative armour thickness

http://www.panzerworld.net/armourcalculator

I do not know if it is possible to change the thickness of armor in the game, if possible I think they could differentiate into two types.

-Rolled Homogeneous Armor (RHA): with the actual thickness, 100mm = 100mm (since the penetration values ​​of guns are made ​​in RHA)

-Cast armor: with the thickness 20% less than RHA, 100mm = 80mm

This would simulate the quality of armor for example, almost all Germans tanks are RHA in the other hand Allied tanks are normally cast armor with a few exceptions.

[Ty2903]

Thanks for the input erom, but most of the discussion so far has been about addressing the true penetration values for the guns and not the armor values for the vehicles. The armor values are solid and there is no plan to change them based on "armor type" for each vehicle.

About gun penetration values, I've been fixing them for each nation (UK & USSR done so far) by using 4 different websites and cross-referencing there data. Whatever is the most consistent data is what is used in game. Values are used from standard armor piercing rounds @ 90 degrees (vertical). I'm also attempting to include a link to website of the penetration values in each gun file. So if anyone has any issues with a gun being "over/underpowered" they can see where the data came from.

[Jason1]

The armor values are solid
Just curious about your confidence level...

I sometimes suspect (but may be totally wrong) that the developers may have used some armor values which already have extra thickness due to angling baked in. If they only did this on T-34s (for example), but not Panthers, then the T-34s would be at an unrealistic advantage.

As I say, I could be totally wrong about this, but I've had this nagging suspicion for a long time, so I'm curious if you or one of the others can disabuse me of it?

(Or have we actually edited armor values on the vanilla vehicles to account for this? - I sometimes lose track...)

[Ty2903]

My confidence in the armor values being solid is from Zeke. He edited quite of few of the vehicles when he was going over the fuel capacities and consumption values. So I saw all the changes he was making and how thorough he was working.

[Ext3rmin4tor]

Armor values are correct.

[erom]

I don't know where I can find this changes in armor thickness in the mod files, can you tell me?

In my previous post I hadn't meant that are some error in armor measurements, I was just suggesting a way to differentiate the quality of the armor in the game. Since this is a factor, among many others, that helped the Allies have a production rate much higher than the Germans (Rolled Homogeneous Armor are much more time consuming and expensive to produce than cast armor). It is a trade of quantity for quality because RHA is already 10 to 20% more resistant to penetration than cast.

Here is a link that discusses the different grades of armor.

http://yarchive.net/mil/ww2_tank_armor.html

And here's another link to a web site that I think is very helpfull and interesting about armor penetration values ​​of wwii

http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/

[Ty2903]

Armor thickness is typically found in the vehicle .def files (campaign/resource/entity). I understood what you were suggesting but since the game doesn't account for armor types, it'd be a-lot of work to go through and adjust the armor values based on the type of armor each vehicle had.

I'd rather spend my time adding the new shell types that each vehicle had: HEAT, APCR, APBC...etc, than messing with the armor values.

I use that "freeweb" website already along with a couple of others for penetration data. It's a good site.

[erom]

Thanks for the reply, and it's great to hear you are adding new shell types. This mod is the reason I keep playing this game again and again, is excellent and every new version it gets better, thanks to all the people involved in this superb work.

[Jason1]

Thanks Ty! That's good to know!

Since I've been spending time trying to get stuff working with AS, I'm dealing with all the vanilla values again :wilting:

[jtgibson]

Hey guys,

I managed to get DCG up and running flawlessly, after one small hangup -- it might be worthwhile to note in the readme that you cannot use a more recent XNA Framework (4.0) -- you must also download XNA Framework 3.0.

However, after successfully completing my first mission and saving the game, the readme file states that a new mission will be generated shortly and Men of War will be minimised automatically. Unfortunately, no such thing has taken place -- my units are standing around mindlessly, with my allied NPCs wandering around through the minefields and blowing themselves up, and it's been several minutes of no changes. The Campaign executable didn't load automatically either. I've verified that the DCG settings are all correct.

Is there a workaround for this? Would there be a function to automatically force a new mission to load?

[edit] Aha. The Campaign.exe needs to be resident while the game is running. Should throw that in the readme too. Strike the faded text above. ;-)

[Jason1]

@jtgibson: thanks for the info -- I do have XNA 3.0 & 4.0 installed myself, so you must mean that XNA 4.0 alone is not sufficient, not that XNA 4.0 causes problems for you, right?

I will add that to the next version readme as you suggest.

[jtgibson]

Yes, sorry, it was a bit misleading: you cannot exclusively use only XNA 4.0, but must also have XNA 3.0 installed.

[Wolf-In-Exile]

Hi, after playing this release i've got some suggestions to improve the DCG campaign program's interface.

Firstly, allow multiple selection of units (shift+click to select a range or ctrl+click to select individual items) in the unit procurement screen.
This is mainly because the infantry groups get split up if you select them individually in-game, and having to reassign them every time is tedious especially if you play an infantry-heavy force.

Secondly, allow players to rearrange the order of the units in the procurement screen/deployment screen. Currently there's no way (that I know of anyway) to rearrange the order of the units, which again makes it abit tedious to place units if you obtained them at different times in a campaign.

Thanks, and would be great if these suggestions could be implemented. :realbig:

[momblini]

how can i adjust the computer troops
i have played so many battles and few of them have tanks
i need the AI have mix of tanks , inf, guns , artillery not only the last three

[jtgibson]

It depends on the type of unit you're facing. In one campaign ran into an armored division and was promptly slaughtered. Tried to get back on my feet with a two man infantry squad and ran into mechanised infantry and was promptly slaughtered.

I would however like to be able to adjust the rules for enemy spawning to put them on a level more equal with my own... if I slaughter the entire enemy division in one battle, it's a bit disappointing that they are back in full strength in the next one, whereas if my division is slaughtered I have to pick through scraps. Any thoughts on a configuration file that lets us multiply enemy force strength (positively or negatively) and adjust the amount of reinforcements the enemy gets?

Finally, how about an option to gather reinforcements? No military force is ever on the offensive every day, and DCG actually penalises you for not fighting rather than giving you a chance to rebuild. Perhaps just a simple configuration toggle that if you aren't on the front lines, instead of being penalised you get a chance to get +5 points or something per day. Failing to seize the enemy objectives by being too slow during the campaign is its own penalty.

[Jason1]

@wolf-in-exile: those are good ideas - we may do them if there's time...

@momblini & jtgibson: If you are good with xml, you can actually modify the AI forces in the operation xml files by changing "division" categories. Divisions are assumed to have 100s of tanks or 10000s of men, so we have not implemented destroying "divisions", except by surrounding them.

Trog has lots of ideas about adding more difficulty adjustment and more ways to do reinforcements. We will keep working on those things...

[Herr Flick]

Reading the thread does leave me nodding in agreement. Come to think of it, had same sort of thoughts as J.T.Gibson, seems a tad daft at times when I'm facing off against hordes of tanks in post 1943-battles, where, even with AI support, my troops take one hell of a beating. Sort of like Borg's last stand, but this time I can't afford any tanks and can't capture any of theirs for repair since time is on their side, ticking down. I have to result to desperate suicide attacks with AT grenadiers, but most of the time, a tank group can easily stop and MG the bugger down before he gets close enough to toss. And penalties abound if you decide to sit one round out.

Oh, one idea occured to me, don't know if it's doable. Since there's always the odd mission where you've been given ten minutes to seize the spot the enemy tank's sitting on, I'd love to see some sort of preparation time on a field if you've decided to stand your ground before an enemy onslaught. Five minutes to set artillery, troops to trenches, maybe even a few mines and hedgehogs, that sort of thing. Generally you can't utilize your engineer corps, which are my favourite troops in the whole game, unless the battle is already over. Still, just an idle thought.

As a final odd note, I had an error message that caused crashing with the P-51mustang when they were supposed to make an appearance. I just edited it out of the DCG, but dunno if anybody else has had the same odd problem.

[Ty2903]

Use the Hotfix to repair the p51 crash.

[Daylot_Usta]

What would we do without you? I will NOT buy MoW (or similar games with different names) without DCG. Thanks for your great work, passion and creativity.

LONG LIVE GDC. Hip hip hurray, hip hip hurray...

[Jason1]

Thanks for your great work, passion and creativity.

Thanks for the kind words!

[jtgibson]

You know, I've been thinking about the reinforcements system for the player -- how about a simple "the point cost of all of your forces lost in a given mission is multiplied by a user-configurable percentage and added back as points". So for instance if you lose your 41-point tank and have reinforcements percentage set to 50%, you'll at least get 20 points back after the mission; you'll still be out one tank, but at least you'll have a chance to recover by fielding an IFV or a few infantry squads.

DCG remains really awesome but it does have the unfortunate issue of being really unforgiving: the first couple of missions are really easy, until you suddenly bump into a force that is actually your equal or better and you suffer some losses and then never get back on your feet.

[Daylot_Usta]

I still feel the pain of Russian artillary strike from DCG 2.0. They destroyed my 2 elite infantry squads, 2 King Tigers and 2 "Russian strange artellaries" with one strike. Darkest day for me and half of the battlefield :D.

IL-2s are new butt kickers with DCG 2.5.

[Jason1]

@jtgibson:

Your idea is interesting. We keep working on the difficulty issue...

[Leapchild]

Are there any plans to add Japanese sounds?

[Zeke Wolff]

If someone can make, or provide us with proper Japanese sounds, then yes, they´ll be added (and notice, it is NOT allowed to port MoW:AS Japanese sounds to MoW).

~Zeke.

[Leapchild]

About the new additions, you should remove the attrition and timer based objectives, it doesn't fit the game and it's just annoying. At least make it optional, if there is a way to remove these features manually without breaking the game I would like to know.

[Trog]

@leapchild, I am not sure what attrition/timer based objectives you are referencing, the only new mission type currently released would be the infiltration missions, which are optional. they only show up when you move your unit more than 1 map adjacent to your own controlled maps.

I personally feel controlling maps should be the primary objective. ANY additional requirements added to this, such as a timer, should only make the map easier/harder not prevent you from having "unlimited" time.

If there is a timer for a mission that you must complete the mission then the primary mission is not holding the map, it would be an optional mission that in the future would have additional effects such as preventing enemy air attacks for a period of time, or preventing arty strikes.

Attrition based objectives I am not sure what you are meaning there as all missions are attrition based, who runs out of forces first looses. This is required for since on objective may be located at a spot that you can not access with your forces.

[Leapchild]

Perhaps they are features of Ty's Realism 2?

[Zeke Wolff]

If you are talking about the "10 minutes to capture a certain area" kind of mission, then they are a part of the main DCG, not Ty´s Realism.

They were added to put some pressure on the player - some players like it, some other doesnt.

~Zeke.

[Daylot_Usta]

Hi all


About the new additions, you should remove the attrition and timer based objectives, it doesn't fit the game and it's just annoying. At least make it optional, if there is a way to remove these features manually without breaking the game I would like to know.

You don't need to finish time based objectives in time. You can be victorius anyway if you kill all enemies.

(DCG 2.5)

Notice: Wrong info

[Leapchild]

Thx, that's all I needed to know.

But the attrition part is still a bit unclear, basically my units lose heath even when they are not in combat, is this a bug or is it intended?

[Trog]

If you are using ty's mod then any soldier that has been wounded will loose health till they are healed fully, at that point they will not loose any more health.

If they are loosing health and not being wounded or still loosing health then it is another mod you are using as you are the only one having this issue.

[Ty2903]

If your using my mod and playing and HARD difficulty soldiers loose health when wounded until healed completely. If your not using my mod or playing on hard difficulty then something else is causing the issue.

[Leapchild]

Hi all
You don't need to finish time based objectives in time. You can be victorius anyway if you kill all enemies.


I tested this and it's not true. You have to finish within 10 minutes or you'll get "failed objectives" both ingame and in the after action report. Please make this feature optional. It really doesn't fit DCG. A big battle will always take more than 10 minutes and sometimes you can rush to the objective with a bike before the enemy gets there and get a win. It's just stupid.

A feature I would like to see added to DCG is that when you defend you could get like 5 minutes to set up a defensive line. That way you can use those sandbags and mines etc.

Oh, and you still haven't fixed off-maps. It's retardedly strong. It wipes out entire battlefields. Basically like a 1-click win button. There should really be an option to disable off-maps from the game.

[Daylot_Usta]

Hi all

@Leapchild

Did you kill all the enemies in the field? I tested it too and it worked for me. Please kill all enemies in the battlefield even if your objective failed. I have DCG 2.5 and I did NOT edit any file. I mean if it works for me, must work for you too. I hope you understand my turko-english :).

Edit 1:
Extra Info:

1- Maybe you can't find all hidden enemies.
2- Sometimes enemy troop(s) leave/withdraw from the field but stay within limits and game thinks they are still in the field.

Notice: Wrong info

[Leapchild]

I killed all the enemies and then it said "objective completed" ingame. But in the battle report screen I had still failed the objective.

[Daylot_Usta]

Hi all

@Leapchild

Unexpected move and checkmate :). I did not pay attention to battle report, sorry for the wrong informatin.

Extra info:
I don't want to rush timed objectives. My experienced tank crew and infantries are more important than one mission. Enemy army may win a battle or two, I want to win campaign :).

[Jason1]

I killed all the enemies and then it said "objective completed" ingame. But in the battle report screen I had still failed the objective.

That sounds like a bug! I'll look into it. I'll also look at making this configurable for people who don't like it.


Oh, and you still haven't fixed off-maps. It's retardedly strong. It wipes out entire battlefields. Basically like a 1-click win button. There should really be an option to disable off-maps from the game.

I assume you mean AI off-map artillery? It is supposed to be very strong - DCG tries to give you "no win" scenarios from time to time. The idea is that you retreat and live to fight another day, just like in real life. However, we do continue to try to improve the artillery, but you can also turn that off by setting the chance to zero...

The next version will have better reserve features which can help protect your troops and also provide more support when the player loses a battle so that it is easier to get back into the fight when you lose badly...

[Yustax]

Im getting the following error when I try to extract the maps to my save folder, I have tried creating one name campaign, or extracting the maps on the save folder and nothing.


Unhandled exception has ocurred in a component in your application. If you click continue, the application will ignore the error and attempt to continue.

Could not load file or assemble 'vjslib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral
PublicKey Token=b03f5f7f11d50a3a' or one of its dependencies. The
system cannot find the file specified.

If I click continue, the maps go loading forever with "Please wait..." And it gets stuck there.

Any solutions please?

[Jason1]

@Yustax: the error means you do not have the Visual J# library installed correctly (see readme.txt). Go to the Microsoft site and grab it and install:

This download is available for free from Microsoft's website. You can find it here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=E9D87F37-2ADC-4C32-95B3-B5E3A21BAB2C&displaylang=en
If you have a 64 bit version of Windows, you should use the following link instead:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=42C46554-5313-4348-BF81-9BB133518945&displaylang=en

[Yustax]

Ok this is one issue resolved, now:

File not found: E/505games/1C/Men of War/1.pat then 2,3,4,5

Check that men of war folder is entered correctly and map pak files are listed correctly in settings.xml.

I have my game instaled on my E hard drive, is there a problem with that?

Also do I need to activate every files in the game before runing campaign.exe?

[Zeke Wolff]

Have you updated your game to the latest version? If 1.pat etc cant be found, those files are most likely not there. It shouldnt matter where you´ve your game installed.

~Zeke.

[Yustax]

Edit: Manage to got the mod started....but the enemy infantry are just blue models, they dont even have their weapons displayed. Map and vehicles are fine though.

[Zeke Wolff]

Did you install ALL available packs (ie. main DCG, Map, Vehicle and Infantry and in this order)? If you get blue models, then there are some files missing, most likely infantry files. Re-install the infantry pack again, and let it overwrite (very important) any files that it wants to overwrite.

And, stupid question... You are using Men of War and NOT Men of War:Assault Squad?

~Zeke.

[Yustax]

Im using MOW (latest version), and I errased everything and re-installed in that order, then I installed realism 2 and this came out:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c49/Yustax/1-18.png

Could it be that realism 2 is causing issues? Because I really want to play with realism mod, I cant stand the disgusting spread and lack of accuraccy at 100 meters.

[Daylot_Usta]

Hi all, Im not one of the DCG staff but have an idea :)

Uninstall the mod and try to (re)install it again.

Install order is inportant IMHO.
1- install 3 Microsoft files required for DCG
2- DCG 2.5
3- one of the DCG map packs
4- Infantry and Armor packs
5- DCG 2.5 infantry hotfix
6- Realism 2
7- Realism 2 patch

For more information http://digitalmindsoft.eu/forums/showthread.php?7826-Release-Dynamic-Campaign-Generator-2.5-and-all-2.5-Packs

Extra info:
Please don't delete files manually, use uninstaller or "Control Panel/Remove Program" thing. Manual delets can be dangerous.

[Yustax]

Some improvements/fixes I would like to see in the next patch.

1)The Sherman 76mm cannot be refueled. I tried to dump gasoline but it didnt had the icon, the others vehicles did.
2)It would be great if actually the vehicle itself had the tools to fix vehicles and the gas can. It's a problem, because I need to always get the tank commander out, dump the items and make him enter again. It's actually another annoyance, to grab one of the vehicle crew, dumb the gas can and tools so when I reset the vehicle items they are not errased.
3)Replace gas can with a barrel...you know how annoying is to load 600 of gasoline, using a 20 gas can?
4)Add a truck loaded with supplies like medicine, smg, rifle, mg, heavy machine gun ammo. And perhaps even for nation, including the necessary tank guns/artillery/anti tank guns rounds. Tools, rifles, medicine, smg, mg, heavy mg and so on.
5)The elite troops that are the most expensive ones, are not properly equipped. And I dont mean the weapon they carry, but the contents of their inventory. They have low ammo, low number of grenades, and just 5 medikits per troop. So I always had to excavange every dead troops in hunt for ammo.
6)Sometimes, I buy a vehicle, like for example a tiger, prepared for my next battle. And suddenly, I place my troops in the map, hit the reset button, and the battle is automatically over like magic, then my tiger dissapears and Im off to the next mission.
7)Crew troops should have 2 medikits on their inventory
8 )Vehicles should have experience. Their range should be further away, the vehicles, at least the german ones, should have a mark for every tank they destroy. Would be awesome in the Tiger.
9)German MG42 with tripod has 75 rounds, since this isnt the version with drum mag but a belt, I recommend placing 200 rounds per reload.
10)I recommend placing battle hardened german paratroopers with reskinned smocks, no green coats.



Thanks again for this awesome mod.

[classic leon]

Honestly I've never got this DCG mod working properly since DCG2.0 version. And IMO DCG 2.0 was way better than this 2.5 verion, because 2.0 was a little user-friendly. I have read multiple "readme"s, but I still got too many questions. For instance, There are four parts for installation, but readmes in four parts are all differents. Readme in Assault Squad Hotfix is not understandable as it is told "Install hotfix", but there are two hotfixes - one for map, and one for Assault Squad. If I extract map hotfix first, the errors occurs when runs DCG main program. If I extract Assault Squad hotfix first, the map path is wrong that causes error. Sometimes I randomly got the game work by copying "correct" files. And then DCG pop-up windows keep reporting missing files or pathes. Maybe the game works for the first level, but the second one won't be loaded. There is no "Continue game" in the menu, there is only "Continue" on the top right coner under the in-game condition. This is why I still don't understand the "readme"s even if I read them 10 times. Not even FAQ can help, because there arn't much can be told there.

I appreciate all the works that have been done by the team, but I think I need a clear guide for getting this mod to work. I'm on Assualt Squad 1.95.5 version. And I don't wanna use Men of War because I dislike the triangle icon on each human unit's foot.

[Jason1]

The next version will come packaged as one large file for easier install.