|
|
Post by ATD on Apr 24, 2014 20:36:14 GMT
If not done already, the Benghazi garrison engineers should be ID code "bbb", not "bb" as per the (incorrect) original charts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Miller on Apr 27, 2014 3:20:43 GMT
I passed Tim the land force sheet I've been working with. Need to get his input before we consider it final.
Looking at the air sheet, I cannot seem to set missions for certain Italian aircraft, such as SM.79. Fighters seem to allow it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Apr 27, 2014 18:03:36 GMT
It's unlikely to be an issue related to the aircraft type; that's probably just coincidental. I cannot think off-hand of a reason why it might be happening. Could you please send me the file and I will take a look at it straight-away. To keep things tidy, I have moved this thread to the spreadsheets section.
|
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Apr 29, 2014 18:19:17 GMT
The problem in the file was that a few cells had been overwritten somehow. I've protected everything that I can to prevent this sort of thing happening, which is virtually unavoidable otherwise. I thought it was unlikely to be related to the missions themselves.
The file size limit is a bit of a nuisance here (the only thing really that is), so I have emailed it directly to you Mike. I can honestly say that I know no more about the disposition of the Italian airforce, than I did before I opened the file. I approach it as a doctor is supposed to treat a patient. : ) Any missions will have to be re-entered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Miller on May 7, 2014 2:29:06 GMT
I fixed the Benghazi engineer unit. It shows over strength. Strange that a battalion should show max TOE of one point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Miller on May 7, 2014 2:44:33 GMT
I have completed reconciling the spreadsheets and the Cyberboard files.
|
|
|
|
Post by ATD on May 10, 2014 19:44:47 GMT
In the course of tweaking one or two functions on the spreadsheets, I had to check the detail on at least one unit. This was the 1 CCNN and the following was observed.
The instructions for the spreadsheets draw attention to the need to entered the fuel on board first line trucks. There may be other critical stuff in all the documentation, so please read it carefully.
It took a while to figure out what was going on with the 129th infantry, which was listed twice. As I read the rules, this would be an incorrect implementation of the Autoblina reconnaissance attachment. I have therefore changed the sheet to reflect this. I’ve also amended the assignment column for some units and added a note in the section at the top of the page.
The 62nd division’s reconnaissance point has also been amended in accordance with the above. When the rules say “unit”, in this context, it means “counter” I believe, as per the definition of "unit" in the glossary. In some places, I found it necessary to correct references where the term had been fudged.
Also, indenting is a great way to indicate those elements that form part of a higher echelon (eg. battalions of a regiment) but the titles on some rows appear to be arbitrarily indented - such as 1st Bn, 1 Arty Rgppmnto, which could lead to some confusion.
It would be good to propagate the attachment references as they now appear on the 1CCNN sheet, throughout the spreadsheet, wherever they may be appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by ATD on May 10, 2014 20:04:38 GMT
I've fixed the corruption or whatever it was on the 1st/5th Art sheet and deleted the redundant sheet from the end. Puzzled as to why the following text appears in the notes esection of 1/5 Art:
4th CCNN Division
250th CCNN Legion
62nd Division
63rd Division
---------
Will add counters, update sheets with the program amendments and return shortly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ATD on May 13, 2014 13:26:05 GMT
Although I can easily remember 30 digit numbers, it's also possible not to take notice/remember stuff as well. I promise, I'm really avoiding any useful intelligence gathering whenever I'm accessing the sheets. Given that I usually have to bear in mind over half a dozen abstract concepts / programming considerations while working on the sheets, gleaning useful intelligence is the least of my worries!
Thanks for the explanations; I have to disagree regarding the assignment of the recce point to an infantry battalion though. Much better (and historical) to regard it explicitly as a division/brigade asset. Some complications (eg. detaching/targeting) could arise, although I appreciate that the sheets accommodate the unit as a row entity OK. Just looks odd with that link to infantry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Miller on May 16, 2014 0:45:23 GMT
I tend to agree about assigning the recce to division or regiment level. However the setup rule explicitly allows assignment to effectively anything. The assignment and attachment rules remain a bit vague in some cases, and state so themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by ATD on May 16, 2014 20:37:52 GMT
Yes but recce assigned to an infantry battalion - cum-on! : ) Sheesh!
Some of the work I have been doing concerns attachments - specifically, what happens to CPA, Cohesion and Breakdown under the re-vamped system (see changes to land unit sheets).
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Miller on Jun 8, 2014 2:03:48 GMT
Per discussion today, I was working to add the missing morale values for the Italians. I cannot seem to add negative values however, receiving "A user has restricted values that can be entered into this cell." Positive or zero values are accepted.
|
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Jun 8, 2014 11:11:04 GMT
Yes, that will be the case, thanks for picking it up Mike. I will need the live file (please send as soon as possible) in order to perform the necessary surgery. I hadn’t anticipated negative values for that parameter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Miller on Jun 9, 2014 0:21:19 GMT
I still get the message when attempting to enter negative values in "Max Morale" column. They seem to work in "Morale". Is that a concern?
|
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Jun 9, 2014 15:41:02 GMT
I'd assumed that the maximum morale was something derived automatically from the unit characteristics. It's been a while! Either send me the file or let me know if you haven't made any changes that would be overwritten and I will amend the appropriate file depending. Sorry about that; it would have been better if I had double checked.
|
|
