Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

TechnoSarge

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TechnoSarge

  1. I just realized I am using UI and AI Customization mod, not the Rebalance - whoops! Posted in wrong thread!
  2. I'm not at all sure how to build armies > 100K, at least before the final battle, from either side. I usually play BG because I play for enjoyment and being beat on for 6 hours in a major battle isn't enjoyable. I just played 2nd Bull Run (by the way, I grew up a dozen miles from that battlefield!) as CSA . I sold practically everything in my Armory before the battle that I couldn't turn into a unit, and the game reports I had ~31K infantry, 3K cavalry, 144 guns. The game lets you bring 85 brigades into that battle - for god's sake! - and I was trying to put together a big force. Wikipedia reports that the actual battle had 50K Confederates, and I only managed about 37K. I recognize that earlier decisions to train 2-star brigades cut the raw numbers, but I couldn't buy or capture weapons any faster. I just realized I am using UI and AI Customization mod, not the Rebalance - whoops! Posted in wrong thread!
  3. I spent ... a few... decades with naval miniature wargaming. I know game players like to be armchair ship designers. What owners of the books shown in above posts know is that putting a ship together is 'way more complicated that choosing hull modules in SOTS. Every choice affects everything else to be chosen. I spent a lot of time with my set of books creating empirical formulae for the different warship categories, based on actual ships built and operated by the world's navies. (much better than working directly with naval architecture principles, as in "Modern Ship Design" by M.I.T. professor Gilmer). This was aimed at letting me make plausible design decisions, based on the technologies available at the time, for never-designed warships. Y'know - I gave it up. There's a free tool by some guys who have done all the work! It's illuminating to discover that your imagined ship is not sufficiently stable, or lacks adequate hull volume to carry out needed functions! The interface is not the friendliest, but I trust the output. Visit http://www.springsharp.com/ My advice: hire those guys for working on your game's shipyard. Your 3D model maker will be wonderful, I'm sure. And with good scientific integrity behind the design work, your game can not only be a game and a history lesson, but a revelation to those people who have yet to clamber below decks on an old warship and wonder, "Huh! I wonder why they did THAT!"
  4. Pandakraut, I changed out my files for the recent version and then started a BG Federal campaign. I am shocked at officer losses - like I've never seen before. It is not uncommon to lose 5 leaders even in a minor battle. As an example, I just finished Seven Pines... I only absorbed 2529 casualties, but I lost 4 leaders! Thank goodness 3 of those were from borrow units! Is there anything in the changes that might account for this?I realize it may be luck of the draw, but I've had to take every officer offered for reputation, my Barracks is empty of unwounded guys (and there are only 2 wounded because of the KIAs), and there are only 2 better than a Major left for me to hire! I've only been able to make 3 units in my 3rd Corps for want of leaders (and weapons) and one of those is currently leaderless from a previous fight.
  5. I have to ask - when you talk about a minimum scaling point, is there a known optimal or possible unit size for each engagement? - On my last BG campaign with your Rebalance mod I worked up to 1500 men and pretty much kept that size through the campaign (although I believe I went to 1600 if I judged the available weapons for a particular brigade as inferior to the rest).
  6. I agree, Longstreet - the devolution of command to the next-ranking officer was prototypical and pretty automatic. Officers knew where they stood in seniority and news of a higher-level incapacitation led to the next in line stepping up. The sudden and nearly complete loss of Efficiency in vanilla when an officer gets winged is a problem I'm glad the modders have solved.
  7. Heck, I just played Shiloh in my MG CSA campaign. After rolling over everyone at BG level, I discover the AI ups its game in MG. I managed a draw... and my corps came out with only 2 of its 12 brigades, with a total of 179 men and 3 guns. Ouch! Gonna need a rematch on that one!
  8. Has anyone put up a thread listing the battles in order, and the Corps/Brigades you can bring? Knowing when you need to increase your units is important, as otherwise your money can go toward better weapons.
  9. I had to test what you said about, in Camp, that if you load a depleted unit with Veterans first, and then top off with "rookies" (I prefer "recruits"), you get better final stats than adding the same numbers but in the opposite order. I found that true - and I'm shocked! I have often added recruits first, consciously penalizing units that had poor performance in the previous battle with more recruits than better-performing brigades. I figured the order didn't matter ... but it does. So now the Vets will go into a unit first!
  10. The game has never informed you that the officer casualty you're receiving notice of is a Division commander. IMO, Division commanders are almost a waste in Ultimate General. You're penalized on Efficiency on brigades if he isn't ranked high enough, but he doesn't appear on the battlefield, has no perks, doesn't gain XP at anything like the rate the brigade commanders do, and is still subject to being shot. (edit) Gosh! If they do make another Ultimate General game, I HOPE they read some of the commentary in these fora and learn what their customers think works and what doesn't work!
  11. I see. I don't normally use YouTube when a video is embedded, so I was unaware there was a speed control on YouTube.
  12. Pandakraut, I watched your camp video, as I have never disbanded anything to play with the recruit quality. I just want to say that your familiarity with what you are doing makes you whiz your mouse pointer around far to rapidly to follow easily. By the time I've tracked what you're pointing at, you've moved on. Your listener needs/wants to be able to read the information (for example, the rifles you have in Armory) which is not covered by your audio. Just slow yourself down some, please!
  13. I'm glad you made detached skirmishers configurable. I use them as scouts, primarily - not as fighting units, which is what I use dedicated skirmishers for. My dedicated ones are armed with the longest-range weapon I can buy; I like sniper rifles for these formations. Of course, detached skirmishers are carrying the infantry rifle or musket of their parent formation, and are no better than that unit. The reduced casualties of troops in open formation makes the detached troops viable also as a "meat shield" for units going into assault against entrenchments. Note that using a cloud of skirmishers in front of the battle line reaches back to Napoleon and before - and most of the professional officers were trained in Napoleonic warfare. For this reason, I'm loath to give up the ability to detach skirmishers. The AI always seems to produce many skirmisher formations, which are usually twice the size of my detached units, and without my scouts before me, my brigades would often take a galling & unexpected fire. Experimentally, I reset the deploySizeMultiplier to 1.1 as apparently the default is, and restarted Richmond. I verify the brigade limit went to 30. Still, when I checked my unit organization permissions, I found I was allowed to build 4 corps, each with 8 divisions of 5 brigades (Unit Org maxed out). I still find the ability to build corps that can't carry all their brigades to ANY fight to be a flaw in the design of Ultimate General. BTW - I am SERIOUSLY hoping the designers are going to produce other, similar titles. I'd love a Napoleonic version!
  14. Indeed the number is at 1. Strange, though, because unless I read of that number in this thread, I wouldn't touch it, since it isn't obvious what it does. And I've always had this issue, which I would have liked to ease.
  15. Once I finish the battle, I'll reload my pre-battle save and show the offerings. I did change some config, but I only remember re-allowing skirmisher detachment. Looking at the .csv files again, I can't see anything related to scenario brigade restrictions.
  16. Pandakraut, I have a question that applies to vanilla and every mod I've tried: The unit organization career points let you gradually add to division & corps sizes and numbers... but the scenarios don't seem to engage all these troops. Many of the scenarios restrict the number of engaged brigades from your corps, and the number appears to top out at 25. I am in the final battle of the war, BG US with Rebalance, and have 4 corps of 6 divisions each, and I believe I have headroom to add a 7th division to each - but what's the point? I can only still use 25 brigades, which is 5 divisions. Also, some of the major battles offer reinforcement slots for more corps than I've ever been able to field. It's almost as if the scenario designers weren't talking to the people responsible for the camp. Is it possible to change something so that what you can build matches better with what you can use?
  17. I have had at least 3 cases in my current campaign (just finished Chickamauga as BG on Union side) where I clicked on a unit I thought had been unengaged and found them with dozens or a couple hundred casualties. I'd wondered, "How did that happen?" I've never noted a unit that had a third of its strength gone all at once though, and I never caught it happening. And, yes, I am attentive to whether I'm on a second or third day's battle, with casualties showing from previous days, and whether the unit in question is a game-supplied one not in my army which may have experienced "casualties" offscreen before the fight. My most recent case was a Whitworth cannon brigade that suffered 30+ casualties from "somewhere." Because the game's range degradation curves actually make Whitworths more accurate at long range than mid-range, I always try to use them in their solid shot zone... and my rare and valuable Whitworths don't suffer many losses that way.
  18. Well, yeah, Pandakraut. I have 4 career points in Reconnaissance, so I get a graph of strength during the battle. I have not noticed that it gives me exact numbers, just the relative forces. So I used a ruler to measure the blue and the red sections of the line, then compared them mathematically. If I can get actual manpower strengths during a battle, what do I look at?
  19. Pandakraut said, One tip here, you can hover over the recon 4 line and it'll tell you the exact numbers " Uh? Recon 4 line?
  20. Just finished Gaines Mill (Union, BG) and, whew! I played most of the game with 1 corps, the timer counted down, and the CSA got their reinforcements, not I! (The flanking corps was long since on the field, of course.) Based on the lengths of the reconnaissance colored lines (I measured!) I was facing 3.78:1 when their reinforcements were announced, and a half hour or so later it was 5.65:1! I managed a draw after my 2nd corps finally entered, but the final battle stats showed me with 23,400 men facing 52,347 Confederates, or 2.24:1 odds. I just looked up the actual battle; the CSA managed 1.68:1, so it wasn't unreasonable I was outnumbered... but the walls sure seemed closing in when it was at the 5.6:1 point! My corps left the battle with 800 effectives. So, yeah - I look forward to overtaking and outnumbering! Lol!
  21. I'm trying this mod for the first time, BG level as Union. One question about AI and a few about the campaign: I'm noticing a complete lack of interest my soldiers have for movement orders when they are within range of an enemy. They will wait to volley again before starting the move, stop repeatedly to volley during the move, and sometimes lose the move order completely. The only fix I've managed is a kludge - hit the "H" key so they will not fire, and then they're likely to follow orders. Later, of course, I have to re-enable their shooting. I never experienced this before and wonder if this is an intended result of UI changes? I am, as I mentioned playing Union. I've just finished Seven Pines - and this is the FIRST battle I've actually had more soldiers than the CSA. I hadn't paid attention in multiple other Union campaigns in vanilla and "Surrender" mod, but I'm feeling very much like I'm actually playing CSA, as I have repeatedly been the underdog. BTW, I have so far limited my infantry brigades to 1500 troops, to keep AI units to sizes I've experienced before. Is this why I'm always outnumbered? By now, I have 3 corps. First corps is mostly decent weapons, but chiefly from the original units allocated to me. Second and Third Corps are both almost entirely equipped with muskets captured from the CSA. I have 5 points in Economy, but I haven't been able to afford rifles for my guys. Three-quarters of my total artillery is captured in wins. Half my carbine-equipped cavalry is using ex-enemy equipment, while I've only been able to afford the inferior Smith carbine for a brigade I bought weapons for. Again, I'm feeling no sense of a Union advantage in either munitions or manpower. Comments? Regarding weapons - I understood the original mechanics of creating damage through Pandakraut's publishing of his spreadsheets, but the rejiggered weapons have me flummoxed. In comparing Percussion Musket to SF 1861, for instance, I see the musket's accuracy runs between 50-100% whereas the rifle is only 37.5-50%, although the rifle is almost twice as expensive. They have the same reload rates. Yes, the rifle has 50% more damage (9 vs 6), but the musket's average accuracy is 70% more than the SF's, which ought to tilt to the musket's advantage.The extra 100 yds range does little to address this. I'm guessing that the damage degradation with range graphs have been replaced with new ones. At any rate, I have no basis from the numbers on the tool tips to believe the SF1861 is a better weapon - especially as the musket has an 80 melee and the rifle is only 60. Even the HF 1855 looks better than the SF1861, although it too is a rifle and cheaper. The HF has an average accuracy of 47.5, while SF's is only 43.75, AND it's reload rate is 125 vs 100, 25% better. It suffers only a 12.5% disadvantage in damage (8 vs SF's 9), while having the same range and again, the same 80-to-60 advantage in melee. I'm not understanding why SF 1861 is the more expensive rifle.
  22. I quite agree. The Lorenz has always been a favorite of mine because of the tool-tip number of Accuracy =75, but I never suspected this was AccLow and that there was such a thing as AccMax. With the same AccMax, the difference in average is only half the difference indicated by the tool-tip. I figured the better accuracy for Lorenz was offset by the higher fire rate of the Enfield and the two were roughly equivalent. For gunnery, that's not true. Enfield, Spring 55 and Harper's are all nice upgrades from Lorenz. But Lorenz is a better melee weapon. In my own play, brigades that work up to a Melee stat of 45 or above, I designate as "assault" brigades and don't hesitate to charge with them, if they have sufficient morale and condition. That stat is independent of the weapon, so such brigades can be enhanced by equipping Lorenz. Now that I have these numbers available, I won't purchase weapons unless they are, say, 0.25 better in effectiveness than what I have. If equipping with captured weapons, I'll work from the best down.
  23. To summarize the work I did on weapon efficiency rankings - I define "Weapon effectiveness" as how much damage it does in a unit of time. This calculation is independent of the troops' quality who use it; it is what the weapon is capable of. Damage per unit time = Average accuracy x average damage per shot x average degradation with range x shots per unit time Some of the numbers are hidden from players of the game, but Pandakraut has winkled them out and published them in his spreadsheets. So, the formula above becomes DPS = ((AccLow x DamLow + AccHigh x DamHigh) / 2) x Degradation x FireRate in my calculations. This is not an absolute number, because FireRate is itself a scaled number, but when you compare one weapon with another by division, the constants of the scaling "drop out" . I have done that, using certain common, available, & early weapons as standards for their class. Thus my Summary tab on the "WeaponStats analyzed" spreadsheet gives rankings where the "standard" weapons are rated 1.00 and the effectiveness of others is higher or lower. A comment is necessary here. My numbers for Degradation are pulled from Pandakraut's charts at specific ranges, based on the "normal" use of the weapon. For instance, in "InfantryWeaponCurves analyzed" I chose close range of 100 yards, mid-range 240 yards, and long-range 300 yards, picked off the numbers, and averaged them for those weapons. So my numbers for Degradation are based on profiles that make sense to me. If you use weapons differently, it's easy to substitute your own profile and plug it into the "Weaponstats analyzed" spreadsheet. Also note that "degradation" is a bit of a misnomer - it is the lethality retained by the shot at increasing range, so that a higher number is desired rather than "less degradation". Observations: The hidden numbers affect rankings considerably. Take as example the Palmetto 1842 compared to the Springfield 1842. In the in-game tool-tips, the two are equal in damage, range, and fire rate, but the Palmetto has accuracy of 13.5 vs. 12.5 for the Springfield. That sounds like an 8% improvement, but the rankings show only 1.02 (2% improvement) for the Palmetto. Most of the difference is in the fact that AccHigh is the same for both weapons, so the average accuracy is really almost the same. (The Palmetto also has a slight advantage in Degradation by my profile.) I have included weapon ranges in the summaries, because they matter. A lot. Look at the Sharps 1855 single-shot carbine as an Infantry brigade weapon. Its Relative Effectiveness rating of 2.64 vs the Springfield 1842 is superlative, but your troops would have to walk a long time under fire to get within its limited range of 230 yds. Your morale might crack before ever getting in range if you're facing a long-range enemy. And... curiously, nearly every rifle has degradation ratings out to at least 300 yds, regardless of the range shown in the tool-tips. Here's where you notice for the first time that the tool-tip says "effective range,." not maximum range! I have added "Price Efficiency" too. I picked off the cost numbers in my current campaign (CSA BG, after Antietam) with the career discounts and bonuses I have acquired. Because they are uniform, even if the numbers I use don't match what you are seeing now, comparing any two should be valid, since those discounts "divide out." Price Efficiency I define as the value of one weapon in game dollars vs the standard, after applying the Relative Effectiveness. Nearly all numbers are less than 1.00. That indicates that better tech comes at a higher price. Look at Springfields 1842 and 1855 as an example. The 1842 is the standard, so it is 1.00 in Effectiveness and Price. The 1855 gives a hefty increase in effectiveness to 1.74, but price efficiency of 0.62 indicates that the improved performance is "worth" only $0.62 for every $1.00 you would have spent on the 1842. (That may be so - but if I can afford the 1855, I'm buying it, thank you very much! I use it for its performance, not its price!) Price Efficiency is totally moot when using captured weapons! And conversely, an Efficiency > 1 means you're buying better performance at a discount, relative to the standard. Look at the Spencer carbine. I declined to give price efficiency for cannons. You only buy them by small numbers of dozens, rather than by thousands, and you buy them by their role, not their cost. Edit: Now that this post is linked to the main post, I'll point out you can get the spreadsheets mentioned in my post higher up in this page.
  24. Pandakraut, you are correct on the entry on column J, Skirmisher - I didn't multiply by 100, as I did in the other instances. However, I see I did do so in the place that mattered, cell M41 on the Infantry tab of the WeaponStats sheet. So the carbine's performance is properly represented in the rankings of the Summary tab.
×
×
  • Create New...