TechnoSarge
-
Posts
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by TechnoSarge
-
-
53 minutes ago, pandakraut said:
In the base game the max brigade deployment per corps was 25 and the maximum amount of corps was 5. The largest battles allowed you to field all of these.
In the mod the max brigade size per corps is currently 40 and the maximum number of corps is 4. The maximum deployment amount is only going to be 30. This is an oversight from when I was implementing the increased deployment slots and we were reworking the number of brigades/divisions per corps. The lack of a 5th corps is technically a balancing change but really should probably just get added back in for consistency.
You mentioned you are only seeing 25 units per corps allowed to be deployed at Richmond in the mod? I just checked and those should all allow 30 units, did you change any of the configuration files?
At Richmond you may be able to deploy two corps with 40 units into the Reinforcement slots, though I'm not sure if all of those units will end up arriving.
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.
-
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?
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
22 hours ago, pandakraut said:
While most battles have not had their numbers changed, the AI unit size caps have been removed and this can result in the AI numbers becoming much larger than usual. The varianceMod(enabled by default) can spawn extra AI brigades and increase AI unit sizes based on random chance. The increase in deployment slots can also allow you to push up scaling more than would normally be possible in the base game depending on how you construct your army. In terms of minimum scaling, 1500 is pretty large for the Seven Pines part of the campaign. I usually would still be using units around 1k or 1.1k, though I'm also an extreme outlier in terms of unit sizes. It's been a long time since I've looked at the BG numbers, but I would expect you to start overtaking and outnumbering the AI pretty consistently.
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!
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, pandakraut said:
On the skirmisher spreadsheet analysis tab, it looks like the colt m1855 values might be wrong?
No, look again! Both the Colt Model 1855 rifle and the Colt M1855 carbine are Skirmisher weapons. The carbine's tab is under the Skirmisher sheet, but my analysis includes the rifle from the Infantry sheet, because it is usable by Skirmish brigades. (The carbine is there, too, in the analysis.)
I'm with you in wanting to hit first and hit hard. That's not possible with the Sharps 1855 carbine, because anyone armed with it is going to have to close in from whatever range their opponent's weapon has to the meager 230 yards the carbine boasts. Going up against a Springfield 1861 means absorbing a couple volleys before reaching a point where fire can be returned. - You did notice, didn't you, that I said "if you could arrange all the fire-fights...to...230 yards or less"?? Fat chance!
15 hours ago, pandakraut said:I would guess this is more in the game balance over realism category. It gives those guns a very specific niche that is difficult to represent since the ability to be 'accurate' doesn't exist in a game where all shots hit their target.
Boy, the graphics sure don't support that! When artillery fires, it's so common to see impacts a long way away from the target, it's as if they have a different target in mind!
-
Errata: I just found Maynard's reload rate was copied wrong; it should be 67. That elevates its Relative Effectiveness to 1.22
It also has its range swapped with Burnside. It should be 260, and Burnside should be 275, in the Cavalry section.
-
When I went back into the numbers, I saw I picked off rifle degradation at 100 yds. I think that is an adequate stand-in for close-range fire and don't feel that working the profiles upward by over-emphasizing the better lethality as the lines close further would give a better sense of their performance overall. I have in the new spreadsheets, kept 100, 240, and 300 yards for infantry rifles.
Cavalry pistols have had their degradation at 10 yds averaged in, to include their behavior of firing on breaking contact.
The BIG change is fixing the issue with factoring in accuracy twice, which Pandakraut pointed out. This does change the rankings! Suddenly the Sharps Model 1855 carbine becomes a Big Man on Campus! If you could arrange all the fire-fights by your infantry brigades to fall in 230 yards or less - that would be the weapon to give 'em! (... This explains to me why I often get Sharps 1855's after a win when the enemy had no cavalry - the AI knows which weapons give good dps!)
I've edited my previous post to remove the links to the old spreadsheets. I'm adding the new ones here. Again, the study summary is the tab that opens in "WeaponStats analyzed." That page prints on one sheet, in landscape format.
PS: It's curious that the game gives the 10pdr Parrott and the 12pdr Whitworth degradations that rise at the longer ranges. I don't think anything else does. That means the Parrott actually gets more accurate beyond 1195 yards and the Whitworth beyond 1640 yds. That's weird and unsupported by any physics I know of.
SkirmisherWeaponCurves analyzed.xlsx
ArtilleryWeaponCurves analyzed.xlsx
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, pandakraut said:
Thanks for putting this together. Still looking through it but some initial comments:
- I'm not sure if it affects your results but the tooltip displayed fire rate is actually 3000 / weapon.baseReload.
- Checking the pistols at a shorter range could be considered relevant, they tend to fire off at the end of melees in effectively melee range.
- You also may want to consider that for non artillery, at point blank range the degrade of every weapon is basically the same.Edit: It looks like you are applying accuracy twice. The damage low and damage high are from base damage * AccLow and base damage * accuracy high. Then you are taking the average of those two values and multiplying it by the average accuracy value again. That is going to make the lower accuracy weapons look a bit worse.
Thanks! I wasn't aware of those distinctions.
I think I'm OK about the reload... weapon.BaseReload as a divisor gives a larger number for "Fire Rate" if it is smaller, so if it were entered as a time measurement, a shorter time gives a higher Fire Rate, ie, faster reload, and this makes sense. The value is only adjusted by constants, so in comparing them between weapons, the unique actual time of reload is preserved in proper proportion.
I'll add a shorter pistol range in the profile, as I have not yet had enough experience to see when they fire. The advice in a post above finally got me seeing cavalry use their pistols at all!
Regarding point-blank fire -sure, there are times it is delivered, but I can't say how often, as there are no range markers. As I mentioned, I based profiles on the way I use troops. I will pluck a closer range and add it to rifle/carbine calculation though. (I COULD integrate the whole area under each curve, but that is a stupidly pedantic exercise!)
I agree accuracy is entering my computation twice because I missed how DamLow and DamHigh came about. I'll redo the numbers. So, folks, ignore the little man behind the curtain; the Great And Powerful OZ will be with you shortly. Lol!
-
1
-
-
I wanted to rank all the weapons by relative performance; this has perhaps been done before, but I haven't seen it.
The spreadsheets Pandakraut already gave computed average accuracy and average damage. These are affected by the Degradation of performance by increasing range, which is what many of the charts show. Then I needed to factor in the Fire Rate (reload rate) which I assume is that listed in the Armory tool tips.
The final calculations are: AverageAccuracy x AverageDamage x AverageDegradation x FireRate. These are calculated in the new tabs for the WeaponStats spreadsheet.
These are then normalized by dividing by the result for a reference weapon I chose in each category. The reference weapons are early and commonly available.
A word here about range degradation... The word implies the drop-off in performance with range. That does not suggest what is true - that a high number is better than a low number. It may help to think of this number as the amount of lethality retained at the given range, not the amount lost.
Where you may wish to quibble with my analysis is judging an average Degradation. I chose a profile for each segment that has to do with how I use the troops in battle. For instance, my long-range skirmishers I always try to shoot from out of sight of their enemies, to avoid return fire (sniper rifles are expensive!). So, for long-range skirmish weapons, I chose 300 yds (in range of return fire from most infantry), 450 yds (generally out of sight), 500 yds ('cause the Whitworth reaches that far) and 600 yds (where the sniper rifles can reach). I did not use closer ranges than 300 because I am getting too many shot down except in pursuit or my target is facing another of my units. These profiles I chose are in the Infantry, Skirmisher, Cavalry, and Artillery spreadsheets under the "Analysis" tabs.
But the ranking outcome is under the "Summary" tab of the WeaponStats sheet. Each weapons segment is sorted by Relative Effectiveness. For myself, I've printed the Summary to keep by me as I play. These all pertain to vanilla stats, not modded ones. (For instance, the Whitworth artillery looks underwhelming, but it only delivers 5K kills in the mods! ... Artillery in general should be acquired by the role you will give it, not its effectiveness across the entire artillery line.)
Price Efficiency is about how much it costs to improve the effectiveness of troops by replacing their weapons with later, better ones that are purchased. The numbers are usually <1.00, indicating there is a cost penalty for the higher performance. The calculation is WeaponCost x ReferenceCost / WeaponRelativeEffectiveness. (Well, actually, you divide that by ReferenceRelativeEffectiveness, but since that is always 1.00, calculationally it makes no difference!) By this standard, the Spencer Carbine is a bargain for cavalry, buying extra capability vs Sharps 1855 for less-than-proportional extra cost! And by all means, replacing with captured weapons is optimal!
BEFORE YOU OBJECT that the Spencer Carbine, for instance, has different values for cavalry than for skirmishers, let me hasten to remind you that the AverageDegradation depends on the range profile for the use. I expect cavalry to often deliver close-range fire, since it is often used to break up unwary artillery. Skirmishers with the same weapon, I want to use at longer range.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, The Soldier said:
Infantry brigades can use the weapon, it's listed there.
That's listed as Colt Model 1855, which is a rifle of range 280 yards. I kept getting the similarly-named carbine mixed up too. The carbine degradation is missing.
-
Thanks for the info on getting melee cav to fire their pistols; I've used it now! It certainly does require micro-management to get use of those guns.
BTW - I'm not seeing a degradation listing for Colt M1855 carbine, available only to Skirmishers.
-
Personally, I almost never see melee cavalry deliver fire. My thought is that their effectiveness is nearly limited to the saber, which has similar melee value. What are other people's perspective? Is there any good reason to up-arm melee cavalry past the 1842?
-
1
-
-
Thank you for your replies. New question: After a unit is 3-star, what happens to the XP bar that keeps building? Is that just wasted capability? Or does it lead to some hitherto unmentioned perk?
-
I follow you... but a consequence of winning all the battles is that I'm sitting on something like 100,000 recruits!
And arty isn't so much a problem as my veteran brigades. Here's an example.
-
On 1/4/2018 at 6:19 PM, LAVA said:
When evaluating your Brigade Commander, his command value must be higher then the unit's efficiency value. Command value comes from both the Brigade Commander and also the Division Commander. As long as the Command value is higher than the efficiency value the unit will fight at full efficiency. But if the Command value is less than the efficiency value the Brigade will fight with the same amount of efficiency as the Command Value. Always make sure your Brigade Commander has a higher value then the units efficiency value.
In this case, Brigadier General Walton has (with a combination of some value approximately around 10 from the Division Commander) a 63 combined Command value. Because that value is higher than the efficiency value (45), the Brigade will fight at maximum efficiency.
So you are good to go.
OK - new issue. As a new player, I'm doing a Union campaign at Colonel difficulty. I don't spare the half-speed button or the pause one while I'm acclimating to the simulation, so - easy easy. I'm past Chancellorsville; I've won every fight by the maximum conditions (and with no do-overs!). At this point, my most veteran Corps is loaded with Generals, Brigadier and Major. I haven't any infantry brigades entrusted to less than a Brigadier... and I have 3-star artillery commanded by Generals too.
Here's the thing: If the golden standard is to keep your Command bar as high or higher than the Efficiency bar - good luck! I have units with Efficiency a few ticks under 100%, but with a Major General leading the Corps, a MG leading the Division, and a MG at the head of the brigade, I can't amass but a Command of 80-ish. What's a prudent feller to do? My only Lt. Gens are running Corps.
-
For infantry, I am using Corps-Division-Brigade-extension. An example is II-3-2-LR, meaning II Corps, 3rd Div., 2nd Bde, long range. I use LR for weapons shooting > 300 yds and ELR (extreme long range) for 400+ yds.
Cavalry: Corps-Division-type, as in II-3-Melee. I do not have more than 1 cav brigade in a division (sorry, no cav corps!), thus the shortened numbers. Aside from Melee I use "Carb" as the other type, signifying carbine-armed.
Artillery: Corps-Division-piece. As long as I can get and afford 12 guns, all artillery units have 12 guns. The piece is an abbreviation, like "10pdr" or "20Parr" or "Napol". I may have more than one arty unit in a Division, but they will be different pieces (usually 1 smoothbore and 1 rifled).
Skirmishers: Corps-Division-Skir-extension. I only use the extension for ELR (extreme long range) when I have it as I would not arm skirmisher brigades with short-range weapons; LR is assumed.
If I kept commander names or "elite tags", I would have to memorize my army organization in order to keep sorted on the battlefield. Well... I'm not often sorted on the battlefield anyway!
-
I'm reading multiple allusions to "damage" in the firearms stats as if everyone understands its effect. I don't! I'm sure that if I were hit by anything from a musket ball to the hugest Miniè, I would be hors de combat. I have not seen anything from the devs about this damage stat. What does it really mean in battle effect? And where did you get your information?
To me - it's shoot often and hit what you're aiming at.
-
1 hour ago, The Soldier said:
I don't think that's what he was asking for.
Actually, that is part of my question! At the end, I asked about Command skill holding the unit back. In the case shown, there was no problem... but I didn't know that before choosing that unit to illustrate.
Your previous answer cleared up the issue about the two-color bars. A mighty "thank-you"! It's good to know how perks directly influence the unit.
"
J & P Rebalance Mod by JonnyH13 and Pandakraut 05/06/2023 1.28.4
in General Discussions
Posted
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.