Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by adishee

  1. Hi @Admiral Sudsy. Thanks for the feedback. -- The regimental size limit of 1025 infantry is pretty deeply integrated into the mod at this point, so I don't think I'll be changing it. Also, it is not changeable in the config -- at least not cleanly, as some of that is hardcoded into the asset file's binary rather than the game code. You can try changing it but I don't even know what it'd do at this point. I don't think it would do anything actually. This is a touchy issue but I had to just go with a number that made sense at some point. -- I'm not sure what you mean that you cannot get your whole army onto the field. Smaller battles have limits of course -- which I have not changed although I'm open to it in future -- but for the larger levels you shouldn't have any problems getting your whole army into the battle? -- 100-800 yards? That's a pretty large range. The frontage of regiments is something I messed with for a while. For my part, I prefer to have the lines as long as possible; I think it's a bit more authentic, actually, to have a two-rank firing line, and a full regiment is already in violation of that aesthetic. Smaller formations can actually depict that visual profile better, so idk why I would change that -- this being the historical submod and all. I wish I could break regiments down to the battalion level, but the game is way not set up for that. Glad you're liking it.
  2. @Keith68 I'm honestly at a loss. I specifically fixed this bug (thanks to Panda) in the most recent version. Or I thought so. Before I start trying to figure out why it's still happening: are you positive you're updated to 127 version? Also, did you try to edit Historical.csv? We just had an issue where another player tried to edit the file but was using an editor that, perhaps, produced some weird errors in the game. Did you edit this file?
  3. Hi @Earthane, thanks a lot for your feedback. I'll answer step by step. - Smoke: I'm finding success with the 'genericTester' setting of 5000, which influences how long the smoke stays around (it's a stupidly complicated system, just don't ask). You might try and see if that works for lots of smoke but much more stable. I would argue you want the smoke in the future, because I've recently figured out how to have dynamic smoke (changes direction every battle and during the battle). - Better AI: Other people have said this too, but I have done absolutely nothing to change the core behavior of the AI except for cannon targeting. I guess the existing AI just maps onto my changes in a way that some people -- including me -- like better. I'll leave more informed parties (Panda/Jonny) to speculate as to why. - Spotting: This is one of the core mechanics, which is that units suffer huge spotting (and speed) penalties unless a general is nearby. If you try trotting a general over to those troops, they will see very far. Alternatively, you can invest in the AO career perk to diminish the spotting and speed penalties and allow more independent operation of individual units. (AO also diminishes the damaging effects to efficiency that infantry units suffer when they get bunched in with regiments from a different brigade.) Alternatively again, you can invest in Recon and move your general to high ground: the general benefits from extra Recon points, and there is a mechanic that he can see further from higher ground (in emulation of the 'Eye' recon points littered on the map, which of course we cannot add ourselves). The later option is, I find, better for an artillery-centered playstyle. - Brigade sizes: My limit of three regiments in a brigade is inevitably a compromise, even though it's the 'historical mod'. Yes, indeed many more regiments than three were stuffed into brigades. But the regiment limit I have reflects more a healthy size of a full brigade at fighting (if not regulation) strength, than the quantity of actual -- and diminished -- regiments contained in a typical CW brigade. I would love to have brigades with eight or ten tiny regiments packed into them, with an option to fuse them all into one unit or break them down into smaller ones. But obviously that's not possible. Personally, I have taken to combining reduced regiments and naming them accordingly (12.NY/13.PA/20.MA). Another reason for the limit of three is to encourage the player to make aggressive use of brigades as tactical groups, not too differently than in the base game. My intent, and how I play it is to select an entire brigade from the menu (hence the naming for easier recognition) rather than clusters of regiments. This would be harder if the brigades were bigger; they would become more like the divisions of the base game. A final reason is that, this way more officers are required to make your army function, which adds another notch of difficulty in management. - Fallen sprites: Somehow I didn't notice that. To my eye they looked correct-ish. Will have another look and make them smaller if I agree with you. Thanks again for your input; please don't ever hesitate to give (constructive) criticism, I have thick skin. Very glad you're enjoying the mod.
  4. Hi @Gazza. Sorry for late reply, I really don't know what it is. I've encountered times where it will not finish, but I don't think anything so systemic. And nobody else is reporting such things with the current version. Can you send me the savegame?
  5. You might try the old Close Combat games. IMO they are similar to what is great about the UG games, with even better emulations of the morale, and even emotions of troops.
  6. Hi @Gazza. So we are talking about two different bugs here combining to give you these results. The first is a victory condition bug. I haven't been seeing them in my build lately, so I thought they were gone. You would have to tell me what map you're speaking of, although I don't really know how to fix them anyway. The second is a bug in Ironman where, sometimes, it still thinks it's in Ironman even though it is set to false. But this is just cosmetic basically, it just displays an Ironman popup but you can still save and load. Eventually will squash that one I assume. On which map(s) are you having the victory condition bug?
  7. Hi @PepsaCola. Go into the game's data folder, then find Mod/Rebalance/Historical.csv. The second-last entry is Ironman, change that value to false and save (with Notepad++ if you're on Windows). Let me know if you have any trouble.
  8. Hi @Dauntless07, sounds like you had an interesting time of it at least. Are you actually playing on Ironman? (Hero status.) So the numbers. First of all, generally just don't trust the recon numbers in the submod. This is because, I have not touched the logic that produces those numbers at all, but I have completely changed the scaling logic; ergo, they must be wrong. This is something I will eventually get to (file under 'polish'), but for now don't count on their accuracy. Sorry about that. Second...to be completely honest, I'm not sure why those numbers were so jumped up. As I said, I redid scaling, and I designed scaling so that, when playing as Feds, the CSA would generally not outnumber the player (by too much). My first reaction to your post was that, you brought a Corp that was much larger than the allowed battle size; the enemy AI will scale against whatever Corp(s) you bring to the fight, even if you bring too many to use in that particular battle. I'll have to re-inspect the scaling algo and look at revisions. Because while the AI infantry outnumbering you so much could be explained, the fact that you also faced 800 cav and 60(!) cannon makes me think that maybe it's not functioning correctly (it is supposed to match what you bring to the fight, and not bring much of what you don't). Thanks for your feedback. Hope you're still having fun despite the roughness. By now, I've got in pretty much all the mechanics I wanted to build in -- and it's going to be polish for the next year or however long I keep doing this.
  9. Hi @gimli. Ok so, this is part of the ongoing literally never ending effort to produce impressive smoke effects that work on all systems. I'll spare you the mumbo-jumbo: as a temp fix, go into my config file (Mod/Rebalance/Historical.csv), go down to the line 'genericTester' which should be 7300 right now, and change that to 5000. If it still is weird, change it to 2500 etc. Don't forget to use Notepad++ if you're on Windows. Let me know if this works.
  10. @Dauntless07 I would still encourage you to try Ironman even if you don't think you have time -- but do it on a less difficult setting. I just started a MG (medium diff) Federal campaign, and I definitely don't have a lot of time to play it. But I'm finding that it's a lot of fun. Even if you sometimes think that it's too easy, it's not: you make mistakes, you lose your general, you can't see anything, you lose important units by mistake, you find yourself out of position -- it's a mess. You can't assume anything playing that way, and I personally find it a whole new level of play. And playing on an easier difficulty means you can afford to throw some battles -- which is more authentic, if that's what you're into. (I tried on BG but it's just brutal when you can't reload after making any mistake.)
  11. Hi @PrimusPilus123. Sorry for not replying earlier. That is a bug. I think I've seen it before, but that shouldn't be happening. Just restart the battle and try again. I'll try to look at it and see if I can make it easier for the 127 release, like I did for the CSA tutorial battle.
  12. Hi @Dauntless07, thank you for your kind words and feedback. I am not at all turned off by the criticism, indeed I welcome it. I will respond to your comments one by one. Smoke --- I know the smoke effects are still far from perfect, and I'm still tweaking them to try and get more consistency. I've poured countless hours into getting them to where they are already, and I can assure you that I really had to do some "movie magic" to even get them to look good sometimes. Arty freezing bug is fixed, yes. Trying to get 1.2.7 out, it is basically done too but there are just some cosmetic issues that I can't figure out how to fix which is getting pretty irritating (perk names). I am actually considering just releasing it with the faulty perk names because I'm really stumped with it. On that subject, skirmishers have been completely overhauled in 1.2.7, and have completely new and -- I should hope -- more authentic perks. This will hopefully address your complaint that they are OP: I've attempted to reduce their lethality in this way and make them a bit more interesting. And also, you mentioned the reload time of skirmishers but no that is not a bug: my idea about them was that they should not fire volley like line troops, but sporadically and rather constantly. But they have the exact same stats when firing, and they are not doing more damage than they were in J&P; rather, they are just doing it constantly. On the general perks not fitting my submod, while that may be the case, I believe that the next J&P will see a lot of changes to perks in general so I'm waiting to see what those guys are cooking up first. Also, I find myself that fast turning infantry regiments are useful on the flanks (this has been reduced in the next version, also). "I only wish everything on the camp screen was renamed to match it." Me too, but some of these labels are baked into the assets file. Likely that I'll never be able to change all of the labels in the camp screen. Thanks for the feedback again and keep an eye open for the next version soon.
  13. Hi @PrimusPilus123. Are you sure the mod isn't working? There is no submod folder that actually gets created, it all happens in the Mod folder that is part of the J&P rebal mod. In addition, the resources.assets file gets replaced, and the Managed/Assembly-CSharp.dll is replaced. The Mod folder contains all the config files, which I just borrowed and added to from the J&P base mod. Repeat, there is no submod folder that is created. Please let me know if you get it working or don't.
  14. I've noticed this as well from time to time, it's a very forgiving bug that just goes away if you do some stuff in my experience.
  15. At least in the case of UGCW, this is something that can be modded with enough effort.
  16. Hi @papervel, thanks for your kind words and feedback. Alright, fair point. I'll make it optional in 127. Also I'm happy to tell you that the charging bug is fixed in 127, along with many others.
  17. @Earthane @Keith68 Panda very kindly shared with me some code that completely negates the CSA cannon capture issue on the first mission. It's already integrated into the 127 dev build. fyi
  18. Thank you @Earthane, I had no idea that that was the precise requirement. @Keith68
  19. Hi @Keith68. I have got this complaint many times about the first CSA battle, but honestly I still have no idea how to fix it or why it is even coming up. I never modded anything different into the tutorial battle specifically that I can recall, that may be causing it. In all seriousness my recommendation is to turn on God Mode (found in the config) and just blast through the first CSA level, annihilating the gun crews, until I can figure out what is causing it. I'm afraid I'm quite busy in June otherwise I'd dedicate some time to try and fix it more quickly, but I don't know what the problem is so it's not a quick fix.
  20. Hi @Earthane. Thanks so much for your comments, it's extremely satisfying to know that someone gets what I was/am trying to do. As far as the smoke is concerned, there is indeed a way to just turn off all the special effects that I have very cumbersomely integrated (it was not a simple thing). If you go into the Historical.csv file in Mod/Rebalance, there is a line smokeEffectsSwitch. If you change the true to false, it should turn off all of those effects. But alas, I'm not sure why your worse computer is causing a problem: the way I had understood the effect, the faster your computer the more smoke you see. I've tried to correct for this disparity but this was the best I could do, after many many manhours of trying to fix it. Perhaps in the upcoming version I can make a config option to reduce the effect, so that there will be a couple of "speeds" that players can use to try and match the effect to their system. Anyway, stay tuned for the 1.2.7 version which I think you should like. Thanks again for your kind words.
  21. Hi @bubby9. First, really sorry to hear of the crash. If I had to guess, it probably happened while someone was charging an artillery battery. This bug was recently found (thanks Jonny), and is fixed so far in the current test build (as in, I haven't been able to reproduce it). As far as Ironman is concerned ... well, it was a bit of an experiment to make it the mandatory game mode to play in. I have little doubt that most if not all other players who try the mod will agree with you—at the outset, at least. And it's definitely the safer option given how tricky deployments can be, and how easy it can be to ruin your campaign if you make a wrong choice. We'll see, I'm not convinced that I want to release the mandatory setting. I think having your campaign hanging in the balance of each decision pretty much adds an entirely new level of depth to the game without even having to add more content, and I kind of want people to appreciate that because I think it's a really exciting way to play. Definitely not a commercially viable stance, but I'm paid for hundreds of hours of free work with nothing more than ... realizing my own vision. I'll try to either get a hotfix, or the next version out soon that fixes that bug. Or if you want to hop on the discord I'll give you the latest test version. cheers
  22. Hi, @Mr_Teflon. Thanks for the question. Indeed, the Veteran tick box is disabled in my submod. I thought the idea of veteran-buying to be not very authentic, and adds a bunch of challenge for the player. The only way to preserve experience in your units now is to avoid getting them killed, and investing in the Medicine perk. Also, you can combine units in the submod by dragging them (within the same brigade) on top of one another. Note that they must have the same weapons equipped to accomplish this action, but in this way you can combine experienced units to preserve experience. This is all in the changelog, but that thing is now pretty massive and hard to read no doubt. Don't be shy if you have any more questions.
  23. I find that just setting up a battle and joining a side (communicating in a third party app like discord), and having the other player join that battle and the other side, seems to work without the need for inviting.
  • Create New...