Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

adishee

Members2
  • Posts

    172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by adishee

  1. On 9/26/2021 at 9:14 PM, Chieftan said:

    I'm having a severe issue with the first Confederate mission, being that it does not recognize the batteries destroyed, so it fails me after the defence because of the previous phase, and can't continue.

    Also, I am having a frustrating experience with the selecting my cavalry causing my entire force to be selected.

    Hi @Chieftan,

    1) The first issue, this is a known issue within the J&P mod (and I think vanilla). Sorry about that, I've tried to fix this but I guess it didn't work, just try replaying the battle and eventually it will trigger. That is not a great answer but it works.

    2) In my submod, when you are zoomed out you enter 'macro' or 'brigade' mode, whatever you like. This allows you to select entire brigades with one click. If you zoom IN, it will re-enter normal mode in which individual units (regiments) can be selected. You can change the distance at which this mode changes in the Historical config file. But just zoom in, I think this is the problem you are having. In addition, make sure you're not double clicking the unit because this will also select the entire brigade in the submod.

    Let me know if you're still having issues.

  2. 14 hours ago, I_Din_Do_Nuffin said:

    Hey ive been loving this mod, it has made the game 100% better. Thanks for all of the effort you have put into this. You are the GOAT. 

    I has one question though, is there any way I can re-enforce my veteran units with more men or do is my only option to disband a very depleted unit?

    Thanks for the kind words.

    Currently (and by this I mean, in the latest rolling dev version) the only type unit that cannot get new recruits is Union infantry regiments, which was historically, generally, the case (to their detriment).

    Further, you can combine regiments in the camp screen. More work has been done on this in the latest dev version, but generally units must have the same equipment, perks, and be below the max unit size when combined and they can merge.

    I encourage you to check out the submod channel here to get more explanation and the latest version, which is quite far evolved beyond the latest released version. 

  3. On 6/5/2021 at 7:45 AM, Dauntless07 said:

    I’m not sure what you mean by “bulk orders”. Can you explain how, because I couldn’t find a way to issue commands to groups of units outside the General’s command radius at all. (Well, I did find an exploit where I can order distant units to occupy fortifications, and they instantly obey, but I’m pretty sure that was unintended.) What you said makes me think I haven’t been commanding as intended.

    It's simple, you can double click on any unit and that will select the entire brigade of that unit (or, every unit that is not currently out of order). Then you can hold the right mouse button down to issue a line-order for all of those units. In this way, you can zoom way back and give large commands to many units at a time -- but of course this will force a cooldown of your commanders' ability to issues orders depending on your AO stat.

  4. 23 hours ago, Dauntless07 said:

    Very interesting reading, and interesting developments since the last time I played this mod. I have a few ideas for improvement.

    To nitpick, sprites of the dead look weird, and a few still seem too big, (like the train in the Union tutorial.) I understand if this is an engine limitation though. Also, initial units should probably be scaled down to match the Regiment-level vision, (especially since disbanding them manually no longer yields a manpower return.)

    The big issue is micro management. It seems unreasonable to require the Corps General to issue direct orders to every unit. I know I can still draw a path, but that method is rather slow and tedious. I still think this should be an option however, as historical Generals (Albert Sydney Johnston) sometimes lead in this manner.


    Here are my ideas:

    1.  Make the first Regiment of a Brigade a pseudo General unit, similar to the Union cavalry that appears in 1st Bull Run.

    2.  (Alternative) Re-enable direct orders without the General, but delay their reception by how distant that Regiment is from others in the same Brigade.

     

    Either option would incentivize Regiments to stick together, and perhaps these orders can still be potentially ignored, depending on the Regiment officer’s traits. Just some friendly suggestions, if practical to implement.

    @Dauntless07 I see what you're saying, but I think that if you take a step back from your concerns and look at the wider picture you might see that you are answering your own question/concern. The way I have the system set up is that the general should be reluctant to drill down into regiment-level command, unless he is specifically in the immediate area of units.

    Rather, the player should concentrate on making calculated, considered bulk orders to whole brigades/multiple regiments at once. I've tried to cast command itself, or the player issuing orders, as a finite resource in the game. The general can only issue so many orders at once through his staff (in fact, the order cooldown rate is tied to the general's hp/total hp as well to achieve this effect).

    So I appreciate what you're saying; but on the other hand, just the fact that you are saying it makes me think the effect is working as intended! I want it to be hard and messy to command, not like in vanilla where it is clearly abstracted away.

    There is a lot of cleaning up of the order system in the current dev version, as well as a whole new simplified order macro view that I've developed, which allows a simplified view of the brigades specifically, and the ability to bulk select them.

  5. @dixiePig check the version (f) I just posted, it gives a lot more tactical control to units in a pinch. I think you will appreciate that.

    Quote

    But I thought you wanted to walk away from this for a while?

    I do; I do not think I'll research these ideas any time soon. After 1.3.5 is done and dusted I wanted to take a 6-12 month break from modding.

    Quote

    Nice to Have: Show us behavior/profile/perks for the subcommanders we can acquire from Barracks, etc.

    I addressed this a couple posts above.

  6. 2 hours ago, dixiePig said:

     

    Here's a simple comparison of attribute / role / behavior

    • Takes Initiative / Strong Attacker / likelier to move 
    • Deliberate and Slow / Strong Defender / likelier to remain in place

    For the sake of expediency, the role is how we see that commander.  It's not strictly an either/or, of course - but it's how we often describe people.

     

    This would be a very easy implementation to apply assuming I get the auto-AI function to start working. That is to say, if a unit is out of the control area it would revert to the build-in AI control; and depending on aggressive / defensive personality, that brigade would use the attacking or defending AI. And if it were not optional, it would probably add a significant layer of shit to worry about for the player... I like it. Plus, you can always put the units on hold and they will not move around, which is probably good because that auto-AI is not very useful as we all probably know.

     

    Thanks for the idea, I'll do some research on this down the road.

  7. 58 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

    Thanks for the generous comments and speedy response, @adishee Especially pleased that you found the 'cavalry independence' and status popups suggestions useful - and relatively easy to implement. 

    Short answer:  Yes, the regiment was the fundamental battle unit and its subcommander (usually a Colonel) was expected to act with some initiative. And common sense.  Due to smoke, confusion, distance, and "other priorities" - the regimental commander was often required to interpret his (very rare) direct commands from the commanding general - and use his own best judgement in many, many situations.

    The subcommander profile

    Thanks for pointing out this feature - and how to access it. It ain't obvious.  And yet it should be.

    • One way to provide us with a 'hint' that it's there would be to Highlight the XP-bar when (by chance) I mouseOver it.
    • A tooltip might help
    • Increase the 'actionable area' so that the profile feature is easier to find.  In this case, the profile would appear when I mouseover the subcommander's portrait or his name, as well.  Make it easy to be informed.  PS:  I have no need to mouseOver the xp-bar - and the profile just doesn't appear all that quickly.

    The profile itself is sorta helpful, but also kinda wordy.  It will become increasingly unwieldy as my army grows (too much to remember).

    Design problem

    We have no profiles or leadership assessments for Division and Brigade level-commanders.  I realize that this is probably a limitation of the base game, but still ... The Divisional commander is the guy who 'manages' the behavioral quirks of his regimental subcommanders, interprets and executes the orders from the General, and is responsible for maintaining the integrity of The Line (multiple regiments) in battle, despite the behavioral strengths and weaknesses of individual regimental subcommanders.  His command profile (strengths & weaknesses) is very much a factor.

    The commanding General depends on his divisional and brigade commanders to guide the regimental subcommanders wisely.  I realize that it's part of the game, but the commanding general should not be obliged to micromanage every regiment.

    But more on that later...

    I have no way of knowing the behavioral profile of more than half of the subcommanders of the army in 1st Bull Run And at Shiloh, because they are not listed in the Order of Battle.

    • Possible solution: Include a full listing of the entire army (even allied unites) in the Camp
    • Possible solution: Allow me to see the behavioral profile of a unit commander in the midst of battle (when I really need to see it)

     

    hey @dixiePig

    One by one:

    - regimental officer profiles: I empathise with you that these are not obvious to happen upon, but I was constrained to find anywhere to squeeze them in at all, and it took quite a lot of work to implement them. I would also like to add that if you mouse over regiment stats, it gives explanations about their computations. You can also mouse over the officers in your barracks to get the brief synopsis of traits. (Before you point out, the fact that you cannot see profiles of officers not yet hired is a feature-not-a-bug; I don't want the player to know what he is getting, I want a sort of lottery.)

    - brigade command traits: Unfortunately the officer's personality traits don't really do anything fancy for officers at the brigade level. Only their reputation stats are implemented, and add/subtract morale from each of their units. I could definitely do more here but that remains for the distant future, if ever. The reputation is displayed in the usual place, and their reputations change based on their brigades' performances in each battle in terms of inflicted/sustained. So there are long term consequences for a poor showing, as with regiments themselves whose morale are permanently affected by battle performance. 

    - traits in battle: The third hud mode displays all your regimental officers' traits, you need to cycle through to it with the tilde key.

     

    *edit*

    If the fancy strikes you, feel free to compile a list of traits and their effects that you think would be cool to apply to brigade level officers (division in vanilla). Such a thing would certainly help me in that implementation. Also if you feel like it, I've wanted to make historically notable officers' traits non-random -- eg Thomas Jackson: 'Sharp, Diffident, Energetic, Religious' -- but haven't found the time yet. 

  8. 3 hours ago, dixiePig said:

     

    In any case, the army commander's orders lack 'stickiness': 

    1. I move the commander to bring isolated units under his control
    2. I order them to [F] Fallback
    3. I send the commander elsewhere to microManage something else
    4. The local unit falls back a few yards
    5. ... and then stops
    6. Apparently the local unit commander has no memory
    • Potential Solution: Order the unit to [F] Fallback + identify where you want them to fallback TO. (i.e. "Don't just fallback a few yards.  Fallback to this hill or wooded area or group of supporting units".  

     

    Follow-up: although I did not design this and it just sort of happens somehow, I think this only occurs with 'narcissistic' unit officers. Is it possible for you to verify if this was the case? Other units should fall back correctly even after your general has left the area. Note that falling back is very costly. 

  9. 5 hours ago, dixiePig said:

    Command Control (mechanics) centered on the commanding general is appropriate, though it results in a lot of running around - especially when you're trying to command a large army or a far-flung battlefield (like First Bull Run). 

    • The delay in receiving and executing orders by distant units is also appropriate and a good feature.

    However, The little popup boxes displaying orders status messaging in the upper left are merely annoying.  

    • They obscure the map.  
    • They are often redundant.  
    • They also often communicate  non-events (i.e. "an order was not received by a distant unit")  
    • They don't even tell you which commands were NOT communicated.
    • The kicker:  IRL The general wouldn't even know "what didn't happen" ... so What's the point?

    Command Control: Local Initiative

    The central command dynamic ignores the ability - and likelihood - that a distant unit commander can act sensibly or with initiative.  In your mod isolated 'un-commanded' units are remarkably static & stupid.  This can be useful if they are holding a line and in a strong defensive position.  But I have seen un-commanded units stubbornly hold an exposed position under withering superior fire until they are routed. Sorry ... no. Neither local commanders nor their troops are - as a rule - that stupid.

    * "isolated" units are those troops which are not within the army commander's Command Control "aura"

    In any case, the army commander's orders lack 'stickiness': 

    1. I move the commander to bring isolated units under his control
    2. I order them to [F] Fallback
    3. I send the commander elsewhere to microManage something else
    4. The local unit falls back a few yards
    5. ... and then stops
    6. Apparently the local unit commander has no memory
    • Potential Solution: Order the unit to [F] Fallback + identify where you want them to fallback TO. (i.e. "Don't just fallback a few yards.  Fallback to this hill or wooded area or group of supporting units".  

    Command Control: CAVALRY

    The army commander micromanagement flaw is especially evident when dealing with cavalry units.

    Cavalry commanders generally have particularly strong intiative because they are often operating independently - and are expected to do so.

    I was a bit miffed at the underperformance of Stuart's cavalry in 1st Bull Run.  I am obliged to run a commanding general over to accompany the cavalry, if I expect them to do anything.  Let's face it, we know that historical Jeb Stuart would not arrive on the battlefield and say "Gee, I dunno what to do. So I won't do anything. Unless you come hold my hand."

    As general rule, cavalry units should be able to operate effectively and independently, even if a commanding general is not nearby. Because that's what they do.

    Command Control: subcommanders

    The same Command Control dynamics may apply to other units, as well. You provide ~4 profile attributes for individual unit subcommanders, s.a.   "Sharp, Vigorous, Diffident" etc.  but ... what do they mean? What effect do they have on actual performance?  I don't really see any effect on unit performance or behavior.

    Your subcommander profile attributes sort-of echo qualities which one might find in a Military Fitness Report.  These qualities evaluate how an officer will behave in a combat situation, and might include:

    • Initiative : responsiveness/attack
    • Steadiness : organization/defense
    • Leadership : morale

    These qualities effect a units ability to attack, defend, move speedily, respond to orders, etc. ... AND the ability to act competently without direct orders

    If the subcommander's profile is actually meaningful, then those qualities should inform his unit's behavior in the field. Ditto for army commanders, too, of course.  PS:  You should provide Profile attributes for them, as well.

    It is possible that unit subcommanders might be 'stuck' and inactive without Command Control from a general, but it's not necessarily the norm

    Net/Net:

    • You're on the right track with Command Control features ... but there are some implementation problems
    • Order Status Messaging popups are mostly just a distraction:  They can go away
    • Refine the ability of isolated units to act.  They are currently quite stupid and totally lacking in initiative.
    • Give some 'stickiness' to the generals Command Control.  He should not be obliged to micromanage his army.
    • Allow appropriately skilled units to act without having the army General present.  Cavalry is an obvious example.
    • Allow subcommander's profile to influence their behavior when not under direct command control of the general.

    I realize that you are dealing with significant implementation issues and other limitations because this is a submod. You are on the right track in your attempts to make  command control more realistic and challenging.  It's a tough balancing act, but I like what you're doing, @adishee.  Good luck.

     

    Thanks for taking the time to give thorough feedback.

     

    First I have to respond generally to the critique that controlling individual units is too unwieldy and that they are too dumb. I sort of accept this criticism that those units wouldn't just stand around taking fire, but then I'm not actually too sure the degree to which they historically did operate independently at the regiment level. I would have to do more reading to actually get a better sense of how command and control shook out during the war and at which phase.

    But second, insofar as we are just speaking of the game/mod, the difficulties in C&C are kind of the point. My aim with the mod has always been -- since a good player can trash the AI in vanilla or J&P unless they are facing 2:1 odds and all 2-3 stars -- to make the game much harder for the player to play. It may in fact be a bit of a learning curve to train yourself to send orders ahead of time to more than one unit, and time those orders with orders sent to different parts of your army. The game then becomes one more of choosing your regimental officers more carefully insofar as where they are placed on your line, and sort of hoping for the best when you (carefully) send out an order for two or three brigades to advance on a different part of your line. Because I don't know if you noticed but there are several unit officer traits which profoundly affect that unit's performance at a micro level: the traumatised, narcissistic traits will destroy the coherence of a line, cowardly, religious, hardheaded officers can also greatly upset coherence in the right circumstances.

    So while I take your point, to a certain extent I don't want that fine control. I have had the idea in the past to make all units which are 'isolated' as you termed it (nice) immediately fall under the game's built in AI control, and immediately return to player control when out of isolation. I have not got around to figuring out how to get that working yet, but this will perhaps be a main priority for the future of the mod.

    More specifically, you a very early in the campaign it sounds like, and there are several tools as the campaign goes on which allow the player much better C&C. The general perk trait 'wig wag' itself completely returns control to much of the army, and the level 2 perk 'delegated command' allows the player to field as many sub-commanders as they want. Not to mention just putting more points into AO greatly improves how units perform when in isolation: their speed returns, their vision returns, and the speed at which they receive orders greatly improves such that at AO 10 you have almost a vanilla level of control.

    Also, the 'Reliable' officer perk allows a high degree of fine control including charge, fallback, facing, holding fire. So if you know a specific group of units are going to be operating away from the lines, you should try to find some of those officers that will not be useless.

    Also, again because your campaign is early, it sounds like you haven't got the chance to field any Division HQ commanders which will extend your control out. I think there are still some bugs in this... but the idea is that you need to have at least 7k units, a brigade commanded by a general, and a cav unit in that brigade which has the Division HQ perk and only melee weapons and that unit will then become a divisional command who can control units.

    Regarding description of the officer traits, I have written a description for every combination of trait explaining what they do. You must mouse-over the unit's xp progress bar to access this field -- see attached screenshot.

    The Jeb Stewart problem is an easy fix, I can just hardcode him to have control -- will fix that because you are correct. Please keep those suggestions coming if you continue to play. I can also add a config option to turn off the message spam.

    So to conclude I certainly appreciate the feedback a lot. But forgive me for saying that it doesn't sound like you have explored all the mechanics I put into the mod which allow the player to overcome the C&C issues -- issues which I put in by design rather than as flaws. My probably cursory understanding of the early war was that it was a completely amateurish cluster-fudge in terms of control. So I find this articulation in the mod not unwarranted -- and again, if you continue with the campaign, you will certainly have the chance to ameliorate this deficit I think.

     

    Anyway, hope to hear more feedback. 

    Screenshot 2021-03-05 091119.png

  10. 8 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

    Suggest that unit status might expressed more concisely w/ graphics & visuals, s.a.: 

    • Condition: a vertical bar, white bar on black background
    • Morale: outline of bar becomes red as morale deteriorates
    • Flanking:  white dots at each side of the status bar which flash when enemy units flanking within 200  on that side

    These aren't necessarily the best design solutions, but I think you get my drift.  It's good to provide info ... but without clutter

    I certainly would have done it a different way if I had access to the source project files. But in terms of making fundamental graphical changes -- like adding whole new artwork and graphical fields which is what you're describing -- it really isn't possible for us modders. We have to work with what we have.

    If you press the tilde key, there is another hud mode that has less clutter.

  11. 4 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

    Okay, I give up

    What do the | M! | and | C! | {}  next to infantry units mean?

    m & c = morale and condition: m, M, M!, M[!] and c, C, C!, C[!] (brackets means flashing) are progressions to quickly give the unit's status.

    {} are for infantry units only, and they refer to exposed flanks. { means left flank exposed, } for right. Infantry suffer iirc -10% morale debuff for each exposed flank. You can see it change in the stats area.

    *edit* a flank is exposed if there is no friendly unit within, iirc, 200 distance of that unit's side.

  12. Just now, dixiePig said:

    It appears that disabling godMode has fixed most of the skirmisher, spontaneous routing,  & supply flakiness- also in the old P&J ReBalanceMod battles (v1.2.7.1a) - or so it seems.  Am not doing rigorous testing

    Since godmode is mostly a development function - perhaps it should be removed from the player environment? It certainly created a bunch of badArtifacts for me

    Yep.  I agree.  Too bad - I was in a good situation.  meh

    But the rest of it seems to be working & stable.  It's a rainy day here.  Good for inside play.  I will keep you posted.  Thanks for the extra effort.  

    And - please - get rid of godMode before it explodes someone else...

    Yeah you are right, god mode is somehow on by default. Idk how that slipped through!! Uploading a corrected version, thanks for your feedback and patience. Enjoy the rainy day.

  13.  

    Quote

    still receive get "Can't be loaded. Delete?"  [Okay] [Cancel] panel

    I think you'll have to give those saves up, they're no good.

    Quote

    Several of my Detached Skirmisher units Rout spontaneously and some are destroyed after a few seconds (about the time the Union troops first appear on screen).  They have not come under fire.

    I actually noticed this too yesterday. I tried to put in the new J&P feature of detached skirms taking perk values but maybe it's not working well in my mod.

    Quote

    All Union units rout spontaneously when my artillery begins to fire (some are destroyed)

    Hmm, are they being fired upon or near routing units? There is a unique morale engine in the submod that causes a dispersion of bad morale to adjacent units. Inexperienced units will easily route if some nearby units are also routing & they are not well led, etc.

    Quote

    My supply unit goes into 'scaredyCat' mode and flees from its position

    Yeah they will.

    Quote

    When I load old P&J ReBalanceMod battles (v1.2.7.1a) / Stones River

    1. Detach Skirmishers is not active

    What do you mean?

  14. 4 hours ago, dixiePig said:

    "Excellent", says the ex-Documentation Manager.

    "Ha!" says the guy who worked for decades in the software industry.

    Haven't easily found much info on how units were reinforced historically : I know that unit-merging & destruction was a solution - but it sounds kind of absolute.  Was it the only way? Perhaps you could allow more limited flexibility, as well?  i.e. A unit might receive a maximum of 10% reinforcement from the 'pool' of replacements every cycle 

    Do the detached units need to actually be re-merged into the host unit in order to fix the bug - or just ordered to re-merge?  What about an 'orphan' skirmisher unit {i.e. the host unit has been destroyed}?

    Am hoping your quickfix will solve it. 

    Please give a heads-up when it's ready.

    Alright, d version is up. Saves are no longer corrupted for me, let me know @dixiePig . Just trying to get 135 buttoned so that I can ride off into the sunset (yes I really am!).

  15. 1 hour ago, dixiePig said:

    Thanks for the speedy reply, @adishee.

    Actually, my current version is 1.3.5.c. - so it appears that the bug persists.

    Found 'ironManMode' in historical file.  Yep - it's 'false'

    found another issue:

    'Autosave Camp' after Newport News displays Infantry units with less than 1025 troops (i.e. the strength bar is less than full)).  The slider and arrow appear, but do not operate:  I cannot increase the total. If I click away from the unit and then return - the strength bar now displays as full (even though it is only 961 men).

    • bug in the troop strength details display
    • bug in the ability to increase troop levels

    Enjoying the battle playability of your submod tremendously and appreciate the details (additional range in perks is splendid). Hope to see saveGame fixed soon, as I would hate to lose my current savedGame state in 1st Bull Run

    • BTW:  What is godMode?

    The frozen reinforcements bar is a feature, not a bug (ha!). You cannot change the troop strength of infantry regiments after forming them with the slider; you can only combine them and there are penalties for that. I will concentrate on writing a guide for the mod in the coming months, because I'm going to take a long break from working on it (after the 1.3.5 bugs are all fixed).

    *edit* -- There is an exception: you can change the strength via slider of infantry units between multiday battles only. 

    Re the save bug: I've isolated where the problem is, it comes from some detached skirmisher changes I tried to make and forgot about. I think I've already fixed it but don't have time to test it right this minute. I'll put out a patch later today -- but if you want to save your battle just recall all your detached skirmishers back into the main unit and you will be able to save.

    God mode is = your units can see everything, and give 1000x damage and take no damage. I use it for testing.

  16. 1 hour ago, dixiePig said:

    hmmm ... I installed v.1.3.5 and the game seems to be working okay

    • I can save a battle, mid-play

    but I get "Can't be loaded. Delete?"  [Okay] [Cancel] panel

    • when I attempt to reload a battle that has been saved mid-play

    When I attempt to go to MainMenu from inside a battle, I get "Ironman - Save and exit to Main Menu?"

    Playing as Confederate, I was able to save Newport News at the end of the battle (When offered the [Finish] button - and I could re-load that battle (and only that battle).  All other Saved mid-battle present me with "Can't be loaded. Delete?" panel

    Is there somewhere in a config file that I can check - and control - the status of the ironmanFeature?  It's really annoying.

    Am hoping to get this resolved, as your mod is a terrific improvement - especially for those of us who like to 'play historical'.  But ironman is really awful.

    So that is not Ironman. Let me explain. There is a small bug where it says Ironman is on sometimes when you quit the battle, but it is not actually on. Then, your ruined savegames are a separate bug.

    Yesterday I put out hotfix 1.3.5.c and I'm hoping that should fix the savegame issue. So please upgrade to that version and see if your savegames are still getting fouled. Again, Ironman is not really on, and you can turn it on/off in the Historical config file in the Mod folder.

    Hope that fixes it, please let me know!

  17. On 3/7/2021 at 6:15 AM, mroduin44 said:

    @adishee

    3 Questions if you dont mind.

    1. Do you have a documentation file for the historical.csv file? I have been messing around with the values trying different layouts of the mod and been having to guess regarding what each of the values are which is reasonable for most of the items but some I am just curious of what they do.

    2. I noticed that the officer traits list is missing from the documentation files. Was it moved somewhere else? I know you can look hovering over each officer but the documentation list made it really easy to identify valuable officers and put them in place without having to hover over and look through the different abilities of dozens of officers based on the hover mechanic in the camp.

    3. Would you mind putting a link for the JP discord so people looking through this conversation can easily find it?

    FYI latest version includes 1 and 2 in the documentation folder.

×
×
  • Create New...