mod J & P Rebalance Mod by JonnyH13 and Pandakraut 05/06/2023 1.28.4

[BobassaultTV]

On 5/1/2018 at 9:27 PM, JonnyH13 said:

8

 

[BobassaultTV]

Starting a new chapter today. Fighting for the Union one last time. I need my Sherman William Tecumseh asap.

[dixiePig]

When I grab a group of troops on the map and direct them to attack enemy troops, I often discover (often too late) that one of my supply wagons has also decided to attack the enemy, as well.  Which often results in the loss of the supply wagon.

Suggestion:

Supply wagons are different from combat troops.  Don't include them in a group command to attack ... because it just doesn't make any sense. 

• Do I want my supply wagons to be in the vicinity of attacking troops?  Probably
• Do I want them to attempt to attack the enemy troops?  Of course not.

It's sorta like the problem with move-vs-fire-at for ARTY:  No one in their right mind orders an ARTY unit to move onto an enemy unit.  Don't encourage stupid behavior through poor design.  

1. Suppy units should not be included in the orders to move a group of units to attack
2. ARTY units should not be moved onto enemy units (or ... fix the [Blocked] alert so that it is consistent with the rest of the interface.

Edited December 17, 2023 by dixiePig

[william1993]

is there anyway that we, players, can update some of the statistics in this mod because as it stands the game is nonfunctional.  Enemy troops stay heroic and eager forever while mine just walk in a forest and they're exhausted and dead. This is unplayable in its current form

[dixiePig]

Just encountered one of those not-so-smart aspects of the UGCW interface: While attempting to press [f] to order a unit to Fallback, I accidentally hit [g] ... and the unit routed.

a) Is there really a good reason to order a unit to Rout?

b) Why in the world would you want that keyboard command to be next to the [f] key, which is probably the most-used keyboard entry in UGCW.

Please fix.  

• PS.  Is there any way to counter the Rout command gracefully?

But seriously:  Fix this bug.

 

[pandakraut]

1 hour ago, dixiePig said:

Just encountered one of those not-so-smart aspects of the UGCW interface: While attempting to press [f] to order a unit to Fallback, I accidentally hit [g] ... and the unit routed.

a) Is there really a good reason to order a unit to Rout?

b) Why in the world would you want that keyboard command to be next to the [f] key, which is probably the most-used keyboard entry in UGCW.

Please fix.  

• PS.  Is there any way to counter the Rout command gracefully?

But seriously:  Fix this bug.

 

a) Retreating surrendered or weak units off the map so they aren't recaptured or destroyed. You can also select the unit again and issue any other order to stop it from routing.

b) You can rebind the keys as desired

[pandakraut]

On 12/17/2023 at 4:49 PM, william1993 said:

is there anyway that we, players, can update some of the statistics in this mod because as it stands the game is nonfunctional.  Enemy troops stay heroic and eager forever while mine just walk in a forest and they're exhausted and dead. This is unplayable in its current form

The mod can take a while to learn, I would suggest taking a look at this youtube channel for a great overview and walkthroughs of both campaigns https://www.youtube.com/@gonzogamer8710/playlists

This document is also a good overview of the mods features and has some tips https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lvM9uwewxANmSoBXCKGPJSUKcpmM7IJJiv8plS8XMTg/edit?usp=sharing

There are also a variety of options available to adjust the difficulty in the mod. In the /mod/rebalance/AIConfigFile you can adjust the size and xp of all enemy units. Limit their maximum sizes, turn off or limit their ability to detach skirmishers, reduce the chance for enemy units to split in half, and turn off their advanced charge logic.

Lowering the enemy experience is usually a good first starting point. The mod makes the difference in performance between 0 and higher star units much larger. Additionally, low condition applies much larger penalties so if you are exhausting your units they will perform very badly.

In terms of editing weapon and perk values a basic overview is available here https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26225-weapon-and-perk-modding-guide/

Some values are handled through the dll so you won't be able to change everything without making programming changes. There is a test version available on the discord which allows you to adjust all the perks in a text file, but that isn't ready for a full release yet.

[Tasslehoff]

Is there a way to disable the refilling supply wagon cost percentage thing at the end of mission

[Aericles1775]

Hello all,

I'm playing JnP again because it is great, and I need a new PC to play American Revolution sadly. I've done a search and couldn't find ANY answers. Is there a way to easily mod the stats and bonuses of the Corps commanders perks?

[LennyFroggins]

(Malvern Hill, showing an example of terrain height but its more useful in telling minor variations and wondering why your elite unit is keeping a bit chewed up more than usual)

 

That might be in the .dll file somewhere.  I have a reason to poke around in there this weekend if I get time and I'll see if I can search up that option and if so I'll male a .dll for ya. 

I didnt find anything to do with the supply refill in these files, but if you go into the Mod/Rebalance/ folder you will see AiConfig.txt  Configfile.txt unitmodifiers.txt  and in those files you will find all sorts of fun ways to tweak aspects of the mod to your liking.  For instance, in ConfigFile.txt I made the fast-forward speed x12, and the minimum size for all units to be 100 men so that I can recruit a specialist unit and staff it full of almost all veterans (why my Inf gotta have 500 newbies along for the ride?).  In unitmodifiers.txt I changed the "limber on move" distance to 200, because it was annoying me how far my heavy batteries wanted to push the guns without me telling em to horse up.  There's all sorts of things you can do. Play around.   It's also a way to adjust difficulty if you learn the game better midway through a campaign.

 

Below is my super-duper funtime modding learncode experience: I got tired of getting my units absolutely wrecked because the shading on the maps is not always really easy to read for elevation.  So I found a .dll decompiler called dnSpy, used my extremely basic knowledge of modding to find camera controls, and set the zoom in to as far as the game seems to let you go.  Then I thought, hey, ChatGPT 4 (free bing.com version) probably knows the Unity engine so I asked, and yes it does. 

So I deleted the part of the camera control code that obviously changes the tilt with the onscreen button, and asked BinGPT4 to write code that binds camera tilt to Page Up/Dn (reversed, Dn pans Up).  Now I can zoom in to the ground and tilt the camera up to level and see exactly how much higher one hill is that the other!  It also looks prettttyyyyy coool, if a little wonky.  If I get time soon I'm going to see if I can figure out how to stop the dark No-LOS shading from seen through terrain (not a problem Game-Labs ever needed to fix lol, so probably easy if I knew what I was doing).

Below is the stock latest JP-Rebalance Assembly-CSharp.dll with just the camera controls changed.  Unless I also tweaked something else in there while poking around but I've been playing a bit (Malvern Hill, US) and if I changed anything else it is either minor, or awesome, so dont worry bout it. 😎

https://file.io/fViKNSIkjtxGhttps://file.io/fViKNSIkjtxG

 

All of that to say that: modding is fun and you can learn it easily today and damn I wish I had AI back when I was writing Crusader Kings 2 scripts! Dont be intimidated to poke around and make changes, especially now. Back in 2012 one of my mods for CK2 was included in all of the big mega-mods like CK2+, AGOT etc and eventually that mechanic (that I taught myself to write and basically had to write a big ole logic horseshoe to get around the lack of a certain class) made it into CK3 because it is that essential. Modders put the passion into games where the guys making it might just be jobbers on a deadline. 

 

Panda: questions for you sir. 

1) Do you know any free AI coding assistants that could decompile and read the entire assembly dll?  Because GPT4 could absolutely answer questions about the whole file and the interconnectedness of it all if it didnt have such a tiny character limit.

2) Do you think the graphics could be modified to prevent things like unit flags, LOS shading, trees, from being seen through the ground?  It's gotta be possible in this build of Unity since it doesnt look like infantry sprites do. 

3) Would it be possible to add Division commanders to the battlefield?  Based on my Ctrl-C skills it should be right?  Give them a skill tree (Corps would have to be rebalanced ofc) and a much smaller command radius.  So there's an in-game bonus to keeping division cohesion and it plays that much more like Sid Meier's Civil War games.   I'd also make Road Column toggle-able but make the column thinner and longer (which should change the time it takes the unit to reach formation).

4) And my Ultimate Goal would be to create a hybrid of the Historical submod for yours that plays more like SMG on the Regimental -> Corps scale but without the complex communications and a more narrow line width.  As part of that would be working with the full-size raw maps to see if it would be possible to go about naming CPs all around the maps and then having a randomization script that allows you to input Size of Battle, Attk/Def/Meet, and Map and it will choose CPs and spawn areas like SMG and SMA had, which made them infinitely replayable.  Really too bad that even with the WinXp Compat patch (lol rite) the resolution on those games is garbage.

5) Any resources on Unity, AI or otherwise, that would help me with stuff like customizing maps and such?  Danke for all your work!  I kinda slept on this game after buying on sale because of how stock played until I got your mod and am really loving it. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by LennyFroggins

[pandakraut]

On 12/19/2023 at 11:43 PM, Tasslehoff said:

Is there a way to disable the refilling supply wagon cost percentage thing at the end of mission

This isn't something that is configurable currently. Points in politics, economy, logistics, and army organization will all reduce the amount you have to pay back though.

If you can capture enemy wagons, using that supply first will also always be more efficient than using your own.

[dixiePig]

PK> If you can capture enemy wagons, using that supply first will also always be more efficient than using your own.

I try to capture enemy supply whenever possible:

1. to distract them
2. to deprive them
3. to strengthen myself

PK: Can you comment on the effect of each and the effectiveness of raiding enemy supply overall?

• BTW:  Why can I NOT use captured supplies during the battle?

[dixiePig]

A comment and request re Army Org.

AO progression is somewhat worthless (to me, at least) after AO level 4 or so:  I have enough Div/Bde units to fight the battles.  Since I've already capped unit size at pretty much historical levels, "bigger & more" is not really at issue for most battles, including Major ones.

UNTIL ...

... we get to 2nd Bull Run, where it is critical as CSA to have the full 25 Bdes in your start-of-battle Corps if you are to  survive the initial Union assault.

• Here's the problem:  You have to be at AO Level 9 (!) in order to have one corps that can provide 25 Bdes 

Obviously, that means wasting a lot of CAREER points in order to get to the 9-level of AO by 2nd Bull Run. Was this intentional?  If so, it's a bad plan, IMO.  Is there any other way around it?

BTW:  As presently configured, AO itself in UGCW is kind of a canard to begin with:  Historically, both armies were relatively standard in their approach to structure and unit sizes, especially re INF. The major differences and issues were the organization, structure, and tactics re ARTY and CAV.  Those are worth dealing with in something labeled Army Organization.

Edited December 23, 2023 by dixiePig

[LennyFroggins]

If Tasselhoff wants to lessen the impact of the supply re-supply being automatic he could come up with a fair value and adjust the Logi skill accordingly.

Q: I never really thought about this but it seems like your brigades still get the bonus from skills that are greyed out because of the addition of rookies or commander change.  I had one of my 2nd tier maneuver Inf units with that skill greyed out still deployed a larger skirmisher component.  Is there any way to change that?  Or I'll just RP consider those to be "unit doctrines" and try not to recruit all rookie units with a LG before dropping a Colonel on em.

[pandakraut]

On 12/22/2023 at 12:17 PM, dixiePig said:

PK> If you can capture enemy wagons, using that supply first will also always be more efficient than using your own.

I try to capture enemy supply whenever possible:

1. to distract them
2. to deprive them
3. to strengthen myself

PK: Can you comment on the effect of each and the effectiveness of raiding enemy supply overall?

• BTW:  Why can I NOT use captured supplies during the battle?

If enemy units run out of ammunition they reload at 1/3 the normal rate just like the player, so depriving them of wagons can be very effective.

I don't understand what you mean about using supplies during a battle. If you capture their wagons you can use them to resupply your units like any other wagon.

[dixiePig]

More on ARMY ORG, History and PLAYABILITY

These comments pertain primarily to 1862, which was the first real year of the war (about 25 battles, incl. ~10 major ones) from Bull Run to Chancellorsville.  These are, by general consensus, the most competitive, challenging, and 'fun' battles.  After Gettysburg, it's pretty much a grinding trench slugfest.

During the early days of the war (definitely including Bull Run and up to Shiloh) the army structure was often random and disorganized.  Units were recruited and equipped locally.

• Some units were structured as "Legions", with small integrated CAV and ARTY units (a couple of guns).  Perhaps this might be reflected.

INF : Was largely similar in terms of weapons, structure and tactics. The USA Bdes averaged smaller: 1200-1500.  The CSA averaged larger: 1500-1800.  

• If AO is to be meaningful, it might try to address this structural difference in unit sizes.  The number of Bdes in a division (capped at 6) should not be at issue.

CAV : is where the CSA had the early advantage.  It's reflected somewhat in CAREER perks, but not much.

• AO and CAREER might provide more CAV 'tools' to the CSA during the early months of the war (Stuart's arrival is a little late, imo). The USA might be limited by troop size in AO during the early stages.  The USA catches up quickly, but not really until after the success and promotion of Pleasonton in late 1862.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Pleasonton
• CAV units should determine Reconnaisance skill, as well as the ability to interdict Supply.  

ARTY : was non-centralized and often consisted of a hodgepodge of inconsistent weapons. Not unusual to have only 2 or 4 guns attached to larger units well into 1862, with no centralization of fire control or supply.

• ARTY unit size should be capped in AO throughout the early battles.  I allow 4 guns per Bde initially, 6 guns at Shiloh, 8 guns at Gaines Mill, 10 guns at 2nd Bull Run.  This reflects (approximately) the historical thread - as well as the early challenges of the war. 
•  Early ARTY formations would reflect the 'hodgepodge' of inconsistent units better (i.e. It's just a generic ARTY unit with generic so-so firing capability.)  Selecting an AO perk allows you to create coherent ARTY units with consistent weapon identities.  Your ARTY fire is more effective, as a result.
• Selecting another AO perk might also allow you to apply the 'horse artillery' capability to all ARTY units for speed and manueverability.  This would be a function of available SUPPLY.

Net/Net

1. AO perks should be less concerned with INF unit size (the 6000-man INF Bde is kind of absurd, historically).  Capping INF Bde unit size at 2000 is generous.

• Legacy UGCW already deals with unit structure limitations in early battles by attaching Allied units to 'fill the gap'.  Use this, rather than arbitrary and irrelevant Corps/Div/Bde numbers in AO. There never were limitations on 'how many' ... Perhaps even allow some Allied units to be absorbed into your army.  Could this be another AO perk?

2. AO perks should be more concerned with ARTY consolidation, systemazation, and organization. The USA eventually becomes an industrial production juggernaut.

3. AO perks should allow focus on CAV, as well: allowing superior Reconnaissance and Supply interdiction. The CSA has early advantage.

Finally:  The early stages of the war are often the most challenging and interesting - esp. as regards AO and Army development.  Perhaps you could add some generic small battles in 1861 or early 1862 into the timeline, based on maps from the opposition army?  Don't know how aheavy a development lift this is, but it might be interesting.

Exceptional Battle Success (tempered by troop losses) might effect AO perks and CAREER benefits - in a good way.

Edited December 24, 2023 by dixiePig

[pandakraut]

14 hours ago, LennyFroggins said:

If Tasselhoff wants to lessen the impact of the supply re-supply being automatic he could come up with a fair value and adjust the Logi skill accordingly.

Q: I never really thought about this but it seems like your brigades still get the bonus from skills that are greyed out because of the addition of rookies or commander change.  I had one of my 2nd tier maneuver Inf units with that skill greyed out still deployed a larger skirmisher component.  Is there any way to change that?  Or I'll just RP consider those to be "unit doctrines" and try not to recruit all rookie units with a LG before dropping a Colonel on em.

The custom bonuses that I added probably aren't checking that the perk is still active. The normal bonuses don't apply to the unit if the perk is grayed out. Thanks for reporting this.

[dixiePig]

PK> I don't understand what you mean about using supplies during a battle. If you capture their wagons you can use them to resupply your units like any other wagon.

Obviously I misunderstood. Apologies

[dixiePig]

Building your Army in preparation for a Major Battle is especially critical.  It depends very much on survivabilty (having enough troops) and also choreography (which reinforcements arrive and when).

It's usually fairly straightforward, but some Major Battles aren't.  For example:  Gaines Mill for the CSA

Reinforcements arrive sort of helter skelter, with elements from different Corps arriving at different times from different directions.

• A commander may not know which enemy troops will arrive where & when, but he probably has a pretty good idea which of his own and allied troops will arrive where & when.  This info should be readily available to the commander up front.

Edited December 24, 2023 by dixiePig

[dixiePig]

What is the value of attacking enemy generals (usually with CAV)?

They just run away and are hard to kill,

[dixiePig]

On 12/22/2023 at 2:27 AM, LennyFroggins said:

3) Would it be possible to add Division commanders to the battlefield?  Based on my Ctrl-C skills it should be right?  Give them a skill tree (Corps would have to be rebalanced ofc) and a much smaller command radius.  So there's an in-game bonus to keeping division cohesion and it plays that much more like Sid Meier's Civil War games.   I'd also make Road Column toggle-able but make the column thinner and longer (which should change the time it takes the unit to reach formation).

LennyFroggin's work and observations are pretty nice.  I hope to see them in player-accessible form at some point.

"Division command control" and "cohesion" : YES!

• Divisional influence is one of the missing pieces

"Road column" : YES!

• Serious current oversight (movement); has implications if unit is fired upon while in column formation

"3-D mapping" : YES!

• Serious current oversight (combat, vision, command control)

The 3-D mapping has implications for a critical aspect of UGCW.  Currently, 'the battlefield' is your standard global God's-Eye-View from overhead, which is convenient & powerful, but highly unrealistic.   3-D mapping allows for a more limited 'commander's view', depending on where you've positioned your ArmyGeneral on the battlefield.  His scope of vision is limited to that perspective, obscured by terrain, dust, and smoke. The Army General also has access to maps of the area (often determined by RECONNAISSANCE), which provide a God's-Eye-View of terrain, as reference.  The ArmyGeneral can move to a new position in order to change his POV and range of vision.

Status and Information from sub-commanders (Corps and Divisional) about the situation in the field comes from COURIERS (and perhaps a Signal Corps) is delayed.  Which means that the battle is determined less by micro-management of individual units and more by the ability to anticipate enemy moves and to provide more strategic guidance with commands which must be interpreted and executed by sub-commanders.  With a time delay.

Overall effectiveness is determined by initiative, discipline, and communications among units in the field (which is where the 'fitness reports' on the behaviors of individual DIV and CORPS sub-commanders becomes critical.  There's a lot more 'fog of war'. Delay between discovery of a situation and its solution is an ongoing factor. There must/should be standard pre-packaged commands, to be interpreted by sub-commanders, including FALLBACK to [here], DEFEND the hill, ATTACK [this position], MOVE [to that position], SUPPORT [the 3rd Division], etc.

The game's AI already does a pretty good job of "doing the right thing', esp. on defense, though there could be improvements.  For example:  ARTY generally responds wisely to concentrate fire on enemy attacks.  But - if there is a 'chained attack' - it does a poor job of re-directing fire against the most immediate threat.  I am annoyed to discover that ARTY and INF are often firing at enemies who are in retreat, while ignoring fresh attacks directly on top of them.  Ditto 'fallback', which needs to be repeated again and again in order to give a threatened/wearied unit some respite. AI could be improved on both of those.

• PS:  I played and greatly enjoyed Sid Meiers' groundbreaking Civil War games back in the 90's.  He's like a god, isn't he?  FWIW - I visited Gettysburg for the centennial back in the summer of '63, and researched & designed my own 'napoleonic' wargames in the mid/late 60's, using the military library at USMC base Quantico.

Of course, this is all a heavy lift in terms of coding.  But that's my Christmas List, Santa.

Thanks & danke again for the great work, PK, Jonnie, and Lenny.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2023 by dixiePig

[LennyFroggins]

I think that a Commander View is too ambitious for this game. All I did was unlock camera tilt and add a keybind for it so that I can more easily see how high one bank of a stream is compared to the other without staring at shading and movement-tracks, but I mean to play the game top-down as normal.

IIRC there was a game from about 2010ish called Scourge of War Gettysburg that had all the hardcore goodies like locked view to your General, physical couriers.  If you pared it all the way down to the most realistic you basically had to ride your General around while receiving reports via courier from your generals and sketching troop positions.  I remember in one game I lost track of Hood's Texans until later when I discovered they had gone on murder spree in the US backfield and none of the couriers to or from could get through to my avatar.

I think I have an idea how I can change the AI logic on some of that stuff, but I'm too busy playing the game to fully figure out the J+P mod before I start messing with it for myself.   There's a function that sets a distance at which your AI cannon re-targets to approaching infantry from counter-battery.  I think default is ~700 and I set mine down to ~400 IIRC so that my close-support cannon do not switch targets as much.  I think this works by setting a threshhold to re-check target.  Theoretically setting this to ~200 or below could mean that if an infantry brigade trips that 200f line while another one is retreating, the cannon will re-target the next approaching. 

But IDK, that value should be in the AIConfig file if you want to play around with it.

A lot of modding is changing something and testing, testing, testing.  Also this game you cant just have "test scenarios" saved because if you havent noticed, when a battle state is reloaded the AI recalculates the situation compared to no interruption. 

 

 

[dixiePig]

15 hours ago, LennyFroggins said:

I think that a Commander View is too ambitious for this game. 

There's a function that sets a distance at which your AI cannon re-targets to approaching infantry from counter-battery.  I think default is ~700 and I set mine down to ~400 IIRC so that my close-support cannon do not switch targets as much.  I think this works by setting a threshhold to re-check target.  Theoretically setting this to ~200 or below could mean that if an infantry brigade trips that 200f line while another one is retreating, the cannon will re-target the next approaching. 

Thanks for the quick response, Lenny. I don't have a lot of illusions about trying to change the fundamental functionality of UGCW thru add-on modding, tho I'm impressed with what has been accompished by PK, Jonny, Adishee, and you thus far.  But the dream of a fairly realistic (and historically accurate-esque} Commander-centric game remains.  In the meantime, god's eye view and micro-management of individual units is the norm.

Sounds like 'Scourge of War' had its drawbacks: 

https://letstalkaboutwargames.wordpress.com/2022/08/25/scourge-of-war-games-will-be-removed-from-online-stores/

Thanks for the insight on ARTY re-targeting.  It's a kluge, but hopefully works.  Any thoughts on getting INF to re-target their fire sensibly, as well?   

PK : minor typo in configFile : mostVisibileMinimumRange > mostVisibleMinimumRange

Edited December 27, 2023 by dixiePig
typo

[LennyFroggins]

Scourge of War did have some issues, but I didnt think it was bad enough to remove the games!

Hmm, I wonder if that typo is in the game files as well, if so it's needed to work.

BTW there is a configurable value for fallback duration you can set higher if you dont want to have to keep making sure your units are falling back.  A lot of that sort of stuff is personal preference, a balance between what happens when you forget to check back up on a unit: is it worse if they fall back too far or too short?

Edited December 28, 2023 by LennyFroggins

[dixiePig]

LennyFroggins:

On 12/27/2023 at 10:05 PM, LennyFroggins said:

BTW there is a configurable value for fallback duration you can set higher if you dont want to have to keep making sure your units are falling back.  A lot of that sort of stuff is personal preference, a balance between what happens when you forget to check back up on a unit: is it worse if they fall back too far or too short?

Which configurable value is that, Lenny?

UGCW's terminology surrounding various forms of withdrawal is a little mushy: What's the difference between retreat, rout, withdraw, and fall back?  And how do you implement them sensibly?

• USMC General Oliver P. Smith  is most noted for commanding the 1st Marine Division during the first year of the Korean War, and notably during the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, where he said "Retreat Hell! We're just attacking in another direction." -- Wikipedia

The much-needed solution is to offer appropriate alternatives: 

1. Withdraw [to this location].  It's like 'move', but you retain your facing to the enemy, while withdrawing to a wiser location, which you - as commander - can specify. Least hit to morale.
2. [F] Fallback the shortcut key is incremental, generic, and usually needs to be repeated.  You remain facing the enemy, while stepping back. But distance is indiscriminate.  The unit stops ... 'wherever'.  Far better if the unit falls back to join the nearest unrouted allied units, by default.
3. Another alternative is Retreat, in which the unit retains its facing towards the enemy, but withdraws to safety behind friendly lines.  The point is to get the unit out of harm's way, but in an orderly fashion.
4. [G] Rout is a poorly-placed shortcut key for those desperate situations where you need to  - as the Pythons say - "Run away! Run away!"  You lose all formation, but move faster.  As commander, you must then try to recover the unit. Greatest hit to morale.

This offers a reasonable range of options, with understandable effect on morale.

#makesSenseToMe

Edited December 31, 2023 by dixiePig