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

[pandakraut]

A bug fix patch that will also include a config to hard cap the stat of AI units should be going into testing soon. Probably ready to release sometime in the next few weeks.

[clench]

On 3/28/2023 at 3:57 PM, dixiePig said:

2nd Bull Run

Unfortunately, playing CSA at 2ndBR on MG = the-same-all-over-again: i.e. outrageouly high proportion of 3* and 2* AI units

Historically, it is waaay off - and I feel that it doesn't even work in terms of straight 'playability'

Maybe the battle is winnable IF Porter doesn't show up until day 2, but right now it does not seem at all balanced

In any case, I've reached a hard stop with the campaign

Hope you get it fixed

 

I'm hard stuck here as well. It would be fine, but the time it takes your reinforcements to arrive is far too long. 

And yeah, it's pretty ahistorical for the Union to launch such a coordinated assault on Stony Ridge. This is a battle the CSA won pretty much entirely based on the Union's incompetence and lack of good intelligence.

 

I've tried multiple strats, but the attack on the CSA right flank is pretty impossible to stop when you only have one corps.  I actually have more men deployed to the battle, but never get to see them before my right flank is overrun by non-stop charges by multiple corps that just spawn on top of them practically. If I pull more troops off the left flank, then it gets overrun and I still can't hold the right flank for much longer. The best I've done is my right flank is chain routing just as reinforcements arrive, but it's too late and the loses are my best troops and massive.

 

For me the battle is 68000 CSA vs 62000 Union, but because of how long it takes reinforcements to arrive it's like 22000 vs 62000. I'm not the best player I'm sure, but not the worst. Doesn't seem doable without doing some really cheese strats. Perhaps with army org high enough to get 25 units per corp, but 20 (21 with forrest) it's pretty impossible.  The AI spawns practically on top of your right flank and fresh with like 12+ brigades. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by clench

[pandakraut]

10 hours ago, clench said:

And yeah, it's pretty ahistorical for the Union to launch such a coordinated assault on Stony Ridge. This is a battle the CSA won pretty much entirely based on the Union's incompetence and lack of good intelligence.

As part of the battle rework we duplicated player solutions to battles and potential alternative tactics in battles where possible. The goal was to limit the players ability to know exactly what the AI is going to do and provide more variety in battles since we can't actually add new ones.

In this case the flank attack is intentionally setup as an alternative history scenario where Porters ordered attack on the CSA flank was organized and executed well, with accommodations to make it actually effective in game. There is still a pretty large window on when Porter arrives, sometimes he won't show up until the last day.

10 hours ago, clench said:

For me the battle is 68000 CSA vs 62000 Union, but because of how long it takes reinforcements to arrive it's like 22000 vs 62000. I'm not the best player I'm sure, but not the worst. Doesn't seem doable without doing some really cheese strats. Perhaps with army org high enough to get 25 units per corp, but 20 (21 with forrest) it's pretty impossible.  The AI spawns practically on top of your right flank and fresh with like 12+ brigades. 

The flank attack is definitely difficult to hold, but with some preparation it can be done. I didn't do anything fancy when beating it. Inflicted what casualties I could on day 1, setup on the ridge as normal with more of my forces deployed in the north to receive the initial attack. Once I detected that the flank attack scenario was happening I started shifting units to the south, stripping more and more as the attack in the north lost its ability to threaten my lines and my lines in the south got pushed back. I also had some cav and detached skirms harassing their artillery and supply wagons of their flanking column.

In preparation for this battle, I made sure to get up to 9 AO so I would have 25 units to defend the ridge. All of my points from Malvern Hill and the side battles were used for this. I also specifically invested more into my units in the corps used to defend the ridge than my reinforcing corps. More than half of my men deployed to the battle total were in my first corps. I only had a single unit in my third corps for an extra supply wagon. I had one 3* artillery unit, a dozen 2*s, and the rest almost entirely 1*.

If I were to replay it again, I would focus more of my effort on getting detached and cav into their rear as soon as I detect the flank attack. These would go after their infantry units more to knock them out of column formation and limit how many arrive at my line at the same time. 

All of those units spawn on the map edge near the bottom left corner. While it does still happen in a few places, we avoid having any AI units spawn anywhere but the map edge to limit scenarios where the player can have units that get spawned on top of. The units also arrive in waves so you have chances to distract and string them out so that they don't all hit your line at once.

There is an issue on the last day where the player's third corps can spawn too far east and end up on top of AI units hanging out in the bottom left corner, will be addressing that in the next patch. One of the randomized scaling factors will also have its top end lowered a bit as it was causing larger than intended swings in AI size for some of the larger battles.

Some screenshots of my legendary playthrough from early versions of 1.28. In terms of battle mechanics would be harder to replicate now, but I also could have gotten my army into a better state than it was so I think that would mostly even out.

My line in the process of collapsing shortly before my reinforcements arrive.

Just before the end of the second day

End result

 

[dixiePig]

On 4/5/2023 at 9:16 AM, pandakraut said:

The goal was to limit the players ability to know exactly what the AI is going to do and provide more variety in battles since we can't actually add new ones.

Excellent concept - and hope to see it replicated in other battles. "Variety is the spice of life."

Now, let's improve the execution of other factors.  Which apparently could use some work.

On 4/5/2023 at 9:16 AM, pandakraut said:

In preparation for this battle, I made sure to get up to 9 AO so I would have 25 units to defend the ridge.

This is - effectively - an admission that something is seriously out of whack in the game dynamics. You shouldn't have to be at the maximum limit of the AO chain (in mid-1862, no less) in order to have a prayer in this battle.

Simple solution: 

• Allow more-units-in-a-corps loooooong before you get to AO:9.  It worked well before.
• You might even reconsider allowing 6 Bdes in a Div ...

On 4/5/2023 at 9:16 AM, pandakraut said:

One of the randomized scaling factors will also have its top end lowered a bit as it was causing larger than intended swings in AI size for some of the larger battles.

Huzzah.  Let us know when it's fixed.

On 4/5/2023 at 9:16 AM, pandakraut said:

but I also could have gotten my army into a better state than it was so I think that would mostly even out

My armies worked just fine in other battles; there was no hint or premonition that I would suddently be obliged to face a large and aggressive army of overwhelmingly 3* and 2* AI units at 2ndBR.  History (1862 reality), precedent (in previous battles), and common sense are all relevant.

Edited April 6, 2023 by dixiePig
clarity

[pandakraut]

New union MG series from Gonzo: 

https://youtu.be/3s_6bQY1cC4

Edited April 8, 2023 by pandakraut

[clench]

On 4/4/2023 at 9:37 PM, clench said:

,

 

Yeah I had to go back and replay Malvern Hill and the side battles to get 9 AO to get passed 2nd bull run. The few extra brigades made the difference holding the CSA right flank. 

Edited April 8, 2023 by clench

[dixiePig]

1 hour ago, clench said:

Yeah I had to go back and replay Malvern Hill and the side battles to get 9 AO to get passed 2nd bull run. The few extra brigades made the difference holding the CSA right flank. 

hmmmm ... based on several decdes of professional usability design work - often providing 'makeovers' to flawed systems - I've come up with a few Snappy One Liners.  This one is relevant to the moment: 

As noted, please let us know when it's fixed.

In the meantime, you might want to include some notes in the splash panel to the effect that "This is the only way you can possibly win Second Bull Run in this version ..."

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by dixiePig
typo

[clench]

It's a little weird because 2nd bull run requires 9 AO, but then Antietam has your brigade limit for each corps back to 20 instead of 25.

[pandakraut]

A lot of the deployment amounts are holdovers from the base game where they are roughly based on the corps present historically. That's why you go from 5 corps at Antietam and Fredericksburg, back down to 2-3 corps until cold harbor as the CSA. They also have the 4 corps slots at Gaines Mill which has never been reasonable or useful to try to field.

[gavinreid]

hey so im not not sure if this is late or not, but i have the 1.9.2 version cust (thats what it says on my game) and the mod works but i cant change the uiai csv document. i have even replaced with the document in CSV form and replaced the entire customization with my version and I know it doesn't work because I always turn off skirmisher cool down and every time I play it's always on. So how on a MacBook do I edit and then apply the edited and customized uiai CSV document? on mac. i can edit it on numbers, turn it to a csv file, replace it in the cust. folder, and nothing

[Kripper10]

When is the next update supposed to drop, is there any ETA regarding it? So far, I gotta say the mods for this game really make it way better! Mainly in terms of replay value. 

[pandakraut]

1 hour ago, Kripper10 said:

When is the next update supposed to drop, is there any ETA regarding it? So far, I gotta say the mods for this game really make it way better! Mainly in terms of replay value. 

Nothing major in the works at the moment unfortunately, just haven't had time. There is a small patch with a variety of bug fixes and additional config options that is coming soon. It's available as a test version on the discord, but I'm still trying to track down a few more bugs before it goes to release.

[Fenian98]

On 4/17/2023 at 11:31 PM, pandakraut said:

Nothing major in the works at the moment unfortunately, just haven't had time. There is a small patch with a variety of bug fixes and additional config options that is coming soon. It's available as a test version on the discord, but I'm still trying to track down a few more bugs before it goes to release.

Has anyone played Union Legendary on the new mod? I'm stuck at 1st Bull Run,can only get a draw due to getting blitzed by the reinforcements at the end. 

[pandakraut]

2 hours ago, Fenian98 said:

Has anyone played Union Legendary on the new mod? I'm stuck at 1st Bull Run,can only get a draw due to getting blitzed by the reinforcements at the end. 

The key to this is getting into a good enough position prior to those reinforcements arriving. This usually means you want to have the majority of your units across the river, the VP in your possession, and hopefully with a little time to setup your defensive line and rest while cleaning up the remnants of whatever CSA units are left from the earlier phases.

Preserving your condition through all of this tends to be the hard part since early union stats are terrible. One trick, that was a bit of an oversight and might get fixed in the future, is that you want to trigger the 2nd phase pretty early. This is the opposite of older versions where you wanted to avoid triggering it as long as possible to get into position to rush across the river.

The reason for this is that the extra time from the first phase is now added to the timer in the second phase. This was done so that accidentally triggering the phase early didn't result in a large time loss. But what it enabled is that you can trigger it early to spawn your reinforcements sooner and give them more time to walk over to the objective and then rest before crossing.

You can still win the old way, but it's much much harder. Took me probably a dozen attempts to get it right when I was testing.

This is on MG but the core ideas should generally work on legendary as well https://youtu.be/5IBIQQCKKc0

These are a not quite the current version but forefall has a partial legendary campaign as well. Important to note that he ended up with one of the easiest versions of legendary I've ever seen due to a few things that I've since patched. So while a lot of this is still valid it's probably not possible to get as good of results anymore. https://youtu.be/VPmVKwplK2I

Hope that helps, if you have more questions please ask.

Edited April 21, 2023 by pandakraut

[dixiePig]

an observation on 'configFile adjustments'.

It is clear that there's a big disjunct between the AI dynamics in minor battles and in major battles. Minor battles are winnable with a conventional approach, but major battles are 'unbalanced'in terms of AI strength - you need to 'game the system' in order to beef up artificially in anticipation of AI-heavy major battles. Apparently a fix is on the way.Altho I usually play CSA, I am now trying to play North - but the same imbalance persists.

In the meantime, it may be possible to fiddle with the config files in order to restore game balance to the major battles. At first I tried adjusting AIscalingSizeMultiplier and AIscalingExperienceMultiplier, but soon realized that the change affects both the enemy AI and my own allied AI troops.

Now I am trying to adjust historicalSouthAddStat and historicalSouthSizeMultiplier as a method for re-establishing some balance to the major battles, though I don't see much improvement just yet.

Any suggestions?

PS: Thanks again for the variety in the spawning and attack focus of the AI in major battles.  Big improvement.

Edited April 22, 2023 by dixiePig
clarification & follow-up

[Fenian98]

20 hours ago, pandakraut said:

The key to this is getting into a good enough position prior to those reinforcements arriving. This usually means you want to have the majority of your units across the river, the VP in your possession, and hopefully with a little time to setup your defensive line and rest while cleaning up the remnants of whatever CSA units are left from the earlier phases.

Preserving your condition through all of this tends to be the hard part since early union stats are terrible. One trick, that was a bit of an oversight and might get fixed in the future, is that you want to trigger the 2nd phase pretty early. This is the opposite of older versions where you wanted to avoid triggering it as long as possible to get into position to rush across the river.

The reason for this is that the extra time from the first phase is now added to the timer in the second phase. This was done so that accidentally triggering the phase early didn't result in a large time loss. But what it enabled is that you can trigger it early to spawn your reinforcements sooner and give them more time to walk over to the objective and then rest before crossing.

You can still win the old way, but it's much much harder. Took me probably a dozen attempts to get it right when I was testing.

This is on MG but the core ideas should generally work on legendary as well https://youtu.be/5IBIQQCKKc0

These are a not quite the current version but forefall has a partial legendary campaign as well. Important to note that he ended up with one of the easiest versions of legendary I've ever seen due to a few things that I've since patched. So while a lot of this is still valid it's probably not possible to get as good of results anymore. https://youtu.be/VPmVKwplK2I

Hope that helps, if you have more questions please ask.

Thanking you. Loving the new look,it’s a cracking game!!! 

[pandakraut]

6 hours ago, dixiePig said:

At first I tried adjusting AIscalingSizeMultiplier and AIscalingExperienceMultiplier, but soon realized that the change affects both the enemy AI and my own allied AI troops.

Just double checked this and those values are not affecting allied units.

The historical north/south would apply to allied units though, so maybe you had one of those was active and that is why it appeared that the ai scaling values were affecting allied?

[dixiePig]

Thanks for the speedy response.

PK>Just double checked this and those values are not affecting allied units.

• Okay.  Do they (AIscalingSizeMultiplier and AIscalingExperienceMultiplier) affect anything?  (Should they be removed from aiconfing file?)

PK>The historical north/south would apply to allied units though, so maybe you had one of those was active and that is why it appeared that the ai scaling values were affecting allied?

• Perhaps I was not clear.  I am playing Union and was attempting to weaken the AI enemy CSA forces (which are too powerful) by setting historicalSouthAddStat to 0.5, which should weaken the AI CSA forces considerably. 
• The AI CSA forces in 1stBR are still too strong.  There's no apparent change. They are still mostly 2* and 1* units (with one 3* unit!), while my allied AI Union forces are all 0* (and have been that weak from the beginning).

Net/Net:  HistoricalSouthAddStat and historicalSouthSizeMultiplier seem to have no impact whatsoever on the enemy AI forces in 1stBR.

[pandakraut]

41 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

(AIscalingSizeMultiplier and AIscalingExperienceMultiplier) affect anything

Yes, they affect all ai units. Was seeing that working as expected.

42 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

historicalSouthAddStat to 0.5, which should weaken the AI CSA forces considerably. 

Unlike the other values which are multipliers this is an additive value. So .5 is increasing all ai unit's stats by half a point.

aiScalingsizeMultiplier and historicalsouthsizemultplier both change the size of ai units when playing union bull run. There is no need to use both of them.

You may want to try resetting both files to their default state if you are seeing weird behavior. Then try changing the size multiplier to verify that is working before reapplying any other changes you have.

[dixiePig]

1 hour ago, pandakraut said:

Unlike the other values which are multipliers this is an additive value. So .5 is increasing all ai unit's stats by half a point.

Sorry - does not compute. The default aiconfig file value is "historicalSouthSizeMultiplier, 1".  Are you saying that the default state is that all southern ai unit's stats are increased by a full point? Both historicalSouthSizeMultiplier and AIscalingSizeMultiplier are labeled as 'multipliers', though you say that the historical values are actually additive.  I think you can see how that labeling might be confusing. Perhaps a disclaimer somewhere... in the config file guide?

My underlying challenge is this: 

• How does one reduce the stats on all enemy AI units? (since we know that the ai enemy units are artificailly too strong in the major battles of the mod). 

PK> aiScalingsizeMultiplier and historicalsouthsizemultplier both change the size of ai units when playing union bull run. There is no need to use both of them.

• JV>By its label aiScalingsizeMultiplier should change the size of all ai units (both enemy and allied). 
• By its label historicalsouthsizemultplier should change the size of only southern ai units
• no?

JV>The problem is that - even when I change the values in the configfiles - I'm seeing no appreciable change in the stats of enemy ai troops (or even among ai allied units).

Thanks again for your speedy response.

Edited April 23, 2023 by dixiePig

[pandakraut]

15 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Sorry - does not compute. The default aiconfig file value is "historicalSouthSizeMultiplier, 1".  Are you saying that the default state is that all southern ai unit's stats are increased by a full point?  My challenge is:  How does one reduce the stats on all enemy AI units?

You are getting confused between two different config values that function differently.

historicalSouthSizeMultplier has a default value of 1 because it multiplies the size of all allied or ai CSA units by 1.

historicalSouthAddStat has a default value of 0 because it modifies the stats of all allied or ai CSA units by adding 0.

If you wanted to reduce the stats of CSA ai units you could use a value like -50 for the historicalSouthAddStat to subtract 50 from each of their stats.

23 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

JV>By its label aiScalingsizeMultiplier should change the size of all ai units (both enemy and allied)

 As I believe is mentioned in the guide and I've mentioned before this applies to all ai units only. This does not include allied units as those are not controlled by the ai. From a technical perspective this value applies during scaling which is a process that allied units do not go through.

29 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

historicalsouthsizemultplier shoulchange the size of only southern ai units

This modifier applies on unit spawn rather than during scaling. This allows it to apply to custom battles which do not go through scaling. It also allows it to apply to any unit not part of the player army. This includes allied or ai units of the relevant side.

33 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

JV>The problem is that - even when I change the values in the configfiles - I'm seeing no appreciable change in the stats of enemy ai troops (or even among ai allied units.

I would suggest trying the -50 to the historical add stat modifier. You should see an immediate drop in stars of all applicable units.

[dixiePig]

Thanks, PK.  Those complex non-intuuitive distinctions are now in a more manageable context.

I shall try the "-50" modification.  By way of context; What is the realm for stats (i.e. "That's -50 out of 200 at 1stBR" or "You start with 100 and usually gain about [x] in minor battles and [y] in major battles. ")  Is there an absolute threshhold?

[pandakraut]

1 minute ago, dixiePig said:

I shall try the "-50" modification.  By way of context; What is the realm for stats (i.e. "That's -50 out of 200 at 1stBR" or "You start with 100 and usually gain about [x] in minor battles and [y] in major battles. ")  Is there an absolute threshhold?

Unit stats go from 1-100. It is possible for stats to go above 100 behind the scenes, but 100 is the cap at any point these are used for any kind of combat purpose.

The stats of ai units don't carryover between battles like the players. Ai units have preset stats for every battle. These get adjusted up or down based on the difficulty and the current recon report training value.

[dixiePig]

PK> The stats adjustment has fixed the issue that concerns me most; the imbalance of stats in major battles.  FYI:  -15 on historicalAddStat(them) and +5 on historicalAddStat(me) made for a less imbalanced battle, imo:

• my allies mostly had 1* (tho almost all of their 0* were ARTY ...?)
• The enemy AI still had significant stat advantage (mostly 2*), but it was less outrageous: playable & winnable

Thanks so much for the guidance.  This makes it possible to deal with the mismatch in major battles while still enjoying the new features you've added.  I will be fine-tuning the adjustments over time.

I already have multiple sets of configfiles to customize for the rapid historical changes in size and application of ARTY and CAV units during the first 2 years of the war. This technique allows for even more control when crafting battle profiles.

[KeithD]

Hi dixiePig

Are you able to share some ideas on configurations that you have found work for you?