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

[pandakraut]

13 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Perhaps I can 'equalize' by fiddling with the config files (AIscalingExperienceMultiplier), but continue to suggest that the current game profile for the Union AI forces in 2ndBR is profoundly out of whack with the rest of the game up until this point.  I do not know what the profile of Union AI forces is beyond 2ndBR.

I think the new aiMaxStat option may do more what you are looking for. This puts a limit on all stats for AI units, so if you set it to 25 you should never see a unit with more than one star. 50 two stars, 75 3 stars. The exact outcome will depend a bit depending on how good of an officer the AI unit has.

I did some quick tests and setting it to 50 on my legendary save reduced the AI to only 1 and 2 star units. Setting it to 70 resulted in more 2*s but still no 3s. 

Just to compare I also checked AIscalingExperienceMultiplier set to .5 and saw all 1*s with a single 2*.

[dixiePig]

PK>Thanks for athe advice and the new info on aiMaxStat (the explanation in the AIconfigFile is really not very clear - and is even a little confusing).  

I just finished 2ndBR as CSA.  Barely. * whew *  Breathing hard. I had managed it by setting:

• AIscalingExperienceMultiplier, .75
• historicalNorthAddStat, -5  

I will try again with AI settings as you suggest.  Now that I believe I 'get it', AImaxStat seems like it's probably a good solution.  I assume that it will only limit the AI at the upper end - and will not adversely effect battles where the AI's xp is not so overpowering.

PS : Your explanation above would be helpful if included in the AIconfigFile:

//Maximum stat that an AI unit can have. Can be used to ensure lower xp units in battles where the AI stats are very high behind the scenes on higher difficulties.
// aiMaxStat, 25 : you should never see a unit with more than one star
// aiMaxStat, 50 : you should never see a unit with more than two stars
// aiMaxStat, 75 : you should never see a unit with more than three stars

Thanks again

BTW, PK> Is there such a thing as a 4* unit?  If not, then aiMaxStat, 75 is redundant.  

As noted before, the current version makes it tougher to gain xp in order to earn more * (adding Veteran reinforcements works to add stats to units with less than 1*, but is not very helpful after that).  I'd rather to earn xp 'ogranically' thru battle anyhow. But - is there any configFile attribute which will increase my xp growth?

Edited May 26, 2023 by dixiePig
follow-up

[dixiePig]

UPDATE on Fine-tuning the AIconfigFile:

I decided to split the difference between 25 and 50, playing as CSA on 2nd BR, since my main problem there was 'too many 3* and 2* AI enemies.

// aiMaxStat, 37 : you should never see a unit with more than two stars

That should allow a modest number of 2* AI enemies. Because the xp growth is now very tough in the rebalance game, once you get to 1* - It cannot be increased (or even kept even) by adding Veterans.  So  I just don't have many/any 2* units of my own by 2ndBR - especially since I am not obsessed by xp growth.  If my units advance in xp by battle performance - cool.  But organic growth is slow - at least compared to the outrgeously high xp levels shown by the AI.

This AImaxStat change made 2ndBR tough-but-winnable. Ditto for Chantilly & Weapons Factory. 

Am now approaching Antietam, which is always tough.  With my 'historical' configFile profiles: ARTY: 8-cannons and CAV: 300 for both sides. I also have many small CAV units. My INF is generally capped at about 1500 with most units @1300 

AIArtilleryMaxSize, 200
AIInfantryMaxSize, 3000
AICavalryMaxSize, 300

• My INF (39,000) and CAV (5000) troop numbers at Antietam appear to be roughly equivalent to historical levels, with about 30% fewer cannons (142). I will probably adjust ARTY further in order to grow it faster, earlier. Perhaps I will re-start the campaign in a bit with the AIMaxStat limit at about 35-40, so as to 'keep the lid on' the rebalance's tendency to get a little silly about AI xp. Also will adjust the ARTY limits slightly in order to echo historical growth more accurately.

Looking better PK.  Thanks

Edited May 31, 2023 by dixiePig
clarity

[pandakraut]

On 5/25/2023 at 10:25 PM, dixiePig said:

BTW, PK> Is there such a thing as a 4* unit?  If not, then aiMaxStat, 75 is redundant.  

3* is the max. If you want to allow some 3*s but not face 100 stat units, or something else along those lines then higher values may be useful.

On 5/25/2023 at 10:25 PM, dixiePig said:

As noted before, the current version makes it tougher to gain xp in order to earn more * (adding Veteran reinforcements works to add stats to units with less than 1*, but is not very helpful after that).  I'd rather to earn xp 'ogranically' thru battle anyhow. But - is there any configFile attribute which will increase my xp growth?

For higher xp units, their stats are rarely directly increased by veterans unless you are disbanding some other veteran unit. The stats go up for actions taken during a battle and then are often lowered as more men are added to the unit to make up for casualties. The better the quality of replacement, the less your stats are lowered. This is why using veterans and points in medicine or investing in training to improve your recruit stats are useful for more than 1* units. 

In the unitModifiers file there is a section on Experience Gain. Reducing the values for any of those will result in units gaining xp faster.

[dixiePig]

51 minutes ago, pandakraut said:

The better the quality of replacement, the less your stats are lowered. This is why using veterans and points in medicine or investing in training to improve your recruit stats are useful for more than 1* units. 

In the unitModifiers file there is a section on Experience Gain. Reducing the values for any of those will result in units gaining xp faster.

hmmmm ... The Veteran troops in the replacement pool are about as good as you're gonna get in terms of xp.  I continue to disagree that adding Veteran troops to a 1* unit can actually result in any loss of xp.  Just doesn't make sense. Nor is it 'received knowledge' within any military.  XP must at least remain the same - if not improve.

With all due respect, I don't see what Medicine has to do with it (other than general well-being).  Training should have some effect on everyone - of course. But no one in the real world has ever argued that a trained Recruit is anywhere close to a combat Veteran in terms of actual 'experience'.

Obviously, we disagree. I will take a look at adjusting the Experience Gain modifier.  Thanks for the heads-up.

• I see now that the 'experience Gain Modifiers' are all indirect. Can you provide some parameters for adjusting these values?

//----------------------------------------
//Experience Gain Modifiers
//----------------------------------------
killsPerEffectivity,225
killsPerMelee,75
movePerStamina,1300
shootPerFirearms,7
timePerMorale,2900

Edited May 31, 2023 by dixiePig
clarification & follow-up

[pandakraut]

4 hours ago, dixiePig said:

hmmmm ... The Veteran troops in the replacement pool are about as good as you're gonna get in terms of xp.  I continue to disagree that adding Veteran troops to a 1* unit can actually result in any loss of xp.  Just doesn't make sense. Nor is it 'received knowledge' within any military.  XP must at least remain the same - if not improve.

Whether or not adding veterans increases or decreases the stats of a 1* unit will depend on the unit you are adding to. There is a wide gap in stats between a brand new unit with low stats commanded by an experienced officer that just barely has a star, and an experienced 1* that is nearly at 2* even with a mediocre officer. In the first example stats will usually go up, in the second they will likely go down unless the majority of your army is composed of such units and your veteran pool has stats to match.

Since the veteran pool uses an average of the stats of all men that go into it, all veterans that come out will have that average instead of some being exceptional and others poor.

4 hours ago, dixiePig said:

With all due respect, I don't see what Medicine has to do with it (other than general well-being).  Training should have some effect on everyone - of course. But no one in the real world has ever argued that a trained Recruit is anywhere close to a combat Veteran in terms of actual 'experience'.

When a unit takes losses, a percentage of those losses will go into the wounded pools with the stats of their parent unit at the end of the battle. If you have points in medicine, some of those men will return to the unit immediately, and more of the wounded pool will survive to return to your veteran pool. 

Here are some simple examples showing how both medicine and training result in helping retain stat growth from battles.

Assuming:
A unit of 1000 men that has a stat go from 20 to 30 in a battle, and it takes 25% losses. 
A recruit pool of 1000 men with a base stat of 10
A veteran pool of 100 men with a base stat of 20.
Medicine return numbers will be simplified to reduce the amount of math.

Example A with 0% return from medicine and no training:
750 men with a stat of 30. Add 250 recruits results in 1000 men with a stat of 25((750 * 30) + (250 * 10))
Veteran pool receives 30% of the 250 casualties. Results in a veteran pool of 175 men with a stat of 24.3
If 175 veterans and 75 recruits are used the result would be 1000 men with a stat of 27.5

Example B with 10% return from medicine and no training:
750 men with a stat of 30. Medicine returns 25 men with a stat of 30. Add 225 recruits with a stat of 10. Results in 1000 men with a stat of 25.5
Veteran pool receives 40% of the 250 casualties. Results in a veteran pool of 200 men with a stat of 25.
If 200 veterans and 50 recruits are used the result would be 1000 men with a stat of 28.8

Example C with 10% return from medicine and +5 stats from training:
750 men with a stat of 30. Medicine returns 25 men with a stat of 30. Add 225 recruits with a stat of 15. Results in 1000 men with a stat of 26.6
Veteran pool receives 40% of the 250 casualties. Results in a veteran pool of 200 men with a stat of 25.
If 200 veterans and 50 recruits are used the result would be 1000 men with a stat of 29

It's impossible in game for your recruits to be better than your veterans, but outside of the mechanics I'm not sure where the disconnect here is. Medicine helps make sure more of your veterans return to their unit after being wounded so their combat experience is not lost. Training improves the base quality of your recruits. The better your recruits, the better they are likely to perform in combat and the less detriment they will be to the veterans in their unit.

4 hours ago, dixiePig said:

I see now that the 'experience Gain Modifiers' are all indirect. Can you provide some parameters for adjusting these values?

Note the below examples will not be 1:1 in game because there are diminishing returns the higher a stat gets. So for example, if it takes 225 kills to go from 0 to 1 efficiency, it could take 300 to go from 99 to 100. The below values are unchanged from 1.27.4.3, battles are just harder and less time is available.

killsPerEffectivity,225 : Efficiency goes up 1 for every 225 kills. 
killsPerMelee,75 : Melee goes up 1 for every 75 kills
movePerStamina,1300 : Stamina goes up 1 per 1300 distance moved
shootPerFirearms,7 : Reload goes up 1 per 7 reload cycles completed
timePerMorale,2900 : Morale goes up 1 per 2900 time units in game.

Values used by the base game:

killsPerEffectivity, 150
killsPerMelee, 25 
movePerStamina, 1000 
shootPerFirearms, 5 
timePerMorale, 1800

The mod also applies a portion of the shootPerFirearms to Stamina on every reload cycle completed.

Edited June 1, 2023 by pandakraut

[dixiePig]

 

1 hour ago, pandakraut said:

Whether or not adding veterans increases or decreases the stats of a 1* unit will depend on the unit you are adding to. There is a wide gap in stats between a brand new unit with low stats commanded by an experienced officer that just barely has a star, and an experienced 1* that is nearly at 2* even with a mediocre officer. In the first example stats will usually go up, in the second they will likely go down unless the majority of your army is composed of such units and your veteran pool has stats to match.

What you say makes sense, PK.  However: I have yet to see xp NOT go down when adding Veterans to a 1* unit. I have consistently seen xp go down even when adding only Veterans to a weak 1* unit.  Your rationale sounds sensible, but I honestly don't see it reflected in the games I've played.  It's disappointing when a unit with high xp and lots of successful combat and a strong commander who's led them consistently for several battles just doesn't advance.

• Thanks for the in-depth explanation of Medicine.  If I understand it correctly, Medicine increases the raw number of Veterans who retutrn to  become available in the reinforcement pool - and that's a good thing. But it does not actually increase the value of the  individual Veterans.
• Training does actually increase the combat value of new Recruits, but has little or no impact on the combat value of Veterans.

Fiddling with the individual Experience Gain Modifiers gets pretty deep into the obscurity weeds, with values ranging from 7 to 2900.  From a novice perspective I'd ask if we couldn't just have one experienceGainModifier value which would adjust each of the indidual values appropriately.  If the base default value is 1, then experienceGainModifier, 1.2 would increase my likelihood of gaining xp by 20% across all of the values (killsPerEffectivity, killsPerMelee, movePerStamina, shootPerFirearms, timePerMorale).  Or you could use some other mathmatical expression.  I suggest being consistent whenever possible:  s.a. higher numbers = more/better result.

Thanks again

[pandakraut]

35 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Thanks for the in-depth explanation of Medicine.  If I understand it correctly, Medicine increases the raw number of Veterans who retutrn to  become available in the reinforcement pool - and that's a good thing. But it does not actually increase the value of the  individual Veterans.

Not directly. But over the course of multiple battles it will end up having that result. Medicine helps retain the stats gained by a unit, which means when that unit takes casualties the men being added to the pools will have higher stats, which means you end up with better veterans.

35 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Training does actually increase the combat value of new Recruits, but has little or no impact on the combat value of Veterans.

Again, it has an indirect impact in that the higher the stats of the unit, the better the veterans you end up with after the next battle. Additionally, If you end up leaving any men in the veteran pool, training will improve their stats as well assuming the pools stats are below the threshold where training applies.

35 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Fiddling with the individual Experience Gain Modifiers gets pretty deep into the obscurity weeds, with values ranging from 7 to 2900.  From a novice perspective I'd ask if we couldn't just have one experienceGainModifier value which would adjust each of the indidual values appropriately.  If the base default value is 1, then experienceGainModifier, 1.2 would increase my likelihood of gaining xp by 20% across all of the values (killsPerEffectivity, killsPerMelee, movePerStamina, shootPerFirearms, timePerMorale).  Or you could use some other mathmatical expression.  I suggest being consistent whenever possible:  s.a. higher numbers = more/better result.

These values apply in a lot of different places in the code so it's not convenient to add a generic modifier at the moment.

Edited June 1, 2023 by pandakraut

[dixiePig]

7 hours ago, pandakraut said:

These values apply in a lot of different places in the code so it's not convenient to add a generic modifier at the moment.

Not surprised. Thanks for considering it.

What is emeerging now is not just The Rebalance Engine, but a practical interface for players to manage attributes in the Rebalance - primarily thru the documented configFiles. You gus have done some exceptional work.

[pandakraut]

2 hours ago, dixiePig said:

What is emeerging now is not just The Rebalance Engine, but a practical interface for players to manage attributes in the Rebalance - primarily thru the documented configFiles. You gus have done some exceptional work.

Along these lines, we're hoping to have the entire perk system moved into config files in the next release. Will give us a lot more flexibility in designing them, and make it more convenient for anyone to make their own changes.

Some preview images below

The combination bonus values are all placeholders, but they will allow the selection of a lower tier perk to apply additional benefits when selecting a higher tier perk. In the current implementation, when a t1 perk is selected, the type of that perk will determine which combination bonus displays and applies.

The files will probably need an entire document explaining how they work once that system is finished.

[dixiePig]

On 6/1/2023 at 11:15 AM, pandakraut said:

The files will probably need an entire document explaining how they work once that system is finished.

Tru Dat.

#excellentNews about the Perks Path to configFiles

On 6/1/2023 at 11:15 AM, pandakraut said:

The combination bonus values are all placeholders, but they will allow the selection of a lower tier perk to apply additional benefits when selecting a higher tier perk.

I assume this means that -even tho I love the HorseArtillery perk on general principle - I will now still be able to apply it later in the game?

[pandakraut]

7 hours ago, dixiePig said:

On 6/1/2023 at 11:15 AM, pandakraut said:

 

I assume this means that -even tho I love the HorseArtillery perk on general principle - I will now still be able to apply it later in the game?

I don't understand the question?

[dixiePig]

16 hours ago, dixiePig said:

The combination bonus values are all placeholders, but they will allow the selection of a lower tier perk to apply additional benefits when selecting a higher tier perk.

I usually select 'horse artillery' as my initial perk for 1* ARTY because I really like the mobility.  But - if I don't select that perk at 1* - then I cannot choose a similar 'mobility' perk later. If I understand the process, then an ARTY unit which does not get 'mobility' in the first 1* round can never get mobility.  As a matter of general policy; I sacrifice firepower for mobility in round #1.  I can always increase firepower.  But I can choose mobility only in the first round.

As you know, I have always felt that 'horse artillery' mobility is a unique perk which - like other horse/mule/oxen perks - should be handled differently in the game.  The availability (and caliber and feeding) of supply/transport animals & mounts is determined by a bunch of critical factors. It would probably involve another level of complexity, but it would be valuable to have this aspect of 'an Army' reflected in UGCW.

• The direct question is:   If I do not select the 'horse artillery' perk at the 1* level for ARTY units, then will I be able to select it (or something like it) at a later point?

[pandakraut]

40 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

The direct question is:   If I do not select the 'horse artillery' perk at the 1* level for ARTY units, then will I be able to select it (or something like it) at a later point?

Not directly, but there may end up being more ways to get speed other than just the current t1 and t3 perks. We are still limited by the number of perks that can be selected in the UI, so we can't add a third t3 perks that is horse artillery for example.

Eventually the perks will probably change significantly as a lot of the current decisions were based on the types and number of bonuses the game let us add to each perk. 

It would be possible to make one of the combination bonuses give the same benefits as horse artillery. That's probably way more power than we are likely to put in those, but the system would easily support changing one of them to that.

[dixiePig]

Here's a little issue that's been bugging me for a while:

1. I have artillery which is sitting safely behind infantry units.
2. I direct it to fire at an enemy unit.
3. A little later I notice that my ARTY unit is now suicidally attacking the enemy unit by attempting to move on top of it.

Clearly, I thought I was directing the ARTY unit to fire on an enemy unit.  However, UGCW thought that I wanted to move my ARTY unit on top of the enemy unit. We might agree that's stupid.  But it's what UGCW often does.

That's because ...

• When you direct a unit to move, the UI displays a red arrow pointing to the destination.
• When you direct a unit to fire, the UI displays a red arrow with a little tiny bit of yellow at the tip pointing to the target.

There's actually a fairly simple solution to this ... if you can do it.

Leave the color of the fire arrow as red

Make the color of the move arrow white.  or blue. or yellow.  But make it different.

This gives me a clear visual confirmation that I'm doing what I want to do.  And the game will be less stupid as a result.

I hope it's as easy as that.

Thanks

[pandakraut]

3 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Clearly, I thought I was directing the ARTY unit to fire on an enemy unit.  However, UGCW thought that I wanted to move my ARTY unit on top of the enemy unit. We might agree that's stupid.  But it's what UGCW often does.

Is this the scenario where you target is blocked by terrain and you have to move forward to get a clear shot? You should be getting a warning message in the top left that also plays a sound if that happens.

I can see if the arrow color can be changed, it may be an actual graphic not something with a color tag though.

[dixiePig]

On 6/3/2023 at 10:20 PM, pandakraut said:

Is this the scenario where you target is blocked by terrain and you have to move forward to get a clear shot? You should be getting a warning message in the top left that also plays a sound if that happens.

> "a warning message" in the corner of the screen will simply not be noticed. If you are designing an active battle interface, please do not do this.  It's not how we perceive stuff.

This confusion has happened often enough that it is clearly a functional problem resulting from the close similarity between the on-screen interface for shoot and go.

• The process is :  Point at your target/or/destination
• The interface is :  The Arrow shows you where you will shoot/or/go.
• The problem is: Both arrows look almost exactly alike. 
• The simple solution is: Change the color of one of the arrows.
• Now I'll know what I'm doing

Thanks for taking a shot at it, PK.  If the Arrow is graphic-based, we would hope that it is a standard vector format in which the color or the graphic can be easily altered.

  

Edited July 5, 2023 by dixiePig

[Raymond Sebastien]

So these are percentages? So if my skirmishers have a 100 Fire rate weapon in hand and I select "Musketry Drill" (-5% reload) and then "Zouaves tactics" (-5% reload), the rifle should fire at 110, but if I finally select "Sharpshooter" (+30% reload), the weapon drops to 77 of "Fire rate"?

[pandakraut]

3 hours ago, Raymond Sebastien said:

So these are percentages? So if my skirmishers have a 100 Fire rate weapon in hand and I select "Musketry Drill" (-5% reload) and then "Zouaves tactics" (-5% reload), the rifle should fire at 110, but if I finally select "Sharpshooter" (+30% reload), the weapon drops to 77 of "Fire rate"?

Yes, that is roughly how it works.

[Raymond Sebastien]

Ho.. then, the "Scouts/Sharpshooters" route is less appealing then. Ha well, it's a bit disappointing, but I understand ..
I look forward to seeing your new way of assigning "perks" soon. 🙂

I was wondering if you have the option to add more historical officers? Seems to me that this is one of the aspects that gives some interesting "historical flavor" to the game, at least according to my personal preferences (I understand that other players might not care, lol).

Have a great day and be well!!

[Gustavadolph]

On 6/18/2023 at 11:44 AM, Raymond Sebastien said:

I was wondering if you have the option to add more historical officers? Seems to me that this is one of the aspects that gives some interesting "historical flavor" to the game, at least according to my personal preferences (I understand that other players might not care, lol).

This one does! 🙂

@PK: I second Mr Sebastien's question - it would add an extra layer of immersion.

[dixiePig]

On 6/1/2023 at 11:15 AM, pandakraut said:

Along these lines, we're hoping to have the entire perk system moved into config files in the next release. Will give us a lot more flexibility in designing them, and make it more convenient for anyone to make their own changes.

Sounds excellent. Any indication as to when we might see the new release? 

[dixiePig]

On 6/18/2023 at 5:44 AM, Raymond Sebastien said:

I was wondering if you have the option to add more historical officers?

This would be especially interesting in terms of AI performance.

[pandakraut]

On 6/18/2023 at 5:44 AM, Raymond Sebastien said:

I was wondering if you have the option to add more historical officers? Seems to me that this is one of the aspects that gives some interesting "historical flavor" to the game, at least according to my personal preferences (I understand that other players might not care, lol).

There are officer name files that can be added or removed from to try and get a random combination to hit. But I can't add anything with a portrait. I haven't been able to figure out how the existing ones are referenced or created.

8 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Sounds excellent. Any indication as to when we might see the new release? 

Not anytime soon, very limited time over the next few months. A test version might be available to mess around with sooner. The core of the system is already together, but there is a lot of surrounding stuff that needs to be done before it's ready for anyone to use even on a testing basis.

[Drizzo]

Hello, JonnyH13 and Pandakraut as well as any other people involved in this great mod, I enjoy it very much.

I got an interesting bug recently after the very first battle for CSA (MG difficulty). I only lost about 1000 men and somehow got over 2.5k vets and 1.8k wounded soldiers (see attached screenshot).

I will have to replay it since all those vets look like a very significant advantage early on.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Drizzo