Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
JonnyH13

J & P Rebalance Mod by JonnyH13 and Pandakraut 1/12/19 Hotfix

Recommended Posts

Hey Guys, Great Job on the mod. Lots of great features and improvements. Really appreciate all the time and attention being put into it. Took a great game and made it better.

I was playing the vanilla game on Legendary so I took your advice and started on MG. Finished the Stones River battle today and am finding MG to be far too easy. With the artillery changes you can just use your best guns to counter battery the AI into oblivion and then take out the infantry unmolested.

So I restarted a campaign on Legendary, the CSA opening battle is much easier than the vanilla on legendary. I think it's about right for an opening battle. The vanilla always felt a little too hard. Like a small version of Antietam.

Unfortunately, I had forced one of the batteries to surrender and after finishing the battle I was met with the 'defeat' screen. I know I annihilated two of the three batteries (one had been split). However, the victory conditions showed that neither battery A or B had been taken out. I saw another post describing this issue, so I guess the latest version of the mod is still having an issue.

Although I like the changes to leaders, It does create a couple of issues that would be nice to address if possible. We now get Thomas Jackson as a Colonel after 1st Bull Run, which is close to historically accurate (I believe he was a Major while commanding the Stonewall brigade and promoted to Colonel shortly after 1st Manassas). However, it was not long after that when he received his promotion to Brigadier General after a successful campaign with his division in western Virginia. In the mod it takes far too long to get him to Brigadier General. Having had him wounded twice, He is still only about 90% of the way to BG after the Stones River/Murfreesboro battle. I'd really like to be able to make Jackson a Corps commander much earlier in the campaign than the mod is allowing. Also, Longstreet also comes in as a Colonel and is still one after Stones River as well. 

Personally, I'd like to see Jackson come in as a Colonel about 90% of the way to Brigadier General and Longstreet should definitely arrive as a BG in my opinion. Just a suggestion.

Keep up the great work, thanks again for all the time and effort.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Carbine said:

I was playing the vanilla game on Legendary so I took your advice and started on MG. Finished the Stones River battle today and am finding MG to be far too easy. With the artillery changes you can just use your best guns to counter battery the AI into oblivion and then take out the infantry unmolested.

Agreed, while artillery is far less ridiculous than it was in earlier versions, once you get enough of the best cannon this is still to easy. We're trying something different out for damage and will see if it works better but no eta for release.

13 hours ago, Carbine said:

Unfortunately, I had forced one of the batteries to surrender and after finishing the battle I was met with the 'defeat' screen. I know I annihilated two of the three batteries (one had been split). However, the victory conditions showed that neither battery A or B had been taken out. I saw another post describing this issue, so I guess the latest version of the mod is still having an issue.

Can you confirm that you were playing on 1.23a? I have definitely completed the battle with both artillery captured on that version. Assuming you are on 1.23a do you recall if you captured brigade 1 or brigade 2 of the split? I never got a spit on my tests so that could be the root cause. 

13 hours ago, Carbine said:

Although I like the changes to leaders, It does create a couple of issues that would be nice to address if possible. We now get Thomas Jackson as a Colonel after 1st Bull Run, which is close to historically accurate (I believe he was a Major while commanding the Stonewall brigade and promoted to Colonel shortly after 1st Manassas). However, it was not long after that when he received his promotion to Brigadier General after a successful campaign with his division in western Virginia. In the mod it takes far too long to get him to Brigadier General. Having had him wounded twice, He is still only about 90% of the way to BG after the Stones River/Murfreesboro battle. I'd really like to be able to make Jackson a Corps commander much earlier in the campaign than the mod is allowing. Also, Longstreet also comes in as a Colonel and is still one after Stones River as well. 

This is unfortunately a trade off of historical accuracy vs gameplay. There are two issues we wanted to address with the officer changes. One, with the mod putting more power in perks, getting access to higher level officers early is extremely strong. Two, in the base game officers rank up so fast that halfway through the campaign you have a corps full of MGs. We could potentially increase the starting xp of the reward and rep officers but that also makes things easier since the sooner you get a MG or LTG the easier the campaign gets. This may be something we can revisit in the future as we do want to split more power out of the perks and into unit stats.

Thanks for the feedback and glad to hear you're enjoying the mod so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2018 at 10:10 AM, pandakraut said:
On 9/22/2018 at 8:08 PM, Carbine said:

Unfortunately, I had forced one of the batteries to surrender and after finishing the battle I was met with the 'defeat' screen. I know I annihilated two of the three batteries (one had been split). However, the victory conditions showed that neither battery A or B had been taken out. I saw another post describing this issue, so I guess the latest version of the mod is still having an issue.

Can you confirm that you were playing on 1.23a? I have definitely completed the battle with both artillery captured on that version. Assuming you are on 1.23a do you recall if you captured brigade 1 or brigade 2 of the split? I never got a spit on my tests so that could be the root cause. 

I have experienced this also, playing with the 1.23a version of the mod.

Also a different playthrough using the 1.23a mod i had captured one of the batteries and the enemy recaptured it, so i destroyed that one and the other and the same thing happened. I got the defeat screen and it had showed i never took care of the battery me and union captured.

But, this is still a great mod and very fun to play, so thanks to you guys for developing it. It has taught me to do a lot of saving during battles so I don't have to replay the entire battle. lol

(ex). Like when i played Shiloh, i had Pitts Landing taken and the victory conditions showed i had completed them all, but the game sent me to day 2 instead of giving me Victory. Luckily I had saved the game with a hour left on the timer so I reloaded the save and all I did differently was placed one of the Commanding generals right onto the flag and it gave me the Victory that time. I have had to do that in a few battles so far and I just finished Chicamauga.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question. Playing as the Union side. Around Chancellsorville, the SF 1861 becomes unavailable in the armory section. I can't purchase any more of them, it is like the armory guy stopped selling them. I can still purchase SF 1855 (it gets replenished) but not the SF 1861. Was this done by design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 4:10 PM, pandakraut said:
On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 2:08 AM, Carbine said:

Unfortunately, I had forced one of the batteries to surrender and after finishing the battle I was met with the 'defeat' screen. I know I annihilated two of the three batteries (one had been split). However, the victory conditions showed that neither battery A or B had been taken out. I saw another post describing this issue, so I guess the latest version of the mod is still having an issue.

Can you confirm that you were playing on 1.23a? I have definitely completed the battle with both artillery captured on that version. Assuming you are on 1.23a do you recall if you captured brigade 1 or brigade 2 of the split? I never got a spit on my tests so that could be the root cause. 

Yesterday I captured 3 artillery batteries including a split one and the game progressed okay to CSA defending the fort.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kristoph420 said:

Question. Playing as the Union side. Around Chancellsorville, the SF 1861 becomes unavailable in the armory section. I can't purchase any more of them, it is like the armory guy stopped selling them. I can still purchase SF 1855 (it gets replenished) but not the SF 1861. Was this done by design?

This has to do with weapon bases used. The 1861 is using the Harpers Ferry base which the union stops getting restocked after a point. The SF 1855 is using the Lorenz base which is available later. Long term those timeline values probably need to be modded, but it isn't something we have gotten around to yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After I overran the Union forces I managed to position my Shiloh Church CSA Corps in such a way that 5 infantry and 2 artillery units have been transferred across to the Hornets Nest stage to support the AI generated CSA troops rather than having to wait until the map expands for the Landing stage

 

neat.thumb.jpg.2424130995864db52934b6a142beae8c.jpg

 

Edit  needless to say I won the battle, although I m guessing that having troops that far up the map triggers the game to go to next phase as Hornets Nest ended very quickly, so wasn't as good as I'd hoped lol 

Edited by lightningg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying this mod for the first time, BG level as Union.  One question about AI and a few about the campaign:

I'm noticing a complete lack of interest my soldiers have for movement orders when they are within range of an enemy. They will wait to volley again before starting the move, stop repeatedly to volley during the move, and sometimes lose the move order completely. The only fix I've managed is a kludge - hit the "H" key so they will not fire, and then they're likely to follow orders. Later, of course, I have to re-enable their shooting. I never experienced this before and wonder if this is an intended result of UI changes?

I am, as I mentioned playing Union. I've just finished Seven Pines - and this is the FIRST battle I've actually had more soldiers than the CSA. I hadn't paid attention in multiple other Union campaigns in vanilla and "Surrender" mod, but I'm feeling very much like I'm actually playing CSA, as I have repeatedly been the underdog. BTW, I have so far limited my infantry brigades to 1500 troops, to keep AI units to sizes I've experienced before. Is this why I'm always outnumbered?

By now, I have 3 corps. First corps is mostly decent weapons, but chiefly from the original units allocated to me. Second and Third Corps are both almost entirely equipped with muskets captured from the CSA. I have 5 points in Economy, but I haven't been able to afford rifles for my guys. Three-quarters of my total artillery is captured in wins. Half my carbine-equipped cavalry is using ex-enemy equipment, while I've only been able to afford the inferior Smith carbine for a brigade I bought weapons for. Again, I'm feeling no sense of a Union advantage in either munitions or manpower. Comments?

Regarding weapons - I understood the original mechanics of creating damage through Pandakraut's publishing of his spreadsheets, but the rejiggered weapons have me flummoxed. In comparing Percussion Musket to SF 1861, for instance, I see the musket's accuracy runs between 50-100% whereas the rifle is only 37.5-50%, although the rifle is almost twice as expensive. They have the same reload rates. Yes, the rifle has 50% more damage (9 vs 6), but the musket's average accuracy is 70% more than the SF's, which ought to tilt to the musket's advantage.The extra 100 yds range does little to address this. I'm guessing that the damage degradation with range graphs have been replaced with new ones.  At any rate, I have no basis from the numbers on the tool tips to believe the SF1861 is a better weapon - especially as the musket has an 80 melee and the rifle is only 60.  

Even the HF 1855 looks better than the SF1861, although it too is a rifle and cheaper.  The HF has an average accuracy of 47.5, while SF's is only 43.75, AND it's reload rate is 125 vs 100, 25% better. It suffers only a 12.5% disadvantage in damage (8 vs SF's 9), while having the same range and again, the same 80-to-60 advantage in melee.  I'm not understanding why SF 1861 is the more expensive rifle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TechnoSarge said:

I'm noticing a complete lack of interest my soldiers have for movement orders when they are within range of an enemy. They will wait to volley again before starting the move, stop repeatedly to volley during the move, and sometimes lose the move order completely. The only fix I've managed is a kludge - hit the "H" key so they will not fire, and then they're likely to follow orders. Later, of course, I have to re-enable their shooting. I never experienced this before and wonder if this is an intended result of UI changes?

In terms of unit reactions to commands, giving a move order usually resets the AI decision loop. So if you see a unit that needs to retreat and you issue a move command the unit will check if it can fire at anything before continuing to move. This allows you to fire and move by clicking behind an enemy unit instead of targeting them directly. If you don't want a unit to fire at targets while moving you either need to hold their fire like you are doing, charge, or direct target(resulting in the unit firing from current position or max possible range). This functionality is unchanged from the base game but there are two changes that impact it slightly. Infantry and skirmisher player AI was changed so that if a target is blocked while a unit has a direct attack command the unit will retarget if possible instead of walking forward. The other change was default gamespeed was cut in half. Adjusting to the gamespeed can take a few battles, so maybe you're just not used to the length of time needed for actions to complete compared to the base game?

24 minutes ago, TechnoSarge said:

I am, as I mentioned playing Union. I've just finished Seven Pines - and this is the FIRST battle I've actually had more soldiers than the CSA. I hadn't paid attention in multiple other Union campaigns in vanilla and "Surrender" mod, but I'm feeling very much like I'm actually playing CSA, as I have repeatedly been the underdog. BTW, I have so far limited my infantry brigades to 1500 troops, to keep AI units to sizes I've experienced before. Is this why I'm always outnumbered?

While most battles have not had their numbers changed, the AI unit size caps have been removed and this can result in the AI numbers becoming much larger than usual. The varianceMod(enabled by default) can spawn extra AI brigades and increase AI unit sizes based on random chance. The increase in deployment slots can also allow you to push up scaling more than would normally be possible in the base game depending on how you construct your army. In terms of minimum scaling, 1500 is pretty large for the Seven Pines part of the campaign. I usually would still be using units around 1k or 1.1k, though I'm also an extreme outlier in terms of unit sizes. It's been a long time since I've looked at the BG numbers, but I would expect you to start overtaking and outnumbering the AI pretty consistently. 

32 minutes ago, TechnoSarge said:

By now, I have 3 corps. First corps is mostly decent weapons, but chiefly from the original units allocated to me. Second and Third Corps are both almost entirely equipped with muskets captured from the CSA. I have 5 points in Economy, but I haven't been able to afford rifles for my guys. Three-quarters of my total artillery is captured in wins. Half my carbine-equipped cavalry is using ex-enemy equipment, while I've only been able to afford the inferior Smith carbine for a brigade I bought weapons for. Again, I'm feeling no sense of a Union advantage in either munitions or manpower. Comments?

This sounds pretty normal for the mod on BG. Weapons are very expensive so there is a reliance on captured and rep point weapons until economy gets close to maxed out. On harder difficulties you will actually have more rifles available since the AI will stop using muskets earlier. The other factor here is points in logistics which will increase the amount of weapons available(mostly relevant to cannons). While the amount of artillery available early on has been reduced, the union still gets more types and larger amounts available than the CSA. These amounts naturally go up throughout the campaign. The CSA gets extremely limited amounts of 3 of the 5 best cannon in the mod. Later in the campaign the Union will get access to the better repeaters, the south has the advantage in scoped rifles. 

39 minutes ago, TechnoSarge said:

Regarding weapons - I understood the original mechanics of creating damage through Pandakraut's publishing of his spreadsheets, but the rejiggered weapons have me flummoxed. In comparing Percussion Musket to SF 1861, for instance, I see the musket's accuracy runs between 50-100% whereas the rifle is only 37.5-50%, although the rifle is almost twice as expensive. They have the same reload rates. Yes, the rifle has 50% more damage (9 vs 6), but the musket's average accuracy is 70% more than the SF's, which ought to tilt to the musket's advantage.The extra 100 yds range does little to address this. I'm guessing that the damage degradation with range graphs have been replaced with new ones.  At any rate, I have no basis from the numbers on the tool tips to believe the SF1861 is a better weapon - especially as the musket has an 80 melee and the rifle is only 60.  

Even the HF 1855 looks better than the SF1861, although it too is a rifle and cheaper.  The HF has an average accuracy of 47.5, while SF's is only 43.75, AND it's reload rate is 125 vs 100, 25% better. It suffers only a 12.5% disadvantage in damage (8 vs SF's 9), while having the same range and again, the same 80-to-60 advantage in melee.  I'm not understanding why SF 1861 is the more expensive rifle.

The range degradation values have not been changed. The changed weapon ranges do stretch or compress the graphs to the new range though. The prices in the mod don't necessarily reflect the numerical values of the weapons. Imported rifles for example are more expensive despite having worse or equal stats. Regarding the Musket vs the SF 1861 the damage degradation give the 1861 a considerable advantage. At max range the musket does 3 - 6 * .2 = .6 - 1.2. For the 1861 3.375 - 4.5 * .42 = 1.4175 - 1.89. Note the bases of several rifles were changed. See this comment http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/25749-j-p-rebalance-mod-by-jonnyh13-and-pandakraut-83118/?page=13&tab=comments#comment-559655

 

The musket does clearly have the edge for melee and this is intended. Each tier of rifles generally have a melee and non melee option. This doesn't reflect any historical performance but allows for gameplay trade offs. If you value shock the musket is the superior weapon. If you value fire the 1861 is far superior. Muskets on experienced units at very short ranges can deliver very good fire damage though it's a lot of micro management to get them into that position cleanly and the damage variance is noticeable.

I'm not actually sure why the HF 1855 is cheaper than the 1861. Jonny may be able to provide some additional background on the weapon prices.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the H/F (Harpers Ferry and Fayetteville, I did not have enough weapon slots to make these two separate) 1855, instead of calculating the average accuracy, multiply the damage of the weapon by the ranlow to get the minimum damage possible, do the same with ranhigh for the highest damage possible.  The lowest damage of the H/F1855 is 3.2, the lowest damage of the 1861 is 3.375, the highest damage of the HF is 4.4, the highest damage for the 1861 is 4.5.  In regards to reload time the H/F1855 has maynard tape primer instead of percussion caps.  You do not have to replace the percussion cap after each firing, thus saving some time.  This is also represented in the SF1855 but in practice the Maynard tape primer fouled often due to humidity and other factors.  The H/F1855 is a better quality SF1855 and thus these problems do not apply as much.  In regards to melee, I needed a Union melee weapon and this was chosen.  It is not every day you see this weapon anyways.  

To further expand on the accuracy difference, the difference between the Ranlow and Ranhigh of the 1861 is .125, the H/F1855 has a difference of .15.  The range between the ranlow and ranhigh is greater in the H/F1855 and thus there is a higher chance to roll less damage with the H/F1855 compared with the 1861.  You can also multiply the average accuracy times damage to get the average damage.  1861 is .4375X9 is 3.975, the H/F1855 is .475X8 is 3.8.  This does not include the reload rate though so in theory you can do more damage with the H/F1855 but in regards to per volley or an ammo to damage ratio, the 1861 is more efficient.  However with the right perks the H/F1855 can do more efficient damage than the 1861.  

In Short, it is complicated.  😋

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, pandakraut said:

This has to do with weapon bases used. The 1861 is using the Harpers Ferry base which the union stops getting restocked after a point. The SF 1855 is using the Lorenz base which is available later. Long term those timeline values probably need to be modded, but it isn't something we have gotten around to yet.

Thank you. I have been using the HF 1855, I can still buy it and the armory guy still sells them. I believe that is the rifle the one with the 125 fire rate and 80 melee. It is a good rifle, I was just curious about the SF 1861.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, pandakraut said:

While most battles have not had their numbers changed, the AI unit size caps have been removed and this can result in the AI numbers becoming much larger than usual. The varianceMod(enabled by default) can spawn extra AI brigades and increase AI unit sizes based on random chance. The increase in deployment slots can also allow you to push up scaling more than would normally be possible in the base game depending on how you construct your army. In terms of minimum scaling, 1500 is pretty large for the Seven Pines part of the campaign. I usually would still be using units around 1k or 1.1k, though I'm also an extreme outlier in terms of unit sizes. It's been a long time since I've looked at the BG numbers, but I would expect you to start overtaking and outnumbering the AI pretty consistently. 

Just finished Gaines Mill (Union, BG) and, whew!  I played most of the game with 1 corps, the timer counted down, and the CSA got their reinforcements, not I! (The flanking corps was long since on the field, of course.) Based on  the lengths of the reconnaissance colored lines (I measured!) I was facing 3.78:1 when their reinforcements were announced, and a half hour or so later it was 5.65:1!  I managed a draw after my 2nd corps finally entered, but the final battle stats showed me with 23,400 men facing 52,347 Confederates, or 2.24:1 odds. I just looked up the actual battle; the CSA managed 1.68:1, so it wasn't unreasonable I was outnumbered... but the walls sure seemed closing in when it was at the 5.6:1 point! My corps left the battle with 800 effectives.

So, yeah - I look forward to overtaking and outnumbering!  Lol!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TechnoSarge said:

Just finished Gaines Mill (Union, BG) and, whew!  I played most of the game with 1 corps, the timer counted down, and the CSA got their reinforcements, not I! (The flanking corps was long since on the field, of course.) Based on  the lengths of the reconnaissance colored lines (I measured!) I was facing 3.78:1 when their reinforcements were announced, and a half hour or so later it was 5.65:1!  I managed a draw after my 2nd corps finally entered, but the final battle stats showed me with 23,400 men facing 52,347 Confederates, or 2.24:1 odds. I just looked up the actual battle; the CSA managed 1.68:1, so it wasn't unreasonable I was outnumbered... but the walls sure seemed closing in when it was at the 5.6:1 point! My corps left the battle with 800 effectives.

One tip here, you can hover over the recon 4 line and it'll tell you the exact numbers :)

Also worth noting, while the scaling does somewhat try to reflect the ratios in the actual battles it is definitely not restricted by those ratios. On higher difficulties being outnumbered 2:1 is basically the starting point and it gets worse from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering... 

one of the things I notice a lot is how routed AI units vanish from sight very quickly after running away even when in range of my brigades that caused the route.  This seems to happen even when the non routed unit was visible in the same area

Is it possible in the mod to reduce the 'cover' value of a routed unit so that they remain available to 'spotting' for a longer range?

As these troops are not sneaking away but basically are running for their lives they would not have the same 'cover' ability vs troops/artillery that are firing at them or cavalry trying to run them down

 

another thought/question - I know that the mod gives a % return of arms from captured units.  Is there a way that this can be duplicated for units that shatter during a battle? (guide comment on subject)

When units sustain losses exceeding 70% they may completely shatter and vanish from the battlefield. A shattered unit is recognized from the remaining group of soldiers who flee off the map with their flag absent. The shattered unit is considered completely destroyed and will be no longer available in the campaign.

It would seem to me that a fair % of these troops would be dropping their weapons and running 

Thanks again for your thoughts, comments and ongoing work on the mod

Edited by lightningg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, lightningg said:

ust wondering... 

one of the things I notice a lot is how routed AI units vanish from sight very quickly after running away even when in range of my brigades that caused the route.  This seems to happen even when the non routed unit was visible in the same area

Is it possible in the mod to reduce the 'cover' value of a routed unit so that they remain available to 'spotting' for a longer range?

As these troops are not sneaking away but basically are running for their lives they would not have the same 'cover' ability vs troops/artillery that are firing at them or cavalry trying to run them down

May be possible, depends if there is a convenient place in the code to override. The stealth value is what you would want reduced if you want to increase visibility. This isn't an issue I've encountered much are you investing any points in recon? Do you normally have skirmisher units on the field?

57 minutes ago, lightningg said:

another thought/question - I know that the mod gives a % return of arms from captured units.  Is there a way that this can be duplicated for units that shatter during a battle? (guide comment on subject)

When units sustain losses exceeding 70% they may completely shatter and vanish from the battlefield. A shattered unit is recognized from the remaining group of soldiers who flee off the map with their flag absent. The shattered unit is considered completely destroyed and will be no longer available in the campaign.

It would seem to me that a fair % of these troops would be dropping their weapons and running 

This is possible, just a question of balance. I think the guide comment is referring to your own units rather than the AIs, was your question directed towards both or only one set?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pandakraut said:

May be possible, depends if there is a convenient place in the code to override. The stealth value is what you would want reduced if you want to increase visibility. This isn't an issue I've encountered much are you investing any points in recon? Do you normally have skirmisher units on the field?

It seems to happen with/without points in recon and this appears to happen with all 4 of my unit types against all AI unit types - if its not happening to other people then maybe I just need to invest some career points in free eye tests for my troops

8 minutes ago, pandakraut said:

This is possible, just a question of balance. I think the guide comment is referring to your own units rather than the AIs, was your question directed towards both or only one set?

I was only looking at AI units that shatter - hadn't thought about my own tbh, as mine don't shatter too often so I hadn't even considered that side of things - I assumed that the 'rescued' equipment took care of that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lightningg said:

It seems to happen with/without points in recon and this appears to happen with all 4 of my unit types against all AI unit types - if its not happening to other people then maybe I just need to invest some career points in free eye tests for my troops

It also really depends on which battle maps you are seeing this on. There are sight line blockers on multiple maps that will hide a unit from you even if you are a pixel out of melee range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TechnoSarge said:

Pandakraut said, One tip here, you can hover over the recon 4 line and it'll tell you the exact numbers :)"

Uh? Recon 4 line? 

This is what I thought you were referring to with the below comment. I'm not sure what else you could have been measuring to try and determine force ratios during a battle?

On 9/27/2018 at 12:53 PM, TechnoSarge said:

Based on  the lengths of the reconnaissance colored lines (I measured!) I was facing 3.78:1 when their reinforcements were announced, and a half hour or so later it was 5.65:1!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yeah, Pandakraut. I have 4 career points in Reconnaissance, so I get a graph of strength during the battle. I have not noticed that it gives me exact numbers, just the relative forces. So I used a ruler to measure the blue and the red sections of the line, then compared them mathematically. If I can get actual manpower strengths during a battle, what do I look at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TechnoSarge said:

Well, yeah, Pandakraut. I have 4 career points in Reconnaissance, so I get a graph of strength during the battle. I have not noticed that it gives me exact numbers, just the relative forces. So I used a ruler to measure the blue and the red sections of the line, then compared them mathematically. If I can get actual manpower strengths during a battle, what do I look at?

If you put the point of your mouse cursor over any part of the red/blue line you'll get a tooltip that tells you the exact number of men and guns currently on the field for both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that some of the firearms have been changed in terms of names, models etc

Is there a list of which ones are CSA, which Union and which both?  I believe that the mod also allows for weapon upgrade on a random basis?  Does this override any restrictions normally in place?  

I am seeing what I believed to be rare Union only cannon used by CSA in greater numbers than I am able to deploy (14pdjames) first at Shiloh, then at Antietam and wondered if this was due to the mod or something else?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, lightningg said:

I know that some of the firearms have been changed in terms of names, models etc

Is there a list of which ones are CSA, which Union and which both?  I believe that the mod also allows for weapon upgrade on a random basis?  Does this override any restrictions normally in place?  

I am seeing what I believed to be rare Union only cannon used by CSA in greater numbers than I am able to deploy (14pdjames) first at Shiloh, then at Antietam and wondered if this was due to the mod or something else?

 

Thanks

Current list of converted weapon bases is available in this post http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/25749-j-p-rebalance-mod-by-jonnyh13-and-pandakraut-83118/?page=13&tab=comments#comment-559655

The current defaults enable most weapons for both sides. Restricted weapons listed below(base game types not in game names)

Restricted weapons for the Union: Fayetville, MJ&D, Texas, CS Richmond, Lematt, Colt M1855 Carbine

Restricted weapons for the CSA: 1863, Spencer, colt 1854 rifle, spencer carbine

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

at first sry 4 my eng. :)

Have problem with this great mod. Crashing to desktop at startup with no errors. The game was patched to v1.11.

Same problem have withUI and AI Customizations Mod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...