Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

J & P Rebalance Mod by JonnyH13 and Pandakraut 6/16/2021 1.27.4.3


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, PaulD said:

In the configuration files, does "sizeIncrease" stack with "AIscalingSizeMultiplier"?

Not really, sizeIncrease is intended to be used for custom battles instead of when scaling is enabled. AIscalingSizeMultiplier should allow you to make any necessary changes in the campaign.

17 hours ago, PaulD said:

Also changed duplicateRandomProbability to 1.3.

This caps at 1 FYI

17 hours ago, PaulD said:

I am also going to assume that Philippi is a set amount based on difficulty level since playing around with any increases in the configuration files makes no change on CSA army size.

This battle doesn't technically scale so those values won't have any affect.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Gameplay Rebalance and Customizations created by JonnyH13 and Pandakraut Discord Link: https://discord.gg/NmHUGvq 6/16/2021 Updated to 1.27.4.3      Small patch for a critical bug pl

Gettysburg, Monocacy, Antietam, New Market - selected views: Gettysburg, First day position of Stone's Brigade at McPherson's Farm This would have been the view the advancing Confederates had

You can start with 7 training. This gives the union nearly 1 star recruits and the CSA ~1.5 star recruits. Though currently starting with econ and logistics and just buying cannon and fielding 24p and

Posted Images

Started a Confed campaign using v1.27.4.3 GOG. In the first battle, two/all detached skirmishers (auto-)retreated out of the map after reloading a save during the first phase without any chance to interfere. I had only saves with detached skirmishers before, so I had to say good-bye to them, no matter how often I reloaded. Later saves during phase 2 luckily didn't behave that way.

Any idea what could have caused that?

What else I've noticed throughout the battle is that the AI was very passive. Brigades often stood still and let themselves get shot for minutes at max range without return fire. I've never observed such behavior with the un-modded/UI-mod game so far as long as you don't use hidden sniper-skirmishers. My own units were always visible to the AI. Maybe the reason was that the AI used the M1842 with 340 range compared to my 400er firearms. Sticking with the same default MxRange for infantry is maybe easier for the AI to handle.

About ranges: is Close factor 0.1 or 100 p/yd/m? As this category is missing for some firearms, the muzzle point dmg at range 0 would be interesting to know for a complete damage curve.

Fire rate: lower values are faster in this mod compared to original?

6pdr Field: 80, 4.5-inch Siege: 30, Springfield M1842: 100, Spencer Rifle: 60, Maynard (carbine, 12 rds/m): 250?

Springfield M1855 seems way worse compared to the M1842 despite the slight range increase.

Whitworth (TS) ammo cost 10 compared to Whitworth 1? Even a value of 2 can already drain twice as much supply by a brigade with advanced firearms. Running out quickly of ammo should be enough penalty for repeaters.

Edited by Bark
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bark said:

Any idea what could have caused that?

This is a temporary fix to resolve a battle crash that was caused by giving detached skirmishers their parents perks. Turns out it has more frequent side effects than we initially realized, sorry for the inconvenience. This will be fixed in the next patch.

13 hours ago, Bark said:

What else I've noticed throughout the battle is that the AI was very passive.

Which difficulty were you playing on? Usually these units have a high chance of charging when you are using 400 range weapons which fend to have lower melee values.

13 hours ago, Bark said:

About ranges: is Close factor 0.1 or 100 p/yd/m? As this category is missing for some firearms, the muzzle point dmg at range 0 would be interesting to know for a complete damage curve.

Close is range 100 for artillery and range 50 for other weapon types that display it. Those ranges are basically the peak of the curve, they usually drop down to 10% less at 0. The close range is hardcoded so it isn't displayed for shorter ranged weapons. If you would like to see what the original base game curves look like in more detail you can find them here https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26142-hidden-mechanics-and-weapon-damage-degradation/

13 hours ago, Bark said:

Fire rate: lower values are faster in this mod compared to original

Higher values mean the reload bar fills faster same as the base game. Presumably the repeaters and revolvers are confusing you here. These weapons have a custom magazine system added by the mod. So while their reload rate is comparatively slow versus muzzle loaders, they only have to go through that full reload after emptying their magazine.

13 hours ago, Bark said:

Springfield M1855 seems way worse compared to the M1842 despite the slight range increase.

The SF55 trades damage for range. While the damage is lower it's also more consistent compared to the 1842. It also reloads faster for mostly spurious Maynard tape related reasons. Should probably get standardized, but it's a quirk people like. I'd recommend checking out this spreadsheet for average damage comparisons https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E5ZFCAHEY8EyBkEkWIHOfdFlwaYpSDVA00w9a71jq1c/edit

13 hours ago, Bark said:

Whitworth (TS) ammo cost 10 compared to Whitworth 1? Even a value of 2 can already drain twice as much supply by a brigade with advanced firearms. Running out quickly of ammo should be enough penalty for repeaters.

Balancing for the 600 range as the best sniping weapon in the game. The infantry version doesn't need this penalty. This doesn't decrease the number of shots before a supply refill is needed, it just increases the cost of that refill. I think you'll find that it's not as big of a downside as it might initially appear.

Edited by pandakraut
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pandakraut said:

 

Thanks for all the answers. I think I'll stick with your UAC-mod that has already worked perfectly fine for me. I don't need any extra challenge with my simple BG-diff playing anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Hi guys.  Am currently playing v.1.27.3d / MG / Confederate

My army unit profile is 1K-1.3K Inf, 12 cannon Arty units, 250 - 600 Cavalry, 300-500 Skirmisher/Ranger

Fairly balanced: Each division has 3 Inf, 2 Arty, 1 Cav or Ranger

Modest INF & ARTY size means maximal perks & power for each unit w/ manageable enemy strength (imo)

Spend all of my Government funds on Good Rifles (mostly Enfield for the CSA during '62 and '63)

Do minimal 'command switching', so Commanders generally stay w/ units (if a wounded commander returns to his 'home' unit when healed, is there any advantage?)

Always have a coupla CAV with even the smallest army (1 Carbine / 1 Melee):  Reconnaissance, behind-the-lines distraction, and raiding of Supply units.  Use sparingly to counter enemy attacks.  Try to keep them fresh and strong for mop-up at battle's end. 

For major campaign battles I have heavier CAV presence in the waves of reinforcements:  Often consisting of many smaller units.  I use 'swarm' tactics late in the game to knock out weakened enemies, thwart their final desperate attacks, and as 'shock' units leading INF and ARTY to sieze Victory locations late in the game.  As a result I almost always suffer higher CAV casualties than the enemy - and few of my CAV units achieve that many perks ... but they are both effective and expendable.

RANGERS are essentially agile harrassment fire supporting INF in line battles and 'foot cavalry' working in conjunction with CAV to quickly sieze strategic positions.

The enemy is dangerously and foolishly aggressive at MG level: They will attack.  I sieze good INF defensive ground (hills, woods, streams, entrenchments) and mass my ARTY, with CAV in reserve.  Maintain a supporting line, replace weakened units, concentrate fire on enemy attacking units, counter-punch as necessary, but don't take the bait.  By battle's end they've knocked themselves out and it's just an issue of mop-up.

Have been enjoying your mods for a while now:  Great work.  Like to play a sort-of historic profile.  It's true that the battles become predictable and less challenging Later in the game (after '63).  The challenge is winning Shiloh, Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg on Day #1.  Exciting challenges in '61 and '62, but now Have little interest in continuing the game after '63.  Got any suggestions?

Edited by dixiePig
clarity
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2021 at 9:55 PM, dixiePig said:

Do minimal 'command switching', so Commanders generally stay w/ units (if a wounded commander returns to his 'home' unit when healed, is there any advantage?)

If they had any prior stacks of battles led, they will retain those stacks when placed in command of the unit again.

On 10/12/2021 at 9:55 PM, dixiePig said:

Exciting challenges in '61 and '62, but now Have little interest in continuing the game after '63.  Got any suggestions?

Not sure what to recommend for '63 onwards, those levels struggle to hold my own interest as well. We are continuing to work on the next version which includes an adjustment pass on all the battles to clean them up a bit and add some more variety to the scenarios. This has been progressing slowly though as it's very time intensive. The CSA campaign up through Antietam is done, but taking a bit of a break before pushing on through the rest of the battles.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, pandakraut said:

If they had any prior stacks of battles led, they will retain those stacks when placed in command of the unit again.

Not sure what to recommend for '63 onwards, those levels struggle to hold my own interest as well. We are continuing to work on the next version which includes an adjustment pass on all the battles to clean them up a bit and add some more variety to the scenarios. This has been progressing slowly though as it's very time intensive. The CSA campaign up through Antietam is done, but taking a bit of a break before pushing on through the rest of the battles.

What are the other advantages to retaining a commander/unit relationship?  Perks faster?  It's always tempting to try to trigger perks by playing XP musical chairs with commanders.

Delighted to hear about 'next steps'.  Happy to field test your CSA improvements, if you're so inclined.

I see maps re-used in the existing game:  Is it possible to add more smaller battles to the existing line-up? - These might be reandomly-generated or based on historical battles.

Might even craft more historically accurate campaign sequences (i.e. Control of the Missisippi, The Cumberland, etc.)

ALSO:

The ArmyOrg settings are a little frustrating, since I prefer to have more smaller (historically-sized) units in my army.  I'm obliged to ramp ArmyOrg up quickly in order to accommodate my preferred unit profile.  Am sure that ArmyOrg is arbitrary and a-historical.  Is there any way to better serve someone like me?

Edited by dixiePig
follow-up
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dixiePig said:

What are the other advantages to retaining a commander/unit relationship?  Perks faster?  It's always tempting to try to trigger perks by playing XP musical chairs with commanders.

If you hover over the XP bar of the officer in command of the unit, the tooltip has been updated to show the bonuses provided by battles led. Stacks provide increased XP towards a star, increased XP gained by the officer, and increased command.

Moving a higher ranking officer to a new unit or divisional command can be the right choice, bit there is more incentive to leave officers in command of a specific unit for longer periods.

Adding new battles or even adjusting the map boarders has proven impossible so far unfortunately.

The amount of brigades/divisions provided by AO is set in the assets. Theoretically that could be edited to allow the max amount at 1 point and 0 out all the other increases. Having to put points in AO to be able to field more units is a pretty important drain on career points early on though so being able to ignore it would be a significant advantage.

If hex editing is something you're up for attempting let me know and I'll dig up a screenshot on what the AO section looks like.

A public test version is currently available on the discord. For various reasons of convenience those don't get posted on the forums.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

If you hover over the XP bar of the officer in command of the unit, the tooltip has been updated to show the bonuses provided by battles led. Stacks provide increased XP towards a star, increased XP gained by the officer, and increased command.

 

  • thanks
2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

The amount of brigades/divisions provided by AO is set in the assets. Theoretically that could be edited to allow the max amount at 1 point and 0 out all the other increases. Having to put points in AO to be able to field more units is a pretty important drain on career points early on though so being able to ignore it would be a significant advantage.

  • Don't know how much additional effort it is for you & Jonny, but I would certainly appreciate it.  PS:  Is it possible to set something like "Historic Mode" to trigger appropriate unit size ... and even Commanders?
2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

Moving a higher ranking officer to a new unit or divisional command can be the right choice, bit there is more incentive to leave officers in command of a specific unit for longer periods

  • Unit Identity & cohesiveness :  Seems to me that 'promoting' within a unit should also provide reward - esp. in Morale  (i.e. A Brigade commander becomes Divisional commander within its same division - or a Brigade commander is moved to command another brigade within the same division)

PK>Adding new battles or even adjusting the map boarders has proven impossible so far unfortunately.

  • Too bad

Thanks again for excellent playability improvements.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Unit Identity & cohesiveness :  Seems to me that 'promoting' within a unit should also provide reward - esp. in Morale  (i.e. A Brigade commander becomes Divisional commander within its same division - or a Brigade commander is moved to command another brigade within the same division)

Will see what can be done when we get around to some kind of bonus system for division commanders.

15 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Don't know how much additional effort it is for you & Jonny, but I would certainly appreciate it.  PS:  Is it possible to set something like "Historic Mode" to trigger appropriate unit size ... and even Commanders?

How small are you trying to go? Despite the significant size increases provided by points in AO, there's no need for the player to use those sizes. Would probably need to use configs to reduce the size of AI and allied units if you want to use the absolute minimums. Shifting to a system like what the historical submod for dynamic splitting would unfortunately be quite a bit of work.

In terms of # of divisions, you'd probably be more constrained by battles deploy limits more than by points in AO. The maximum deploy amounts should be scaled pretty closely with each point of AO up through Shiloh?

With historical commanders, the test version makes them a bit cheaper relative to other options, but I'll look into adding an option to make officer rep buys cost only 1 which should make it easy to grab all of them if you want.

Edited by pandakraut
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2021 at 12:18 PM, pandakraut said:

Will see what can be done when we get around to some kind of bonus system for division commanders.

  • That would be great addition, imo
Quote

How small are you trying to go? Despite the significant size increases provided by points in AO, there's no need for the player to use those sizes. Would probably need to use configs to reduce the size of AI and allied units if you want to use the absolute minimums. Shifting to a system like what the historical submod for dynamic splitting would unfortunately be quite a bit of work.

In terms of # of divisions, you'd probably be more constrained by battles deploy limits more than by points in AO. The maximum deploy amounts should be scaled pretty closely with each point of AO up through Shiloh?

With historical commanders, the test version makes them a bit cheaper relative to other options, but I'll look into adding an option to make officer rep buys cost only 1 which should make it easy to grab all of them if you want.

  • Sensible suggestion.  I already limit enemy unit size somewhat in config - will just do more.
  • "how small"?  It's tempting to goRegimental - but that's just not a manageable game. 
  • Is it possible to make Order of Battle more conditional on a relationship between Total Number of troops : Unit Size (as set in config)?  This would accommodate both the folks who want to GoBig and those who would rather have more smaller units

If, for example, AO allows 6 Brigades in each division from the start, and a battle army size is determined by 'number of troops' (based on config limits), then I can field a division with 3 brigades of 6000 INF each (total: 18000 INF) or a division with 6 brigades of 1000 INF each (total: 6000 INF) - and the AI will size & scale enemy forces appropriately.  The player who prefers larger units will probably face (and can field) a proportionally  larger army.   The player who prefers smaller units will probably face (and can field) a proportionally smaller army.  

I haven't spent a lot of energy researching it, but it seems that this is already what the AI is doing:   Army size for a battle sort-of echoes historical numbers.  Army makeup sort-of echoes the historical structure. Enemy army unit size and XP roughly reflects your unit size and XP.

Net/Net: Does it really matter how many brigades are in the Order of Battle?

A division made up of 6 brigades may actually be much smaller than a divison made up of 4 brigades.  It's a matter of command preference.  The AO "structure" rules are merely an awkward obstruction to gameplay.

Edited by dixiePig
clarification & follow-up
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2021 at 4:41 AM, Radek1 said:

In 2 days battle if I refill my brigades after 1 day, do I get benefit from medicine from 1 day?

I think Panda may have overlooked this question during his replies to dixiePig, so I'll comment to give it a bump.

I know that it doesn't work correctly in the base game. The calculation of losses seems to only look at how many of each unit type you had at the start of the battle vs how many you had at the end of the battle. So, it does under report total losses in the battle wrap up displayed at the end of each battle if you refilled them.  For example, if an infantry brigade had 1000 troops at the start of the battle and lost 200 on day one, you refill to 1000 and they lose 200 more on day two, the base game will say you lost 200 troops when you really lost 400.

I don't know the facts, but it has always seemed to me that having the limited "camp" screen available between days of a multiple day battle might have been a late add to the base game because the programmers don't seem to account for changes made during those screens. 

Then again, the base game often doesn't update the condition of troops that supposedly just sat overnight (the condition is the same between the end of day 1 and the start of day 2 even with a large amount of supposed down-time). However, Panda and Johnny's mod DOES correct the condition issue, so maybe the mod does accurately account for refilling units.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@pandakraut Not that I am saying anything new here - but when I started playing the base game I did Col once, BG a bunch of times as Union and CSA, then about half an MG campaign where I was playing Union and CSA at the same time - taking the Union up to a major battle, then taking CSA up to the same major battle, but I never actually finished MG before starting on the Mod early this year, but I do remember it being a difficult challenge for me back then. Now, 9 months of playing the mod, I'd rate myself as "above average" (not good, definitely not great) with the mod on MG difficulty after playing up to Gaines' Mill with over 12 different career stat and perk configurations before taking one build to the end.

A couple of weeks ago I loaded the base game and started a Legendary campaign and by the time I finished 2nd Bull Run I'd clearly realized that there was no challenge to it.  Since the mod removes all the cheesy ways to control enemy charges, you have to learn to fight differently and much more effectively, so going back to the base game you are just way ahead of the Legendary AI. I feel MG in the mod is harder than Legendary in the base game (although I've been playing with boosted AI Scaling Size Multiplier at 1.2 and size & weapon random prob 0.3). I just found it so interesting how much of a contrast there is between the two after learning how to fight in the mod.

So, now I start my Legendary "education" with the Mod and we'll see how it goes.

Edited by PaulD
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...