Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


JonnyH13

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, OhioJack said:

Awesome mod pandakraut!  Question on the config files though.

Does that AIscalingExperienceMultiplier still work in the latest version 1.27.4.3?  I experimented by modding it to .1 in a current campaign and then restarted Shiloh, but I didn't see much of an effect.  AIScalingSizeMultiplier set to .1 definitely had a drastic effect in the same test though.  

To test the AI experience stats, I simply captured some Confederate AI units, but the stats didn't seem to change much.  Melee was still 80+ points for example.  The number of stars in the units didn't seem to change either.  

Playing on MG difficulty for reference.   

Both should still be working. Most likely what you are seeing is that some units can have extremely high stats on higher difficulties. They are always capped at 100, but behind the scenes units can have hundreds of points in a stat if they are intended to be higher stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello!

Here is a bit of Feedback what an relatively unexpierienced player by watching Playthroughs from different Players (done on earlier Versions of J&P, the UI mod ore in a few cases Vanilla) and Exspecially Reading the Comments where they exchanged  their current expieriences/Ideas and the mod creators provided some further informations (+ helpfull comments from other players - not to be forgotten) can achieve until finishing 1.st Bull ! A lot of key Informations (what to avoid at all cost!!!) are given in the mod Description so reading, picking up all of this and try to bring it all together transfered on the Battlefield in my yet still to develop playstyle (-s ?) changed my current status from wavering to a slight confident to manage MG ! I also hope to encourage players who find it too hard to not give up, don't look for a meta solution to copy it - rather create your own one, all possibillities for different ways  are given and there is a serious reason behind facing Ememy AI which seem to be oversupplied with Panzerschokolade (Perventin) 🙂 !

Done on MG Difficulty, no Config Files adjusted, 3rd Campaign all Battles won in the first attempt so far (to point out that it needed me some testing, exspecially loosing before!).

Screenshot 3 includes a (little) bug - probably a perfect place for a unit for wavering ^^ - and since I made a sort of get charge-wavered back to the camp expierience for my little when I'm grown I'll become a sniper Unit in an earlier attempt I had no being too cheesy feelings to take it personal with the AI and take my revenge, it was the last remaining unit anyway!

 

Thank you again Jonnyh and Pandakraut for developing (with all limitations due to the core game you might face as modders ) a rough Diamond into some fine jewelery!!! Cheers Otto

Screenshot_camp 1.st Bull Run.png

Stats 1.st Bull Run.png

Sherman Surfers.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ai will sometimes get stuck moving across the river in that location. Basically the edges of the river are impassable, but there are some bugs which let a unit across and from there they can move wherever.

Glad to hear you're having fun. Experimenting to find your own solution to battles can definitely be a lot of fun. Lots of ways to succeed in the mod :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, pandakraut said:

The ai will sometimes get stuck moving across the river in that location. Basically the edges of the river are impassable, but there are some bugs which let a unit across and from there they can move wherever.

Glad to hear you're having fun. Experimenting to find your own solution to battles can definitely be a lot of fun. Lots of ways to succeed in the mod :)

At this point I meant wavering in the perfect place for me since it  happened in the waves of a River - so I could get something very positive for myself out of an unintended situation.

I think my limited knowledge when it comes to the numbers behind the calculations in the game (set a to b, combine it with modifier c so you should achieve d - the result for me will always be 0!!!) is actually an advantage, if I came to it in the refered situations while watching "out of Date" playthroughs and could understand it when I watch the mentioned situation in the video I got the sense (understanding it without knowing the math behind it! I clearly kept the scaling in this campaign (so far) to my advantage without knowing what I exactly did (and I don't want to!!!). I came back to this game after years (now I understand why I had it always sitting in the ready to play "camp") and beside some basic knowledge (no need to hold all flag positions ore how to achieve a draw on shilo) from History Guy Videos I felt like I spent 300+ hrs in without actually playing it (what is a Damage Curve 🙂  ?) when facing it's current status! Finding a mod (again video reference) which blews my camp time to "Something Compass" Dimensions while not happy with the Perk Cabells Battery (canister & reload) got from the start until figuring out that the range of the 3inch guns combined with the reload makes it suitable on countering enemy artillery and both bonusses combined with my Corps Commanders Speed Perk makes it possible to move it into a postion where it deals a whole lotta damage (without having the maximum Damage it could have other Perk-stacked-wise) very quickly - and this will work in most situations in the long run!

I mean exposing myself so much here is not easy (since I received heavy setbacks in the past for doing so) for me and I think more than twice about it before hitting the submit reply Button but I wanna give Back/share a bit of the Fun this mod grants me in a personal real life situation of "emptiness"! If someone might get the impression here is someone who wants to show what good player he is get's it absolutely wrong, I'm really overwhelmed by myself to find something where the offered variety allows you to be variant and effective, making my otherwise limited felt abilities working together so quickly and fit so perfect my general "The Chase is Better than the Catch" (see this in a relation when you compare early with lategame situations!!!) way of playing games! I know this mod will give me thrills in the expectation and thinking about every nextcoming Battle(s) and even more when facing all the surprises the AI has given to work at it's best!

I apologize for maybe disrespecting the main purpose of this thread but I had to get rid of it and this seemed to be the best place to do it! To put it in the respect (I'm quite happy that the wavering in the water situation offered me to place my feedback and prevented me from being totally off topic!) again I have a question I couldn't find an answer to by watching it so far:

Is there a difference when it comes to a melee situation if you let your troops just getting charged instead of doing a countercharge in relation to it's ability to get quicker out of it when the enemy is routing? I mean that maybe the just charged ones have (ore could have) a quicker ability to reform when you hit the fallback ore hold button instead of the countercharging ones who have to wait a bit longer for that since they are actually following a different order? Connected to the command abillities (in this situation the Division Commander would probably be in responsibility) with the possible alternating situation where he get wounded and replaced with someone with lesser courier skills so it might take a little bit longer?

Thanx in advance for an answer and have a good time (@ all!)  as I do in during currently very darkcloudy looking times on the battlefield of reality we all are forced in!

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Counter charging is usually a bit worse for being able to get out of melee. Your unit tends to get mixed in with the AI more when you charge, which means more sprites have to get unstuck before you are out of melee.

But charging does extra damage so getting stuck longer can still be better than not routing the enemy unit.

Some other commands you can try to use to get out of melee. Fallback, direct move orders in the direction you want fall back to, halt, and rarely routing. These all function a bit differently so sometimes one will give better results than the other. Direct move orders might be slightly more reliable after charging, but it really varies.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the info, that helps a lot!

The situation in Battle(s) I was refering to is when you face a melee situation that you want to end quickly and can overcome maybe with a supporting repeater armed light infantry unit nearby without getting other units soaked in! It's a bit this feel when a (suicidal) charge happens just to steal you the initiative ore disorder your Troops when they are actually a part of a development (set up) which hasn't finished yet! So refusing on better damage there and gain the initiative (+time) back quicker and forcing the enemy to react to you on a playground of your own choice, where you search for the countercharge ability ore maybe start charging yourself into melee!

The further suggestions (covered in the question) where if this would probably something to integrate in the future mod development (to the abillities you were given by the core game mechanics of course), as mentioned I love variety!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE:  Altering config files in the middle of a battle

What are the implications/artifacts if I change the AIconfig file in the middle of a battle?

Specifically: I find that Cross Keys (as CSA / MG) is almost impossible to win with new default settings:  The the majority of Union forces have high xp + are aggressive and therefore the "CSA = <40% loss" threshold is tough to overcome. Note:  This is the only CSA battle (I don't play much past Antietam or Gettysburg) with such an arbitrary hurdle. If the Victory conditions were based on a comparison to enemy losses, it might be more sensible, imo

Am now re-starting the battle with reduced AIscalingExperienceMultiplier

Framing:

Does the AI take into account my un-used troops when making its calculations?

  • If I have hi-XP units in my Army, but don't use them in a battle, are they still part of the AI xp-equation?
  • If I have large (or small) units in my Army, but don't use them in a battle, are they still part of the AI size-equation?

This is important, as I try to build a balanced Army which is large enough to handle the Grand Battles.  My strategy is to foster a large number of units which are both adequate (min 1-xp) and capable of getting stronger (2-xp).  But I tend to spread combat across several units

  • Infantry : 1K -1.3K
  • Artillery : 12 cannon, horse
  • Cavalry : 200 - 500 (usually 350), a high proportion of the total force

Do 'killsRatio' or 'command experience' (# of Battles Led by Commanding Officer) have any impact on unit effectiveness in battle? 

If a unit is close to XP-threshold (but not quite there), does it have any impact on battle effectiveness?  i.e. or Do I need to 'kick-start'  an XP-jump by installing a new commander?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dixiePig said:

If I have hi-XP units in my Army, but don't use them in a battle, are they still part of the AI xp-equation?

Ai xp does not scale based on player units.

7 hours ago, dixiePig said:

If I have large (or small) units in my Army, but don't use them in a battle, are they still part of the AI size-equation?

Size scaling always calculates against your entire army, not just what you have deployed. There are factors in place so that this generally evens out in the side battles though. Cross keys is setup to be one of the harder battles though.

7 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Do 'killsRatio' or 'command experience' (# of Battles Led by Commanding Officer) have any impact on unit effectiveness in battle? 

Battles led does have an impact, there is a tooltip on tbe officer xp bar when the unit is selected that shows you the current bonuses or penalties.

7 hours ago, dixiePig said:

If a unit is close to XP-threshold (but not quite there), does it have any impact on battle effectiveness?  i.e. or Do I need to 'kick-start'  an XP-jump by installing a new commander?

Generally no. Either you get the perk or the unit XP doesn't matter for that specific battle. You do want to make sure command is higher than your efficiency though. 

Installing a higher XP commander to get the unit over the edge to gain a perk, using the perk in battle to gain more xp and then being able to install a new officer with lower xp but retain the perk because the unit's stats are higher is a very viable option. 

7 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Altering config files in the middle of a battle

For all the scaling options, changing them mid battle won't do anything. Those only take affect when a battle is started. Some of the UI options and other such things can be changed mid battle, though you'd still have to save/restart/load to see it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

Installing a higher XP commander to get the unit over the edge to gain a perk, using the perk in battle to gain more xp and then being able to install a new officer with lower xp but retain the perk because the unit's stats are higher is a very viable option. 

Thanks for the thorough response.

I thought that 'commander juggling' was less advantageous now that 'battles led' with the current unit was something you would want to maintain over time.  Or, does that matter much ...?

2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

Size scaling always calculates against your entire army, not just what you have deployed.

I've seen advice that recommends building a bunch of small temporary 'dummy' units so that the average unit size in your Army is smaller - thereby gaming the AI calculation.  Yes or No?

2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

Ai xp does not scale based on player units.

Is there anything I can - as a player -  do to influence AI xp scaling?

Cross Keys is an exciting, tough, fluid battle - but in the present configuration it does not appear to be "winnable" at MG level because of the arbitrary 40% loss threshold.  Not to be a stickler, but can you imagine any commander being ordered to hold two defensive positions against a vastly stronger force AND not suffer substantial losses?  What would happen if the 40% rule were applied to all UGCW battles?  I haven't run the numbers, but it wouldn't be pretty...

I believe that every battle should be "winnable" by some criteria.  I am hard-pressed to see that as possible with the current configuration of Cross Keys. The alternative is simply to avoid that battle altogether, since I will lose Reputation and gain little if I cannot win.  That would be unfortunate, as I enjoy the challenge of Cross Keys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dixiePig said:

I thought that 'commander juggling' was less advantageous now that 'battles led' with the current unit was something you would want to maintain over time.  Or, does that matter much ...?

It is much more of a trade off of when to do it now. Sometimes it can be worth it to crank out as many 1*s as you can early on. I tend to cycle some of my better colonels and generals through new units so that they always have a star and then their replacement tends to stick with the unit longer term. Your best units will have a much harder time giving up their good officers without a performance penalty. This sort of juggling will be less necessary outside of legendary though. But it's an optimization that's available.

1 hour ago, dixiePig said:

I've seen advice that recommends building a bunch of small temporary 'dummy' units so that the average unit size in your Army is smaller - thereby gaming the AI calculation.  Yes or No?

This works in the release version though there isn't much need to use it unless you want to. In the test version there is some soft prevention mechanics in place that mostly prevent this from having much affect. I think you're on the test one currently?

1 hour ago, dixiePig said:

Cross Keys is an exciting, tough, fluid battle - but in the present configuration it does not appear to be "winnable" at MG level because of the arbitrary 40% loss threshold.

Multiple players have won it on legendary, so it's certainly possible. Took me quite a few tries with a below average army though. Some tips:

- you really want to have a few 2* units by this point for the extra damage if possible. 

- if you normally use speed generals this is one where you probably want to swap to a damage general, you won't be moving much and you need to break charges. 

- A cavalry unit or two will leave your main line a bit thin, but can really help overall by picking off supply wagons, artillery, and routing units. These also served as my charge breaking fire brigade since they could quickly reinforce the top and bottom parts of the map.

- I had a pair of melee focused units that helped counter charge the center when needed. This part can go badly very quickly with some bad luck or mismanagement.

- previously I would bring snipers here, but I found I didn't have them strong enough yet to be sufficient and eventually dropped them for another infantry.

- very important to try and keep the ai towards the center, if they get on your flanks it becomes very hard. Though if they clump too hard at a single point too early you are also likely to face a mass charge you can't stop. Once they get into the trees I had a very hard time dislodging them fast enough.

If you can post a screenshot of the army you are bringing in and the numbers you are facing pre or post battle that would also be useful to see if there is something that has gone wrong or might be making things harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, pandakraut said:

- you really want to have a few 2* units by this point for the extra damage if possible. 

- if you normally use speed generals this is one where you probably want to swap to a damage general, you won't be moving much and you need to break charges. 

- A cavalry unit or two will leave your main line a bit thin, but can really help overall by picking off supply wagons, artillery, and routing units. These also served as my charge breaking fire brigade since they could quickly reinforce the top and bottom parts of the map.

- I had a pair of melee focused units that helped counter charge the center when needed. This part can go badly very quickly with some bad luck or mismanagement.

- previously I would bring snipers here, but I found I didn't have them strong enough yet to be sufficient and eventually dropped them for another infantry.

- very important to try and keep the ai towards the center, if they get on your flanks it becomes very hard. Though if they clump too hard at a single point too early you are also likely to face a mass charge you can't stop. Once they get into the trees I had a very hard time dislodging them fast enough.

1. I have a coupla 2* units in my Army, but was not using them, under the assumption that the point in CK is to absorb damage, rather than mete it out.  I've tried the strategy of 'more & larger springfield42 meat puppet units' in order to deal with the 40% threshold.  Especially since most of the combat is at close quarters.

  • Related question:  I can imagine that 2* units have better morale and resilience, but do they actually incur fewer losses?  It seems to me that a bullet wouldn't care whether you're 1* or 2*

2.  Already been using damage General, for the obvious reasons

3) Been using a strong melee cav from day 1 in ALL battles, for the same reasons you state.   I find that a team of strong meleeCav + strong carbineCav provide the best of both worlds in CK.  The Union usually has no artillery or supply wagons by the midpoint of the game.  Also helpful:  Picking off those pesky ranger/skirmisher units (cav seems to be the only really effective technique for destroying them).  Added value: reconnaissance behind enemy lines and distraction (drawing away enemy infantry units from the main battle).  And the carbineCav can be used as flying infantry (when dismounted) to deal quickly with critical situations.

4.  My technique is to massFire several strong artillery units (3 x 12-gun howitzers), preferably as soon as I anticipate an enemy attack. I find it to be an effective tactic. Counter-attack w/ infantry is a last resort, but can work.

5. Not so fond of sniper/ranger/"skirmishers" because of what-you-said, plus:  They are kind of a historical anomaly

6. "keep the ai to the center" comment :  Copy that

So:  I am already doing much of what you recommended

  • My infantry units tend to be in the 1000-1300 range
  • I might try trading out some artillery for infantry (to buy more bodies)

Am now fiddling with the aiConfig xp and sizing, as well as the order of battle.  Here's a screenshot of my most recent configuration (not tried it yet):

image.thumb.png.e26f17e2a983a2738ea15d1623c49e30.png

The 1200 and 1300-man units have better weapons (enfields. 1861's, 1855's, Mississippi's) and the 1400-man units are 1842's. Artillery is howitzers

My general preference is to keep infantry units in the 1000-man range, but am boosting the level for Cross Keys.

15 hours ago, pandakraut said:

It is much more of a trade off of when to do it now. Sometimes it can be worth it to crank out as many 1*s as you can early on. I tend to cycle some of my better colonels and generals through new units so that they always have a star and then their replacement tends to stick with the unit longer term

That's what I do, as well. Rarely have any units in a battle that are NOT 1*.  Also useful:  Artillery units are a great place to 'grow' experienced officers, especially since they are less likely to incur casualties.

15 hours ago, pandakraut said:

This works in the release version though there isn't much need to use it unless you want to. In the test version there is some soft prevention mechanics in place that mostly prevent this from having much affect. I think you're on the test one currently?

My current version: 1.11 - J&P v1.27.4.3

If I can do anything to get a little edge on CK, I'll try it.

"What would happen if the 40% rule were applied to all  UGCW battles?  I haven't run the numbers, but it wouldn't be pretty..."    It's still a valid framing question.  What makes the ai sort of fun is that the enemy will continue to attack - suicidally - long after it has taken horrific losses.  That also means that you will continue to take losses, long after you've effectively defeated the ai.  The tail end of the CK battle is often an avoidance game - You're hoping that the Union won't try one more kamikaze attack before the timer runs out.  meh

In any case, thanks for the detailed answers and a great mod.  

 

UPDATE:

Just won CK with the Army shown in this screenshot, as well as AIscalingSizeMultiplier, .9
AIscalingExperienceMultiplier, .8 in AIconfigFile.  Of course, the ai behaves differently from game to game; I will try again w/ similar set-up and see how it plays out.  In this episode, ai did not attack all that vigorously or effectively, so perhaps I was lucky in this case, as well. I've noticed that here seem to be at least a couple of very different ai behavioral profiles, including: a) hyper-aggressive from the first moment and b) relatively passive.

My own Army profile on this CK Battle was 

  • Larger units (infantry brigades of 1200 and 1300, rather than 1000 men)
  • With mostly Better  Weapons (i.e. fewer Springfield '42's)

Will keep you posted - and probably more questions.

I'll repeat this question:  "Does higher xp result in fewer casualties to your unit? (relative to a lower-xp unit of same size and armament)"

Edited by dixiePig
clarification & follow-up
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Related question:  I can imagine that 2* units have better morale and resilience, but do they actually incur fewer losses?  It seems to me that a bullet wouldn't care whether you're 1* or 2*

All other factors being equal unit experience and perks have no impact on kills dealt to the unit unless the perk provides cover.

The main thing here is that they put out more damage which makes it easier to stop charges and push back enemy units so that you aren't overwhelmed.

4 hours ago, dixiePig said:

My infantry units tend to be in the 1000-1300 range

I'd probably recommend a bit bigger for this battle. Usually that size will put you pretty far under the minimum scaling point I've found. Can always go back to your current size after they get ground down in this battle.

4 hours ago, dixiePig said:

The 1200 and 1300-man units have better weapons (enfields. 1861's, 1855's, Mississippi's) and the 1400-man units are 1842's. Artillery is howitzers

I would definitely give your 2*s better weapons than the 55s. Those are nice for training up units, but don't have the melee power or the damage punch for a 2* to really pack the power you'll want it to here. For my first few 2*s I tend to like going double accuracy or accuracy into speed/reload so they can sit at safe spots in the line and do a lot of damage. Charge and accuracy mix is always something I've struggled with utilizing well, though I think there are some other players who use that as well.

4 hours ago, dixiePig said:

What would happen if the 40% rule were applied to all  UGCW battles?  I haven't run the numbers, but it wouldn't be pretty..."    It's still a valid framing question.  What makes the ai sort of fun is that the enemy will continue to attack - suicidally - long after it has taken horrific losses.  That also means that you will continue to take losses, long after you've effectively defeated the ai.  The tail end of the CK battle is often an avoidance game - You're hoping that the Union won't try one more kamikaze attack before the timer runs out.  meh

It'd be a problem at Shiloh and maybe a few other battles, but in most cases I don't think it would come up much. Usually if you're taking that high of casualties consistently something else has gone wrong and the campaign won't survive much longer. 

If removing those conditions wasn't rather difficult I'd probably do away with them entirely. They just tend to punish situations where the player is already in a bad spot and attrition will kill you either way if you can't keep the casualty numbers lower. Though I guess it's debatable if it's a better player experience to be told you are failing while you still have a chance to fix it, rather than getting several battles further before realizing you can't progress anymore.

4 hours ago, dixiePig said:

I've noticed that here seem to be at least a couple of very different ai behavioral profiles, including: a) hyper-aggressive from the first moment and b) relatively passive.

As best I can tell this usually has to do with the randomized perks, unit splits, and to some extent player choices. If the AI gets lots of charge perks it'll be very charge happy being the basic example. Keeps things interesting though it does result in some pretty severe difficulty swings at times.

Good to hear that you were able to get through it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the very informative & thoughtful responses to all of my questions, panda. Excellent stuff.

  • Good advice on the '55's - Was wondering, but also thought the 25% higher firing rate might be a good trade-off. Ditto the advice on 2*
16 hours ago, pandakraut said:

As best I can tell this usually has to do with the randomized perks, unit splits, and to some extent player choices. If the AI gets lots of charge perks it'll be very charge happy being the basic example. Keeps things interesting though it does result in some pretty severe difficulty swings at times.

Very useful insight on 'how it works':  I'd been assuming that it was driven by an overall 'command profile' (i.e. aggressive vs passive) which seems to flavor the entire battle instance.  If I re-start the battle (with same set-up), the ai behavior is often radically different.

16 hours ago, pandakraut said:

It'd be a problem at Shiloh and maybe a few other battles, but in most cases I don't think it would come up much. Usually if you're taking that high of casualties consistently something else has gone wrong and the campaign won't survive much longer. 

Just spitballin' here, but I'd say that other battles which could suffer from a 40% threshold probably include 1st Winchester, Rio Hill, and Antietam. Given the 'suicidal aggressiveness' of the ai, generally, I'd contend that it's entirely possible (and sometimes necessary) to incur high casualties and still wipe out the enemy force.  If they just won't quit attacking, that's sometimes what you have to do...

  • The hyper-aggressive ai scenario is generally the most challenging and exciting:  If you manage to survive the attacks, then the badly weakened enemy can be (eventually) wiped out.  It's a test of your defensive skills & counter-punching.
  • The more passive ai scenario allows you to control the structure and flow of the battle.  You can exercise your tactical abilities.

Historical context

Generally, I try to conform to historical precedent re unit sizes (i.e. cap infantry in 1000-1200 range / 12 artillery), tho I can see the value of larger units for CK

Do you have any comment on the proportion of artillery units in my order of battle?  It's higher than historical, but I find them valuable - and it reflects the fact that there seem to be a lot of them in my spoils of war.

Have done some informal research on the effectiveness of civil war era artillery:  I get mixed messages.  IMO canister & grape at close range should be powerful - and especially devastating if you catch the enemy lines in flank. Of course I can fiddle with the effect of artillery in configFiles, but what is your take?

The biggest a-historical factor is that cavalry units can be a big & active part of the battle (extremely rare in actual Civil War battles).  But it's fun. Echoes the active use of cavalry in Napoleonic era battles.

Thanks again to you and Jonny for excellent mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

map notes
Roads:  troops apparently do not automatically use roads (or receive any movement perk) when marching in column. If a road leads towards the destination (even if only partially), then it should be used.

Trees: Trees supply blocking cover for troops, but Support fire from troops and artillery does not appear to be blocked (or even compromised) by intervening trees 

Elevation: Should allow troops and artillery to provide supporting fire even if there are intervening trees.  Also: elevation should make fire more effective, because of the angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Very useful insight on 'how it works':  I'd been assuming that it was driven by an overall 'command profile' (i.e. aggressive vs passive) which seems to flavor the entire battle instance.  If I re-start the battle (with same set-up), the ai behavior is often radically different

These do also exist, bit those are set by phase and should be consistent restart to restart as far as I know.

6 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Generally, I try to conform to historical precedent re unit sizes (i.e. cap infantry in 1000-1200 range / 12 artillery), tho I can see the value of larger units for CK

I might go with artillery units of 8-10 with units that size infantry, but in terms of historical proportions maybe run some ratios of major battles to compare against? Historically there was always much more infantry since a lot of if was off doing things that doesn't come up in the game.

Regarding artillery effectiveness it's certainly been gamefied a bit to make the difference in experience levels more noticeable. The values have been adjusted a bit in the next version, but overall I think the differences between shot types are in a decent spot currently.

The cavalry is definitely ahistorically relevant, though it can also largely be ignored if you prefer. This is very much a gameplay over historical usage thing as they provide interesting trade offs for the player even if neither side really figured out how to employ them effectively on a direct combat role most of the time.

6 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Roads:  troops apparently do not automatically use roads (or receive any movement perk) when marching in column. If a road leads towards the destination (even if only partially), then it should be used.

The roads on the maps are purely visual, there is no underlying technical distinction between them and any other open terrain, so nothing to work off of to improve this unfortunately.

6 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Trees: Trees supply blocking cover for troops, but Support fire from troops and artillery does not appear to be blocked (or even compromised) by intervening trees

This is correct, the game is extremely lenient on line of sight. While less accurate it is also significantly more accessible than ug Gettysburg was.

Similar answer for elevation, I wish the maps did more with it, but unfortunately this isn't the case.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2022 at 7:15 PM, pandakraut said:
On 2/16/2022 at 12:05 PM, dixiePig said:

Very useful insight on 'how it works':  I'd been assuming that it was driven by an overall 'command profile' (i.e. aggressive vs passive) which seems to flavor the entire battle instance.  If I re-start the battle (with same set-up), the ai behavior is often radically different

These do also exist, bit those are set by phase and should be consistent restart to restart as far as I know

  • Yes. As far as I can tell, you need to restart the battle in order to get a different AI experience.

For the most part; agree about shot types effectiveness of artillery

"Historicity" is always a trade-off, but I believe we might agree that cavalry adds a lot to the playability.

Too bad about roads,woods, and terrain.  Surprising oversights in a game this sophisticated.

Q> Does putting a unit into defensive stance (i.e. [HOLD]) provide greater defensive value over time?  IRL: A favorite exercise of units in a defensive stance is to "entrench" (scoop out shallow holes, build walls & breastworks).  The longer they are in that position, the greater their defensive value.

Observation:

I re-started Cross Keys several times.  Winning is definitely The Exception.  Just finished one instance in which the Union had only 2 units left on the field ... and I still got a DRAW with 41% casualties.  It's a lovely battle, but the 40% threshold is not the finest example of game design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Q> Does putting a unit into defensive stance (i.e. [HOLD]) provide greater defensive value over time?  IRL: A favorite exercise of units in a defensive stance is to "entrench" (scoop out shallow holes, build walls & breastworks).  The longer they are in that position, the greater their defensive value.

It does not. Age of sail uses this, but I'm not a big fan because the AI never holds position so it's just a straight buff to the player. In the test version I have implemented a dig in system for units that stay in the same area for long enough. Very neat in practice, probably wasn't the best decision for performance though.

2 hours ago, dixiePig said:

I re-started Cross Keys several times.  Winning is definitely The Exception.  Just finished one instance in which the Union had only 2 units left on the field ... and I still got a DRAW with 41% casualties.  It's a lovely battle, but the 40% threshold is not the finest example of game design.

Somewhat surprised that it's been that much of an issue, I hadn't even realized it was there. Usually my failure point is always getting driven off a flag rather than the total casualties. Probably a playstyle/army setup difference since you are going for an attrition setup which isn't something I use often. 

I'd suggest tweaking the configs down slightly more and you'll probably be set though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MarkShot said:

So, in setting your own scaling value.  What value would give you even numbered fights?  I assume "1" gives the typical much more numerous enemy to face.

Thanks.

That value is applied as a multiplier to whatever scaling would normally set the AI unit sizes to. Whether that results in even or larger units will depend greatly on difficulty, battle, and player army setup. The default of 1 means no change.

For a general difficulty reduction, other players have used values in the .75 to .9 range. If you're looking specifically for even numbers you will want to setup your army and then check the pre-battle deployment screen numbers to see if the config option needs to be adjusted. Keep in mind that multiday battles on show first day numbers for the AI, so you'll have to estimate a bit on those. Changing values between days will not work. 

I'd recommend giving the general reduction a try, and then if you hit some outlier battles adjusting those a bit more. Keep in mind, in some battles the ai can have far fewer units of a given type than you, and these units will end up being larger since they are compared against the total men in your more numerous units of that type.

Hope you find something that works for you, if you have more questions please ask.

Edited by pandakraut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an issue. when i downloaded the mod into my data registry nothing happened, so then i tried manually rewriting the resources.assets and assembly-CSharp.dll files and now the game starts but freezes instantly

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kot said:

I have an issue. when i downloaded the mod into my data registry nothing happened, so then i tried manually rewriting the resources.assets and assembly-CSharp.dll files and now the game starts but freezes instantly

It sounds like you have the dll and the assets file in the right place but also need to move the mod folder from the zip file into the ultimate general civil war_DATA folder(same place as the assets file)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horses as additional Ressource?

I haven't read all of this thread so I apologize if this point has been mentioned ore being discussed before but I think having horses as a ressource in the cavallery section of the armory (as weapon!) would be a nice adding!

You have to pay for horses when creating a cav unit so this could be a base price for them which could be influenced by the career points!  New would be a max. aviability in numbers for horses which could be influenced by career points and get's refreshed after every grand battle as the other weapons do!

I'm not sure if a afterbattle reward (adding horses to $ and recruits you get) would be a important point since I see them more as a supporting special unit ! I have in mind that someone else could come up with a cav only strategy (definately not myself!!!) so leave this option open (this step will limit the total horse/cav unit number!)!

The only way of battle influence should be the pick up of unhurted horses from the battlefield ore in bigger quantity those from a captured cav unit, it would add some challenge to suggest an isolated cav unit to surrender instead of just shooting them down!

It's a bit of economic extension and as stated before I don't know what possibillities you guys have to make this work in a rebalanced style and of course it should be a lower priority if you have more prominent points to re-adjust in terms of your real life time abillities!

Greetings...Otto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2022 at 3:57 AM, Drunteroffizier said:

The only way of battle influence should be the pick up of unhurted horses from the battlefield ore in bigger quantity those from a captured cav unit, it would add some challenge to suggest an isolated cav unit to surrender instead of just shooting them down!

One of the more recent patches added a feature so that any captured cavalry units do give the player the cost of their captured horses. We considered adding horses to the recruits list but ended up deciding against going that far at the time. Perhaps we'll consider it again in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/23/2022 at 1:46 AM, pandakraut said:

That value is applied as a multiplier to whatever scaling would normally set the AI unit sizes to. Whether that results in even or larger units will depend greatly on difficulty, battle, and player army setup. The default of 1 means no change.

For a general difficulty reduction, other players have used values in the .75 to .9 range. If you're looking specifically for even numbers you will want to setup your army and then check the pre-battle deployment screen numbers to see if the config option needs to be adjusted. Keep in mind that multiday battles on show first day numbers for the AI, so you'll have to estimate a bit on those. Changing values between days will not work. 

I'd recommend giving the general reduction a try, and then if you hit some outlier battles adjusting those a bit more. Keep in mind, in some battles the ai can have far fewer units of a given type than you, and these units will end up being larger since they are compared against the total men in your more numerous units of that type.

Hope you find something that works for you, if you have more questions please ask.

Thanks for your answer.  I know there are ways to manipulate the AI by holding back forces.  I was just looking for an easy single edit; not to have to repeatedly attempt to game the AI.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...