Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
JonnyH13

J & P Rebalance Mod by JonnyH13 and Pandakraut 8/31/18

Recommended Posts

 

15 minutes ago, killjoy1941 said:

Any gun that's not rifled sits directly behind the infantry in my army. That's why I use the horse artillery perk; point blank canister is the only canister worth using.

To clarify, by point blank canister I am talking about 100-150 range. If your cannon are behind your units, the only time this comes up is if you hold fire and release just before a charging unit hits in melee. Damage falls off significantly as you move out towards rifle ranges. As always, there is a lot of randomness involved in damage. Anecdotal data is highly unreliable at anything other than describing general feel.

Regarding routing. I'll just say that before the change goes live it will get tested in multiple scenarios. With the current perk setups it's possible for units to have a base speed of double a 0 star unit. This obviously dramatically impacts how effective any given unit is at any movement action. The overall speed differences are a separate balance issue, but it is currently problematic that if a unit routs(for whatever reason) it suddenly slows down. As a general design idea infantry shouldn't be chasing down and killing large amounts of routing units. That is cavalry's roll. Melee is currently undergoing a fairly major rebalance, so everything will be getting reevaluated either way.

41 minutes ago, limith said:

The Soldier says he gets 120 kills/volley with rookies using the worst cannon and only 14 guns and says artillery is OP. I'm winning battles thanks to artillery, but due to morale damage, not kills. I can get more kills from my veteran infantry.

For some examples, you can win Crossroads, Crampton's Gap, and 2nd Bull Run as the union with basically 0 casualties. You buy heavy artillery, give it the range and accuracy perks, level up a sniper to 2 star for spotting. At this point my infantry basically stands around waiting for the enemy army to get shot to pieces and to occasionally block units from charging. My artillery units regularly inflict 2/3+ of all casualties in my battles. There are many different playstyles that result in different outcomes, but we currently feel that high end of long range artillery damage is far to high at the moment and it will be coming down and with more restrictions.

54 minutes ago, limith said:

Random thought: Would it be possible to make artillery surrender work similar to supply wagons, but be able to fire? It doesn't make sense the way artillery is modeled in game right now.

Artillery units can be changed to allow surrenders. They aren't able to fire though and there are several followup issues if they could, most importantly that captured units can't be fired at. If artillery can be captured one of the issues I see is that there would be no way to spike the guns if you can't hold them. I'll discuss with Jonny and possibly artillery surrender will get implemented.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

On battle where ammunition is...limited, to say the least, you don't just do firing at enemy brigades in the distance.  This is especially prevalent at Shiloh and Malvern Hill, where you almost always run out of ammunition for your guns before your second corps and arrive.  Hold your fire until you can see the whites of their eyes - one battery of 12pdr Napoleons killed 3,000 Rebels at Shiloh, then 4,000 at Malvern Hill.  Another battery of 20pdr Parrotts killed 2,000 at Gaines' Mill, and 4,000 at Malvern Hill.  Two batteries are responsible for fully a third of casualties I inflicted on the enemy that day.

I don't need to do go so close to the enemy as the morale damage from canister shot is sufficient to rout enemies. I find the ability to rout multiple enemy brigades more valuable than having additional kills on my artillery, since if I waited until they were right on me, I'd have wasted multiple potential shots. I don't see the value of moving my artillery or infantry out of forest cover just so I can canister them in melee range. My infantry can kill them, and so can my cavalry, once the enemy has been herded into a pocket and surrounded on all sides so I can force a surrender. In addition, if you wait until they are almost right upon you, you are not guaranteed to repel them with 1 canister volley, which can lead to large casualties for your infantry unit. Furthermore if you shell the enemy at shot range (not canister range) a few times, you can lower their morale enough that the AI won't charge your lines, which is vitally important if you are outnumbered 4:1. Ammo is not that big of a problem if you primarily use at canister range. You can capture supply wagons and bring some of your own ammo.

24 minutes ago, pandakraut said:

For some examples, you can win Crossroads, Crampton's Gap, and 2nd Bull Run as the union with basically 0 casualties. You buy heavy artillery, give it the range and accuracy perks, level up a sniper to 2 star for spotting. At this point my infantry basically stands around waiting for the enemy army to get shot to pieces and to occasionally block units from charging. My artillery units regularly inflict 2/3+ of all casualties in my battles. There are many different playstyles that result in different outcomes, but we currently feel that high end of long range artillery damage is far to high at the moment and it will be coming down and with more restrictions.

I've only used napoleons and ordnances and they feel balanced to me when parked behind an infantry. I haven't used artillery to spam enemy outside of my vision since it's a waste of ammo, and I don't do what The Soldier does with canistering only at melee range. If those are problems, they should be fixed, by adjusting the damage curve for example.

 

24 minutes ago, pandakraut said:

Regarding routing. I'll just say that before the change goes live it will get tested in multiple scenarios. With the current perk setups it's possible for units to have a base speed of double a 0 star unit. This obviously dramatically impacts how effective any given unit is at any movement action. The overall speed differences are a separate balance issue, but it is currently problematic that if a unit routs(for whatever reason) it suddenly slows down. As a general design idea infantry shouldn't be chasing down and killing large amounts of routing units. That is cavalry's roll. Melee is currently undergoing a fairly major rebalance, so everything will be getting reevaluated either way.

The only thing I want to avoid is vanilla where my cavalry cannot do their job, which is to chase down routed units, or to run down AI artillery/skirmishers who somehow can rout faster than cav (since my formerly 90 condition cav loses all of it's condition while slowly killing the routed unit on MG). I don't use my infantry to chase after enemies primarily (they do a bad enough job with rout modifier 1 as it is). This largely shouldn't impact me if I have the enemy surrounded with infantry as it is and they have no where to run. The other thing to avoid is making it so that the AI can escape a pocket (completely surrounded) by running through my unit sent to melee them, because that would be very annoying. As long as these are handled, I'm fine with whatever changes are made.

Edited by limith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I think this discussion has pretty much run its course, here is something new that is coming in the next version. If an officer is killed or wounded a lower ranked officer will step up to command the unit. This can happen multiple times until a captain is killed at which point the unit will have no commander like currently happens. Officers that are wounded will share experience with the commanding officer who survives the battle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Since I think this discussion has pretty much run its course, here is something new that is coming in the next version. If an officer is killed or wounded a lower ranked officer will step up to command the unit. This can happen multiple times until a captain is killed at which point the unit will have no commander like currently happens. Officers that are wounded will share experience with the commanding officer who survives the battle.

Will this be taken from your barracks reserve pool? Would it be possible to split the current 3* officer into 2 tiers, since they require so much XP to level, to mesh with this change better? The gap in potential command from a high XP 3* officer and a low XP 3*/2* officer is incredibly high, and most of your officers will be 3*. A 2* is better than nothing, but their command is still pretty low. (Captains I consider 0*). Also will this be applicable for division commanders as well?

One way of splitting 3*'s is to merge Captains and Majors (0/1*) into 1 officer rank, and reuse 2* for 3*, and 3* for 3.5*. Unless command is tied to rank and not XP?

Something like the following:

Captains 0-10xp
Majors 10-25xp
Lt Colonels 25-50xp
Colonels 50-75xp
BG 75-90xp
MG 90-95xp
LTG +95xp

What gets recruited in the shop would change (much less Colonels to recruit).
____
Sounds great since I'm planning to play union and I seem to have terrible luck with skirmisher brigades losing their leaders all the time (when they have taken a total of 20 casualties :x)

Edited by limith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This currently will not apply to division commanders, may be added pending testing. Currently the best replacement you can possibly get is a 0 xp lt colonel. So while the replacement is better than no officer, it will still be a significant impact to performance. Officers are not taken from the pool, they are spawned and effectively 'free' but this is a technical restriction.

Changing the types of officers available or what perks they get would be a pretty major change to implement. It is not possible to add more than 3 levels of perks. We're pretty happy with the rate of promotion for MG and LTG officers at the moment. They provide a huge bonus and should be correspondingly difficult to acquire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, limith said:

I've only used napoleons and ordnances and they feel balanced to me when parked behind an infantry. I haven't used artillery to spam enemy outside of my vision since it's a waste of ammo, and I don't do what The Soldier does with canistering only at melee range. If those are problems, they should be fixed, by adjusting the damage curve for example.

You're clearly not understanding my logic.  If I've got a pile of ammunition next to me, then yes, I'll happily fire away at all targets (which is most battles).  But when ammunition is scarce, like at Shiloh and Malvern Hill, you have to conserve your ammunition and wait for the right moment, otherwise you're going to end up with artillery reloading while a Rebel brigade is slicing up the frontline troops with impunity.  While kills are definitely a part of it, it's about saving the guns for when you need them most.  And because you save those guns for when you need them most, also end up with getting a large number of kills from canister.

 

1 hour ago, limith said:

The only thing I want to avoid is vanilla where my cavalry cannot do their job, which is to chase down routed units, or to run down AI artillery/skirmishers who somehow can rout faster than cav (since my formerly 90 condition cav loses all of it's condition while slowly killing the routed unit on MG). I don't use my infantry to chase after enemies primarily (they do a bad enough job with rout modifier 1 as it is). This largely shouldn't impact me if I have the enemy surrounded with infantry as it is and they have no where to run. The other thing to avoid is making it so that the AI can escape a pocket (completely surrounded) by running through my unit sent to melee them, because that would be very annoying. As long as these are handled, I'm fine with whatever changes are made.

I don't think you understand what the point of Routing is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

You're clearly not understanding my logic.  If I've got a pile of ammunition next to me, then yes, I'll happily fire away at all targets (which is most battles).  But when ammunition is scarce, like at Shiloh and Malvern Hill, you have to conserve your ammunition and wait for the right moment, otherwise you're going to end up with artillery reloading while a Rebel brigade is slicing up the frontline troops with impunity.  While kills are definitely a part of it, it's about saving the guns for when you need them most.  And because you save those guns for when you need them most, also end up with getting a large number of kills from canister.

I'm doing exactly that, but not seeing the amount of kills you are seeing per volley with novice troops and 12 guns (similar enough to 14 guns). You say you are waiting until they are in charge melee range which results in the high number of kills per volley. I am not doing that. I am just waiting for canister range (evidently it is rifle range), which is not charge melee range. If I had to wait for charge melee range to fire, I'd be firing less shots since I bring much smaller armies to battle than you and am outnumbered more, so getting a unit to abort it's charge is a higher priority for me, rather than killing more troops. The AI tends to charge 3 units at me at once for each cannon I have to cover. If I hit one of them at the shot range, another at the edge of canister range, and the last in melee I can rout 2 and stop . If I waited for melee for all three I would be overrun. Even at point blank melee range with 2* napoleons I do not see the amount of kills you are claiming (500), but 200. I have no ammo problems whatsoever in those battles without needing to wait for charge melee range. I'm obviously not going to waste cannon shots at long range.

 

36 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

I don't think you understand what the point of Routing is.

"a disorderly retreat of defeated troops." is the definition. Routing refers to the "Rout" status in game.

If the enemy army is in a pocket they don't surrender, they stay in routed status. I can either shoot them or send units into melee. That's how the game engine works. In real life, they'd surrender. If I send units into melee maybe half will surrender (best case), while the rest will shatter. This is because multiple units are next to each other (their entire army) clumped together and units don't like to surrender if there is a friendly unit nearby with some amount of morale (routed units regain morale) so they'll tend to only do so after a few have shattered. Now if I have them in a pocket, and they are not surrendering, and the enemy moves sufficiently faster than my units, then it is entirely possible for them to flee through my units (the pocket). I've also seen this a few times in Vanilla. It's annoying and unrealistic to see an enemy fleeing unit surrounded on all sides enter one of my units and flee THROUGH it to the other side. Such units ought to just surrender, but they don't. It is frustrating in the end of battles since I have to play whack a mole and spend 5 minutes setting up a new pocket at some other corner of the map with an army that is exhausted (since I have to run them at shorter distance angles cause routed units move faster than non routed units) instead of the battle just ending (cause the AI can't retreat offmap which is what they do in Total War).

With regards to skirmishers routing from my cavalry, in real life they'd probably surrender too, but the game engine only has a small chance of that. In vanilla I had PLENTY of cases where routed skirmishers would flee faster than my cavalry could catch up to them after losing morale in melee.

These are the two things I hate. I have no concerns about fixing routed units moving slower than normal units resulting in large melee casualties (to be honest only the AI ever takes advantage of this. I never take advantage of this, and any infantry I send to push the AI off an objective usually gets routed by the AI's second line firing into it or I spam fall back so my unit can disengage). I have concerns about the above two situations which are 100% present in vanilla that may also be true after increases to movement speed of routed units.

Edited by limith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of Routing in this game, not the definition, is to get the unit out of danger.  If you had it your way then the moment a unit Routs, that unit might as well get deleted because they'll just end up Shattering or Surrendering.  Furthermore, real life doesn't particularly apply to this mod, as that is not the goal panda and jonny had when making it.  Good gameplay and making it more difficult is the goal, which they have achieved for the most part, and won't really compromise on that, either.

I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about when you say enemy units flee out of pockets.  I did that at Antietam and none of the enemy brigades survived, they all Surrendered.  I have never experienced such a thing, in this mod or in vanilla for a very, very long time.  If that does happen, then it can be no one's fault but your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

The point of Routing in this game, not the definition, is to get the unit out of danger.  If you had it your way then the moment a unit Routs, that unit might as well get deleted because they'll just end up Shattering or Surrendering.  Furthermore, real life doesn't particularly apply to this mod, as that is not the goal panda and jonny had when making it.  Good gameplay and making it more difficult is the goal, which they have achieved for the most part, and won't really compromise on that, either.

I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about when you say enemy units flee out of pockets.  I did that at Antietam and none of the enemy brigades survived, they all Surrendered.  I have never experienced such a thing, in this mod or in vanilla for a very, very long time.  If that does happen, then it can be no one's fault but your own.

I see cases where units do not manage to get out of melee. The confederate AI did it to me consistently as Union on the 2nd battle in the campaign.  However, units can rout all the time and get out of danger just as well. I see the AI do that right now in this mod. All the time. With the 1 rout speed modifier. I also see enemy flee out of pockets all the time on vanilla. We clearly have different playstyles, that doesn't mean what I see doesn't happen.

I suppose it's my fault for spending 2 in game hours maneuvering my troops to surround the entire enemy line in Stone's River, the next hour shepharding the entire enemy line into one circle (the AI has routed at least 40 time successfully during this period). Then once the enemy army has no where left to flee, and I send in my cavalry and infantry brigades to melee, only half of the AI army surrenders while the rest shatter. While the rest of my circle shoots at them like fish in a barrel. My fault. Right.
___
In real life, if I had 300 cavalryman and I engaged 200 skirmishers on the verge of routing from the rear (when my infantry are hitting their front), and the 200 skirmishers fled, they sure as heck would NOT be able to flee faster than horses. In fact, where would they flee? Into the rear of MY horses?
___
"Good gameplay and making it more difficult is the goal" - I have a big issue with your definition of good gameplay based on the history of discussion on the Steam forums since early access. Good gameplay should not mean unrealistic gameplay. What you are advocating is unrealistic gameplay (which is present in vanilla, go play vanilla) for the sole reason of 'challenge'. In addition, this argument of challenge is completely false. It is a challenge because people can take advantage of flaws in the game in a SINGLE PLAYER GAME.

This was why cavalry became slower than INFANTRY in vanilla, because of people complaining the game was too easy, that it was abusable by spamming units in melee, that they wanted more "challenge". What did Dartis do? He nerfed cavalry instead of fixing melee (which this mod fixed mind you). He gave the AI free armies after every single fight (rather than a real dynamic campaign). If Panda and Jonny wanted to make the game more 'challenging' and only that, they'd have gone the route of what vanilla did. Forget 4:1 AI scaling odds in vanilla (after completely wiping their army), let's have 10:1 odds, because the game is clearly too easy, who cares about realism! Olympic medal AI skirmishers. Supermen AI artillery that beats pretty much everything in melee. I for one don't want this. Seeing as the mod has REMOVED these things, I'd like to think the creators of the mod won't either.

If you find your infantry being able to run down the enemy in melee and deal too much damage (because of using much larger brigades as reserves, and also a known bug with AI scaling) that's the player taking advantage of a game flaw reducing challenge. If I choose to not do that and have to suffer from the AI dealing extra damage to me in melee when one of my units gets caught, that actually adds challenge. Also FYI, my unit DOES manage to run away after taking 200-300 losses in melee. It's not impossible for my unit to run away. It's a bit high right now, but it's not impossible, and it isn't instant deletion like you are exaggerating.

___
And on the topic of surrendering, if the AI surrendered it is actually much MORE challenging to handle in many situations since you now have to defend a unit which can flip back anytime. It's also more realistic if the AI surrenders, and it helps the grand campaign, since if 1/3 of the AI army surrenders (or 1/2 if surrender was more reliable when a pocket forms), it explains how the enemy manages to get it's army back together so fast. It provides justification for challenge, and it HELPS THE AI (it would help the AI more if they could retreat offmap and know when they should call it quits). So no, surrendering does NOT make things less challenging.

This being said, I do not agree with infantry being able to destroy an entire unit with 1 charge, which is your concern. I never said this, I don't want units to be deleted on a charge. I think that units which are routing should be able to get away, under reasonable conditions. My concerns have to do with the two cases I mentioned above which units should NOT be able to rout but they do in vanilla, which could be possible if the rout speed is tuned too high. These are not mutually exclusive things.

TL;DR Good gameplay should not be artificial challenge that breaks realism.
____
Also at the end of the day, I can just mod back in how I want to play the game, which thankfully is possible in a reasonable manner. If you want to play your game the way you want to without considering the problems other people see, go ahead.

Edited by limith

Share this post


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

 

To clarify, by point blank canister I am talking about 100-150 range. If your cannon are behind your units, the only time this comes up is if you hold fire and release just before a charging unit hits in melee. Damage falls off significantly as you move out towards rifle ranges. As always, there is a lot of randomness involved in damage. Anecdotal data is highly unreliable at anything other than describing general feel.

Yup, holding fire until the charging brigade is within about 250-200m. You disable the hold fire command, and they get a faceful of canister at about 100m or so. I don't use it too often, but it became a frequent tactic at Chickamauga, where it tended to net about 300-450 kills. It's a good battle to test artillery because the line is long (resupply problems), the targets many (reload issues), and the ever-present cover more or less demands you blast brigades out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, here is my opinion on the mod as it currently exists, Union, BG and MG:

There is little difference between BG and MG other than enemy unit experience. Scaling seems to be similar in both and damage is similar in both. Shiloh is easier in MG than BG, but most other battles are much more challenging in MG due to the weapons and unit experience.

  1. Artillery is supremely important. Have as much as you can as soon as you can.
  2. Build at least two skirmishers per corps.
  3. Build at least two cavalry per corps.
  4. Artillery feels balanced until you get the MG perk for accuracy. Then the range perks begin to become absolutely decisive with long range rifled guns. Shell damage could use a bit of a nerf.
  5. Cavalry could probably use a very soft boost. It works as-is, but needs a lot of micro.
  6. Artillery runs out of ammo very quickly, even with the logistics boosts. If this is intentional, it would better serve the mod as a soft limit on the number of batteries used. My opinion, but I think this is important.
  7. Corollary to the above point: I absolutely think artillery can be balanced by ammo. It's just an idea that batteries could be constrained by ammo usage, but it's one that's at least worth consideration.
  8. I like that the mod encourages scaling usage, and that it "punishes" players for ignoring it.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, killjoy1941 said:

Shiloh is easier in MG than BG

Can you provide some detail on why Shiloh felt easier on MG than BG?

41 minutes ago, killjoy1941 said:

Artillery runs out of ammo very quickly, even with the logistics boosts. If this is intentional, it would better serve the mod as a soft limit on the number of batteries used.

The only way to limit the amount of batteries used is to limit the availability of cannon, which can be overcome by time and logistics points. Related to this, hard limiting army structure is not something we're interested in forcing on players. The problem with pure balance on ammo is that the player can build up enough money that supply is effectively infinite. We have a few ideas in progress including more supply costs and reducing the speed of heavier artillery. Both of us are rather busy at the moment so it will be a bit before we can release anything new though.

47 minutes ago, killjoy1941 said:

I like that the mod encourages scaling usage, and that it "punishes" players for ignoring it.

The goal is less to encourage scaling usage and more to try and provide equal or greater challenge if you choose to build larger. But if you're having fun using scaling in the mod all the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{Cavalry could probably use a very soft boost. It works as-is, but needs a lot of micro. }

 A lot of micro is putting it mildly...

I am not sure it is possible, but I would like to see the following for cavalry:

1. Road formation as in a column; with less fatigue while in column (Horses will out walk grunts any day). (some sources have estimated civil war cavalry at 4 miles and hour (walk)as an average).

2. Ability to detach "skirmishers" (true scouts); 1-2% of total troop

3. Slightly increased Melee defense against infantry in the open; horses have a great sense of self preservation, if they see you coming and perceive you to be a threat, you will be literally launched. I am not suggesting that CW cavalry was as specifically trained as in Europe.

4. Slightly increased view range in wooded sections; sitting on a horse puts you above the under brush.

5. Reduce the 'self preservation' of cavalry; I put you on that ridge for a reason, I do not need you to move just because you spotted the enemy.

 

Overall, the Rebalance Mod is great. Just held the farm at Chancellorsville on the first day as the Union, II Corp of 30k held outnumbered 3 to 1 against a strong CSA attack (lots of CSA 3k Brigades) to the left middle and left flank of my lines. Survived by pulling every other brigade from the right flank area, and sending them to the far left flank as the CSA tried to enfilade that flank.

Thanks J & P for your hard work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BCH said:

Road formation as in a column; with less fatigue while in column (Horses will out walk grunts any day). (some sources have estimated civil war cavalry at 4 miles and hour (walk)as an average).

Cavalry do use the road column movement, though it's less noticeable than infantry. We did used to have cavalry speed higher, but with the size of the maps it results in them being everywhere at once and barely losing condition to do it. I agree that cavalry can probably stand to get some slight buffs at the 0 and 1 star level.

21 minutes ago, BCH said:

Ability to detach "skirmishers" (true scouts); 1-2% of total troop

While I think it's technically possible, it is a large amount of work. The detached skirmishers have their own unit type. While this could be changed to a cavalry type there is a lot of UI support that needs to be added to make them work correctly. Enabling a cavalry model to be able to detach would also require a significant amount of back end work.

27 minutes ago, BCH said:

Slightly increased Melee defense against infantry in the open; horses have a great sense of self preservation, if they see you coming and perceive you to be a threat, you will be literally launched. I am not suggesting that CW cavalry was as specifically trained as in Europe.

 

27 minutes ago, BCH said:

Reduce the 'self preservation' of cavalry; I put you on that ridge for a reason, I do not need you to move just because you spotted the enemy.

These seem somewhat contradictory. To answer both options, unit specific defense mechanics don't really exist in the game so we would probably prefer other routs to balancing infantry vs cavalry. The skirmisher/cavalry retreat logic is somewhat tied to the units effective and spotting ranges. I've played around with it a bit, but the system is complex enough that the only noticeable results I've gotten are units flee from everything or never run from anything.

Glad you're having fun with the mod :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game already has troops marching in column when moving over large distances and it consumes less Condition - it's an automatic feature.

The ability to detach skirmishers used around 10% of the mother brigade in vanilla.  However that was removed in this mod because you could abuse the feature far, far too much.

Cavalry is actually very ineffective against other brigades in melee.  In melee they're only useful for chasing down already Routed units.

I think Cavalry already have some slight spotting bonuses over other units.  In any case, you can pick up more spotting at a Vet 2 perk.

Would probably be a good idea.  Whatever changes were made to Skirmishers were good in regards to the skirmishing behavior that they share with Cavalry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{Cavalry is actually very ineffective against other brigades in melee.}

Most likely depends upon the time period.. here is a quote from a French Officer who ran afoul of the Scots Greys at Waterloo

Colonel Duthilt, leading a regiment in Marcognet's Division wrote this: 'Just as I was pushing one of my men back into the ranks I saw him fall at my feet from a sabre slash. I turned round instantly to see English cavalry forcing their way into our midst and hacking us to pieces. Just as it is difficult, if not impossible, for the best cavalry to break into infantry who are formed into squares and who defend themselves with coolness and daring, so it is true that once the ranks have been penetrated, then resistance is useless and nothing remains for the cavalry to do but to slaughter at almost no risk to themselves....And so we found ourselves defenceless against a relentless enemy who, in the intoxication of battle, sabred even our drummers and fifers without mercy.'

of course the subsequent attack on French guns, while successful in that they took the guns, resulted in their horses and riders being too exhausted to extricate themselves and required aid from light cavalry.. anyway I digress

 

{The skirmisher/cavalry retreat logic is somewhat tied to the units effective and spotting ranges. I've played around with it a bit, but the system is complex enough that the only noticeable results I've gotten are units flee from everything or never run from anything. }

That accounts for cavalry's actions if it is tied to effective and spotting range. I did note last night during day 1 of Chancellorsville, that Melee cavalry can dismount; has that always been a feature or is it part of the mod?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BCH said:

That accounts for cavalry's actions if it is tied to effective and spotting range. I did note last night during day 1 of Chancellorsville, that Melee cavalry can dismount; has that always been a feature or is it part of the mod?

That isn't a change that we made deliberately in the mod, what weapon were the cavalry equipped with?

Edited by pandakraut

Share this post


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

That isn't a change that we made deliberately in the mod, what weapon were the cavalry equipped with?

Standard Palmetto M1842 Pistol and Sabre

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the Palmettos and the Sawed-offs allow you to dismount. I didn't think either allowed you to in the base game, but I also can't recall checking. This isn't something that I'm aware of us changing deliberately, but maybe Jonny knows more about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Union MG with no points in economy or politics until maxing 2 other options is incredibly hard. Recommend it for anyone who finds the game too easy. I find the Union much harder to play vs the Confederates. I don't know if it is historic, but the union troops at max training have worse firepower (shooting) than the CSA at max training. Firepower is pretty easy to get in game as it is. You guys might want to consider swapping the two since for some reason I'm under the impression the union were better marksman. CSA can have better everything else.
____
Would it be possible for you guys to increase the maximum path draw range in game? The one where you draw a path for a unit on map? It's very annoying to have to do multiple draws following a road in game multiple times for your entire army when you go around the long way to flank.
____
I'm a bit confused over why some of the skirmisher guns exist when they can use infantry guns which seem better, or sniper guns or rapid fire guns.
 

Edited by limith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll check if the draw length is moddable when I'm back from vacation. 

For skirmishers weapons the answer is part providing variance and part that cavalry can use carbines as well and that limits how good they can be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2018 at 8:21 PM, pandakraut said:

Can you provide some detail on why Shiloh felt easier on MG than BG?

Two-star brigades tend to waver longer before breaking when the damage taken per volley isn't sufficient to push them into rout, so it's easier on MG because you can get in two to three times the damage a one-star or rookie brigade will take before it runs. All the while they're not shooting or charging you, so it's much easier. It's a confluence of inexperienced player brigades, lower quality weapons, and AI brigade veterancy. The AI also went straight for my skirmishers on MG, something I had to tease it into doing on BG. No idea why that would be the case, but it was.

The only way to limit the amount of batteries used is to limit the availability of cannon, which can be overcome by time and logistics points. Related to this, hard limiting army structure is not something we're interested in forcing on players. The problem with pure balance on ammo is that the player can build up enough money that supply is effectively infinite. We have a few ideas in progress including more supply costs and reducing the speed of heavier artillery. Both of us are rather busy at the moment so it will be a bit before we can release anything new though.

Even with maximum Logistics, batteries can very quickly run out of ammo if you're not careful. It absolutely enforces a degree of fire discipline more common to vanilla, which provides a bit of a soft cap on the number of batteries you can take and still continuously be effective. Players who don't use the horse artillery perk will likely be much less aware of this since their guns will be firing far less often, but it should still be a thing with 10-12 batteries per corps.

The goal is less to encourage scaling usage and more to try and provide equal or greater challenge if you choose to build larger. But if you're having fun using scaling in the mod all the better.

I meant more that the player can simply start increasing the size of their brigades if they're no longer being challenged. I generally run with 1,200-man brigades, but increased their size to 1,500 after Antietam, 1,800 after Fredericksburg, and 2,100 after Gettysburg. Chickamauga was a 190,000-man battle, with 100,000 of that being Confederate. It works for every battle series in the campaign and only borks the battles without player units, but we already know those need attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, killjoy1941 said:

Players who don't use the horse artillery perk will likely be much less aware of this since their guns will be firing far less often, but it should still be a thing with 10-12 batteries per corps.

I don't use Horse Artillery, but I definitely notice that ammunition for artillery is pretty scarce.  Fire discipline is a thing, yeah.

I've run 2k brigades for nearly my whole time playing the game, albeit with a short dip down to 1,500 as payment for winning at Gaines' Mill - boy did I get a pasting from the dozens of 3k rebel brigades.  Not by choice of scaling, but because I'm most comfortable with that brigade size - good firepower and reasonable mobility.

Share this post


Link to post
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

×