Latest topics
» Apr 25 & 26 Scheduled Game Sign-up
by Martin Today at 8:27 pm

» Whatever happened to the old KS Pages?
by Martin Today at 8:26 pm

» June 15 2014 face to face game at Little Gaddesdon
by gunboat diplomat Yesterday at 12:47 pm

» Regular SOW MP games this Friday & Saturday
by Mr. Digby Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:01 pm

» Turn Count Down - Or why are we waiting!
by MJ1 Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:01 pm

» Turn 9 - 8th Feb Media Reports
by MJ1 Sun Apr 20, 2014 4:54 pm

» Proposal for Kriegsspiel Carryover Scenarios
by Calpurnius Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:32 pm

» KS at Orccon 2014
by Martin Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:35 pm

» Sunday 18th May k/spiel - 1644 ECW campaign
by Martin Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:07 pm

» KS Napoleonic with Portraits
by Grog Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:26 pm

» Regular MP Scourge of War games on Fri 11th and Sat 12th April
by Leffe7 Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:48 pm

» Set Up for SOW NAPOLEON GAMES For Kriegspiel style
by Uncle Billy Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:07 pm

Statistics
We have 237 registered users
The newest registered user is Ossel

Our users have posted a total of 9169 messages in 1020 subjects
Log in

I forgot my password


Mini-map Objectives

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Mini-map Objectives

Post  CoB4thTEXAS on Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:14 am

This little mod makes the objectives on mini-map stay the same no matter who is occupying them.

Plus two other files, Rifles sets rifle ranges to 250 yards, the other battledef adjust the morale hit to incomming fire, and makes units act more realistic. These files are turned off by default, to turn on remove the "X" at the end of the file name.

Please let me know what you think.

mediafire.com mediafire.com/?qbitk62lqqbt8qs


P.S. Just noticed that I need to find a new file hosting site, just click the skip ad button upper right Evil or Very Mad

CoB4thTEXAS

Posts: 19
Join date: 2011-12-15
Age: 59
Location: TEXAS

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Mr. Digby on Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:35 pm

Thanks for this John.

As a game function, I like to see the objective graphic indicating which side controls it, you need this information in-game. I just don't like the big floating silver shields in the sky - we would need NorbSoft to do quite a bit of work to remove those and make the objective graphic something else - I suggested a fixed supply wagon whose flag changes by ownership. This would be much better graphically and still be a useful game function.

What was your reasoning to increase rifle range? The GCM mod sets it to 220 yards with canister at 200 yards. I think a game balance needs to be struck between these two weapons. Note that 'game balance' need not agree fully with history or reality, due to other factors in the game.

Can you please explain more about the morale hit for incoming fire? This sounds like something that could indeed be more realistic since I'm a firm believer that most charges didn't result in hand-to-hand fighting, one side or the other falling back. How much of a morale hit have to added on?

Mr. Digby

Posts: 1296
Join date: 2012-02-14
Age: 54
Location: UK Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  CoB4thTEXAS on Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:27 pm

Some were wanting the objectives to not give away the enemys location, if its used or not does not matter to me, it was an easy mod to do.The “Flying Shield Objectives” can be lowered or even put on the ground very easily also.

My reasoning behind 250 yards rifle range is by the time of Gettysburg, and on a field such as Gettysburg, they started firing at that range if they had line of sight and even at longer ranges that 250 yards. Frankly these ranges change the game play very little, as terrain often dictates these ranges anyways.

Increased the values in this file for enemy fire coming from front from 100 to 200, from flank from 110 to 1000, and from rear from 105 to 1200. This makes units in a bad situation retreat and then re-form, and it seems more realistic. I have played the using this file for along time and enjoyed the way units act very much, there's a lot fewer units standing and being shot down until they rout.

I put these on here so people could try them, that’s all, and hopefully people will like and can go in the KS mod.

CoB4thTEXAS

Posts: 19
Join date: 2011-12-15
Age: 59
Location: TEXAS

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Mr. Digby on Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:29 pm

Well if the shields can be buried in the ground so only a part shows (so not above treetop height for example) that would be great. I do personally think who controls it is vital information though.

If you are going to make rifle range longer you need to bring canister range out to match - say 225 yards. Just my view - I think the two should be nearly the same with maybe a slight edge to the rifle. That's for gameplay purposes, not about realism. But just increasing weapon ranges only really reduces the chances to manouver - so do we want to do that to the game?

I like the 'threat range' idea but your 1000 yard ranges seem far too great. Artillery fire is what that is covering and I personally do not think artillery would have that kind of effect on a unit's morale from that far. I probably wouldn't change the effect from the front at all, 100 yards seems plenty far enough. From the flank and rear it could go out to 200 in both cases, or whatever max musket range is, but not so far that you can morale-hurt a target with artillery 1000 yards away, that doesn't seem right.

If you have these changes in your game and you are an MP host, then everyone has them is my understanding, so I'd be careful about what you change in the game.

Mr. Digby

Posts: 1296
Join date: 2012-02-14
Age: 54
Location: UK Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Uncle Billy on Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:32 pm

Mr. Digby wrote:
I like the 'threat range' idea but your 1000 yard ranges seem far too great. Artillery fire is what that is covering and I personally do not think artillery would have that kind of effect on a unit's morale from that far.
The numbers, 1000 & 1200 that CO B discussed, are not yards, but a coefficient that goes into an algorithm that determines the morale of a unit. With the stock game, there was almost no difference if the unit was fired on by another from the front or rear. With these new values, a regiment will break very quickly if it receives fire from the flank or rear. This is very realistic.

As for canister ranges, I personally use a range of 300 yd and double the number of balls in the charge to make up for the neutering canister received in the 1.35 patch. I leave the rifle range at 160 yd. These changes have two effects: 1. The arty begins using canister at a greater distance which results in fewer infantry casualties since the dispersion of the balls vs range is accounted for. 2. Two or more infantry regiments are required to drive off or destroy a supported battery. An unsupported battery can still be driven off by a lone regiment. I'm not sure of the accuracy of this last result. The overall effect is that attacking a battery is costly, but not to the point of wrecking an entire brigade. It's an attack that the commander need well consider before committing his troops. What will be expected of the brigade after the battery is driven off. It will be weakened but not crippled.

Uncle Billy

Posts: 818
Join date: 2012-02-27
Location: western Colorado

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Martin on Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:58 am

"The numbers, 1000 & 1200 that CO B discussed, are not yards, but a coefficient that goes into an algorithm that determines the morale of a unit. With the stock game, there was almost no difference if the unit was fired on by another from the front or rear. With these new values, a regiment will break very quickly if it receives fire from the flank or rear. This is very realistic."

I agree. The recent detailed map-based accounts of Gettysburg & Chickamauga (by Bradley Gottfried and Dave Powell), make it clear that flanked units were normally very quick to retreat. Sometimes in the stock game they stand and duke it out for quite a while.

Martin

Martin

Posts: 1351
Join date: 2008-12-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Mr. Digby on Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:01 pm

I stand corrected then, thanks MTG for pointing out my misunderstanding of the numbers given.

Having just re-read Paddy Griffith's fascinating book on ACW tactics and doctrine, "Rally Once Again," (Crowood Press, 1989, ISBN 1 85223 222 6) I too am convinced that units should break sooner, retire but reform again and remain pretty robust for longer.

I'd also prefer to see fire fights last longer but be a lot less bloody and for troops that retire to be able to reform and return to the action and for that final break and rout to come after only some exceptional shock to the units cohesion or morale.

Mr. Digby

Posts: 1296
Join date: 2012-02-14
Age: 54
Location: UK Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Martin on Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:23 pm

Yes, that all seems pretty much spot-on to me.

Martin

Martin

Posts: 1351
Join date: 2008-12-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Blaugrana on Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:25 pm

These sound like good adjustments to the stock game - I too like the idea of less bloody battles, as described above.

One thing I read about is troops being pinned down, going to ground, unable (or unwilling, I guess) to move forward. I don't think this is mirrored in the game.

Once we've got a stable MP game (fingers crossed this beta is it) I look forward to some discussion / playing around with mods such as these.

Blaugrana

Posts: 293
Join date: 2012-01-21
Location: London

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Martin on Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:03 pm

It would be good if we could end-up with a historical realism mod (perhaps call it a 'kriegsspiel' mod?), which we could then offer to anyone on the Norbsoft forum, whether or not they want to play MP.

I wonder if we could all agree what would be in it though?

Martin

Martin

Posts: 1351
Join date: 2008-12-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Uncle Billy on Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:53 pm

Martin wrote:
I wonder if we could all agree what would be in it though?
That is the inevitable problem. For instance, I created a mod that makes arty damage beyond canister range more historically accurate, (read effective). However, I doubt anybody uses it since many think the stock version is already too powerful. Though I'm sure there are some changes that all will embrace or at least tolerate.

Uncle Billy

Posts: 818
Join date: 2012-02-27
Location: western Colorado

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Mr. Digby on Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:10 pm

One realism mod I am sure many would agree on is that charges should hardly ever end in melees, but in the attacker either stalling and going to ground (*) or the defender fleeing. The bayonet was a weapon that instilled into one's opponent the fear of having it stuck into him, it was not a weapon to actually stick into him.

(*) Yes, how would we represent this? We'd need units to form a ragged line, be granted a small cover bonus but be unable to move, something like when they're rallying.

Kevin, I'd be interested in looking at your artillery mod. My knowledge of the games problem with artillery effectiveness comes from hearing Garnier talk about it in his GCM. He says that you can only adjust the effectiveness of ALL artillery rounds the same amount, but right now since roundshot is far too effective in relation to the other ammunition types, if you make shrapnel more effective, roundshot becomes super-effective and so it still only makes sense to use roundshot. In fact if you increase the effectiveness of shrapnel to what might be historical levels you'd have to ban players in MP from using roundshot because it would be much too lethal.

Likewise I think we need to seek gameplay balance when modding a game rather than go wholly for what we perceive to be historical accuracy since if you give artillery canister a range much in excess of musketry, you'll get players parking their batteries just behind their infantry and blowing holes in the enemy lines with impunity because the game has some unfortunate broken functions such as not modelling friendly fire and all casualties falling on the nearest target and none on units behind them.

The game has some grave weaknesses right now and adjsuting things purely on a historical acuracy basis will introduce unwanted effects, so we must tread carefully.

I think we need a thread called "Kriegspiel Mod Discussion" too. tongue

Mr. Digby

Posts: 1296
Join date: 2012-02-14
Age: 54
Location: UK Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  WSH Baylor on Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:14 pm

[quote="Blaugrana"]One thing I read about is troops being pinned down, going to ground, unable (or unwilling, I guess) to move forward. I don't think this is mirrored in the game.

This is one of the things that probably could not be agreed upon. John (Co. B) and I discussed this just this morning and could only think of one or two instances when they went "to ground" while advancing under fire, most notably at Fredricksburg.

I concur with Kevin regarding cannister fire (Kevin, will you share your mod?). It is not properly reflected in the game nor is flank or rear fire...they are completely "too soft."

Jack
aka WSH Baylor, Kerflumoxed.

WSH Baylor

Posts: 77
Join date: 2012-02-24
Age: 72

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Uncle Billy on Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:52 pm

Mr. Digby wrote:
My knowledge of the games problem with artillery effectiveness comes from hearing Garnier talk about it in his GCM. He says that you can only adjust the effectiveness of ALL artillery rounds the same amount, but right now since roundshot is far too effective in relation to the other ammunition types, if you make shrapnel more effective, roundshot becomes super-effective and so it still only makes sense to use roundshot.
That is not true. Each type of round can be independently adjusted. I also don't agree that the stock solid shot is too powerful. I think it is just right. Historically, artillery contributed ~30% of the casualties in an average battle. The stock arty does less than that. The problem with Garnier's group is that they don't want their splendid lines marred by that nasty artillery fire. As a result they use it merely as a show piece, not as an important arm of the army. If arty was really so ineffective, why did each army haul around hundreds of them?
Likewise I think we need to seek gameplay balance when modding a game rather than go wholly for what we perceive to be historical accuracy since if you give artillery canister a range much in excess of musketry, you'll get players parking their batteries just behind their infantry and blowing holes in the enemy lines with impunity because the game has some unfortunate broken functions such as not modelling friendly fire and all casualties falling on the nearest target and none on units behind them.
This is very true. Although to be fair, the arty does have to be at a higher elevation that the troops in front, that elevation difference is just not high enough. That was one of the reasons I extended the canister range. The arty will start using it when it is not terribly effective. By the time the enemy infantry closes to a range where it is deadly, (<150 yd.), the arty does not have many rounds left. I know it's counter intuitive, but it actually works out quite well.

WSH Baylor wrote:
(Kevin, will you share your mod?)
Yes, I'd be happy to do so. I can't yet upload anything or post a link to this site , but there is a version of it on the SOW site: page 4 of the Modifications forum, labeled: Improved Artillery Fire and Enfilade Fire Mod.
It doesn't have the extended canister range, but everything else is there. I can upload a new copy of it when I get home this evening. It will have all the current values I am using now.

Uncle Billy

Posts: 818
Join date: 2012-02-27
Location: western Colorado

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Uncle Billy on Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:06 pm

Mr Digby wrote:
The bayonet was a weapon that instilled into one's opponent the fear of having it stuck into him, it was not a weapon to actually stick into him.
This is one of the true shortcomings of the game and one unlikely to change for some inexplicable reason. For now, the only way to stop melees, is to mod the formations so infantry can't charge. Or at least have it so line and march column formations can't charge.

Uncle Billy

Posts: 818
Join date: 2012-02-27
Location: western Colorado

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum