Latest topics
» SOWWL KS----Waterloo Historical Battle---Half Scale---- 1:7 Sprite Ratio
by Mr. Doran Today at 12:43 am

» SOWWL KS----Scaling Down Waterloo Map by 2/3rds
by Mr. Doran Today at 12:07 am

» Army level rules?
by Andy1 Yesterday at 10:00 pm

» Impromptu Games
by Uncle Billy Yesterday at 3:37 pm

» KS mods for SOWW?
by Uncle Billy Yesterday at 3:36 pm

» Just posted part 3 of my DARPA research presentation on tactical AI
by Martin Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:47 pm

» Gore or Glory: A brief ACW, AAR, 22/10/17.
by Martin Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:15 pm

» Set Up for SOWWL NAPOLEON GAMES For Kriegspiel style
by risorgimento59 Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:08 pm

» Trying to Make Scaled Down Waterloo Map
by Didz Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:12 pm

» British OOB and troop ratings
by Didz Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:31 pm

» 2017 k/spiel game schedule
by Martin Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:17 pm

» World War One - AAR
by oldfaithful68 Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:20 am

Statistics
We have 994 registered users
The newest registered user is Andy1

Our users have posted a total of 24216 messages in 1933 subjects
Log in

I forgot my password


Mini-map Objectives

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 ?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
avatar
CoB4thTEXAS

Posts : 19
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 63
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?
avatar
Mr. Digby

Posts : 4912
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 58
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.
avatar
CoB4thTEXAS

Posts : 19
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 63
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.
avatar
Mr. Digby

Posts : 4912
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 58
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.

_________________
I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.
avatar
Uncle Billy

Posts : 2886
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 : 2180
Join date : 2008-12-20
Location : London

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.
avatar
Mr. Digby

Posts : 4912
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 58
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 : 2180
Join date : 2008-12-20
Location : London

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.
avatar
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 : 2180
Join date : 2008-12-20
Location : London

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.

_________________
I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.
avatar
Uncle Billy

Posts : 2886
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
avatar
Mr. Digby

Posts : 4912
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 58
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.
avatar
WSH Baylor

Posts : 141
Join date : 2012-02-24
Age : 75

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.

_________________
I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.
avatar
Uncle Billy

Posts : 2886
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.

_________________
I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.
avatar
Uncle Billy

Posts : 2886
Join date : 2012-02-27
Location : western Colorado

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Uncle Billy on Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:35 am

OK, I have uploaded the Enhanced Artillery and Enhanced Flank Fire Mod onto the SOW forum that allows 300 yd. canister fire.

_________________
I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.
avatar
Uncle Billy

Posts : 2886
Join date : 2012-02-27
Location : western Colorado

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Mr. Digby on Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:08 pm

Uncle Billy wrote: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.
Well, well, that's interesting to hear. If it is possible to modify each ammunition type independently then we should certainly open up the Kriegspiel Mod (KSM?). I think roundshot right now is about correct, but shell and shrapnel need beefing up a small amount, not much, but some. I have gained 200 kills in a 90 minute battle using roundshot from one battery so I do not think the roundshot needs improving, if anything it may need dialling down very, very slightly, but the other ammo types could do with some improving.

I'm not sure about the 30% of all casualties figure. Statistics are so very tricky to pin down and deal with but I do tend to agree that the shell and shrapnel rounds right now are underpowered.

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.
Interesting... I just do not like the idea of us having canister with a 300yd range that sits behind its own infantry blasting holes in an enemy line before the friendly troops. I would suggest keeping canister range the same as musket range despite how unhistorical that is in order that we maintain sensible gameplay. When friendly fire is introduced by NorbSoft then by all means increase canister range somewhat.

As regards melees I don't see any point in preventing certain formations from charging since the autocharge function causes many melees anyway. A toolbar that just didn't have a charge button on it at all would be the best way to go to reduce the amount of melees though as we both know the firepower and morale systems would need a big overhaul to get the game to agree with history.
avatar
Mr. Digby

Posts : 4912
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 58
Location : UK Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Mr. Digby on Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:10 pm

Uncle Billy wrote:OK, I have uploaded the Enhanced Artillery and Enhanced Flank Fire Mod onto the SOW forum that allows 300 yd. canister fire.
Please can we have the advanced flanking and rear fire change without the canister range increase please? That is, two versions? I'm going to argue strongly against the canister range increase for the reasons I've gone over above.
avatar
Mr. Digby

Posts : 4912
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 58
Location : UK Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Uncle Billy on Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:59 pm

Mr. Digby wrote:
Please can we have the advanced flanking and rear fire change without the canister range increase please? That is, two versions? I'm going to argue strongly against the canister range increase for the reasons I've gone over above.
Yes I can send you a version with the range back to 200 yd. But I urge you to try it at least once this way and observe the effects.

With regards to beefing up the explosive rounds, that cannot be accomplished in MP since the munitions.csv cannot be modded. With single play, it is not a problem.

_________________
I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.
avatar
Uncle Billy

Posts : 2886
Join date : 2012-02-27
Location : western Colorado

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  WSH Baylor on Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:26 pm

Mr. Digby wrote:
Uncle Billy wrote:OK, I have uploaded the Enhanced Artillery and Enhanced Flank Fire Mod onto the SOW forum that allows 300 yd. canister fire.
Please can we have the advanced flanking and rear fire change without the canister range increase please? That is, two versions? I'm going to argue strongly against the canister range increase for the reasons I've gone over above.

And, with all due respect to Mr. Digby, I will be arguing FOR the canister range increase! Rather than decrease the range, how about just limiting the number of battery's that are present? Perhaps that might satisfy both sides of the "argument". LOL

Jack
avatar
WSH Baylor

Posts : 141
Join date : 2012-02-24
Age : 75

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Mr. Digby on Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:47 pm

Uncle Billy wrote:With regards to beefing up the explosive rounds, that cannot be accomplished in MP since the munitions.csv cannot be modded. With single play, it is not a problem.
Okay, but it's MP this forum is discussing since this is an MP Kriegspiel group. Let's please lay SP play aside as its irrelevant. So Garnier was correct, the artillery ammo types can't be independently modified for MP?

Yes, we can try an extended canister range and I fully accept all the arguments that it is correct from a historical perspective. But history had friendly fire in it too which our games don't. So I'm always more concerned about balanced gameplay. It needs to work from a gameplay perspective first and foremost or else we are in danger of just making our games less enjoyable and in fact less realistic.

As to fewer batteries Jack - in answer to that I would hold up the historically correct card in return and say no, we should be using the correct historical ratio of guns to men in our OOBs, to juggle one factor in order to fit in another is the wrong approach. I'm sure you can see that.

We are unfortunately stuck with a game that while the best ACW RTS on the market, is still unrealistic in several key areas and we must work around those.

But since we are not going to be introducing any mods into our MP games until we get the courier issue stable, we should for now certainly plan ahead, so please keep the ideas coming.
avatar
Mr. Digby

Posts : 4912
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 58
Location : UK Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: Mini-map Objectives

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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