User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:02 pm

briny_norman wrote:On the disappearing generals: I had a feeling it was a feature of some sort, but having two of my best generals disappear on the same turn was brutal...!
So maybe it should be tuned down...

Would it be correct to assume that changing the Probability value for the event "evt_nam_USA_SHERMAN_notretained" from 2 to 1 would half the chance of Sherman going away? (in the USA Events.sct file, of course)

And likewise, changing the Probability value in event "evt_nam_USA_Shermanreturns" to 100 would make him reappear in the next turn?

Or is it more complex than that?


no :sourcil:
[LEFT]Disabled
[CENTER][LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/

[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]



[/LEFT]

bk6583
Lieutenant
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:16 pm

Problems Problems

Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:16 am

Hi Clovis,

Somewhere you posted your private email address but I couldn't remember where. First, I've got disappearing Union generals too - for me it's Grant. Second, even though from the start I set the CSA AI to low aggression with no bonuses whatsoever, I've got CSA forces all over the place. A force made a try for Pittsburg, Evansville (now headed for Chicago), and Longstreet, Jackson, and P.T. did an end run and attacked Washington. I really wanted to enjoy this mod but my own stupidity aside initially loading it, I'm really baffled by all of this "wierdness".

Regards,

Bob
Attachments
UNION 1861 Mod.rar
(1.65 MiB) Downloaded 291 times

[The extension txt has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]


User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:47 pm

bk6583 wrote:Hi Clovis,

Somewhere you posted your private email address but I couldn't remember where. First, I've got disappearing Union generals too - for me it's Grant. Second, even though from the start I set the CSA AI to low aggression with no bonuses whatsoever, I've got CSA forces all over the place. A force made a try for Pittsburg, Evansville (now headed for Chicago), and Longstreet, Jackson, and P.T. did an end run and attacked Washington. I really wanted to enjoy this mod but my own stupidity aside initially loading it, I'm really baffled by all of this "wierdness".

Regards,

Bob


Disappearing generals: implemented this feature as a workaround for the impossibility to get death for 3 stars generals. Now, all canreturn to the game. I will definitly look about chance percentages.



AI behaviour: the new AI created for the 1;10d patch is a whole new beast. Its aggressivity isn't anymore tied to a low fog of war level. You're using the old preconized settings: the new ones are normal aggressiveness and 2 or 3 fog of war bonus.

I toned down in the current version the raid behaviour to avopid as most as possible long range raids. You have to keep a real guard on the Ohio and Tennessee rivers to prohibit crossing by CSA too.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Injun
Lieutenant
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 1:52 am
Location: Orangre Park, Florida

Which version to use?

Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:23 pm

Gray_Lensman wrote:He might not have 1.0... I've heard that later releases are coming out with later versions. In this case I suggest using whatever version initially bought as the base to patch from (skipping interim patches).


Gray,
The DVD version I have is 1.07h. The first page says this mod is for version 1.10. There four patches that made 1.10, 1.10a, 1.10b, or 1.10c and the last 1.10d. Which 1.10 patch is this mod compatable with?

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:24 pm

Injun wrote:Gray,
The DVD version I have is 1.07h. The first page says this mod is for version 1.10. There four patches that made 1.10, 1.10a, 1.10b, or 1.10c and the last 1.10d. Which 1.10 patch is this mod compatable with?


1.10d.Inclusive patch integrating all patches since 1.01
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Injun
Lieutenant
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 1:52 am
Location: Orangre Park, Florida

installed mod with 1.10c

Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:58 am

Clovis wrote:1.10d.Inclusive patch integrating all patches since 1.01


Clovis,
I updated to 1.10c. Loaded your mod as instructions. Had errors and crashed back. I attached log.
Attachments

[The extension txt has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]


User avatar
Injun
Lieutenant
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 1:52 am
Location: Orangre Park, Florida

installed 1.10d crash

Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:23 am

Clovis,
Deleted and did a clean install, patched to 1.10d. Installed your mod as per instructions. Started game, error message, clicked yes on the message. game loaded to main menue screen and then crashed to desktop.
I have attached the log.
Attachments

[The extension txt has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]


veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:55 am

i don't know if it's me but quite a few generals don't have their portrait and leave a blank (walker, cown, Withers...)

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:33 pm

strange things happening in may game : Units move by river for free, without even selecting the option, ships try to travel by land... I don't know if it's me or my install or if 1.10d + struggle doesn't propery... bizarre...

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:08 pm

veji1 wrote:strange things happening in may game : Units move by river for free, without even selecting the option, ships try to travel by land... I don't know if it's me or my install or if 1.10d + struggle doesn't propery... bizarre...


I noticed it too for the first since the 1.10a. I'm yet searching why. On the contrary, it remains marginal to be a real nuisance. About ship, can you give me some examples
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:09 pm

veji1 wrote:i don't know if it's me but quite a few generals don't have their portrait and leave a blank (walker, cown, Withers...)


I've yet to fully integrate the leader portrait mod.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:13 pm

veji1 wrote:strange things happening in may game : ships try to travel by land... I don't know if it's me or my install or if 1.10d + struggle doesn't propery... bizarre...


Would this similar to this problem noticed here in Wars IN America http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=9596 ?
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm

maybe, but the problem is also that land units travel for free on river without you even asking it.. very bizarre

bk6583
Lieutenant
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:16 pm

Thank You

Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:25 pm

Clovis wrote:Disappearing generals: implemented this feature as a workaround for the impossibility to get death for 3 stars generals. Now, all canreturn to the game. I will definitly look about chance percentages.



AI behaviour: the new AI created for the 1;10d patch is a whole new beast. Its aggressivity isn't anymore tied to a low fog of war level. You're using the old preconized settings: the new ones are normal aggressiveness and 2 or 3 fog of war bonus.

I toned down in the current version the raid behaviour to avopid as most as possible long range raids. You have to keep a real guard on the Ohio and Tennessee rivers to prohibit crossing by CSA too.


Clovis,

Been out of town so I'm just now reading this. Appreciate your prompt responses and patience. Glad to see it's WAD and my fault for not following your AI settings recommendations. I do however offer one recommendation - if my Union 3 stars are going to be temporarily removed from the game can you have some sort of message generated like, "Grant has been forced to leave command due to illness, injury, or whatever"?

Regards,

Bob

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:12 pm

bk6583 wrote:Clovis,

Been out of town so I'm just now reading this. Appreciate your prompt responses and patience. Glad to see it's WAD and my fault for not following your AI settings recommendations. I do however offer one recommendation - if my Union 3 stars are going to be temporarily removed from the game can you have some sort of message generated like, "Grant has been forced to leave command due to illness, injury, or whatever"?

Regards,

Bob


Normally, such a string should appear. For Grant, I just fixed the event commanding his return after removal as for inadvertance I made some restrictions lowering by high merging its probability to fire.

And what about the other features? :siffle:
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:13 pm

veji1 wrote:maybe, but the problem is also that land units travel for free on river without you even asking it.. very bizarre


I'm looking for the cause. Could you post or send me a screen capture?
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

bk6583
Lieutenant
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:16 pm

Will Generals Return?

Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:13 am

Disappearing generals: implemented this feature as a workaround for the impossibility to get death for 3 stars generals. Now, all can return to the game. I will definitly look about chance percentages.


Hi Clovis,

I was none too impressed with this feature when Grant was taken out after about three turns. However, unless I'm misinterpreting your comment above, I was at least encouraged that he'd return to the game. Well I'm now in Jun 62 and no Grant. He is coming back isn't he? If no, any way to bring him back? I don't want to start over once again but I certainly don't want to continue if I'm without the best general on the Union side for the rest of my current game.

User avatar
GShock
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:30 pm

Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:51 pm

Provided removal and comeback are both visible in the log, the solution stands, but in case you want to consider illness as reason for death coupled with inability to really kill 3*** generals, the comeback date of 2125 seems good enough to me as an alternate solution :)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
We ain't going down!

bk6583
Lieutenant
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:16 pm

Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:45 pm

GShock wrote:Provided removal and comeback are both visible in the log, the solution stands, but in case you want to consider illness as reason for death coupled with inability to really kill 3*** generals, the comeback date of 2125 seems good enough to me as an alternate solution :)


Well now that I've experienced 3-Star immortality with the vanilla AACW and 3-Star mortality with Clovis' mod, I confess I prefer the immortality version. Failing that, then I would certainly prefer some mechanism where the odds of generals dying in the game who actually died in battle like Johnston, Jackson, and Lyon, to name a few, are dramatically increased in the code; while those that survived like Lee, Grant, and Sherman, are dramatically reduced. Right now, as you know, playing a serious two-theater campaign starting in 1861 takes a lot of thought and time and to lose a Grant or Lee to me is just a moral game breaker. Which log can I check to see if Grant is coming back and if he isn't, how can I get my #$@! general back??

User avatar
GShock
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:30 pm

Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:28 pm

U don't lose the war if you lose a general even if you lose Grant or Lee (i play small randomization so it's not a a perfect statement), but surely i have for example never been able to promote a 2** to 3*** due to lack of experience on the field.

If you lose a 3*** but can promote a 2** to three, then it's perfectly doable, the problem is that we all tend to fight always with the same generals but if you lose the top head, there's a chance to have more top-heads in replacement and, like in my case with randomization, even a better one than the one u lose.

I evidently like more Clovis' system than the vanilla one, and for the 1048230th time i pray one day there will only be Clovis' system :)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

We ain't going down!

bk6583
Lieutenant
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:16 pm

Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:16 pm

GShock wrote:U don't lose the war if you lose a general even if you lose Grant or Lee (i play small randomization so it's not a a perfect statement), but surely i have for example never been able to promote a 2** to 3*** due to lack of experience on the field.

If you lose a 3*** but can promote a 2** to three, then it's perfectly doable, the problem is that we all tend to fight always with the same generals but if you lose the top head, there's a chance to have more top-heads in replacement and, like in my case with randomization, even a better one than the one u lose.

I evidently like more Clovis' system than the vanilla one, and for the 1048230th time i pray one day there will only be Clovis' system :)


Your logic above is very persuasive and strong. That said, can you answer my basic question: Is it possible to go into one of Clovis's Struggle files and bring Grant back?

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:25 pm

GShock wrote:I evidently like more Clovis' system than the vanilla one, and for the 1048230th time i pray one day there will only be Clovis' system :)


deleted

User avatar
GShock
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:30 pm

Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:27 pm

Gray_Lensman wrote:And for the 10482330 time, you'll have to ask Clovis' to accomodate the requirements for "officialization".


I have...every now and then i poke him with these subliminal messages :)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

We ain't going down!

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:08 pm

bk6583 wrote:Your logic above is very persuasive and strong. That said, can you answer my basic question: Is it possible to go into one of Clovis's Struggle files and bring Grant back?



As I said before, there was a bug for Grant in the event almost prohibiting his return.

Now, as a game philosophy, I'm biaised toward a game system where Grant's presence isn't sure. Historically, he almost resigned after Shiloh...

But , considering how much this feature is controversial, I will put in the next SVF iteration 2 versions of the April 61 scenario, one with the option, the other without.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:38 pm

GShock wrote:I have...every now and then i poke him with these subliminal messages :)


I would...but:

- I remain convinced some of my features aren't for casual gamers. Too "grognard" for part of AGEOD buyers...After all, part of the hype about WIA is tied to its simplicity compared to AACW. SVF isn't my first mod or scenario attempt. What's changed is my philosophy. Before, I was convinced the vanilla absolutely needed some of the features I changed to be fully enjoyable...I'm now really more convinced my work is just designed for the crazy minority really interested and educated in history, whose dream is to get the game as much as possible close to history. In a certain way, I'm convinced AGEOD must walk on these 2 legs: the basis for all, the modding tools for the grognards.

In this sense, even if commercially AACW is close to death after more than one year on the virtual shelves of Internet, I humbly suggest to think twice before making vanilla maybe a little too much spicey for the casual gamers via patches...

- secondly, a mod isn't only a collection of changes. Mod is a whole new thing and partial adaptation can be a failure, notably in regards of AI. By example, reducing WSU without consideration to unit prices could weaken AI to the point the game would lose interest.

Of course, here and there ( Kentuckty events, Potomac gunboats) some details can be adapted to vanilla without side effects...

- but here comes into light the time problem. I understand perfectly the more I tweak in my fashion, the more I will need time to do the conversion to the CSV way. But that's largely irrelevant. One, because when the idea popped up, SVF was yet largely entamed and the conversion process would have certainly sio slowed the mod progression it would today be maybe defunct. To be clar, I've a job very time consuming, a wife and a child and from time to time, I'm almost amazed to have had the obstination to keep the mod alive. Some are saying SVF to be the best mod; in a certain way it's more surely the lone modifying the gameplay to be really alive and regularly updated. I intend to achieve it, I will, but as any strategist, I had to make a choice by choosing the conservative option: whatever the quality of the road chosen, once in the travel, the best is to go ahead and not going back to try a better way.

- large parts of the conversion process can be made by anyone. By example, model and units changes are easily readable and retroffitted in CSV files for whose have the time needed to wite around 2,000 lines. In a perfect world, I would do that ( with some coffee :siffle :) because I would have my mod as job. But not only I'm positively in love with my job, it gives me confortable wages which were invested in Ageod games, Civil War books.

I really don't need money to make a conversion of my mod. I need time. I don't have time, except here and there to do some partial conversions ( I'm really proud of the KY events, in a certain sense I'm almost in my not so humble conviction believing to be one the brightest uses of the AGEOD scripting language).

But, scripted in the wrong or the right way, SVF is alive and playable. I simplified with help of others the installation process. Keeping the mod alive and achieving it is my highest priority and I don't plan to relinquish it.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

Widell
Conscript
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:06 pm

Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:36 pm

Clovis wrote:Now, as a game philosophy, I'm biaised toward a game system where Grant's presence isn't sure. Historically, he almost resigned after Shiloh...

But , considering how much this feature is controversial, I will put in the next SVF iteration 2 versions of the April 61 scenario, one with the option, the other without.


Now that's a superb answer! I myself prefer the uncertainty before the complete historical accuracy, but Clovis resolution fix the issue without moving to an endless, and rather pointless most likely, discussion about which would be "the best" approach. Good thinking!

And to "the other point" which we should mention too much :sourcil: Clovis, again gives us the explanation, and as usual it's a very understandable one. For myself, I see no major issue in separating the mod from vanilla by separate installations. It's very common in the more "open" games. I also see some very positive spin offs, which Clovis and others also mention, which are the things that eventually gets implemented in Vanilla without major changes to the intention and ideas behind it.

So, good job Clovis, and good job AGEOD. Keep it up, and at least I will be a happy camper for a long time to come.

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:59 am

Clovis wrote:I remain convinced some of my features aren't for casual gamers. Too "grognard" for part of AGEOD buyers...After all, part of the hype about WIA is tied to its simplicity compared to AACW. SVF isn't my first mod or scenario attempt. What's changed is my philosophy. Before, I was convinced the vanilla absolutely needed some of the features I changed to be fully enjoyable...I'm now really more convinced my work is just designed for the crazy minority really interested and educated in history, whose dream is to get the game as much as possible close to history. In a certain way, I'm convinced AGEOD must walk on these 2 legs: the basis for all, the modding tools for the grognards.

Speaking as a grognard: I hesitate (truly!) to bring this up, but would it be possible for you to spell out in detail, else summarize, exactly what modding changes you've made in SVF to make battle losses historical?
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

User avatar
GShock
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:30 pm

Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:16 am

Before i forget: Have u considered the possibility, when a general is killed or dies from illness, to add:

1) Capture of a low ranking general (and eventual exchange with prisoners).

2) death of *** generals affecting NM.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As of your massive answer i have one question: If AgeOD's team submitted a poll to the community and the results were in favour of vanillization of your mod, the team would certainly supply you with all the tools for conversion and this also means they would work on adapting AI to the SVF concepts.
What would you do about it?

You probably don't know but it's only because of the difference in methods of scripting and file handling that AgeOD has had problems with understanding and employing it, Clovis...essentially, they would have already done it. And you bet ... we ALL want it...as the poll would show. ;)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

We ain't going down!

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:32 pm

berto wrote:Speaking as a grognard: I hesitate (truly!) to bring this up, but would it be possible for you to spell out in detail, else summarize, exactly what modding changes you've made in SVF to make battle losses historical?


Take a look to:

- models files, with cohesion levels lower than in vanilla, large changes to off and def values for artillery
- combat option file in the setting folder.

You should then by comparing with vanilla files get an idea of the necessary changes. Feel free to adapt them to vanilla..
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:40 pm

GShock wrote:Before i forget: Have u considered the possibility, when a general is killed or dies from illness, to add:

1) Capture of a low ranking general (and eventual exchange with prisoners).

2) death of *** generals affecting NM.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As of your massive answer i have one question: If AgeOD's team submitted a poll to the community and the results were in favour of vanillization of your mod, the team would certainly supply you with all the tools for conversion and this also means they would work on adapting AI to the SVF concepts.
What would you do about it?

You probably don't know but it's only because of the difference in methods of scripting and file handling that AgeOD has had problems with understanding and employing it, Clovis...essentially, they would have already done it. And you bet ... we ALL want it...as the poll would show. ;)


1) good idea

2) possible. Now I wonder if historically such losses had really impact on NM, which is the summarization of Nation resilience. I agree Lee's death would have certainly created a blow to South. It's more debatable for Grant, as part of public opinion saw in him during the 1864 struggle a butcher...Feel free to argument.

3) Dunno if ALL want :sourcil: . And AGEOD has much more important things to do in order to survive before working about conversion tool for a mod on a game whose the largest part of sells has already be made. I'm the first to agree a real editor for the AGE engine will have to be coded in the future, but I know it's more for now a luxury than a real need.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

Return to “AACW Mods”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests