Fri May 22, 2020 11:18 pm
I am working on a smaller version of my mod that contains only unit defintion and forcepool changes. I need feedback, if you're so inclined.
Issue:
Existing unit definitions are unpopular for some because they are inflexible, are poor historical representations, and other reasons.
Goals:
1. Provide the user with units that allow more flexibility in division creation, without creating an unmanageable mess or a more cumbersome arrangement than the one that already exists.
2. As much as possible, maintain the original force pool for total elements.
3. Don't negatively affect the AI.
Details:
I will attempt to deliver a set of units that are more flexible to use than those that shipped with the original game. I will not change the base elements used to create the units. Costs, combat numbers, VP, police values, etc, will not change. Text descriptions used to describe the units will be updated in some cases, but hopefully only in a way that will make them less generic and add flavor for the player.
Instead of editing the original units, I will add additional versions with a tag that identifies them with the mod. The new units will draw on existing elements. This will allow me to use several of the original units, reducing the amount of work that has to be done.
The reasoning behind some of these changes follows, but if that doesn't interest you, you can skip to the details in the goals or the implementation process and details near the end. A copy of all of this information, especially the instructions, will eventually be included with the mod.
*****
JUSTIFICATION
*****
One of the common complaints of many players is that the brigade compositions are inflexible. I don't need to convince many of you that it could use some improvement.
The largest 9-element brigades can be useful, but only because of the limitations in the game design. If they are part of a division whose leader is KIA, they will still fight as the original combined unit. No unit in the vanilla game requires more than 4 command points (CP), so the 9-element Virginia brigades are like a division with an unkillable general. It's that unbreakable unit function that provides their biggest perk, and in my opinion their only one.
After that it isn't so good. One of those 9-element brigades that was part of an 18-element division is still FUBAR if it ends up leaderless in a stack with some stray infantry brigades and/or regiments. If a 9-element unit loses a single infantry element, and unless you happen to have an infantry element that fits the unit definition, you're tied up in a region replacing it while the other 8 elements mark time. The time to build these 9-element units is punishing considering that the qualifying build locations are on the front line of the war. Even if you somehow miraculously managed to steamroll your way through the DC defensive line and are entrenched all along the Maryland/Pennsylvania border in late 1864, when you recruit that huge Virginia unit for the push into Delaware it'll include a 6-pounder smoothbore. If that 9-elenent brigade was decimated in a battle and left with only the 6-pounder, it's still going to cost 4CP to run a single 6-pounder until the replacements kick in.
In the vanilla game, cavalry or artillery or both are part of many brigades. The unit definitions for these brigades doesn't change, so if you build a 4 inf + 1 cav + 1 art brigade in 1861, it's using the same 6-pounder smoothbore when you build it in 1865. They aren't all that way. Some brigades have 12-pounders, but I can't think of many that have rifled artillery. Granted, the CSA kept using 6-pdrs. The point is you don't have a choice.
Combined arms units are a compromise when it comes to abilities and movement. The sharpshooter battalions in combined units provide a bonus, but they are denied their ability to perform an ambush. Combined units only move as fast as their slowest member, which can be pathetic in some terrain/weather combinations. If only I could have shed that cavalry and artillery, my infantry could have marched to victory ...
CW2 doesn't simulate tactical combat, and as such game strategies often boil down to interrupting or controlling the supply of your opponent. The majority of standard units vary from 3-6 elements, but range from as few as 1 element to as high as 9 elements. The largest brigades present supply challenges. If you're headed into a supply crunch, you can't break these brigades down into smaller chunks and disperse them. Wherever that multi-element brigade goes, it's going to devour supply. That limits your options. Inconvenient. Inflexible. Annoying! It doesn't have to be this way.
*****
DETAILS
*****
1. Provide the user with units that allow more flexibility in division creation, without creating an unmanageable mess or a more cumbersome arrangement than the one that already exists.
It would have been easy enough to count every infantry and cavalry element in the game and present them to the user as individual regiments to recruit. That would provide maximum flexibility in division creation *only*. It would have added larger and more common CP penalties in the event of a division leader death. The stack and recruit panels would have been a mess. If there were no other improvements to the CW2 engine than an ability to create (or disassemble) a leaderless brigade unit, which could then be combined with a leader, or other brigades and a leader, it would be a huge improvement.
Instead of individual regiments, I decided to divvy up infantry, cavalry, and artillery elements. There will be no combined arms brigades in this mod, or exceedingly few of them. Infantry units will contain infantry only, are anywhere from 1-4 elements, and cost 1-3 CP. Cavalry or artillery units will contain only cavalry or artillery elements, respectively, are 1-2 elements and cost 1-2 CP. Cavalry might get some 3-element units.
With this arrangment, the largest unit facing supply challenges is a 4-element, 3CP infantry brigade. If the 4-element brigade is reduced to a single infantry element, it still costs 3CP and is the only unit definition requiring that many. Everything else is 1-2CP. The mod will present many more single element units. With more single element units there are more opportunities for combination, allowing you to fill gaps in units with missing elements rather than waiting on replacements.
With the new unit defintions, any time a combined arms unit is desired a division has to be created. Since more divisions are likely to be created, that represents more potential penalties for rank 1 leaders. To mitigate this, I could lower division costs but that would overpower army and corps stacks. Instead, I change CP provided to rank 1 and rank 2 leaders and change the modifier applied to stacks outside the chain-of-command.
Any standard brigadier should be able to command any standard brigade. That's what they're supposed to be trained for, right? That's another reason I will modify leader CP.
In the original game (henceforth called "vanilla"), commanders outside the chain-of-command (CoC) have their CP halved. Brigadiers who have 4CP inside CoC only have 2CP outside CoC. There are numerous cases where 3-element unit CP costs cause penalties for brigadiers outside CoC.
In the future mod, base CP for a rank 1 leader (brigadier general) is increased to 5CP. Base CP for a rank 2 leader (major general) is *decreased* to 7CP. Instead of a 50% modifier being applied to stacks outside CoC, it's 54%. I believe the modifier is applied to the stack, not the individual element CPs making up the stack. At least that's what my examination of the results has shown; I haven't seen the underlying code. The modifier makes the difference here. For this calculation, the game appears to round up values above .5, and discards fractional values .5 and lower. For example, 5.5000000 is 5, but 5.50000001 is 6. At least I think it is. I don't know what type of variable stores the number in this case, or how large a number it will hold. The end result is presented to the user as an integer. I've experimented with different values in the modifier field. Anything more than a two-digit number gives unexpected results, so I can't make the calculation more exact by using 0.536xxx. 54% approaches the original values without causing errors.
It is possible to tweak the CPs even more. In other AGE games the CP totals are much higher. The important thing here is the keeping close to the original ratios.
I have a spreadsheet that details all the various combinations of leaders and divisions, both instead and outside of command chains. I'll see if I can upload it. I'll give just a few examples here. Under vanilla, a single rank 1 general in a stack outside CoC had 2CP; in the mod the same leader provides 3CP. Vanilla: two rank 1s outside CoC, 4CP; mod, two rank 1s outside CoC = 5CP. Three ranks 1s, 6CP vanilla, 8CP in the mod. After that, the numbers are the same.
Rank 2/3 leaders provide the same CP outside CoC as before. Rank 2 base CPs were lowered by a point to balance out the change to rank 1 CPs.
End result, any standard rank 1 leader can command any standard brigade in the game, even outside CoC. A single rank 1 running a division in a stack outside CoC has the penalty lowered by 5%. A single rank 2 running a single division in a stack has no penalty. Lower quality rank 1s might get a penalty for the largest infantry brigades. There might be a few extra CPs (1-2) or slightly lower penalities (5-10%) for outside CoC stacks depending on the leaders used. Other characteristics of outside CoC stacks have not been changed, so they still won't MTSG, still have an 8CP cap, etc.
Corps stacks containing only one or two rank 2 leaders (and no other leaders at all) will be slightly nerfed with this setup. Otherwise there is no difference from vanilla.
2. As much as possible, maintain the original force pool for total elements.
The vanilla forcepool takes a little while to calculate for each scenario, but it's not difficult. Once that is determined, the number of each type of element is tallied, and the totals are used to determine how many new units are made available and when. If a 2-inf + 1-cav unit is placed on the board on 05/01/1863, I replace it with a 2-inf unit and a 1-cav unit. The largest original units would be replaced with combinations of the largest new units.
Again, not difficult but it is time-consuming.
3. Don't negatively affect the AI.
What will Athena make of all these new building blocks? It remains to be seen. This last part may be the one that dooms the mod. I am contemplating moving up the date that division creation is allowed, with a restriction on the maximum number of divisions until a later date. That would allow for some of the force concentration near the original 1st Bull Run date without causing a massive problem all over the map.
*****
IMPLEMENTATION
*****
The mod should be easier to install and not cause problems with existing installations. I hope to avoid editing the original values, instead adding new records to the existing element/unit definitions, and referencing new versions of the old scripts.
*****
FEEDBACK
*****
Now, I have already implemented the CP changes and have tested those. I am part of the way through the unit compositions. This is the initial feedback that I need. What are your thoughts on the following?
A. In vanilla, when light infantry is combined in unit definitions with standard infantry, it's probably supposed to represent skirmshers. It's poorly implemented. A better way to have represented skirmishers detached from an infantry regiment would have been by a mode, like the button to enable ambush function for sharpshooters. Push button, skirmishers detached from regiment: regiment now has some modifiers applied to it for combat for this turn.
I would personally like to get rid of most or all of the light infantry regiments and not include them in the new unit definitions, replacing them with infantry or sharpshooters or nothing.
B. Vanilla presents several unique brigades (Stonewall, Excelsior, etc) that exceed four elements. I would like to reconstitute them as standard infantry with perhaps lower CP costs and maybe an increased XP rate. They wouldn't start as elite. Instead their rate of level progression would be higher than other units. I'm open to ideas on this one.
C. Vanilla has a major exploit in the way that militia are defined. Most of you are aware of it. Let's say the forcepool for New York militia is capped at 12. You happen to have 12 individual NY militia regiments on the board. You can combine two militia regiments into a single two-regiment militia brigade, costing the same CP. If you do this, the game calculates that you only have 11 individual NY militia on the board, so you can build another NY militia regiment. If you combined all 12 regiments into six 2-element units, you'd get another 6 allowed under the forcepool. Those 6 can of course be combined again into three 2-element units, and so on. Separately, if your militia unit is upgraded to line infantry, that also frees up room in the forcepool. This allows militia to be spammed and abused in the worst way.
It's not part of the mod calculation, but I would like to do away with this exploit as part of the mod. It's very easy to change the unit definition for militia so they can't be combined, and instead change it so that some militia can be built already as a combined unit. I'd also prevent them from upgrading to line infantry.
I know this is probably an unpopular idea, but I thought I'd float it anyway. It's not a priority as part of this mod.
Let me know what you think.