Pride of Nations - Age of Revolution Mod

[McNaughton]

Hi there, I have released my first version of my mod. You can find it here (mainly because of MB upload limits on this site).

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?574112-Pride-of-Nations-Age-of-Revolution-Mod&p=13173528#post13173528

To install:

1. Delete the contents of the following folder "Pride of Nations/VGN/GameData/Models"
2. Delete the contents of the following folder "Pride of Nations/VGN/GameData/Units"
3. Delete the contents of the following folder "Pride of Nations/VGN/GameData/Abilities"
4. Copy the RAR file into your Pride of Nations folder, and unzip it (files should copy over to proper folders).

Changes - Version 1

FIXES
1. Fixed national abilities for German minors (missing components)
2. Applied national abilities for German minor combat elements (required in order to get multi-national abilities to work) for all German minors (BAY, BAD, SAX, WUR, HES, HAN)
3. Fixed some minor issues with duplicate leaders and erronious upgrades.

CHANGES
1. Units File - Complete overhaul of the CP system. Larger armies can now be fielded without dealing with drastic CP penalties.

i) Infantry Corps - From 12 CP per Corps, to 8/9 CP per corps (depending on size of corps)
ii) Infantry Division - From 6 CP per Division, to 4 CP per division
iii) Cavalry Corps - From 12 CP per corps, to 6 CP per corps
iv) Cavalry Division - From 5 CP per Division, to 3 CP per division

Previously, this was about as large as an army could get in PoN...

3 Infantry Corps, 2 Cavalry Divisions (just under 100 000 men)

Now an average army can be as large as this...

5 Infantry Corps, 3 Cavalry Divisions (just over 150 000 men)

2. Models File - Complete overhaul of land combat units

Land forces are substantially less able to destroy one another in combat. Casualties in battle have been drastically reduced, primarily by reducing range of small arms, as well as the accuracy of weaponry at all ranges (reduced to match games like AACW and RUS). Artillery has been streamlined as well, with a general reduction of efficiency of 'killing'. The only unit/element you can now capture is the supply train (no more capturing HQ and Artillery, given that the way it is captured now is not helpful to the player, given that they collect shells of corps in piles).

3. Abilities added to Austrian and German leaders (more multi-national abilities to help them command their multinational armies).

RESULTS

Armies are larger. An average field army can now reach over 150 000 men without penalties (the largest I fielded was a 170 000 man force). This you need fewer generals to command your forces (meaning that current general pools should now be sufficient).

Battles are less bloody. I have fought in all eras (fought all of the battle scenarios), and have had sufficiently fewer casualties. I have had long, multi-day battles resulting in fewer than 50 000 casualties (on each side) even though upwards of 300 000 men (on each side) were engaged. In an un-modded game that same battle would have had 2-3x the number of casualties. Rarely do I see elements destroyed in the modded version (only after a force has been engaged multiple times, or if completely overwhelmed by massive numbers), and rarely have I seen an entire unit destroyed (fought the Austro-Sardinian Battle Scenario and did not lose, nor kill, a single corps). Troops are not caught and destroyed while routing (they seem to retreat in better order).

Anyways, let me know how things are going with this mod, as it is the first step. Thanks!

[vaalen]

Thank you so much for your hard work.

I have two concerns.

First, it appears that once you install this mod, you no longer have the unmodded version of PON. Is that correct?

Second, it is already very difficult to destroy natives like tuareg raiders, African tribesmen, Native Americans. Even when defeated, they often do not lose any elements, and seem to reach full strength very quickly if an element is not destroyed. I have spent years hunting down the same small band of Tukelor, who lost most battles, but retreated and regenerated. I am not complaining, because this seemed realistic.

Would the changes you made make it even harder to destroy these native units?

[Jamitar]

the unrealistic part of the situation, modded or not, is that a defeated army loses morale, especially tribal. imagin you fight for your land, but your army got blasted by weird magical flying eart (artillery fire) and your army all start running for it. I doubt half will return to fight. and a running army unless with good command ( generals, preferably modern) will all get shot and machine gunned in mass while they run.
I doubt that it would have been possible at the somme, to have british defeated but to have lost near nothing, at to run away ( into germany -_-)
this is like wolf. youre trying to catch the enemy constantly while they captured and destroy your cities and structures here and there

[McNaughton]

Thank you so much for your hard work.

I have two concerns.

First, it appears that once you install this mod, you no longer have the unmodded version of PON. Is that correct?

Correct, the ABILITIES, MODELS and UNITS have changed, no scenario or event changes. The game engine, events, and scenarios have not been touched. The mod is really actually easy to re-apply given its limited scope (as of yet), given that models, abilities and units are not going to see much revision in official patches (therefore the mod does not have to be updated every time you get a new patch, just re-applied). So, there is no 'support' from AGEOD dealing with issues in the mod, but, the scope of the mod (at present) is limited to fixing and 'improving' (a matter of opinion).

Second, it is already very difficult to destroy natives like tuareg raiders, African tribesmen, Native Americans. Even when defeated, they often do not lose any elements, and seem to reach full strength very quickly if an element is not destroyed. I have spent years hunting down the same small band of Tukelor, who lost most battles, but retreated and regenerated. I am not complaining, because this seemed realistic.

Would the changes you made make it even harder to destroy these native units?

I was unable to check against natives, as I did not mod them (yet). But, the primary difference I have seen in European vs European conflict is that you no longer get massive casualties on both sides in an 'even' or 'somewhat even' fight. However, forces will become erradicated should you vastly outnumber them (had an entire force wiped out because it was against 10:1 odds). I suppose that if you are fighting natives and have good odds in your favour (power odds, not necessarily numeric odds), then there should be no difference. However, the closer you get to a 1:1 odd ratio, the lower the chance of 'erradication in battle'.

In theory, the answer can be both yes and no, depending upon your force size. However, one thing that I did change drastically was cavalry's ability to evade and patrol (notably light cavalry). In order to destroy routed enemy forces (unfortunately hard to rout a native force) you need large numbers of cavalry. With light cavalry having drastically increased patrol and evade stats, they will be very useful in helping to crush native forces.

So, although the ability to deal out damage has been decreased, the ability to destroy a smaller retreating force has not been decreased, and with cavalry, quite possibly has been improved slightly.

I would like feedback on native issues, as I have been toying with what to do with them (fewer elements, stronger representation of each element in a unit so their game power matches their size, for example, changing the number of men from 1000 to 2000, and reducing the number of elements in a unit, which will put each element more to par with a European element in regards to ability and combat power, but with fewer elements in a unit).

[Jamitar]

I think theres more to that in european wars. if a big army can completly come up to the small enemy, it will destroy it, but on the other hand if it doesnt come close enough fast enough, a lot will run and survive. they just will probably disband. but an even match will be fought, and might stay even for very very long till one side suddenly starts have massive deaths. they are longer, and you only know whos winning suddenly at the end when chaos errupts

[McNaughton]

the unrealistic part of the situation, modded or not, is that a defeated army loses morale, especially tribal. imagin you fight for your land, but your army got blasted by weird magical flying eart (artillery fire) and your army all start running for it. I doubt half will return to fight. and a running army unless with good command ( generals, preferably modern) will all get shot and machine gunned in mass while they run.
I doubt that it would have been possible at the somme, to have british defeated but to have lost near nothing, at to run away ( into germany -_-)
this is like wolf. youre trying to catch the enemy constantly while they captured and destroy your cities and structures here and there

One thing I am working on as part of this mod, is to eliminate the need to occupy the nation 100%, or to erradicate the military of a nation 100%. I cannot really think of many situations in modern warfare of the 19th Centrury where you have erradication of an enemy force in battle. For whatever reason, they slink away with the bulk of their force to fight another day.

The Franco-Prussian war was an oddity, where the French happened to get their armies encircled by the Prussians. They were not, however, destoryed in battle, but rather capitulated after sieges. One can replicate this very well (in fact the FPW scenario easily allows for the French to be isolated in Strasbourg). However, historically very few armies were destroyed in the field. The attacker is almost always exhausted so much that they just cannot send in the last killer blow (Koenigraetz, Antietam, Gettysburg, Brusilov Offensive, etc.).

Destroying a nation's military is not really something that did happen very much. Shattering the nation's will to fight, capturing key areas, these were ways to get nations to capitulate.

Unfortunately I have no control over dictating where a force will retreat. Why French troops in Metz insist on retreating to Strasbourg (travelling through German owned Saarland) is beyond me.

[Jamitar]

yeah thats my problem. and I agree with you about the fight another day part.
on the other hand imagine enemy got to say paris. you finally beat them, they got orleans, whos got no fort and capture it. ( sending a wave of closed structures due to lack of orlean manufacture factories). you beat again then they got slowly towards bordeau and toulouse. COMON!.
also if you invade completely, say germany, but theyve still got their army taking a walk in france, well, Im imagining more stress to get to their homelands or to capitulate. in europeen wars also, a completely invaded country will almost immediatly capitulate giving in to near all demands. if they refuse theyll get slaughtered, taxed or controlled by force. this game doesnt represent this

[vaalen]

Correct, the ABILITIES, MODELS and UNITS have changed, no scenario or event changes. The game engine, events, and scenarios have not been touched. The mod is really actually easy to re-apply given its limited scope (as of yet), given that models, abilities and units are not going to see much revision in official patches (therefore the mod does not have to be updated every time you get a new patch, just re-applied). So, there is no 'support' from AGEOD dealing with issues in the mod, but, the scope of the mod (at present) is limited to fixing and 'improving' (a matter of opinion).



I was unable to check against natives, as I did not mod them (yet). But, the primary difference I have seen in European vs European conflict is that you no longer get massive casualties on both sides in an 'even' or 'somewhat even' fight. However, forces will become erradicated should you vastly outnumber them (had an entire force wiped out because it was against 10:1 odds). I suppose that if you are fighting natives and have good odds in your favour (power odds, not necessarily numeric odds), then there should be no difference. However, the closer you get to a 1:1 odd ratio, the lower the chance of 'erradication in battle'.

In theory, the answer can be both yes and no, depending upon your force size. However, one thing that I did change drastically was cavalry's ability to evade and patrol (notably light cavalry). In order to destroy routed enemy forces (unfortunately hard to rout a native force) you need large numbers of cavalry. With light cavalry having drastically increased patrol and evade stats, they will be very useful in helping to crush native forces.

So, although the ability to deal out damage has been decreased, the ability to destroy a smaller retreating force has not been decreased, and with cavalry, quite possibly has been improved slightly.

I would like feedback on native issues, as I have been toying with what to do with them (fewer elements, stronger representation of each element in a unit so their game power matches their size, for example, changing the number of men from 1000 to 2000, and reducing the number of elements in a unit, which will put each element more to par with a European element in regards to ability and combat power, but with fewer elements in a unit).

Thank you for your clear, informative answers. I like what you have done with this mod very much, and I intend to try it. I do think that having casualties along the lines of Ageod Civil War and the Russian civil war game is much more realistic, and this should greatly improve the scenario combat, as well as campaign combat. Brilliant to increase the ability of Cavalry in conjunction with your other changes.

[vaalen]

the unrealistic part of the situation, modded or not, is that a defeated army loses morale, especially tribal. imagin you fight for your land, but your army got blasted by weird magical flying eart (artillery fire) and your army all start running for it. I doubt half will return to fight. and a running army unless with good command ( generals, preferably modern) will all get shot and machine gunned in mass while they run.
I doubt that it would have been possible at the somme, to have british defeated but to have lost near nothing, at to run away ( into germany -_-)
this is like wolf. youre trying to catch the enemy constantly while they captured and destroy your cities and structures here and there

Jamtar, some natives would behave exactly as you describe, but some natives were very good at hit and run tactics, where they would lose the battle, but kill some of their enemies and disappear into rough terrain. A few hundred Apache warriors held off many thousands of US troops for many years by using such tactics. A single escaped Apache warrior, Vittorio, terrorized a large area for years, and was hunted by thousands of troops.

[Jamitar]

yeah but if washingtons army went to kill apache and win making them run for their lives, they wont be running towards washington. plus I was more concerned over european wars, and also about rebels.

[McNaughton]

yeah thats my problem. and I agree with you about the fight another day part.
on the other hand imagine enemy got to say paris. you finally beat them, they got orleans, whos got no fort and capture it. ( sending a wave of closed structures due to lack of orlean manufacture factories). you beat again then they got slowly towards bordeau and toulouse. COMON!.
also if you invade completely, say germany, but theyve still got their army taking a walk in france, well, Im imagining more stress to get to their homelands or to capitulate. in europeen wars also, a completely invaded country will almost immediatly capitulate giving in to near all demands. if they refuse theyll get slaughtered, taxed or controlled by force. this game doesnt represent this

This is stage 3 of my mod, AI and human wartime goals (against major nations). What I am testing is setting up (for the GC and thereby portable to the scenarios) battle plans for the AI, as well as the human player. Representing important areas and regions to control and conquer in order to gain the upper hand in a campaign.

Basically, the AI and human will be given a role in the battle, determining who takes the initiative (I have broken down each war into a series of events, Battle of the Frontiers, Battle of the Interior, Battle of the Capital). Whomever wins the Battle of the Frontiers then is the attacker, and have goals and prizes only in an offensive battle (the defender then also has goals only defending). The AI will not go off into Germany if France is being invaded, it will have 100% of its goals to repel the invader. Also, I have been toying with focussing the AI to specific cities, as well as to ignore certain areas (Germany should have no interest in Southern France, but rather focus on Easter and Northern France with the goal of capturing Paris, ignoring the rest of France).

Basically, as the 'attacking nation' achieves its goals, events providing it with Prestige and VP, as well as new AI targets, also provide the defending nation with its own Prestige and VP loss, as well as to which cities it should be focussing its attention, but, also increase the chance that they will accept peace (basically before you have to squish the nation totally they will be at the bargaining table). The goal of the 'defending nation' is to delay the attacking nation long enough that other major nations intervene (based upon criteria I am working on a set of MC events that will force peace upon the attacking nation if they are not making progress in the war, or face an expanded conflict). This threat of intervention kept campaigns short in the 19th Century, but will provide players with a neat experience of rolling the dice and possibly starting a great war as a result.

So, the AI in wartime is being looked at in this mod too (to cover random generic wars between majors, as well as some set conflicts, such as the ACW, Seven Weeks War, and Crimean War).

[McNaughton]

Thank you for your clear, informative answers. I like what you have done with this mod very much, and I intend to try it. I do think that having casualties along the lines of Ageod Civil War and the Russian civil war game is much more realistic, and this should greatly improve the scenario combat, as well as campaign combat. Brilliant to increase the ability of Cavalry in conjunction with your other changes.

Thank you, it is nice to hear!

[McNaughton]

I personally think that crushing rebellions is not like crushing natives. Rebels tend to keep put, as they are fighting locally in most cases. Indeed, a rebellion should be more of a prestige hit than a real military threat.

[vaalen]

This is stage 3 of my mod, AI and human wartime goals (against major nations). What I am testing is setting up (for the GC and thereby portable to the scenarios) battle plans for the AI, as well as the human player. Representing important areas and regions to control and conquer in order to gain the upper hand in a campaign.

Basically, the AI and human will be given a role in the battle, determining who takes the initiative (I have broken down each war into a series of events, Battle of the Frontiers, Battle of the Interior, Battle of the Capital). Whomever wins the Battle of the Frontiers then is the attacker, and have goals and prizes only in an offensive battle (the defender then also has goals only defending). The AI will not go off into Germany if France is being invaded, it will have 100% of its goals to repel the invader. Also, I have been toying with focussing the AI to specific cities, as well as to ignore certain areas (Germany should have no interest in Southern France, but rather focus on Easter and Northern France with the goal of capturing Paris, ignoring the rest of France).

Basically, as the 'attacking nation' achieves its goals, events providing it with Prestige and VP, as well as new AI targets, also provide the defending nation with its own Prestige and VP loss, as well as to which cities it should be focussing its attention, but, also increase the chance that they will accept peace (basically before you have to squish the nation totally they will be at the bargaining table). The goal of the 'defending nation' is to delay the attacking nation long enough that other major nations intervene (based upon criteria I am working on a set of MC events that will force peace upon the attacking nation if they are not making progress in the war, or face an expanded conflict). This threat of intervention kept campaigns short in the 19th Century, but will provide players with a neat experience of rolling the dice and possibly starting a great war as a result.

So, the AI in wartime is being looked at in this mod too (to cover random generic wars between majors, as well as some set conflicts, such as the ACW, Seven Weeks War, and Crimean War).

This would be a vast improvement. I can hardly wait!
Thank you.

[Jamitar]

Now thats a pack of beautiful Ideas. I think the fear of intervention is a very good idea ( instead of me occupying spain for the duration of WW1)

your plans to change AI behaviour towards set objectives look awesome too though I think when northern france is invaded, it should try to occupy southern france with it if the enemy hasnt crumbled for peace.
Even the names youve given to fights ( frontier interior capital) makes me melt.. its a splendid idea.
The threat of intervention is good, but as you said its only the threat. It be nice to see major powers joining in with border or friend related wars.

Is it possible to add much more varieties of war prices? ( as there be more than just claiming regions be interesting) that a very important national region such as rotterdam for nederlands, be 250, ok, but that a colony be 800? I think colonies should be worth less.
extra prices be control over structures ( shows list with structure type, region and input output in tooltip) like WW1, force defensive alliance, force mutual passage and supply, force abandon of interest in colonies with mutual interest
finally a transfer of canons, artillery and ships. anything that is a machine of some sort, and can be taken without inviting enemy soldiers in the army.

making islands 1 sea region away from territory claimable

basically dont make a war France austria/ russia Great britain completely without interest.

next I want to talk about interest you may have not worth a war. portugal has bissau colony in the middle of my completely french conquered west africa, same for britain in nigeria ( I had to declare war against asante to snatch their 2 territories). you could exchange for territory, If youre very powerful, they weak and without good allies, through pressure ( only if you have claim on it). That sort of stuff. diplomacy is too uninteresting right now

finally crisises should give more importance to winning the crisis rather then everyone going for prestige. ill let you put the prices with a clue (if too much military on borders and you lose crisis, they automatically get removed or you have to move them 1 case. If it isnt done or it is put back on borders before 2 years or casus belli, then major and neighbouring small organisation (dont include neighbouring tribal nations in colonies, its stupid like mobilisation, they all get negative sympathy and are at war). also with casus belli from targeted nation and big risk of intervention

I know its a lot but a mod is gonna have to be big for this kind of game and those are my targets.
take your time to read, and dont throw everything out if one is bad.
of course you can edit modify and take out whatever you feel is bad and please comment on this

thanks

[Pocus]

One thing I am working on as part of this mod, is to eliminate the need to occupy the nation 100%, or to erradicate the military of a nation 100%. I cannot really think of many situations in modern warfare of the 19th Centrury where you have erradication of an enemy force in battle. For whatever reason, they slink away with the bulk of their force to fight another day.

The Franco-Prussian war was an oddity, where the French happened to get their armies encircled by the Prussians. They were not, however, destoryed in battle, but rather capitulated after sieges. One can replicate this very well (in fact the FPW scenario easily allows for the French to be isolated in Strasbourg). However, historically very few armies were destroyed in the field. The attacker is almost always exhausted so much that they just cannot send in the last killer blow (Koenigraetz, Antietam, Gettysburg, Brusilov Offensive, etc.).

Destroying a nation's military is not really something that did happen very much. Shattering the nation's will to fight, capturing key areas, these were ways to get nations to capitulate.

Unfortunately I have no control over dictating where a force will retreat. Why French troops in Metz insist on retreating to Strasbourg (travelling through German owned Saarland) is beyond me.

Ah but you have! Now if you find a fault in logic, we can update the official game on that too.

// ***** CONTROL & RETREAT

ctlContested = 5 // Minimum control gained upon entering a region (if not passive)
ctlAllowRetreat = 0 // Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it
ctlRetreatAdjCity = 5 // Interest in retreating toward a region with a city (per level)
ctlRetreatAdjFort = 30 // Interest in retreating toward a region with a fort (per level)
ctlRetreatAdjDepot = 25 // Interest in retreating toward a region with a depot (per level)
ctlRetreatLandLink = 10 // Interest in retreating toward a region, value per land link
ctlRetreatPrevSubSpaceCoeffH = 250 // Coefficient applied to the interest if the region is the one where we are coming from
cltRetPenaltyPerNmySU = 4 // retreat penalty (in interest pts) for each nmy SU in retreating region
ctlNoBeachHead = 10 // Minimum control to have so that a region is not a beach/riverhead if you have to cross a body of water before attacking
cbtRetreatMax = 85 // Max retreat chance
cbtRetreatBaseCoeff = 50 // base damage coefficient to retreat global formula
cbtRetreatCoeffChangeRnd = 10 // +10% retreat damage per round after the first
cbtRetreatCoeffBaseSize = 75 // 75 SU don't change damages because of size of retreater
cbtRetreatMoreSizeChunk = 1 // each 1 SU above BaseSize (75) leads to +1 damage %
cbtRetreatLessSizeChunk = 1 // each 1 SU under BaseSize (75) leads to -1 damage % (so 1 SU retreating = -74% damages)
cbtRetreatMaxSizeMod = 200 // Can't take more than 200% of damages because of big size
cbtRetreatMinSizeMod = 25 // Can't take less than 25% of damages because of small size

[yellow ribbon]

QUOTE:

"Unfortunately I have no control over dictating where a force will retreat. Why French troops in Metz insist on retreating to Strasbourg (travelling through German owned Saarland) is beyond me."


aside of existing possibilities...

what the game actually lacks is a pre-test. before the test Pocus described above, a test of enemy presence based on military control would be necessary.
So, if enemy is holding more than lets say 70% MC, regions situation should not matter.
its more or less easy to program, simple rank-test, but i do not dare to stick it into PON yet...


think about the British exp. force at the Marne, only advancing when no one was in front of them ^^

[beuckelssen]

Hi McNaughton, congratulations for the good work. I like what I read about the current mod and I like even more your ideas for the future. So I want to give it a try but before I have an important question.

Do you think that if I start a game whit this version of the mod I will be able to update to next versions and continue playing? A related question is if it´s possible to start a game with the mod and at some point restore the original files of PoN and continuing playing.

Why do I ask this instead of just play? Because I´m thinking in use your mod in an AAR that I´m starting to write. And making an AAR it´s a lot of work, so I want to be sure that I´ll be able to continue playing without your mod if something it´s not working like I want (for example if battle the rebels it´s too hard for my taste). But at the same time I want to be able to use all your great ideas for the future of the mod in the same game.

If you think that I´ll be able to actualize the mod when you create a new version and follow an existing game I´ll happy to be the first user that writes an AAR with your mod.



But there is a "catch"; the AAR; that I already started in the spanish subforum, it´s in spanish

[pesec]

I am wondering about this:

ctlAllowRetreat = 0 // Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it

If we change it to something like 5, does it mean that enemy has to stand and fight if they have no military control in any adjacent region?

[lodilefty]

I am wondering about this:

ctlAllowRetreat = 0 // Minimum control to have in a region to allow a retreat into it

If we change it to something like 5, does it mean that enemy has to stand and fight if they have no military control in any adjacent region?

Yes. This (setting not 0) led to excessive annihilation battles in the past

[yellow ribbon]

i fear it will not work if everything is tested in one step and only once in a turn.

i saw plenty situations when i set up two rings around cavalry, tribes, raiders, bushwackers, partisans and then entered the province to force battle, that they retreated to one province, retreated again and retreated again before taken POW.
if tribes take over a city, it nearly the only way to get them out of there.

with the newly modded lower probability of POWs i run into situation that i capture a province, have 35% MC and the foe will retreat into the very province to find the shortest way to his next structures...
due to the fewer losses he takes, he just breaks through in 2/3 of the tries

same i fear for for sieges, since you barely gain more than 90% MC the most turns, while enemy tries to break out even with fortress guns.

[color="Red"]so, to be more explicitly than before, its about enemy presence and not the overall "MC" as it is used in the game.[/color]

MC is the most simple way, but leads to another problem if not tested maybe all 5 days within a turn....

BTW: as some have feared, at least with the partisans (1850 GC) i got the experience that even a whole corps of Cavalry cannot nail them down. partisans lost 43 men
without the mod, i can take them POW or force them to hand-to-hand combat

[yellow ribbon]

PS:

logical analysis.

MC is a possible indicator of enemy presence in case of the choice between different provinces with unfriendly stacks in it.

as larger the stack and as longer it is there, as higher the MC shall be, isnt it.

so, as a kind of pretest for a possible retreat (or test for path-finding) the MC is valuable.

for testing IF there shall be a retreat it is not, while a "empty" province can still have 100% MC.

further problem arises with national soil. 100% MC from the very beginning but still empty, so the problem happens as described above, French might retreat to Germany.
but this would lead them away from any friendly structure and the simultaneous testing starts to be worthless...

so:

1. step:

set up a ranking of neighbor provinces into which direction you CAN retreat

2. step:

test the shortest way to friendly structures, or better ground (maybe related to the closeness to the major/remaining objective int the local theater of war)

3. step:

filter this for all provinces which bring you further away from own supply/fort/cities and sort them out


Unknown side effect:

the large provinces may still lead to any attempt of AI to ignore step 3.

[ERISS]

Destroying a nation's military is not really something that did happen very much.

However, that was the strategical goal of Germans against France in WW1:
killing the more military. Mass murder was to be. It was not a tactical tool to achieve a goal, that was the goal, in order (they thought) to have the longer peace afterward.
EDIT: That's just a note. You are right.

[yellow ribbon]

ERISS,

dont judge the Germans about it. the method was copied from every nation.

you know as well, that SCHLIEFFEN plan was the major goal for nearly 10 years.
all tactical training before the war was done on base to be faster and concentrate more troops within days.
so was economical planing, overseized guns to be able to support ADVANCING troops.

it was Falkenhayn in 1916 who decided on his own, Germany has a higher population than France, thus war of attrition.

however, it did not even work in the basics, for the French changed the troops in the trenches very fast with a kind of revolving system to avoid battle fatigue and drug them with wine (as important as shells in the logistical plan).

gentlemen, nothing is that rare than a general on the battlefield. the annihilation of troops historically was caused by ORDERS of individuals (Cannae), and was prevented by them either (1st Marne / its prelude)

in German officer candidate training you get the advise that all decisions are better than none for nearly a century... or with the words of Clausewitz, FRICTION decides the day, not planing

[Random]

McNaughton, Well done with all of your efforts on this aspect of PON. Have you looked into making it compatible with John Scones Generic Mod Enabler?

http://www.users.on.net/~jscones/software/products-jsgme.html

This might make your work more attractive since it enables users to revert back to stock with a single mouse click. Anyway am watching this with great interest, Good Luck.

However, that was the strategical goal of Germans against France in WW1:
killing the more military. Mass murder was to be. It was not a tactical tool to achieve a goal, that was the goal, in order (they thought) to have the longer peace afterward.

I would disagree entirely, the goal of virtually all organized warfare during this era was the destruction of the enemy armies. This is the essence of Napoleonic warfare as espoused by Jomeni and the aim of every General Staff throughout the PON era that aimed at a decision. The issues are really too complex for this thread but some points might be worth looking at briefly.

In the wars of Unification, the Prussian's went straight for the armies of Denmark, Austria and France. The US Civil War ended when Grant went gunning for the ANV and Thomas destroyed the Army of Tennessee outside Nashville. The Crimean War was a fiasco because the limited war aims (and the size of czarist Russia) precluded destruction of the Russian army and fixated on the port of Sevastopol. Combat with organised natives like the Zulu and Boers also aimed at the destruction of military means as the strategic end.

The problem was that national armies were very hard to kill and their destruction did not necessarily mean defeat for the loser. After losing her regular army in 1870, the French simply raised a new one, the capitulation at Paris was purely political and had the war continued who knows what Europe would have looked like as Prussia had pretty much expended its foreign goodwill by winter 1871. In the cases of Denmark and Austria, the risk of losing their armies would not have been worthy of their war aims so negotiations could end hostilities to the battlefield victor's advantage.

In Asia, destroying the Russian fleet in 1905 was not decisive enough and the failure to annihilate the czar's army in Manchuria at Mukden sent both sides to negotiate a peace that bought far less for Japan than the blood spent to achieve it was worth.

Because mass national armies were so difficult to destroy, it became necessary to shift the war effort to the national will and means of production and so the military-political theories of Clausewitz start to replace Jomeni during this period. Sherman's rampage through the South, the British concentration camps on the Veldt and the total destruction of infrastructure in Paraguay seen in the War of the Pacific are all indicative of the failure to effectively destroy the military force of the enemy.

Total war did not start with WW1 nor did it happen in a vacuum, technology and societal changes had making the concepts behind Napoleonic warfare obsolete for decades before.

I actually rather like the way stock PON handles combat but wish McNaughton unqualified success with your mod.

[McNaughton]

Hi McNaughton, congratulations for the good work. I like what I read about the current mod and I like even more your ideas for the future. So I want to give it a try but before I have an important question.

Do you think that if I start a game whit this version of the mod I will be able to update to next versions and continue playing? A related question is if it´s possible to start a game with the mod and at some point restore the original files of PoN and continuing playing.

Why do I ask this instead of just play? Because I´m thinking in use your mod in an AAR that I´m starting to write. And making an AAR it´s a lot of work, so I want to be sure that I´ll be able to continue playing without your mod if something it´s not working like I want (for example if battle the rebels it´s too hard for my taste). But at the same time I want to be able to use all your great ideas for the future of the mod in the same game.

If you think that I´ll be able to actualize the mod when you create a new version and follow an existing game I´ll happy to be the first user that writes an AAR with your mod.



But there is a "catch"; the AAR; that I already started in the spanish subforum, it´s in spanish

I am really unsure how to properly answer this, as I would hate to say one way, and result in the other. I have no idea when I will be releasing things, but the battle AI project will not be for a while (I have just sorted out how to make a MC event, and have it work, so am working upon the intervention events, and my partner and I are sorting out the diplomatic criteria and events presently). I really do not know if what has been modded as of yet will really 'add' much to a GC AAR at this point, and fear that given that events will be created later for diplomatic and military improvements that this would require a restart.

[ERISS]

dont judge the Germans about it. the method was copied from every nation.

I don't judge germans, just military. The method was not new, but new technology with machineguns and heavy artillery made the method possible for mass murder.

, the goal of virtually all organized warfare during this era was the destruction of the enemy armies.

For sure, there are many means to destroy an army: starving, inciting desertion, routing, encircling, surrender, illness and weather... I tell about destruction by mass killing with shells.

But I repeat McNaughton is right (Technology is necessary for this goal, but not sufficient).

[von Sachsen]

Out of curiosity, did you change the stats of the Boers yet? I played the Risorgimento and it felt just about right for two large conventional forces. Then I played as the Brits in the 2nd Boer War scenario and it was back to loosing 20,000 men and all of the elements while only killing 50 in one battle again.

[beuckelssen]

I am really unsure how to properly answer this, as I would hate to say one way, and result in the other. I have no idea when I will be releasing things, but the battle AI project will not be for a while (I have just sorted out how to make a MC event, and have it work, so am working upon the intervention events, and my partner and I are sorting out the diplomatic criteria and events presently). I really do not know if what has been modded as of yet will really 'add' much to a GC AAR at this point, and fear that given that events will be created later for diplomatic and military improvements that this would require a restart.

Ok, not a problem at all.

I´ll make the AAR with the vanilla version and try to use a second installation for test the mod.

[McNaughton]

Out of curiosity, did you change the stats of the Boers yet? I played the Risorgimento and it felt just about right for two large conventional forces. Then I played as the Brits in the 2nd Boer War scenario and it was back to loosing 20,000 men and all of the elements while only killing 50 in one battle again.

Not yet, my goal is to revamp the natives and 'special units' like the Boers, basically to give them a better representation. They will still be tough to kill, but nowhere near as 'deadly' to the British.