Leader Optimization Project Mod for 1.06

[Pdubya64]

Thanks for the quick post of improvements Hancock. I am off to finish posting Turn 6 and then play Turn 7!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

BTW, somewhere in another thread, I posted an alphabetic (by Generals' name) listing of both the USA and CSA model files, which really helps in finding every one of the specific models for any particular general you may be looking for.

I can't find it. I scanned all your posts. Could you re-post it? It would be very helpful in the work I am doing.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Gray

In reading your post, I noticed that you are waiting on CSA leaders to be done before loading. I wanted to mention that with the changes I just made to CSA leaders, along with the original inclusion of nearly 20 new and promotion counter CSA leaders done by Stonewall, I think that the mod is certainly playable and balanced at this point.

Stonewall has been quiet on the boards lately, so I am assuming he is busy with work or perhaps on vacation. I havent had any contact from him recently. At this point, aside from a little tweaking to CSA leaders on obvious changes, and any more player suggestions, the mod is about as complete as I can get it at this point without really digging in to some serious CSA research. Since I am going to be traveling a lot in the next 6 weeks, I doubt I will have the chance to undertake that work.

If there is another poster(s) on the board who really knows the CSA leaders well, and wants to delve into modding ratings and traits, I would certainly welcome the help with that, and be happy to make the changes based on their research. If they could post their suggested changes here, so the community can review and debate, I can put the changes in effect and upload a new final product.

Based on this, I would encourage you to go ahead and load up the mod and give it a play as it currently is. The results should be good.

Also, I know that the AGEOD team made an offer in another thread of perhaps including the changes from this mod in a future version of a patch. However, they also had some stipulations regarding the community doing the work, and presenting it in the Excel/CSV splitter format. I dont know how to do that, and right now, dont have the time to learn. However, since I have kept a change log in Word quite religiously, if someone else from the community has the time and know-how to do this compilation in Excel/CSV, I would greatly appreciate it and be more than happy to assist where possible.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Black Cat]

What is a " linkage error " ?

[Winfield S. Hancock]

What is a " linkage error " ?

I believe he is referring to the the connections between provinces.

For example, a linkage error would be one that would allow you to move from Prince George's MD region to Fairfax VA region, but not from Fairfax to Prince George's. In other words, movement paths that should exist between regions but dont, for whatever reason.

[Jabberwock]

Two regions are adjacent on the map, but the game doesn't see them that way. Or, they are adjacent and have a rail link, and just the rail is not working. Or the situation with Boston, where ships cannot land. (Haven't figured that one out yet). Usually it is the first situation. My impression is many these issues may have cropped up in version changes.

Gray, send me about a third of your list. I have experience fixing these, and it makes a nice break from drawing pictures. I will PM my email.

Edit: Hancock - looks like you beat me to posting by about 20 secs.

Another edit: Please put Asboth back in. Just because he only commanded the reserve at Pea Ridge doesn't mean he wasn't heavily engaged. Besides, I've already drawn his picture. I looked him up, commanded XVI Corps for a while (while recovering from his Pea Ridge wound - more of a reinforcement pool than a corps), and saw some action in West Florida, where he caught a bullet in the face.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

Question Number 1 is: Why are there so many redundant "Adjacencys"? From several tests I have made, it seems only one "Adjacency" entry is necessary for each adjacent area. Probably not of any consequence game engine wise, but I'm wondering if it slows down move processing any.

I'm not sure either, but I believe it has to do with the map editor AGEod is using.

I don't have a lot of time for searching (and won't for the next month), but I can knock out the fixes fairly quick.

[Jabberwock]

windowing back and forth into the game display to compare links with the actual game display. Rather tedious, but hey, it's the only way to verify the links with the .rgn files.

You need a dual-monitor setup for that kind of work.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[McNaughton]

I really suspect that at some time, when you tried a scenario that you were developing, it was loading up an unedited model file that might have been missed that contained some of these errors, i.e. McClellan with "Militiaman" trait as a default instead of "Poor Spy Network". That could be easily done with 5 separate model files for McClellan that all had the Poor Spy Network trait entered incorrectly.

BTW, somewhere in another thread, I posted an alphabetic (by Generals' name) listing of both the USA and CSA model files, which really helps in finding every one of the specific models for any particular general you may be looking for.

Regards

No, this is not the case. I know this for a fact, as every single NEW unit build, via event, or via construction, used my new link between Units and Models (thereby, the model connection is there in the old scenarios, otherwize, where would it get this information from?). If I somehow uploaded the wrong unit version, then why would new builds in old scenarios, and units on the map and new units in my new scenario, while still in the same game load as well?

I created new models.

I told the existing brigades to look for these new models.

They over-wrote the original files.

I loaded a game, I could see my new units/models in the building que. Built a brigade.

Pressed next turn, looked at the new unit I just built, and it has my new graphics and new 500 men per regiment. Looked at the existing units on the map, used the original graphics, and original 1000 men per regiment. Both exist at the same time, even though there are no original units in the unit directory. Somewhere in the scenario file there are, imbedded, these units.

If I edit the models, everything appears to work, but, this is severely limiting (especially if you want to give units different models).

Fact: It works 100% in a new scenario, does not do so modding an existing scenario. Tested and retested. I didn't notice things until I started fiddling around with the 1862 scenario, where loads of units start on the map.

I have tried starting from scratch, new installs, completely fresh modded files, and the same probelms keep on appearing again and again. I still advise, to make things simpler, and easier in the long term, to avoid any possible future problems, to make the selection easier for those who want to play basic PBEM games, and mods at the same time, it is best to create extra scenarios, using new units and models, that over-write as little as possible.

The more and more this mod expands, the greater the chance that a problem like this will become evident. I have only found this problem in the unit-model connection, but who knows what other hardcoded features are hidden?

[McNaughton]

Also, I know that the AGEOD team made an offer in another thread of perhaps including the changes from this mod in a future version of a patch. However, they also had some stipulations regarding the community doing the work, and presenting it in the Excel/CSV splitter format. I dont know how to do that, and right now, dont have the time to learn. However, since I have kept a change log in Word quite religiously, if someone else from the community has the time and know-how to do this compilation in Excel/CSV, I would greatly appreciate it and be more than happy to assist where possible.

I have to say that using the Excel/CSV method is significantly faster (easy to copy and paste, easy to spot errors, easy to create files, as it creates all the sub-files you need as well). I started off editing existing files, but in the end, it can lead to mess and mistakes (and frustration). Plus having this CSV/XLS master file means that once you have done the grunt work, further modding and fixing is a breeze.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do this (transfer info from TXT to XLS), but, once you figure it out (to whomever does) it is an exceptionally effortless way in modifying this game. I did find the initial how to create a scenario daunting (ended up with a corrupted file somewhere, forcing me to reinstall), but the second try (it is laid out in the How To section perfectly) worked flawlessly.

LINK ON HOW TO CREATE A SCENARIO and other modding info.
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=3974

I do, and have, managed to change a XLS file to CSV format and into the individual other files, so if (when you get to this point) you are having difficulty, I can do this for you.

[PBBoeye]

Open Office = freeware. Very easy to use.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[tagwyn]

WSH: Leave the ratings alone. Everyone, including scholars, woud have different ratings than yours or Stonewall's or Pocus"s. The game was designed as a smoothly working machine with interconnecting pods.. Its your game, oh great one, do as you please; but, are you really doing more harm than good? Play the game or design your own. Tag

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[McNaughton]

McNaughton

Now, I am beginning to see what you are getting at, and I think it is similar to what I have been saying only on a much more complicated scale. Evidently, as you say, within the existing scenarios (which are somewhat more difficult to decipher), it is calling for the older units/models even though, you have new ones in place. Since there are dozens of slightly different unit/model this is not surprising. You would have to completely redo "all" the original unit/models to eliminate any chance of an older one showing back up in an original scenario. This would be far more complicated than just fixing the easily found "Leader unit/models", which can be successfully changed, to have them appear w/changes within the older scenarios.

Maybe in this case the Excel/CSC splitter option would ease the load, but even so, it sounds like an awful lot of work, and would tend to lead gamers to just doing new scenarios instead of trying to rework the existing scenarios. Scenario creation is generally not one of my favorite activities. Modding older ones, however is, so what you are pointing out is rather disappointing news to me.

I do still believe the Leader MOD which Hancock has done, will work in respect to Leader units, in old and new scenarios, as he has nailed down every different .mdl for the affected Leader(s) he has modded.

Actually, you take the existing Excel files AGEOD released and do modifications to these, then split them using the CSV splitter.

It is a sharp learning curve, but, once you figure it out, it makes modding actually exceptionally easy. You don't have to 'redo' much, but it seems in the finalizing of scenarios (where you get into the 'edit mode' in ACW, save the scenario then reboot), it 'fixes' the unit files to the ones that happen to exist at the time of the 'edit mode'. I tested this by making a new scenario, then re-editing the txt unit file to look for a different model (yet again, this proved to be incompatible for scenario files). Somewhere in the process of creating the scenario, the models get locked to certain units. My fear is that there are other hardcoded things, that may appear only later within games (would hate to see a lot of work having to be redone).

So, the best way to do things is to start with the released Excel files, modify them, use the CSV splitter, then do the 'edit mode' to solidify the scenarios, then release. The good thing about this process, is if you have to make changes, you have your Excel file left over (save your Excel changes before you convert to csv).

Also, if you just make minor changes you don't have to redo everything each time you release a 'patch', as unaffected files can just be re-copied (i.e,. if you didn't modify the scenario file, just copy your old one over. However, this requires that you have everything in multiple areas (1. modded Excel files, 2. modded CSV confersions, 3. pre-merged files [before you go into edit mode], 4. files for release).

Basically, the load of work is initially creating the scenarios (copying each of the files, modifying the file names to be new and distinct, ensuring that each has correct links to your event files, etc,.), but once this work is done initially in your Excel files, you don't have to redo it again (just make appropriate changes, and then split the files and solidify the scenario).

[McNaughton]

WSH: Leave the ratings alone. Everyone, including scholars, woud have different ratings than yours or Stonewall's or Pocus"s. The game was designed as a smoothly working machine with interconnecting pods.. Its your game, oh great one, do as you please; but, are you really doing more harm than good? Play the game or design your own. Tag

All I am going to do is post this, and hopefully we can leave this discussion here.

Don't start a flame war here please

First this is a team work, not mine. Philippe Thibaut did all historical research and a good half of the design, not even speaking on how he does the administrative works, relieving me of this burden so I can code without interference. And let's not forget the artist (Sandra), François (doing admin and web), Ludovic (doing web and marketing), Sunray (doing docs) etc.

Ok, back to the topic, you have the right to edit all the data exposed in the game. If they are exposed, this is because we don't mind you tweak them. If you do a particularly good mod, then we can even incorporate officially the changes, because there is no way we have enough time to find the perfect data and game balances, in all aspects of the game, for something as complex as the ACW. So your input, as players and historical buffs are always welcome.

I hope I don't disapoint you Tag, but a community, doing tweaks and mods, is always a good sign for a company.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

For PBEM, if the host starts a game with the leader mod installed, would the non-hosting player necessasarily have to have the mod installed also, or would all the info be stored in the save game file?

[PeterD]

Just bought, so I am scooping up these little mods. Thanks for the effort.

I'd like to ask if any knows if it is possible to increase the likelihood of commanders being KIA? I am thinking specifically brigadiers, but I would think the ability to influence each rank (with a descending likelihood factor) would be best.

Don't know if someone already answered this for you, but it looks to me like this can be achieved by changing the 'cbtLdrCasuDiceSides' option in Settings/Combats.opt file. Probably a smaller number is _more_ KIA.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[mikee64]

Just started a new pbem with this - thanks Hancock!

The leader casualties should slightly increase with this mod based on changes to the combat options file.

I do get a slightly incorrect message with some of the early leader appearances, the variable names are appearing instead of the actual intended in-game text message; the generals themselves show up fine. See attached.

[PBBoeye]

Indeed - I get the same and was going to post a similar pic.

Thanks for the input, PeterD.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Just started a new pbem with this - thanks Hancock!

The leader casualties should slightly increase with this mod based on changes to the combat options file.

I do get a slightly incorrect message with some of the early leader appearances, the variable names are appearing instead of the actual intended in-game text message; the generals themselves show up fine. See attached.

Yes, this is indeed the case. The problem is that I dont know where the text files are that provide the in game description of the events, and cant seem to find them. If someone can point me in the right direction, I will enter the appropriate text for each event. Until then, we are stuck with the variable names showing up in the in-game message window.

[PeterD]

Yes, this is indeed the case. The problem is that I dont know where the text files are that provide the in game description of the events, and cant seem to find them. If someone can point me in the right direction, I will enter the appropriate text for each event. Until then, we are stuck with the variable names showing up in the in-game message window.

Look in the Settings/LocalStrings_ACW.csv file, you will find an entry for each event, e.g. evt_nam_CSA_1861Generals.

I guess you should add the new ones to this file. It seems a shame to have to include an entire copy of the whole file just to add a handful of entries. Since there seem to be 2 LocalStrings_* files already, perhaps it is possible to simply add extra files and have them picked up too?

[Jabberwock]

Could the messages be in Settings/LocalStrings_ACW.csv?

[Winfield S. Hancock]

WSH: Leave the ratings alone. Everyone, including scholars, woud have different ratings than yours or Stonewall's or Pocus"s. The game was designed as a smoothly working machine with interconnecting pods.. Its your game, oh great one, do as you please; but, are you really doing more harm than good? Play the game or design your own. Tag

Tagwyn, I think you have clearly and repeatedly established that you do not care for my mod, or for any mods in general. You have made your point, no need to keep repeating it. If you wish to use the mod, fine, if not, I could care less.

It seems as though you have some kind of fixation with attacking my mod for whatever reason. Quite frankly, it is tiresome. I do not appreciate your sarcasm of 'oh great one' -- neither I nor anyone else has egotisticaly held out that I am some kind of 'great one' so please refrain from the coy insults. Pocus stated in an earlier post that he has no problem with these mods at all, and it is his company, not yours, so I am going to defer to his viewpoint and continue my work.

As to your point on general ratings, yes, people are bound to disagree. My mod is for fun, and reflects largely my personal opinions, along with those of Stonewall and some other posters. I realize that any modding changes will affect gameplay and balance, which is why I have both asked the board community for constructive feedback, and made further changes to improve gameplay and balance in the mod.

Finally, with regards to your comment that I should 'design my own' game if I want to mod, you may be unaware that I was originally accepted as a beta tester for AACW over a year ago when the project first got underway. My area of expertise was Union commanders. However, due to unanticipated work requirements taking far more of my schedule than I had thought, I was unable to follow through on my committment and had to withdraw early on. In a way, my work on this mod is a delayed (and unsolicited) contribution to the community and the beta/design team, because I love this game, and have no problem spending many hours in an effort to tweak it to perfection. So as far as my qualifications to suggest changes go, I think that since Pocus at one time had determined I was worthy enough to help with the original beta test project, I think you should refrain from offering criticism of someone you know nothing about.

As Pocus has asked us to refrain from a flame war here, these comments to you on this topic will be my last. I would rather spend my time debating and discussing the mod with those posters here who are actually interested in using it and seeing it be successful.