Leader Optimization Project Mod for 1.06

[pasternakski]

...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.

I am not here to flick my Bic under the tinder, but this paragraph highlights exactly why I dislike the whole idea of "community" game development.

The whole mess becomes personal, ownership interests attach, and the integrity of the original design gets lost behind a smokescreen of "I want and I wanna." You can't follow through on a commitment made during the time the game was being created, but now your heart and soul are dedicated to "tweaking it to perfection." Ah hah. Okay. I think that reveals enough for consideration.

In any event, thanks to such "contributions," before long, the game winds up having as many versions as it has players, and the "community" disintegrates into sad discussions among people who have no idea whether what they are saying is relevant to the version of the game any reader or responder happens to be playing.

I am particularly chagrined by those who download the demo, fiddle around with it a little, then offer grand schemes for improvement of the game everyone else bought.

It's chaos, folks, here in the brave, new "I want it my way, I want it now, and what I think is important because I say so" century.

The computer wargaming hobby is dead. Long live the computer modgaming hobby.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[PBBoeye]

Gentlemen, let's get back on track with this thread.

It looks like this is an issue that various people have different viewpoints about. Thus, if you have issues with game modifications, take it up in a separate, dedicated discussion thread, please (in this forum:http://www.ageod-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=46 ). Otherwise, I am sure a moderator can 'help' you with your viewpoint(s).

Let the original thread content continue, please.

[Dan]

I am not here to flick my Bic under the tinder, but this paragraph highlights exactly why I dislike the whole idea of "community" game development.....................

What is the big deal here? If Pocus and company did not want anybody messing with the "original design" of the game, they would not offer up the tools and advice (for free) to do so here on these forums. To me, the fact that Pocus has stated the possibility of making the finished leader mod an official part of the game shows that he is not offended by the work Hancock and the others have invested in this mod.

In another thread, Pocus has even issued a challenge to the community to come up with a better working weather matrix to be included in the game. Should we jump over to that thread and berate those gamers that are working to improve that part of the game?

How about the gamers that are working on identifying and fixing the broken links between regions? Or the gamers that pointed out incorrect railroad locations that were corrected by the designers? Are they also guilty of messing with the "original design"?

If the mods offend/bother you, why not just play the original version? I see no problem wit hthe mods until Pocus and company make it clear that they do not approve of players making changes to their code. Until then, can't we all "just get along?"

Also, I'd like to offer my thanks to Hancock (and all of the others invloved in this mod) for his/their time and effort to improve an already great game.

[Black Cat]

Well said Dan.

I think McN and Hancock and the rest are actually doing a great service in providing free OPTIONAL mods for the Game.

Pocus has stated NONE will be included in an official patch without the Devs looking at balance effects and/or screw-ups they might have regarding the default game.

Surely this can be the only basis that reasonable people could use to object to player Mods ?

[Nial]

I have heard (read) this discussion in many forums. From wargames to RPGs. The purists ( unmodded ) vs. the modders. To be honest, I don't quite understand the debate. Using mods is not mandatory. It is a purely voluntary thing. No one is being forced to use or even discuss mods if they don't want to. If you don't like them? Don't use them. Simple as that.

Nial

[PBBoeye]

Hey Hancock,

Any idea what is causing that message output for the early Confed leaders?

[McNaughton]

Hey Hancock,

Any idea what is causing that message output for the early Confed leaders?

All text is located in "Settings/LocalStrings_ACW.csv". You have to create entrys here (anywhere should do), connecting this specific entry with some text.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Korrigan]

(I move this thread to the Mod forum. Cheers, Korrigan)

(NB: I'm still on vacations)

[lpremus]

I have been testing this mod for the last couple of days using 1.06 version. I have to say this is a good mod and should be incorporated into the game patch. It helps so much in the mundane micro-management of the game. For days I would research on the generals, just to see where they started and what battles they were in at the start of the war. Now, If there is a way to automate the mundane merge of militia. If you can merge 2 militia together why can't you just buy the two elements together? Then over time train them to be line infantry. I now spend a good portion of the game just merging militia into a fighting unit, because I found my gaming that one militia really can't hold any major front line areas like Paducah or Lexington. So usually build an extra element and merge them.

Overall this is a good mod and should be recommend to the dev for review

[McNaughton]

I was just wondering at what rate do generals recieve favourable statistic changes in regards to promotion, compared to a gradual degrading of 'ability'?

From what I have read, there were certian personalities which could lead large forces effectively, and certain personalities that couldn't.

Take a comparison of Jackson and Hood. Both were superb brigade commanders, able to inspire their men at critical times. Commanding division sized forces (Jackson in the Valley, Hood during Antietam), they did credible as well. However, the difference ocurred when they commanded forces beyond the Division.

Jackson, although initially stumbling in the Peninsula campaign, proved to be an accomplished corps commander, capable of leading his force with or without direction. In my opinion, he would have been a valuable successor to Lee, given his ability to manoever and command his forces (independent, or part of a larger army).

Hood, stumbled when as corps commander and faltered completely as army commander. Unable to realize his strategic situation, he almost personally destroyed the Army of Tennessee.

While Hood is portrayed as an anomoly, I think he probably rates more as the average.

I think that for many generals who weren't promoted beyond a certain rank (death, wounding, prisoner, lack of chance, etc.) that on average, stats should not be an increase.

[McNaughton]

I have a slight idea. I think there may be a way to create some randomness in regards to future promotions.

Given that generals appear via event, it would be possible to have event chances take place to have one event fire, or the other event fire. What could be done, was to create doppelgängers, which have a % to be triggered via event. This could result in a general appearing with a good future promotion, or a poor future promotion (maybe Hood will be a great Lieutenant General while Sherman might be a dud).

This would require two versions of a set number of generals to be created (not all generals, just ones with good chances of use and promotion), and double events for their appearance (with a % for the historic and a % for the alternative).

Their first appearance (most likely brigadier) should be identical, given that they would appear to be the same (both versions) leading the player to be unaware of which version they are using.

This would be based somewhat on a 'promoter beware' to eliminate some of the prior knowledge (Hood sucks so don't promote him, Sherman rocks so promote him ASAP).

[Dan]

Given that generals appear via event, it would be possible to have event chances take place to have one event fire, or the other event fire. What could be done, was to create doppelgängers, which have a % to be triggered via event. This could result in a general appearing with a good future promotion, or a poor future promotion (maybe Hood will be a great Lieutenant General while Sherman might be a dud).

If you build it, I will play it.

This does sound like a pretty cool idea and should be a very nice twist once players have played through the regular campaign a few times.

[McNaughton]

If you build it, I will play it.

This does sound like a pretty cool idea and should be a very nice twist once players have played through the regular campaign a few times.

Generals aren't in my field. Just giving suggestions here!

[PBBoeye]

Question: is there an event that creates the possibility of Jackson being thumped? I've been searching for it and haven't found it.

Still getting used to these events and their commands.

[WhoCares]

I found a little typo in the USA Leaders.sct:

SetName = Mid62' West Division Generals
Apply
CreateUnit
SetType = $uni_USA_TSherman
SetName = T. Sherman
Apply
CreateUnit
SetType = $uni_USA_Hovey
[color="Red"]Set Name[/color] = A. Hovey
Apply

Should be [color="Blue"]SetName[/color] as for Sherman above.
I/The game got it after starting a new April '61 Campaign and with debug mode on (script parsing error).

[bstarr]

Another possible mod tweak - In the game there are HUGE penalties in confederate national morale given when you loose New Orleans, Nashville, Memphis or Richmond (accompanied by a boost in Union morale). This probably works well with competitive games, but historically it doen't fit. If you loose three of those cities in 1862 (as happened historically) Confederate Morale slumps to about 50 while Union morale skyrockets to about 150. I doubt there's any way the game can continue on it's historic path from this point.

[PBBoeye]

Good point. I think those penalties are a little too severe for what NM means to victory. To be sure they were demoralizing, but that kind of discrepancy is hard to recover from - the war should be over.

[WhoCares]

Looks like I found two more typos in the USA Leaders.sct

Conditions
MinDate = 1862/01/01
MaxDate = 1862/03/31
EvalUnqUnit = Edward R. Canby;NOT
SelectRegion = [color="Red"]$SouthWest, TX[/color]
PickFromRegList = NotEnemy;NotAdj
GenMsg
SelectRegion = [color="red"]$St. Louis[/color], MO;CondSkip
PickFromRegList = NotEnemy
GenMsg
EvalRegionSel = NULL

It should be [color="Blue"]$South West[/color] (split words and without '[color="Red"],TX[/color]') and [color="blue"]$Saint Louis[/color]. Again, the error message is probably only shown with debug mode enabled.

[McNaughton]

Another possible mod tweak - In the game there are HUGE penalties in confederate national morale given when you loose New Orleans, Nashville, Memphis or Richmond (accompanied by a boost in Union morale). This probably works well with competitive games, but historically it doen't fit. If you loose three of those cities in 1862 (as happened historically) Confederate Morale slumps to about 50 while Union morale skyrockets to about 150. I doubt there's any way the game can continue on it's historic path from this point.

Critical cities for both the war effort or for national pride.

All of those currently on the list, probably could stay there, but, for game blanace sake, here are some other options.

Vicksburg - The link between the Eastern and Western Confederacy. This important rail junction on the Mississippi was a critical access hub.

Atlanta - The political and military importance put on this city was immense. One of the reasons Johnston was replaced by Hood (who lost Atlanta probably sooner than Johnston would have in the end).

Charleston - Where the war began. A major military and political objective.

Mobile - A very important naval harbour.

These are sort of longer term investments, as they aren't really that accessible (well in Confederate territory or heavily guarded by Fortifications).

[Pocus]

Read rapidly this thread. Are some questions still unanswered in it? Have you understood all why some data are read dynamically (the ability of a leader) and why some won't changes unless you create a new scenario (what is the model of an element)?

[bstarr]

Critical cities for both the war effort or for national pride.

All of those currently on the list, probably could stay there, but, for game blanace sake, here are some other options.

Vicksburg - The link between the Eastern and Western Confederacy. This important rail junction on the Mississippi was a critical access hub.

Atlanta - The political and military importance put on this city was immense. One of the reasons Johnston was replaced by Hood (who lost Atlanta probably sooner than Johnston would have in the end).

Charleston - Where the war began. A major military and political objective.

Mobile - A very important naval harbour.

These are sort of longer term investments, as they aren't really that accessible (well in Confederate territory or heavily guarded by Fortifications).

I'd say go with Richmond, Atlanta, and Charleston (do we have to have 4?). Also, greatly reduce their impact. I think they currenlty give +10 to the US and -10 to the CS. Basically 20 points. I'd say +3 US and -3 CS.

[McNaughton]

Read rapidly this thread. Are some questions still unanswered in it? Have you understood all why some data are read dynamically (the ability of a leader) and why some won't changes unless you create a new scenario (what is the model of an element)?

It seems that any change to the Units regarding which models they are to utilize will work in old scenarios for new unit builds, as well as for units gained in events, but, any modifications to Units will not appear in units already in a scenario at the start.

"Unit A" originally used "Model B"

Modify "Unit A" to use a new model called "Model B2" (now called "Unit A2")

Any new unit built in game will be "Unit A2"
Any unit gained via event will be "Unit A2"
Any unit that starts the scenario will still be "Unit A"

However, if you modify "Model B" to be "Model B3" to create "Unit A3"

Any new unit built in game will be "Unit A3"
Any unit gained via event will be "Unit A3"
Any unit that starts the scenario will still be "Unit A3"

So, if you modify existing models, it works. However, if you tell an old Unit to use a new Model it will not work for units that start the scenario on the map.

[McNaughton]

I'd say go with Richmond, Atlanta, and Charleston (do we have to have 4?). Also, greatly reduce their impact. I think they currenlty give +10 to the US and -10 to the CS. Basically 20 points. I'd say +3 US and -3 CS.

4 is better than 3 otherwize the impact of the loss of these cities will be too important or too negligable, and predictable (easy to defend 3 cities, harder to defend all 4). In fact, the more cities the better (as it is harder to strongly fortify them all).

I think that these represent the political side of the game, losing key cities was a major morale bust, and should be substantially important (otherwize why would players bother to defend difficult to protect cities if their loss wasn't critical?).

In my opinion, these critical cities should include key cities from the entire war, beyond the easy reach of 1862.

[PBBoeye]

I agree - four is much better. Further, Charleston is susceptible to an human player amph invasion and easier to take than the others. So four would certainly help.

Ideally I'd like to see more than four, including the originals, but with less severe penalties.

Different issue now, as we are getting WAY off track of the Original Thread Content:

"What leader abilities can improve or degrade?"

[Pocus]

It seems that any change to the Units regarding which models they are to utilize will work in old scenarios for new unit builds, as well as for units gained in events, but, any modifications to Units will not appear in units already in a scenario at the start.

"Unit A" originally used "Model B"

Modify "Unit A" to use a new model called "Model B2" (now called "Unit A2")

Any new unit built in game will be "Unit A2"
Any unit gained via event will be "Unit A2"
Any unit that starts the scenario will still be "Unit A"

However, if you modify "Model B" to be "Model B3" to create "Unit A3"

Any new unit built in game will be "Unit A3"
Any unit gained via event will be "Unit A3"
Any unit that starts the scenario will still be "Unit A3"

So, if you modify existing models, it works. However, if you tell an old Unit to use a new Model it will not work for units that start the scenario on the map.

Yes that is normal. You just have to know what are the data which are stored in the scenario and what are the ones who are read dynamically. For example the model UID of an element, hits, experience, cohesion are data which are written in the scenario file, because they are not fixed for a particular unit and thus need to be stored.

On the other hand, the fact that model XXX use picture Y, or is a land element, or has a firepower of 15, don't have to be stored in the scenario and can be read dynamically.

For the first kind of data, this is because these data can change at anytime, for a particular element, during play. A unit starting with 4 elements of conscripts can find itself with 3 elements of trained regular some turns later, so this is impossible to store only the unit type in the scenario (or turn, they share the same format, I like to keep things simple!), and thus I need to store the actual values.

Hope it makes sense for you.

[McNaughton]

Yes that is normal. You just have to know what are the data which are stored in the scenario and what are the ones who are read dynamically. For example the model UID of an element, hits, experience, cohesion are data which are written in the scenario file, because they are not fixed for a particular unit and thus need to be stored.

On the other hand, the fact that model XXX use picture Y, or is a land element, or has a firepower of 15, don't have to be stored in the scenario and can be read dynamically.

For the first kind of data, this is because these data can change at anytime, for a particular element, during play. A unit starting with 4 elements of conscripts can find itself with 3 elements of trained regular some turns later, so this is impossible to store only the unit type in the scenario (or turn, they share the same format, I like to keep things simple!), and thus I need to store the actual values.

Hope it makes sense for you.

Thanks for explaining it, it pretty much matches my observations and makes a load of sense. I was primarily trying to explain what I saw in the game so other modders won't end up with the same situations as myself.

[GShock]

I installed of course at once. I must say it's not hard to do it and it's surely a good idea to always backup original files when installing mods (this makes no exception) but surely a nice installer would be handy...also useful to rollback in case of need.

As i said, i'm too "green" to provide any possible help to it but, since there's no reason not to help...I'll give you the feedback i can

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Sorry I havent been around much to post lately, as I have been consumed by a business trip. I appreciate the continuing feedback and suggestions.

With regards to the miscellaneous errors identified, I will try to get these fixed and posted in new files soon. As far as an installer goes, I dont know how to do that, so if someone else who does wants to take this on, they are more than welcome to do so. Otherwise, we will be stuck with my copy and paste methods into the actual files.

I have read with great interest the idea of an element of randomness when generals are promoted, with a chance they would be their historical selves, and a chance they would peform differently, either better or worse. I think this is a great idea, but one that would take a lot of work to implement. Basically, you would have to code a whole bunch of new models for the generals, with each promotable general having as many as three promotion counters, one being the normal one, one being a poor performer, and one being better than real life. Along with this, you would also have to decide what traits to give this alternative leaders as well. This would require a large amount of research/debate/discussion before implementing, and a significant amount of work as well. Additionally, I would have to figure out how to code the event correctly, so when a general is promoted, there would be the proper chance of getting one of the three potential counters, while sleeping the other two. Right now, I dont know how to do this, or even if it is possible under the current game engine.

That much said, I am willing to take a look at doing this project, but would like some help. I am leaving next week for a European vacation and wont be back home until September 8th, so the earliest I could start this would be the second week of September. If someone is willing to start the research and come up with some ideas before then, it will give us a head start. I would ask that they use the current leader mod as a base, and then look at all promotable leaders and come up with two more outcomes besides the current one, one good, and one bad. And since my goal here is to stick with history as much as possible, the skills and traits of the newly created alternative promotion leaders should bear some resemblance to what is historically plausible -- i.e. a Sherman who is poor after promotion should have some traits mirroring his alleged 'insanity', a Grant some traits reflecting his supposed 'drunkenness', and a Hood who is good some traits that reflect his aggressive inspiration of hard fighting to his men that he showed at lower levels.

Any takers?