Kaunitz Project [moved over to NTW engine!]

[JaM]

Hey Kaunitz, btw, if you want fatigue to work as disorder instead, just rename all fatigue lines in localisation.loc file to whatever you want to call it (tired to disordered, very tired to very disordered or something like that etc...) its very easy and elegant way how to use in game things for something completely else (i'm using this approach with my mods a lot)


btw, i'm thinking about changing it in my mods same way if you don't mind

[Dee Jay]

Actually, fatigue means 3 things in this mod (and my mod); Fatigue, Musket Effectivness, and Cohesion. So if we did rename it, then it would not make sense for the rest of them, do you know what I mean?

EDIT: YAY, more people are looking at the mod

[Kaunitz]

Hey, thank you very much for this info, JaM! I'd never ever have discovered this on my own because I'm not looking into this file at all! Sounds great. I will do that! And no, I don't mind if you're also using fatigue as something better described as cohesion. Perhaps we can spur and inspire each other in this way.

Well, I think that "slightly disordered"/"disordered"/"severely disordered" or something like that would give a better description of a units state, or perhaps: "high cohesion"/"medium cohesion"/"low cohesion". It will also remind players that it is not meant to represent fatigue in the strict sense. Unfortunately there's no graphical representation of this when you look at your units. You can only tell by hovering your mouse over them, which makes the whole thing a bit stressful to use.

[Dee Jay]

Hey Kaunitz I need your help.

I tried to get your animations from your mod into mine, the ones that remove crouching, but it didn't work

The file must be different in Napoleon compared to Empire, would you be able to tell me how to do this ?

[Kaunitz]

First question: did you also adapt the "man animations"-column in "unit stats land" accordingly? E.g. I've called the new animation file "man_musket1"?
My animation file should also make "mob units" hold their weapons like "disciplined units", btw., since all infantry units are mobs in my mod in order to make them prone to the "attacked by cavalry" morale malus.

[Dee Jay]

I've course I forgot about the db table.

Thanks Kaunitz.

How would I do this for man_musket_sabre animations?

By the way, what should our TWC group be called ?

[Kaunitz]

Phew do we already need a TWC group at this stage? I don't know - what title would fit to our enterprise? Mission impossible? CA-Engine-Total War?

[Dee Jay]

I don't know, Dee Jay and Kaunitz Multiplayer Modification's ? Thats the best I got It's not very creative and doesn't have a ring to it either, it's a terrible name.

[Kaunitz]

Sounds a bit too much like a "personality cult" to me - not that "The KAUNITZ Project" is any better, really. We'd at least have to call it the "Dee Jay, Didz, Kaunitz-Multiplayer Experience" /"DDK" then, but that's not very catchy. Let me try to find an impersonal name, I will think about it over the next few days and come up with suggestions.

I'd love to have some more people taking part in this though, especially to try out some larger multiplayer battles as soon as we've got over the core problems. It's a pity that I still get these crashes. Dee Jay doesn't seem to have them, and neither do I get them in singleplayer battles... I don't know what it is...perhaps the rather bad connection...

Edit: I'll also see if a grape shot based on the "cannister shot type" works better than my current version of grape shot (which is: about 5 cannon balls that disperse a little bit). Due to the "bouncing behaviour", this kind of grape shot doesn't really work that well. Sidenote: Grape shot replaces spherical case shot, since the mod is meant to represent mid centruy warfare. Here is a link to Didzs expertise: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...97#post9297797

Edit II: I think that the "new"/canister based grape is much better than the old one. However, there's still the issue that artillery can shoot with almost full effect without regard of its "maximum range". Maybe it's a matter of velocity combined with maximum range? I could try to set the "maximum ranges" very short so that the ball/shot looses momentum/speed much earlier. This would then mean that you have to judge which ammunition to use without the help of the "fire arcs". I will see if I'm successful. I'm going to start with a maximum range for 12pd solid shot of 20/velocity 625 *g* and see what will happen.

Edit III: Doesn't seem to work, I'm afraid. The shot doesn' loose its momentum. Only accuracy seems to suffer. I fear we have to choose between: high, rock-lobber-like trajectories or flat trajecotries in combination with superball-canon balls that "never" loose their momentum, regardless of any "maximum ranges" and calibre-differences.


All I can achieve is to increase projectile velocity in order to have a flatter trajectory. But in turn the ball bounces like mad and travels far beyond the "maximum range". Moreover, with a high velocity, the ball tends to bounce "too high", not hitting anything after the first graze, even though the spot of the graze was perfectly flat. We'd need something like an air drag-factor for every projectile, independent of "velocity". I've also tried to set the missile type to "bullet" instead of "artillery", but there doesn't seem to be any difference in the trajectory.

[Dee Jay]

Hey Kaunitz, I dont think I will be able to help you with this artillery thingy, it's not really my thing and I don't understand it

But, I was making this post to tell you the differences of our mods at this moment:

In the kv_morale tables
- Attacked by cavalry effect is -30 instead of -38 (I might take it down more) (I did this because cavalry dont break infantry instantly, and infantry actually should have a chace to fight back)
- Attacked by the front, side and back has all been increased by 20 (-30, -30 and -40) (Even though I have done this, melees are still very short, but there is more of a chance for a victor instead of both sides retreating)

In the kv_rules tables
- Cavalry fighting a square formation is -30 instead of -70 (I did this because the square formation is not as reliable as I thought)
- Calibration area is at 30 instead of 37 (This is just because of Napoleonic muskets were much improved from the Seven Years War times)

Other differences
- Troops of the line can't use the light infantry behavior (I did this because you only need Can Skirmish to make all ranks fire)
- I have not used experiance to replicate battle weariness (but I porbably will, still deciding between this and another idea i have)
- Grenadiers and Elite troops have higher reload rates (Line have 35 reloading, Grenadiers 60, Elite 85) (I did this because they actually were better at firing)
- I have removed cavalry abilities Diamond Formation and Wedge Formation, because they were never used and I don't think cavalry were trained for this at all.
- Cavalry can run

I think thats it

[Kaunitz]

Hey, Dee Jay!

Sounds okay to me, but I have a few remarks:

-I think you have to be a bit carefull with setting "rear/flank attack-morale-mali" too high. Mainly because the ("small") cavalry-squadron sizes and the "chaotic movement" of cavalry usually means that there are a lot of flank attacks - so I fear that this will end up with lots of double-routs in cavalry-cavalry-combats. Moreover, and this is a major flaw in the game design, fleeing units can still count as "attacking a flank/rear" of a pursuer. So a high "flank/rear attack"-malus will make cavalry rout very easily when instead it is supposed to pursue. This really sucks. Maybe you can find a well balanced value.

- I can't say much about the calibration area, except that I think you'll end up with too high casualty rates. Does everything else "musketry-related" still work with the new setting (how are casualties affected at different ranges?)?

- Regarding the square: I use such a big negative factor for cavalry because I don't like the idea of drawn-out melees. For most parts, cavalry would avoid a square. And if it charged, I think it would either result in a rout of the infantry (unlikely for steady troops), or the cavalry perishes - so basically I think casualties should be distributed very unevenly. By giving cavalry more melee ability against squares, I fear you end up in square-cavalry engagements in which both sides suffer casualties. As it is, there is a chance that infantry in square attacked by cavalry loose 1-2 soldier-models. If you increase the ability of cavalry, an infantry unit will be scratched much more and its power reduced even if it successfully repells a cavalry charge in square. Personally, I don't like that. One of my desgin-guidelines is to reward the proper use of tactics by having quite clear and decisive outcomes of engagements (i.e. in this case: unevenly distributed casualties).
Sure, unlike in the current version, cavalry should be able to break a square - but that shouldn't be a matter of casualties and melee power, but rather morale. And unfortunately, morale is an aspect that CA has almost totally missed. There's only one potentially useful "distance-to-the-enemy"-related morale factor in the game, namely the "scares enemy/scares horses"-ability. And this factor is broken in that its range seems to be capped at too long a distance. It always sets in at about 100 ingame yards, and you cannot make it lower than that (no matter what distance you set in kv_morale).

- Yes, I'll get rid of special formations as well. There was this kind of staggered formation for cavalry, but not for indivudual squadrons. Rather such a formation would have consisted of several squadrons, each one "securing" the flank of another one. Oh and: cavalry will be able to run in my next version as well .

But I don't want to be so stubborn and blockheaded. It's just that I've already walked the via dolorosa of battle mechanics modding and this is what I came up with. I'm looking forward to our next game! I'll try to get all the changes ready for next weekend, perhaps?

[Dee Jay]

Ok thanks Kaunitz, I think I will just do as you do, you know best

Also just a useful tip, the Cavalry and Light Cavalry running fatigue effects dont work for some reason (in the kv_fatigue table). I done a bunch of testing, changing the value from 40 to -80 and I got no difference.

[Kaunitz]

Don't do as I do, just take my remarks into consideration!
What do you mean? Cavalry and light cavalry don't accumulate fatigue (drop to active/tired/etc.) while running? Phew, I will test it myself this evening, but I hink it worked in my last battle (in which cavalry was allowed to run again). Actually I'm quite sure it works. What exactly did you change (the effects of fatigue are not set in "kv_fatigue")?

[Dee Jay]

It might just be in Napoleon.

Because when I tested it (a few times) cavalry seemed to just use the "running" value in the kv_fatigue table instead of using the "running_cavalry" like it is supposed to. Because no matter what I made the "running_cavalry" value, their fatigue dropped at the same pace as the infantry. I even tried to make "running_cavalry" a massive possitive value and I still got the same resault.

Does that make sense ?

Also I will try to help you out with you trajectory thing, and get it right hopefully

[Kaunitz]

I will check that this evening (or tomorrow).

What clearly doesn't work is the "under artillery fire"-fatigue factor, which is a pity. We could have a great and realistic effect of artillery disrupting units in this way, forcing them to stop an dress repeatedly, even making some attacks on strongly artillery-supported positions impossible (in multiplayer games), just as it should be.

Edit: Does anyone have the english localisation file (or the pack file including it) for me? I've only got the german one.

[bloody bill]

Hey guys, Not a moder but very interested in the mod and would like to help with mp battles in any way needed.

[Dee Jay]

I'm uploading the loc file for you now Kaunitz

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MGUG8257 there it is

EDIT: NAME IDEA!

Revolutionary Multiplayer Modifications

Thats the best name I can think of at the moment for our group/team/joint mod creation thing.

Tell me what you think of it, and have you come up with any names yet too?

EDIT AGAIN: Will you be giving more elite troops better reloading compared to regular line troops?

And I hopefully will be able to have a game against you this weekend, looking forward to it

[Kaunitz]

@ Dee Jay:

Thank you for the loc-file!

Hrm, revolutionary, doesn't this sound like a French Revolution Mod? But, nah, I don't care about the name. I can't come up with something that fits both the napoleonic wars and seven years war. Also the miniature wargames I know don't come up with good names....General de Brigade, Piquet, Volley and Bayonet......ppf...

Because of my involvement in the "effectivity of bayonets"-thread, I've only managed to make a single game today. Basically I'm adapting more things for multiplayer battles, especially I punish movements more than before. I've also re-reduced movement speed to fit the scale, regardless of the complaints so far. And running cavalry makes a difference. Slower infantry and faster cavalry enhance the importance of orderly deployment. I really think that it works much better this way, but I need some more test battles. I've tweaked quite a lot of things for the new version. We can try it out this weekend!

Oh and no. I don't plan to give elites faster reloading. Morale and manoeuverability (turning rates that also affect the tidyness of volleys, fatigue resistance) and perhaps more melee power (if I don't find a better way to represent bayonet fights) are enough advantages.

@ A bloody bill:

A heartily welcome to you! Yes, we two can always need people for multiplayer games! The more the better! We could try out a 2 (10+10 slots) vs 1 (20 slots), or you and Dee Jay could finish a battle without CTD!

Concerning your question in the other thread about the video. Unfortunatly I haven't found a way to get the videos (the intro and the main manu background video - which would contain all the credits) to work for the "vanilla version". I think the guys from the "Empires of Destiny"-mod have similar troubles. But if you like, you can watch the intro video seperatly. All you need is some program that plays bik-files (e.g. the free rad-video tools.)

[bloody bill]

@ A bloody bill:

A heartily welcome to you! Yes, we two can always need people for multiplayer games! The more the better! We could try out a 2 (10+10 slots) vs 1 (20 slots), or you and Dee Jay could finish a battle without CTD!

Concerning your question in the other thread about the video. Unfortunatly I haven't found a way to get the videos (the intro and the main manu background video - which would contain all the credits) to work for the "vanilla version". I think the guys from the "Empires of Destiny"-mod have similar troubles. But if you like, you can watch the intro video seperatly. All you need is some program that plays bik-files (e.g. the free rad-video tools.)[/QUOTE]

Excellent video sir, I am sold on the mod it is very interesting and wonderful to play even in the beta stage. I have lots of questions and might need help with some aspects but I am on board to help as much as possible. I am in the pacific time zone and am on most nights so anytime then I can get a game in.

[bloody bill]

Sorry my last post was hard to read. I love the video it was very mood setting. The time period is very wonderful and the combat in the mod is excellent. I at first was thinking the cav was to slow but after my 10th battle with the AI I kinda fell in love with the speed and game mechanics. I tried the spongebob mod with DMUC but all my battles crashed so I just have your data file in and launch mod manager. I am very excited to help in any way and I do have some time on my hands so feel free to use me. I am very eager to get a mp battle in.