Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 149

Thread: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

  1. #61
    Fencible's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    112

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    PikeStance,

    Yes, yes, yes! Your modifications are excellent! Thanks so much. This mod creates MUCH more realistic battles.

    I approve of the artillery battery size reductions. The unit spacing, the infantry movement speeds, and the general moral reactions (routing works MUCH more realistically). The behaviour of cavalry is MUCH more realistic, although I feel they should capable of recovering from route over and over again as long as they have not suffered excessive casualties. They route (or 'withdraw') as often and as easily as they should, however - good work!

    Cavalry - a few comments:
    1) The walking speed of normal/heavy cavalry is much too fast - it shouldn't be much faster than the infantry marching speed. Your light cavalry could have a faster walking speed, as they rode smaller, lighter horses, and were purposed for scouting and running about. The smaller horses also had much better stamina.

    2) Cavalry armed with carbines and pistols should have less than half the range of infantry with muskets. The carbines and pistols carried by cavalry really only had effective ranges of 30 yards AT BEST. In this mod they actually seem to have LONGER range than infantry, which is nonsense.

    3) ONLY light cavalry should have curved sabres. All other European cavalry - 'Horse', Carabinier, Dragoon, Cuirassier and other heavy cavalry all used straight sabres. This was an error introduced in the original vanilla version of 'Empire'.

    I am SO happy with your improvements for land battles. Please continue your excellent work.

    With gratitude,
    Fencible
    Last edited by Fencible; June 06, 2015 at 12:26 PM.

  2. #62
    Fencible's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    112

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    PikeStance,

    My opinion on Battle Realism Mod artillery is that the accuracy is now much too poor. Artillery was accurate enough in the 18th and early 19th century to repeatedly sever flag staffs over fortresses. That is darned accurate shooting. Currently I find that guns are shooting 15 to 20 degrees offline from intended targets which is ridiculously bad, and endangers friendly troops. Shots are repeatedly landing far short of target as well - often less than half way to the target. During the era of black powder it has been worked out that the average casualty rate per gun was 1 hit per shot. If you wish to reduce the effect of artillery, you should simply reduce the strength of the hits, not the accuracy. This would be much more in line with realism.
    The current gunners are just too clownish.

    Other than that, I am finding your mod to be extremely enjoyable!

    Fencible.
    Last edited by Fencible; June 09, 2015 at 09:32 AM.

  3. #63
    Fencible's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    112

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Pikestance,

    I see that British and French line infantry do NOT have the ability to use platoon fire (actually, fire by rank). I have this technology researched and yet my British faction line infantry have the fire rate of civilian ad-hoc infantry. The Spanish line infantry do use fire-by-rank. The British and French line infantry should certainly have this capability, especially if other factions do.

    I notice that low quality troops and civilian ad-hoc infantry have longer range than regular line infantry. No musket armed unit - including light infantry - should have a range longer than 100 yards. Smooth-bore muskets were already at extreme long range even at 100 yards. I've fired rifled flintlock muskets and even they struggle to be accurate at 100 yard range - even with a rest. Standing freehand firing is much less accurate.

    I am still enjoying your mod.
    Fencible

  4. #64

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Quote Originally Posted by Fencible View Post
    2) Cavalry armed with carbines and pistols should have less than half the range of infantry with muskets. The carbines and pistols carried by cavalry really only had effective ranges of 30 yards AT BEST. In this mod they actually seem to have LONGER range than infantry, which is nonsense.

    I see that British and French line infantry do NOT have the ability to use platoon fire (actually, fire by rank). I have this technology researched and yet my British faction line infantry have the fire rate of civilian ad-hoc infantry. The Spanish line infantry do use fire-by-rank. The British and French line infantry should certainly have this capability, especially if other factions do.

    I notice that low quality troops and civilian ad-hoc infantry have longer range than regular line infantry. No musket armed unit - including light infantry - should have a range longer than 100 yards. Smooth-bore muskets were already at extreme long range even at 100 yards. I've fired rifled flintlock muskets and even they struggle to be accurate at 100 yard range - even with a rest. Standing freehand firing is much less accurate.
    If you look at the OP you will see that I did not mod any ranges for any unit in the mod. Whatever variable you noticed are either created by the previous development team or are the vanilla variables. In the case of France and Britain, these units were more recently created (after 2011) and their range would fit the historical research. However, this was done prior to my arrival and I am merely assuming this to be the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fencible View Post
    Cavalry - a few comments:
    1) The walking speed of normal/heavy cavalry is much too fast - it shouldn't be much faster than the infantry marching speed. Your light cavalry could have a faster walking speed, as they rode smaller, lighter horses, and were purposed for scouting and running about. The smaller horses also had much better stamina.
    I differentiate marching (walking in a non-combat) manner from walking during an active battle or engagement. As a former civil war reeneactor I could never walk as fast as a horse walking. The trick is not having the horses run to fast. We have reports that commanders would make a point to approach slowly enough in order to keep cohesion. Ideally, I would love to have charging speed go faster, but with a loss of significant cohesion, but the AI cannot handle well anything to do with fatigue (cohesion). However, I plan on working on the land battles when I finish with the nval adjustments. I will look into the speed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fencible View Post
    3) ONLY light cavalry should have curved sabres. All other European cavalry - 'Horse', Carabinier, Dragoon, Cuirassier and other heavy cavalry all used straight sabres. This was an error introduced in the original vanilla version of 'Empire'.
    The only units/ models created were for Britain and France. All other factions use the vanilla models. The British and French units would be historical. However, if you wish to express your concerns regarding this, you should post in the SUGGESTIONS, COMMMENTS, & QUESTIONS [v3.0 Development Discussion] Thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fencible View Post
    My opinion on Battle Realism Mod artillery is that the accuracy is now much too poor. Artillery was accurate enough in the 18th and early 19th century to repeatedly sever flag staffs over fortresses. That is darned accurate shooting. Currently I find that guns are shooting 15 to 20 degrees offline from intended targets which is ridiculously bad, and endangers friendly troops. Shots are repeatedly landing far short of target as well - often less than half way to the target. During the era of black powder it has been worked out that the average casualty rate per gun was 1 hit per shot. If you wish to reduce the effect of artillery, you should simply reduce the strength of the hits, not the accuracy. This would be much more in line with realism.
    The current gunners are just too clownish.
    The units are scale battalion. It is not 1=1. There wasn't a standard size battalion in the 18th century. There is a balance to be made here. If artillery causes too much damage then units will route quickly. If you increase morale to adjust to it, then casualty will be Pyrrhic. One of the adjustments I made were to increase the morale penalty units get when shot at by artillery. I can easily mod it so that it look less aesthetically poor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fencible View Post
    PikeStance,
    I approve of the artillery battery size reductions. The unit spacing, the infantry movement speeds, and the general moral reactions (routing works MUCH more realistically). The behaviour of cavalry is MUCH more realistic, although I feel they should capable of recovering from route over and over again as long as they have not suffered excessive casualties. They route (or 'withdraw') as often and as easily as they should, however - good work!
    Unfortunately, the game does not recovery from routing more than once. Cavalry have been reported to engage and then run off the battlefield never to return. This happens in the mod. I do not know if units will repeatedly route in a battle. In the case of cavalry I wouldn't mind an option for at least one more route. It is possible for a unit to route and then stay taking a lot of casualties.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	French Guard hold Firm.jpg 
Views:	49 
Size:	580.8 KB 
ID:	326091
    The French Guard holding the line against the odds.
    Initially they routed taking a couple of casualties, but then later they held losing more than 35% of their strength before routing for good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fencible View Post
    I see that British and French line infantry do NOT have the ability to use platoon fire (actually, fire by rank). I have this technology researched and yet my British faction line infantry have the fire rate of civilian ad-hoc infantry. The Spanish line infantry do use fire-by-rank. The British and French line infantry should certainly have this capability, especially if other factions do.
    I removed the platoon fire because of an animation issue. When units uses platoon fire they would spread out causing problems with alignment problems.

    Thanks for your feedback!
    Please continue to share.
    Last edited by PikeStance; June 09, 2015 at 07:51 PM.

  5. #65
    Fencible's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    112

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    PikeStance,

    Thank you for your responses.

    Fencible

  6. #66

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    I am sorry to be this guy, PikeStance.
    When will you release naval battles update? I am asking because my first naval battle 1 Polish brig vs 1 Swedish brig went for like 15 mins with minor damages to both ships shooting each other at close range. Or maybe until you release naval update you could give us hotfix to make naval battles as they were in vanilla?

    Two more questions:
    Why musket range is soooooo long?
    And why Polish basic cavalry has 1/3 longer range than infantry?
    Why tier 2 mounted infantry can't shoot on the horsebacks but tier 1 cavalry can (the one with 1/3 longer range than inf)?

    Thank you for such awesome work you have done and for keeping Empire alive!

  7. #67

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk_xx View Post
    I am sorry to be this guy, PikeStance.
    When will you release naval battles update? I am asking because my first naval battle 1 Polish brig vs 1 Swedish brig went for like 15 mins with minor damages to both ships shooting each other at close range. Or maybe until you release naval update you could give us hotfix to make naval battles as they were in vanilla?
    Yes, I am working on this. There is a fine line between accuracy and damage that determine if a ship will shoot it out or attempt to board. I still have an issue with 5th rate ships with this.
    I am currently packing to move to Indonesia, so I cannot spend as much time on this as I would like to fix it. I might be able to get something done before I fly on the 7th. If not, it may be a week more after that.

    Two more questions:
    Why musket range is soooooo long?
    And why Polish basic cavalry has 1/3 longer range than infantry?
    Why tier 2 mounted infantry can't shoot on the horsebacks but tier 1 cavalry can (the one with 1/3 longer range than inf)?

    Thank you for such awesome work you have done and for keeping Empire alive!
    Sorry, I didn;t make any adjustments to "range." Most factions are not completed and they would all be done according to historical records. As we update, we should be able to adjust according to game- play. Someone else mentioned something about mounted units having longer range than infantry. I will have to look into this for closely. I might be able to do a quick fix.

  8. #68

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    Yes, I am working on this. There is a fine line between accuracy and damage that determine if a ship will shoot it out or attempt to board. I still have an issue with 5th rate ships with this.
    I am currently packing to move to Indonesia, so I cannot spend as much time on this as I would like to fix it. I might be able to get something done before I fly on the 7th. If not, it may be a week more after that.
    What I meant is that ship cannons are very inaccurate and I could see cannonballs flying way higher than enemy ship even my ship was not moving. Additionally, damage dealt by 15 cannons broadfire to Brig at point blank distance (ships were as close as physically possible) is soo minor it is confusing. That's why I asked for vanilla hotfix so we can actually play sea battles in campaign because at the moment sea battles are not enjoyable nor playable sadly.


    Quote Originally Posted by PikeStance View Post
    Sorry, I didn;t make any adjustments to "range." Most factions are not completed and they would all be done according to historical records. As we update, we should be able to adjust according to game- play. Someone else mentioned something about mounted units having longer range than infantry. I will have to look into this for closely. I might be able to do a quick fix.
    Well, Fencible mentioned the cavalry range above. It just feels so wrong and early alpha like with no balancing/adjustments

    Sadly, you also told us that the Devs are currently busy with Rise of Republic version so I bet we will not see unit adjustments for regular IS any soon...

  9. #69

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk_xx View Post
    What I meant is that ship cannons are very inaccurate and I could see cannonballs flying way higher than enemy ship even my ship was not moving. Additionally, damage dealt by 15 cannons broadfire to Brig at point blank distance (ships were as close as physically possible) is soo minor it is confusing. That's why I asked for vanilla hotfix so we can actually play sea battles in campaign because at the moment sea battles are not enjoyable nor playable sadly.
    I am aware of this which is why I am working on a solution. When i increased the accuracy and damage effect ships opted to board. I have managed to stop this except with fifth rates.

    Personally, I rather enjoyed the chess play of fighting with those little ships. However, I rather fight larger engagedments.Historically small engagements were indecisive tactically and strategically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk_xx View Post
    Well, Fencible mentioned the cavalry range above. It just feels so wrong and early alpha like with no balancing/adjustments

    Sadly, you also told us that the Devs are currently busy with Rise of Republic version so I bet we will not see unit adjustments for regular IS any soon...
    the goal of the battle enhance,net was to "enhance" the battle experience to be more realistic. Each faction is being developed individually. Currently there are only two factions that has had any significant overhaul. Therefore this will constantly adjusted until everything is properly balance. There is no way I can anticipate or notice everything which is why this thread exist.

    You are correct the mat of the team are working on development of the late era units. However that will not have any effect on balancing here. I can make the adjustments as necessary. If you want to HELPi along the process give me data I can used Andy can. Make the adjustments. Right now my time is short.

  10. #70

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Hey Pikestance, would it be possible to upload the tighter formation file you use in the sub mod? ive tried the few that are available but none are as good as this one.

  11. #71

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Solar View Post
    Hey Pikestance, would it be possible to upload the tighter formation file you use in the sub mod? ive tried the few that are available but none are as good as this one.
    Possible yes, but is there a problem with the battle mod?

  12. #72

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    I tried ten turns with the battle mod and ten turns as regular 2.2.1b, what I got most infuriated about with the battle mod was units esp militia seem to flee after about 40 causalities, sometimes even straight away, two units of 40 Indians attacked one of my towns in north America, vs a garrison of two units of 200 armed cits, the shooting killed 38, two of them made it into combat with one of the units and they just auto fled and then the other unit panicked and ran too. even the line inf flee quite quickly after about 1/3 casualties. Which makes playing the ai utterly boring as they generally just break and flee, and the only time stuff actually dies is when you take a settlement and the stuff just auto dies. Also I had tried the battle mod previously and there was a massive problem with ships not dieing, thou that was quite a while ago, I don't know if its been updated since

    With regular 2.21b, the American Indians were horribly slaughtered, which is totally fine

    Im always torn between IS and darthmod, Is textures on inf and such are amazing so I tend to play more battles, while on darthmod the overall music is great, but the textures not so much, esp the red coats so I tend to auto resolve.
    Last edited by Lord Solar; September 28, 2015 at 08:35 AM.

  13. #73

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Solar View Post
    I tried ten turns with the battle mod and ten turns as regular 2.2.1b, what I got most infuriated about with the battle mod was units esp militia seem to flee after about 40 causalities, sometimes even straight away, two units of 40 Indians attacked one of my towns in north America, vs a garrison of two units of 200 armed cits, the shooting killed 38, two of them made it into combat with one of the units and they just auto fled and then the other unit panicked and ran too. even the line inf flee quite quickly after about 1/3 casualties. Which makes playing the ai utterly boring as they generally just break and flee, and the only time stuff actually dies is when you take a settlement and the stuff just auto dies. Also I had tried the battle mod previously and there was a massive problem with ships not dieing, thou that was quite a while ago, I don't know if its been updated since

    With regular 2.21b, the American Indians were horribly slaughtered, which is totally fine

    Im always torn between IS and darthmod, Is textures on inf and such are amazing so I tend to play more battles, while on darthmod the overall music is great, but the textures not so much, esp the red coats so I tend to auto resolve.
    It is a battle realism mod. 25- 33% loss in a victory is considered a Pyrrhic victory and a bad defeat. I have fought and won decisive victories, but I had to take risk to achieve them. Taking a risk generally gives the AI a chance to "sucker punch" you. If you play it safe, you should expect to fight indecisive battles. This means easy conquest are gone.

    I will never create a realistic nod where you could receive 40% loss of men and hope to inflict 80% casualties on the AI. It is still mathematically possible, but highly unlikely you would. It would also be equally devastating for you. Combined with the campaign changes, the AI would be able to recover well enough to prevent an easy conquest. This is realistic. This is what I hope to achieve.

    I do not know what you mean by "ships not [dying]." I never had any problems with ships routing, not are ships exploding when you hit the magazine that uncommon. Ships sinking are rare, but this is historically accurate. I am still working on the AI saving damaged ships after battle. Once I have accomplish this, then Naval strategy would also be equally challenging.

    I am not trying to make your game experience easy, but challenging and as historically accurate as possible. If you want easy arcade experience, then play Darthmod or vanilla. IS intends to push you to your limits. As I tell my students, challenges are intended to be overcome not run away from.

  14. #74

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    What is the "Admiralty Edition"?
    If I have the Battle Realism submod installed from the first post, do I need this?

    Also, if I was in the middle of a campaign, do I need to restart in order to experience the changes?

    It would be nice to have a screenshot of the regiments to see if I installed it right and it's working properly. My units don't look like they are packed closely enough.

  15. #75

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Quote Originally Posted by MainMan View Post
    What is the "Admiralty Edition"?
    If I have the Battle Realism submod installed from the first post, do I need this?

    Also, if I was in the middle of a campaign, do I need to restart in order to experience the changes?

    It would be nice to have a screenshot of the regiments to see if I installed it right and it's working properly. My units don't look like they are packed closely enough.
    For Version 2.0 you do not need to download anything else. The admiralty addition was an add on to the land battle mechanic. Originally, I only modded the land battles and I later added naval battles.
    I do not believe you need to restart your campaign.
    You should be able to tell in the battles if it is installed. If I get a little time, I will post some images in the OP

  16. #76

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Thanks!
    Visually I don't notice anything, but I do believe the battles have a different feel to them, although that may be a placebo effect.
    I was flanked in a very sneaky way for the first time!! The fights seem longer, and more devastating. Units rout and come back more often. Cavalry charges on armed civilians don't instantly rout them anymore. AI seems to charge more and in more concentrated efforts.

    Muskets are extremely inaccurate, which makes me wonder why people don't just fight with swords, arrows, pikes, and catapults like in medieval times.
    But I am using the technique (advance close and fire) recommended in the original post with success.

  17. #77

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    Quote Originally Posted by MainMan View Post
    Thanks!
    Visually I don't notice anything, but I do believe the battles have a different feel to them, although that may be a placebo effect.
    I was flanked in a very sneaky way for the first time!! The fights seem longer, and more devastating. Units rout and come back more often. Cavalry charges on armed civilians don't instantly rout them anymore. AI seems to charge more and in more concentrated efforts.

    Muskets are extremely inaccurate, which makes me wonder why people don't just fight with swords, arrows, pikes, and catapults like in medieval times.
    But I am using the technique (advance close and fire) recommended in the original post with success.

    For added benefits check these little tidbits!

    Also contrary to popular belief. Armies didn't just stand toe to toe and fire at each other. They charged by bayonet and for good reason.

  18. #78

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    I've seen conflicting information on that, with some sources saying bayonet clashes were rare and others saying that they happened a lot under certain conditions.

  19. #79

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    It depends, of who is leading. You have to imagine being there in the battle. Do you chance a bayonet, charge? Or keep firing until the other breaks. Do you have enough men for a charge? Or fall back for another fight. Or do you hold the position and fight to the last.

  20. #80

    Default Re: OFFICIAL: Battle Realism Mod {{Version2}}

    What I was wondering, is does my description seem correct?
    I believe it was installed correctly, but I don't notice the only visual queue, which is the spacing of the individual soldiers

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •