The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

[GabeKnight]

Wow. Now this may be getting a bit out of hand, guys...
At least for my mod. Don't get me wrong, I really like the ideas and discussions so far and am eagerly following them, but I'm not sure I want to expand/change THAT much values.

I don't think I'm gonna include units, that can't be used by the player and aren't included in the official scenarios, like bunker variants and such. And I don't think I want to tinker with the infantry's stats that much. But I'd like to include some kind of commando unit(s) for the Germans, though, as they don't have one, for whatever reason. No snipers in the German army (?). Can't believe that.

Anyway: Thanks for all the input, it's great reading material! I'll have to look over the vanilla infrantry values, availability dates and such and try to understand the whole system better. Make some charts and such. Over the weekend probably.

[GabeKnight]

@Duplex
(same files, different compression method)

[Horst]

Something what I've noticed during playing the GGC: if land transports are used as own unit like cargo trucks, they can entrench themselves. This doesn't look plausible and isn't also possible for the real Cargo_Truck_X units.
I'm going to add the noEntrench trait to each land transport. That doesn't affect units with attached transports which automatically switch from transport back at turn start.

By the way, it's a bad idea to add the noCapture trait to land transports, as transported units like infantry won't be able to capture terrain/flags on the next turn start. The game demands a move onto the hex with valid unit for capturing.

[terminator]

Something what I've noticed during playing the GGC: if land transports are used as own unit like cargo trucks, they can entrench themselves. This doesn't look plausible and isn't also possible for the real Cargo_Truck_X units.

Cargo Truck could be a Generic Unit.

By the way, it's a bad idea to add the noCapture trait to land transports, as transported units like infantry won't be able to capture terrain/flags on the next turn start. The game demands a move onto the hex with valid unit for capturing.

An Infantry unit in a truck can capture a flag.
An empty truck can capture a flag.
It has to be because of the Hex Ownership ?

truck.jpg (478.64 KiB) Viewed 3801 times

[Horst]

Trucks either park or drive somewhere and not get entrenched like tanks in tank-pits. It would only make sense if they are platforms for AA-units. It’s just a matter of taste and nothing game-breaking if someone else likes to do that fix.

Add the noCapture trait to whatever transport truck and add it to an infantry unit. Then you should see that terrain/flags aren’t captured. In the next turn, the hex won’t be captured either although the capture-able infantry sits on this terrain/flag.
So, it’s best to use the real Cargo_Truck_X units if you don’t want to see such trucks capturing hexes/flags by themselves if they possibly have a move-order.
The pictures below show what happens if you add a noCapture trait to a truck and let it move together with an infantry unit to an enemy city. The infantry disembarks automatically on the next turn but hasn’t captured any terrain/flag and will run out of supply.
I hope it's clear now why it isn't a good idea to add this noCapture trait to default trucks like cargo_trucks. Don't mind my renamed Jap truck there.

noCaptureTruck.jpg (280.91 KiB) Viewed 3794 times

captureInfantry.jpg (269.23 KiB) Viewed 3794 times

[Horst]

Combat structures: to supply or not?
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 72&t=83069
The issue there in short: units without Supply cost and without noSupply trait are only affected by running out of supply (efficiency) if other units with supply demand are in the same territory. Otherwise, they will stay at 100% efficiency. Such structures’ efficiency will jump back to 100% if they loose connection to supply-requiring units.

Is it better giving structures the noSupply trait to avoid this issue, or semi-fix it by fuel values and/or the supplyResilient trait maybe?
Currently, only the Fortress has the noSupply trait.
I personally like it if combat structures run out of supply, but giving each structure a Supply cost could possibly ruin some maps if they drain too many points there. Therefore it’s either noSupply or supply-infested by other units.
What do you think?
I think noSupply is the best solution so far. It can happen very often that you don’t find a camouflaged mg_nest or purposely leave a concrete_bunker alone that is sooner or later cut off from the AI’s territory, hence they will sooner or later jump back to 100% efficiency anyway.

In my game, combat structures have autoEntrench, slowRepair, and supplyResilient. Bunker, Concrete_Bunker, Fortress (noSupply), and Coastal_Gun additionally have entrenchSupport, providing tools and men to assist nearby defenders. All but fortresses have additional fuel-1 to delay the supply drainage, but maybe I’m going to increase that or remove it entirely with noSupply.
I find it strange that vanilla structures start with autoEntrench but also have the noEntrench trait. Either both or none, I say.
I’ve also been playing since a long time with repairing structures. You have to give each one a proper cost value to make this reasonably functional. It’s only a single point per turn(day), so still somewhat plausible if you can repair defensive structures. The AI also repairs its structures what makes it a bit more durable sometimes.

[GabeKnight]

Okay. Now I've started the works.

- My Schienengeschütz got a new "cluster bomb" setting with a 5-turn cooldown, which makes this whole unit quite devastating and possibly game-balance breaking, so use with caution
And please don't laugh at my first attempt of icon making, I'm no designer...

Screenshot 219.jpg (61.05 KiB) Viewed 3767 times

- The BCV Ise changed to battleship class as Horst suggested to avoid AI-compatibility issues. Carrier planes stats changed accodingly, so they'll be able to use the Ise as carrier. I'm still not happy with this solution, as the BCV Ise now produces LAND supply and not AIR supply, as intended. With the previous "acarrier" class solution, there was no such problem. Why can't there be no perfect solution?
- All cruisers provide AA support now (if Horst's okay with this in his mod, I can't be doing anything wrong there... )
- All tanks get a small supply stash as paratroopers, but for one turn only (makes sense to me to make them self-sustaining for a little while). As this change applies to the enemy units as well, it should increase the difficulty a little, I hope.

[Horst]

Holy cow, are you seriously giving this gun a blast effect like atomic bombs?!
No idea what you imagine this railway gun is suppose to fire. The most famous railway gun "Anzio Annie" had a firing rate of only 15 shots per hour and its caliber of 283 mm was far below that of Mortar Karl (600 or 540 mm). The shells' destructive power was about equal to Wurfrahmen 40 rockets: heavier but less explosive filler.

The Ise should still keep its Air supply. I have just tested it with the editor if I only change the class to BB. A Reisen plane correctly shifted its efficiency from full to lower if I manipulate the Ise's prod value.
The "airSupply" trait in classes.txt seem to be an obsolete relic of earlier days. The game rather reads the Prod-T column in units.csv which type is used for the Prod amount.

[GabeKnight]

Some fixes to equalize inconsistent bomb / air / naval defense values for a number of infantry units (reported in the first post)

I'm no expert, but there's a serious mix-up going on - just looking at it logically. And I'm not sure if some higher defensive values make actual sense, but then they should be the same for all of the same tier, no? Like the Thai or Indian units. How can the mortar heavy infantry's values be different from regular heavy infantry's? Or is a drop of the air defense values from 16 to 14 in one year's upgrade and back to 16 in the next year's plausible? Does really nobody ever check the data consistency? Why do I have to? It's not that hard.

Affected INFANTRY units (the one's Horst posted and some additional, there may be even more):

us_commandos_42/43
japanese_commandos_44
japanese_snipers
british_heavyinfantry_39-45
british_commandos_40-45
SBS_40-45
Chindits
Military_Police
Home_Guard
British_mortarinfantry
australian_commandos_41/44
German_Infantry_40/41/44
german_engineers_37-45
german_mountaineers_41-45
SS_Wiking
Italian_heavyinfantry_41
french_heavyinfantry_40
soviet_conscripts
soviet_infantry_37-41/44
soviet_heavyinfantry_37-41/44
soviet_engineers_39-45
finnish_mortarinfantr
polish_heavyinfantry_39
Norwegian_heavyinfantry_40
Greek_heavyinfantry_41
Yugoslavian_heavyinfantry_41
Yugoslavian_Mountaineers_41
Romanian_Mountaineers_41

[GabeKnight]

Holy cow, are you seriously giving this gun a blast effect like atomic bombs?!

Yepp!
(But it still doesn't damage the neighboring units HP and entrenchment at all, if kept at low attack values. So it's more of a "shock and awe" effect in the end)

No idea what you imagine this railway gun is suppose to fire. The most famous railway gun "Anzio Annie" had a firing rate of only 15 shots per hour and its caliber of 283 mm was far below that of Mortar Karl (600 or 540 mm). The shells' destructive power was about equal to Wurfrahmen 40 rockets: heavier but less explosive filler.

Some kind of large-scale, fragmentation, experimental, I-don't-know-kind-of weapon's system.....

I said REPEATEDLY I'm keeping my train-arty NO MATTER WHAT

But I'm using the modified 600mm mortar effect, there you're right. Wanted to add the [NukeExplosion] effect initially, but couldn't figure out how to make it explode on the target unit instead...pity..

The Ise should still keep its Air supply. I have just tested it with the editor if I only change the class to BB. A Reisen plane correctly shifted its efficiency from full to lower if I manipulate the Ise's prod value.
The "airSupply" trait in classes.txt seem to be an obsolete relic of earlier days. The game rather reads the Prod-T column in units.csv which type is used for the Prod amount.

You're quite right there, haven't tested it. Thanks. I saw the "4, air" entry in the production column..... so it just doesn't SHOW right on the map view. That's because now, the Ise gives air AND land supply. It's because of the "coastalSupply" trait in the battleship's classes.txt, right? Damn. It's always something...

[terminator]

Did you note that what determines the position of the unit in the picture of purchase is the number of the line in the file units.csv ?

Ex in my scenario Petsamo (without changes) :

Tank(1).jpg (121.52 KiB) Viewed 3755 times

You have the impression that the T-38 is the best soviet tank

If I change the position of the line in units.csv for the T-38 :

Tank(2).jpg (114.38 KiB) Viewed 3755 times

Now it seems correct

[Horst]

These mortar/primary-gun modes automatically switch back to default mode at end of own turn, so I think that's not an issue if they have different defense stats. The att-stats are very low for mortars, hence I believe the intention here is mainly shock 10.

It's a bit tricky with those non-year infantry variants, like Military Police, how these stats are all justified. The yearly regular inf type upgrades are more important anyway, anything else is gun food.
I think it's quite important that all these naval/air defense values are consistent - every loss is draining RPs that are rather needed for the too-expensive upgrades.
That was an upgrade-luxury in PzC where you only paid the plus on cost-difference. I think it's plausible in OoB that commanders have to use old equipment for a while - if not until the end of war. I'm already worried how I shall pay all my expensive Tiger and Elefant stuff later in the Endkrieg DLC at beginning. Upgrading is maybe not always that useful.

Who cares about correct stats if you can just click rapidly on units to chain-effect big explosions and kills.

Don't forget to check the flamethrower vehicle units if all have their proper shock and assault value.

[Horst]

That's because now, the Ise gives air AND land supply. It's because of the "coastalSupply" trait in the battleship's classes.txt, right? Damn. It's always something...

Yes, you are right. I'm also using the Ise now as BB and it seem to give both types of supply. It's only 4 supply in my game too, so that shouldn't really matter. Most important is the air-supply which keeps all carrier-planes flying at peak efficiency without airfields/off-supply map-support.

@Terminator
I remember an order column in the past, but I think that was dropped?
Moving the lines around always works, but it's less comfortable if you like to quickly compare vanilla and mod stats.

[GabeKnight]

Don't forget to check the flamethrower vehicle units if all have their proper shock and assault value.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Stop already.....

And how do I know which these are? You're always forgetting my lack of historicity, so to say. Now I'll have to look at the pictures of evey single nation's tank units.... great....

[Horst]

Search the weaponEffect column of units.csv for the word "flamethrower" and you should find them all.

[GabeKnight]

Did you note that what determines the position of the unit in the picture of purchase is the number of the line in the file units.csv ?

Yeah, seems like it. It also determines the order of units in the editor. The Ise's still listed after the carriers (although officially battleship now).

[GabeKnight]

Search the weaponEffect column of units.csv for the word "flamethrower" and you should find them all.

Thanks. Will do.

[Horst]

type5_ho-chi shock value is 30 which is possibly wrong because it has a similar 150mm gun like the type4_ho-ro. It should rather be shock 15.
type4_ha-to uses a 300m mortar which rather justifies a shock 30 value.
And these fixes lead to the buggy Churchill_AVRE (290mm mortar) which totally lacks shock and assault -> shock 30 and Assault 2 should be correct

[GabeKnight]

And these fixes lead to the buggy Churchill_AVRE (290mm mortar) which totally lacks shock and assault -> shock 30 and Assault 2 should be correct

At first, I was thinking about making an arty-variant for this unit, but now I'm more into giving it the "mortar barage" kind of trait (=heavy inf, Range=2) instead and keeping the other stats.

But maybe I'm just not understanding correctly what a tank with a mortar compared to an "usual" gun turret means? To me, a mortar is like the artillery "tube" kind of thing the heavy inf. units are using (high altitude trajectory). The "usual" guns are high velocity projectiles with more or less a straight/light parabolic shooting trajectory (simply speaking).
And sorry about the missing terminology in this.

Enough for today. Resuming tomorrow.

[Horst]

No idea if a shock value for the AVRE is actually fitting, as this is rather a feature of strategic bombing, indirect firing or flamethrowers.
There are unfortunately discrepancies among shock and values either:
If an m4a3_105mm or m45_pershing_at with the same gun have Shock 20 and Assault 7, how comes that a stronger SU-122_AT or even SU-152_AT in direct-fire mode have 0 Shock and Assault?
A StuH_42_AT with 105mm gun has S20 A3 while a Sturmpanzer_IV with much more powerful 150mm shells has only S15 A2.
British_mortarinfantry has A10 unlike other inf-mortars with A0, catapulting this unit to another dimension.
This all makes no sense. Unless Bebro won’t error-check his stats himself one day or year, I can’t really make a good rhyme of them.

Anyway, the AVRE’s 290mm petard spigot mortar had a range of only 80-200m, so that doesn’t justify even a range-1 attack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd1_YJgKtic
Giving it something like 5 or better 7 Assault still makes sense.

Btw, google is your friend to find info of about any weapons. Wikipedia already covers most weapon systems fine enough. Translating some wiki-sites like a Russian one can also give additional or even better info sometimes. It doesn't require a million-dollar library to create plausible wargame stats, just motivation and plenty time.