Jagger wrote:Thank everybody!
Woody, the host of a PBEM game must have the mod installed for the effects to appear in the PBEM results. Of course, it is best if both have it installed.
However not everyone is going to want to use the mod. So I am doing the same thing I did with my modded BOA game. I had two copies of BOA on my computer. One was the original BOA for non-modded BOA games. The second copy contained modded data files for modded games. I know some people use directories to switch between non- and modded games but I have never used that process. A third alternative is to have two copies of your gamedata folder-one modded and one non-modded. Then switch between the two by renaming the folder dependent on the game played. But it is very easy to forget to switch between folders. For me, the easiest has been to have two copies of BOA.
I also hope to see Mikes Weather mod in an official patch. His mod does a good job of producing realistic weather. I haven't tried the leader mod yet.
McNaughton wrote:Instead of two copies of the game, just create scenarios that just use these new files, so players can play a modded scenario, and then play a vanilla PBEM game using the same install.
Jagger wrote:The problem is that I modified the original models which means all scenarios, old and new, would use the modded models if they use any of the modded artillery.
I could create brand new models instead of replacing the old models. But then I would have to reference the new models from all the unit files using artillery. Unfortunately, the unit files are also used by all scenarios. So again, all scenarios using the same unit files would have the modded data unless I created brand new unit files as well as the new model files. There are a lot of unit files that use artillery.
To create new scenarios, I would have to create totally new unit and model files completely unused by other scenarios. Monster job considering the number of artillery unit and model files used within a scenario---vs either the relatively simple task of switching out gamedata folders or even simpler choice of just having a second copy of ACW.
Sadly, I think the best choice is the second copy of ACW purely for modded games. The second easiest choice is swapping out gamedata folders between modded and non-modded games. I don't know how easy it is to implement the directory method.
If somebody has a shortage of space on their harddrive, I would recommend simply having two copies of their gamedata folder and switching out between modded and non-modded games. If someone has plenty of harddrive space, I would just make a second copy of the game for modded games.
McNaughton wrote:True, using the Excel files was daunting to begin with, but, I am amazed at how quickly the game files can be tracked down and updated once the system gets figured out.
What I did to speed things up, to help me figure what goes where, is to slightly modify the unit tags.
Instead of...
uni_USA_Bde10MO
uni_USA_Bde1NY
I used...
uni_USA_Bde110MO
uni_USA_Bde101NY
(in every case, numbers are factors of 100)
It makes editing scenarios and event files easy, as all I need to do is to make the number 3 digits (I know that every "uni_USA_Bde10MO" needs to be changed to "uni_USA_Bde110MO") Using the excel files, they are all in one column, and easy to spot and change (you can use the find/replace option in excel to speed up file changes too).
You could do countless things, like add a letter (uni_USA_BdeA10MO) or any other combination of characters that are recognizable and distinct for your mod.
It will take a long time to do the first time, but, once you have done it, you never have to do it again. This is why it is taking me some time to get my mod out, because I am creating new models, units, scenarios and events (mainly just copying, editing and adding).
PBBoeye wrote:I need some help here (btw, I use OpenOffice as I don't have Excel)...
Anyhow, after altering the data in the .xls files, how does one get them printed out into separate files?
Understanding this will really help me in the map adjustment work I am doing!
nerod wrote:Is Horse artillery able to go as fast as the calvary they are attached to or do they slow the calvary down some. And if horse artillery slows them down by how much?
Sheytan wrote:Does the mod influence the number of artillery units available to the confeds overall? If not, althought I salute your efforts with the mod, the mod in effect reduces the overall pool of artillery available as a whole to the confeds. This would be the only reason I would'nt consider using it. What you have proposed with the mod is logical and gives each type of artillery a specialized function.
IF!!! you can increase the overall pool then yes why not use it.
Jagger wrote:Wow, are you buying every single available artillery unit in the CSA order of battle? There are a lot of artillery units available to the CSA player.
Although it would be easy enough to add additional names for more units to the OOB if someone provides artillery names.
Thinking about it, the proportion of artillery batteries that can be effectively used with CSA formations would remain the same. It is just that artillery batteries would reflect the historical 4 gun batteries rather than 6 gun batteries. But because they cost less in money and war supplies, more resources would be spent in other areas outside of artillery.
McNaughton wrote:Actually, if you are to do anything, it would be to completely change the ratio between CSA and USA artillery. In the USA favour...
Historically, here are the ratios of batteries, USA : CSA
3 : 1
Currently, in the game, the ratio of batteries, USA : CSA
481 : 249 (just did a quick count)
2 : 1
When it comes to total numbers of guns, the ratio further moves towards the USA (due to the fact that the CS batteries had 2/3 the number of guns).
It seems like the CSA has a substantial unhistoric lead on total number of artillery batteries than what they should actually have. With the original system, of both sides having 6 guns per battery, the CSA advantage was even greater!
So, it seems like the reduction to 4 guns helped limit the CSA advantage, but, I think that increasing the number of batteries they can produce will do further to skew the real situation, where regardless on influx of resources and money, the Confederate industrial base could not keep up with that of the North.
veji1 wrote:I kind of disagree with your proposal. This is very similar to the limit in number of divisions. I am not a big fan of limiting the number of batteries the CSA can buy to 1/3 of what the US can because this is what happened in history. I think it is important to leave significant margin to the players and let the game decide.
As a player I find that I hardly buy all possible arty when playing the CSA, except when continuing to play after victory just for the sake of it. With the number of batteries available right now, there is margin, which is important to me.
And instead of limiting the number of batteries that can be built, the limiting factor should be ammo expenditure : A CSA force shouldn't have infinite ammo supplies... But I guess this is another point.
The CSA "potentially" having 1/2 the batteries the Union can have, and weaker batteries with that, seems OK to me.
my 2 cents.
Jagger wrote:Wow, are you buying every single available artillery unit in the CSA order of battle? There are a lot of artillery units available to the CSA player.
Although it would be easy enough to add additional names for more units to the OOB if someone provides artillery names.
Thinking about it, the proportion of artillery batteries that can be effectively used with CSA formations would remain the same. It is just that artillery batteries would reflect the historical 4 gun batteries rather than 6 gun batteries. But because they cost less in money and war supplies, more resources would be spent in other areas outside of artillery.
Pocus wrote:Actually (if my memory serves me, which is not 100% sure), I think that the Tredegar IW was not functionnating at 100% capacity. The major problem was in transporting iron and the various ores needed to the works by train, not a limit in the production capacity of the facility.
McNaughton wrote:I fear that increasing the numbers of artillery units one can build will just give Confederates too much in the way of hypothetical economic freedom. The south's problem wasn't an acute shortage of raw materials, but a poor industrial base (one that could not have been remedied in 5 years time).
I personally just think it is an unfair balance to give the CSA so much in a field where the USA dominated not only in quality, but quantity.
McNaughton wrote:Actually, if you are to do anything, it would be to completely change the ratio between CSA and USA artillery. In the USA favour...
Historically, here are the ratios of batteries, USA : CSA
3 : 1
Currently, in the game, the ratio of batteries, USA : CSA
481 : 249 (just did a quick count)
2 : 1
When it comes to total numbers of guns, the ratio further moves towards the USA (due to the fact that the CS batteries had 2/3 the number of guns).
It seems like the CSA has a substantial unhistoric lead on total number of artillery batteries than what they should actually have. With the original system, of both sides having 6 guns per battery, the CSA advantage was even greater!
So, it seems like the reduction to 4 guns helped limit the CSA advantage, but, I think that increasing the number of batteries they can produce will do further to skew the real situation, where regardless on influx of resources and money, the Confederate industrial base could not keep up with that of the North.
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests