Matrix Games Forums

OK, I have pushed out FourSeasons-at2-v3.8.atzip

This should address all those issues plus a few that would have cropped up with other special infantry. Let me know. I will have more time tomorrow.

I should report a bug in 4Seasons-v3.8-EU.at2, which you can easily fix in the editor. Rulevar 429 in the "Random Map Instructions" section should be 17 and not 12. This determines the British Regime names, which when set to 12 would be German regimes. Sorry. This cropped up because I had to again rebuild the EU and SH versions off of the US version. I had too many fixes to the special SFTypes to do it to all three files (although in the end, there are numerous things I have to do to make the files).

I will push out a 3.9 version, but I am looking at reckon and hide values, which I want to work on a bit. Then, I'll get another official version. And, I hope that other bugs haven't been found.

I just pushed out an update FourSeasons-at2-v3.10.atzip. This fixes that little bug in the EU file and there are a few mods on recon and hide. But, I won't do much else on them for a bit. As I pointed out, the recon - hide doesn't work the way it is described, but it does work in a functional way. I have set things up so that it is advantageous to have some recon units in your formations. You will find that they aren't really necessary on the front line because all the cumulative recon gives you enough information. They are very useful for breakthrough units though as stumble through enemy territory one unit at a time. Just three recon units can make a difference. The recon units are cavalry, bicycle infantry, motorcycle infantry, armored cars, and jeep. Also, guerilla and commando units have high recon, but they are for something else (and more expensive), and not readily available.

Basically, with the infantry formations at the start, if you bump into an infantry division in plains, all you will get is that there is a unit there until you bring up more units with recon. But, if you have three cavalry or three bicycle units you will get partial info on its size and unit type.


Note that heavy and super-heavy tanks have no recon points.

I've never played so much ATG before. Your mod is exactly what i was looking for. I really mean the praise i've given you in my other thread. I can't seem to stop playing, and yet i feel like i've barely scratched the surface.

I do have a few comments:

- SMG compare ability is missing - i see no way to select them in the compare menu.

- Some Cities have their texture missing. Not sure why - some cities have it, some don't.

- Why are mortars so good? Cheaper and basically better in every way to infantry guns. Higher attack values, higher attack numbers, cheaper to produce. Good on offense and defense. No tradeoff/downside? Only downside i see is they are "infantry" over "artillery" and they can only be produced at city centers... ? Infantry guns have higher initiative, but is that the only reason to produce infantry guns?

- Why are Levelbombers so 'weak' compared to divebombers? Seems all they got going is longer range, but hardly ever comes in play for me. Diverbombers are cheaper and better in every way. Why not limit dive bombers to 'hard' targets, and levelbombers have bonus against infantry & soft targets?


Thanks


**Edit: One other thing - Ships are mighty expensive. I usually play with higher production cost to cut down the overall number of units on the map, but that kinda screws ships. 52 turns from a shipyard to build a battleship or carrier.

**Edit2: Also on the subject of Ships -> There is no ship with any significant (beyond 5/5) Anti-Air capability. I would of assumed at least the Light Cruiser would have some significant anti air - at least hat would be its logical role, no?

Thanks, you have some points. This a good conversation, i.e., how to normalize things and make them integrate into a game. I have been rather busy of late, but will take a look at things tonight.

ORIGINAL: mattpilot

- SMG compare ability is missing - i see no way to select them in the compare menu.

Found this. Left over from when it was a model and the SFType was just for the TOE. It wasn't getting into the list

- Some Cities have their texture missing. Not sure why - some cities have it, some don't.

I could use a little better description for what to look for.

- Why are mortars so good? Cheaper and basically better in every way to infantry guns. Higher attack values, higher attack numbers, cheaper to produce. Good on offense and defense. No tradeoff/downside? Only downside i see is they are "infantry" over "artillery" and they can only be produced at city centers... ? Infantry guns have higher initiative, but is that the only reason to produce infantry guns?

Good point. These are somewhat based on Decisive Campaigns, and the issues are similar. Overall, the mortars are little better on ATT, and Inf Guns are equal in ATT and DEF. These should be tweaked slightly. Inf Guns should be a bit better. To some degree, these SFTypes serve the same purpose in real life, except that one is shorter range and more mobile. Being more mobile it shouldn't be quite as powerful. Unfortunately the slightly longer range doesn't factor here as 16 mi hexes are too large to model that.

- Why are Levelbombers so 'weak' compared to divebombers? Seems all they got going is longer range, but hardly ever comes in play for me. Diverbombers are cheaper and better in every way. Why not limit dive bombers to 'hard' targets, and levelbombers have bonus against infantry & soft targets?

Level bombers are a bit better than dive bombers against infantry, but also have no favorites. They also have more anti-structural points. I will look at tweaking these a bit.

**Edit: One other thing - Ships are mighty expensive. I usually play with higher production cost to cut down the overall number of units on the map, but that kinda screws ships. 52 turns from a shipyard to build a battleship or carrier.

Yes, they are. This fairly difficult to see how to model. We are talking about 2 week turns, and most ships do take a LONG time to build: at least a year, and for capital ships 2-3 years. They are a significant investment in real life. So, how best to do this in a game like this. It just seemed odd that I could build a battleship in a few turns. I would also say that naval doesn't work so well, so I haven't spent a lot of time tweaking these. For one, it is extremely frustrating to have a picket out, and the opposing player can go right past it to do an amphibious landing.

**Edit2: Also on the subject of Ships -> There is no ship with any significant (beyond 5/5) Anti-Air capability. I would of assumed at least the Light Cruiser would have some significant anti air - at least hat would be its logical role, no?

Light cruisers have 10/10. I tried to balance this slightly in a test with several ships. Basically, an attack with dive bombers, etc., and not have the AAA drive off the attack completely. Also, it used to be that ships multiple attacks (I seemed to have changed this). So, I will revisit this.

Thanks for the feedback. It helps me make this better.

I feel like killing someone right now. Had a long reply typed up, submitted it... only to have it rejected and all deleted because i was not allowed to post a link. Unggghhhhh


I'll retype it later

I could use a little better description for what to look for.

Not sure what to describe - here is a screenshot
(it wont let me post the damn link in any form fuuuuuuu!!!!) ... its " ibb dot co slash 1zdm7K6 "

Good point. These are somewhat based on Decisive Campaigns, and the issues are similar. Overall, the mortars are little better on ATT, and Inf Guns are equal in ATT and DEF. These should be tweaked slightly. Inf Guns should be a bit better. To some degree, these SFTypes serve the same purpose in real life, except that one is shorter range and more mobile. Being more mobile it shouldn't be quite as powerful. Unfortunately the slightly longer range doesn't factor here as 16 mi hexes are too large to model that.

I found myself really just building them at factories to free up Cities. I feel like mortars should be good against soft targets, and infantry guns slightly better at harder targets/armor. That be one way to make a 'choice' between them. Could also increase the kill/retreat rate of the infantry gun, while the mortar with its increased attack count and lower kill/retreat rate would be more in the 'suppressive' role.

Level bombers are a bit better than dive bombers against infantry, but also have no favorites. They also have more anti-structural points. I will look at tweaking these a bit.

In my game it is showing the level bomber has 45 attack against infantry, vs the divebombers 70 attack. The dive bomber has more HP, but is literally only better when it comes to defending/fighting against other aircraft.

Yes, they are. This fairly difficult to see how to model. We are talking about 2 week turns, and most ships do take a LONG time to build: at least a year, and for capital ships 2-3 years. They are a significant investment in real life. So, how best to do this in a game like this. It just seemed odd that I could build a battleship in a few turns. I would also say that naval doesn't work so well, so I haven't spent a lot of time tweaking these. For one, it is extremely frustrating to have a picket out, and the opposing player can go right past it to do an amphibious landing.

I understand what you are saying. I just approached it more from a gameplay point of view. Unless you are playing on a HUGE map, the game is likely to be over by the time turn 50 comes. I may just be the odd-ball out that likes playing navy . I also play with 'higher production cost' to cut numbers down, so my opinion is probably a bit skewed, but i was thinking maybe half the time & resource cost for ships.

Light cruisers have 10/10. I tried to balance this slightly in a test with several ships. Basically, an attack with dive bombers, etc., and not have the AAA drive off the attack completely. Also, it used to be that ships multiple attacks (I seemed to have changed this). So, I will revisit this.

The 'investment' balance is a bit off, in my opinion. Dive bombers are cheap and with its high attack can basically have a very good chance of killing any ship, while risking little. While planes were ship killers in WW2, they did have to swarm ships and quite a few were lost in attacks. But WW2 also had some very strong mid-late war anti-aircraft cruisers. GIven that dive bombers have a HP of 80, i think a 60 attack on light cruisers against airplanes is not too unreasonable - given the cost and time investment consideration too. But i also like the idea of multiple attacks (with a corresponding lower attack strength). But ships, for the sake of balance, should have some method of putting up a fight against planes, as shore based planes to intercept are not always around and carriers might take a few turns (50+ ) to arrive to help in its defense.




Thanks for your hard work on this mod and continued support. It is much appreciated!

A quick little reply during a busy day.

Just the kind of conversation that I need on this!!!

I think you have some good points! Most of the effort went into building the package and getting the bugs out. Now it is time to focus on the best balance and playability.

As for mortars, I also realize that the mortars have more than one attack. This makes them look even better (especially when looking at the SFT in the editor). Here is a question for design. What do you think removing there "Rear Area" status. As they are, the only take casualties when a breakthrough happens. If they are not rear area, they would take casualties like MG units (which are set up to take fewer losses by ratio than rifle).

The same multiple attack thing enters when comparing Dive Bombers (2) with Level Bombers (1). I agree with your points, and also I should tweak the anti-structure values so that they favor Level Bombers more. The multiple attacks is to make Dive Bombers more deadly on tanks and ships. Otherwise, they don't do so much damage. The longer range could be a balance issue with the AI as the AI doesn't build airfields. Thus, I have a house rule not build an airfield against the AI.

Naval. This is tricky. I definitely see what you are saying, and in the past when I wanted water, I wound up editing the map giving ports a fleet at the start, and put a shipyard next to every port. That way, ship building wouldn't be done in cities. This could be done at the start with events, but one big complication is that I can't really tell how big the water next to the city is. It could be one or two hexes. And, if I put a large fleet and a shipyard there, you would think I was batty. The shipyard could also be made buildable, but I don't think the AI would be able to get them because I would have to make sure it was always on a shore hex. I am not sure that would be easy to do. Thus, the AI would have a big disadvantage. By the way, if you give the AI ships and shipyards, you can find some serious naval battles (although be aware that the AI knows everything).

What do you think removing there "Rear Area" status. As they are, the only take casualties when a breakthrough happens. If they are not rear area, they would take casualties like MG units (which are set up to take fewer losses by ratio than rifle).

I suppose that would be a tradeoff, but dont really like that idea - there is alreayd machine gun as 'strong' frontline troop, and mortars, with a heavier investment, should really stay rear.

Perhaps change the mortars to only 1% kill chance, 10% retreat, and the rest is 'pinned'. Lower the attack for 'hard' targets by half (so that infantry gun is better in those areas). Then, i believe, the mortar has a niche and there is a choice to be made depending on playstyle/tactic.

The longer range could be a balance issue with the AI as the AI doesn't build airfields.

I understand and makes sense. Though i would still make it a clear 'choice' the player has to make between either doing damage against soft targets (levelbombers) and hard targets (divebombers). None should be good against both or where one plane could fill both roles 'good enough'. I think there needs to be a clear divide ... just for gameplays sake that the player has a 'choice' to make.

The shipyard could also be made buildable, but I don't think the AI would be able to get them because I would have to make sure it was always on a shore hex.

I did notice the AI never built a shipyard - sometimes it constructs cargo ships from cities, but i dont think i've seen other ships (maybe i just didn't recon them). Are you saying you can make the AI build shipyards? Given the relatively long build times, i would think it be a good idea to give the AI, via script, a free shipyard outside of its normal factory limits you imposed if there is say more than 30% water on a map (if you can check that? or any other method you have to make it work)

if you give the AI ships and shipyards, you can find some serious naval battles (although be aware that the AI knows everything).

Thats one thing that bugs me about the game is that the AI knows everything. Even my hidden commandos in forests get bombed all the time. I dont suppose that is hardcoded? (though i understand the AI does need crutches, wouldn't mind experimenting with it off).



As for editing the map myself before the game starts ... i somehow can't figure it out. Like... i go into the editor, click on some of the menu items, but i can't ever edit anything. I've seen screenshots of what to do, but i never get those menus. I think it is somehow bugged for me.

One other thing i noticed ... The "Woods" Landscape doesn't allow cheap fortifications (the one from officer - card).. but its allowed on "Woods Autumn" and probably others. But thats something i noticed today .

Mattpilot in order to edit most things in a game you need to disable the master file. If you start something with the scenario load that doesn't require that if you start a game with random then you do. It just enables you to edit stuff it doesn't take away anything.

hmm.. interesting. I see now and i seem to be able to edit things. But how can i play a random map after editing things? I see no ability to save or .. something.

When in edit mod just go to the bottom row of commands like in a regular game and click on the computer symbol and save that way it will only save in a game for that game if you wanna edit scenarios so it effects every time you use that master open the scenario file rather then starting a new game. Be warned if you edit a scenario and give it the same save name you will be eliminating the stock game. I always name it like what ever the scenario name is and ad mod to the name to distinguish the different set ups.

Ah i think i got it now. So i saved the edited file. Then got back to the main menu, started a "random" game, and during the options i changed the 'file' at the bottom center of the menu and loaded my 'savegame' ... It seems to have worked just fine with my edited test figures. I assume i did this right?

Thanks!

Mattpilot: I generally agree with you and will make propose some modifications soon. It probably can't be until Sunday though because: 1) my computer is getting a brain transplant, 2) the dirty four letter word is hitting me, and 3) Saturday I'll go up north for a little road trip to pick up some wine now that things have quieted down with the fires and power outages. Hopefully, it stays that way. But, I have some ideas how to make things better. The brain transplant started last night, and is not quite finished yet.

To edit the map, you don't need to disable the masterfile, but to make changes to any of the other stuff, yep.

I am not sure if I can make the AI build a shipyard. OK, yes I can, but I doubt it will go where I want. Although, maybe if I made them so that they could only be built on a beach or suburb. I would have to check that. The factories are placed by an internal algorithm, and that probably checks terrains where they can be built. But, the problem is that it will possibly build it on a lake.

The same can be done placing them with a random start. I can easily check if a city or capital has a sea hex next to it, and then try to place a shipyard next to it. The problem is that it is hard to check if it a port that makes sense. The same with a fleet. It can be done, but some of them will be rather stupidly placed.

Hence, my solution was to edit the map. I would sometimes make an island with two regimes. Sort of "This Island Ain't Big Enough for the Two of Us". I edited the map to give both sides the same number of ports, OK, the AI one extra, placed a standard fleet in each and a sub fleet and a transport fleet in each capital. There were some furious naval battles.

There is possibly a flaw with the naval battles, which I think I tried to fix. This has to do with the first-round penalty. Generally, attacking units have a penalty for the first and second round. I think this puts the attacker at a disadvantage. You might kind of notice this that you sort of do better defending, but not when you attack. The same is true for aircraft. For ground forces, this simulates preparing and organizing the attack. Perhaps it should be lifted for air and naval forces.

ORIGINAL: mattpilot

Ah i think i got it now. So i saved the edited file. Then got back to the main menu, started a "random" game, and during the options i changed the 'file' at the bottom center of the menu and loaded my 'savegame' ... It seems to have worked just fine with my edited test figures. I assume i did this right?

Thanks!

Yep. You save the edited file as an at2 file. Then, you press the load scenario button, and load that file. Then, you play it. The save buttons in the editor are the same as in the regular game. An advanced feature of the editor is that you can also access the model builder and the TOE. A little warning though is that when you start these, it will ask you which to regime to edit for, and if you don't put in a valid regime number it CTD.

There is possibly a flaw with the naval battles, which I think I tried to fix. This has to do with the first-round penalty. Generally, attacking units have a penalty for the first and second round. I think this puts the attacker at a disadvantage. You might kind of notice this that you sort of do better defending, but not when you attack. The same is true for aircraft. For ground forces, this simulates preparing and organizing the attack. Perhaps it should be lifted for air and naval forces.

There is a setting in the SFTs Screen, where you can change it. I think it is called First Round Penalty, and if you set it to 0 it won't have it.

So... if i jack up the cost of supply to say 10, does the AI know how to deal with it? I'd like it higher, so i can limit the amount of units a player can support, but i fear the AI will just produce until it suffocates.... or does it actually check its supply level and turn off production?

It does check how much supply it needs. That is hard coded. But, it doesn't take into account that not all production sites (factories!) can produce supplies. So it can outproduce with the help of those. A quick fix would be to let factories build supplies. (I think, I can't remember if the AI production events will make it so they don't).

The brain transplant is done.

I uploaded FourSeasons-at2-v3.12.atzip

I fixed the cheap fortification problem (also made it possible to build them in storm hexes - except haboob). Also, a similar problem was there for the inundation card.

I made numerous tweaks to SFTypes to address the questions we were discussing. Let me know what you think. This is sort of a list:

1. Mortars: Made more similar to infantry guns. Reduced from four to two attacks. Made attack the same as defense. Reduced armor attack. Put changes in specialty types

2. Infantry guns. Slightly better on defense. Same offense and defense firepower against arty, soft mod, armor, etc., but less than against infantry. Updated SP versions

3. Slight tweak to artillery. Updated SP versions

4. Balanced out dive bombers and level bombers. decreased anti-structure for dive bombers. Increased power for level bombers vs infantry.

5. Increased AAA for light cruisers

6. Made aircraft carriers more vulnerable to air attack by reducing HP.

7. Removed model concepts from compare list. There is no real reason for them to be there as they are more a shell.

I did some reading on the difference between mortars and infantry guns, and they are rather similar in capabilities. The main differences being the trajectory of the shells, their velocity, the ratio of HE to the shell weight, and at times infantry guns were used in direct fire mode. Their differences are fairly small. I gave them some differences that are in line with what I read, and make sense for a game.

I am curious what you think.