Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Mord

Pages: [1] 2
1
I guess it's for the best you did your Yevetha playthrough now rather than later... :D

2
Your issue is that you have a unit named "Mandalore" as well as the planet. Actually, you have two units named "Mandalore". You can't have two things with the same name or the game gets confused and loads only the last one it reads in. If you change the heroes to "Mandalore_The_Fearless" and "Mandalore_The_Fearless_Saber" or whatever, the game will display planet Mandalore properly. This means you will need to rename the units in all references to them, particularly in New_Republic_Heroes.xml and New_Republic_Space_Units.xml .

I also see Planet [MISSING] near Coruscant. What's that one supposed to be named? Or, rather, what's the planet's tag named (and which .XML file is it in)?

3
It would be easier to give a conclusive answer if I had the entire Data folder, because then I could run your mod and see exactly what you're seeing. Here is what I did with your files:

I went into my C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\workshop\content\32470\1125571106\Data\XML\Conquests\Zsinj folder and renamed the existing "Campaigns_Zsinj.xml" to "x_Campaigns_Zsinj.xml". Then I pasted your version into that location. Likewise, I went to C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\workshop\content\32470\1125571106\Data\XML and renamed the existing "Planets_Two.xml" to "x_Planets_Two.xml", placing your version in the directory.

Then, I simply booted up the game and chose to play as the New Republic in the Hunt for Zsinj era-progressive campaign. The attached screenshot is what I saw. I also ran the campaign as Zsinj and the planet appeared (though naturally I couldn't view description since it was too far away from my stuff). Now, I did notice that you didn't add the planet to the Greater Maldrood version of the campaign, so the planet did not appear for me when playing as the GM.

So, I guess my question to you is, how have you added these files to your version of the Data folder, what Galactic Conquest are you running, and what faction are you playing as?

4
I have. It's a fantastically in-depth resource and I can tell he knows what he's doing, but for a rank amateur such as myself it's a little light on examples. Like, I get the abstract concept of budgets, goals, etc. but I could really use some concrete examples. Something like "here is how you goose the AI into only building Acclamators" or "here is how you get the AI to remove corruption using a new unit that you add that ability to." Just a few basic object lessons in how to concretely manipulate the concepts laid out in the guide would be invaluable.

5
I would love for you or Evilbobthebob (or somebody) to provide tutorials or intros to EAW AI modding. I've been modding vanilla EAW for personal enjoyment for over a year now and I still have no idea how to get the AI to actually use certain heroes or activated galactic actions. The AI can't seem to figure out what to do with Mon Mothma or how to remove corruption without the planet changing hands. I'd also love to know more about how to affect the AI's fleet composition choices to see fewer ridiculous massive piles of Interdictors.

Maybe this kind of thing wouldn't be a good fit for a video series since it's awfully technical, but I swear I would put up money for someone who knows what they're doing to give a rundown on the general ins and outs of modifying the EAW AI behaviors. I don't have unlimited funds, but could you consider what a ballpark estimate might be to make producing content for such a niche topic worth your while?

In general, it would be great if you were to do more of the EAW mod tutorial videos. I continue to stand in awe of the fact that Thrawn's Revenge has so many actually functional, playable factions. A video where you show how to add a new faction that the AI can use (and what it takes to make it playable) would be amazing. But now I'm really dreaming... :)

6
If you're looking for a simple balance patch for a mostly vanilla FoC experience, I've had good experiences with this:
FoC Balance Patch [UNOFFICIAL]

7
Thread necro...

What if you modify SpaceUnitTargetingPriorities.xml for the desired Priority_Set - in this case "Capital" - to entirely remove Fighters and Bombers? Then the AI will literally never waste shots on craft it can't possibly hit.

Obviously you would not want to modify the "Capital" Priority_Set if there are capital ships with anti-starfighter batteries, but such ships should probably use a different Priority_Set anyway.

8
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: GM FTGU Strat?
« on: December 21, 2018, 04:48:50 PM »
... or, actually, I found an alternative while playing around. It turns out that at the start of the game, Boba Fett can solo the entire Empire. Obviously you don't want him fighting the fleets, but he can wipe out the entire Imperial ground force and conquer all their starting planets, all by his lonesome, by roughly Week 8.

This just confirms what we all already knew: Boba Fett is the baddest mofo in the galaxy.

EDIT: Actually, Boba Fett can take out the entire Empire and Republic. He will do it for 3500 credits and he'll get it done in 27 weeks. What a guy.



9
Yeah, to prevent crashing, the three main factions being the New Republic, the Empire of the Hand, and the Imperial Remnant, The devs had to place a planet for each of the three factions outside the galactic map. It had something to do with story scripting or something. I asked in an earlier thread as to why the Art of War GC wouldn't end with all planets captured, it's because of those 3 planets. The only possible place for the Imperial leader to spawn is on the IR planet outside the GC map (Which you can't access).
Oh man, I thought that was just a bug. So there's really never a victory screen, huh... I guess you could think of that as some kind of commentary on the cyclical and ultimately futile nature of war if you were inclined to read deeper meaning into it. ;)

10
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: GM FTGU Strat?
« on: December 20, 2018, 10:58:53 PM »
It's a pretty gnarly strategic situation, no denying. You're sandwiched between the NR and the Empire no matter which direction you expand, and you don't have many high income planets available early on. Securing them is another matter entirely.

The AI seems generally reluctant to go after the purple territories and you can use this to your advantage - leaving strategic buffer planets can save you ships you need to punch through defenses elsewhere.

CC VSDs are your best bet early on, and I recommend rushing for an SSD ASAP. If you can expand to the NE and push towards Mon Calamari, the Phindar-MonCal corridor is totally defensible and from there you can expand south into the self-contained southeast fork of the map. The trick there is preventing the Empire from getting all up in your face while you are busy with the NR.

11
I'm just here for the David Bowie reference.

12
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: New Units thought.
« on: June 13, 2018, 06:24:13 PM »
All Seven Dark Jedi in one squad for Pentastar
Sweet Georgia Brown. :o

Good luck with that one, Katarn.

13
EaW and FoC Mods / Re: Coding the AI
« on: May 29, 2018, 01:51:01 PM »
Very short answer:
No, the top-level Goal tags are not hardcoded. The code inside the Goal tag matters a lot, both to the Goal itself and to other code that refers to the Goal.

Somewhat longer answer:
If you're interested in the AI, you should read this. You can create new goals with new top-level tags, but creating new goals by itself won't do anything for you. "Goals" are things the AI might like to do, but whether or not the AI will actually try to do them is governed by a "goalfunction" that links the goal to a perceptual equation. The perceptual equation is a way for the AI to evaluate the desirability of pursuing that specific goal at that specific moment. In your example, the goal "Corrupt_Planet" (AI_Goals_Underworld_Galactic.xml) is governed by the goalfunction also named "Corrupt_Planet" (AI_Goalset_Underworld_Galactic.xml) and the perceptual equation named "Should_Corrupt_Planet" (AI_Equations_Underworld_Galactic.xml). Once the AI has decided to pursue a Goal, it then uses a Plan to actually execute tasks in pursuit of that goal. The only Plan available to the AI in pursuit of the "Corrupt_Planet" goal is found in "AI_Plan_Underworld_DeploySaboteur.lua".

14
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: List of Mining Colonies
« on: May 28, 2018, 10:19:13 PM »
Yea, I know Thrawn's Revenge doesn't use the planetary ability icons much, but they would be really handy in this case... there's even an icon for mining colonies hidden in the commandbarcomponents.mtd that was left on the cutting room floor.

15
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: SSD's Unplayable?
« on: May 28, 2018, 09:51:50 PM »
I think the single biggest reason for the problems with SSD-size vessels in Thrawn's Revenge is that for some reason the team moved them to <Space_Layer> Capital </Space_Layer> instead of the original <Space_Layer> Super </Space_Layer> that the vanilla Executor was on. This means that the enormous SSD-size vessels have to pathfind around other capships such as ISDs and MC80s instead of just going "under" then. The <Layer_Z_Adjust>-1200.0</Layer_Z_Adjust> doesn't mean anything because regardless of where the vessel is rendered as being depthwise, the layer value is what actually determines its pathfinding.

The vanilla Executor also has

Custom_Hard_XExtent
Custom_Hard_YExtent

I think these also have something to do with pathfinding, because when I took them off for my mod the Executor just kind of spun around helplessly...

16
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Ground combat auto-resolve
« on: May 28, 2018, 09:23:47 PM »
It would really be great to see something done to balance out turbolasers for this (and potentially some other units and buildings?), as right now if I play the invasion I can often not lose a single unit.  However, when auto resolving it seems the enemy planet having ONLY turbolasers pretty much guarantees I will lost a huge number of units from even an overwhelmingly large ground force.

I've seen talk that there is some sort of "point" value assigned to units for auto-resolve, does anyone know of a way I could change that value for turbolaser installations?  Ground combat is tedious and boring to actuall play IMO, and losing 90% of my huge army to a just turbolasers on nearly every ground attack is just as bad...

There is indeed a "point" value. The tag is named <AI_Combat_Power>. If you have the MEG file editor you can extract SPECIALSTRUCTURES.XML from Config.meg, edit it, and re-add it. I think the object you want to edit is "Template_Galactic_Turbolaser_Tower_Defenses". The AI Combat Power value is 1500 by default, which is pretty darn high for ground battles.

17
This is something I'm also curious about. The way the AI assembles taskforces appears to be totally agnostic of the forces actually deployed to defend the target. If you look at ConquerOpponentPlan.lua, the space taskforce is defind as having "MinimumTotalSize" of 10 and "MinimumTotalForce" of 5000, but A) I don't know how either of these things are evaluated when adding units to the taskforce and B) I don't see anywhere that indicates the AI is going to send a bigger force at a more heavily defended target... until repeated failures on the ConquerOpponentPlan cause the contrast to be dialed up hard enough to trigger CrushPlan.lua, which has a MinimumTotalSize of 20 and MinimumTotalForce of 10000.

This here is the single most comprehensive overview I know of of how the EAW AI works, but even this doesn't go very far into implementation. I think one of the mod team will have to offer an actual explanation of how the AI counts units towards task force TotalSize/TotalForce values, and whether those values are in any way affected by what you've got in orbit.

18
EaW and FoC Mods / Re: Autoresolve and AI_Combat_Power
« on: March 01, 2018, 10:56:18 PM »
So, a follow-up for posterity... The <damage> tag does not have anything to do with auto-resolve. Instead, it has an effect on whether or not a unit can be used properly by the AI. I realized this when I pulled the <damage> tags off all my spaceships and suddenly the AI got stupid - there's a programmer comment in uniqueunits.xml on the Swamp_Speeder, of all places, that points to the culprit directly:
Quote
<!-- Obsolete, but required for"combatant" behavior, which lets the AI use a unit -->

So, that's one case of a mysterious, apparently useless tag's function solved.

19
Vong ships didn't have shields per se. That's an area where we did once figure out what we'd likely do for them to represent Dovin Basals, years ago.

Well don't leave us in suspense... What did you figure out you'd likely do?

20
EaW and FoC Mods / Re: Autoresolve and AI_Combat_Power
« on: January 25, 2018, 12:32:25 AM »
I've been deep-diving in the large space vessels' XML files for a project of my own and trying to figure out exactly what each XML tag does. Turns out, a good number of them do nothing whatsoever that I've been able to figure out. I would guess that the <Damage> tag is a leftover from a phase of development before projectiles had their own <Projectile_Damage> tags. No idea why the <Autoresolve_Health> is in there, since you can set it to some really wacky values and not see a difference in autoresolve results. The same thing happens in term of autoresolve outcome when I set these tag values to 0 as when I set them to 99999 (or when I comment them out entirely), so either they don't do anything or I'm not performing the right test.

The tags you pointed out in GameConstants might be related here. When I did a quick search through the rest of the file I also dug up <Auto_Resolve_Tactical_Multiplier>, which could also be relevant. Your idea about the fighter complement on the Acclamators messing with my results is a good one. I'll see what happens when I comment out their garrisons. It looks like various projectile types have their own <AI_Combat_Power> values as well, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Let's see what happens when I comment them out...

You mentioned that in some cases the AI count carried fighters towards fleet composition - what case is that? Is this part of the "assemble taskforce" AI?

---- Results of diddling with the tags in GameConstants.XML:

<AutoResolveAttritionAllowanceFactor>
Dialing it down to 0 had no visible effect, but dialing it up to 1, 10, 20, and 100 definitely did. It looks like this is a static value added to the total amount of "damage" points handed out to both sides at the end of the battle. It does not appear to be a multiplier, though its default value of 0.333333 makes it look like one. Evidence: when this is 10, I kill 10 more Interdictors and lose 10 more Corvettes than default, when this is 20 see 20s, and when it's 100 I see all the Interdictors die and lose all but 1 Corvette. I suspect the game won't let you lose literally your entire force if you "won" the battle. For future tests I dialed this down to 0.

<AutoResolveLoserAttrition>
This is a multiplier that appears to be applied to the winning side's total AICP. If you increase this to 1.0 when attacking with 75AICP, you deal 75 points of "damage." If you decrease this to 0, you don't destroy any enemy ships even when you "win" the battle. Combining this with the previous tag could set a casualty floor for autoresolved battles.

<AutoResolveWinnerAttrition>
Second verse, inverse of the first. Interesting fact, it looks like there is a hidden static 0.5 multiplier that this stacks with to determine attacking losses. The default value of 0.75 causes the expected loss of 37 Corvettes against 100 Interdictors, and dialing it up to 1.0 increases losses to 50, so there's obviously another 0.5 involved here somewhere. It doesn't involve winning or losing, because I get the losses I expect on both sides based on pure AICP regardless of winner. It looks like there is just a flat hardcoded "attackers take 50% losses" in the game. That's quite an incentive not to autoresolve a defense!

<RetreatAutoResolveLoserAttrition>
<RetreatAutoResolveWinnerAttrition>
Has a very slight effect on casualties when you enter a tactical battle and then choose "auto-resolve" from the retreat menu. The default casualties for the usual matchup were 53 corvettes and 78 Interdictors and increasing this from the default to 1 and then all the way to 10 only raised the casualties to 79 Interdictors. It seems like entering tactical mode at all enforces a +3 floor to the casualties on both sides as if you had increased <AutoResolveAttritionAllowanceFactor> by 3.

<AutoResolveTransportLosses>
I discovered to much lol that AICP from units in transports is included in the calculations for winner/loser. Whoopsie. Five Gallofrees full of Rebel infantry put to flight a hundred Interdictors. Zero casualties on both sides, so not sure at all how this is calculated. If you hop into tactical and then autoresolve, you lose all 5 transports and take out 14 Interdictors(!?). There's clearly something totally different at work when it comes to calculations involving land units brought to space.

<Auto_Resolve_Tactical_Multiplier>
This is interesting. The lower this is it appears to tilt battles more strongly in favor of attackers. Has no effect on normal autoresolve, but autoresolve from tactical is affected. As this value rises from 0, defending casualties appear to decrease and attacking casualties first increase, then also decrease (or maybe setting it to 10 just glitches it out). When you set it to 2, each side takes half of the expected casualties, but setting it to 0.5 doesn't double them, so I have no idea what exactly is going on with this one.

aaaand, finally, to wrap it up:

Removing the fighters from the Acclamators doesn't make a difference to the weird patterns I'm seeing. The best guess I have for what's going on is as follows:

When the game is picking casualties, it will never pick as a casualty a ship that will cause the amount of AICP damage inflicted to exceed the formula amount. It does, however, seem to stop evaluating for casualties as soon as it attempts to evaluate a ship it doesn't have enough AICP to destroy, even if it could apply enough of its remaining AICP to inflict at least 2/3 damage on it, UNLESS there is only one ship in the force to begin with... This would explain why in my tests where I got a "wrong" number of casualties, it was always lighter instead of heavier, except versus one enemy ship. Admittedly, even I don't think this is a guaranteed explanation for what is going on here. :(

Whatever order it works in, it obviously doesn't pick strictly in order of descending AICP, since in that case you would preferentially lose big ships like Star Destroyers (it doesn't appear that you do). There might be some kind of cycle of descending AICP it goes through with exceptions for cases where the opposing force couldn't generate enough damage to harm your largest ships... who knows. The order it does pick in is still a mystery to me, and at this point frankly I'm tired of wrestling with it. I have a good enough grasp on the overall situation with autoresolve for my purposes and I don't see any need to sweat the details. Still, I think we all learned something here today.


Pages: [1] 2
Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!