Balance & Flavor submod for Imperial Civil War 2.1

[tlmiller]

I know the individual ships hypering out has been done in a mod before (I remember playing it), however I seem to recall it did then add them back into the "available fleet" and if you brought them back they were undamaged.  So yeah, not something I'd want to see if it were to unbalance the game that badly.

[Vulcanus]

Individual retreating to hyperspace is something I would never consider adding for the reasons explained above in this thread (and in several other places in these forums).

Essential to-do list for next version, depending on how long it takes for 2.2 to be released and whether similar features are already under development by the TR team for 2.2:

- Standardize all remaining missile and torpedo hardpoints.
- Standardize fighter complement valuation for capital ships. Most raw build costs in the game are strictly based on my own ship valuation formula, but two separate fighter valuation systems are in use as about a half of those build costs were calculated in the days of 2.0 when I had not yet done any firepower calculations for bombers.

- Rebalance some autoresolve values, ai recruitment preferences and build costs + VicStar I missile hardpoints.

- Entirely redesigned Pentastar recruitment in both space and ground (done, but we'll see what the TR team does with PA in 2.2).
- Several new Pentastar heroes that can be built from specific planets as they expand in GC (done 11 new heroes ranging from obscure roleplaying sourcebook characters to superstar fighter pilots with Kaine connections, some with new projectiles and unique abilities, will cut down to 4-6 new heroes).

- Adapt Zann Consortium units to ICW for a 4-6 ABY Thrawn vs. Zann Rematch campaign in the Unknown Regions, combined with EGTW based NR fleet admiral focused campaign in the known galaxy and a Pentastar ground-up campaign all in the same GC (will see what 2.2 brings, though I'll most likely do this simply for my own enjoyment).

- Fix AI Remnant recruitment bug in Fel Empire GC.
- More aggressive NR AI in Orinda campaign.

- Add new unique abilities to several existing heroes (done but not yet tested a tactical combat diplomacy ability for Leia that allows her to convert hostile natives to NR).

- Upgraded Wraiths to have ground combat ability (halfway done, but could be changed to a NR stealth ground commando unit since I like the Wraiths as a fighter squadron better and combined units suffer from the space immortality issue).

[rumiks1]

i would also like to see what its like and what your doing in 2.2

[Vulcanus]

i would also like to see what its like and what your doing in 2.2

Just to be clear, I'm not part of the TR mod team and have nothing to do with developing the 2.2 patch. What I meant is that if they come up with a better Pentastar recruitment system than what I've done (and they certainly have the talent to do just that), I've got no reason to release mine. Similarly, if they've got plans to release an expansive GC campaign that takes place in the Unknown regions or in the immediate post-Endor era, I don't need to sweat doing one by myself.

I have tremendous respect for TR team for their years of hard work to provide us with a mod as suberb as the ICW and being supportive of community mods for it.

[rumiks1]

i know your not part of the team i am wondering what your going to do when it comes out will you be doing a sub-mod for it or nothing really i don't know if 2.2 is a new mod or just a patch i am only asking are you still doing more maps and more gc campaigns and will the one you made now work in 2.2 that's all

[Lord Xizer]

Vulcanus, is there a way to put the Dathomir map from the base game campaign(The really large one in the Zann Consortiums campaign) as Dathomir's map while still maintaining building slots and the Golans in space? Was thinking of tweaking Hunt for Zsinj just a bit.

[Vulcanus]

I have never done anything with tactical battle maps since I feel that Thrawn's Revenge did such a nice job with them and I am personally way more interested in game balancing, so I am not the right person to answer that, sorry.
Would certainly be interested in seeing the results of your tweaked Zsinj campaign, though.

Just yesterday I reached playable status for a new GC, but still needs a whole lot of scripting and balancing.
It is another what if- infinities scenario, where Moff Disra's plot is a success, the original Caamas document is never found and the confrontation at Bothawui escalates into a full-scale galactic war between pro- and anti-bothan factions.

70 planets total, NR starts with Denon, Fondor, Sullust, Coruscant, Kashyyyk and Bilbringi. Remnant with all their traditional fortress worlds + Bothawui, EotH with 8 starting planets. Also, the Mon Calamari will side with the pro-Bothans, so the NR will have to do without any whale ships, and there will be a Viscount (+MC90s) waiting for you at Dac should you try to conquer it. The rest of the map will be littered with fleets of various sizes: Hapans, Hutts, BACs, rogue New Class ships and old Imperial and Rebel ships that have found their way to planetary defense forces.

In short, it is the one campaign, where NR players will get their chance to channel their inner Imperial and restore order  to the galaxy while slaying some MonCals in the process.
Of course the IR and EotH  can do just the same.

Still need to add scripts for Pellaeon establishing loyalist anti-Disra forces or having him as a conditional hero for EotH, add Disra and fake-Thrawn for the Remnant (two Thrawns in one campaign  ) and procure a script to add severe penalties for the player who decides to slaughter Bothan refugee camps. Ideally I'd like to do separate factions for pro- and anti-bothans, but until then both will be presented by the Warlords faction.

[Lord Xizer]

Ever considered doing the Deep Core civil war between Harrsk, Teradoc and Delvardus? Have certain units available to each that reflect each ones strategic thought process, i.e. Teradoc has access to light and fast ships and fighters culminating with the crimson command emphasis on mass production.Harrsk has middle ground with ISD variants and cruisers with standard TIEs as a balance of delvardus's and Teradoc's doctrine.   while Delvardus has access to battle cruisers and eventually Night Hammer with emphasis on fewer ships but very powerful.

[Vulcanus]

Ever considered doing the Deep Core civil war between Harrsk, Teradoc and Delvardus? Have certain units available to each that reflect each ones strategic thought process, i.e. Teradoc has access to light and fast ships and fighters culminating with the crimson command emphasis on mass production.Harrsk has middle ground with ISD variants and cruisers with standard TIEs as a balance of delvardus's and Teradoc's doctrine.   while Delvardus has access to battle cruisers and eventually Night Hammer with emphasis on fewer ships but very powerful.

It would certainly be interesting, but EaW isn't really the right platform for adding multiple campaign playable factions. You either need to extensively script an existing faction (like EotH for Fel Empire campaign) and lose some of that immersion factor or add a new faction like the Yevetha/Pentastar, which means a lot of extra work for just one campaign. I mean, it could be done if you can live with, say, Harrsk as the IR, Delvardus as scripted EotH (since EotH already has build restrictions in place for Fel Empire campaign, it wouldn't be too hard) and Teradoc as the Yevetha with planet-restricted buildable ships (obviously would also require doing the same for yevetha factional units).

An interesting idea for sure. If you can come up with a list of planets and more exact unit lists for all three, I could try to make it.

[Lord Xizer]

That interests me greatly.  The Warlords are in a way my greatest interest and i always lobbied heavily for their inclusion.

[Vulcanus]

Here is a post that explains how ship build costs are determined in Balance & Flavor. Feel free to offer thoughts and constructive criticism. I meant to post this a while back when there was some discussion about hardpoint damage values, but I simply forgot, so here it is.

The basic formula I used for my submod's galactic build costs was to first calculate the damage value vs. frigate shields for the ship in question. Why frigate shields? Because it is the most commonly encountered shield type and all weapon types produce roughly equal damage vs. frigate shields. I thought using armor damage values would be useless, as most of the time if you manage to punch through the shields, you've already won the fight. Damage bonus for proton torpedoes vs. structure armor is not considered here as it is accounted for later. Ion cannons obviously hold the edge vs. capital grade shields, but since they can't damage armor, that evens out and neither turbolasers nor ion cannons receive any cost multipliers later. Range is also considered if it is not the standard 2100: For example, Majestic's damage values are multiplied by 3000/2100.

The damage value is then combined with shield refresh value/second to receive the total value of how much damage the ship can take and deliver.
Shield health and total hardpoint health are also combined to receive the total health value.

The received values are then compared to ImpStar I's damage and health values and build cost (all scaled by population cost of the ship it is being compared to) without fighter complement to calculate a base cost. The ImpStar I was used because it has easy-to-remember values: total damage 300, total health 10000 an build cost of 6000 without fighter complement.
Technically one could derive all the build costs from any ship and any starting build cost and end up with properly balanced (yet different) build costs for all ships.

The base cost is then multiplied by 1.1 or 1.2 for each of the advanced weapon systems (anti-fighter lasers, conc missiles, torpedoes), special abilities or better than average speed/mobility.

Fighter complement values are then added and subtracted. First a base value is subtracted from the ship's value. This is scaled by population cost and average fighter complement value (0 for pop 1, 500 for 2, 1000 for 3 etc.). Then the actual value of fighters carried is added: 150-450 for fighter squadrons, 300-900 for bomber squadrons, 1/2, 1/3 value and so on for reserve squadrons that are not initial reserves and thus are not likely to take part in the combat.

The build cost value received is POPULATION cost effective, but it is not credits cost-effective for ships cheaper than ImpStar I. Smaller ships have a weaker shield type, but they are also more credits effective, and for 5900 credits one may be able to field several frigates that outgun the ImpStar I by way of superior firepower, achieved space superiority or sheer number of destroyable hardpoints. This is also one of the main reasons why the base cost has to be multiplied to account for advanced systems as it softens the difference between pop cost-effectiveness and credits cost-effectiveness.
This is why one also needs to calculate the ship's value without the pop cost modifier that was applied earlier, or simply count how many smaller ships one can buy instead of a single ImpStar I and compare their values. If there is a large disparity, the pop cost-effective build cost need to be scaled up towards credits cost-effective value since obviously not every space battle is fought with full 40 pop cap stacks.

It is not perfect, as the exact value of things like weapon range, interceptor complement, speed and advanced weapons is hard to estimate. Fire arcs are not accounted for, though any ships with abysmal fire arcs received an improvement to their fire arcs in the hardpoint files.
Actually, most of the build costs in my submod are a bit incorrect because they use my older fighter complement valuation method (150-450 for all starfighters, 400 pop value) that I used before doing some firepower calculations for bombers.

[Vulcanus]

Basic formula:
Ship Y/ ImpStar I

{Damage value Y/[Damage value ImpStar (Y pop cost/ImpStar pop cost)]} x {Health Y/[Health ImpStar (Y pop cost/ImpStar popcost)]} x (Impstar build cost without fighters) x (advanced systems modifier) - (base fighter complement value) + (actual fighter complement value) = NEW BUILD COST (+ possible credits cost-effective scale up)

Some examples:
Ascendancy Star Destroyer (note pop cost 4):
Weapon damage value: 374
Shield refresh value: 17
Overall damage value: 391
Total health: 10660
Pop cost: 4
Fighter complement value: 2x Krsiss (2x300), 1 Clawcraft (450), 1 Syca Bomber (450) = 1500

Impstar values:
Damage: 300
Health: 10000
Pop cost: 4
Build cost without fighters: 6000

Ascendancy SD build cost:
391/300 x 10660/10000 x 6000 -1500 + 1500 = 8336 = 8300



Here is the modded MC40a with a lower pop cost, conc missiles adapted for submod standardization and upgraded shields and fire arcs.

MC40a:
Overall damage value: 94
Health: 3620
Pop cost: 2

Advanced systems:
Conc missiles x1.2
Speed x1.2

Fighter complement: B-Wing 600


Impstar values (pop 2):
Damage: 150
Health: 5000
Build cost: 3000

MC40a build cost:
94/150 x 3620/5000 x 3000 x1.2 x1.2 -500 +600 = 2060 = 2100

Now, if MC40a was still a 3 pop cost ship, its pop cost-effective value would be:
94/225 x 3620/7500 x 4500 x1.2 x1.2 -1000 +600 = 906

Credits cost-effective value for MC40a (pop not taken into account):
94/300 x 3620/10000 x 6000 x1.2 x1.2 = 980

Yet 2 MC40a combined vs. an ImpStar I have the combined credit cost-effective value of 3920.

As you can see, there is potentially a huge difference in pop cost-effective and credit cost-effective values.
A 2 pop cost MC40a is very similar in both pop and credit cost-effective value to an ImpStar I (5900 credit ImpStar I vs. 2-3 MC40s), whereas a 3 pop cost MC40a is always going to be unbalanced in either pop or credit cost-effectiveness.

[Lord Xizer]

Impressive you've really put a lot of thought into this. My sound equipment will be at your disposal too if you're interested in adding some new VOs to your mod i can record.

[Corey]

I've been working out a similar system for Ascendancy recently and mostly agree with your choices. However, in certain cases there are a few other variables worth taking into consideration. The amount of damage dealt, for example, should be taken into account with diminishing returns, since the way targeting works in EaW, you're rarely if ever going to get the full amount out of something. If you just indiscriminately apply it to everything, with a ton of shps you're going to be paying a large amount because of increased damage that doesn't always exist.

[Vulcanus]

I've been working out a similar system for Ascendancy recently and mostly agree with your choices. However, in certain cases there are a few other variables worth taking into consideration. The amount of damage dealt, for example, should be taken into account with diminishing returns, since the way targeting works in EaW, you're rarely if ever going to get the full amount out of something. If you just indiscriminately apply it to everything, with a ton of shps you're going to be paying a large amount because of increased damage that doesn't always exist.

Targeting accuracy is something that is fairly hard to accurately depict, so that was the reason for leaving it out. This could be solved by standardizing all targeting accuracy values for hardpoints (they are a bit of a mess right now anyway). Then one could happily use pure damage values for everything.
If you are going to make lasers faster for 2.2, taking a look at targeting values could be necessary to account for the fact that faster lasers mean that super ships like the Exeutor become potentially multiple times more powerful due to faster target acquiring. In my tests, faster turbolasers lead to super ships bossing over everything at will.

Thanks for the feedback, as always!

@Lord Xizer: Thank you for the offer, but I think I'm good without voiceovers. I mean, what I'm doing is simply mod the ICW a bit further every time I play it, so this is more of a personal labor of love with no set goals and adding voiceovers or other entirely non-ICW content would be kind of stepping on the shoes of Corey and everyone else who've spent years making Imperial Civil War and now Ascendancy a reality for us all.

Much respect for Thrawn's Revenge team and if you feel like adapting any of my ideas for official ICW, feel free to do so.

[Corey]

That's not what I'm talking about. I mean the fact that ships can only properly target one thing at a time, and this almost always results in a significant loss of effective firepower. If something has 1000 HP, it doesn't matter if you've hit it with 1100 or 100,000 damage. It's just as dead either way. When a ship has a ton of hardpoints, the advantage it gains isn't really about firepower except when dealing with shields; the value of an Executor over a Praetor really comes less from the 4000 additional damage it has, and more from the fact that the Executor has its firepower spread over so many more hardponts, meaning it maintains ~100% effective firepower significantly longer than the Praetor.

[Vulcanus]

I get that, but the Executor and other super ships are anomalies anyway and don't really fit ANY valuation system. When dealing with ships smaller than the Praetor the battle is most times decided by the race to get the other ship's shields down rather than shooting down hardpoints, so in my opinion, targeting vs. hardpoints is of secondary value. The biggest balancing issue caused by this is mainly from shield refresh/damage ratio, but since it is around 10% anyway it does not matter too much.

Instead of starting to calculate damage per salvo /average hardpoint strength, one could use average number of pulses per salvo for a positive or negative modifier and average number of hardpoints/ship(per pop cost) for another modifier.

I considered adding both of these, but this was never meant to be entirely perfect, just to provide a better measuring stick for all ships so that every ship in the game would actually be worth building and there would be no super cost-effective ships like the Ascendancy SD or ships like the MC40a that no in their sane mind would ever build. The build cost thus represents the value of the ship mostly accurately, but still leaves some room for the "quality of design" element represented by number of pulses, hardpoints and fire arcs.

[Vulcanus]

Should have a new update soon with the Greater Maldrood as a new playable faction and a new Post-Zsinj GC campaign. The only problem now is that the Remnant version of the campaign CTDs inbetween weeks 1 and 2, which is a shame as they have easily the most interesting starting position of them all. So I'd like to ideally fix that.

If any of you guys here have experience modding GCs and have previously experienced CTDs related to week change, please give me some advice.

With a new playable faction, 5 active factions and 18 new Galactic planets, there is certainly a lot that could potentially go wrong, but the campaign works picture-perfect so far for any other starting faction.

[Corey]

That usually indicates a problem with the human storyfile for that faction or, when you're setting up the AI/player names, SandboxHuman vs SandBoxHuman

[Vulcanus]

Thanks, man. I double-checked those, but everything seems to be fine. I guess I just need to run some dedicated bug test runs to narrow down what is messed up instead of just wading through the lines.