X-Mod thread

[jmlima]

... I also never liked the fact that single shot weapons like RPGs or Bazooka degrade. Either you have the rockets, or you don't, although wear-and-tear does come into play. LAWs are single use weapons, but as we all know, if you carry more weapons, you get hit with a movement penalty. ...

Fair enough point, but the theory behind degrading is that for example a LAW will degrade to a point where it becomes unusable in its intended role, hence, same as not having it.

[keif149]

On a side note:

If you have requested files and waiting for my reply, please check your Junk or Spam folder in your email program. My response could be in there.

Thanks.

[Jeff Conner]

There was a move at one time to convert bazookas, RPGs and similar weapons to single use weapons like LAWs. This would follow Alan's idea of either you have the rockets or you don't. But the powers that be didn't go for it. The best that those of us pushing for the idea could get was to reduce the reliability of those weapons down towards a D rating, meaning that they would degrade much faster. Then at least, you would (or at least should) think twice before hosing down every enemy infantry squad with several RPG rockets. However, this change has not been applied consistently.


As for the idea behind the X-mod, I just can't get behind it. I think its great that some players are making use of the editors to change things; after all that's what they are for. But the idea of replacing an algorithm that models ammunition usage with one that ignores the subject entirely does not seem like a step forward. This is especially true in an infantry simulator where the vast majority of ammo carried is by the user and there is most definitely a finite amount.

And to the idea that this won't affect play balance, I disagree. It depends on the time period (this is going to make any weapon with a lower reliability much more effective and reduce the impact of single shot weapons like LAWs) and if the scenario has a true attacker role. Any side that is forced to spend a significant portion of the game moving is going to be at a disadvantage if their opposition does not have to worry about running out of ammo. There are reasons that scenarios are given certain time lengths and part of that is the degradation of units (both men and weapons) over time. So in Vietnam where the bad guys have RPGs that never degrade (and they didn't degrade fast enough to begin with) and the good guys have LAWs, there is going to be an advantage for the bad guys (or compare bazookas, piats and panzerfauts). If the good guys have to attack, which they often do, it is going to be even more of an advantage.

As for changing the lethality values, be my guest. Just be sure that you can tell the which dat values you are currently using. I don't think anyone here would intentionally cheat this way, but I could easily see it happening unintentionally. I don't disagree that I think the values are a bit on the low side. We are constrained to some extent to keep them consistent from title to title. Frank, who I have a lot of respect for thought they were too low based on his experiences in Iraq as a Marine. I can't argue with that at all.

Jeff

[Volcano Man]

Yes, I agree with Jeff that the "status" of weapons is not just "wear and tear" like many think it is (although it does often represent that with the poorest quality weapons -- like Chauchat), it is mainly modeling ammunition consumption. In SB:FWW field guns have X reliability, simply because it is assumed they have plenty enough ammo to last through one relatively short SB scenario. Other than that, continuous fire of small arms would deplete ammunition to the point that fire will lessen, suppressing fire will slack off to a minimum, and that is where your status comes in.

Since lethality values came up in the conversation -- in regards to modern titles, my issue is when the titles move into the present and the M-16 stays the same lethality as it does in Vietnam. I can see that on the surface of it it might seem like it makes sense that it would, being the same rifle after all, but the problem with that is that these weapons now have various attachments like AN-PEQ lasers, M68 red dot or ACOG sights, floating barrel, hand grips for better stability, etc (I have used all of these things as an MOS 11B). These things have combined to create significant combat multipliers to the aged M4/M16 to the degree that lethality can/should be double or more the lethality that it was in the 1960s, because of greatly increased accuracy, because you are more lethal than using the decked out M4 than using the old "M16 musket" with iron sites. This is where consistency becomes a bad thing. I am a slave to uniformity myself (thanks to the military), so I am often guilty of not deviating from the path.

Anyway, just saying, something to keep in mind in the present day titles going forward. Assuming that Modern War was balanced off the standard M16 lethality values then the effect should be minimal in that title -- i.e. this is not a complaint about that game! -- but going forward it would be nice to see modern "bling'd out weapons" become more lethal in a 1:1 comparison. :)

Just my two cents...

[keif149]

My Jones tutorial I wrote from a couple years ago.

Still seems timely.

Hi,

I want to talk about installing and using the Jonesoft Generic Mod Enabler. I really believe in this thing and I use it for nearly every game I own. From JTCS, all HPS games to Steel Panthers and Combat Mission. It’s even included in the IL-2 Sturmovik mod from Special Aircraft Service site. It’s totally safe, no spy ware, it’s FREE and it’s really pretty simple to use, with a minimum effort on your part. It doesn’t delete any stock files and automatically backs them up. Even if you only want to use a couple of mods or want to see what new ground colors look like in a Squad Battles game, or want to use ALT series of graphics and scenarios for Pzr Ops or swapping in a new tank skin for Combat Mission, this really works.

I’ll just describe it in text and if anyone needs special help, I can send screen shots. It also comes with a great on line .pdf tutorial on its own and cover more features than just the basics I’m talking about. You can also Google for installation help also.

Ok;

1. EDIT: Original home page no longer available. Many download locations if you Google it including this one:
http://www.gamefront.com/files/21681483

2. Place the installer in the main directory of your game. In this example, say Squad Battles Vietnam. I prefer to use a stone stock game, as that allows you to always have a stock game option if you don’t like a mod or something. If you already have modded files and are managing them on your own, try and place them in a folder called maybe “My old Mods” or something that allows you to add them when you’re ready to use JSGME. The main directory is of course where the .exe file to start your game is.

3. Double click the installer and let it begin. Accept the licensing agreement, and continue hitting “next” through out the process. I would uncheck the box for adding a desktop icon, as that gets into running one installation for all of your games. I prefer to have it installed in each game. Foolproof and it makes a very small footprint anyway.

4. Ok, you’ll see it installed a JSGME .exe and .txt file that contains history of the product etc. Double click on the JSGME file (the one that’s represented by the big yellow G icon. It will install in your main directory anew folder called MODS. This is where you’ll be placing your custom mods, graphics, scenarios etc.

5. Now, here is where it gets important and a lot of people get confused. JSGME reads the files in the MODS folder. When you activate a file in the folder it places what ever is in that folder into your games main directory. You can name the folder anything you want, but what ever is inside that folder has to look like the destination in your main directory. I think this where a lot of people mistakenly has their mod inside of another folder.

6. Ok, for example, I want to see what the ground color from Red Victory looks like in my Vietnam game. So I go to Red Victory, Map, and copy the 2dNormal50 and 2dNormal100 .bmp files. The basic terrain colors for Squad Battles games. If the JSGME activation window is still open (after the MODS folder was installed), you may close it now.

7. Inside your Vietnam\MODS folder, create a new folder Called Red Victory Ground. Inside of that create a new folder called Map. Spelled just the way it appears in your Vietnam main directory. Place your two Red Victory .bmp files in there. So you can see what is going to happen. When you activate the Red Victory Ground folder in JSGME, it will load that folder and place your Map in the main directory. It will back up the copies of your stock Vietnam files while allowing the Red Victory file to be used in the game.

8. So, go back to your big yellow G and double click it. That brings up the activation window and you’ll see your Red Victory ground folder on the left side. Single click it. It becomes highlighted and a directional arrow becomes active in the center column. Click on it and it moves the Red Victory Ground Folder to the right side. It is now active. Close the window

9. Close that and start up your game. If you don’t like the colors then just reverse the process. You stock files are back in place. Now you can see how simple it is and if you take a moment to think about it, you’ll soon come up with many ideas on how to use JSGME in many of your other games. Want to use custom Info or media files? Do it the same way. Just remember what is inside your custom folder, has to match where it’s going in your main directory.

10. Hope this helps and it allows you to simplify using custom mod files.


Thats a simple example of how the file structure works. For using the X Mod files unzip the folder from me in your Mods folder. Then when you load it with Jones, you'll get the confirmation start up screen saying X Mod Activated.
Hopefully you can think of other examples where it might come in handy with your other games.

[keif149]

Red Victory updated 04/04/14

[Wodin]

A shame we can't do multi shot weapons..i.e a weapon has a set amount of firing. That way we could have modeled ammo..i.e giving an MG 50 shots etc etc. For me it would be more preferable to the current way which just makes very good weapons useless quickly or the X Mod way making them permanently as if they can fire at full ROF every turn. Though I still prefer the X Mod than the current way..watching a squad of Inf move down a road thats covered with an MG 42 which can't do any damage at all because it's been fired a few times and it's "efficiency" has dropped is grating.

Another way would be to increase the efficiency gain substantially when not firing. So lets say you haven't fired an MG 42 thats at 50% efficiency it will gain say 15% a turn. This would mean you could pull it out of action for four turns and it's back to normal..the current increase that you get in games is barely noticeable to make much difference and also it's not even use din some games. This would give a decent compromise.

Or the last way I can think off is lesson the effect of the efficiency drop so only when it hits around 20 do you start to get really noticeable effects also lesson the rate of decrease..but make sure high ammo using guns do decrease faster.

[keif149]

Grenada updated 04/05/14

[Stejones82]

Another way would be to increase the efficiency gain substantially when not firing. So lets say you haven't fired an MG 42 thats at 50% efficiency it will gain say 15% a turn. This would mean you could pull it out of action for four turns and it's back to normal..the current increase that you get in games is barely noticeable to make much difference and also it's not even use din some games. This would give a decent compromise.

This methodology seems to me a good path to walk. Tips and Tactics suggest that a player should do this for his troops, but few seem to do so. Usually scenarios are too short. I also saw a suggestion that the scenario builder add in troops bringing in "new weapon" - like a jeep in ES scheduled to enter the map edge at turn 6 loaded with no men, but a full squad worth of new weapons. But this adds unnecessary units, and I know some of us like to keep these scenarios small and manageable. So the greatly increased "rest" rate would bring tangible value to resting a squad. It would simulate ammo runners better without cluttering up the map.

Has anyone ever tried having a weapons cache appear at a set game turn on the map in the projected fighting area? That would add a "twist."

Or the last way I can think off is lesson the effect of the efficiency drop so only when it hits around 20 do you start to get really noticeable effects also lesson the rate of decrease..but make sure high ammo using guns do decrease faster.

Trouble with this approach is that it would require a software change to the engine, would it not? And I don't think we would see that happen anytime soon. If ever.

Steve

[keif149]

Falklands converted 04/05/14