Unit formations

Downloads, info and technical help for Napoleonic Total War 3
User avatar
Lord Fullin
Lord
Lord
Posts: 3793
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:07 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Unit formations

Postby Lord Fullin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:46 am

Personally I would like to delay all orders 15 seconds... :mtwisted: and there you will have an interesting affaire.

Thank you resorgimento for this, please keep on the good work , we thorougly appreciated.
Sauve qui peut!' 'Nous sommes trahis!'

User avatar
Sloop
Beta Tester
Beta Tester
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Unit formations

Postby Sloop » Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:04 am

Welcome the Lordz newest member! I hope everyone realizes the epic consequences of this. May I be the first to congratulate risorgimento59 as the community's new fukin superman.

I hope he doesn't play the game as good as he programs or I'll be in big trouble.

User avatar
Lord Fullin
Lord
Lord
Posts: 3793
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:07 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Unit formations

Postby Lord Fullin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:06 am

Iam printing T shirts with his face.
Sauve qui peut!' 'Nous sommes trahis!'

User avatar
risorgimento59
Villein
Villein
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:51 pm

Re: Unit formations

Postby risorgimento59 » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:25 am

Not truly HD, but here you go:

http://youtu.be/J2sn3vBr42k

http://youtu.be/zzi6iZ37uGY

Little description.
1) Unit starts in UNDEFINED state and moves forward very slowly (I think I set the modifier to 0.1 or 0.25, cannot check right now).
I click the column formation button (right click on the unit card and the popup opens).
Unit halts and cannot move until the FORMING's timeout (15 seconds for UNDEFINED -> FORMED(attack_column), but can be changed of course!) expires.
Then we're in FORMED(attack_column) state, formation's width changes and the movement modifier becomes fairly high (2.0?).

2) FORMED(attack_column) to SPECIAL ABILITY, via FORMING. Self-explanatory.

The state of the HFSM is shown in the tooltip (countdown too, if in FORMING state). :wink:

Thanks for your congratulations.
There's still much to do however.

User avatar
stilgar
Beta Tester
Beta Tester
Posts: 952
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:29 pm
Location: 2000km from Borodino
Contact:

Re: Unit formations

Postby stilgar » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:19 am

Thanks a lot for those demo video's. See is to believe :). A few questions, if I may.

(i) will click and drag still work the same way as now for defining the depth and width of the formation? If so, this is sort of overrun of the formation buttons, right?
(ii) How will this work for units of different size? Is it possible to impose a certain width/depth ratio?
(iii) Afaic see you speak of formations and modifiers for individual units. Will you be looking into formation of a group of units, to define mix order or echelon-type formations, just to name few?

Thanks
"Постой-ка, брат мусью ..."

User avatar
risorgimento59
Villein
Villein
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:51 pm

Re: Unit formations

Postby risorgimento59 » Tue Jul 28, 2015 10:13 am

stilgar wrote:Thanks a lot for those demo video's. See is to believe :). A few questions, if I may.

(i) will click and drag still work the same way as now for defining the depth and width of the formation? If so, this is sort of overrun of the formation buttons, right?
(ii) How will this work for units of different size? Is it possible to impose a certain width/depth ratio?
(iii) Afaic see you speak of formations and modifiers for individual units. Will you be looking into formation of a group of units, to define mix order or echelon-type formations, just to name few?

Thanks


No problem.

1) I'm going to hook the BCQ command of "click and drag" and make it falling (like increment/decrement width do now) into UNDEFINED state in a couple of days. It should take me no more than 5 minutes. Will show you.
2) A formation is defined in the DB as, among others, a fixed axis type (files or ranks) and 4 values (one per unit scale). For example, column of attack might be: FILES, { 10, 20, 30, 40 }.
3) I don't know. Let's see if I will have enough free time.

Ciao. :wink:

User avatar
FireTight
Gentleman
Gentleman
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:03 pm
Location: Brno, CZE
Contact:

Re: Unit formations

Postby FireTight » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:50 am

risorgimento59 wrote:
stilgar wrote:Thanks a lot for those demo video's. See is to believe :). A few questions, if I may.

(i) will click and drag still work the same way as now for defining the depth and width of the formation? If so, this is sort of overrun of the formation buttons, right?
(ii) How will this work for units of different size? Is it possible to impose a certain width/depth ratio?
(iii) Afaic see you speak of formations and modifiers for individual units. Will you be looking into formation of a group of units, to define mix order or echelon-type formations, just to name few?

Thanks


No problem.

1) I'm going to hook the BCQ command of "click and drag" and make it falling (like increment/decrement width do now) into UNDEFINED state in a couple of days. It should take me no more than 5 minutes. Will show you.
2) A formation is defined in the DB as, among others, a fixed axis type (files or ranks) and 4 values (one per unit scale). For example, column of attack might be: FILES, { 10, 20, 30, 40 }.
3) I don't know. Let's see if I will have enough free time.

Ciao. :wink:


1) Maybe I'm wrong, but I think by doing this you will also override one of the most used commands in Total War - select some units and move them somewhere else by "click and drag".

User avatar
risorgimento59
Villein
Villein
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:51 pm

Re: Unit formations

Postby risorgimento59 » Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:10 pm

Yes, I know.
You can still move around by just clicking or change unit's bearing without dragging.
There's no penalty in doing so if you're already in FORMED state.
Or, even better, I may patch the command in order to keep fixed width if unit's in FORMED state.
Otherwise by setting arbitrary width values you will fall into UNDEFINED state (switching to FORMING before too, maybe with short or null timeout).
The alternative I thought was to link "dynamically" the number or files/ranks to the speed/morale/fatigue/etc. modifiers via some mathematical functions (see code snippet in first post).
That would support arbitrary values.
But the actual option is cheaper and closer to the Napoleonic standards and drill rules logics, I guess.
Last edited by risorgimento59 on Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DOC
Beta Tester
Beta Tester
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Unit formations

Postby DOC » Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:30 pm

Sloop wrote:What's an old exploiter going to do? Hmm... was that 12 or 13 seconds?

New tactic; must keep some close units in square so unsquared infantry can run to them.
Larger units will gain some advantages as they can form a block column and fair better out of square.
Cavalry will be extremely effective.
It will be a huge cat and mouse game.

.


Next new problem lol. Players running inf in line back to squares for protection. KGL at Garcia Hernandez anyone.

But in all seriousness, it's getting closer, is the holy grail within grasp let's hope so.
[NBC] DOC

User avatar
Chromey
Baronet
Baronet
Posts: 631
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:21 pm
Location: Florida Americas Wang

Re: Unit formations

Postby Chromey » Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:16 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... %C3%A1ndez

thanks Doc a very nice example of when Cavalry defeated squares.
Death to Tyranny

User avatar
FireTight
Gentleman
Gentleman
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:03 pm
Location: Brno, CZE
Contact:

Re: Unit formations

Postby FireTight » Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:02 pm

risorgimento59 wrote:Yes, I know.
You can still move around by just clicking or change unit's bearing without dragging.
There's no penalty in doing so if you're already in FORMED state.


I'm sorry, but that would be pain in the a** and the most user un-friendly thing I've ever seen. :D I like and support more realistic approach in NTW3, but honestly, I don't support sacrificing controls over realism.

User avatar
oOIYvYIOo
Baronet
Baronet
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: Caldas da Rainha,Portugal

Re: Unit formations

Postby oOIYvYIOo » Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Chromey wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Garc%C3%ADa_Hern%C3%A1ndez

thanks Doc a very nice example of when Cavalry defeated squares.


No. A terrible example. Thats a perfect example of how a low quality of light infantry ,tired,when encountered a élite very heavy German Dragoons,fresh,gets defeated when is in square formation .
The KEY was a dead horse.
People read to much the first lines or titles ... or hollywood moovies ,i keep saying ...

"Bock's dragoons charged a square belonging to a battalion of the 6th Light. The French held their fire too long. Their volley killed a number of horsemen, but a mortally wounded horse carrying a dead dragoon crashed into the square like a battering ram."

If the french did not took to much to fire , you had another disastour British horse charge ... :rolleyes:

A dead horse made the work ... there you go .
1 charge in 1000 worked .
Continuing my reading it just shows how the person that brought this excellent topic from wikipedia to us ,proving that he doesnt know what he says and reads :

When infantry squares were broken by cavalry in the Napoleonic Wars, it was usually because:
the infantry were of poor quality
the infantry were tired, disorganized or discouraged
it was raining, making it difficult for the infantry to fire effectively
the infantry fired a poorly aimed volley
the infantry waited too long to fire


So ,cavalry charges on squares , only worked due the low quality of infantry and not due cavalry merit and still they would need to have the luck and wisdom to confront a low quality of infantry.

Something that i have been writing on Lordz forum for years and have been continuosly insulted for it .

THE END .

I heard that there are some free holes for sale in Britain ... :mrgreen:
.☠. Lusitani Legio ,Fundator membrum
https://www.youtube.com/user/oOIYvYIOo

User avatar
Lord Fullin
Lord
Lord
Posts: 3793
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:07 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Unit formations

Postby Lord Fullin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:56 pm

So ,cavalry charges on squares , only worked due the low quality of infantry and not due cavalry merit and still they would need to have the luck and wisdom to confront a low quality of infantry.

Something that i have been writing on Lordz forum for years and have been continuosly insulted for it .


The problem is Motta that you and Doc are reading notes on a historical square and we have an instant square in the game.

I can post here countless of accounts of cavalry breaking units , deploying and forming into squares.

As we can not represent these situations, because we have an "Instant" square, we need to represent a sometimes breakable square.

Weve said this plenty of times and you seems not to be satisfied with the answer. And have every right to do so, but we have as well our oppinion and we have every right to do so.
Or dont we?

Lordz have never iinsulted you for expressing your oppinion in a civilized way.

Yours
Lord Fullin
Sauve qui peut!' 'Nous sommes trahis!'

User avatar
Lord Fullin
Lord
Lord
Posts: 3793
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:07 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Unit formations

Postby Lord Fullin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:58 pm

but honestly, I don't support sacrificing controls over realism.


In genera,l we do.

Although I dont think thats is gonna be less intuitive after a while than what it is now...give us a little credit Fire.
Sauve qui peut!' 'Nous sommes trahis!'

User avatar
oOIYvYIOo
Baronet
Baronet
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: Caldas da Rainha,Portugal

Re: Unit formations

Postby oOIYvYIOo » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:45 am

Lord Fullin wrote:
The problem is Motta that you and Doc are reading notes on a historical square and we have an instant square in the game.

I can post here countless of accounts of cavalry breaking units , deploying and forming into squares.

As we can not represent these situations, because we have an "Instant" square, we need to represent a sometimes breakable square.

Weve said this plenty of times and you seems not to be satisfied with the answer. And have every right to do so, but we have as well our oppinion and we have every right to do so.
Or dont we?

Lordz have never iinsulted you for expressing your oppinion in a civilized way.

Yours
Lord Fullin


Wait . Here we go again ...

Me ? Saying that the square needs to improve or change ? But where ,when Fullin ?
I do not know where you ever ever read that i complained about the decision of the square formation that Lordz have done.
I wrote ,Lordz forum ,its not to Lordz and their forum its the Lordz forum,one place,not a or a group of specific persons but a place to everyone to read.

My words were not aime at Lordz decisions or work but aimed to DOC and others that keep demanding changes.Yes it is DOC that you have to speak not me.

I have been for years defending the Lordz decision of maintaining the square as it is (even if i think it should be a bit like the original square on NTW),and also to not increase more the strenght of the cavalry !
Fullin,when you read posts that criticize or demands the changes of the Lordz decisions, please,take a look well to the name who wrote ,there is only one ooiyivyoo/da motta not 10 or 20 .

About the insults,you can say what you wish ,but i have never called a Lordz or beta member or anyone on the forum of being dum,arrogant,nazi,false,crazy,demanding the change of personal details or i would be banned from this forum,being called of ignorant,bloking me from forum sections,being banned,now removed from beta ... and the oposite cannot be said as i have received this words and hostile acts from some Lordz in the past .
Also my "insults" torward other members,only came after i have been insulted and never,never, have reached the same level of the insults i have received this years.
And if i have to compare my words with other examples of others that i have read around here this years ,i am a saint.

For example Fullin when i have ever insulted you ?
I cant say the same my friend.But i dont keep any resentment.
Or ask to anyone to quote me offending someone without being insulted.

Stop crucifing me as the vilan.
Before i join this community, the offences betwen NBC,N and Grogs were far f*** far from being educated or civlized and nothing has changed.
During the time i was banned, remind me what hapened with Lordz team and this forum for example.
Or what is writen on the forums betwen the clans of this comunity and what hapens on tournaments?

Its obvious that ,as always,i am demonstrating that there is no work to be done,as the one that is done already is the best possible ,as also its not historical correct to reduce the strenght of the square formation , it was rare to see a cavalry unit breaking a square of a infantry unit and also i have been always,always defending that cavalry should not be improved ,specially the British one.
Me oOIYvYIOo ,i have been saying this .
You have been reading the oposite,asking and demanding for changes, is from several other members.
Not from me.
I have been saying ,hundreds of times that the first versions were and still are the bests according the game mechanism .
Fullin, it is you that see me as a "enemy" not me .
Have a good night.
.☠. Lusitani Legio ,Fundator membrum
https://www.youtube.com/user/oOIYvYIOo

User avatar
[N]Clinch
Knight
Knight
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:45 am

Re: Unit formations

Postby [N]Clinch » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:08 am

Ahhh, I miss the old times when it was you and I arguing DaMotta. In all honesty, take what Fullin says with a grain of salt. I know his words usually strike a blow he never means to. Lets all just hold hands in a circle around risorgimento (better yet, a square that takes half a minute to form) and hope he can code us the answer.

User avatar
Lord Fullin
Lord
Lord
Posts: 3793
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:07 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Unit formations

Postby Lord Fullin » Wed Jul 29, 2015 3:05 am

Sorry Motta, my mystake, I see you wrote Lordz forum and not Lordz...
My apologies sir.
Sauve qui peut!' 'Nous sommes trahis!'

User avatar
Lord Avon Ulysses
Lord
Lord
Posts: 2080
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:56 am

Re: Unit formations

Postby Lord Avon Ulysses » Wed Jul 29, 2015 4:08 am

[N]Clinch wrote:Ahhh, I miss the old times when it was you and I arguing DaMotta. In all honesty, take what Fullin says with a grain of salt. I know his words usually strike a blow he never means to. Lets all just hold hands in a circle around risorgimento (better yet, a square that takes half a minute to form) and hope he can code us the answer.


'A Square', nice one Clinch. :lol:
'Illegitimi non carborundum'

User avatar
risorgimento59
Villein
Villein
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:51 pm

Re: Unit formations

Postby risorgimento59 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 4:48 pm

I'm back home.

Two questions:
1) Can any "formation" / special ability of vanilla game (square, wedge, diamond, light infantry behaviour, etc.) fall off from that state in case of suffering severe losses? I mean, without clicking on the button...
2) Shall I add a minimum amount of soldiers' threshold (specified on a per-formation basis in the DB) that, once passed, forces the FORMED state to exit / reject the various columns, 2 ranks line, 3 ranks line, etc.?

@FireTight: I guess we can have the best of the two worlds (realism and control). It'll require some additional investigation, but I think a system like this should make you happier: say you're dragging and press then SHIFT (or any other key combination), this will reset the selection proxy width to the unit's actual formation's width (if you're in FORMED state, of course). Once you submit the command (by releasing the mouse drag), the algorithm will check if any meaningful change to width occurred (if you've reset it, there's no change obviously), and if so, will make you jump to UNDEFINED state (you're out of rules basically). Otherwise, if the width is consistent, you will keep the FORMED state. Sounds good to me.

User avatar
Lord Fullin
Lord
Lord
Posts: 3793
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:07 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Unit formations

Postby Lord Fullin » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:51 pm

May I be bold and ask you for a video were a cavalry charge the clicked but yet unformed square?

Thank you.


On your question of unit limits for formations, I think that you shouldnt.

Even skirmishers in skirmish order used to form squares, whats more plenty of times me and my m8s in a bar fight, we used to form 4 men squares. :mrgreen:
Sauve qui peut!' 'Nous sommes trahis!'

User avatar
DOC
Beta Tester
Beta Tester
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Unit formations

Postby DOC » Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:18 am

I do believe my original post has been misinterpretated. I wasn't referring to the first square that was broken because of the dying horse, I was referring to the SECOND square that lost integrity when survivors from the first ran towards it. Instead of firing a volley the square hesitated and the survivors broke open the ranks which created a gap and the KGL followed them in and began gutting the square from the inside. This is a direct reference to the post that was before mine saying how the new tactic will be to keep a unit in square behind the main line so that they can run to the square if cavalry threaten. So yes my post is relevant. However it was more tongue in cheek than serious because it couldn't possibly be modded.

Plus I don't remember demanding anything from the Lordz team, EVER. They do the work so final decision is theirs, fine by me. I have offered suggestions and opinions on matters and backed my reasoning with facts and sources, that's it.
[NBC] DOC

User avatar
Lord Fullin
Lord
Lord
Posts: 3793
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:07 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Unit formations

Postby Lord Fullin » Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:48 am

DOC wrote:I do believe my original post has been misinterpretated. I wasn't referring to the first square that was broken because of the dying horse, I was referring to the SECOND square that lost integrity when survivors from the first ran towards it. Instead of firing a volley the square hesitated and the survivors broke open the ranks which created a gap and the KGL followed them in and began gutting the square from the inside. This is a direct reference to the post that was before mine saying how the new tactic will be to keep a unit in square behind the main line so that they can run to the square if cavalry threaten. So yes my post is relevant. However it was more tongue in cheek than serious because it couldn't possibly be modded.

Plus I don't remember demanding anything from the Lordz team, EVER. They do the work so final decision is theirs, fine by me. I have offered suggestions and opinions on matters and backed my reasoning with facts and sources, that's it.


Demand from the Lordz! they need pressure , bunch of lazy bastards :mrgreen:
Sauve qui peut!' 'Nous sommes trahis!'

User avatar
risorgimento59
Villein
Villein
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:51 pm

Re: Unit formations

Postby risorgimento59 » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:02 pm

Lord Fullin wrote:May I be bold and ask you for a video were a cavalry charge the clicked but yet unformed square?


No problem.
Although a couple of things must be kept in mind before watching:
1) There are no morale effects on being caught in forming state yet (but no square bonus either...);
2) The cavalry charge is very slow due of undefined state's speed modifier (AI units were affected by HFSM code this morning, now they're not anymore).
Here you go:
https://youtu.be/aZLqKDO_sf8

I've fixed many hidden bugs today.
But one especially wasn't so hidden and soon caught my attention.
It needs to be fixed as soon as possible.
https://youtu.be/Yyh6g9XxsX0
Looks like there's a sort of messed melee radius for the square.
Any idea where this problem might come from?
Thank you.

EDIT: the problem exists in plain NTW v5 too.

User avatar
Lord Fullin
Lord
Lord
Posts: 3793
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:07 am
Location: Argentina

Re: Unit formations

Postby Lord Fullin » Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:09 pm

It is obvious that if the cav dont defeat the forming square in time, the unit will form the square.

I dont see a problem there aside the fact that Avon will need to change stats so as units become more vulnerable to cav attacks when not in square.



One other question:

Are you working this on the .exe file? will Steam Alllow us to host MP games if this file shows to be altered?
Sauve qui peut!' 'Nous sommes trahis!'

User avatar
risorgimento59
Villein
Villein
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:51 pm

Re: Unit formations

Postby risorgimento59 » Thu Jul 30, 2015 5:46 pm

The exe file is not changed physically on disk, but (slightly) on memory (which should be mine, until proven guilty...).
The mod's core is on a separate DLL.
Yet, I'm fairly sure Steam won't like this.
The fact that NTW is the last CA game not VAC-enabled, should help quite a lot.
Hiding my module won't be enough indeed because I'm also sure the actual startup stage is vulnerable to their checks (OpenProcess, ReadProcessMemory, WriteProcessMemory, CreateRemoteThread, etc.).
And thus would expose us to bans.
I will reserve my best efforts to try bypassing the system.
I'm not an hacker, though.
Focus your prayers on this subject only, please.
The rest is time consuming but certainly doable.


Return to “NTW3 General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests