Archive for the ‘Mod Workshop’ Category

AJE modding project

Posted: October 4, 2012 in Mod Workshop

As I’ve said, My week has been very busy, but If time to write was rare, time to think was larger 🙂

Beyond t he main AJE problem today, with a large stock of errors of the events et clear balance problem for most of the scenarios ( if not all, but most computer wargames have definitely left anay real effort to deliver balnaced games at start, and those having not are generally commercial failures…..), there  are obviously 3 fields of modding in AJE 1.0:


– AI may be much much better. As usual, newcomers have diffculties and some experienced ones are discovering the hard way the new standards for battles ( Red/Red) against AI helped by the unblalance in the battle engine ( see point 2). Others are easily winning. FY and SVF 2.0 AI may be implemented easily in AJE. For those thinking PBEM may allow to discard AI improvements, I will just reply AJE, like RUS, has scenario with more than 2 factions, and some of them aren’t playable. So better AI is needed even for PBEM.

– I persist to think the battle system needs complete overhaul. Curiously, no one is fully realizing the battle system is built on unhistorical features: no rear or flank attacks by cavalry for example,:


When a system is artificial, it may produce historical results by curbing the values to fit with the system. For now, I’m rather sure to the contrary historical values have been put into, creating unbalanced and unhistorical results. And yet, we haven’t much asymmetrical armies, many factions being built around a heavy Infantry core…The good news is tied to the moddability of values. another system may be built.

-Loyalty: AJE has taken the AGE loyalty system suited for nationalist times, a occurences very rare in Ancient world ( not nonexistent, just rare). They have tried to patch it with events here and there ( Sicilia in Caesar scenario) forgetting a rule: events can’t never replace a game feature, not even fix it. Here too some modding can be done for getting a much better depiction of Loyalty.


We’ll see what patch will come out of their current open beta release 🙂

October schedule

Posted: September 30, 2012 in Mod Workshop

1) SVF 2.0: I should release a quickfix tonight updating a few events. Union and CSA AI are now under testing by me, and you….I expect to update the mod once a week. The AI and design features are in, now bug fixing, improvements to AI and game balance will depend of the reports and their rate.

2) ROP AI design will begin the next week. Expect release at worst in the first days of November 2012. We will then be 2 to be able to build better AI experience.

3) FY) This week; the new manual. In a few weeks, it should be available a FY 1.075, incorporating the new guerilla model of SVF 2.0 and a better representation of the role of the cavalry during operations of pursuit after battle.

Later the 1.08 version of FY will deliver an enhanced diplomatic model, with Finns, Freikorps, Balts, Galicians, Poles, Anarchists, and possibly Trasncaucasian factions. The building of factories will be depicted too possibly by regional decisions rather than options.

progress report 09/28/2012

Posted: September 28, 2012 in AACW Mod, Mod Workshop, Rus Mod

I should release Sunday a new version of SVF 2.0 beta, tacking the Union AI economic trouble.


I’m yet hoping  to release the enhanced FY manual 🙂 During the next months, I will update FY to include new partisan system.
BTW, FY being now very mature, It will be from now released with a password. You will have to ask one at to open the zipped file. I’m expressing all my gratitude toward all who have helped me to achieve this hard task, that is inspiring some of the core AGEOD team:

Those beta testing  a game for several weeks are the real heroes 😉 Those who are playing SVF 2.0 currently will be a very important part of the success of this mod too 🙂
ROP work should begin next week Expect a open beta before the beginning of November.

BTW, I’m certainly not so away from the truth about AI agents:
We’ll see if some Numidian units will not go yet however in Italy…


Interesting case, as any player is waiting the AI to attack on Manassas or at least march toward Richmond.

Should it be always the AI stance? No, because anything predictable may become a trap, especially for AI which is deprived of any real memory of the last games. Let’s add the AI is more right in its computation of forces than Union high Command in 1861 and is then very reluctant to fight the Beauregard’s Army.


SO Union AI in SVF will adopt very different behaviours during the Summer months of 1861. It may attack, bypass, stay immobile, target smaller CSA stack in the Shenandoah or yet switch between these plans… I purpose, CSA player can’t be sure of Union AI actions.


Example: in August 61, seeing Union AI yet immobile, I decided to launch Beauregard’s Army in Maryland by Loudun.

But these time, McDowell moved the same turn at Loudun, and the battle turned to Confederate defeat


Union AI doesn’t read my moves before computing its own. But looking at the files, the move was indeed a defensive one to protect Loudun. It could have been otherwise and turned into major Confederate incursion. However, the main benefit for me remains I can’t know what my AI will do the next turn. The simple possibility of such a move forces to plan it a bit better and prepare to the unexpected, to not say the worst.

Of course, such AI moves must follow a scheme avoiding grossly errors, like an undefended capital.

Here the situationat the end of the turn:


As you can see, Harper’s Ferry and Washington are conveniently garrisoned, preventing easy exploit of an hazardous McDowell movement.


Let’s look a bit larger:



Union AI is present in force in WV. I’ve taken one turn before Tyler region, but the next turns Union AI counterattacked here thanks to the forces present in WV. Assault has been repulsed, but my supply line is very assured, to say the last.

When I say AI designing must precede and not follow game design, I’m sure some are just thinking about like a sort of madness. There are generally those  wondering why the AI performs badly. Not because the AI is stupid. The AI is stupid indeed, but few know AI is playing with penalties as many rules remain unknown to it. It’s easy to build events based on capture or defense of an objective, and rewarding this with NM or VP. The art consists the AI able to cope with. If the AI doesn’t, it will play with a penalty.

That’s why I built first Union AI, tested it, before implementing today the rule giving VP for UNion when controlling WV. Because I know now Union AI able to face this new rule.




Posted: September 24, 2012 in AACW Mod, Mod Workshop, Rus Mod

FY and SVF aren’t AI mod. They are mod integrating a better AI. They can be played in PBEM.
In FY and SVF part of the modifications concern general events. For my own I can’t play a PBEM game where my opponent will choose to use conscription from the start in 1861 without house rules, or a game where requisitions are only possible in regions where loyalty is high as in RUS…I began to mod AACW 5 years ago because of this first point. It just doesn’t feel right and when you investigate all side effects of such a possibility to enforce conscription from the start, you’re discovering whatever the precision of the military model, your AACW game will remain a game, not a simulatioN.


There’s another reason for considering irrelevant the opposition between PBEM and better AI mod: factions. RUS and AJE have now multifactional scenarios with at least 3 sides. It’s often much more ,as smaller factions playable by AI only are play: Poles, pirates, barbarians, Ukrainian, Anarchists are factions driven by AI only. So even in PBEM games, you will have AI factions, whose role is tied to the possibility to get a decent AI. That’s why the official RUS has evolved by removing independent factions, like Anarchist, Poles, when FY has added a few more, because the official AI wasn’t able to cope with, when FY…In the end, a 2 or 3 PBEM FY games has the clear bonus of decent AI factions like Freikorps or Anarchist, these latter surviving well in FY 1.07 🙂

Don’t think of FY or SVF as AI mods. SVF AI has for now only one bonus, the free fortification for Richmond and Washington, and I plan to force AI to pay the price at least partially.  Don’t refrain you to play FY or SVF in PBEM too: let misconceptions to others 🙂



Hi Hasardeur

Posted: September 22, 2012 in Mod Workshop

I’ve read your comments about AJE AI on a German forum ( with Google translation on, I don’t speak German, I don’t speak English, in fact I’m really French 🙂 ).I’m replying here because it’s more convenient for me rather than writing ersatz English on a German forum).

I will do some modding for AJE if:

– I feel AI may be improved ( they’re doing efforts on, as they have done before the release, and it would be unfair to not consider they have yet did better than in the past on this point; I don’t doubt the AJE team is able to perform yet better on this point, some being very talented, we’ll see in the next month; for Pompey in your game, there are certainly not AI events for the faction, and the “hard” AI is performing as usual ;- ) )

– if AJE will not be strongly modified by updates in the next month too. If patches are necessary and unavoidable, the constant tinkering of AGE games is the best way they have found to delay or shut up modding, as any major changes force to assess side effects in mods done. Modders lack time. FY is now almost safe, because it has almost nothing to share with official RUS, but each new exe is  modify game engine to the point some adjustments in FY are needed. Of course, I use new features thanks to updates, but in the end I would prefer to stay with stable versions.


SVF 2.0 should be achieved next week. When the AI is good the first months with my method, methinks from experience it will remain the same until the end of the game. There are yet features to add beyond the AI but nothing as complex than in FY.

Then I will do ROP.

So I could possibly before the end of the year mod a bit AJE. I would create a Buddicca scenario and improve AI in the Caesar/Pompey, Septimus Severus of of course Sulla/Marius scenarios. However, these mods will remain private, for me and those who have helped me. Like you. I will always remember fondly your AAR on the German forum when I was alone, tired, and disgusted after …I opened this blog.

If FY, AACW and ROP are openly released, that’s because AACW was my first love, FY my healing and ROP the gift I want to make for some people who have helped me considerably ( BTW, I hope the well for Baris 🙂 ). For these ones, I needed player reports to check my method, find new ideas, try my AI against several players and so on…I’ve been fortunate to get this support and all those players will remain, as you are, my friends for wargaming.

But I don’t want anymore to let the sycophants, the AGEOD fanboys and the remaining liabilities in the team believe I’m acting like them, just to get the official honors or the public glory. Some would  commend AGEOD for releasing a brick nicknamed  game…A part of them don’t really play AGEOD games, they are just in want of a revenge by identification to a star, or a reward with a official nickname or integration of their mod into official games…Thety can’t imagine real improvements needs freedom, or a mod is done to be played by the one having designed it, or last games like anything needs a bit of competition to become better. Frankly, when I designed the Kentucky chit option, Iwasn’t member of AGEOD. Once done, the moderator at this time wanted me to integrate it. The irony is I’m sure, based on past experience I would have been rebuked if I had proposed it as member of the official team, just because it wasn’t his idea. Once released, of course, it could just rave about the bonus this new feature was giving to AACW…

That’s why I will keep AJE modding in private. I need no more than a few friends to shape the mod and to play it for my pleasure. Glory is in my RL, not on a game forum. I let to them the virtual and their illusions to keep the happiness to PLAY a game, not a role under comical nickname.

Let’s back to Manassas!

AJE AI : possible glitch

Posted: September 22, 2012 in Mod Workshop

As someone has come today from a AGEOD beta forum to read my last stuff, I may share one of my test on AJE. The following event seems to have an error

SelectFaction = $SLV
StartEvent = evt_nam_Winter_SLV|999|0|NULL|NULL|NULL|NULL


CheckAILevel = 1
  TurnIndex = 10

  AI.SetParams = aiCLR_WinterQuarters 1
  AI.ChgAggro  = $Theater_Aegyptus;-75;$Theater_Africa;-75;$Theater_Oriens;-85;$Theater_Mesopotamia;-85;
  AI.ChgAggro  = $Theater_Britannia;-95;$Theater_Hispania;-85;$Theater_Gallia;-95;$Theater_Italia;-75;$Theater_Germania;-95;$Theater_Illyria;-95;$Theater_Moesia_Pannonia;-95;$Theater_Dacia;-95;$Theater_Macedonia_Graecia;-75;$Theater_Thracia;-85;$Theater_Asia_Minor;-75;$Theater_Persia;-95;
  AI.ChgAggro  = $Theater_Alpes;-99;$Theater_Caucasus;-95;$Theater_Sarmatia;-99;$Theater_Lugia;-99;$Theater_Scandinavia;-99;$Theater_Scythia;-99;$Theater_Terra_Incognita;-100;
  AI.ChgAggro  = $Theater_Cold_Seas;-95;$Theater_Warm_Seas;-95;

Here the ScriptReport:
Line 8105:  Started processing event: evt_nam_Winter_SLV
Line 8105:  This event is not yet referenced, base number of allowed occurences 999
Line 8109:  CheckAILevel: Checking AI Level of faction  Slaves at least equal to 1 True
Line 8110:  TurnIndex: Testing  vs current turn index: 0 False
Line 8110:  Switched Forced Event To True: evt_nam_Winter_SLV
Line 8112:  Entering triggered actions for event evt_nam_Winter_SLV
Line 8114:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 135 is now at 0
Line 8114:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 137 is now at 0
Line 8114:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 132 is now at 0
Line 8114:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 134 is now at 0
Line 8115:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 117 is now at 0
Line 8115:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 118 is now at 0
Line 8115:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 119 is now at 0
Line 8115:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 120 is now at 0
Line 8115:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 122 is now at 0
Line 8115:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 123 is now at 0
Line 8115:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 124 is now at 0
Line 8115:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 125 is now at 0
Line 8115:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 129 is now at 0
Line 8115:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 130 is now at 0
Line 8115:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 131 is now at 0
Line 8115:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 138 is now at 0
Line 8116:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 121 is now at 0
Line 8116:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 133 is now at 0
Line 8116:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 126 is now at 0
Line 8116:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 127 is now at 0
Line 8116:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 128 is now at 0
Line 8116:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 136 is now at 0
Line 8116:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 139 is now at 0
Line 8117:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 140 is now at 0
Line 8117:  AI.ChgAggro Slaves Aggressivity coeff in Theater 141 is now at 0
Line 8119:  Finished processing event: evt_nam_Winter_SLV

No warning , but the line:
AI.SetParams = aiCLR_WinterQuarters 1
doesn’t appear. It is possibly because the scriptreport doesn’t track this change, or in relation with an error in syntax. The wiki seems to define as  correct syntax
AI.SetParams = aiCLR_WinterQuarters;1

The Springfield battle results

Posted: September 21, 2012 in AACW Mod, Mod Workshop

Typical results of early battles in SVF

Losses are very low, as it was the case in 1861, when 2 untried armies were seeing the elephant. These men routed fast, and the victorious ones were too exhausted to pursue the vanquished.

SVF units start with low cohesion values, so rout early in battle. On the contrary, they gain experience faster, so their cohesion raise and from 1862 battles will begin to be bloody ones, as units stay longer on the battlefield.

I don’t mod AI only 😉 Too high cohesion are a common flaw in many if not all official AGE games. They tried recently to fix that by settings on cohesion, but these general settings are too abstract to reflect differences between 1861 and 1865 or, for FY, between Red Guards and the core units of the Red Army after 1919, much better trained and seasoned.

AJE battle system, that is possibly the most unhistorical feature of the game, is suffering from the same. Strange results come from losses too much balanced between the 2 sides. An ancient battle gave one-sided losses often, and NOT during the battle for the most part. Battle was causing relatively few casualties until one side routed. Rout became a slaughter, causing the largest part of dead, wounded and prisoners.

If cohesion is low, troops will break sooner, then causing fewer losses on battlefield. Then the defeated will suffer from the new mechanisms causing large losses during retreats. Battles will be both more one-sided and decisive ( one side keeping his strength when the other not).

That’s simple to mod. The more difficult is to shape AI to engage less in battles. Another story, this… 🙂

AI Agents (4).

Posted: September 21, 2012 in Mod Workshop

I’ve maybe understood what signifies the line ObjectiveRule = 3. So to resume, a list of regions would be considered by AI like Objective regions without counting for VP and NM, whose conquest and defense would be attributed to one leader having both minima and maxima for its stack expressed in hit points and threshold for cohesion and losses. The objective list may be removed once all regions would be under control, and so on…


It doesn’t replace my own method but will be a nice addition when implemented in other AJE games ( even if it seems to be so in WIA yet).

There are maybe always interesting things in a buddhist monastery, even for Consuls.


What I need…

Posted: September 18, 2012 in Mod Workshop

Reports. Savefiles.


On FY , on SVF. ON AJE too 😉 You will be granted with modded AI for AJE,as the modded scenarios will remain only private.

Why? SImply because the time spent in testing is as much time lost for modding. The more I get, the faster I get info needed.

Savefiles are made of the current turn files and the named Backup1 folder. With, I may replay the turn, genrates scriptreports and AI logs files I will use to assess the AI behaviour,or bugs in the events.

We will be soon ( next months) at least 2 applying the AI event method used in FY and SVF 2.0. If I get the data, we will be able to tackle, me or another, ROP, WIA and AJE in afew months ( AI events may be done for a game in a few full days)