guidon101

That's plenty awesome to get started, thanks much for the info

I haven't played the game in a while, thinkin of firing it up again with this mod for the first time. I'm really looking forward to these modifications! I was wondering how you mod the game, specifically how to edit the dll? Do you have the source or is it thru hex editing? Is there more info somewhere on how to mod the game ourselves? I've seen the mods posted but not a lot on how. I saw the old hex editing post -- but the features I see in the mods seem more advanced than that. Thanks for any info!

Wow, that really blows my mind. After all this time, I never noticed (the AI seemed to always bring better or equal guns, so I assumed that's why our weapon ranges always seemed similar). I had to test it just for sanity's sake, and I can confirm: Ran a quick simple test with 1 fresh brigade with Re-bored Farmers (220 range) vs. Fayettevilles (400 range) at the opening of Richmond as Union. 1) you can see their visual range indicators are the same 2) When actively shooting at enemy units, they can shoot from the same max distance. The Fayettevilles couldn't shoot farther than the Re-bored Farmers, when their range should be almost double. The different infantry ranges of fire I was observing before must have been a result of: 1) Oblique angles of fire 2) Terrain/height differences 3) weapon range So, Artillery, Skirmisher, and Cavalry brigades all change their max firing ranges depending on weapon, but infantry does not? Is there anything else I missed? Any other non-intuitive but significant game-changing mechanic out there? I guess that topic might deserve its own thread.

Whoa? Is that true? Sounds like a game-changer. I just finished an MG Union campaign, and I definitely noticed differences in firing ranges with different infantry weapons (or at least many cases where one infantry brigade can fire at another infantry brigade that can't return fire out of range). Anyone else confirm this?

@philknox I find it funny how the OP finds Sun Tzu's "Art of War" from 500 B.C. China, a time when most of Europe had no writing system except for those in the Mediterranean area, does not apply well to 19th century or modern warfare unlike more contemporary works written in those eras (19th-21st centuries) for their specific time period... Just like in warfare, where you have to know what each weapon is useful for (and you can be creative on how to use them), in literature you have to know what each book, each concept, each sentence is useful for in all those texts you mentioned. If a person doesn't recognize what a 2500-year-old "art of war" text is good for and what it is not good for, I have to question how much they will get out of reading any other military-science texts. If the words "oriental mysticism" and "fantasy" are used to describe the non-scientific, flowery/poetic type of language used by the earliest civilizations with writing systems, especially for the ancient Chinese who often wrote in metaphors or parables (i.e. meant to be taken figuratively, not literally) as one of the defining characteristics of their early writing system, which have been translated poorly-at-best to modern times in a different language and in a different cultural, technological, and historiological context, then I have to seriously question the legitimacy of the person's understanding about the subject piece of text, and the credibility of speaking about it. Sun Tzu's Art of War is obviously not for ACW "tactics", but as @Col_Kelly pointed out, if you actually read and understood the text, there are applications both explicit and creative that applies to ACW as a general, and specifically to the player in this game. Many concepts we now consider "common sense" in modern times, and some statements that stand well to the test of time and changes in technology, yet some concepts may not apply as well; I think the same could be said of Clauswitz, as his works will stand the test of time. My analogy is that the "Art of War" is basic "Cliff's Notes" as a crash course before going to war or playing a RTS/wargame from the point of view of a national leader or a strategic general, and then reading up on contemporary military manuals, and also history, to get more fully briefed and prepared to use the relevant conventional/unconventional arms available to the specific war/game in question. At the end of the day, I think it also depends on your goals, who you are, and what you're trying to do. I would place my bets on the leader who understands the value of military texts but more importantly also understands the value of what the texts don't say (e.g. think out of the box) as opposed to the leader who is "by the book"... because it is the former type of leaders who will write the next book of warfare that will make your books as "irrelevant" as you find Sun Tzu's "Art of War"... So I guess I don't know what the goal of this thread was, if it was to discredit one text and promote others in the context of ACW, or if it's meant as advice for players, or just tips for juicy reading material... either way, "All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved"...

[Bug?] 1: Some units are missing in battle even though the entire Corps/Div was deployed. For example, my last battle at Stones River (1st day), I counted missing 4 skirmisher brigades, 2 cavalry brigades; wasn't sure how many infantry or artillery brigades were missing and never showed up even as the day ended. Everyone seems to be present the next day though (?) I also noticed missing units in other battles, but I haven't been keeping a list. I remember in Antietam I was missing several brigades, usually cavalry and skirmishers that never showed up throughout the battle. It's possible this could be explained by "finishing battles too early" for all the units to arrive as reinforcements. Is this a normal and expected phenomenon, or bug? [Bug?] 2: Casualty Reports in multi-day battles get reset on units that got replenished at Camp during the night/intermission phase. This results in strangely low casualty numbers at the end of the battle (for the player) that doesn't reflect the actual numbers lost throughout the multi-day battle. Not really game-breaking, but unfortunate if it skews the player's track record during the campaign.

Curious about this too. For example, is it a coincidence that the first time I brought 2000 Springfield M1861s (or was it '63s?)...anyway in Fredericksburg, was the first time I noticed ALL of their infantry brigades carried Harper Ferry rifles. Previously they carried a range of Farmers, Springfield '41s, 55's, some Harpers, etc. Begs the questions: 1) Does the type of equipment you bring also affect the way the enemy equipment scales? (I know it used to in EA, so does it still?) 2) Does the Armory/Training % ever go down? If so, how? (i.e. I've never seen the Armory/Training %s go down; they always seem to gradually increase throughout the campaign) 3) Once the enemy Armory/equipment reaches a threshold, is that the "minimum quality" they will bring on the campaign? For example, should I now regularly expect them to bring Harpers as their basic equipment, since all their infantry was equipped with them last time?

I really hope what you're saying is true and that bug will be fixed. It's quite game-changing and very misleading otherwise. For the time being, what quicksabre described is basically what appears to happen in every campaign, which is unfortunate and makes the Intel Reports seem like a gimmick. @The Soldier also, LOL at the signature! "Confederate infantry were armed with kevlar and M16s." is exactly how I felt in Fredericksburg. Turns out every single one of their infantry brigades was carrying Harpers Ferry rifles...shudder to think what the next battles will be like from this point... Incidentally, throughout this Union campaign so far, all those quotes have been humorously close to the truth.

UG: Civil War with a proper campaign map ala TW or The Blue and the Grey (1993)

Playing on USA (MG), just finished Fredericksburg. Going into Fredericksburg, Intel Report showed 58-68k manpower. During the battle, the AI deployed around 60k on the field. They took 15k casualties, got reinforced around 5k after the battle. Now going into Stones River, and the other minor battle, the Intel Report shows 45-55k. But Stones River reconnaissance report shows the enemy fielding an army of 70k+... So I wanted to ask why such a huge difference between the Intel Report and the actual numbers on the field? I think it's reasonable to say the Intel Reports are inaccurate, but I thought I read in several Steam and other forum posts that the AI army is supposed to be effectively capped at the Intel Report army size? I've seen this one or two times in earlier battles, but the discrepancy was smaller in scale, like maybe 5k over. This time it's nearly 20k+ difference. WAD or bug? If WAD, can someone explain the relationship between Intel Reports on manpower vs. actual Army Size on the field?

I used to play CWG2. Loved that game too, in its own way. This definitely feels like a spiritual successor, sans the "dynamic campaign". I think you might be referring to "The Blue and The Gray" (1993): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeDW6poY_5g I used to play that game a lot too, but the "real-time battles" for me was really awkward and required a lot of micro just to get units to line up and face correctly. I still found it very fun in the way it represented the war in a dynamic campaign and playing out the battles tactically in real-time.

Fortunately, I don't think skirmishers (nor cavalry/arti?) can cap VPs, or at least mine couldn't, but yes I agree with the thread sentiment that it seems a bit unrealistic how resilient the cohesiveness of routing brigades are, especially behind enemy lines. Possible mitigation: (Efficiency/Morale) Malus for being far apart from any friendly unit for extended periods of time. The longer the isolation, the greater the penalty. Right now, brigades can have "WIA/KIA leader" malus, which are great in effect. Units could get a similar penalty for being "outside the Chain of Command", based on proximity to nearest friendly unit. If this is a simple check (friendly unit detected within < X distance), then it can easily be avoided by having 1 other friendly (non-routed) unit nearby, so we would still see the "behind enemy lines" problem but probably with a lot less bite and frequency. This would penalize "lone ranger" units like cav or skirmishers that stray too far away from other friendly units for too long, but could be mitigated by player by running "lone ranger duos", or by simply returning extended units back into line every now and then (like how skirmisher detachments actually worked).

Thanks for the explanation. That certainly makes sense to put things in context of their time period. Something in the quote you posted also struck me: "a soldier fights for his country – right or wrong – he is not responsible for the political merits of the cause he fights in" It reminds me of the Henry V Shakespeare quote: "Every subject’s duty is the king’s, but every subject’s soul is his own." There is also the "Sins of the Father" perspective, where ideally he (General John Mosby) should not be blamed for the "sins" of his ancestors, only for his own choices in life. I wanted to add (my opinion) that, while a soldier may have responsibility to obey the Chain of Command, the government, the country's leaders, etc., a Citizen of a "free" and democratic/republican society should have responsibility for the "political merits" of their government's choices. Our responsibility as citizens comes from our power to vote, even though it often feels like a meaningless drop in an ocean. Military law may absolve an individual when acting under orders, but "every subject's soul is his own," and so we still each bear responsibility for the choices we make as citizens of a republican government, with the way we vote and the way we live our lives (I'm assuming the CSA was also a republican-type government, wasn't it?). So as a soldier, he fought on the side of slavery, but as a citizen, it sounds like he fought against slavery. Very interesting dichotomy! (I read more about him after your post, so now I see he was a very fair-minded kind of person; and now I know more about what was called the "Lost Cause" and the significance of Pvt David Holt bringing it up) I find it ironic though that he says "The South" was his country he was fighting for, but he didn't consider the entire United States as his country. Seems hard to tell the difference between a soldier picking his loyalties versus a citizen picking his politics. Anyway, thanks for sharing all these historical insights! I love seeing/hearing/reading history in its rawest form, not conspiracy-alien-ghost-sugarcoated "history" like on the tubes these days lol. On the other hand, I definitely see myself judging things from what is contemporary to me, and with much ignorance besides.

Aw man... awesome pictures. That's so sick how you are still finding artifacts just around your backyard form the war. And that live auto-biographic speech from someone who was there... never heard it before... goosebumps... I'm curious though, I'm not sure I understand what's "politically incorrect" about the recording... It seemed to me, the guy was pretty sincere about his simplicity in youth and how he stayed away from politics even, at the time of the Civil War. Granted, he is much older when he gave the interview, and looking back at his life probably gives him a different perspective if history had turned out differently, I found it awesome how he said he held no special hatred for the federal troops or Pres. Lincoln, what an honorable fellow. Is it because he used the "N" word and his family owned slaves, even though he as a person became against it, and it sounded like he was respectful of African Americans, or is it because in the end he believed he and the South fought for State Rights? It's interesting how some of these themes are still relevant today, though.

While I agree about the Friendly Fire issue basically breaking game balance and immersion, I just wanted to get clarification on Infantry FF. From my experience and testing, non-Artillery ranged units will not fire at a non-routing enemy unit engaged in melee. If I tell them to do so, they will run up to engage in melee. Sometimes infantry looks like they can fire into a mess of troops engaged in melee, but that is only because one of those units have "routed" or "disengaged" from melee. But either way, it does look like there is no friendly fire casualties from this from what I can tell either. However, when I have a unit behind another unit that the enemy is firing upon (just bullets, not cannon fire), I noticed that the unit behind sometimes gets hit by "stray bullets"... do you know if we suffer from friendly "stray bullets" too? I never noticed it, so suspect not. On the other hand, if they add friendly fire to artillery, which can currently fire into a mosh pit of troops engaged in melee, I'd lose an ability to effectively succeed in a direct frontal charge to break the strong and deep enemy formations even when heavily outnumbered ;p (artillery close behind charging melee infantry simply muscle their way through any defensive line; melee + canister - friendly fire = gamey win, with minimal casualties to yourself) In Take Command or Scourge of War, which has very similar battle mechanics as this game, they implemented friendly fire, and while it makes artillery so much more annoying to deploy properly (you'd have to create gaps in your line or clear fields of fire, etc.), it definitely feels more realistic with friendly fire (melee + canister + friendly fire = OUCH, pyrrhic win at best).