maniacalpenny

But higher weapon % means better loot for you! Although I only really cared about this when the enemies started dropping Fayettevilles...

Watch out for Crossroads. One of the hardest Union battles on Legendary from what I can recall.

You have the cash to utilize your soldiers, you just poorly use your money. Don't spend millions of dollars on veterans, buy some hello kittying guns for your rookies.

I believe its possible to give divisional commands, and leave it up to your commanders to figure out the specifics.

Fairly sure it only seems like it takes less time for smaller units to get EXP because EXP is per unit, and they have less units. I'm not exactly sure what the formula for EXP is, but if we assume its purely based on kills then getting 1000 kills on a 1000 man brigade will get twice the EXP as 1000 kills on a 2000 man brigade, which totally makes sense since there are twice as many units in the 2000 man brigade. I'm not sure how it works with losses though, for example, how much EXP a 2000 man brigade will get with 1000 kills if they are depleted to 1000 men. Smaller brigades will get more kills per man so in effect this does technically make them easier to level up, but then you are either stuck with small brigades or spend a fortune enlarging their brigades so like you I don't really see the point. If I REALLY wanted more elites I could just recruit rookies to 0 left, disband an elite brigade and split into 2 new brigades, and then disband the rookies and use them to fill out the new elite brigades with veterans.

There are many times that I question the utility of firing even rifled artillery into lategame entrenched positions. The kills are not really free, you pay for supply and sometimes in the lategame even for minor battles that can be $70k drained from plunking at entrenched infantry. The exception to this is having a critical mass of artillery that can break entrenched brigades, as you can then get enough kills to be worth it by hitting them while on the run. Also, even with max supply, there are battles in which you can run out of ammo by constantly firing your artillery. So sometimes making the artillery hold fire is the best choice.

I'm fairly sure infantry brigades also suffer from the same kind of inefficiencies that artillery suffer when having too large of a brigade. eg. a 2500 man brigade firing straight on will do less damage than 2 1250 man brigades. Also despite reloading at the same speed, larger brigades take longer to volley and thus will fire less frequently. Of course I still think brigades should be on the larger side and certainly not as small as 1500 for workhorse brigades, but there are some advantages to having smaller brigades.

The damage is also inferior though, and when firing at max range does not really do more damage per second than a unit using a high tier rifle. Yes at closer ranges they will outdamage the musket-rifles but this situation is somewhat precarious especially for a large brigade that cannot react as quickly. I'd much rather use the Spencer in a small infantry brigade, or not at all. I prefer not to field any small brigades so I simply ended up not using them, as I felt like the significant cost increase over the 1861 and 1863 was not worth it. It was too hard to use a 2k Spencer brigade when most of the combat I was seeing was at max infantry range (300) and the Fayetteville armed Confederates would beat the Spencers out at this range. Perhaps I had an unrealistic fear about committing them to closer range combat but at their high cost and the massive firepower loss of putting them in a large brigade, I would still recommend not to use them in large brigades.

The large brigade size will cause the rate of fire to drop drastically compared to similar guns on cavalry or skirmishers, which volley very quickly. Since reloading cannot start until firing is finished, this causes a 2k Spencer brigade to fire much slower than it would as a very small or skirmisher unit. I tried it once and immediately switched back to 1863s as the Spencers were not really more effective.

I can't tell for sure, but I think the effective performance of the Lorenz is barely under that of the Enfield or the 55. In terms of reload/accuracy it is about on par with the two (they actually all sum total 125 reload + accuracy), its real malus is doing less damage: 11.5 vs 12.5. This isn't even a 10% difference, however, and the price of the gun is significantly cheaper. Additionally, although its reload and accuracy sums are similar the Lorenz has higher accuracy while sacrificing reload. Accuracy > Reload however, so this is a slight edge that the Lorenz can help combat its lower damage with. IMO the Sprinfield 1855 is actually quite a bad weapon for its cost, performing worse than the slightly cheaper 1853 in meele and the same or worse in ranged combat. For its price, the Lorenz I think is easily better than either and has a great meele stat to boot. Yes if I didn't have to pay anything for my weapons I would probably choose the 53 over the Lorenz, but this isn't really the case so I tend to try to get all the Lorenz rifles I can (which isn't a massive amount, as either side. But dammit I'll still buy them). On the other hand, the Harpers Ferry 1855 is a decent step up from the regular one for only a small increase in price. This rifle is easily superior to the Lorenz in ranged combat, albiet a decent penny more.

No love for the Lorenz? IMO one of the most cost efficient guns in the game. Also, you can buy thousands and thousands of CS Richmonds as CSA. Possibly the best all-round rifle in the game, although purely in shooting is outclassed by the 61/63 and of course the Fayetteville. Very good cost efficiency though, for a few bucks more than a Harper's Ferry you get better firing and much better meele. I'm not sure about other difficulties, but on Legendary Union I looted tens of thousands of Tyler Texas rifles and later on tens of thousands of Fayettevilles. Both are pretty decent for selling, though of course you can use the Fayettevilles if desired...

This is actually often undesirable. Sometimes a vital point must be held at all cost and your best troops are needed up front, but fielding them there every battle will inevitably cause high casualties which is costly. Many people will hold their most elite troops in reserve, or may not even commit them to the battle, until it is absolutely necessary.

I agree that being too passive will cause too many losses, but IMO you should let the Union extend farther south and crush him mainly with a left wing envelopment. Even after being repulsed from Dunker church and being threatened on the left, the AI will still send its forces towards the sunken road in the phase change and that is the best time to crush the AI.

If you have 560,000 new troops, why do you only have 20,000 Fayettevilles? To be honest besides the troop numbers, those are reachable numbers for Union Legendary campaign.

Oh right, I forgot about the first day entirely. So yeah, there is also a problem with the Confederacy where you cannot get to the 3rd day if you own certain objectives, you will get a draw or even a loss(?) if you own some of the Union camps (I think I owned all VPs except the top one and the battle ended on the 2nd day)