Lincolns Mullet

Give 'em some time, it's still early access. Brigades do rout towards their lines, mostly. There must be specific circumstances that causes a brigade to rout behind enemy lines. If someone could replicate those circumstances in a saved game, or if you've seen it happen enough times find out what the unique situation was that caused the bug that would go a long way to solving the problem. I'd like to know what conditions the code is checking for that causes brigades to rout towards friendly lines. When a brigade routs does it take into account surrounding enemy units in relation to their position, and the direction of friendly lines? Do they have "set" markers on the map where they are directed to rout towards no matter where they currently stand, but if enemy troops are between them and the marker, disrupt their routing path and force them to run in opposite direction? It seems routing brigades tend to find the best route in most circumstances, and the devs also don't want them routing "through" enemy brigades simply to make a bee line for friendly territory. So there must be some autonomous routing decisions going on that changes the routing brigades direction depending on nearby threats. A simple diagram where E are enemy units, FL are friendly territory, R is the routing brigade. E--R--E----FL In this case the routing brigade is stuck between two enemy brigades and would have to go around one before heading back towards friendly lines. But in their attempt to go around the blocking enemy unit, let's say they approach yet another enemy unit that is blocking them. Does the routing brigade dynamically change direction again to find a better way out? Maybe the routing brigades are using the same avoidance logic that generals and supply wagons use, but when there's multiple nearby enemy units this can cause the routing brigade to run in odd directions (just like the supply wagon does sometimes). That would make sense as to why both can make strange decisions.

Nice breakdown Koro! I've never been a big fan of MP strategy games but I get the interest. There's a case to be made that the "vocal minority" can have a significant impact on game promotion and longevity. But as Koro pointed out, I think with Game Labs still in its early years and an indie developer with limited resources, it's better to focus on what's going to make them the most money in the shortest amount of time. When they hit it big and can afford to dedicate months of man hours solely on the MP aspect, balance, etc. then they will have some space to do so. It's all about risk/reward and as they say, "You're only as good as your last game". There's been a lot of prominent game developers who've gone under in the past 10 years that I can think of, two of whom I worked for. Even the great Ensemble Studios is no longer. It's a very risky industry to be in so I would never (nor shall you! lol) fault Nick for making a business decision to forgo multiplayer for the time being so he can focus on what the majority of potential buyers are looking for: campaign! He already took a risk diving into a fairly niche gaming market with the American Civil War instead of trying to pander to the masses, but it's a niche that's been waiting for a game like this.

Good points from both sides. I think the biggest concern would be how the AI would deal with all of the placement restrictions and still use their artillery effectively. Currently its easy for them because arty can be placed anywhere and fire anywhere as long as the target is in range. This is definitely a classic case of realism vs playability and how to find the right balance. Too much realism and it becomes frustrating, requiring micromanagement of all artillery units. This would especially be apparent in large engagements. And yes the way melee is handled now, it would make it too easy to use overwhelming force to rush positions if arty couldnt fire on engaged enemy brigades. And how close to the enemy would friendly units need to be before your arty decided to hold fire? Would arty need clea LoS between it and its target before firing? Ie, arty couldn't fire "through" friendly units to hit a target in the distancd. Lots of things to consider if this change was made. It can be done, but what is the gameplay benefit and is it worth the time and effort to change?

Yes, and don't forget people like myself, Koro, CSA Watkins, VegasOZ, etc are beta testers and have the ear of the devs. We can make very strong cases for certain changes, additions, etc. It's still up to Nick and the devs of course whether to make a change or addition, but we like to think we can help bring the "voice of the people" to them in a concise manner. Nick of course prowls the forums and likely sees the same complaints all of us see too, with or without the beta testers chiming in. But I imagine he spends more time working on the game than reading about it lol. In regards to that above matter, it's been discussed before and now it will be interesting to see how/when it is implemented and how that'll affect overall gameplay. Personally, I think it'll help a lot in immersing the player in the overall campaign. The only possible issue with this is that the game, as it stands currently, doesn't have sufficient feedback for morale on individual brigades. Take Sid Meier's Gettysburg, for example. Each regiment had morale bars that would stack higher and higher depending on the "bonuses" they received. These bonuses were very specific: friendly regiment on right flank, friendly regiment on left flank, nearby officer, veterancy, etc. Each unit also had a flag above it that, when at 100% morale, stood fully unfurled. As morale dropped, the flag would sink and look sad and pathetic. This provided an easy, visceral way to see the morale of your entire army and specific regiments in a single glance without having to click on every single brigade. Since UGCW doesn't focus on morale as much as it does casualty rates, this added morale feedback isn't entirely necessary because physical manpower loss is the biggest determiner of success. And this you can currently see very easily as the battle rages. I'm not exactly sure how morale is handled in UGCW other than an individuals morale stat, nearby officer, and how many casualties they take per volley. In other words...I don't know if having nearby friendly units adds morale bonuses. From game experience I feel morale importance goes in this order: individual brigade morale (1-100), rate of casualties, nearby officer. If morale became much more important to the success of a battle, we'd need better feedback of the morale of your entire army ala Sid Meier's Gettysburg so you'd know which brigades to pull back and which ones to plug the gaps, or when to begin withdrawing altogether if your entire line is wavering. But yes, the general theory would be: "Greater morale sensitivity = less overall casualties". The alternative, if casualty rates remained the same, was to provide greater men/gold to each side when they win/lose a battle, or rest. The historical numbers on how many people died might be greatly exaggerated, but the game would need to be balanced towards the idea you could lose 40k men in a single battle. The player or AI would need the ability to replenish at least half those losses between battles in order to stay competitive. Realism = greater emphasis on morale or Gameplay = greater emphasis on casualties. Either way can work. Very cool idea! You essentially bridged two games into a single experience. Well done, and creative! To put it simply...if you can do this, then it can be programmed to do it for you as part of the gameplay experience. Again, I'm no programmer (I only did if/then/else programming, while referencing object classes that were "what you see is what you get") but what you're explaining sounds about right. Info storage already exists, they'd just need to make it accessible as a global reference for the AI from battle to battle. And yes, creating an AI that determines which brigades to create, which ones to reinforce with vets/rookies, weapons, etc would be a whole new ballgame. If I were to try a simple version, I would create ratios the AI referenced against available gold/manpower. A ratio could be referenced for army composition (1 veteran infantry brigade per 8 infantry brigades : 1 artillery per 4 infantry brigades : 1 cav per 8 infantry brigades : 1 skirmisher per corp), etc. AI would do a check of available gold/men against current force composition and then expand their army based on above ratios. In other words, army size would come before army strength (veterancy, weapon type). Once army size was fulfilled under current Army Org restrictions, they'd turn their gold/men inward by upgrading units by veterancy and newer weapons. Maybe a variable could be added that any brigade under 900 strength should be upgraded to 1500 first, prior to expanding total army size. But the goal would be for the AI to have a general rule-set for their Order of Battle and attempt to fulfill that OOB with their available gold/men. Then, once their army is created, the AI would need to know your general force composition before deciding on attacking or resting. To expand on your idea of a general "scaling" of AI army growth, that could work too based on a pre-set OOB for the AI. They can only expand to a certain size (growing larger as time goes on), so your success against them will minimize/mitigate their growth. Having an OOB based on Army Org level would also prevent the AI from expanding into a huge monstrosity. They'd have a cap for how many new brigades they get until more time passes, or as you say, historical events pop up. The scaling would definitely be a nice shortcut in programming terms, anyway. The game would just have to check what their max OOB/army org is and see if they can add any additional brigades to it (after replenishing their existing brigades). The Union AI maybe grows at a faster rate than the Confederates, putting the burden on the CSA to win as many early, decisive victories as they can to force peace. While the Confederate AI grows at a slower pace, so the burden on the Union is to hold on long enough before the CSA wins too many battles. Good ideas!

Keep in mind that its still early access with much work ahead. This is the time to mention anything and everything, since once its finished it'll be harder to make bigger changes. Throw everything at the wall and maybe some of it will stick Doesn't hurt to try and the devs will have a better idea of what can be realistically implemented or too difficult/game altering. Some things can sound like a simple change but could have a huge effect on gameplay, for good or bad, requiring more changes or balance adjustments.

Great discussion! I love hearing different ideas and proposals. Game design is a fantastic mental exercise, and it's like playing the game you'd love to see but only have it in your head (and yes, the devs probably think we've gone mad lol). Admittedly I never played CWG2. The only two civil war games I've played at any length was North vs South (Some cheapy PC game from 1988 or something) and Sid Meier's Gettysburg/Antietam. I'm a huge fan of Sid in general. He had that special knack for knowing how to make a game "fun". You could tell he loves what he does for a living and is a true gamer at heart. Guidon: I'll reply as best I can to your nicely detailed post. 1. How would the enemy AI army appear on the battlefield? This part I didn't touch on in the video because I didn't fully detailed it out yet. There's at least a few ways to do it, depending on how detailed and programming intensive you want it to be. One way would be to have the enemy AI army mirror exactly how you manage your own army. They create corp/divisions/brigades which are "saved" and carry over from battle to battle. They receive rep/gold/men just like you do through battles and/or resting. There could be added differences specific to the Union and Confederate sides, so you're not fighting a symmetrical war where the uniforms are the only things that are different (Union gets more resources and men, but Confederates rookies have more base experience than their Union counterparts, etc). However, creating an Army Camp for the AI would probably be fairly programming intensive. But, the "information" about the enemy AI army would basically be an excel file organizing the army composition by Corp/Division/Brigade, the info of which is updated and saved from battle to battle. When the AI army deploys into battle, it draws the relevant info from this file for the Corp names/structure, unit info, weapon type, total size, etc and then created as a unit on the battlemap. IE: 1st Division: Cooke (1500 men, springfield rifles, etc), Kemper (1288 men, farmers rifle, etc). Each unit would have its corresponding stats tracked in a master database and referenced whenever the game needs to create the unit as a physical object on the battle map. Think of how AI reinforcements appear during a battle now. Each unit has specific stats stored somewhere so when they appear, they have specific rifles, numbers, officers, etc. and all organized into a division. After a battle, the AI receives gold/men to then replenish losses and/or build additional brigades. The AI programming to control that aspect would probably be the hardest part, but I'm no programmer, I only knew one a long time ago. lol In your example quoted below: Both sides will receive gold/men/rep after the above battle, and are allowed to rebuild their army prior to the next engagement. If it was the enemy army that attacked the last battle, it would now be my turn to either attack, move, or rest. We can still use the existing system in UGCW to award resources and men, but with the added ability to rest as a safe way to rebuild your army (but not with huge amounts...successful, large battles will still be the best way to get more men/gold). In terms of the power curve, I think that's inherent to any domination type game. For the purpose of my idea, it may be more important to emphasize morale while lowering casualty rates. Nothing too dramatic, but only to prevent one massive battle from single-handedly destroying the fighting capability of your opponent. Inflicting 15k casualties on your enemy in a single day, for example, might be considered extremely high under my proposal. This way you can't wipe out 50k enemy troops in a single battle and eliminate their ability to fight any subsequent battles. Then gameplay becomes less about annihilating your enemy (ala Total War), but rather achieving enough significant victories to force your opponent to surrender/sign peace treaty. By reducing mass-casualty battles, and focusing more on morale, this will allow a defeated army to defend a follow-up attack and have a chance to win. New map, new conditions, new reinforcements, etc. Your ability to fight will remain intact long enough that you'll likely "lose" the game because you've lost too many battles, not because your army was outright destroyed. 2. Yes, I like that idea too. Elements of unpredictability are key! They also have to be handled in a way that's not a constant, ruinous occurrence for either side. The focus should still be on management of your armies, but with some of these unpredictable events/circumstances forcing you to think on your feet from time to time. I like the idea of a "pool" of scripted events that could occur at the start of the battle, depending whether you are on attack or defense like the examples you gave of being surprised in an attack, etc. Used sparingly, of course! 3. Excellent point, and my "key locations" idea was a simple remedy to prevent fighting over the same maps over and over. There's a more graceful way to spread out the playing field, so to speak, but I haven't thought on that too much yet. If you attack and defeat an enemy, for example, it would push them "back" a map. An incentive or benefit needs to be dangled out there for each army to maneuver around the map as much as possible. Maybe controlling specific map locations increases national morale, increases cash/gold benefits, etc. so that slowly losing those locations weakens you long term. 4. I only envisioned 1 army to try and stay in line with the original vision of the devs that you are solely responsible for one army. My proposal would focus on a specific theater you operate within, and while it simplifies the actual conflict in that area, it provides for a dynamic campaign within the boundaries of the current engine. Or maybe a weee bit past the current boundaries. lol. By creating additional armies, you may as well open up the entire theater of operations of the Civil War. Which, I suppose if they can make 1 moveable army on a map, then they can make multiple armies. They'd have to create a separate army camp screen for each army. Phew, that's it for now! Need some sleep lol

I just thought of resource restriction in my last post. I'm thinking this may be an easy way to make it more difficult for the player while keeping AI forces intact and without bonuses. The harder the difficulty, the less resources you get from battles. As one poster pointed out..they felt cheated by successfully managing their army and reducing casualties and maximizing kills, only to find the AI magically gets more men anyway. So if resources tight, managing your army effectively will be your reward vs a fixed AI army. This still leaves the AI army unaffected by your actions in previous battles, but the devs may have something up their sleeve to address this. At least in some small ways.

Right. This would work great in PvP or skirmish PvAI where its more about army balance than historical numbers. The way the campaign works now, your force vs the AI force should be closer to the historical ratio of forces during a specific battle so you experience the battle on similar footing. Thats really the crux of the matter. You're able to greatly vary your army size and strength vs a fixed force opponent which can either make the battle impossible to beat, a rollover, or anywhere inbetween (if you removed scaling). AI "boosts" to morale, damage, and/or numbers all have the same given effect to make the game more difficult. These are all easy to implement in some degree or another. And without creating a brilliant AI, this is how you make the enemy stronger. The alternative is that you scale down the amount of resources you receive for winning battles, so that you have to be ultra careful with your men to be able to realistically face a 63k strong Union army at Shiloh for example. Then you put the burden of difficulty on the player rather than the AI, which would reward skill. The key, then, is making hard realistically "hard" and then figuring out what normal and easy would be.

Well, the restrictions the player has to go through involves being awarded men and gold for battles and then building an army with those resources. The men and gold are abstractions because the greater war isn't simulated. Why award 4500 men for winning a battle? That number only makes sense from a design perspective (Ie, the campaign is balanced when providing 4500 men for this victory and not 10000 men or 1500). If the AI is similarly restricted to building an army with limited gold/men, you'd essentially have the same effect you currently have now: a strong or weak AI. How it gets strong or weak is irrelevant except through a players own perception on how the AI is constructing its army. From what I see being posted, what players are really asking for is to see a direct correlation between a battle and the state of the AI army in subsequent battles. If I kill 30k Union soldiers in this battle, why are they now STRONGER in the next battle? The perception here is that the AI is cheating, and nobody likes a cheat. lol We want greater purpose to our achievements in each battle. We want to see the enemy suffer because, through our sheer military genius, we've been destroying them and they deserve to have only 10,000 troops at Antietam. However, because of the structure of the campaign in that we are essentially playing a highlight reel of Civil War battles in chronological order, how do the devs create a malleable AI without sacrificing the core design of the campaign? The core design being: you're in control of your army, but we want you to be able to fight these historical battles as they were and see how you perform vs. history. In this design, the AI must always have a functioning army regardless of how well you do against them in previous battles. Whether you agree with that or not...that's just how it's currently designed. So, you either allow the enemy to get destroyed to a pulp and you never have any need to make it past 2nd Bull run or Antietam because the AI no longer has an army to fight with...OR...you allow the AI extra flexibility to keep their forces strong enough to oppose you all the way to Richmond or Washington, regardless of the losses they suffer in previous battles. Let's say the AI army has to play by the same exact rules as you do: they receive men/gold depending on whether they win, lose, or draw in the battles you play against them. They also have reputation. This seems like a fair set up, no? This is balanced. Maybe the rewards are different from what you receive had you won the battle (more or less), but the effect is the same: the AI has to play fair. This would essentially be a multiplayer experience vs the AI. Assuming the devs could create an AI that could properly form new brigades, sell weapons, upgrade skill points, etc. then you will have an AI that is fairly constructed but incapable of fighting historical battles. Antietam won't be Antietam, Gaines Mill won't be Gaines Mill, etc. The force composition will be all over the place, and once they suffer a few heavy losses...game over, just like it would be for you. Unless, of course, they get an extra boost to stay competitive...which is what they currently receive. I believe there's some middle ground solutions the devs can try, but because of the design of the campaign as it stands now, the AI has to remain competitive all the way to the end. Unless the devs want to change their vision for the campaign, I don't see a way around this except for some minor tweaks/additions to simulate carryover effects between battles. In a dynamic campaign, the sky is the limit on how the AI constructs its army as the battles aren't meant to be historical. But in a fixed campaign like this, Antietam must always be Antietam...or at least, a close approximation. Just my .45 cents!

Great pics! Thanks for sharing. Those two bullets look massive. I can't imagine any limb being hit by one and not require amputation. Oh and welcome to the forum!

It's fun to do, and you never know! Sometimes things may be easier to implement that you think, or maybe this is used in an addon or their next feature game. Doesn't hurt to talk about it

The function already exists with infantry, so it doesn't seem too difficult to add that option? Devs would know more! Yes, great idea.

Very detailed sir, well done. First and foremost, I like the idea of replacing officers costing reputation to simulate the "red tape" effect particularly with higher ranked officers. This would force the player to use officers that have some negative traits as you say. At the same time, each general will still have his positive attributes but might be offset by those negative traits. Then it's up to you, as the player, to know how to manage these officers with poor traits. So if I get this right, Pope for example may be Tactically Astute but also Overly Cautious? I can expect him to be late getting into the battle, but once he does his units will be very effective due to the command bonus. An officer with only bad traits would be easier to demote and take the rep penalty, which there would be some officers like that, but if there's a corresponding positive attribute I as the player would always have to weigh the pro vs con of demoting him which would be fun. "I hate that Pope is always late, but his Corp is very effective once he's in the battle. I'll take the risk and keep him in command". This is you, the player, making an informed decision by taking the risk as to who you want leading your Corp and understanding the consequences beforehand. Then if Pope is late to your next battle and causes the battle to be lost, you're mouse will be hovering over the "demote" button on Pope but still thinking..."Maybe I'll take one more chance with him because he has more positive traits than negative". That negative can be a killer though!

No sir, your reputation is still a factor. If you lose too many battles prior to Antietam, you won't even make it that far. If you do happen to make it to antietam and lose, the reputation loss is so great that you will lose the campaign. I think it's -100 right now. I suppose they could change it so you still have a chance to win at the end, even if you lose Antietam. The reputation loss would need to be scaled down to -20 or -30, something like that, and then force the "end game" screen afterwards to show how you did in the campaign.

DET: Thanks, glad you enjoyed it! Good ideas here too. As far as directional attack/defense on the strategic map, I considered this as well. In order to do that, each playable map on the grand map would need to be in the shape of an octagon and all of them connected to each other. So if my army resides in Antietam, and the enemy army attacks me directly on my left, then the battle map would load exactly that way (attackers on left, defenders on right). Certainly doable but would add a bit more complexity to the design of the grand map. While randomization may not make as much sense (I'm being attacked from the north, but our starting positions are the exact opposite on the battle map), it simplifies how the maps are connected to each other on the grand map. And in a way, you could justify the random setup by imagining that prior to the battle starting there was some maneuvering as the attacker converged on the defender. But, a more predictable system would be making all the maps octagons on the grand map so that the direction of an attack translates into where each army is positioned on the battle map. That would be cool too! And yes, "resting" would grant some sort of pro and con to doing so (national morale drop, but also an increase in gold and men, or healed casualties returning as you mention, etc). The existing skill tree already has all the elements to support these new designs as well. If you rest your army, for example, your medicine skill automatically adds 2% or 6% or whatever your level is back into your existing brigades (but only if they aren't maxed out yet, which they probably wouldn't be if you're trying to recover from a major battle). Butch: My mind is always churning, and it helps that I love UGG and UGCW and think Game Labs has a bright future in wargaming ahead of them! Would love to see your thread on the officer traits. I think the basic idea I had would be that each officer has 1 pro and 1 con. If you have Pope leading a Corp, for example, his con may be insubordination (you never know when his corp will arrive or how many brigades he'll release) and his pro is Command (+20 across all units in his Corp). So you have to take the good with the bad with every officer who leads a Corp. In Pope's case maybe he is "late" one too many times and you sack him, even though his command bonus is a huge help once he does take the field. The variables on the battlefield are what makes it so excited, just as long as both sides are subjected to the same kinds of variables to make it fair. Sometimes luck goes your way, other times it doesn't!

Hi Acika! This is only because the game currently doesn't go past Antietam. Later, many more battles will be added that occurred after Antietam but as it currently stands this battle is a "do or die" because of how much reputation you stand to win or lose. Once additional battles are added past Antietam, the reputation increase/decrease will be scaled down appropriately.

Just a fun design theory on how a dynamic campaign might be implemented using the existing game. Maybe it could work, maybe not but I find this kind of stuff fun to do and what harm is there starting a discussion on "what if"? Would love to hear any and all additional ideas! A dynamic campaign could exist alongside the current campaign structure the devs are working on, offering two distinctly different experiences. Vid:

Right. The only way friendly fire would work is if brigade behavior and movement never overlapped, which could create a host of new problems. The devs could create invisible "boxes" around units so they cant overlap, but that will open up all new programming issues with pathing, control, and targeting. Without significant changes to the engine, like Koro said it would create many more possibilities of frustration and gameplay issues. And what would the benefit be? More realism? That just means you have to be even more of a micromanager to make sure your units dont kill each other on accident. And if you make it so brigades simply wont fire because it could cause friendly casualties, you lose more control and increase the frustration factor. Just my opinion anyway.

I've definitely learned to use the "hold position" on my wagons more than once so they don't keep scurrying away from my units. Clever idea with them being able to limber/unlimber and provide a greater radius. It would solve two issues at once, and use a game mechanic that already exists with artillery.

Anytime! I love talking about design/game theory. In fact I have a youtube video going up soon with an idea on how a dynamic campaign might be implemented into the existing game engine. It's just for fun, and maybe useful (hopefully useful lol), and maybe gets a discussion going. But I agree, the current casualty rate is only useful in a particular battle. You suffer losses that carry to the next battle but the AI does not. One suggestion I had is possibly adding some sort of bonus to winning "side battles" that would affect the grand battle. If I win at Newport News as CSA, for example, it lowers the total enemy strength at 1st Bull Run by 10% or something to that effect (or reduce the scaling multiplier by a certain amount). It wouldn't be a direct correlation between enemy losses from one map to another, but you'd have some type of impact on enemy forces at the Grand Battle that would help you. Although with that, there would need to be greater uncertainty with fighting the side battles...they shouldn't be automatic wins, or that even if you do win, maybe you've lost 20% of your army so that 10% reduction in theirs won't help as much as you first thought.

Speaking purely through game theory, if the devs lowered the number of casualties suffered by 20% (through any combination of things, but probably by lowering rifle lethality), then current morale levels would also need to be reduced by 20%. The game would then focus more on how to break/fold enemy lines and force morale to drop across the entire enemy army enough to send them all running (Ie, roll up the flanks). Currently, the way you get the enemy to "run for the hills" is to inflict massive casualties upon them. I think lowering casualty rates is doable but would require a lot of testing and balance changes to the game to get it right. Melee, for example, would need to be toned down and not so easily engaged. It should be high-risk/high-reward that is used sparingly. Morale indicators would need to be readily visible for all brigades, ala SMG. Since morale would be the most critical factor in holding/attacking positions, brigade size wouldn't be as important as it is now (as a visual indicator). When we see multiple 2500 man enemy brigades, we worry because we know they WILL cause massive casualties in a single volley. I don't necessarily think "Oh, well maybe their morale is low and they'll break easier" because morale isn't something the game makes you worry about on a regular basis. If morale was a greater concern, we would need to know, at quick glance, which brigades have low morale and need shoring up (bringing more brigades to support their flanks, putting them in cover, General unit nearby, etc). Let's be honest, when you're fighting a battle you are heavily focused on watching those numbers tick down when your brigade is being fired on, or when you're firing on a brigade. The faster those numbers drop, the better. Visceral casualties is how we measure success. Morale, for me, seems to be a secondary issue and probably because there is little feedback on the battlefield without individually selecting each brigade.

I posted a vid going over army camp basics, tactics, controls, etc while playing as CSA during Battle of Newport News.

I get where you're coming from Longstreet. When I realized that Elder Scrolls Oblivion did this on the consoles (scaled monster level with your own level), I could "see" the design come out through the gameplay and lessened the experience. I still really enjoyed the game as it was challenging, but from that point on I knew that I would rarely if ever wander into an area where I'm not "supposed" to be yet based on my level, as everywhere was scaled towards my current level. So, maybe an option as you suggest could be added to remove scaling (or only have scaling on the hardest difficulty level)? I imagine the fear from the devs would be that a player could create a very powerful army and steamroll the AI for the rest of the campaign. This, too, would appear that something is broken though. It's worth discussing further!

You can draw unit paths by selecting a brigade and holding left mouse button, then drag a path to your destination. Hope this helps!

Select brigade, then right-click shield. If you hover your mouse over the shield with a brigade selected, it will show blue dots below the shield where your men will take position