boznboyz

If the we're going for as much historical accuracy as possible in this game, wouldn't it make sense to make AI armies proportionate to yours according to the historical situation? Like when you plan battle of the bull run, if you play in historical mode, the armies are relatively the same size, but when you play in campaign mode, I'm outnumbered by 5000 troops. I understand that if you were to make the armies proportionately similar to the historical circumstances, you would have to go back and do that for EVERY engagement, instead of just having a single scaling mechanism, but at the VERY LEAST, could the enemy units not be so friggin good? I'm tired of going into battle as the union, outnumbered EVERY TIME by the confederates, AND have to face superior troops at the same time. I get that it needs to be difficult, but whats the point in telling me when im picking the union or confederates that I'll have almost endless resources to crush my enemies, if said enemy has MORE almost endless resources than me? What i liked about UG: Gettysburg was that the army size was accurate, and there was a very good method of balance involved. i.e. the union artillery was better than the confederates, Union had more troops than the confederacy, yet confederate troops were higher quality and their leaders were able to inspire their troops better. Sorry for going off on a tangent, but i had to get this off my chest, and before anyone tells me there's already a post about AI army scaling, i saw it and i don't think scaling makes the game very historically accurate.