The Soldier

There's a question mark in the upper left hand corner of the screen. Click that and you'll get the manual.

Light grey indicates parts added to by skills from Corps Commanders or Brigade perks. The light grey might appear to shrink when you add recruits, but it'll still be the same length before and after.

1. Survivability. How much he can get shot at before he gets removed from the battlefield (but not killed, corps commanders can't get killed). 2. Units within the ring get Morale back at a higher rate. Meaning they can stay on the front longer than a unit not within the command aura of a Corps Commander. 3. Probably not. 4. Corps Commanders have no impact on the Command stat of any brigade whatsoever. Only Division and Brigade commanders have that effect. In any case, Efficiency is capped by Command, so if Command is lower than Efficiency, the Efficiency stat will be dragged down and the unit will perform poorer than it would otherwise. Higher has no effect. Command only caps Efficiency and no other stat.

Why would a brigade in fortifications need to Hold? The flanks are set, you can't rotate an entire set of breastworks.

Not worth disbanding a 300-man artillery brigade for some minor experience boost. I might get 2, max 3 of those over the course of a campaign because I rotate my corps for minor battles so they all get a hunk of experience, so that even a completely fresh corps might be totally Vet 1 or 2 by time of the next Grand Battle. If you just load up experience on one corps and then disband the brigades, I think that's just inefficient.

Just not worth losing a Vet 3 artillery battery. You're really just gibbing yourself, and they're not really "stealing experience". I think of it as free reinforcements in case they take losses.

I approve of Vet 3 Artillery crews. Nothing is more fearsome than a battery of 12, 24-Pounder brass bells with the faster reload and canister buff upgrades.

Select the unit and right-click the shield icon.

Amount of casualties shouldn't nessesarily be the only determining factor for what war to cover.

I'm talking about a distinction between Mounted Infantry and Cavalry, even during the Civil War. Cavalry were specifically created for the express purpose of reconnaissance and strategic maneuvers (as earlier in the war, your single shot, very short carbines are not going to be beat massed volleys of rifle fire). Mounted Infantry, on the other hand, are pretty much a regular infantry unit handed horses. They can't fight or shoot while mounted and use horses for the sole purpose of moving around the battlefield, and dismount to engage the enemy. Also, UGCW doesn't really represent the mixture of weapons that brigades can be equipped with, so the mixed rifles thing wouldn't be fitting in. I don't want Cavalry to have another thing stuffed onto them. Would be better to make Mounted Infantry a different brigade type or subtype of the Infantry brigade (since that's where Mounted Infantry get most of their attributes from). Would function identically to an Infantry brigade while in combat and dismounted, of course.

Far as I can tell, we're talking about dedicated cavalry units and not "mounted infantry", who were infantry that moved about on horses but did not fight on them (unlike cavalry, who could fight mounted if forced due to their use of shorter weapons and breach loading weapons). I really wanted Mounted Infantry as a thing in UGCW. Nothing like riding all around the Union army to flank them with a surprise mounted division, or even Corps. Expensive, sure, but would be awesome.

Veteran cost is based on how high the stats are of that unit - Firearms, Melee, Morale, etc. Also possibly the unit's experience and veterancy level as well. As for units losing experience when you switch out commanders - all officers grant their unit an amount of experience (no effect on the unit's skills like Firearms, purely veterancy experience) based on that officer's rank and experience that sticks with that officer. For example, a Confederate Colonel usually has enough experience combined with the Confederate's naturally higher rookie starting experience to grant a fresh brigade Vet 1 right off the bat without going into battle. But switch that out for a lower ranked officer and they might not have enough experience to have Vet 1, and might lose that perk.

I'm asking for points, not a book. What's wrong? What isn't? What could use improving? Giving me that doesn't tell me much aside from "there are pictures".

I *really* don't want to deal with more aura-based commanders. In minor battles that's fine, but at large battles, especially Antietam - dear god, that would be a nightmare. It's already difficulty enough to manage 3+ corps at the same time, adding potentially another 12+ units to manage (let alone maximum army size, which would add 20 extra aura-based units on top of the 130 units, corps commander and supply wagons). Just too much.

Don't forget the Burnside carbine HUD image used for half a dozen other carbines. No idea why. I'd make replacement HUD images if they let me. @A. P. Hill Who doesn't looks like what they should look like? Johnston aside, at they got the portrait right but not the name.

That, I'm pretty sure he's everywhere. From experience, the Division Commander is "present" in every brigade in his division and can be killed whenever any of the brigades in his division takes fire - just a much lower chance than a brigade commander.

Yeah, most of that stuff is known. Nothing you can do, combine them early and keep your divisions together on the field.

Infantry brigades have had the same firing range since UGCW first got released on Steam. You should pretty clearly be able to notice that a Farmer with 200 range has half the range of a Fayetteville with 400, but it's not in-game. Range appears to be standardized around 300 for most infantry brigades. The Range stat now just tells how accurate the weapon will be at the edge of the range. The higher, the better it will be at that kind of engagement. Also note that hills have a minor effect on firing range - large ones even moreso.

How on god's green earth did you field 800 guns? As the Confederates? I mean, I can capture loads, and buying the rest is mighty expensive. Let alone fitting 800 guns into 5 corps.

@OnTheHouse You can. Just find the save file location in AppData and get the correct save file via sorting it by date. Copy it to a flash drive, then stick it in your laptop and move the files to the same location. Transferred save files, voila.

The Whitworth's 0.85 MOA at 500 yards is kinda difficult to beat (even by today's standards) - don't think a Union target rifle could match that.

The J.F. Brown just represents the large variety of target rifles Union sharpshooters could use. I was about to grab that same link, so use that too.

You're still getting weapons and experience for your own troops. Killing more is always better.

No, you don't need to know the exact values. All you need to know is the more you kill, the better.

There appears to be another modifier that isn't shown to the player that changes the weapon quality the enemy has per-battle, though this is relatively small. Minor Battles usually have a lower modifier than Grand Battles (so you might see low-tier rifles in a Minor Battle then see mid-tier rifles at the Grand Battle, for example). 1) Yes it does scale, but only within the margins listed in the Intelligence Service. 2) Yes, both those go down the more enemies you kill. Makes sense, no? 3) There is a minimum quality for each stage in the campaign, yes - at some point, no matter how many enemies you kill, their Armory and Training value won't go down anymore. Same reason that there's a minimum enemy army size, so you can't make the game overly easy (especially on Major General and Legendary where people want that kind of thing). Also note there's a cap on enemy weapon quality for each stage of the battle, depending on when higher tier rifles become available.