[J & P Rebalance Mod by JonnyH13 and Pandakraut 05/06/2023 1.28.4]

Have you tried things like splitting brigades into regiments for more realistic feel of the game, like in older Sid Meier's Gettysburg?It could be really useful in small battles, like where enemy  has more units than you,or to enable things like being able to arm brigade with several different types of muskets,although it could create problem with historical battles

[J & P Rebalance Mod by JonnyH13 and Pandakraut 05/06/2023 1.28.4]

7 hours ago, pandakraut said:

It might be possible to change the sprite generation for fewer lines , but I haven't had much luck trying in the past.

Altitude difference can actually block artillery fire, it's just really rare. Antietam near the Eastern edge of the sunken road and the round tops are the only place I've noticed it. Perhaps it would be possible to make that more restrictive, but it would take a decent amount of research time. I also expect that adding restrictions would result in the AI behaving rather poorly.

Not following your last suggestion, can you try to clarify or restate it?

I meant to ask if there is a possibility to introduce position of army commander over the corps commanders, with all it's perks and qualities?

    I wanted also to ask is it possible to introduce new weapons, like 30pdr parrot gun,or enable cavalry to carry long rifles like Spencer and Colt revolver rifle,but at cost of not being able to fire from the saddle?

Also,I wish you a good luck with the mods and hoping to improve this game, which has so much more potential and ability to grow.

 

[J & P Rebalance Mod by JonnyH13 and Pandakraut 05/06/2023 1.28.4]

Is there a chance to change how visually infantry formations look, like to correct two by two ranks like in older UGG?

    Or for artillery to fire only if it has clear sight (no more setting it behind the forest and still being able to fire into the enemy on the other side), also like in UGG?I really liked (and it was realistic)how you couldn't fire if infantry was in front of it or at least it had to be on the elevation to have a clear firing line.

    Another thing that makes me wonder is why there isn't a option for army commander after you create a second corps and another general takes command of your first corps, and could it be set up?

[Customized formations of infantry and cavalry.]

31 minutes ago, Fred Sanford said:

My guess is that it's simply aesthetic.

Well,it could actually be improved,not to mention that they could have simply imported same system from older game.And that formation is actually wider than current one, allowing bigger firepower of the brigade,but harder to maneuver.

[Customized formations of infantry and cavalry.]

    I wanted to start this discussion in hopes that we could actually get this feature into the game: Customisable formations of infantry and cavalry.For example,line infantry formations currently don't really represent reall Civil war lines.

From UG:CV:

Notice 3 by 3 lines in brigades on the first picture,which actually doesn't makes sense considering that real Civil war lines were actually 2 by 2 (at least on regimental level,I know that in game we mostly have brigades),one main 2 line formation and 2nd as reserve one, like in these pictures:

Looking at these charts,it actually reminded me of older UG: Gettysburg which actually depicts line infantry formations in such manner:

This brings a question why did developers choose the first one in this game if they already had correct ones in the older game? Similarly,we also had correct marching columns which they swapped for 2 big lines marching side by side, which boggles me.So,I would like to propose Customisable formations option in which we could choose correct marching and combat formations.2 by 2 formation could actually increase the firepower of the brigades,not to mention other benefits and authenticity of the game.What is your opinion on the matter?

[UG Civil War’s Future]

I would like to see some more options and rebalances for this game:

-Ability for infantry to go into prone or kneeling position to hide in deep grass or reduce losses from artilery;

-Ability to build some brestworks in forrested area within about half an hour at least;

-Ability to separate brigades into smaller regiments.They should be able to move faster and easier to form a line,but weaker in morale and firepower than large brigades.For example 2,500 brigades could be separated into 4 or 5 regiments,but only if you form that setup between the battles so you can't just separate it into what number you need;

-Destructible walls,fences and brestworks.They can be heavily damaged by artilery,thus decreasing overall protection they offer,but with ability to be somewhat repaired by infantry that mans them (by some 25% within one hour for example);

-Visually represented flags of units;

-Enemy being capable of detaching skirmishers.Too much often I was able to easily delay much larger enemy force by simply detaching mine skirmishers and force heavy casualties on him;

    That's it for now,I'l update this later.

[Bayou Forche]

    When I played it for the first time,I simply knew that frontal assault would have been suicidal,so I only placed one brigade close enough to the river to delay them together with all artilery if they try to attack me,and I koncentrated on the flanks,first routed enemy skirmishers with my detached ones and one unit with sharps rifles on enemy's right over the river,than anoyed the entrenched enemy brigade over the river there until my 4 brigades arived to overwhelm them and crosed the river with 2 brigades in one and other 2 in second eshelon.I also used mu cavalry there to counter the one enemy had while I was advancing on to the fort.Meanwhile,on my right,I masked my 3 brigades with detached skirmishers and moped my way to the east of the fort,where my forces converged.While my cavalry and skirmishers  kept their cavalry at bay,my brigades attacked the fort from north and east,enemy brigades there routed and all I had to do was simply mop them up.Only thing though is that enemy then vent in direction of that lone brigade,which kept them at bay,and luckily,battle ended before something bad happened.

[The game is not fun after Chickamauga]

Does anybody think that it would be a good to have Chatanooga campaingn as a sort of way to actually slightly repair a damage done after Chikamauga?It would have a small battle of Lookout mountain and a grand battle of Misionary ridge,together with it a smaller battle of Ringold gap.

    As to why I say damage,it's probably just amy personal thought,but I just recieved quite a whiping at a Chikamauga as a Union,I had almost 70 k soldiers at the start,and on the day 3,diference in numbers was (even though enemy got far worse losses than me) Union 61,000 vs. 93,000 Confederate.I had over 30,000 losses with enemy loosing over 60,000 but it wasn't enough to even pull a draw.