Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About TechnoSarge

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I have to ask - when you talk about a minimum scaling point, is there a known optimal or possible unit size for each engagement? - On my last BG campaign with your Rebalance mod I worked up to 1500 men and pretty much kept that size through the campaign (although I believe I went to 1600 if I judged the available weapons for a particular brigade as inferior to the rest).
  2. I agree, Longstreet - the devolution of command to the next-ranking officer was prototypical and pretty automatic. Officers knew where they stood in seniority and news of a higher-level incapacitation led to the next in line stepping up. The sudden and nearly complete loss of Efficiency in vanilla when an officer gets winged is a problem I'm glad the modders have solved.
  3. Heck, I just played Shiloh in my MG CSA campaign. After rolling over everyone at BG level, I discover the AI ups its game in MG. I managed a draw... and my corps came out with only 2 of its 12 brigades, with a total of 179 men and 3 guns. Ouch! Gonna need a rematch on that one!
  4. Has anyone put up a thread listing the battles in order, and the Corps/Brigades you can bring? Knowing when you need to increase your units is important, as otherwise your money can go toward better weapons.
  5. I had to test what you said about, in Camp, that if you load a depleted unit with Veterans first, and then top off with "rookies" (I prefer "recruits"), you get better final stats than adding the same numbers but in the opposite order. I found that true - and I'm shocked! I have often added recruits first, consciously penalizing units that had poor performance in the previous battle with more recruits than better-performing brigades. I figured the order didn't matter ... but it does. So now the Vets will go into a unit first!
  6. The game has never informed you that the officer casualty you're receiving notice of is a Division commander. IMO, Division commanders are almost a waste in Ultimate General. You're penalized on Efficiency on brigades if he isn't ranked high enough, but he doesn't appear on the battlefield, has no perks, doesn't gain XP at anything like the rate the brigade commanders do, and is still subject to being shot. (edit) Gosh! If they do make another Ultimate General game, I HOPE they read some of the commentary in these fora and learn what their customers think works and what doesn't work!
  7. I see. I don't normally use YouTube when a video is embedded, so I was unaware there was a speed control on YouTube.
  8. Pandakraut, I watched your camp video, as I have never disbanded anything to play with the recruit quality. I just want to say that your familiarity with what you are doing makes you whiz your mouse pointer around far to rapidly to follow easily. By the time I've tracked what you're pointing at, you've moved on. Your listener needs/wants to be able to read the information (for example, the rifles you have in Armory) which is not covered by your audio. Just slow yourself down some, please!
  9. I'm glad you made detached skirmishers configurable. I use them as scouts, primarily - not as fighting units, which is what I use dedicated skirmishers for. My dedicated ones are armed with the longest-range weapon I can buy; I like sniper rifles for these formations. Of course, detached skirmishers are carrying the infantry rifle or musket of their parent formation, and are no better than that unit. The reduced casualties of troops in open formation makes the detached troops viable also as a "meat shield" for units going into assault against entrenchments. Note that using a cloud of skirmishers in front of the battle line reaches back to Napoleon and before - and most of the professional officers were trained in Napoleonic warfare. For this reason, I'm loath to give up the ability to detach skirmishers. The AI always seems to produce many skirmisher formations, which are usually twice the size of my detached units, and without my scouts before me, my brigades would often take a galling & unexpected fire. Experimentally, I reset the deploySizeMultiplier to 1.1 as apparently the default is, and restarted Richmond. I verify the brigade limit went to 30. Still, when I checked my unit organization permissions, I found I was allowed to build 4 corps, each with 8 divisions of 5 brigades (Unit Org maxed out). I still find the ability to build corps that can't carry all their brigades to ANY fight to be a flaw in the design of Ultimate General. BTW - I am SERIOUSLY hoping the designers are going to produce other, similar titles. I'd love a Napoleonic version!
  10. Indeed the number is at 1. Strange, though, because unless I read of that number in this thread, I wouldn't touch it, since it isn't obvious what it does. And I've always had this issue, which I would have liked to ease.
  11. Once I finish the battle, I'll reload my pre-battle save and show the offerings. I did change some config, but I only remember re-allowing skirmisher detachment. Looking at the .csv files again, I can't see anything related to scenario brigade restrictions.
  12. Pandakraut, I have a question that applies to vanilla and every mod I've tried: The unit organization career points let you gradually add to division & corps sizes and numbers... but the scenarios don't seem to engage all these troops. Many of the scenarios restrict the number of engaged brigades from your corps, and the number appears to top out at 25. I am in the final battle of the war, BG US with Rebalance, and have 4 corps of 6 divisions each, and I believe I have headroom to add a 7th division to each - but what's the point? I can only still use 25 brigades, which is 5 divisions. Also, some of the major battles offer reinforcement slots for more corps than I've ever been able to field. It's almost as if the scenario designers weren't talking to the people responsible for the camp. Is it possible to change something so that what you can build matches better with what you can use?
  13. I have had at least 3 cases in my current campaign (just finished Chickamauga as BG on Union side) where I clicked on a unit I thought had been unengaged and found them with dozens or a couple hundred casualties. I'd wondered, "How did that happen?" I've never noted a unit that had a third of its strength gone all at once though, and I never caught it happening. And, yes, I am attentive to whether I'm on a second or third day's battle, with casualties showing from previous days, and whether the unit in question is a game-supplied one not in my army which may have experienced "casualties" offscreen before the fight. My most recent case was a Whitworth cannon brigade that suffered 30+ casualties from "somewhere." Because the game's range degradation curves actually make Whitworths more accurate at long range than mid-range, I always try to use them in their solid shot zone... and my rare and valuable Whitworths don't suffer many losses that way.
  14. Well, yeah, Pandakraut. I have 4 career points in Reconnaissance, so I get a graph of strength during the battle. I have not noticed that it gives me exact numbers, just the relative forces. So I used a ruler to measure the blue and the red sections of the line, then compared them mathematically. If I can get actual manpower strengths during a battle, what do I look at?