pandakraut

Thanks for the report, will look into this. Roughly yes, except for the allied units where if the alive men give ~25% and the dead give ~15%. I ran a quick test on MG and by not winning distress call, but still playing the battle you'll likely see more reboreds instead of muskets and 12pdr howitzers instead of 6pdrs. Up to you if that is worth the trade off. Personally I'd rather have the career point and increased rewards from distress call rather than slightly better weapons from bull run.

There is not, player micro is required here. There might be some minor improvements that could be made, but a generic solution that covers optimal player targeting would be difficult to implement and likely would differ by situation and player anyways. Sync in this case has nothing to do with networking. It's just a handy term to describe the end effect in the game, which is that something goes wrong and the visual display no longer matches the actual unit location. Add in the whole part where the unit location now covers a quarter of the visible screen, doesn't trigger melee, etc. Saving and reloading, or managing to rout the unit to break it out of its charge resolves the bug. This bug can also very rarely occur with infantry though it tends to look at little different and might well have a completely different root cause. There are a few things going on here. You may have noticed that sometimes you can see individual sprites of an enemy unit and fire at the unit even though it's unit flag is not visible. This is most likely what is happening to the player when the unit shows as hidden but is still taking fire. Annoying but at least relatively equally so, I'd change it if I could figure out what bit of code was wrong. The AI generally has no idea that enemy units exist when they are truly hidden, excluding the situation described above. This can be seen in a variety of maps and scenarios where as long as the player stays hidden they can shoot or move around as much as they want without the AI responding. There are some exceptions like where the AI general is set to search for and find the player(they won't head straight for you, but the options of where to go reduce quickly), sometimes the AI seems to get stuck on a certain path even if you get hidden(could be a bug, could be something else), various other battle specific triggers that cause the AI to change how it is responding to the given battle. We've played around with the AI being able to see the player virtually all the time in the past, rest assured it would be very noticeable if it always knew where player units were. I'm very confident that the captured equipment reflects the enemy units on the field. Are you certain that you captured every single enemy artillery unit that was on the field in this scenario? If you think you can reproduce this with an in battle save prior to the battle ending feel free to send the save to me and I can take a look. AI perks are identical to the players. Did you manage to kill them to see what cannon they were equipped with? Depending on the difficulty and random chance they could potentially have access to the James, blakely, or 20pdr which outrange the 3" by a good amount. You'd have to get a bit unlucky, but is not impossible to show up that early. Happens semi-frequently on legendary. Another option could be the unit finding an angle that lets them fire at a target that is visually beyond the end of your firing arc. If you aren't already familiar with this technique, you can somewhat consistently hit targets with the same range as you without them being able to fire back with some practice. It doesn't get you much extra range, but it can be just enough if you set it up just right. If you are just giving direct move attack orders, then units will move closer than they need to.

You can turn the skirmish logic off with r

If you are devoting that much to making it work then I'm actually ok with it. The problem was that it could be done with 0* units for a flank shot every time previously. The revolvers can deal pretty decent damage, but you have to have the accuracy perks to support it. Which is mostly incompatible with being able to pull off the rotation apparently.

This is on 1.27.4.3? That added a change to allow the ai to rotate as if running like the player would. Maybe with enough speed perks it's still possible?

This was intentionally made almost impossible to pull off. It used to be very easy which made cav of all types incredibly strong against infantry. Maybe check out the sawed offs? Longer range, harder hitting power, 2 shots and still decent melee though worse than the palmetto.

This is most likely just the late campaign. You can nudge the numbers up and down but the defaults determine a lot of it. With very high training values of 80+ you can be facing nearly all 3*s for the later parts of the campaign. It occurred to me that maybe the better values to change in the ai config file is the max unit sizes for the ai. This is probably easier than trying to find a good size multiplier value and would also let you better try to overwhelm them with low quality units. Yes, though it's hard to do well and the controls aren't the most intuitive. With carbine cav you can just right click on your target to fire. But if you do that with melee cav they will move into melee. So to get melee cav to fire reliably you want to move them close to the target and then hit space or give them an oblique movement order near the target. This causes them to fire if they are reloaded. You can either charge right after the first shot or keep holding position to fire multiple. Firing multiple without getting shot in return requires either another unit to distract or the ai unit to be routing/charging/firing at something else already. Increasing the range a bit is something that is planned. I've tried improving the controls but my attempts thus far have caused more problems than they have solved.

The UI mod is basically the base game with a bunch of bug fixes, quality of life changes, and some minor balance adjustments. The Rebalance mod includes all of those changes but also reworks all the weapons, perks, and career points. It also puts more importance on stats, perks, condition, and morale. Several new systems such as improved surrender/shatter, better AU charge logic, in battle replacements for officers, and increased adjustments to ai units in battles for greater variety are also included.

This is a known issue that I will probably clean up in the next patch. For the union campaign going a bit under on AO and having fewer, but stronger units is also a viable option up through Shiloh so not too worried from a balance perspective. I do want to make sure the deploy numbers actually match though, so that will get fixed.

No, only size scales. Equipment and experience have defaults that are modified by various factors. The only one the player can control is by inflicting as many casualties as possible in prior battles. Scaling equipment and experience based on the player causes all sorts of bad gameplay loops. This is a pretty much unending discussion even in the base game that doesn't try to support both normal and extra large unit sizes. To sort of summarize, I would generally disagree that the scaling punishes the player overall. However, the way the mod handles stats and unit sizes it is absolutely possible to build your army in such a way that you are adding more power to the AI than the player. This is much more likely on higher difficulties. Perhaps it would be better to say that it punishes the player for increasing the size of their army in less than optimal ways. Part of the problem is we're being pulled in a lot of different ways here. We're trying to support a lot of different playstyles and battle types with a generic solution which has its edge cases where things break down a bit. For example, we've got players who don't build infantry larger than 1k and players who build 6k units. Those two types of armies should not face the same size opposition as it would either trivialize or make the content near impossible respectively. There are also incentives for taking on the largest possible enemy army that you can manage. The bigger they are the more xp and weapons you can farm, it's just a question of can you also keep your casualties down while doing it. Player's have definitely figured out ways to make high number low quality setups work, it's just a very different playstyle than smaller high quality units. Anyways, I've rambled enough so I'll just encourage you to give the defaults a shot and if a specific battle is giving you more trouble than you want for your current setup then start tweaking with the configs. They are definitely there because even with 4 difficulty options there just is no way to get the numbers in a good place for everyone, so I wouldn't be hesitant to use them. Some players have also opted to use them to create in between difficulty settings. For example, .75 or .85 size and experience multipliers on legendary or 1.5 to 1.75 on BG to create a legendary lite or BG plus respectively and just use those settings for the entire campaign. One final note is that the overall balance of some battles is just not in a good place and that is something we are currently looking at smoothing out a bit.

The size of enemy units is determined partially based on your own. This allows some adjustment based on player performance, if you are doing well and field lots of big units the ai gets a boost. If you are behind and build small the ai will be smaller. There are also other systems in place to provide variety in sizes. In the mod this is taken further due to the ability of the player to decide to build much larger if they want. So average unit size is weighted more heavily. The goal here being that if the player builds 1.5k units they face 1.5k to 3k units. If they build 4k units they face 4k to 6k. Some battles are outliers where you can end up facing larger units than normal. So depending on the difficulty you are playing and how you setup your units, adding a lot more men into your army can make the ai units considerably larger. There are configuration options available if you don't like how this system works and want to adjust the size of ai units.

Yes, the +20 was assuming 10 points. With 7 points you'd be getting a bonus of 14. The bonuses displayed by the tooltips on the career tab are the benefits you'd gain from adding one more point which is why 16 displays when 7 points are currently assigned.

Sorry, thought I responded to this earlier today, but I guess I didn't click submit or something. Glad you found the numbers. When a unit has an average stat of 25/50/75 they gain the corresponding star. The commanding officer does provide a bonus so it's possible to get the star early with a good officer. Unless the perk specifically mentions a stat bonus there is no bonus to stats from selecting one. Corps perks in the mod apply to all units in the corps rather than being unit type specific. The tier 3 perks are auras, indicated by the aura tag in the description. T1 and T2 perks apply to all units in the corps. I'm pretty sure the supply wagon thing is a placebo and the rate is constant as long as you are in the aura. Same for the corps commander. The mod does add a much larger morale boost for corps commanders in melee contact with one of your units. Duplicate aura perks do not stack, but you can multiple different aura bonuses. Morale regen bonus stacks but applies at reduced effectiveness past the first commander.

Melee is point per x melee kills, efficiency is point per x ranged kill, firearms is per completed reload cycle(length of cycle does matter so this can't be cheesed), stamina is per total distance moved(mod also adds a small bonus for reloading), morale is total time spent in battle. The values required per point are generally higher in the mod than in the base game. When you add a veteran to a unit, a recruit is consumed but instead of averaging the recruits stats into the units stats, the recruit is instead added with identical stats to the unit. The higher the stats of the unit, the higher the cost. So this can be used to maintain experience but not actively increase the experience of a unit. Adding veterans to a newly created unit will charge you even though the stats will be the same as if you added recruits. In the mod, training increases the stats of recruits gained from a battle. So you won't see any immediate benefit when you assign the point, but when the next battle is completed, the rewarded recruits will have higher stats than what you would normally receive. So for example if you start the campaign with 7 points in training, all recruits you will have received when you enter camp will have +20 to all stats. You can see your current stats using a tooltip on the total recruit number. When a unit is created, whether or not it has access to the first perk is determined by the average of all its stats other than command and a bonus based on the xp of the commander. So if you have a unit with 20 in all stats it would not normally get a perk, but if you put a MG in charge of the unit the commander bonus will push it over to 1* status. The mod also adds a battles led system which decreases the xp bonus for an officer that has never completed a battle with the unit and increases the xp bonus for officers that have served with the unit for multiple battles. You can see these bonuses through a tooltip on the officer xp bar. Xp gain is static per battle type for these commanders. Brigade commanders xp is based on the stat increase of their controlled unit. When minmaxed you can get very high xp gain by putting an officer in charge of a brand new unit with low stats. However, there are diminishing returns on more experienced units with higher stats. For example, if it took 25 kills to gain 1 point of efficiency when that stat is 10, it may take 100 kills to go from 99 to 100. Additionally, the officer ranks are skewed towards colonels and BGs, so it will take much longer to get enough xp to exit those ranks than it will to progress from MG to LTG or from LT colonel to colonel. Since the flat xp does not suffer from diminishing returns, it can be effective to move fairly experienced BGs into division command to get that last bump. Since unless you are sticking them on a new unit with low stats, their xp progression will slow down. For instance if you have a BG on a unit with 100 morale, firearms, stamina, 75 efficiency, and 25 melee xp gain will be much slower because 3 of those stats are capped out and one takes a lot more to gain a point. Dumping high level officers into recruit brigades is still technically more efficient, but as you noted its far riskier. Various adjustments to this are planned in the future to balance it out a bit. Averaged back in basically, so the benefits are transferred but when it's only 10% of the units those benefits are very diluted.

Thanks for the detailed report. There have been multiple issues around detached skirmishers due to giving them access to their parent's perks. I would generally not recommend merging units in battle because the merged unit has no perks and this results in a significant loss of power. Are you on the latest patch 1.27.4.3? The current stopgap fix is that any detached skirmisher that can't find it's parent will get shattered so that worse bugs don't occur. Merging effectively results in the parent not being found. The next patch will have a much cleaner for this entire issue, but that is coming along with some major changes so it won't be out anytime soon unfortunately.

If you are not in the charge state, then the speed bonus is the only direct benefit you are getting from those perks. The charge perk is taken into account by the AI when determining if it should charge, so you are getting some indirect deterrence though. In a future patch we are planning on having these perks apply a reduced bonus to melee damage so that units with the perks get more of a benefit when they are not charging. There are a couple of things that I suspect are actually the cause of the performance difference you are seeing when you don't charge. Most likely your melee perked units are equipped with better melee weapons and have better melee stats than your shooting units which would account for their better performance even when not charging. The other option is that the condition burn when you charge was applying a penalty that rapidly outweighed any charge bonus. If you're charging at close to the last second that isn't the case in my experience though. There is no windup time to gain a charge bonus if you were playing that way.

There is a curve that determines the size for the base game and these values are reduced slightly in the mod. This is currently only modifiable in the dll. Method name is ScoutModelInitData(BrigadeModelInitData initData) and search for skirmishersCreationSizeDependency

Accuracy is basically a damage multiplier as there is no actual 'to hit' chance in the game, just lower and higher damage. Functionally accuracy and shot/shell damage provide the same bonus, however accuracy also applies to canister damage while shot/shell only applies to those two shot types.

Ok, sounds like you're a couple minor revisions back. The cavalry carousel should be much harder to pull off in the latest version due to various changes.

Sounds like you're a on a slightly older patch? Infantry charging cav units shouldn't be something the AI does anymore. Thanks for the description, this should be at least somewhat more difficult to pull off in the next patch.

AI willingness to search you out and find you does very depending on the battle AI assigned to a given phase. Brock Road and Union Chickamauga day 3 are the two most notable shifts where even tiny AI units will aggressively find and attack you. Shortcutting the intended battle progression does definitely mess with the AI pretty frequently. There are several 'attacked from all sides' battles where you can vacate the point and hide. Then the AI just sort of sits around and never really responds even when you start attacking individual units. In others the aggressive path is definitely the better play, CSA Antietam being the most common example. If you just overwhelm each detachment as it arrives then the entire battle can become very easy. We are working on adjusting the worst examples of this, though I'm sure players will find new ways to take advantage. Could you comment more on what you did to achieve this result? Also, what difficulty you are playing? Even with very aggressive spawn camping I'm surprised the casualties are so low. Did you perhaps add men to units between days? That messes up the post battle casualty numbers.

There are some VPs whose control is based on a local hp strength. The Shiloh landing VP being on of the more noticeable ones. This can sometimes result in control being taken if many large enemy units are nearby despite the player being more directly on top of the point. If the ghost cav bug happens where the game thinks the unit is not in the same place as the sprites this can also cause points to flip unexpectedly. So if you drive them further back the VP should fix itself. At least at distress call you have enough time that this shouldn't cause any problems with the victory conditions. If you run into this elsewhere, or it seems like it's impossible to flip a point back no matter what you do, make a save and let me know. I ran into this once the other day and I'm not sure if that was a one off or not.

This is an area where we lean more towards gameplay choice than realism. With the way battle mechanics are setup, kills need to be achieved for melee to have a chance. With lower kill rates the units just exhaust themselves and then you get shot to death while trying to recover. Perhaps it'd be possible to completely rework this system into something more historical, but it would be a very large amount of effort to change it that dramatically. We have tried pushing the damage to be more morale focused in recent patches, but large and very experienced units can still rack up a lot of casualties very quickly in the right situations. This is something that gets pretty hard to analyze without being able to watch the gameplay and see how the units are equipped/perked. What I can say is that the majority of the feedback we get is that a well setup shooting army can very reliably stop charges before they ever make contact. Or at least when they do make contact it'll only be against a single unit and then you just shoot into it until the enemy routs. The majority of players do tend to play with smaller unit sizes (1000-2000 men infantry) so this might be something that becomes more of a problem when unit sizes are maxed out. If you have the ability to share saves from before a battle that tends to be problematic, or upload any video I'd be happy to take a look. Saves are located here C:\Users\Erik\YOUR USERNAME\LocalLow\Game Labs\Ultimate General Civil War\Save\CampaignBattle It seems like you're looking for a fundamentally different type of game. Something more like Grand Tactician or UG:AR. While there are certainly advantages to more dynamic games, I think the upside that this design brings is the ability to take your own approach to the originally historical battles. With more dynamic campaigns you most likely will not end up in the same historical situations so you never get to see the battles play out in that way. If you're limiting to a historical recreation of battles, then progression gets tricky. For example, we've considered making more changes so that losing or drawing battles has more effect. The problem is most players just restart battles they have lost, so spending a lot of time on mechanics that only ironman players see doesn't have a ton of benefit. Similarly, we could add some kind of campaign victory condition where you win upon getting a certain number of kills, but this seems of limited benefit when the player could add their own roleplay conditions more effectively than anything we could force in. If we had more freedom to mod in new battles and such, I could definitely see a combination approach of UGG and UGCW working well. Where between battles or during battles, you get choices on how to proceed and this impacts how the next stage of the campaign would go. That said, the recent morale and shatter changes have made it far to easy to wrap up battles long before the timers expire. This leads to all kinds of cheese opportunities. The longer timers were set in older versions of the mod when it took much longer to grind enemy units down before they would shatter, and just aren't necessary anymore. The next version will include a balance pass on every battle(that's why it's taking so long to complete) and one of the goals is to hopefully have more battles where just slowly wiping every single unit out is no longer possible without super aggressive play. Recon has no effect on this at all. We've considered adding that kind of benefit, but that leads to a weird minmax situation. As long as the player can kill everything with acceptable casualties, the best possible options is for the AI to be as big and as well equipped as possible. So putting points in recon that say reduced scaling, would actively be a negative in that situation. Certainly that isn't all players, but that's one of the reasons we've held off on that kind of change. So there are a couple things going on here. The number of AI units and their default sizes are predetermined for every battle. Scaling does affect this though. However, one of the changes the mod makes to support multiple playstyles is more aggressive average size scaling. So if you're using a lot of 4 and 6k units the AI units are going to get scaled up that big regardless on legendary. This is done because otherwise the player will be running around with 6k units and facing 2ks which is a complete walkover. But we also don't want players using 1-2k sized units running into 6ks regularly. To describe the system a bit more, the numbers you want to keep an eye on are your total casualties + captures inflicted in a battle compared to the post battle reinforcement report numbers. This affects the AI recon report army size. That army size is a snowball factor for scaling. It will go up over the course of the campaign, and it does have minimum values. This is why you can kill 80k at Antietam and the army size will go back up to around 50k for example. This snowball factor tends to have a fairly small impact as long as you keep it close to the minimum, which as long as you are killing 60%+ in battles you will tend to. This also means that when they 'get' 20k troops that actually might mean that the scaling factor goes up 0.005% and you see almost no change. The 5% will nearly always outweigh any gains they made from the snowball factor, even if you retreat from the side battle without inflicting a single casualty. The next patch will be adding some UI tooltips to try to give the player a better indicator on if they are close to the minimum. What this means is that the reason to play side battles is more about the state of your army than the state of the AIs. Side battles = more rep, more xp, more weapons, and more career points. The only time I think they are worth skipping is if you think you can't come out ahead compared to your casualties. I think I covered this up above, but essentially yes you started a race to max size by accident. Think of it kind of like setting your units sizes to extreme in the older total war games if that is a useful reference. Players have completed the entire campaign using units around 1-1.5k and in most cases they never face anything bigger than 2-3k(some exceptions I won't get into at the moment.) This is something that has always been a struggle to communicate. You can go big if you want, but it's not required. And if you go big we try to let the AI keep up. We also try to provide extra resources at the outside to give people leeway to mess up or go big if they want, but this can prove a trap for players who aren't looking for that. While limiting your unit sizes will help a lot with this, to go even further you may want to look into this submod https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/34966-historical-submod-of-jp-rebalance-mod-release-thread/ It hard limits the brigade/regiment sizes to more historical levels and takes a completely different approach to scaling and such. It does also go down the path of limiting the players ability to issue orders in a more historical fashion compared to the perfect control the base game offers. With 80 training late in the campaign, many CSA units will end up with perfect stats. Not all of them will however. The way this tends to be setup in the defaults is that some units get very high stats so that they will tend towards 2 or 3*. Then difficulty, training and such gets added on on top. If you drop the AI experience multiplier enough you should definitely be seeing a mix of 1-3* units though. Alternately, playing on a lower difficulty and cranking the multipliers back up to a desired amount might get closer to what you are looking for. Thanks for putting up with my essays, hope this or the submod works out for you with some modifications. Also if you haven't seen it yet, definitely check out Grand Tactician for a dynamic campaign. Still in EA and working through issues, but incredibly ambitious.

In battle, AI units are limited to the same stats and bonuses as the player's. The mod places a much higher emphasis on stats and perks than the base game does. It also uses a much smaller melee vs multiple penalty so that swarming large units with multiple smaller units is far less effective. Low condition and morale also impose much larger penalties. So depending on the size of the units involved, their condition, weapons, perks, and stats this result would not necessarily be unusual. For example, a fully melee perked and equipped melee unit can smash through multiple similarly sized units that are not setup for melee. As long as the melee unit has the condition to keep doing large amounts of damage, the morale gain from damage dealt can keep up with the damage taken in melee or from other units firing into melee. Full shooting spec'd armies with good artillery support do tend to prevent melee units from ever getting into contact. Especially combined with skirmishers or cavalry to hit charging units in the flanks as they can come in. It is however highly recommended to build at least some melee focused brigades as they can be very helpful for counter charging. The next patch will be making some adjustments to these mechanics, but overall unit specialization through stats and perks is something that we feel is in a decent spot at the moment. Player's tend to run into this more in the union campaign because union recruit stats are much worse than csa recruit stats at the start of the campaign. This combined with CSA AI units generally having higher experience early on in the campaign compared to union units results in the much harder union start. However, once you get past Malvern Hill the Union tends to have access to so much money, recruits, and high tier weapons that the rest of the campaign becomes much easier. While many of those decisions are inherited from the base game, we haven't changed them because it leads to both campaigns being a somewhat different gameplay experience. The mod was originally created from the perspective of players who found legendary vanilla too easy. So outside of the various mechanics changes, some changes were made to the campaign so that the player was less able to snowball the AI into irrelevance later in the campaign. We prefer to try and keep the AI relevant so that there is a continued challenge because otherwise most campaigns would end when the player wipes out the AI army at 1st Bull Run. Some of this does come down to random factors within the campaign. AI experience is determined by specific battle defaults, the recon report training value, and a random modifier. So some campaigns can end up being much easier than others. I've had Union Shiloh's where I'm mostly facing 1*s with a few 2*s and others where it's all 2* and 3*s. A couple of post battle reinforcement reports that are veterans or training can dramatically affect the campaign. Killing and capturing as many units as possible helps, but if you get unlucky it's very hard to keep the training value down. The mod does provide configuration options if you would like to adjust how this works though. In the mod/rebalance/AIConfigFile there is an AIscalingExperienceMultiplier and an AIscalingSizeMultiplier. You can adjust these up or down throughout the campaign to adjust the size and experience of all AI units. You will have to restart the game and then start a new battle for any changes to take affect though. So for example, if you'd like to see less experienced units after Gettysburg you could set the AIscalingExperienceMultiplier to .75. It sounds like you are using fairly large units in your campaign? 3-4k or larger infantry units? The allied units do not scale at all and their sizes are set for more vanilla sized armies. We haven't come up with a way to scale them based on the player units due to technical limitations, but there is a configuration option that lets you adjust them. In the AIConfigFile you can use the historicalNorthSizeMultiplier to increase the size of allied units. Hopefully the above provides some useful context and some options if you'd prefer the mod to function differently. If you have more questions please ask

Sizes of all unit types are now capped by AO. I thought I updated the displayed maxes everywhere. Can you share a screenshot of where the wrong size is still showing up?