pandakraut

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?

If you're familiar with any programming language disabling the magazine for the colt should be pretty easy. Use a program like dnspy to open up the assembly-csharp.dll. Then in Rebalance.Methods, edit the method WeaponMagazineEmpty and remove rifle_ColtRevolving54_RF from the return statement. Then in the hex you can copy the relevant stats from the sharps to the colt and then you'll have an infantry version again. Enabling the skirmisher weapon for infantry units instead of just repurposing an existing weapon would be more complicated.

The main reason it was removed is that we wanted to restore it to a longer ranged rifle to provide a mid tier sharpshooting option and match its historical usage more. We don't want infantry units to have access to weapons with more than 400 range, and it simplifies certain things behind the scenes, so it was removed from infantry. Many of the weapons featured never saw any large scale historical use. For a vague lore type explanation, it's kind of an alternate reality where those weapons got the backing or overcame their flaws to be used if the player spends the money to acquire them. The main justification is that we want to provide options for the player to progress their equipment later in the campaign. Allowing infantry to equip sharps as is would require some semi-complex changes to the dll. If you'd like to partially go back to how things were setup before, you can use the weapon files in the /mod/rebalance folder to rename and change the descriptions for an existing weapon that infantry can equip. It is not possible to add weapons currently. Changing the actual weapon stats would require hex editing. Normally I'd recommend copying the sharps stats over to the colt RR and renaming it, but the colt RR is currently setup as a magazine weapon and there is no way to alter that without dll changes currently. A guide to weapon editing can be found here https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26225-weapon-and-perk-modding-guide/

Assuming that the officers were wounded prior to the last day of a multiday battle then what you are describing is normal. Presumably you replaced the officers that were wounded in camp between days. This places the wounded officer into the reserve pool where it will get healed when the major battle ends. The officer wounded list is only compiled at the very end of the battle when each unit is looked at. The unit no longer has a wounded officer, so it doesn't make it into the list. I might have the details slightly off, if you go into camp the wounded officers might get moved to reserve even if you don't replace them manually. But generally that is what is going on.

Was the officer that was wounded and not displayed in the post battle report leading a unit that was shattered? Also, was the officer wounded on an earlier day on a multi-day battle? If an officer is wounded on day 1, and you play day 2, the days count as two separate major battles so officers will heal. When I had an officer wounded in a side battle on a unit that shattered they were not listed on the report but they did show up in the reserve as wounded. The not showing up on the battle report was probably introduced in 1.8 when shattered units started being returned to camp. Will fix it show they show up in the report when I have the chance, but as far as I can tell wounded officers are staying wounded as expected.

Ok, will take a look.

Sorry for missing your question until now. This sounds like the files didn't end up in the right place. The default steam path is C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Ultimate General Civil War\Ultimate General Civil War_Data\ This is commonly confused with Ultimate General Civil War\UGCWReporter_Data

Just to double check, you have the Customizations mod installed and not the J&P Rebalance mod? The J&P mod's recent versions had an issue around wounded officers(fixed in the latest version), but that functionality has never been changed for the Customizations mod.

All indications so far is that is not the case in this game.

You should have an email from xsolla that provides a steam key.

At Union Chancellorsville, only the first 3 corps are required, the 4th is optional. So you should be able to assign the first 3 and click start. However, if you are short an officer for whatever reason, there is a way forward. If no BG is present in the barracks/academy and you click on the create corps button, a new BG will get spawned that you can purchase to create the corps. This also works for Colonels and majors for divisions and brigades respectively.

You can dismiss them if you want, but there is no upkeep cost or anything like that.

We haven't changed any of the phases that occur at Chancellorsville. Both CSA corps arrive on the field on day 1 and you can win the battle on day 1 if you want in the base game as well. This behavior is mostly the same for the union though the spawn points have some minor differences. Timers in general are too long in the CSA campaign at the moment(probably some Union ones as well.) The new morale damage focus and the shatter/surrender at 0 morale system are working pretty well, but they do allow battles to wrap up much faster then when you had to grind every enemy unit down to 10-35% health and the extra time was needed. This will be adjusted in future versions. For now, consider holding back a bit if you're looking for battles to go into later days. We would like to experiment a bit more with battle adjustments in the future. Not sure how much is possible, but cleaning up spawn camping opportunities, adjusting timers, and perhaps randomizing spawn locations and timings so the player can't just memorize exactly what is coming are all things we are looking into. The big restriction with adding strategic choices is how to let the player input those choices. If we can make it work technically, it would certainly be a neat feature to add. Making the choice random, or dependent on winning/losing prior battles would work but would also force the player into some pretty undesirable gameplay loops to get the outcome they want. Could always make it optional I suppose, but still not really optimal.

Here is a recent video series that may help with cross keys or the leadup to it. The carbine cavalry have since been patched and won't be as insanely effective, but should still be quite good. Small brigade sizes are used so it should be a good comparison. https://youtu.be/PiA_8YGx0MA?list=PLF9w8nYzOAnya5tJqhlB0lYHl-LFC7m-m Video would definitely help with identifying the other issues if you run into them again.

Unit hp is stored as a decimal and depending on where rounding occurs you get these of by one errors. I recently made a change so that artillery units would allow the player to top off a missing man, but this unfortunately made the off by 1 instances more common in other places. I'll probably revert the artillery focused change in a future patch and see if a different fix is less disruptive. I'm not able to reproduce what you are describing. The numbers displayed in the armory matched the numbers when assigning a weapon to a unit. Are you sure you weren't seeing the Whitworth infantry rifle and mistaking it for the Whitworth TS? The infantry variant is shorter ranged and available in larger quantities than the skirmisher only variant. Or am I missing something here? It sounds like you are describing multiple issues here, but the wavering functionality has changed somewhat recently. In older versions when a unit hit the wavering morale threshold they would fire off a very quick volley and then retreat. This was done to prevent the base game abuse of AI units who would fire incredibly slow volleys when they started to waver allowing the player to potentially score a large amount of extra kills at very little cost. This has since been replaced with a new system where units will now fire longer volleys(firing sporadically) and the less experienced a unit is the longer the unit will be stuck. I'm unsure if you're describing a new issue with your comments on routing. There are some detached skirmisher bugs with infinitely routing units that can occur in multiphase battles when saving and loading, but that shouldn't be coming up on cross keys. If what I'm describing below doesn't sound like what you are seeing please let me know. In general, routing units try to rout to the area with the least enemy strength. If the unit is in melee and becomes intermixed with your unit, the shortest distance to an area with the fewest enemy units can be behind your line. Keeping reserves, artillery, or detached skirmishers behind your line reduces the chances of this happening. There isn't a lot that I can do about this unfortunately, though the shatter/surrender at 0 morale system has made it a lot easier to get rid of these units before they get through your lines. Have you tried out cavalry? They are extremely effective in the current version at getting rid of stray units. Thanks for the feedback and glad to hear you're enjoying the mod overall

Probably just have to be on MG difficulty then. I'm pretty sure I've seen people get the presidential ending there.

Did you skip, lose, or draw any battles? The endings are tied to some combination of difficulty and career points gained. If you're on legendary you can get the best ending text despite a campaign defeat if you lose late enough in the campaign for example.

1) Not that anyone has discovered yet. 2) As far as I can tell there the roads are purely cosmetic, the game does not provide a way to track if a unit is on a road vs a field.

1.27.4.2 Change log Bug Fixes - Detached skirmisher stats should now be correct after battle save/load. - Wounded officers should no longer appear in both the Academy and the Reserve after minor battles. 1.27.4.3 Changelog Bug Fixes - Fix bug with detached skirmishers not having a parent unit present. Skirmisher will now shatter after a short time if parent is missing. - Fixed issue around detached skirmishers that was decreasing performance. Balance Changes: - Volley duration increased for mounted units - AI infantry's rotation speed is doubled as if running. - Fix bug with cavalry rotation speed being higher than intended. - Mounted Infantry range increase now only applies when dismounted.