pandakraut
-
Posts
2,005 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by pandakraut
-
-
A lot of the deployment amounts are holdovers from the base game where they are roughly based on the corps present historically. That's why you go from 5 corps at Antietam and Fredericksburg, back down to 2-3 corps until cold harbor as the CSA. They also have the 4 corps slots at Gaines Mill which has never been reasonable or useful to try to field.
-
The number of ai units does not change no matter what you do.
The size of ai units can change based on the size of your created units and the total number of men across all of your created units.
-
1
-
-
New union MG series from Gonzo:
-
10 hours ago, clench said:
And yeah, it's pretty ahistorical for the Union to launch such a coordinated assault on Stony Ridge. This is a battle the CSA won pretty much entirely based on the Union's incompetence and lack of good intelligence.
As part of the battle rework we duplicated player solutions to battles and potential alternative tactics in battles where possible. The goal was to limit the players ability to know exactly what the AI is going to do and provide more variety in battles since we can't actually add new ones.
In this case the flank attack is intentionally setup as an alternative history scenario where Porters ordered attack on the CSA flank was organized and executed well, with accommodations to make it actually effective in game. There is still a pretty large window on when Porter arrives, sometimes he won't show up until the last day.
10 hours ago, clench said:For me the battle is 68000 CSA vs 62000 Union, but because of how long it takes reinforcements to arrive it's like 22000 vs 62000. I'm not the best player I'm sure, but not the worst. Doesn't seem doable without doing some really cheese strats. Perhaps with army org high enough to get 25 units per corp, but 20 (21 with forrest) it's pretty impossible. The AI spawns practically on top of your right flank and fresh with like 12+ brigades.
The flank attack is definitely difficult to hold, but with some preparation it can be done. I didn't do anything fancy when beating it. Inflicted what casualties I could on day 1, setup on the ridge as normal with more of my forces deployed in the north to receive the initial attack. Once I detected that the flank attack scenario was happening I started shifting units to the south, stripping more and more as the attack in the north lost its ability to threaten my lines and my lines in the south got pushed back. I also had some cav and detached skirms harassing their artillery and supply wagons of their flanking column.
In preparation for this battle, I made sure to get up to 9 AO so I would have 25 units to defend the ridge. All of my points from Malvern Hill and the side battles were used for this. I also specifically invested more into my units in the corps used to defend the ridge than my reinforcing corps. More than half of my men deployed to the battle total were in my first corps. I only had a single unit in my third corps for an extra supply wagon. I had one 3* artillery unit, a dozen 2*s, and the rest almost entirely 1*.
If I were to replay it again, I would focus more of my effort on getting detached and cav into their rear as soon as I detect the flank attack. These would go after their infantry units more to knock them out of column formation and limit how many arrive at my line at the same time.
All of those units spawn on the map edge near the bottom left corner. While it does still happen in a few places, we avoid having any AI units spawn anywhere but the map edge to limit scenarios where the player can have units that get spawned on top of. The units also arrive in waves so you have chances to distract and string them out so that they don't all hit your line at once.
There is an issue on the last day where the player's third corps can spawn too far east and end up on top of AI units hanging out in the bottom left corner, will be addressing that in the next patch. One of the randomized scaling factors will also have its top end lowered a bit as it was causing larger than intended swings in AI size for some of the larger battles.
Some screenshots of my legendary playthrough from early versions of 1.28. In terms of battle mechanics would be harder to replicate now, but I also could have gotten my army into a better state than it was so I think that would mostly even out.
My line in the process of collapsing shortly before my reinforcements arrive.
Just before the end of the second day
End result
-
Yes, in the bottom left there will be a bar that says supply that will drop as the amount of supply in the wagon gets used up
-
There isn't a way to see the exact number in battle on the wagons. You can only see the bar of how close to empty it is.
There also isn't a way to refill the wagons from supply depot's unless you're using a mod that added that functionality.
-
A bug fix patch that will also include a config to hard cap the stat of AI units should be going into testing soon. Probably ready to release sometime in the next few weeks.
-
On 3/23/2023 at 9:05 AM, colonel1689 said:
Will the game have battle time limits and objectives to secure on the battlefield?
If so, did this impact gameplay in pervious titles?
Previous games were all relatively linear campaigns of historical battles where you maintained an army in between battles. The battles themselves had specific objectives and time limits to complete them within.
No information has been shown on how the local battles will work in terms of timers or objectives so far.
-
Did you end up increasing the base recovery rates? That combined with some investment in recon would result in recovering most of the cannons you capture or kill. From your allied units as well.
Especially with you not building many arty units and those being very small, you'll probably have a good amount of excess either way. Probably just need to sell the excess off.
-
11 hours ago, dixiePig said:
I prefer to play with much less ARTY in the campaigns of 1861 and 1862 because there were far fewer cannons in those earlier battles. UGCW still gifts me with a high number of cannons in the Spoils of War. Is there any way to adjust that gracefully?
Currently the only way to adjust weapon recovery is across the board for all weapon types. You're already capping the size of ai artillery units to smaller values? I would have thought that would have cut down the amount of cannons you recovered by quite a bit?
-
On 2/21/2023 at 2:18 PM, Aericles1775 said:
Playing on BG CSA and have been making quite a few changes in the common configs (the configfile.txt, AIconfigfile, configfile.csv, and one change in the unitModifiers.txt for the limber range.) I've found logistics isnt raising any of the weapon quantity values after Antietam. I only can get it to 4 to test, i've raised it to 3 and then did a battle just to see if it was behaving in a matter that only raises after battle and it still does not raise. The amount of supply to the wagon increases but no wpns.
Sorry for not responding earlier, I thought I wrote up a response but must have never posted it.
When increasing logistics were you testing against a side battle or a major battle? The armory stock only updates after major battles, so you would need to complete the next major battle to see that effect of logistics.
On 2/21/2023 at 2:18 PM, Aericles1775 said:Do speed perks have the side effect of keeping condition up for your soldiers during marching or running because they will reach their destination faster? I've made Stonewall Jackson all speed for the foot cavalry and i really don't notice it much on larger battles when compared to no speed perk MG's. The 2nd tier speed perk is noticeable on Skirm Cav for the rotation bonus which is excellent, i don't think i would ever take the 1st tier speed bonus over the others.
The speed perks don't directly affect condition, but since the unit moves faster it will reach its destination sooner resulting in less total condition lost to cross the same distance.
The t1 speed perk I tend to like on a 2nd or 3rd MG. This lets me take all accuracy perks on my infantry and still get some kind of speed bonus, but early in the campaign I prefer full damage perks on my general. Once my infantry has skilled up a bit and I have the t2 accuracy bonus from the general, then I can afford to not take the t1 damage.
On 2/21/2023 at 2:18 PM, Aericles1775 said:I'm playing BG and have been steadily raising AI stats once i've figured out the perk spread for success, i've raised AImulti to 1.40, AIscalingXPmulti to 1.40, and AIwpnmulti to 1.40 and while i notice my unit commanders dying a bit more and more losses i don't seem to see any more 2 or 3 star units on the field.
The experience scaling for the AI on BG has a fairly low base, so you need a pretty big multiplier in some battles. This is why I usually recommend starting on MG and lowering the multipliers a bit rather than starting from BG. But that doesn't help with an ongoing campaign. I'd just keep increasing the scalingxp multiplier until you start seeing more 2 and 3* units.
On 2/21/2023 at 2:18 PM, Aericles1775 said:Similar to question 2, what sort of configs would you recommend for achieving MG and Legendary level of hardness for a BG campaign? I like the idea of the harder AI but putting up the scaling so high really hampers the tactical maneuvering on smaller maps due to the sheer size of the AI.
The difficulty on MG/Legendary partially comes from getting less resources which can't be replicated through the configs currently. You also end up facing more experienced and larger units early on, so it makes it a lot harder to get your army rolling. I don't have a good feel for what values get you up to legendary values from BG, but I've heard of people using values as high as 1.8 at times to try to get a challenge on BG. Restarting on MG and using the configs to adjust down a bit is probably the best option here without a lot of trial and error.
On 2/21/2023 at 2:18 PM, Aericles1775 said:Does the 3rd tier Commander +25% xp make a noticeable difference on say a 2nd lvl vet? I think it would be great for a melee heavy strategy with medicine to send green troops into the meat grinder nice and cost effective but i used for a major battle compared to another save and didn't see a huge difference. (granted its hard to replicate the same conditions.)
This sort of thing is definitely hard to test. The higher a stat the more kills/movement/time/reloads respectively you need to increase the stat again, so 2* units progression will be a lot slower than newer units. This is pretty much always my first t3 perk choice. Cover is also very nice as less losses preserves the xp you gain more.
-
Sounds like a unit's central point got out of sync with its sprites. Can happen rarely. Shouldn't have anything to do with varianceMode, all of its impacts occur when setting up battles and spawning units.
-
On 3/14/2023 at 1:56 PM, dixiePig said:
Why is there no artilleryMinSize value in the configFile?
There wasn't a need to increase the minimum size like was done for the other unit types, so I didn't go to the effort of adding in the extra value.
On 3/11/2023 at 4:02 PM, dixiePig said:Apparently the ugcw engine is incapable of 'mirroring' my xp level on 2ndBR, even tho it does so adequately on other battles preceding 2ndBR.
There is no mirroring that happens in terms of enemy unit XP. Size is the only value of the AI units that adjust based on the players units.
On 3/11/2023 at 4:02 PM, dixiePig said:- JV> So ... varianceMode is currently enabled in my setup. If I set varianceMode, false then the sizeIncrease, .8 attribute will actually be enabled ... ? BTW: What does varianceMode do/mean?
- And setting historicalNorthSizeMultiplier, .9 has no effect whatsoever, because (in this instance) only AIscalingSizeMultiplier, .8 is recognized
These are three different modifiers to size that were intended for three different scenarios. SizeIncrease was intended for testing purposes where all AI units were split and works outside of the randomized system used by the campaign.
The historical multiplier was intended for use in custom battles, but happened to work in the campaign by accident. It has been left unchanged since it can be useful for adjusting the size of allied units.
Size multiplier was intended to be used in the campaign as part of the scaling calculation. Using more than one of these in combination with each other will just stack the multiplier assuming the options all apply. So instead of using .9 for one and .8 for another just set the scalingsizemultiplier .85 or whatever the desired value is.
VarianceMode originally referred to the system that added extra randomness in the form of ai units splitting and/or changing their weapons/size/XP. It encompasses a bit more than that overall these days, so I'd recommend adjusting the individual probabilities if you don't want them to occur rather than turning variance off. Since the other multipliers are available there's no need to disable it to use sizeIncrease.
We did consider a more complex veteran system tied to specific units, but ended up deciding against it due to the added complexity and the limitations of what we could accomplish within the games existing UI.
-
1
-
1. 25% to each enemy unit. Usually this means that a single unit gets wrecked by 2 weaker units rather than the one monster beating up 5 though.
2. I would trust the game over the graph, though I'd have to go check to confirm.
3. Size doesn't matter if all other factors are equal
4. re-attachment(automatically occurs at the end of battle)
5. I think it's an average of some kind. I took a quick look but it wasn't obvious how this is working.
6. Not sure, would depend on difficulty. Shiloh or Gaines Mill with only 1 AO likely, though you can certainly get through with less than the max overall.
-
On 3/4/2023 at 2:53 PM, dixiePig said:
I tried 2ndBR several times with the settings I described, and found that AI still had outrageously high XP. Really can't get past it.
I checked and even on legendary usually only about 9-10 units are 3* out of ~ 55. A lof of the rest are 1 with some 2.
On 3/4/2023 at 2:53 PM, dixiePig said:Yes, if Porter attacks in North or Center, it is slightly more manageable. The attack from South Flank is impossible (esp with high AI xp - and the lack of fortification.
The flank attack is nasty, definitely need to try to break up and delay the middle to rear parts of the column to buy yourself time. I ended up pushed all the way back to the VP, just have to keep reforming a concave and trying to make sure they are focusing their fire on units in the trees while your units in the open on the flanks get in shots. On my test run through the campaign I did make sure to play against that version, so it has been done.
Only one 2* unit is likely part of the problem. Should be aiming for closer to 5-10 by that point with nearly everything else 1*. If you're limited on resources, focus on building up that first corps more than filling out the 2nd or 3rd. By the time your reinforcing corps arrive it's just mop up, so they don't need to be all that strong.
FYI the sizeIncrease doesn't apply when varianceMode is enabled. While historicalNorthSizeMultiplier and AIscalingSizeMultiplier do stack, there's no real benefit from doing so. Can just use the scalingMultiplier value for adjusting the AI.
I will add a note to try to add some kind of AI stat cap option into the configs so that units which have hundreds in stats on higher difficulties(no additional benefit above 100) can actually have their stats/perks reduced. This would let you cap the number of *s by year similar to what you're doing with AO.
-
On 2/21/2023 at 2:58 PM, dixiePig said:
Any observations or insights?
- Perhaps the game engine is not dealing gracefully with my adjustments to limitations on ARTY and CAV in configFiles?
I don't think dropping the sizes on either of these should affect too much. Smaller cav limits their use as a fire brigade rushing up and down your line to deal with charges and pressure a little, but should still be functional.
Similarly arty should work on even if you're only using fairly small units. Most of mine were only at 8 in this battle.
Did you end up changing the amount of brigades per division? While it can be done with less, not having the full 25 units in your 1st corps makes 2nd bull run a lot harder for the CSA. Just hard to hold that length of line for that long as is.
I'm not sure why the experience is that high with you reducing it and on a lower difficulty, but those numbers are largely carried over from the base game. On legendary it's common enough I didn't think twice about it.
The battle plays out fairly differently now depending on when porter shows up(he can delay till the third day) and if the big flank attack happens instead of the center push.
Its very important to have some scouts out to know where they are going to push from so you can adjust your line accordingly. If you get the flank you'll want to either push hard to wrap up the units in the north. Or start siphoning off units to the south until you're at the the bare minimum up north. You'll also want to try to get some detached skirms and cav into the middle of the flanking column to slow up and distract them before they can all slam into your line at once. You want the let the first few units pass so you can start taking them out.
If you get the center attack it's a little more normal, just keep intercepting units as they move up, try to clear artillery and focus charges as they come in. I usually start in the fortifications and gradually draw back towards the trees on the ridge. This tends to string out the ai so you can get more time on their artillery. I usually have some strong rifled artillery brigades by the point, if you don't then the enemy artillery will probably just have to be suffered if you can't get it before it gets near your line.
-
On 2/20/2023 at 8:38 PM, UG CW Enjoyer said:
Are there comparable files for the skirmisher and cavalry weapons? I have seen broken/deleted links for them. I really would like to observe the peculiar damage falloff of the J.F. Brown sniper rifle in particular.
This thread should still have working links to skirmisher and cavalry spreadsheets https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26142-hidden-mechanics-and-weapon-damage-degradation/
On 2/20/2023 at 8:38 PM, UG CW Enjoyer said:Brigades change with unit size in several aspects aside from volley damage. The size of their firing lines increase, they rotate more slowly, reorganize firing lines more slowly, they have more difficulty moving through city buildings and across bridges, and I suspect some other differences. I notice that their physical size increases have thresholds, such as infantry splitting into two lines at somewhere over 1500. Is there specific data on how these all these values change? Is there a list of all the differences? Interactions with terrain?
The rotation rate value doesn't actually decrease, just more sprites that have to travel further. Same with crossing terrain, just more sprites that have to cross. Every sprite of a unit in contact with a specific type of terrain applies a percentage of that terrains effects on the unit. This is why you can see a unit that is half in water, half in heavy forest with a relatively decent cover value.
These values are all in the game code and assets, but I don't have them listed out anywhere.
On 2/20/2023 at 8:38 PM, UG CW Enjoyer said:-
Is there a chart for that lists the specific reload speed times/percentages for each weapon? Is fire rate simply reload speed?
-
The reload speed is just the fire rate stat. The displayed value isn't the same as the actual value in the hex if you go looking, but all weapons receive the same modifier to convert them into display values so there isn't really anything hidden there.
Basically 100 fire rate = 1 round per minute. 50 fire rate = .5 rounds per minute. I think, I always get the fire rate formula confused. Higher value = better.
In the thread I linked above some other players have done some analysis that links average damage with fire rate. I don't think that leads to useful data myself though as it makes high fire rate weapons look much better than they actually tend to be in game. Though it does somewhat depend on playstyle.
On 2/20/2023 at 8:38 PM, UG CW Enjoyer said:How does enemy weapon scaling work in campaign? Do they only scale from your equipped weapons? Do they scale from weapons equipped on corps that are not deployed? How much do they scale? Are there thresholds? Is there a list of the weapons they can scale to by each grand battle? Why does their armory quality percentage even exist if they scale to what the player has already?
There is no AI weapon scaling based on the player weapons in game anymore. That used to exist in previous versions but was removed. I wasn't playing when that existed, so I don't have any details on how it used to work beyond various horror stories about play patterns and exploits it lead to.
Each AI unit has a default weapon assigned to it for each battle. This is then modified by the armory quality percentage and the cross battle modifier if the battle happens to have one. The modified value is then checked against a list of weapons to see if it should be upgraded or downgraded. This list is considerably smaller than the full list shown in the store.
So if you keep the weapons value down(lots of kills and captures) you can reduce the quality of the AI weapons to some extent. If you don't, or if they get multiple veteran reinforcements or a weapons delivery, you can see a spike in the AI weapons quality. This tends to happen more on MG or Legendary where the armory quality percentage goes a lot higher than other difficulties. You'll see a higher progression on those difficulties even if you full clear every map for example.
-
1
-
-
On 1/31/2022 at 2:32 PM, GFletcher said:
pandakraut, you probably didn't notice this question, I have the same one, can you comment?
Apologies for missing this as well. Probably far too late but in case anyone else has the same question. The values from the base game for these config options are as follows:
fireAtWillMin, 5.1
fireAtWillMax, 97
These two values apply to how long a volley takes for a unit with wavering morale. When a wavering unit attempts to fire the volley can take anywhere from 5 times to 97 times as long as normal. This is why you will see units getting stuck in place with a flashing shield icon while an occasional man fires every once in a while.
moralemeleewavering, .7
moralemeleerouting, .7
-
11 hours ago, dixiePig said:
Is it possible to set the fallback parameters - as a commander would - when ordering a fallback, just as you would for forward movement (i.e. "Fall Back to here.")?
Fallback uses very basic logic to try to go directly away from the largest concentration of enemy units. This only takes units into account, objectives, map edges, etc are not considered. This can result in undesired directions depending on where enemy units are at. Fallback isn't really special in terms of movement other than keeping facing and being somewhat automated. If you oblique move the direction you want to fallback and set the unit to run you can effectively replicate falling back wherever you want with a bit of extra micro.
Updating the pathing logic is likely beyond me.
Units on fallback will retreat for a set period of time. There is a fallbackDuration in the unitmodifiers file that might allow you to adjust how long a unit retreats. I've never tried updating it so it may or may not work as expected as it could be overriden or adjusted elsewhere in the code.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, statesrights said:
Hi Pandakraut - I am trying to install your UIAI customization mod 1.9 into to base game (GOG download). I'm having real trouble. When I unzip your file, it has a "managed folder" with the sharp file. I replace that one. Then the game fails to load -- it just holds up on the "Loading" screen.
What I'm I doing wrong? Thanks
There should also be a resources.assets file and a mod folder that go into the ultimate general civil war_data directory. What you're describing sounds like you got the sharp file into the right place but not the mod folder.
-
On 2/9/2023 at 6:53 PM, Aericles1775 said:
1. Are the first tier perks global? Strategy makes distinction between arty and inf. Tactics with a +25% charge implies Inf by the picture and following the tree down makes sense. Trainer with the 15% to speed does it apply to horse, or globally?
2. Are any of the 2nd tier perks arty/inf/cav specific as well?
3. 3rd tier - In vanilla the perk only applies to the area the commanders AO, is that the case with JnP mod as well?
Tier 1 and 2 perks apply to all units in a corps regardless of position or type.
Tier 3 perks apply to all friendly units within the generals radius, even if they belong to another corps. The tooltip has an aura tag to try to indicate this.
Glad to hear you're enjoying the mod, if you have more questions just ask
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, dixiePig said:
I am now fairly successful in managing the size of my units and AI units over the course of the early campaigns. It appears that my configFile editing does not affect the size of my allied units. How can I downsize them?
In the AIConfigFile you can use these fields
historicalNorthAddStat, 0
historicalSouthAddStat, 0
historicalNorthSizeMultiplier, 1
historicalSouthSizeMultiplier, 1
These were originally intended for use modifying the custom battles as the normal config options in the campaign only apply during scaling which doesn't happen for the custom battles. It turns out they worked in the campaign as well and I've never gotten around to locking them down.
If you're playing as the Union just set historicalNorthSizeMultiplier to something like .5 and all your allied units will be half their normal size. Existing minimum sizes for split units may override this.
4 hours ago, dixiePig said:The unitModifiers in the configFile are a little esoteric, but I get the trend.
The unitModifiers file was an early move of a ton of unit properties into a text file so we could experiment with them easier. The majority of the values didn't end up changing. The AIConfigFile and configFile are where we've added new values that modify various behaviors.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, dixiePig said:
Does TRAINING have any impact on XP advancement?
No, it does not increase the rate at which units gain stats which determines how much xp they gain. What it does is improve the stats of the recruits, non-deployed units, and veterans(if their stats are low enough and they are sitting in the pool between battles) after battles. This means that the units stats will drop less when you add recruits to it.
Medicine also becomes fairly important when trying to maintain 2 and 3 * units. It will both return more casualties to your units and increase the amount that recover into veterans. This tends to be something that gets invested into mid to late campaign as it's not as useful when most of your army has the stats of starting recruits and poor weapons.
17 hours ago, dixiePig said:Is there any way to affect xp development in the configFiles?
Yes, in the unitModifiers file towards the bottom
killsPerEffectivity,225
killsPerMelee,75
movePerStamina,1300
shootPerFirearms,7
timePerMorale,2900For comparison the values used in the base game
killsPerEffectivity, 150
killsPerMelee, 25
movePerStamina, 1000
shootPerFirearms, 5
timePerMorale, 180017 hours ago, dixiePig said:This is frustratingly slow and reeks of 'gaming the system'. Apparently, XP advances only modestly through battle. I have no 2* units by 2nd Bull Run, even tho several of my units have been very effective at killing the enemy. I am coming to the conclusion that an army of competent 1* units works just fine (and it does) - esp. since the AI remains fairly symmetrical.
XP progression is intended to be slower. It was faster than we desired in the previous version between the amount of xp that could be farmed due to easy battles, long timers, instant affect of training on stats, and full conversion of recruits into veterans. The intention was that 1* units were around the same difficulty to acquire, but 2 and 3 * units would be harder to maintain and acquire.
Without seeing the steps its hard to say what, but it seems like either you've had terrible luck with officer deaths, something is being overlooked on the field or in camp, or you are building very broad if you have no 2* units by 2nd bull run. For comparison I had ten 2* units and one 3* by that point. Starting with 4 points in training and moving to 6 by that battle. This wasn't some super optimized campaign, just accepting decent results and progressing as fast as possible to be able to test more battles, but it was also played on early versions of 1.28 so some mechanics have changed since then as well.
my recruit stats are 20, 25, 25, 25 25
veteran stats are 30, 44, 50, 44, 3117 hours ago, dixiePig said:imo, XP Advancement should be a function of battle experience, leadership, and success. I really don't see that happening with my troops. What am I missing? note: Just completed Stay Alert. My more seasoned, stronger-xp units performed well : Their xp remained essentially the same. Attempting to advance them is apparently not worth the effort and overhead.
Post Stay Alert into Shiloh isn't a great spot to compare xp because I'm shifting the majority of my officers around when expanding my army. That was largely my goal leading up to Shiloh, train up my units and officer corps enough so that my best officers could move on to new units to get them to 1* while their old units would be experienced enough to retain their star while under the command of a new officer. Could also easily just keep all those officers where they are and go in with more 0* units if preferred.
But here is what my xp progression looked like for each unit in my army from Ambush Convoy to Shiloh:
Pre-Ambush Convoy
68, 31, 54, 73
4, 3, 33, 42
4, 1, 1, 1Post Ambush Convoy
81, 48, 72, 85
19, 19, 46, 55
24, 22, 13, 12Pre-Stay Alert
68, 28, 69, 85, 82
11, 12, 45, 55
24, 19, 13, 12Post Stay Alert
86, 53, 82, 99, 95
31, 28, 59, 71
47, 36, 34, 25Pre-Shiloh
75, 32, 41*, 99, 7*(displayed xp restarts at 0 when moving from just under 1* to just over)
6*, 1*, 27*, 9* *
1*, 1*, 1*, 1** indicates an officer was swapped out.
The two starting infantry units in the top left don't make much progress because I'm focused on adding veterans to other units under the goal of fielding all 1* units at Shiloh. In the battles leading up to Gaines Mill I would regret not focusing on them a little more at some point as it would have been very useful to get them to 2* sooner. They were still 2* by Gaines Mill. I fielded three infantry and 2 artillery that were 2* in that battle.
Merging units in camp can also be a useful tool for maintaining xp. It's not my first choice, but if two of my more experienced units get ground down it can be better to merge them instead of dumping a bunch of recruits into them to get them back up to full strength.
-
1
-
-
@Rubinfan Watched some of your latest stream. Interesting setup with the 2 cav and immediate retreat at 1st bull run. That has the downside of delaying Jackson. If you hold the stone bridge VP for most of the phase Jackson will arrive almost immediately in the 2nd phase. I usually hold the bridge until the last 15-30 minutes and start pulling back across the river at that point.
Edit: after watching more you came to the same conclusion
Union side. if u capture all 3 objectives on the first day
in General Discussions
Posted
It hasn't worked every time I've tried it, but I've seen other people say it does. I'd rather just play the battle out for more kills either way.