Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

dixiePig

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About dixiePig

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. nice. I believe that deals with my whine about spoils of war anything re 'toughness" or "aggressiveness"? and ... when is next version?
  2. pandakraut: I enjoy some of the more challenging play dynamic in MG-level play, but really don't like the penalties in terms of Spoils of War. I'd like to keep the 20% recovery rate and still make the AI a tougher opponent. Is there any way to make the AI more challenging thru the config/unitModifier files? It seems that adjusting the attributes affect both sides equally.
  3. Been a while, but it's 2020 now, so I'll chime back in with my favorite rants: The 'colonels-take-forever-to-advance-to-BG" issue continues to be a topic. Here's hoping that gets solved in the new year. Pandakraut's advice as to 'how to improve the odds of advancement' is sound (I use some of the same techniques - esp. of 'musical chairs' commanders - to power-up borderline units). But it still involves gaming the system rather than playing the game. While I enjoy the ability to manage my army, the dynamics are sometimes obsessive and artificial. Aside: Mightn't there be also some positive value to a unit in having the continuity of a trusted commander in place for a while? Speaking of 'unique qualities' of command officers: Wouldn't it be nice if officers actually had 'leadership qualities'? i.e. "Attack +1" or "Defense +2" ? Currently, purchasable and recruit-able officers have an abstract value (based on price), but that's about it. For example: When I am prepping for a tough defensive battle, I would like to put appropriate commanders in place. Historically, of course, we know that certain commanders had particular strengths - and weaknesses. Wouldn't it be nice to echo that? Currently, the only way you can influence an officer's capabilities is at the level of Corps Commander, through the investment of the occasional advancement perk. Ranger/Snipers continue to be an annoyance: They're historically/realistically just not that significant, yet they now dominate the mod gameplay - on both sides: Ranger/Snipers have clearly become a predominant tactical 'method' for a player and the AI almost always has a disproportionate number of those units, as well, which affects gameplay. Not in a good way. It just wasn't so. Perhaps some folks will argue that it makes for a better game (I don't). But the name of that game is not "Civil War". Don't want to be a naggy historical stickler, but I hope you can come up with a mod version that returns UGCW to a game that more accurately reflects the strategy and tactics of that time. Spoils of War (recovered and captured weapons) continues to be problematic. The 30-20-10% recovery rate is awkwardly disproportionate : 20% is 1/3 less than 30%, but 10% is 1/2 less than 20% (btw: Does anyone ever play the easiest level of UGCW?) A 50% hit in recovered resources is pretty heavy. It means a totally different strategy for dealing with Career advancements - You now need to buy lots more weapons, even after destroying an entire army. Battle to the Death : The enemy army remains in the field until the bitter end - even when it has been totally decimated. I know that you're working on routing and shattering behaviors and hope you come up with solutions soon. Campaign play: Early battles provide major disproportionate Spoils of War (SOW) perks: Bull Run and Shiloh both give you SOW for allied armies that are more than twice the size of your army. Ditto for River Fort, Newport News, and even Ambush. I agree that the battles in the Final Campaign tend to be less challenging and interesting, but that's an issue with the base game. I enjoy the mod for the many improvements you've engineered into it. Good luck in the new year.
  4. I'm going to post this comment again because - with all due respect - the answer provided is not really justified. I have seen very rapid advancement for junior officers ... up to the rank of Colonel. However ... There appears to be some sort of threshold that is unique to the rank of BG. The rate of advancement flattens noticeably once an officer reaches the rank of Colonel. They just can't get to the next level. Even after many, many, many battles. Several of us have commented on/complained about this. We aren't mistaken. We aren't stupid. We are providing you with good information which is based on field-tested experience. Clearly, the xp gain dynamics you describe just aren't working the way they're supposed to. Even if they did, there's little value in such contrived methods: They're historically inaccurate. They're awkward. They're counter-intuitive. Most of all: They really just don't work. (To imply that we just aren't playing the game utilizing correct "methods" is not a wise response. "Gaming the system" is not a solution.) I can only observe that I do not remember there being such a barrier-to-advancement-to-the-rank-of-BG in the legacy/base game. Something happened. Possible stopgap solution: If I remember correctly, the legacy/base game offers up purchasable officers under "Government" who are often already at the default rank of Brigadier General. Make them BG rank again and we may have a temporary solution to this problem. And it is a problem. You have our support as you attempt to fix something which is now a problem. We appreciate what you and Jonny have already accomplished without - I assume - much help from the originators.
  5. Have enjoyed many of your modifications, questioned some others (s.a.sharpshooters-labeled-as-'skirmishers'). Access to the config files is helpful. But am also experiencing some limitations, which may be 'hard-coded' into the base game, but I'd like to customize them, if possible. Is there any way to adjust the "spoils of war" (percentages of recovered weapons after a battle)? I'd like to fight a more challenging enemy, but don't believe that "spoils of war" should change radically. Also - there are special cases: If I capture an enemy unit outright, then imo ALL of their weapons should be "spoils of war". What are the dynamics underlying how ugcw handles the Easy/Moderate/Hard/Legendary game levels? Can any of those values be adjusted by fiddling with the config tables? If so - then which attributes? Is it possible to selectively adjust compensation levels? For example: After certain battles, you are sometimes awarded a "free'" senior officer, sometimes with troops (like Forrest/CSA). Is it possible for me to customize that in any way - or is it all baked into the game engine? yep. Any solutions on that front yet? I especially like your solution for the automatic replacement of officers lost in combat
  6. Glad to see that this set of issues is being recognized. Let's re-visit some essential issues: The dedicated Army units which ugcw labels as "Skirmishers" are largely a historical fiction. There were no (as in zero) independent units in the IRL Civil War which were labeled as Skirmishers. Google "civil war skirmishers" ... It's obvious Historically, skirmishers were what the legacy ugcw features as "detached skirmishers". Again : Google "civil war skirmishers". They were meant to screen, reconnoiter, harass and delay. https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-art-of-skirmishing.136888/ Historically, there were also a very, very few small, exotic "Sharpshooter" and Ranger-type units who were great shots with great rifles. But these units were rare and never had any real impact on any battle. Clearly the dedicated ugcw Battle units labeled as "Skirmishers" have gotten out of hand in the Rebalance and need to be scaled back. A lot. They are so unrealistically out-of-balance that players are now using them as souped-up Assault Teams. Here are a few suggestions: Re- label the dedicated, elite ugcw "Skirmishers" Battle units something more historically realistic, like "Sharpshooters" Re-activate IRL detached Skirmishers as a feature of any infantry unit. Refer to them as such. There will be no further naming confusion as a result. Detached skirmishers can perform auxiliary screening and harassment roles, but cannot be successfully misused as Sharpshooter units currently are in the rebalance. Sharpshooter units are expensive, rare, and perform a limited role - which is far less effective than the over-powered current rebalance version. In practical terms, they might be reduced to vanity "prize" units which are awarded at the end of a big battle (like Forrest's Cavalry) or purchased under the Government button. They shouldn't be the focus of artificial army-building.
  7. My experience is that 'below-Colonel' officers promote overly quickly. Put a Lt. Col or a Major in command of a unit (even a fairly veteran unit) and they will probably be promoted at the end of a single battle. Colonels - tho. Nope, that's just a wall. Doesn't matter whether the unit they command is rookie or veteran; they just won't advance. Period. Don't know what it was you guys did in order to cause this glitch, but I sincerely hope you will fix it. It's not absolutely horrible, but it's certainly annoying. Don't know if the issue lies with the original ugcw engine, but this imbalance wasn't a problem in the legacy game. Footnote: Slower advancement when commanding a more veteran unit is counter-intuitive and a-historical. A more veteran unit simply performs better than a less-veteran unit, as does a more veteran commander. Even in the Civil War, performance could - as it should - beget advancement.
  8. Thanks for providing context for these critical values, pandakraut It may seem like busywork, but I have added these definitions to my version of the table. The critical framing info = "unit stat gain values" Some other values are seemingly self-evident, but context (i.e. how they effect the game engine) is really helpful I'm sure that you have plenty on your plate, but a 'glossary' for the terms in the table (not just definition but also context) would be tremendously helpful. Value -added: Aficionados fine-tuning the values in their own versions of the game gives you a testing base which might actually provide some insights and solutions for thornier issues.
  9. Do the UnitModifiersOriginalValues and UnitModifiers files interact in the mod - or does one simply replace the other? If only one is valid - which one is it?
  10. If I haven't mentioned it before, I would recommend taking a look at the UnitModifiersOriginalValues file. "unit stat gain values" = what are these?
  11. We agree that xp growth in the base game is outrageously fast. However, adjusting it to outrageously slow is hardly a solution. One reason I play games which claim to be historically based is in order to enjoy some historical conditions and behaviors. I'm also well aware that it's always possible to 'game' most any game by exploiting features of the automated rules. From what I see in the descriptions offered by other players here: winning techniques for your mod often have little correlation with historical conditions or events. No blame: It's just an observation. And a fairly accurate one. My choice to - as you say - "actively ignore" the artificial conditions that you have engineered into your very entertaining mod is probably less deliberate than you imagine. I play pretty much the same way as I did the base game, with the results that I've shared with you here. My hope was that you'd accept the information gracefully. You appear to be more invested in informing me that I'm somehow playing the game wrong. I'll take a pass on that, thanks. The short response to that would be "not really". I've experienced more than a few enemy units which survive multiple volleys from flanking units. By the Civil War, all artillery was horse-drawn. Even if not "horse artillery" (where every artillerist was mounted), an artillery unit still moved at least as fast as - if not faster than - a marching infantry unit. Good luck in fixing your mod.
  12. What impact does capturing enemy supply have? It is useful to disrupt and deprive enemy of their supply in battle (which the ai manages rather stupidly - the wagons often march directly into harm's way) Captured Supply is listed among my 'spoils of war', Yet I see no net result in my army supply after the battle ...?
  13. Is there any way for me as a player to adjust these values? - other than by selecting easy/moderate/hard levels? From what I see in threads here, no one really uses the easy level. It appears that moderate and hard are the only practical options.
  14. Am spending time with config files: surprised to see that brigadeOfficerExperienceMultiplier was set exceptionally low at 0.8 - no wonder there was no advancement at Colonel level Have also upped artilleryCanisterImpact because ... history & common sense surprised to see nearbyUnitsMoraleRegenBonus set so low : "“There stands Jackson like a stone wall!" (1st Bull Run) is not an isolated example curious to see modest number on attackFactorFlanks - This was devastating, both psychologically and in terms of damage on units massed in line formation Have scratched my head at sludge-like slowness of artillery units. They move far more slowly than marching infantry - yet they were overwhelmingly horse-drawn units by the time of the Civil war. Is there a justification for the low level of mediumArtillerySpeedMultiplier? If anything, they should move far more quickly than infantry units.
×
×
  • Create New...