Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

dixiePig

Members2
  • Content Count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

dixiePig last won the day on November 9 2020

dixiePig had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

About dixiePig

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thanks. The dynamics of new version are an excellent improvement: Slower speed encourages more 'considered' play Units don't rout quite so quickly Less battle attrition (both you and enemy) = more realistic : more infantry-centric Game seems to value units supporting each other 'in line' Takes longer to wear them down, but more captured enemy units as a result Greater variety in 'spoils of war' Cycling units in order to rest those who are stressed is wise (good feature) Enemy acts more 'reasonably'- In previous versions they just attacked suicidal
  2. Cannot find " weaponRecoveryPercentage" among config files of v.1.27.3d Where is it?
  3. Thanks for clarification. Related questions: Is there any 'aura' effect even if friendly units are not within the CG's sphere-of-influence? Is it possible to direct the CG's aura towards specific units 'at risk'? My CG sometimes 'takes off/flees' in the middle of battle (proximity of enemies, I guess). Any way to deal with this? In a related vein: Even when the situation is hopeless, enemy units continue to fight - suicidally - until destroyed. Is there no "Bull Run Effect" (enemy flees the field en masse)? What's the trade-off between fighting to destroy the
  4. Is there any particular point or advantage in attacking the enemy commanding general/s? Is it unwise to place your commanding general/s at risk?
  5. Thanks for even considering the suggestions. As a professional 'usabilityGuy' for interactive systems for some decades, I realize that often superficial cosmetic stuff can often be tougher to implement... ' If some of the 'interesting ones' can be implemented without too much trouble, then I believe that they offer big playability bang-per-buck by implementing variety, rather than attempting to improve functionality Dumping a weak colonel in command of the dummyDivision is a classic kluge. Hey, it works. Thanks for the hint re 'hidden info' on brigade commanders: It's awk
  6. I just experienced it again: While constructing my Army in the Camp mode (which is, as you know, a big part of the game) ... I accidentally moused one unit onto another and they merged. Is there any way to un-do a unit merge? Much wasted time & effort. A nice-to-have: An experienced line officer is wounded I want to put him back into command (and regain the xp) when he is healed Is there any way to identify/link him to his 'home' unit? or do I need to take written notes Also: Is there any way to disband a division? I occasionally must create a
  7. I'm now at a point of familiarity with the game patterns that I'm starting to 'game' the game in anticipation of the pattern. I realize that it is not really possible to easily construct new battles. But, Hoping that it's possible to introduce a little variety within the current structure: Variable Government rewards Vary the size and profile of resources that I can spend reputation on dynamically over the course of the game (i.e. different weapons, larger and smaller amounts of weapons) A battle result might even trigger perks, the appearance of a leader, or a cache of wea
  8. When the game initially places your units in "the box" so that you can arrange them for battle, your brigades are 'jumbled': Generally a couple of brigades from the same division are placed together, but the other brigades from that division are on the other side of the box. And this is true of all your divisions. If you'd like to maintain divisional integrity, you have to do a bunch of petty re-arrangement. I gather that it is a minor glitch, but wouldn't it be nice (convenient and commonsensical) to have the units of a division grouped when you start the game? For some rea
  9. I hear ya, though it seems that most units arrive as part of a complete divisional or corps group. Perhaps the comparatively rare 'partial' arrivals could be reconciled through some math, with a little rounding error? I assume that the current version is already doing some of that math, since you can choose your number of brigades through the current AO. For example: I could maintain a 4-brigade divisions for quite a while by ignoring AO - or I could ramp up to 6-brigade divisions quickly by concentrating solely on AO. But I'll take a pass on both ... In any case: Would greatly
  10. That would be great addition, imo Sensible suggestion. I already limit enemy unit size somewhat in config - will just do more. "how small"? It's tempting to goRegimental - but that's just not a manageable game. Is it possible to make Order of Battle more conditional on a relationship between Total Number of troops : Unit Size (as set in config)? This would accommodate both the folks who want to GoBig and those who would rather have more smaller units If, for example, AO allows 6 Brigades in each division from the start, and a battle army size is determined by 'numbe
  11. thanks Don't know how much additional effort it is for you & Jonny, but I would certainly appreciate it. PS: Is it possible to set something like "Historic Mode" to trigger appropriate unit size ... and even Commanders? Unit Identity & cohesiveness : Seems to me that 'promoting' within a unit should also provide reward - esp. in Morale (i.e. A Brigade commander becomes Divisional commander within its same division - or a Brigade commander is moved to command another brigade within the same division) PK>Adding new battles or even adjusting the map boarders has
  12. What are the other advantages to retaining a commander/unit relationship? Perks faster? It's always tempting to try to trigger perks by playing XP musical chairs with commanders. Delighted to hear about 'next steps'. Happy to field test your CSA improvements, if you're so inclined. I see maps re-used in the existing game: Is it possible to add more smaller battles to the existing line-up? - These might be reandomly-generated or based on historical battles. Might even craft more historically accurate campaign sequences (i.e. Control of the Missisippi, The Cumberland, etc.)
  13. Hi guys. Am currently playing v.1.27.3d / MG / Confederate My army unit profile is 1K-1.3K Inf, 12 cannon Arty units, 250 - 600 Cavalry, 300-500 Skirmisher/Ranger Fairly balanced: Each division has 3 Inf, 2 Arty, 1 Cav or Ranger Modest INF & ARTY size means maximal perks & power for each unit w/ manageable enemy strength (imo) Spend all of my Government funds on Good Rifles (mostly Enfield for the CSA during '62 and '63) Do minimal 'command switching', so Commanders generally stay w/ units (if a wounded commander returns to his 'home' unit when healed, is ther
  14. Process: I now (after Chancellorsville) have a huuuuuge Barracks of 13 so-so/weakXP Colonels and a fairly complete army - so I don't really need them.. Is there any point in keeping them? Is there any advantage to getting rid of many of them? It seems to me that I will get more value by buying stronger officers from the Academy.
×
×
  • Create New...