Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

dixiePig

Members2
  • Content Count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

dixiePig last won the day on November 9 2020

dixiePig had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About dixiePig

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.)
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Intriguing. Also consider taking the choice out of some of the chronology. Some battles might be forced on you by the AI. Saunders Farm after Chancellorsville is one such example, the pre-battle (Rufus King) before 2nd Bull Run is another. The 'forced' battles would most likely be defensive ones.
  7. Thanks for thorough and speedy response to my comment, PandaKraut. It's been a while since I played this far in the game. I agree that the most enjoyable & competitive battles are in '62, so forgot that this was how Chancellorsville works. Good luck with enabling Variations on a Theme: It will increase playability tremendously. Dependency on previous strategic actions would be a brilliant addition, but probably difficult to implement. Still enjoying mod 1.27.3d on MG mode, with a fair amount of value-setting in the tables which resonates with my understanding of historical fac
  8. Hi PandaKraut & Jonny Just completed Chancellorsville as Secesh: In previous versions it's a 2-3 phase battle. Day 1 is frontal attack by Lee. Day 2 is Jackson's flanking attack. Now, everybody appears on Day 1 and Lee is the only commander on the field. Far easier to overwhelm the Feds on day 1: Was able to take & hold Chancellorsville and it was all over. Massing for a frontal assault was fun - if brutal. But Jackson's flanking march is generally recognized as the brilliant piece of work which won the battle. Is this design change intentional? What's the
  9. 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. I was whining about this a while back. Inability to recognize or use roads (even tho river crossings are recognized) and inadequate troop marching forms are a couple of major fails in the original basic game.
  10. Gotcha. Perhaps include that info somewhere in the intro? - as it is a) new, b) non-standard and c) unexpected Can I also ask ... why? I would assume that tutorial battle is one time when player is entirely likely to want to pause&save. Playing v.12.73d on MG and enjoying it: 'Spoils of War" does not appear to be as punitive as before (BIG improvement), enemy is feisty, but not overwhelming. I've also capped across-the-board unit sizes at more-or-less 'historic' levels, which is how I like to play. Nice improvements!
  11. Just returned after giving Adishee's submod a trial. He's pursuing some intriguing concepts - interesting work in progress ... Have now downloaded v.1.27.3d and scanned the notes. Looks like some interesting stuff. Especially like your use of the opening splash to announce updates. But a question: It appears that I cannot SAVE mid-battle. Is this an artifact, a feature, Did I miss something?
  12. Here's hoping that it's not too much of a chore - It will really make a difference. But I thought you wanted to walk away from this for a while? As you know, I'm more concerned about units foolishly staying in a suicidal position because no-one has deliberately ordered them to NOT be dumb ... The most logical & realistic solution is "continue doing the last thing you were ordered to do ... until that order changes" i.e. If I told you to 'hold position" ... then just continue to do that if I told you to [Fallback] ... then fallback and fight. If the enemy presses ... the
  13. mmm ... sort of, but not really, imo. An officer already has a record, a reputation, and has likely been evaluated by previous supervisors, so it's not likely to be a blank slate - especially in the case of more senior officers. The surprise factor is interesting from a playability perspective, but is not necessarily historical. Viable option: display only a couple of attributes and/or an attribute might be re-evaluated after a battle - as you're already doing. Unfortunate. In my experience the senior officers (the guys commanding brigades and divisions) are the onew we know most
  14. Thanks for the generous comments and speedy response, @adishee Especially pleased that you found the 'cavalry independence' and status popups suggestions useful - and relatively easy to implement. Short answer: Yes, the regiment was the fundamental battle unit and its subcommander (usually a Colonel) was expected to act with some initiative. And common sense. Due to smoke, confusion, distance, and "other priorities" - the regimental commander was often required to interpret his (very rare) direct commands from the commanding general - and use his own best judgement in many, many sit
  15. Command Control (mechanics) centered on the commanding general is appropriate, though it results in a lot of running around - especially when you're trying to command a large army or a far-flung battlefield (like First Bull Run). The delay in receiving and executing orders by distant units is also appropriate and a good feature. However, The little popup boxes displaying orders status messaging in the upper left are merely annoying. They obscure the map. They are often redundant. They also often communicate non-events (i.e. "an order was not received by a di
×
×
  • Create New...