dixiePig

Things That Are Not Wonderful in the New Version : ARMY ORGANIZATION As CSA, You need to be at AO Level: 2 in order to fight 1stBull Run (8 units) But You need to be at AO Level: 4 in order to fight the next battles Ambush Convoy (12 units) and Stay Alert (13 units) Because AO Level: 3 only gives you another Corps which adds nothing of value and is ... utterly useless SOLUTIONS: AO Level: 3 gives you another Division (1 Corps / 3 Divisions / 4 Brigades : 12 units) AO Level: 4 gives you another Brigade (1 Corps / 3 Divisions / 5 Brigades : 15 units) AO Level: 5 gives you another Division (1 Corps / 4 Divisions / 5 Brigades : 20 units) In this way you can actually fight the early battles with maximum number of units available Okay, so you still have to spend most of your CAREER points on AO, but at least you can have a reasonably configured army. By the time you reach battle #10, Gaines Mill, which is the first time you actually need and can use a 2nd Corps, you will have been able to build a reasonable force. As I've posted before, The AO Thing is a problem which is poorly handled in the legacy version of UGCW - and hasn't really been improved or fixed in the current update. "Army re-Organization" was a very real issue in the Civil War and resulted in interesting changes to army structure and the tactics of that time - especially during the first year-and-a-half of the war (which is also when the most interesting and competitive battles happen in UGCW). There was more to it than just 'you can have more & bigger units.' I realize that it's tough to mod the base game in order to accomplish some improvements, but I will be posting on some of my 'fixes' and techniques - mostly involving configFiles - in the near future. PK and Johny have managed to make a much better game within the limitations of the old one.

Is there any way, when you are in-battle, to identify what level you are playing at? (COL/ BG/ MG) The Kluge: Save the battle [Restart] the battle Go to [Camp] View/mouseOver the icon above your Army Commander in upper left of the screen Reload the battle ** CONFIRMED by PK **

Hi Keith - I'm still trying to get a handle on the current mod, so will hold off on any comments on that for now. PandaKraut has offfered some observations about 'best practices' (i.e. rest your troops, use cavalry to harrass and pick off weakened units, etc.) and I agree with most of them. I'll try to write something useful in the near future.

PK> The stats adjustment has fixed the issue that concerns me most; the imbalance of stats in major battles. FYI: -15 on historicalAddStat(them) and +5 on historicalAddStat(me) made for a less imbalanced battle, imo: my allies mostly had 1* (tho almost all of their 0* were ARTY ...?) The enemy AI still had significant stat advantage (mostly 2*), but it was less outrageous: playable & winnable Thanks so much for the guidance. This makes it possible to deal with the mismatch in major battles while still enjoying the new features you've added. I will be fine-tuning the adjustments over time. I already have multiple sets of configfiles to customize for the rapid historical changes in size and application of ARTY and CAV units during the first 2 years of the war. This technique allows for even more control when crafting battle profiles.

Thanks, PK. Those complex non-intuuitive distinctions are now in a more manageable context. I shall try the "-50" modification. By way of context; What is the realm for stats (i.e. "That's -50 out of 200 at 1stBR" or "You start with 100 and usually gain about [x] in minor battles and [y] in major battles. ") Is there an absolute threshhold?

Sorry - does not compute. The default aiconfig file value is "historicalSouthSizeMultiplier, 1". Are you saying that the default state is that all southern ai unit's stats are increased by a full point? Both historicalSouthSizeMultiplier and AIscalingSizeMultiplier are labeled as 'multipliers', though you say that the historical values are actually additive. I think you can see how that labeling might be confusing. Perhaps a disclaimer somewhere... in the config file guide? My underlying challenge is this: How does one reduce the stats on all enemy AI units? (since we know that the ai enemy units are artificailly too strong in the major battles of the mod). PK> aiScalingsizeMultiplier and historicalsouthsizemultplier both change the size of ai units when playing union bull run. There is no need to use both of them. JV>By its label aiScalingsizeMultiplier should change the size of all ai units (both enemy and allied). By its label historicalsouthsizemultplier should change the size of only southern ai units no? JV>The problem is that - even when I change the values in the configfiles - I'm seeing no appreciable change in the stats of enemy ai troops (or even among ai allied units). Thanks again for your speedy response.

Thanks for the speedy response. PK>Just double checked this and those values are not affecting allied units. Okay. Do they (AIscalingSizeMultiplier and AIscalingExperienceMultiplier) affect anything? (Should they be removed from aiconfing file?) PK>The historical north/south would apply to allied units though, so maybe you had one of those was active and that is why it appeared that the ai scaling values were affecting allied? Perhaps I was not clear. I am playing Union and was attempting to weaken the AI enemy CSA forces (which are too powerful) by setting historicalSouthAddStat to 0.5, which should weaken the AI CSA forces considerably. The AI CSA forces in 1stBR are still too strong. There's no apparent change. They are still mostly 2* and 1* units (with one 3* unit!), while my allied AI Union forces are all 0* (and have been that weak from the beginning). Net/Net: HistoricalSouthAddStat and historicalSouthSizeMultiplier seem to have no impact whatsoever on the enemy AI forces in 1stBR.

an observation on 'configFile adjustments'. It is clear that there's a big disjunct between the AI dynamics in minor battles and in major battles. Minor battles are winnable with a conventional approach, but major battles are 'unbalanced'in terms of AI strength - you need to 'game the system' in order to beef up artificially in anticipation of AI-heavy major battles. Apparently a fix is on the way.Altho I usually play CSA, I am now trying to play North - but the same imbalance persists. In the meantime, it may be possible to fiddle with the config files in order to restore game balance to the major battles. At first I tried adjusting AIscalingSizeMultiplier and AIscalingExperienceMultiplier, but soon realized that the change affects both the enemy AI and my own allied AI troops. Now I am trying to adjust historicalSouthAddStat and historicalSouthSizeMultiplier as a method for re-establishing some balance to the major battles, though I don't see much improvement just yet. Any suggestions? PS: Thanks again for the variety in the spawning and attack focus of the AI in major battles. Big improvement.

hmmmm ... based on several decdes of professional usability design work - often providing 'makeovers' to flawed systems - I've come up with a few Snappy One Liners. This one is relevant to the moment: As noted, please let us know when it's fixed. In the meantime, you might want to include some notes in the splash panel to the effect that "This is the only way you can possibly win Second Bull Run in this version ..."

Excellent concept - and hope to see it replicated in other battles. "Variety is the spice of life." Now, let's improve the execution of other factors. Which apparently could use some work. This is - effectively - an admission that something is seriously out of whack in the game dynamics. You shouldn't have to be at the maximum limit of the AO chain (in mid-1862, no less) in order to have a prayer in this battle. Simple solution: Allow more-units-in-a-corps loooooong before you get to AO:9. It worked well before. You might even reconsider allowing 6 Bdes in a Div ... Huzzah. Let us know when it's fixed. My armies worked just fine in other battles; there was no hint or premonition that I would suddently be obliged to face a large and aggressive army of overwhelmingly 3* and 2* AI units at 2ndBR. History (1862 reality), precedent (in previous battles), and common sense are all relevant.

2nd Bull Run Unfortunately, playing CSA at 2ndBR on MG = the-same-all-over-again: i.e. outrageouly high proportion of 3* and 2* AI units Historically, it is waaay off - and I feel that it doesn't even work in terms of straight 'playability' Maybe the battle is winnable IF Porter doesn't show up until day 2, but right now it does not seem at all balanced In any case, I've reached a hard stop with the campaign Hope you get it fixed

I am now trying different profiles with the new rebalance version. As you know, I have adjusted the configFiles so as to use 'historical profiles" of ARTY and CAV: Both are much smaller for both armies until mid 1862 or 1863, when they actually started to make both branches a bigger, more cohesive part of their armies. Playing MG / CSA: Because the AI's xp balance is so outrageously off for 2ndBR (far too many 2* & 3* AI units to be playable - imo), I decided to try playing BG / CSA this time around, with higher AI perks in configFile. The games are playable, tho the AI itself seems to be far less aggressive. Probably need to tweak config some more for optimal play experience. I experienced the same artifact as I did before (with MG / CSA) that my troops are redundantly identified in first wave of Malvern Hill: one 4th Division, one 3rd Division, and two 1st Divisions. The units themselves are accurate, except for their Divisional identification. Am approaching 2ndBR again. We'll see what happens.

Yes: I increased recovery rate and have substantial Recon perks, too. Numbers still seem high, given the number of ARTY actually deployed in the field. No biggie, and - like I said - It's a gift. Have been juggling various parameters in order to find a workable/playable balance (i.e. Do I increase Recovery Rate or invest perks in Recon? or both?). The play quality was fairly good at MG level until I hit that 'outrageous XP' wall at 2ndBR, where the Union AI force has an unplayable overwhelming advantage in powerful units. Am now experimenting with more powerful AI config numbers while playing at BG level. We'll see what happens when I get to 2ndBR again. It seems that the Union AI seems to be far more 'passive' at BG level; If I set up a good defensive line and slap them a couple of times, then they become less aggressive and I can wear them out. It seems that at MG level the Union AI is far likelier to be fanatically aggressive; It's unrealistic and suicidal, but can be very tough to beat. My underlying agenda is to implement more 'historical' army profiles during the first 2 years of campaign: mainly smaller ARTY and CAV units for both armies. I am generally satisfied with the results, but it's still a work in progress.

Me, too. But no noticeable reduction in cannons recovered.

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?

I figured as much. Makes sense. Historically, there were often ARTY units with only 2-4 cannons (of mixed types, too) during the first year of the war - and even longer. I realize that it isn't critical, but if there is a ArtilleryMinSize, then it allows a little more flexibility in rendering a 'historical' setup. Curious Artifact: Runaway AI Unit About 3/4 of the way through Cross Keys (playing as CSA) a Union AI INF unit in the southern area of the map which was unengaged, but moving towards the northwest, suddenly took off and sped towards my units in the woods defending the northern VP next to the river. The unit sprite lost visual cohesiveness and looked like a unit which is routed. It sped toward the target defenders in a matter of a few seconds (at several x Run speed), appearing to hit first as a detached skirmisher, then as a whole unit. It was quickly destroyed by my defending troops. It all happened very quickly - but that's what I remember. Have never seen any other behavior like that. FWIW: VarianceMode was false. Thanks again for the detailed insight and advice on how to deal with unit sizing.

Why is there no artilleryMinSize value in the configFile? This makes it difficult to build/advance historically accurate ARTY (about 4 cannons) in the early battles

JV> I understand that some of this is 'the rules of the game', but if I can be satisfied (and win battles successfully) with fewer advanced xp units, then that works for me. Apparently the ugcw engine is incapable of 'mirroring' my xp level on 2ndBR, even tho it does so adequately on other battles preceding 2ndBR. The mismatch is sudden and extreme. I'm going to propose that the game engine is flawed and needs to be adjusted. I've won all of the previous battles (they were a challenge - but winnable). Telling me that I really should have more higher-xp units in my army for 2ndBR is advice that comes just a little too late. Especially given the new dynamics of xpGrowth, I prefer to allow my units to strengthen organically (through battle), rather than by gaming the numbers in CAMP. Plus there's the historical and common-sense observation that the Union army simply did NOT have that many powerhouse units in the summer of 1862. Not by a long shot. Clearly, I prefer to play a slightly different, slightly more 'historical' ARMY. If the Rebalance can accommodate my gameplay style, that would be great. I understand the practicalities of First Wave: Very Strong / Reinforcements: Mop-up. But if you can't survive the first wave of battle because of a faulty engine, then it just doesn't matter. PK> 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. 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 ... ? PK>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. JV> I really don't really know what this means (I gather that stats are cumulative and can get out of hand), but if it causes the effect you describe, I'll gladly use it. Please let us know when this 'stat cap option' happens - and How to set it. NOTE: Although the concept of building Veteran units is intriguing and valuable, it can be a real problem and a distraction when you end up trying to 'game' the system artificially. Just as with commanders, you get more value when veterans remain with their 'home' unit and xp grows organically. IMO, units should gain xp most effectively when they have unit cohesion over the course of a number of battles. As a solution: You might split a high-xp unit in order to grow more veteran units: The infrastructure of officers & NCO's at all levels, battle experience, and identity over time makes for a strong core unit, which can then be grown with replacements. In the Civil War - and up until WWII - most military units were 'regional': Troops, their commanders, and their identities were all from a specific area - for purposes of unit cohesion and 'esprit'. Individual units were NOT a melting pot of random troops from a central pool of replacements. The advantages: unique identity, group morale, cohesiveness the disadvantages: high casualties could be devastating to a community on the home front only the few 'regular' army units lacked a local identity Thanks again to you guys for all the excellent work.

Hi PK>Yes to all of the above (It's pretty much how I use skirmishers, ARTY and CAV. 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. 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. You seem to be unsure about the high level of ai xp I have experienced. All I can say is that 2ndBR seems unplayable. fwiw: I am playing MG. And - for the sake of some historical accuracy the AI's exceptionally high xp (1 year into the war) - is just not credible. Or playable.Just played 2ndBR again after adjusting AIconfig again: AIArtilleryMaxSize, 200 AIInfantryMaxSize, 2800 AICavalryMaxSize, 300 AISkirmisherMaxSize, 500 AIOtherMaxSize, 640 varianceMode, true sizeRandomProbability, 0.15 weaponRandomProbability, 0.3 attributeRandomProbability, 0.3 duplicateRandomProbability, 0.2 sizeIncrease, .8 artilleryLimberedRangeModifier, .75 AIscalingSizeMultiplier, .8 AIscalingExperienceMultiplier, 0.85 AIscalingWeaponMultiplier, 1 AdvancedChargeLogic, true historicalNorthAddStat, 0 historicalSouthAddStat, 0 historicalNorthSizeMultiplier, .9 Still have 9 or more AI 3* INF units + 6 AI 2* units coming at me I have 1 2* INF unit. Is this really how it is meant to work?

Game balance has been fairly reasonable with minor adjustments to ai sizing and strength in config files, along with the downward (historical) adjustments to ARTY and CAV, as documented previously. Play has been reasonable, if challenging, on the previous battles. But was disappointed with game balance of 2nd Bull Run, playing as CSA: Union had far more troops (as expected), but also had overwhelming xp - many 3-star and 2-star units (I counted a total of at least 10 by the time I was wiped out), whereas I had only one 2-star unit. Doesn't make logical or historical sense: There just weren't that many top caliber union brigades 1 year into the war. The Union had superior numbers in many battles, but the US troops did not have overwhelmingly superior experience and fighting ability to CS units in mid-1862. At least not on that scale. In any case, the mismatch is not really playable. Any observations or insights? Perhaps the game engine is not dealing gracefully with my adjustments to limitations on ARTY and CAV in configFiles? I have actually downgraded several size and xp attributes already: AIscalingSizeMultiplier, .8 AIscalingExperienceMultiplier, 0.8 historicalNorthSizeMultiplier, .85 The game has responded pretty well up to this point, but 2nd Bull Run is disappointing.

Just found myself wondering again about Army Organization: Having reached a level where I can have 3 Corps / 4 Divisions / 5 Brigades at Gaines Mill / Malvern Hill, I find little need to increase AO after Level 5. AO no longer allows me to have 6 Brigades in a Division I receive a functional maximum of 4 Divisions and 3 Corps at AO: Level 5 (no real growth until Level 9) I have no need to build huge troop formations; excessive unit size thresholds mean nothing to me I can increase my supply easily thru Logistics (and also gain other perks) So there's no need to increase AO, once I've reached Level 5: I've already maxed out my Divisions and Brigades. Seems like an unnecessary plateau. Army Organization - as noted in my previous posts - actually was a BIG issue for both North and South throughout the first 2 years of the war. Especially as regards how to organize & use ARTY and CAV. The game might better reflect that historical reality - and become more playable as a result, by adjusting AO.

Interesting Artifact/Feature/BUG: I was shuffling my troops in CSA prep for Malvern Hill. I shuffled divisions from one corps to another (and then back again) so that I could rearrange units. This is an annoying aspect of legacy UGCW: No UNDO and inability to gracefully move units between corps without a bunch of shuffling When I started battle setup w/ my first Corp, I discovered that my troops were labeled 1st Div, 2nd Div, 4th Div and ... 1st Div. The troops, weapons & commanders were correct, but the division labels were wrong. [restart] didn't fix it [reload] of South Camp made order of battle 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 1st Div cold reboot of game (exit) didn't fix it I am now going to send this note and try more dramatic solutions. No biggie, but annoying to me and you May want to look into it UPDATE: 02/23/23 Tried shuffling units between Corps again. Nope. Curiously, even a cold reboot of my computer + reload of game did not solve this one. Eventually I just gave up.

Disappointed, but thanks. The "Run Away! Run Away!" option above is a possibility which I use, but still often results in the fleeing unit being flanked and routed.

The [Fallback] function is a little weak. In battle, the order to 'Fall Back' is understood to mean "... to a safer or superior position": 'A withdrawal may be undertaken as part of a general retreat, to consolidate forces, to occupy ground that is more easily defended, force the enemy to overextend to secure a decisive victory, or to lead the enemy into an ambush.' -- wikipedia These factors do not seem to be often reflected in UGCW. Troops which are ordered to fall back will often stop before reaching a clearly safer or superior position withdraw in an unwise direction (which makes no sense at all) It is often necessary to repeatedly order a unit to fallback, despite common sense. The Unit will often fallback in an undesired and even illogical direction. It's annoying, unnecessary, and distractive. Of course, withdrawal always has the risk of turning into a Rout, but that is just a statistical possibility. The order to Fall Back is a valid military maneuver, with a purpose which should be respected.. 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.")?

As an aside: Selectively reorganizing the values in the config files would make them far more manageable for novice UGCW gamers like me to easily customize the profile of gameplay. For example: the attribute controls in the configFiles fall into 3 major categrories: Unit Sizes & Strengths (Max & Min size, scaling, experience, etc.) Unit Performance (speed, range, spotting, charge, morale, damage, etc.) Game Dynamics (gamespeed, rewards, perks, range display, etc.) Re-organizing the configFiles into smaller, more focused text files, as you've already done with weapons (weaponDegradeType, WeaponNames, etc) will aid 'noodlers' in fine-tuning the UGCW experience. Speaking from my own usage, I feel that game Dynamics are probably set once, unit Performance is fine-tuned to my preference rarely, and I spend much more time & effort trying to find the sweet spots (plural) for unit Size over the course of the game. BTW: The default troop level settings in Army Organization are irrelevant to my gameplay style and are also historically absurd. A footnote on crafting the configFiles and their guide: Most technical documentation is written from the developer perspective (i.e. "inisde/out"), whereas usage documentation is written from the gamer perspective (i.e. "outside/in"). Some of the descriptions in Config file guide.txt are quite useful, but some merely describe how the attribute works internally, rather than what I (as a user) can do with it. For example: "lowMoraleMeleeDamageReductionHi" offers a lot of infodata, but it is not intrinsically understandable. The existing explanation "low point of melee morale damage resistance curve" offers little help. An explanation like "a higher number makes it less likely that a unit will take casualties when suffering a melee attack" makes more sense to me - and heck - I don't even know if that's valid guidance, because of what I just said ... Net/net: Don't try to explain how it works (unless I ask). Just tell me how I can use it. Any player who's fiddling with configFiles really only wants to know, "What will happen when I put in a lower (or higher) number?" As noted, I've come up with some (for me) usable, historically valid adjustments for unit development, organization, and tactics over the early course of the war ('61 & '62) : ARTY was not a unique factor in the earliest stages of the war through Shiloh (about 9 battles). The CSA has an advantage in CAV thru 2nd Bull Run (about the 1st 15 battles) Both armies struggle with developing a successful ARTY strategy & organization thru Antietam or even Federicksburg (about the 1st 20 battles), though the North has increasingly superior quality & numbers CAV equity between North and South happens at Antietam From Antietam onwards the North has a growing advantage in both CAV and ARTY Up until about Antietam there are some really interesting dynamics as both armies struggled - historically - to evolve decent organization and tactics - in ARTY especially. By fine-tuning ARTY & CAV in the configFiles it's possible to make these early battles even more interesting and challenging. I will continue to finetune my configfiles in order to better reflect the early historical evolution of Civil War army organization & tactics. Meanwhile: The the poor design of vanilla UGCW's built-in Army Organization path remains a problem - and obliges us to increase AO unnecessarily. Here's hoping that it can be corrected. The default for small arms recovery in Spoils of War is also too low; Here are some interesting numbers re 'rifle recovery': https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/almost-every-rifle-recovered-at-gettysburg-was-fully-loaded-and-no-one-knows-why/ By the same token, there's always waay too much ARTY recovered after a battle - esp for the early days of the war, when ARTY was at a premium. Thanks again for excellent work and clear answers