dixiePig

Excellent. These 2 answers really address my needs. I'd wondered about the possibiilites in the historicalMultiplier values, though Config file guide.txt describes them as "testing value to increase or decrease size", so I doubted that they would still work in the game. Am pretty sure that they will meet my needs. Thanks!

Thanks for the very detailed response to my comments re 'growing xp". The unitModifiers in the configFile are a little esoteric, but I get the trend. Slower xp growth is just part of the game now. Okay by me, as long as the ai remains somewhat symmetrical with my rate of growth. Yes, I do tend to build my armies broadly and somewhat generically; my first INF perk is accuracy (because that's what they do), my first CAV perk is speed (because that's what they do), my first ARTY perk is horse-drawn (because speed & mobility fit with how I play). I have little desire to micro-manage battles based on the specialized attributes of individual units. Speaking of which; the horseArtillery perk for ARTY is nice for my playstyle, - but a historical anomaly. Although horseArtillery (fully mounted) ARTY units were attached to larger CAV formations, they were not prevalent in 'the general population' - esp. during the early years of the war. The majority of ARTY units had enough horses to pull the weapons, but the crews were not mounted and - for the most part - the units moved no more quickly than INF units. Given the logistics of actually outfitting artillery units as 'horse artillery', there should probably be limits on the number of ARTY units you can turn into fully-mounted, fast-moving horseArtillery. Cavalry Cavalry actions affected the course of battle at Gettysburg and Chickamauga and the cavalry’s success in delaying the advance of Confederate infantry in the initial phase of each battle led to the acceptance by the Federal high command that cavalry could perform more than their traditional tasks. To give credit where it is due, Jeb Stuart’s Confederate cavalry of the Army of Northern Virginia utilized these tactics in the first years of the war before the Federals were well enough trained to do so. Like his Federal colleagues, he too was a West Point graduate and had gained practical experience in the American West. But he had the initial advantage of a culture where the cavalry came from the class of society where riding was natural and expected. However, the South was unable to provide the technological capability nor the continuous supplies of horses and men that the north could, and by mid-1863 the southern cavalry was in decline while the Federal was evolving to new heights. Artillery At the First Battle of Bull Run in late July 1861, the Union army fielded only 55 guns; the Confederate army fielded only 42. Immediately after that battle, both armies began to reorganize their forces to make them more effective in future combat situations... This brief description of the respective artillery arms’ organization for battle grossly over-simplifies an issue that remained problematic throughout the war; both armies reorganized their artillery forces many times in order to learn from mistakes and increase its effectiveness. Over time, both infantry and artillery commanders learned to appreciate the benefits of massing artillery, and concentrating its fire on one target at a time. It is impossible to underestimate the importance of horses to the field artillery in the Civil War. Both armies had very specific requirements for these animals, and were willing to pay ranchers more for a good artillery horse than one to be used by a cavalryman. Estimates of the number of horses used during the four years of that conflict run upwards of 2 million; the cost of the shoes, feed, care, and equipping of those animals has not been adequately calculated. In the horse artillery units that accompanied the cavalry all the cannoneers were mounted; those units had approximately 150 men and 150 horses, including extra cannoneers and mounts. So called mounted artillery units had fewer men and horses; the cannoneers usually walked along beside their limbered pieces and sometimes rode or rode on the ammunition chests carried by the limber. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Horse_Artillery_Brigade https://www.nps.gov/stri/cw-horses-and-mule.htm https://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-horses-and-field-artillery/ https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/10-facts-civil-war-artillery 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?

I am now noodling with my stronger-xp units to learn the dynamics of getting them from 1* to 2*. As noted, you can upgrade units from 0* to 1* fairly easily by reinforcing them with Veterans, but that just doesn't work when you try to upgrade from 1* to 2*. I am currently replacing losses in more experienced 1* units with Veterans (which keeps the xp level stable, but eats up my veteran replacements fairly quickly) - while keeping the same commanders for their higher levels of battle experience. And then I send them back into battle, hoping that they will advance on xp without taking too many losses. 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. Does TRAINING have any impact on XP advancement? 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. Is there any way to affect xp development in the configFiles?

Nope. Cold reboot of game is required to enable new configFile values. No biggie, but there it is.

A Workable Kluge for customizing unit parameters It involves a little overhead between battles, but is fairly easy: Edit the ConfigFile.txt and the AIconfigFile.txt Set the artilleryMaxSize to 100 (this allows only 4 cannons per ARTY unit, standard in the early days of the war) Save the files as ConfigFile1.txt and the AIconfigFile1.txt Repeat the copyAs and parameter setting, customizing the unit levels as needed ... (a maxSize of 150 allows 6 cannons per ARTY unit, a maxSize of 200 allows 8 cannons per ARTY unit, etc) and create several 'levels' of configFiles. Then, when I increase the AO in the game, I go to the Rebalance folder and Copy ConfigFile1.txt As ConfigFile.txt Copy AIConfigFile1.txt As AIConfigFile.txt The unit sizes are now set at my desired levels for both my troops and for enemy AI troops (game symmetry). i.e. Both armies are limited to small 4-gun batteries. I can do this both for ARTY and for CAV for both armies. The levels approximately reflect historical progression. In this way, I can finetune adjust unit levels along with a change in in AO, and also keep them symmetrical. Once created the 'custom' config files are relatively easy to manage. The overhead is that I must exit the game in order to update the config files to new levels; UGCW does not recognize the new configFile unit limits without a re-start. But, that's no biggie. This process allows me to set the ARTY and CAV to somewhat historical levels, without too much extra work. And, it's easily customizable. Have only played this technique for one campaign so far - just finished Shiloh as CSA. The game dynamics are decent. A little slower & less wacky, more 'linear' (as battles were in that time), and still very fun imo. I can probably readjust some other configFile values back to default levels. We'll see how it works out. PK: That takes care of most of my wishList. Any other kluges that might allow me to invoke 6-unit Divisions again would still be appreciated. Thanks again.

Thanks for spending so much time on this with me, PK. Much appreciated. SCOPE I want to have the game reflect historical realities, which include weak/nonexistant ARTY until about Shiloh, nonexistant CAV for USA / weak CAV for CSA until Gaines MIll. ARTY and CAV appearing through allied armies or AI should reflect the weakened properties - both in number and also XP. Current AO progression in CAREER is vastly overpowered and irrelevant (i.e. you can't even use 2 Corps in battle until Gaines Mill). Altho CAV appears in Battle#1 for CSA, CAV doesn't really appear for USA until later. INF, CAV, and ARTY unit sizes are set unrealistically high in AO progression.I wish to set limits on both unit size and when CAV and ARTY units can be built. Here's my wishlist. Do not allow building of CAV or ARTY units at AO:1 set max size of ARTY units in AO:1 to 4 guns (about 100 men) allow building of ARTY units at AO:2 increase size or ARTY units to 6 at AO:3 (about 150 men) increase size of ARTY units at each succeeding AO level, by about +50 per change set max size of CAV units in AO:2 to about 100 men allow building of CAV units at AO:2 only for CSA increase size of CAV units at each succeeding AO level, by about +50 per change allow building of CAV units at AO:4 for USA Allow 6 Brigades per Division at AO:2 These changes focus primarily around AO, the size of units, and the ability to make CAV and ARTY a significant part of your Army. It's obvious that some of what I want just can't be done on the current platform, although some can be accomplished thru either configFiles or hex editing. Would appreciate if you could respond to each numbered point with 'configFile', 'hex edit', or "np" (not possible). NOTE: I can appreciate that it is difficult - and not really desirable - to prevent AI and allied units from introducing CAV and ARTY before the player can build these units themselves. Introducing these units is okay, esp. if it is possible to reduce their numbers and XP

I hear you and am not surprised. Thanks for taking the time to answer, PK. Would still like to see some controls on when it is possible to build independent CAV and ARTY units, which would also be a step towards 'historical mode'. I've already observed that there weren't really any independent CAV and ARTY units until well into 1862 or really 1863. Is there any way to gracefully prevent player and AI from building anything other than INF units until either reaching an AO level of 3 or 4 or a specific calendar date or Major Battle (Shiloh at the earliest) Historical evidence is pretty clear that - with the possible exception of Stuart's Cavalry - there were no real independent CAV and ARTY units in either army until then. I've scanned the respective Orders of Battle (Wikipedia) for major battles up to Antietam. As noted before, in the early days of the war artillery was very small, very weak (2-4 guns), with mixed cannons assigned to INF brigades. Large and independent ARTY units (central 'Reserve' in the USA, 'Right Wing' and 'Left Wing' in CSA) don't really appear until the 7 Days Battles (Gaines Mill and Malvern Hill). Significantly, well-deployed massed Union batteries at Malvern Hill were considered to be significant factors in the Union tactical victory there. The centralized ARTY formations disappear in 2nd Bull Run, and don't become a regular factor again until Antietam. At Fredericksburg, the CSA had effectively centralized strong, centralized artillery, which devastated the Union attacks, despite being of inferior quality. I doubt it, but is there any way for me to mirror these historical conditions by noodling the configFiles? And have the AI conform to them, as well? If not - then would it be of interest (I know it's a bunch of work) - to create more 'historically resonant' version of the mod? I remember that Adishee had a version a while back, tho it was still early days. Is that a possibility? UGCW seems to be a bit artificially ARTY-heavy. Historically, Cannons were few and far between until well into 1862; usually a maximum of only 4-6 cannons per Division. Yet UGCW gives you a fair number of cannons and allows you to build sizable ARTY units long before they ever actually appeared on Civil War battlefields. Is it possible to turn off the building of ARTY units for a period of time - or restricting the size of those units - without breaking the game?

Helpful Nitpicking from theYouEyeGuy: "Display Summary of major changes and tips of the mod?" popup Indicate size (i.e. the number of 'pages') up front Indicate where you are (i.e. "Page 1 of 4") Replace [ OK ] button with [ Next ] - and finally [ Close ] Basic Usability: Show how big it is, where you are, and be clear about what you can do. Might be tough to implement, but allow the list of changes & tips to be invoked from anywhere in the game This will come in handy when you do the next Mod Update & Guide

Thanks for the detailed response. We'll just have to 'agree to disagree' about unit structure, but I understand the limitations & constraints. (Suggest putting explanatory disclaimer into the UI for your alterations to established structure). I'll probably take a pass on hex editing - maybe noodle with configFiles ... Further observation on Army Organization: "When the war began, neither side knew exactly which army structure would be most effective. Additionally, neither side thought the war would last very long, so there was a certain amount of lee-way granted to those who recruited units, however they were organized, and brought them to the front. Both sides explored a variety of structures throughout the war. One of the most significant themes in the evolution of Civil War armies was the gradual division of the three branches. At the outset of hostilities, it was not uncommon to see a brigade that consisted of infantry regiments, cavalry regiments, and artillery batteries... These were often called Legions. Over time, leaders on both sides realized that this jumble of responsibilities led to issues on the battlefield. The effectiveness of artillery, it was determined, could be expanded by organizing them into larger and more independent units. Thus, by 1863, we begin to see unified artillery brigades in place of individual batteries attached to infantry units. No longer diluted by haphazard deployment across the battlefield according to the needs of low-level commanders, artillery could be centrally directed to maximize its firepower at key points on the line. The 150-gun bombardment that preceded Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg in 1863 would not have been organizationally possible a year before. Similarly, cavalry began the war attached to brigades or divisions. Usually equipped with weapons of shorter range and lighter caliber than foot soldiers, cavalry could not be expected to go toe-to-toe with infantry. They still retained a huge mobility advantage, but this was rarely exploited by the commanders in charge, who did not have formal education in cavalry tactics and instead made more frequent use of horsemen as couriers or scouts. Sparked by the innovations of cavalrymen such as J.E.B. Stuart and Alfred Pleasonton, an organizational shift towards a unified cavalry force offered the potential for more damaging raids, more effective intelligence-gathering, and, later in the war, huge formations of horsemen equipped with brand-new rapid-firing weaponry that had no equal in the world at the time. " from American Battlefield Trust https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/civil-war-army-organization Historical records show that independent ARTY and CAV units didn't really appear until later in the war (several sources cite "1863") Since I'm kinda relentless about this, I'm gonna suggest that this might be a new and useful path for ARMY ORG and CAREER (for example, just spitballin'): You can't build dedicated ARTY Brigades until you reach AO #4 You can't build dedicated CAV Brigades until you reach AO #5 You might receive a dedicated ARTY Brigade as a CAREER perk when you reach AO #3 You might receive a dedicated CAV Brigade as a CAREER perk when you reach AO #4 These game dynamics are not inconsistent with the current flow and shouldn't 'break the game'. But they reflect historical reality & limitations. And they add a much-needed dimension to the gameplay: the evolution of 3 distinct 'arms' (INF, ARTY, CAV). It means that the first several battles - including Bull Run and possibly Shiloh - will be fought overwhelmingly with infantry. The exception is the involvement of Stuart's cavalry at Bull Run and the role of Confederate cavalry at Shiloh. It is reasonable that the CSA has a slight advantage in mobility during the early stages of the war. Allowing the CSA to have larger, stronger cavalry units in the field earlier in the game could be interesting. Shiloh is the battle where 'massed' artillery first appears on both sides. By the major battles of Antietam and 2nd Bull Run, we see both armies using massed artillery and large units of cavalry as combat units - but not really before then. Delaying the ability to build large, independent units of ARTY and CAV until you've built up some AO is not unreasonable. I don't know what effect these 'historical' changes might have on gameplay, but feel that they would add variety and challenge to the flow.

So - even tho previous versions of the mod allowed 6 Brigades per Division when you got to some level of AO, 6-Brigade Divisions are no longer permitted in the game? Which means that 2nd Bull Run (which demands 25 CSA Brigades in one Corps) requires that I be at AO Level 9 (in order to allow 5 Div / 5 Bde)? Which means that I must invest ALL of my CAREER points after Malvern in AO. The scale is already tipped towards an AO-heavy career path. This makes it even worse. Flaws You must select an advancement in AO in the first (redundant) step of CAREER setup (so, just give it to us) You quickly end up with an extra Corps that you can't even use until the 10th battle (Gaines Mill) Even so, it's very unnecessarily difficult to respond to upcoming battles without being totally focused on a poorly-designed AO progression Practical Reality If - especially in the early days of the War - you have only 750 Mississippi's and 750 Enfield's, then you will build two small Brigades of 750 men apiece, out of necessity, since you can't build a 1500 INF Brigade. Of course. Would any General faced with an upcoming battle say, "Nope. Can't build 2 smaller units instead of 1 larger unit because - you know - company policy." A 6-unit Division allows you some reasonable flexibility without breaking the game. Aaaaand ... More players will be able to get "all the way to CSA 2nd bull run with only ao 3 on MG." It will be a more fun and challenging game, as a result. Historical Precedent Historically - and practically - there was much inconsistency and variety among early combat units of the Civil War in terms of size, weaponry, and number Historically, CSA and USA armies were constructed slightly differently . Allowing the CSA to have 6-unit Divisions would reflect this historical reality of their larger size and would easily add some more variety to the gameplay. By all evidence, most Civil War era Divisions had 4-5 INF Brigades and they also had Artillery batteries attached to them. That would be the 6th unit. A 6-unit Division (5 INF Brigades and 1 ARTY Brigade) is absolutely consistent with historical precedent. I continue to press for the 6-unit Division structure because it solves existing problems, offers some much-needed variety and flexibility, is historically valid, improves the gameplay, and doesn't break the system. Please reconsider.

hmmmm ... just won Malvern Hill as MG-level CSA: Looking forward to the next major battle at 2nd Bull Run, where I will want to have 24 Brigades in one Corps. So I look at AO in CAREER and discover that - even if I ramp up to AO Level 7, the mod will not allow me to have 4 Divisions of 6 Brigades in my Corps. Deliberate or unintentional? Any way around it? Interesting that this follows immediately on my rant about wanting to have more Brigades ...

Many thanks for the thoughtful & informative responses to my voluminous questions, @pandaKraut Understood. Thanks for the interim changes, which improve playability tremendously. It's a kluge, but perhaps just present a popup that says something like "Advancing to AO Level 3 means that you cannot have more than 5 Brigades in a Division. Please reassign excess units now." At a certain point in the CSA game I automatically receive an extra unit (Forrest's cavalry) and the ui seems to accept it gracefully: Forrest appears as the 6th unit in the 1st Division. I usually move it to an 'open' slot, but - what happens if I don't? Does UGCW kill Forrest? Alternative solution: Just allow 6 Brigades per Division from the beginning. Is that too much overhead for the battle interface? I doubt it. Simple. Makes sense. Fits the model. Allows some much-needed flexibility up front. (You reach the 6 Brigade threshold eventually anyhow ...) Now I can get thru the first 10 battles without obsessing about AO. Plus all the other benefits. One of those benefits: I haven't tested it out, but ... having more smaller units allows you to rest one small unit while the other small is fighting. Especially since Fatigue is more of a factor now. Intriguing. What does this mean? Please share the 'camp trick' and 'manipulation' techniques I'm generally not a fan of cheatcodes or "gaming the game", tho sometimes they're necessary. imo: Thanks again for a great mod. .

CAREER Path Most world-building games offer a map of the advancements as part of the interface. UGCW could benefit from this, as the CAREER advancement structure ... is a little weird. It would be helpful to have an Advancement Map which could also be tied to the Battle Schedule, as well as the Army Requirements for each battle (since that determines what kind of Army you need at each stage). Another alternative is to present Battles on a schedule (i.e. no player choice) and to vary the size and disposition of the AI armies. This would introduce some variety and surprise into the chronology of the minor battles. Gameplay: Step 1: You reconstitute and reinforce your base army after a battle Step 2: The game presents you with the next minor battle scenario (you have no choice) Step 3: You build your Order of Battle from whatever you have in your Arrmy It offers change, challenge, and variety The vast majority of the 18 Minor battles (both Union and Confederate) before Gettysburg involve an Army of 10-16 Brigades and only 1 Corps. The individual scenarios are fairly interchangeable (Let's admit that the historical references are mostly "approximate") If those battles were presented somewhat randomly, there would be some more variety to the overall game. I realize that there are real technical limits on what can and cannot be done in the mod. Trying to suggest ways in which the fundamentals of the game remain, but there's a little more variety in the play. Just sptiballin' Here's a homemade table showing the battles, Army sizes, #Army Org needed, and battle notes. Incomplete, marginally accurate, but refeential. Battle Brigade Thumbnail Capture Phillipi 4 Attack/defend town + allies Distress Call 10 Defend supply depots + allies Org: 3 1st Bull Run 12 Attack river + allies Org: 4 River Crossing 14 Attack 2 hills Logan's Crossroads 5 / 9 Defend / reinforcements Shiloh 9/5 - 9 Defend + allies Org: 5/6 Secure River 14 Attack capture hill Rendezvous 6/7 Meeting, reinforced Seven Pines 8 Take center + allies Gaines Mill 12-12/12 Defend Malvern Hill 11-9/20 Defend -2 waves Kettle Run 9 Attack, take camp, cav late Thoroughfare Gap 12 Defend blocking action (rufus King) Short battle 2nd Bull Run 48/24/24 Attack fortified position South Mountain 24 Take Hill Crampton's Gap 12 Attack Antietam 24/24/24 Attack / north & bridge Iuka 12 Attack Perryville 16 Defend Fredericksburg 25/25/25 Attack 3positions Org : 7 Parker's Crossroads 12 defend Stones River 24/24/24 defend Nansemond River 16 Advance against fortifications Supply Raid 6+ [ allies ] cav captures supply Siege of Suffolk 22 Defend fortifications, gunboats Chancellorsville 25/25 Attack / flanking Saunders Farm 10 Follows immediately on Chancelloersville Brandy station defend Gettysburg 25/15/20 Attack Siege of Jackson 20 Defend (fortifications) Chickamauga 25/25 Attack Mansfield 25 Attack Saunders Farm 25/10 Assault attacking force Laurel Hill 25 Defend Cold Harbor 25/25/10 Hall's Ferry 25/25 Hardin Pike 25/25 Attack entrenchments Washington 25/25

CAREER : RECONNAISSANCE Reconnaissance has vastly increased value now, so I make a point of ramping up on it early in the game, so as to reap the benefits of 'spoils of war' throughout the game. But the progression is a little weird: Most of the early Reconnaissance advancements require that you take 2 steps before you get benefits. This is: odd (i.e. unlike the other CAREER advancements) where you get benefits after 1 step pretty much requires that you advance only after Major Battles, where you have 2 CAREER points available It's awkward and artificial. Is this just "the way it is"?

CAREER : Army Org As noted in a previous post, level 1 of AO is redundant (and therefore meaningless) because the first stage of setup requires you to select an option which includes a point of AO. After that, you need to select AO fairly often during the initial CAMP phase, if you are to have an army which can participate effectively, particularly if you prefer to keep troop levels modest and in keeping with historical accuracy (i.e. several modestly-sized brigades, rather than a few huuuuuge brigades). The current AO progression prevents you from having 3 Divisions with 5 Brigades in a Corps until you reach AO: Level4 - even though you can have - but cannot actually utilize - 2 Corps in your Army. You are faced with early minor battles in which you can have only 1 corps involved but still need 13-15 Brigades (CSA: Ambush, Alert, 1st Winchester, Cross Keys, and Port Republic). This top-heavy, awkward, inflexible, historically inaccurate AO structure means that you must spend most of your CAREER points during the early campaigns building AO that you can't actually use. The dynamics of UGCW mean that you have few & weak Officers in the early stages and a hodgepodge of weapons. OK, that's historically accurate: the Union lacked Officers / the Confederates lacked weapons. But the artificial constraints of UGCW's AO mean that you can't build an army without getting really top-heavy in the early stages. Wouldn't it be nice if you could assemble an Army made up of a bunch of smaller disparate units in the early stages of the war - and then consolidate them into a more coherent, consistent force over the course of the war? This would reflect the historical progression - as well as the common-sense practicalities of the times. In the early days of the Civil War, regiments were recruited in a local community - and often outfitted (uniforms, equipment) - by a regional powerbroker, who then appointed himself as commander of the unit. Army 'standards' (both North and South) were approximate at best. Army commanders accepted the troops gratefully and integrated them into the larger organization as best they could, but armies in the first year of the war were a hodgepodge of flags, uniforms, weapons, and unit sizes. @pandaKraut : I don't know if You can do this, but I believe that it would improve the dynamics of the game: Allow an Army to have more smaller units in the early days: Perhaps 6 brigades per Division after the first battle Advancement in AO allows you to have more Divisions, but fewer Brigades-per-Division (The excess Brigades can be transferred to the new Divisions - or disbanded). Perhaps AO: Level2 allows 2 Divisions of 6 Brigades and AO: Level 3 allows 3 Divisions of 5 Brigades. This allows you to fight the smaller early battles without investing all of your CAREER points in AO. Let's face it; you don't really need an additional Corps until Gaines Mill - the 10th battle In this way the overall number of units in the battlefield remains manageable, while the growth of the Army is more organic and realistic. Lower-ranked Officers and troops can earn XP through battle - especially since TRAINING is now less valuable in that role (understandably so). BTW: What actual value does TRAINING offer now? I find that I can manage my Army's unit perks by adding available Veterans from the pool when I build the unit. After that it's all battle XP. There's no point in trying to 'game' the system further after you get the first *star*. That's actually a good thing imo, but what point is there to spending CAREER points on TRAINING? The restructuring of AO allows for more flexible playing styles. Aside: The historical Civil War armies had slightly different approaches to Army structure. This makes for more flexibility and variety. What if: the AO progression is slightly different for the Union and the Confederate ...? The dynamics of battles differ. Some are 'big battles' involving multiple Corps. The majority are 'modest battles' involving only 1 Corps (or less). Might the AO vary slightly on a per-battle basis? I believe that structural changes (s.a. AO and other CAREER elements) will keep the UGCW Rebalance fresh and lively - perhaps even more so than changes to battle dynamics Thanks again for the evolution.

Fatigue Detached Skirmishers (and Sharpshooter units) always move in [run] mode. Do they fatigue as a result? Is there a 'rule of thumb' for determining how far a unit can [run] before suffering crippling fatigue? I am tempted to 'hurry' units towards a critical battle, but know that there is a price. How do I determine the cost?

Thanks for the clear, candid responses, PK The inter-day replacements seem a little unrealistic to begin with - and the stats & XP dynamics (as you explain them) are really odd. Maybe just forgo the whole process? New troop reinforcement units are sensible enough, but overnight replacements to existing units ... not so much. More sensible: The ability to replace officers from the Barracks. It appears that 'permanent' in-map entrenchments can be captured from the enemy, but not effectively re-used, if the enemy is attacking from the opposite direction. It seems to me that "a trench is a trench" - and would still have value as such. Clarification? I have found no effective way to re-stabilize a unit which is accidentally routed

Fatigue is much more of a factor now. Understandably so. Does a unit refresh itself more quickly if in a fortification? What techniques will help a unit to recover more effectively? What behaviors will weaken a unit (i.e. How much can a unit [Run]? Entrenchment Can you indicate on the map if unit has been able to construct entrenchments (by remaining in place in a defensive posture for a while)? and - what is the defensive value of entrenchment? Accidental Rout If I move a unit towards the edge of the map, it will sometimes Rout. Is this a fixable bug? How can I recover from it before I lose the unit? Multi-day Battles In the pause between days of a major battle, it is possible to reinforce the units of your Army. If I reinforce units with Recruits, do they get full XP from the battle? It seems that loading in lots of Recruits would be a wise strategy

Here's a Nice-to-Have for the new re-working of CAREER perks - Display the current perk status under the CAREER panel. Specifically: Weapon Recovery (Reconnaissance) Maximum Supply (Logistics) Wound/Death rates (Medicine) Continue to enjoy the new profile of the game.

Just finished Ambush Convoy as CSA on MG level: It is much, much harder now that ALL of the Union reinforcements arrive at the same time on the eastern side of the map. It was much easier to 'divide and conquer' when Union AI forces were split. On the one hand, the battle is much more of a challenge now. On the other hand, there is not the variety that there was before. I re-started Ambush several times (I had to, because it is so tough now) but the Union troops always arrive en masse at the same place and early in the battle. A little variety in the entry locations/times there might be fun. Just sayin'

General Context: Weapon 'Base Damage' means ... what? And how should it be interpreted? (is it related to range? at all?) I realize that there may be some complex trade-offs. Guess I'm looking for a reasonable context can perhaps even a simple thumbnail analysis. Your Hidden Dynamics posts and weapon chart provide some clues, but Base Damage remains a mystery. Did I miss something?

Appreciate your patience & diligence in answering. I realize that I am posting a lot of stuff now, but the newest upgrade is an excellent improvement, and I am very excited about the results.

Bug or Feature? Newport, as CSA: Cabell commands 10 artillery, from Potomac Fort. In the Army Build phase I cannot increase the number of cannons unless I go to Army Org Level 3 (i.e. use both of my Career points for AO). Is this intentional?

Yes, having the replacement Veteran/Rookie numbers appear on-screen as a consistent part of the UI (they should be visible all the time - even if it's just an overlay) would be very helpful during the army building phase. The other stats are unnecessary - the numbers are critical to the reinforcement process. If you can update the numbers dynamically as the slider moves, so much the better.

Actually: the initial "balance of options" when selecting a CAREER path is curiously constrained. Here's how it breaks out. You can select a MAXIMUM: Politics: 3 (but you only have 1 opportunity to select that choice - and it allows only 1 Economy) Economy: 3 (but you only have 1 opportunity to select that choice - and it excludes Politics) Medicine: 2 (but you only have 1 opportunity to select that choice) Training: 7 Army Org: 2 (a minimum of 1, and - since one of your first CAREER attributes must be AO, this is redundant) Logistics: 4 Reconnaissance: 4 The Choices Politics and Economy cannot be selected until the last step of CAREER. Politics (3) and Medicine (2) are all-or-nothing. Economy is also extreme. There is only one choice which allows both Politics and Economy. Training and Reconnaissance options are unbalanced options (either 1 or 3) Logistics is the only attribute which is modestly balanced No, it's not really 'a decent balance of options'. Thanks again for your good work in providing a little more meaning to Reconnaissance in particular and 'common sense' to Training, as well. Note: I selected Politics/3 and Economy/1 in the POLITICS step of my BG level CSA initial CAREER setup (there's only one choice for the Politics attribute in the "politics" step ... ? Go figure.) Result - I have lots and LOTS of money after each battle (Did you change the dynamics there?). Works okay for buying Officers - since that's more necessary now - but it's still not exactly "balanced". And I still end up with more cash than I can use. Part of my exploration of the newest mod will be to see how different CAREER profiles work ... Now that Training is weakened and Reconnaissance is strengthened, the CAREER dynamics are quite different Medicine was another undervalued attribute - and still is. Battlefield Medicine was horrific at that time and disease also took a terrible toll. Selection of the Medicine attribute might trigger the ability to buy Field Hospitals (to be assigned to an Army or Corps) during the GOVERNMENT phase. This would give some 'meat' to Medicine.