dixiePig

Interesting thread. Thank for sharing your insights, Squatter - and thanks to Pandakraut for the clarifications. I, too, have found 12k INF / 12 ARTY / 350 RNGR/SKRM / 350 CAV to be my "sweet spot", with CSA at MG. This was true previously, as well as on the newest version. Note: I tend to use Cav a lot to counter-punch AI Inf attacks (preferably from the side or rear) - and will "swarm" my Cav for knockouts. Towards this end, in Major Battles I'll often have a bunch of smaller, weaker Cav. It's especially critical to withdraw & rest them now. I don't build Ranger ('Skirmisher') units that often; they are historical anomalies, but are useful for 'building small' when you don't have that many weapons. I notice that the lower limit on Rangers now is 250, rather than 150. Deliberate? Am very fond of Detached Skirmishers as screening forces; they delay AI advances (especially when wooded/protected) and can be devastating when they flank the enemy. Re-merging them is critical when you get into the slugfest, as they are susceptible when isolated. The proliferation of AI Detached Skirmishers is a design improvement. They are annoying. Currently the AI doesn't re-merge Detached Skirmishers - even when they are substantially weakened - which makes them easier to 'pick off' in mid-battle. Perhaps adjust this? The newest version is Very Good.

As noted before, altering the entry times and locations of AI reinforcements during a battle is a big improvement on variety and playability of the mod. Am hoping that you can do something about first appearance of Union AI reinforcements in the CSA campaign battle of Gaines Mill: They appear about 1:40 into the battle on the hill just above Boatswain Woods, the same time as the first CSA reinforcements appear at the upper left edge of the map. The problem is this: As CSA, I have just successfully seized Boatswain woods. Of course, I place screening units on that nearby hill, which is an obvious observation point (it even has a little eyeball on it). BEFORE: This is the instant before the first round of reinforcements arrive AFTER: This screenshot is the moment at which reinforcements appear. The new Union artillery can start firing on my troops in Boatswains Woods immediately, with fresh infantry and cavalry right behind. I'd better get my cavalry out of there, pronto. My reinforcements are barely visible at the upper left of the mini-map. Without warning, a large mass of Union troops appear instantaneously (and miraculously) on that same observation point - and they are also quite close to my CSA troops in Boatswains Woods. There are the 'common sense' issues , like "How did the enemy get there so fast" and "Why didn't I see them?" There are the 'fairness' issues, like "My reinforcements have to travel all the way across the map" and "Yet these fresh enemy troops appear right on top of me" I literally have to game the system in order to ensure that my screening units (who of course would be located on that hill) aren't wiped out immediately by the Union troops which inexplicably appear among them. You've done a great job in providing some much-needed variety by adjusting the arrival location of AI troops, Pandakraut and Jonny. Please fix this one, as well. It's a really bad bug ... err ... "feature" of legacy/vanilla UGCW.

As noted before, altering the entry times and locations of AI reinforcements during a battle is a big improvement on variety and playability of the mod. Am hoping that you can do something about first appearance of Union AI reinforcements in the CSA campaign battle of Gaines Mill: They appear about 1:40 into the battle on the hill just above Boatswain Woods, the same time as the first CSA reinforcements appear at the upper left edge of the map. The problem is this: As CSA, I have just successfully seized Boatswain woods. Of course, I place screening units on that nearby hill, which is an obvious observation point (it even has a little eyeball on it). Without warning, a large mass of Union troops appear instantaneously (and miraculously) on that same observation point - and they are also quite close to my CSA troops in Boatswains Woods. There are the 'common sense' issues , like "How did the enemy get there so fast" and "Why didn't I see them?" There are the 'fairness' issues, like "My reinforcements have to travel all the way across the map" and "Yet these fresh enemy troops appear right on top of me" I literally have to game the system in order to ensure that my screening units (who of course would be located on that hill) aren't wiped out immediately by the Union troops which inexplicably appear among them. You've done a great job in providing some much-needed variety by adjusting the arrival location of AI troops, Pandakraut and Jonny. Please fix this one, as well. It's a really bad bug ... err ... "feature" of legacy/vanilla UGCW.

I have no sense of HOW MANY Vets vs Rookies I have in the recruitment pool. I'm just given a red indicator when I step over the Veteran limit. It would be nice to know how many Veterans I have to available to assign - and some indicator of the changing totals. A major enduring weakness of UGCW is the inability to UNDO many actions during the CAMP phase. Am used to reflexively doing periodic saves now, but it still sucks. Assigning Veterans wisely is an important aspect of Army maintenance - and nurturing *'s. As my programmer buddies used to say, "That's not a bug - It's a feature!" As such, it's kind of a nice feature. Might want to reconsider it, in some form ... As noted, RECONNAISSANCE has positive impact on the number of weapons offered in CAREER. TRAINING might have some effect on Morale - or the appearance of new Officers in the Reserve. ECONOMY might have some impact on the price of weapons. LOGISTICS effects the power and influence of Commanding General figures in the battlefield, etc

Hi PK. I have been out of the loop for a few months, but just installed v1.28.3 and have enjoyed playing CSA during the past few days - am up to Cross Keys. Many fine improvements. Thumbs Up across the board. The battle dynamics are nice - the AI seems a little less knee-jerk in its behavior. The Fatigue Factor is a big plus. Relevant unit info (arms/leadership, etc) are informative and useful. Tweaks to the perks are excellent. The Alternative AI Battle Locations & Timing are a Big Win! The distinction and changes in the replacement process look good, though one thing puzzles me: I can add Veterans to a relatively weak unit in order to increase XP. But if I add Veterans to a relatively strong unit, the XP actually decreases. I can see them not effecting the XP that much, but to actually decrease ...? Overall, 'growing XP stars' is a bit more tedious and seemingly less intuitive. I have never liked 'gaming the XP' in order to build value of the units in my army. Am a little surprised that rookie units who perform well (and fight a lot) in battles do not seem to advance more speedily. BTW: It seems to me that [same unit commander] + [participating in battles] x [over time] should be a significant factor in increasing a units XP. By the same token, a seasoned commander (battles led) who is reassigned to a new unit should bring some extra unit XP with him. I like the new importance of managing Veteran/Rookies and Wounded/Badly Wounded; It would be really helpful to have some on-screen graphical indicators to aid during the Replacements phase. Perhaps a couple of bars to indicate # and type of replacements (the bar values change dynamically as you reinforce/build units). There might be a "Field Hospital' perk, as well ... Observation: In earlier versions, i often had quite a few officers available in my Reserve (sometimes too many) - Now there are almost none : I need to purchase almost all new offices in order to grow my army. Is there anything I can do (in Career?) to increase the number of officers in my Reserve? As I recollect, Allied officers who were wounded in battle would appear in my reserve when healed. No more? The dynamics of Career choices are radically changed and will take a little getting used to. The BEGINNING choices are even more dramatic, as a result. Will it ever be possible to select a profile that is not based on the artificial groupings offered in the BEGINNING? They establish a narrative that currently goes nowhere, and the choices are unduly constrained. Perhaps a compromise: i.e. 2 preset choices of 8 attributes + 2 wildcard attribute choices? And/or even some 'consequences' : i.e. the choice of particular paths in the BEGINNING has impact on the CAREER options which appear later in the game (This already happens to some degree with the increased troop bonus when you choose Reconnaissance - smart move). I know that's a Heavy Lift, but it would add even more variety. Anyhow - v1.28.3 looks good so far. Thanks to you, Johnny, and others for all the work. UGCW is now a much livelier gaming experience.

I believe this has been asked before, but I'll do it again: The game behavior at mapEdge is really ... bad. You can trap units in the corner and take them apart But at a straightedge my units can get bogged down, they inflict few casualties, and the ai unit can sometimes recover (!) and even defeat my superior unit. Isn't there a better way to do this? I'm sure you've already looked at the situation and the possibilities, PK, but it seems to me that you might : Rout the AI off the map They might return to the same area of the map - after a delay But also with penalties (troop loss, weakened morale) Aside from that: Any suggestions on how to deal with the bad behavior?

ME> Duh. Saw the Options list but Didn't check for behavior Useful Standard UI Design: On-screen instructions ("Click button to re-map") OnMouseOver behavior ("Click button to re-map") Not your job to fix - and you probably can't, since it's in the base game. Thanks for the clarification, PK.

PK> This would be a BIG help - and shouldn't be too difficult to implement. I often use the keyboard to initiate unit [F]allback; it's just a lot faster than mousing around. Unfortunately UGCW places the Rout command on the [G] key ... which is right next to the [F] key. What could possibly go wrong? This 'bad UI' artifact is beyond stupid. I've often routed units when I just want them to fallback. Is there any simple way to move the 'rout' command to another key? Or just disable it altogether?

Looking forward to the next version. Horse pool & Q-master will be interesting

UNDO function mmmm ... It just happened again - I accidentally merged units while attempting to move a brigade from one division to another. But I don't see any [confirm] button. arrrgh Constant 'saves' seems to be the necessary behavior... Thanks, PK I really like the updated play dynamics of the mod : slower, more deliberate, supporting fire, value of 'lines', resting a stressed unit, etc. Took a little getting-used-to, but very effective and historically valid. Any update on when we might have different dynamics for handling horse/mule resources for cav and artillery? Related issue: How about a Quartermaster role? It fits well with the strategic aspects of the game.

Cannons, "mobile defense", delaying tactics : yep. I'll sometimes include a cav unit in the early stages specifically to harass, distract, pick off stragglers, maybe even get a supply train ... A tactic that works at more advanced levels is to allow & encourage the AI to attack when I have advantageous ground and good positioning troops that can support-fire for each other maintain at least one unit 'in reserve' or rested for counter attack artillery well-positioned for supporting fire, concentration, and protected (not within striking distance of the AI) maybe even a cav unit to deliver the coup de grace to weakened attackers. The F-key (Fallback) is used regularly throughout the process, tho rotating freshly-rested units into the line is the most effective way to withdraw-while-engaged. The AI often will mess itself up: Their multi-attacks are relentless, but it the AI also wears itself out. If you play effective Rope-A-Dope, it can be a big advantage. Resting beleaguered troops is a MUST! QUESTION for PandaKraut: Is it possible to insert an [undo] feature into the Army-building part of the "camp" session?

Historically, Access to numbers & quality of horses (and mules) was a major issue at that time. Here's my upvote for adding horses to the recruits list.

These do also exist, bit those are set by phase and should be consistent restart to restart as far as I know Yes. As far as I can tell, you need to restart the battle in order to get a different AI experience. For the most part; agree about shot types effectiveness of artillery "Historicity" is always a trade-off, but I believe we might agree that cavalry adds a lot to the playability. Too bad about roads,woods, and terrain. Surprising oversights in a game this sophisticated. Q> Does putting a unit into defensive stance (i.e. [HOLD]) provide greater defensive value over time? IRL: A favorite exercise of units in a defensive stance is to "entrench" (scoop out shallow holes, build walls & breastworks). The longer they are in that position, the greater their defensive value. Observation: I re-started Cross Keys several times. Winning is definitely The Exception. Just finished one instance in which the Union had only 2 units left on the field ... and I still got a DRAW with 41% casualties. It's a lovely battle, but the 40% threshold is not the finest example of game design.

map notes Roads: troops apparently do not automatically use roads (or receive any movement perk) when marching in column. If a road leads towards the destination (even if only partially), then it should be used. Trees: Trees supply blocking cover for troops, but Support fire from troops and artillery does not appear to be blocked (or even compromised) by intervening trees Elevation: Should allow troops and artillery to provide supporting fire even if there are intervening trees. Also: elevation should make fire more effective, because of the angle.

Thanks for the very informative & thoughtful responses to all of my questions, panda. Excellent stuff. Good advice on the '55's - Was wondering, but also thought the 25% higher firing rate might be a good trade-off. Ditto the advice on 2* Very useful insight on 'how it works': I'd been assuming that it was driven by an overall 'command profile' (i.e. aggressive vs passive) which seems to flavor the entire battle instance. If I re-start the battle (with same set-up), the ai behavior is often radically different. Just spitballin' here, but I'd say that other battles which could suffer from a 40% threshold probably include 1st Winchester, Rio Hill, and Antietam. Given the 'suicidal aggressiveness' of the ai, generally, I'd contend that it's entirely possible (and sometimes necessary) to incur high casualties and still wipe out the enemy force. If they just won't quit attacking, that's sometimes what you have to do... The hyper-aggressive ai scenario is generally the most challenging and exciting: If you manage to survive the attacks, then the badly weakened enemy can be (eventually) wiped out. It's a test of your defensive skills & counter-punching. The more passive ai scenario allows you to control the structure and flow of the battle. You can exercise your tactical abilities. Historical context Generally, I try to conform to historical precedent re unit sizes (i.e. cap infantry in 1000-1200 range / 12 artillery), tho I can see the value of larger units for CK Do you have any comment on the proportion of artillery units in my order of battle? It's higher than historical, but I find them valuable - and it reflects the fact that there seem to be a lot of them in my spoils of war. Have done some informal research on the effectiveness of civil war era artillery: I get mixed messages. IMO canister & grape at close range should be powerful - and especially devastating if you catch the enemy lines in flank. Of course I can fiddle with the effect of artillery in configFiles, but what is your take? The biggest a-historical factor is that cavalry units can be a big & active part of the battle (extremely rare in actual Civil War battles). But it's fun. Echoes the active use of cavalry in Napoleonic era battles. Thanks again to you and Jonny for excellent mods.

1. I have a coupla 2* units in my Army, but was not using them, under the assumption that the point in CK is to absorb damage, rather than mete it out. I've tried the strategy of 'more & larger springfield42 meat puppet units' in order to deal with the 40% threshold. Especially since most of the combat is at close quarters. Related question: I can imagine that 2* units have better morale and resilience, but do they actually incur fewer losses? It seems to me that a bullet wouldn't care whether you're 1* or 2* 2. Already been using damage General, for the obvious reasons 3) Been using a strong melee cav from day 1 in ALL battles, for the same reasons you state. I find that a team of strong meleeCav + strong carbineCav provide the best of both worlds in CK. The Union usually has no artillery or supply wagons by the midpoint of the game. Also helpful: Picking off those pesky ranger/skirmisher units (cav seems to be the only really effective technique for destroying them). Added value: reconnaissance behind enemy lines and distraction (drawing away enemy infantry units from the main battle). And the carbineCav can be used as flying infantry (when dismounted) to deal quickly with critical situations. 4. My technique is to massFire several strong artillery units (3 x 12-gun howitzers), preferably as soon as I anticipate an enemy attack. I find it to be an effective tactic. Counter-attack w/ infantry is a last resort, but can work. 5. Not so fond of sniper/ranger/"skirmishers" because of what-you-said, plus: They are kind of a historical anomaly 6. "keep the ai to the center" comment : Copy that So: I am already doing much of what you recommended My infantry units tend to be in the 1000-1300 range I might try trading out some artillery for infantry (to buy more bodies) Am now fiddling with the aiConfig xp and sizing, as well as the order of battle. Here's a screenshot of my most recent configuration (not tried it yet): The 1200 and 1300-man units have better weapons (enfields. 1861's, 1855's, Mississippi's) and the 1400-man units are 1842's. Artillery is howitzers My general preference is to keep infantry units in the 1000-man range, but am boosting the level for Cross Keys. That's what I do, as well. Rarely have any units in a battle that are NOT 1*. Also useful: Artillery units are a great place to 'grow' experienced officers, especially since they are less likely to incur casualties. My current version: 1.11 - J&P v1.27.4.3 If I can do anything to get a little edge on CK, I'll try it. "What would happen if the 40% rule were applied to all UGCW battles? I haven't run the numbers, but it wouldn't be pretty..." It's still a valid framing question. What makes the ai sort of fun is that the enemy will continue to attack - suicidally - long after it has taken horrific losses. That also means that you will continue to take losses, long after you've effectively defeated the ai. The tail end of the CK battle is often an avoidance game - You're hoping that the Union won't try one more kamikaze attack before the timer runs out. meh In any case, thanks for the detailed answers and a great mod. UPDATE: Just won CK with the Army shown in this screenshot, as well as AIscalingSizeMultiplier, .9 AIscalingExperienceMultiplier, .8 in AIconfigFile. Of course, the ai behaves differently from game to game; I will try again w/ similar set-up and see how it plays out. In this episode, ai did not attack all that vigorously or effectively, so perhaps I was lucky in this case, as well. I've noticed that here seem to be at least a couple of very different ai behavioral profiles, including: a) hyper-aggressive from the first moment and b) relatively passive. My own Army profile on this CK Battle was Larger units (infantry brigades of 1200 and 1300, rather than 1000 men) With mostly Better Weapons (i.e. fewer Springfield '42's) Will keep you posted - and probably more questions. I'll repeat this question: "Does higher xp result in fewer casualties to your unit? (relative to a lower-xp unit of same size and armament)"

Thanks for the thorough response. I thought that 'commander juggling' was less advantageous now that 'battles led' with the current unit was something you would want to maintain over time. Or, does that matter much ...? I've seen advice that recommends building a bunch of small temporary 'dummy' units so that the average unit size in your Army is smaller - thereby gaming the AI calculation. Yes or No? Is there anything I can - as a player - do to influence AI xp scaling? Cross Keys is an exciting, tough, fluid battle - but in the present configuration it does not appear to be "winnable" at MG level because of the arbitrary 40% loss threshold. Not to be a stickler, but can you imagine any commander being ordered to hold two defensive positions against a vastly stronger force AND not suffer substantial losses? What would happen if the 40% rule were applied to all UGCW battles? I haven't run the numbers, but it wouldn't be pretty... I believe that every battle should be "winnable" by some criteria. I am hard-pressed to see that as possible with the current configuration of Cross Keys. The alternative is simply to avoid that battle altogether, since I will lose Reputation and gain little if I cannot win. That would be unfortunate, as I enjoy the challenge of Cross Keys.

RE: Altering config files in the middle of a battle What are the implications/artifacts if I change the AIconfig file in the middle of a battle? Specifically: I find that Cross Keys (as CSA / MG) is almost impossible to win with new default settings: The the majority of Union forces have high xp + are aggressive and therefore the "CSA = <40% loss" threshold is tough to overcome. Note: This is the only CSA battle (I don't play much past Antietam or Gettysburg) with such an arbitrary hurdle. If the Victory conditions were based on a comparison to enemy losses, it might be more sensible, imo Am now re-starting the battle with reduced AIscalingExperienceMultiplier Framing: Does the AI take into account my un-used troops when making its calculations? If I have hi-XP units in my Army, but don't use them in a battle, are they still part of the AI xp-equation? If I have large (or small) units in my Army, but don't use them in a battle, are they still part of the AI size-equation? This is important, as I try to build a balanced Army which is large enough to handle the Grand Battles. My strategy is to foster a large number of units which are both adequate (min 1-xp) and capable of getting stronger (2-xp). But I tend to spread combat across several units Infantry : 1K -1.3K Artillery : 12 cannon, horse Cavalry : 200 - 500 (usually 350), a high proportion of the total force Do 'killsRatio' or 'command experience' (# of Battles Led by Commanding Officer) have any impact on unit effectiveness in battle? If a unit is close to XP-threshold (but not quite there), does it have any impact on battle effectiveness? i.e. or Do I need to 'kick-start' an XP-jump by installing a new commander?

I was considering something along the same strategic line for BR myself, PaulD: It is now difficult-if-not-impossible to deploy early CSA units on Matthews for a holding/delaying action - they just get slaughtered the CSA reinforcements arrive at Henry Hill 'just in time' and the AI tends to deal with flanking situations like that poorly But the only way to establish a viable CSA defensive presence on Henry Hill is to withdraw there immediately from Matthews Hill Also considered customizing individual adjustments to the configFiles for each battle, tho that seems like excessive 'gaming the game'. Would prefer to see more variety in enemy command behavior (aggressive/timid/careful/foolish) : Knowing who you're fighting informs the type of battle you can expect. Achieving that gameplay balance is the challenge. Probably not within the scope of these mods, but it would be interesting to have some - usually defensive - situations in which you 'lose the field' but still 'win the battle' because you've achieved strategic objectives. CSA/Cross Keys and CSA/Antietam probably come closest

Otto Your Battle screenShot shows that you actually DO have your fourth Bde (Cabell/Artillery), but it is just not visible on the Battle Map because you double-clicked on it. It's now stored as the Artillery Icon at the lower center of the screen. Double-click inside the Battle placement box and your artillery unit will reappear on the battle map. I do not know why the originators of UGCW engineered in this feature. It's annoying.

So I've used v.1.27.4 from the get-go as CSA at MG. I adjusted weaponRecoveryPercentage to .13, which improves the rate slightly. Worked well up until Bull Run, which is always tough as CSA, with the see-saw nature of Union forces arriving in East and West. But it now appears to be almost impossible; the tougher mod rules re 'fatique' mean that my Allied units at Matthews Hill are easily overrun and totally routed by the huge Union force before the first wave of CSA reinforcements arrive. I like the improved play attributes of the new version, but it seems a little out of balance on Bull Run. Am now adjusting AIscalingSizeMultiplier in effort to even it out a little.

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 suicidally aggressively. Suggestion: Perhaps toss in more variety in enemy behavior - i.e. Some commanders are more aggressive (or passive/defensive) than others. This will add much more liveliness & challenge to the game. It's already happening to some degree. The weaponRecoveryPercentage feature is nice. Interestingly, not now quite as necessary as in previous versions, as I am capturing more enemy units. After a little trial&error, I find that ".13" is quite comfortable, and I will probably reduce it even more. All in all, v.1.27.4 is a tremendous improvement. KUDOS on great work

value is where?

Cannot find " weaponRecoveryPercentage" among config files of v.1.27.3d Where is it?

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 enemy (possible spoils of war) and the cost of losing your own troops? Is there any way (technique) to increase the spoils of war? Capturing enemy units doesn't seem to offer the return on weapons that you might expect.