dixiePig

@adishee: Loaded v.1.3.5.d today 03/18.2021 When attempting to load old saved 'ironman' battles still receive get "Can't be loaded. Delete?" [Okay] [Cancel] panel When initiating new battle (First Bull Run) as Confederate Several of my Detached Skirmisher units Rout spontaneously and some are destroyed after a few seconds (about the time the Union troops first appear on screen). They have not come under fire. All Union units rout spontaneously when my artillery begins to fire (some are destroyed) My supply unit goes into 'scaredyCat' mode and flees from its position When I load old P&J ReBalanceMod battles (v1.2.7.1a) / Stones River Detach Skirmishers is not active Have not QC'd extensively, but that's what I've found ... Thanks for your attention Please keep me posted PS: godMode = true in v.1.3.5.d

hmmm ... Dropbox sez: This item was deleted You might be able to find it in your deleted files. If it's not there, try asking the person who shared it with you. Haven't encountered that before. Any ideas?

"Excellent", says the ex-Documentation Manager. "Ha!" says the guy who worked for decades in the software industry. Haven't easily found much info on how units were reinforced historically : I know that unit-merging & destruction was a solution - but it sounds kind of absolute. Was it the only way? Perhaps you could allow more limited flexibility, as well? i.e. A unit might receive a maximum of 10% reinforcement from the 'pool' of replacements every cycle Do the detached units need to actually be re-merged into the host unit in order to fix the bug - or just ordered to re-merge? What about an 'orphan' skirmisher unit {i.e. the host unit has been destroyed}? Am hoping your quickfix will solve it. Please give a heads-up when it's ready.

Thanks for the speedy reply, @adishee. Actually, my current version is 1.3.5.c. - so it appears that the bug persists. Found 'ironManMode' in historical file. Yep - it's 'false' found another issue: 'Autosave Camp' after Newport News displays Infantry units with less than 1025 troops (i.e. the strength bar is less than full)). The slider and arrow appear, but do not operate: I cannot increase the total. If I click away from the unit and then return - the strength bar now displays as full (even though it is only 961 men). bug in the troop strength details display bug in the ability to increase troop levels Enjoying the battle playability of your submod tremendously and appreciate the details (additional range in perks is splendid). Hope to see saveGame fixed soon, as I would hate to lose my current savedGame state in 1st Bull Run BTW: What is godMode?

hmmm ... I installed v.1.3.5 and the game seems to be working okay I can save a battle, mid-play but I get "Can't be loaded. Delete?" [Okay] [Cancel] panel when I attempt to reload a battle that has been saved mid-play When I attempt to go to MainMenu from inside a battle, I get "Ironman - Save and exit to Main Menu?" Playing as Confederate, I was able to save Newport News at the end of the battle (When offered the [Finish] button - and I could re-load that battle (and only that battle). All other Saved mid-battle present me with "Can't be loaded. Delete?" panel Is there somewhere in a config file that I can check - and control - the status of the ironmanFeature? It's really annoying. Am hoping to get this resolved, as your mod is a terrific improvement - especially for those of us who like to 'play historical'. But ironman is really awful.

@Adishee: Is there any way to disable "ironman'? I'd like to be able to save mid-game and come back to it later

Good to know. Thanks for telling me.

ummm... thanks, @pandakraut - but there are hundreds of postings here. Is this a test? Spoiler Alert: I'm a usability design professional. imo The point is to make things easier for people. I look forward to the next update. Thanks for providing an easily-usable direct link to Adishee's submod. I'll take advantage of that. Because it's easy.

Good to hear. Adishee's mod offers some good options. That'll be really helpful. Thanks again, @pandakraut. Config file guide.txt is an excellent resource : Been using it - plus other notes from you - as I customize my games. It'll be good to have them all in one place, updatable, and hopefully able to be commented, as well. PS Could you publish here the links for ...? Your most recent RebalanceMod update Adishee's mod

Congrats on having games that are - hopefully - more satisfying, @i64man. Extend your thanks to @pandakraut, who provided valuable insight on the working dynamics of AI troop scaling, as well as the admission that meleeCav are systemically over-powered. Both of those work for my playstyle. I admit that I prefer a more 'historical' game, as reflected in the 1-1.3K Infantry brigade unit sizing and modestly larger artillery units. The upscaled cav is just a nice-to-have that makes the game more playably fun for me - and actually reflects earlier "Napoleonic" tactics, where massed cavalry was often a major battlefield factor. i don't really know why that changed so dramatically by the 1860's (firepower may've been an issue), but I believe that mounted units were - understandably - more of a battlefield factor in "the West" arena of the US Civil War. It'd be nice - if unlikely - to have a game option which allowed you to set the game parameters as "Historic" at-the-push-of-a-button. Unit sizes and army makeup would reflect historic levels, timelines, and profiles (with some wiggle room). This might also result in some subtlety in the Victory conditions. I can appreciate that some others may wish to play a different style of game, but ... Although tempted to try Adishee's historically accurate mod (it has some wonderful attributes), I found it iffy to manage - and really didn't appreciate its refusal to allow you to save or backtrack on battles. (Adishee - That's how we learn) Still hoping to follow up on it at a later point, as it has many nice features. In the meantime am fine-tuning the config files in attempt to keep UGCW at the MG level competitive. Some thrilling battles, but my historically-scaled / cavalry-heavy armies are already overpowering the AI with regularity by Antietam and Fredericksburg (which is a 'turkey shoot' for Confederates). It appears that I must now go back to 'up' the AI ... @pandakraut: KUDOS : the mods that you and johnny have crafted add a lot of playability to UGCW - It appears that there is robust willingness in the UGCW audience to customize the base game for a range of player needs, and Adishee's nicely conceptualized mod opens the door to even broader customization. A nice-to-have at this point (for me, at least) would be tools to more easily and effectively edit, manage, and save alterations to the config files. Would it be too much to ask for a little app that handles the config file libraries? As you've already noted, I may want to adjust-up or adjust-down in order to try several different game profiles ... Such an app would also serve as a repository for defining what the various config file attributes mean - and how to manipulate them effectively Thanks again for really fine work, guys.

Reasonable question: AI scaling is very modest at the 1K level - which seems to be an optimal number. Although it is tempting to build big units, there's little advantage to it. And there's some satisfaction in fighting battles that reflect historical accuracy ... imo SIDE NOTE: I fiddled with values (slightly) in config files, in fear that MG level would be too hard. The real issue appears to be unit size - specifically for infantry. The advantage is this: small infantry units reduce the AI scaling to manageable levels artillery and cavalry are proportionally a more powerful portion of your army That's particularly important to me, as I use cavalry as my tactical advantage Civil war tactics are based on maintaining 'lines' of contiguous infantry (supported by artillery) which can mass their fire on an objective in order to wear it down - and ugcw pretty much works that way. If you can 'flank' the enemy - so much the better. And that's the value of cavalry. Cavalry moves fast in a slow-moving environment (all of my artillery is horse-drawn, for the same reason) You can 'flank' enemy units and take advantage of gaps in the enemy's line Cavalry really flusters the AI. You can cause major disruption of the enemy line simply through threats and movement. Then use cavalry to destroy & capture exposed units While the distraction of the AI allows you to maneuver slower infantry and artillery into positions of advantage MeleeCav is over-powered, but that works to your advantage . And beware AI meleeCav, which can be particularly annoying in an 'openfield' situation, like First Bull Run. MeleeCav is vulnerable, You usually don't have big numbers to begin with. They can get 'stuck' in attack mode (you can't convince them to disengage). They can tire and take heavy losses when overused. You want to husband them and use them selectively. The One-Two Punch: MeleeCav attacking in tandem with CarbineCav can be devastating. I attack first with carbineCav, which hits and withdraws reflexively. The AI will focus on the carbineCav. Follow up with meleeCav immediately. The AI is still focused on the carbineCav, so you can hit with meleeCav, be more effective, and still disengage. I often dismount the carbineCav - especially after the second attack - so that it continues to occupy the target unit. My initial cavalry forays behind-the-lines focus on capturing Supplies destroying Artillery destroying Skirmisher units Threats to supplies really make the AI go nuts and disrupt their infantry lines ... which can then be effectively attacked by your combined units. Massed Cavalry : Although the individual units are not that large a group of cavalry units working together can easily destroy larger units. By the time we get to Malvern Hill my 2 confederate corps will each have a division-worth of cavalry brigades (about 5 units: 3 carbineCav (350 men apiece) and 2 meleeCav (250 men apiece). One division slips into the enemy rear, destroying their artillery, capturing supplies, and generally causing havoc. One division is in support of the main infantry forces attacking the entrenched union forces frontally. As the union line breaks from artillery/infantry barrage (and disruption in the rear), massed cavalry exploits the weakened AI positions. A seeming advantage of massed cavalry attack is that AI is unable to mass its fire on any one cavalry unit - so there are fewer losses. Cavalry will take substantial losses over the course of a battle simply because it is used so aggressively in my scenarios - but the payoff is huge. The weakness of cavalry is that the losses may be unsustainable ... if you aren't a little careful. General rule: Send the cavalry in for non-combat distraction, flanking, and then for the opportunistic mop-up. If you try to use them for grinding attrition, then you will waste a valuable tool. Infantry and artillery are good for that. Cavalry isn't.

Just a little update on gameplay: Currently playing as Confederate on MG level Infantry : 1000 - 1300 Artillery : ~14 cannons: always advance to Horse Arty at first opportunity Cavalry : 500 max, slightly fewer for Melee Cav Army profile (roughly) : 3 Inf / 2 Arty / 1 Cav, 1 skirmisher unit for every Corps This echoes historical Civil War profiles in terms of infantry unit size, but whole army is artillery- and cavalry-heavy I find that the limited infantry unit size makes for winnable battles at the MG level, especially since cavalry and artillery are proportionally stronger.

Agreed - tho the other 'big battles' can still be quite challenging. In any case, you clearly get my drift. The point probably is that the last 2 years of the war are futile, dull grinds: Probably also why few battles are offered at that point in the game. Is it possible to 'slope' the game dynamics so that firepower, casualties, etc. alter as we move into the later stages of the game? #yesBut : Isolated units are dead meat, which can happen often in more open (non-linear) battles like 1st Bull Run and Shiloh. And - as noted - I've seen AI meleeCav decimate even supported units. Cav units also do not seem to suffer badly from enemy fire. At any rate, AI cav certainly adds some spice to the game Framing Alternative: Is it possible to twiddle with 'victory conditions'? This would allow the disadvantaged side more of an opportunity to "win" ... or at least "not lose" These might include environmental conditions s.a. War Fatigue : High battlefield casualties (tactics) and/or crippling expense (overinvestment in Politics/Economy) might trigger the threat of being removed as commander - or even a public rejection of the war and call for peace. These conditions could influence How you fight a battle. And they reflect realworld considerations during the Civil War. A pity that the platform doesn't allow for the addition of more battles.

Thanks for your very thorough response. I'm not familiar with 'Adishee's historical submod' - Sounds interesting. Can you direct me? Are there others? Is there a Historical Profile game setup? A solution to 'gaming game' might be to make formations a little 'sticky' : i.e Once created they cannot be opportunistically disbanded without a significant penalty or delay. scouting : yup. I appreciate the rationale for making meleeCav superpowered as an AI assault perk, but I'm also surprised to hear that the AI doesn't "get" the advantage of flanking attacks in a game where combat is based on identifiable fronts and the maintenance of lines. I can readily grasp that small unformed units like skirmishers (and artillery) are at a disadvantage, but I've experienced rested infantry units in a defensive stance getting their butts kicked by a frontal meleeCav assault. One way to moderate the impact of meleeCav assaults might be to impose more of an 'opportunity cost' on them : s.a. exhaustion or more casualties from fire 'Later in the campaign' is truly kind of problematic for me, in terms of playability: This is where Historical Accuracy becomes a burden. The fun & challenging battles are almost all in '62 and '63. '64 and '65 tend to be primarily one-sided entrenchment/artillery slugfests - in part because the war was - effectively - over by then. Don't know how you can make those battles more interesting ... or whether it's even worth the effort. Speaking of which: Is there any way for you to create more battle scenarios? There were plenty of competitive smaller historical engagements (with unique challenges) that could be quite fun.

Thanks for the confirmation, @pandakraut, though I remain confused that a melee unit would somehow be as effective against defensive units in the woods as it is against troops in the open. "Use supporting units" is wise advice in any combat situation, of course - but even that is iffy-at-best against meleeCav. Have disappointing examples, but won't belabor it. Hate to drag out the old 'history says otherwise' argument, but this is sort of like the army-of-skirmisher-units thing: It works in the game, but has little basis in the tactics of that time. Otherwise we would've seen a lot of successful massed melee cavalry charges in the Civil War history books. Playability is key; I recognize the compromises and highly appreciate the results you and Jonnie have achieved. As an aside: I am not aware of a historical distinction between meleeCav and carbineCav during the Civil War era; cavalry was just ... 'cavalry' . It served primarily a scouting, reconnaissance, screening role - with some opportunistic raiding against isolated units and supply tossed in. CarbineCav 'mounted infantry' could be effective as a mobile screen against 'real' infantry - as Buford was in the early moments of Gettysburg (out of necessity). But they were rarely committed to combat roles. Lee was pissed at cavalry commander Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg because he neglected his vital reconnaissance role. Towards that end: Reconnaissance is imo among the least valuable investments of 'career points' in the game. In practical terms, it is closely affiliated with ... Cavalry. Although I doubt you can implement it, here's a thought: If your army has a certain level of Cavalry, then you get increased Reconnaissance info. If you assign some of your cavalry specifically to Reconnaissance, then they will not be available for battle, but you will receive more information about the enemy, perhaps you effect their supply & troop levels, and your battlefieldVision is improved. Just a thought Thanks again for a terrific mod.

@pandakraut: Your concerns in a previous post that melee cavalry are overcharged are well-founded: Can't kill'em - and they are devastating. Is there any way to mitigate this imbalance until you get the bug fixed? For example: My 500 carbineCav in woods, dismounted, and in strong defensive stance suffer exceptional casualties and are routed (while inflicting few casualties) when attacked head-on by 500 melee cav. Ya gotta admit: This just ain't right...

@pandakraut : Can you have any effect on the 'Government' rewards - or are those fixed? Particularly: The Historical Officers Nice to see them in legacy ugcw, but apparently they are mostly eyeCandy - aside from their usually modest perks. Would be nice if they (and other major officers) exhibited their Command Perks, as Corps Commanders do (i.e. Command Radius, Speed, Attack Strength, etc.) Their pre-established perks would travel with them and 'trickle down' to the units they command (imo: A weakness of legacy ugcw is that divisions and corps do not maintain their organizational integrity in the field.) Even sweeter if the perks reflected officers' historical strengths (and weaknesses) ... perhaps displayed in a thumbnail: "Hood is a fierce & successful attacker, but may incur heavy losses." or "Longstreet is cautious and deliberate - an excellent defender." This would provide a little color - and also allows you to select officers based on your needs (not just spending Reputation points)

"too strong" - Possibly, @pandakraut, though I wouldn't underestimate the potential shock value of melee units - especially when flanking or attacking from rear BTW: What's up with the attack dynamic of 'mounted infantry' units? They are often reluctant to charge and are not particularly effective in melee attacks - even tho they have sabers and pistols. I often wonder if I shouldn't just rush them in close and then dismount them. Net/net: Melee cavalry is almost suicidally relentless when attacking (you can't get them to disengage), while 'mounted infantry' are kinda chicken. Any suggestions? Was surprised to see enemy (Union) AI cavalry attacking aggressively and penetrating deep behind my lines in 1st Bull Run. Actually a nice challenge. imo: Stable, un-routed Infantry units volleying point blank / close range at charging cavalry should do much more damage than I see now. I would expect close-up rifle fire to have serious impact on both horses and men. glitch? When I target enemy cavalry with my artillery, the AI immediately makes them run away - without my even getting a chance to fire a shot. Are they psychic?

at BG and MG level: Recruits and Money aren't a problem at BG level: Weapons aren't a problem because of (imo) reasonable recovery rate at MG level: Weapons are a problem (because of critically reduced recovery rate) - and that effects how I can spend my Money aside: recovery rate should be a constant ("it is what it is" : just a statistical reality). With the artificial recovery rates I just end up trying to 'game' the system (i.e. It's not worth it to destroy the enemy army if there's little reward for my losses) Levels of play (Col/BG/MG) should effect aggressiveness, skill, xp, and size of AI units - Perhaps also Career advancements, Money&Reinforcements Rewards-per-battle, Barracks, and discretionary Rewards (Government) on my side I limit enemy troop size in AIconfig in order to conform more closely to historical levels; furthermore - huge enemy troop formations can be overwhelming (with the increased AI aggressiveness of v.1.27) MG-level automatically increases AI xp - making for a more competitive battle - so perhaps I should try adjusting that in AIconfig as a tradeoff for 'bigger AI units" My 'cavalry-heavy' strategy appears to be effective in overcoming AI advantages. I notice that the aggressive AI use of cavalry in 1.27 helps make for a more exciting & challenging game, as well (not just the Infantry Steamroller Effect). Did you engineer that into the mod?

mmm ... That's what I've been doing up till this point - playing BG-level with jacked-up AI config - based on your excellent v.127.1 update and very helpful notes (thanks again, @pandakraut) Hard to find that sweet spot. At BG-level, I already have AI-xp set at 1.6. Will continue to adjust it, I guess. Trying to keep the game profile to 'sort of' historical levels. Your suggested ~1300 infantry size works brilliantly to make ugcw a playable game at tough levels - and is in line with theHistory. I try to keep Ranger/Sharpshooter units (ugcw deceptively calls them 'Skirmishers") to a modest minimum in my armies: one or maybe two in a Corps - and limit them to 500 men. Artillery units: Generally aim for 18 cannons - and use them as safe 'training' vehicles for growing xp on commanders (who are less likely to be killed or wounded) Cavalry is the one area where I allow myself to have some less-than-strictly-historical fun: I produce a lot of those units (generally 300-500 horses apiece) and use them actively to disrupt the AI, steal Supplies, and destroy vulnerable enemy units. The Confederate "Ambush" Scenario in 1862 is a good object lesson in tactics. Massed swarming cavalry in the the Major Battles can be devastating. Although there are not a lot of examples of this in historical Civil War battles, it's quite 'Napoleonic' as a technique. Would love to see 'recovery' rates become configurable. Thanks again

The flexibility of adjusting config files provides better palayability. Your notes , Pandakraut, are very helpful. Fiddling with config files definitely makes for better games with mod 127.1. Am playing Legendary now - and it offers a more satisfying challenge. Still find the artificially low 'spoils of war' (SOW) percentage to be a barrier. The rewards are 'capped' by the game and the SOW rate remains arbitrarily low: I can destroy the enemy army of 20,000, retain command of the field, and capture 4000 enemy troops - yet I'll receive only a few hundred rifles and perhaps 10 assorted cannon. This just doesn't make any sense. C'mon: If i capture a s soldier, then of course I also capture their weapon. If I win possession of the field of battle, then I also earn a large proportion of the weapons lost (by both sides) in that battle. It 'altered math' of the different difficulty levels (particularly regarding SOW) radically changes my strategy for resource management under Career and Government. Now I must use invest more in Politics and Economy so that I can buy weapons. Note: Altho the SOW changes dramatically when between BG and MG levels, there are no changes to Government resources or the Money & Troops earned by winning a battle. Go figure. Also: How about a more sensible approach to defeat? When the enemy has been trounced - or just stymied - It often makes sense for them to retreat from the field and 'cut their losses'. UGCW insists that we play until an arbitrary time limit against an enemy who remains suicidally aggressive throughout. Are there any other methods for adjusting the SOW? I realize that there are 'balance' issues, combined with the artificiality of fighting a battle within a rectangular, constrained 'playspace'. But- are there any settings, options, or alternatives for moderating the SOW that don't spoil the playability of the game?

Update re v.1.27: I prefer to play BG-level, but try to make the combat harder, as the built-in limits on 'spoils of war' recovery of weapons is badly skewed in the UGCW base game. Tougher fighting is a nice challenge in MG, but the lack of spoils weapons is a poor trade-off - especially for resource-poor Confederates. More aggressive AI in 1.27 is a nice challenge, though the attacks are often piecemeal and can be 'gamed' (i.e. entrench and pound them with strong artillery and concentrated rifle fire). I also have chain charge logic set to 'true', but enemy attacks still appear generally uncoordinated and relatively easy to counter. Am using AIconfigScaling settings to make AI more robust, but I have upped ScalingModifier to 1.4 in BG and am still able to spank the Union quite soundly in Antietam. Curiously, some Union units remain quite small, relative to mine. Will push scalingModifier even more to see if I can find that sweet spot... Is it possible to engineer in more variety into ai behavior? Some generals were cautious, some were timid, some were foolishly aggressive. Some could put together a coordinated attack, others might handle it clumsily. For the most part, the ai is fairly predictable. When you've played the same scenario a few times, there are few surprises.

Recently upgraded to 1.27 : Excellent! Thank you, @pandakraut The AIconfigFile tweaks you identify address many of the game balance issues I've had (BG : too easy / MG : too awkward). Thought I had hit a wall there. Suggestion: Gather into one posting Link to the v.1.27 upgrade info & suggestions on player-customization of new AIconfig file info & suggestions on player-customization of elements of other config files That'll make it a little easier to share & discuss 'player customization experience' (pro's/con's, trade-off's, etc.) which really lies at the heart of effectively re-balancing the game Again: KUDOS for an excellent improvement by you and @JonnyH13

Troop Movement ... remains an issue Getting Reinforcements from the edge of the board to the battle is a pain Units don't recognize - or use - Roads ... even if they are on a road Units tend to deploy into battle formation by default ... even if they are at a distance from the battle. Grabbing a group of units and moving them forward results in the automatic creation of an artificial 'battle line' which is overly broad, slow, and unwieldy Militaries across the globe have multiple Unit Marching Speeds Advance : in Battle formation (slowest) ... is the ugcw default Double-quick : in Battle formation (fast, but tiring) ... is the ugcw "Run" Charge : in Battle formation (top speed - only for short bursts) ... is the ugcw "Charge" Route-step : in Column formation (speed without exhaustion) ... can happen in ugcw, but you can't really control it ugcw should include Route-Step as a selectable movement option The addition of what I am calling 'route step' allows you to swiftly move troops across the field without excessive fatigue The unit automatically forms a Column They can make use of roads but they are not deployed in battle formation and may be more susceptible to artillery If one of the other modes (advance, double-quick, charge) is selected, the unit automatically deploys into battle formation For artillery "route-step/column" is the same as "limbered" (i.e. move swiftly/undeployed) Roads All units - if placed on a Road - will use the Road to reach their destination by default, if the destination is in the vicinity of the road and they are in route-step/column mode

Optimal Brigade Size Thanks to @pandakrautfor good advice about unit size and its effect on AI: Infantry Brigade : 1000-1300 men creates the most 'winnable' scenarios. And those numbers are in keeping with historical unit sizes. (I remain gob-smacked at ugcw's insistence that 4500-6000-man brigades are even an option) Cavalry units of 350-500 men echo historical unit sizes - and their tactical/operational efficiencies Artillery units may be more open to variation, but brigades of 12-20 guns seem to work effectively on the field - at least through the early battles I find that keeping infantry unit size modest works ... on a number of levels As noted, dedicated Skimisher (actually Ranger/Sharpshooter) units were a historical anomaly - and imo should be included, but restricted Thanks again, @pandakraut , for framing the impact of unit size on AI. A natural tendency is to grow the size of units over time - especially given the implicit encouragement of the ugcw interface: Both the built-in ArmyOrg advancements and 'common sense' say "Bigger is Better". Not true. It is useful to appreciate that often "More is Better". And it would be useful for the ugcw interface to accommodate 'more smaller units' within the command structure.