dixiePig

"As you can see above, you only get 10% of weapons from enemy casualties." I don't dispute that this rate reflects the game engine dynamics, but I question the assumption that 10% is a reasonable figure - especially since the negative effect is compounded: Not only is your recovery rate cut in half (if we assume that BG is median (normal), Col = easy, MG = hard But you also get less money to buy weapons It's a double whammy. The question remains: What is a reasonable assumption of historical weapon recovery rates - as a 'bottom line' and point of reference? Tried to research this online but was surprised to find little available statistical info. Can I ask how you - or ugcw - came to those figures? Net/Net: I can accept that - in a harder game - there are fewer resources (money), and enemy is tougher to fight - but not that a statistical reality (i.e. weapons recovery rate) changes, any more than that the weapons themselves would change. imo You can make weapons acquisition harder by reducing money or reducing the number of weapons you can buy w/ reputation points in Government. Those are both arbitrary values. But spoils of war are earned on the battlefield by my abilities as a commander. I feel that cutting the recovery percentage is actually unfair. Can you explain what " Most maps can be full cleared" means?

Can you clarify the criteria by which 'spoils of war' are allocated after a battle? I am now in a hard-level campaign and find that I receive very few spoils. I just won "Stay Alert" as Confederate. I suffered ~5000 casualties, inflicted ~8000, and ended with control of the battlefield. Yet I captured a total of only about 500 muskets (and didn't recover that many either). Those numbers just aren't right. I appreciate the 'balance' arguments, yet would propose that the desire to make the game harder can be resolved in other ways which don't defy common-sense. Also: What's with the fixed level of spoils? I've tried re-fighting certain battles and find that the "spoils" are almost exactly the same, even when I inflict - or suffer - substantially different losses. It begs the "why bother?" question. There is little incentive to inflict a decisive defeat. The same applies to reputation and career points: All victories result in the same rewards: Doesn't matter whether you just got by or annihilated the enemy. The strategy becomes "Do enough to win a victory by objectives. Then coast. Because there's no advantage: You'll just lose men & resources." The balancing might be handled in the reputation/career/government arena, for example: If I inflict x amount of casualties; if I inflict y % greater casualties, etc, Then I receive additional reputation and/or resources (money/troops/leaders/weapons/xp/advancement)

Additional observations re gameplay: I re-activated Detached Skirmishers feature, because it is historical, appropriate, and I enjoy it. I realize that it gives me a tactical advantage, but ... It appears that the re-balance is now 'too easy' - at least at the mid-point of the campaigns: I imposed more than 40,000 casualties on the Union in 2nd Bull Run, at a cost of a little over 6,000 of my own. I doubt it was all due to Detached Skirmishers. "Jonny is also worked on a unique version of the campaign where everything is scaled up to ridiculous levels to make things as difficult as possible" : sounds good : I look forward to it Part of this may be due to: The enemy (in this case the Union) starts every engagement aggressively - even when in a defensive posture. This can put them at an immediate disadvantage, as they are often exposed and susceptible to defense+artillery. I note this because the legacy game is not so aggressive - requiring me to put my forces at risk when attacking. Is it possible to 'modularize' the aggressiveness so that it can be invoked selectively? i.e. Some commanders are aggressive, some are even foolhardy. Some commanders are defensive, some are even too timid. It would be interesting to encounter a range of command/fighting profiles over the course of the campaigns. This would provide some variety and challenge - and perhaps make "Reconnaissance/Intelligence" (which I don't value much in ugcw) more useful. Some things I really like about the re-balance: Artillery : on-screen ranging, ordnance effects (shot/canister), usage-oriented perks (long range/short range) The Forrest unit is now melee/assault cavalry (shotguns are a close-combat weapon) Increased 'spoils of war' weapons recovery is tremendously valuable to the Confederacy.

What is "RNG"? I generally 'blend' my forces so that a battle will feature both veteran-heavy and rookie units. In this way, I feel that I can create new units and give them experience, without compromising stability or effectiveness. After 2nd Bull Run, I have 20 units with 6+ battles 17 units with 3+ battles 18 units with 2 or fewer battles This gives me a fairly 'balanced' army with quite a few highly-experienced units. Despite a steep growth rate, nonetheless a third of my units have fought in half of the battles, which were all victorious. I have a hard time reconciling high performance with a lack of advancement. I am well-aware that any game can be 'gamed', but have little interest in that as a strategy. I believe you've acknowledged that this is an issue that's hard to fix. Your mod has many fine improvements and I like it a lot. This one still needs work - and it sounds like they haven't made it easy. Good luck with it.

Agreed: infantry is the overwhelmingly likely Corps-perk option. Although I "get" the gameplay value of selecting Corps-level "umbrella" perks, I don't get the historical or practical significance. Might be historical niggling, but wouldn't this likelier be a 'personal preference' of an individual Corps-level commander, rather than something which is artificially & arbitrarily selected? For example: Robert E. Lee was an engineer/artillery guy. That would be an obvious artillery perk. It also might improve entrenched infantry. And perhaps Logistics. More complex, but also more consistently fully-featured. Each historical commander has his own profile of strengths and weaknesses. Those should inform the perks that they bring to the units they command. If you wish to bring command-level perks to a Corps or Division, then appoint a commander who's good at that stuff. Don't just say "You are now - magically - good at this stuff."

UPDATE: Am enjoying the re-balance, but ... Just won 2nd Bull Run as Confederates, playing at a moderate level, with Detached Skirmishers feature = on I have won 15 engagements (4 major battles) I've acquired every Historical Leader possible through Government I now have 55 brigades in 3 corps, with 10 divisions : A total of 86 active commanders Including the 11 replacements in my Barracks, I now have: 2 Major Generals 1 Brigadier General 71 Colonels Some Lt Cols and a few Majors I'll just leave it at that, in hopes that the re-balance will soon deal with the issue of senior-level promotions more gracefully. By way of observation, junior-level officers advance quickly - almost reflexively - but there is an obvious ceiling at the level of Colonel

Yes, some of these things can be accomplished, but only if the 'ultimate general' engages in a lot of click-intensive busywork. From what I've seen, "road ignorance" is a well-recognized problem w/ ugcw. It may be true, but I am surprised that a complex mapping engine like ugcw cannot handle the concept of point-to-point pathing on visible roads. imo, a dedicated "Route-step In-column" movement button would solve these issues simply, appropriately, and in a 'common-sense' manner which has historical precedent.

Thanks for the speedy reply, tho am not sure that I grasp the explanation clearly... Pity that the base game is inflexible regarding xp/promotions, as they are an interesting aspect of the game Agreed: "Rep buys" (buying historical leaders in the Career section?) is more valuable in this game. Given the limitations of advancement/xp earned through battle, perhaps: Historical leaders might advance at a higher rate or Historical leaders arrive at a higher xp level (i.e. BG, instead of Colonel), even if they must be purchased at a higher Career price. Context: I am currently entering 2nd Bull Run as Confederates and none of my divisional or line officers have advanced to BG yet. Frustrating. Related observation: Senior officers are now much more expensive when purchased from the Academy

Troop Movement remains an issue Getting Reinforcements to the battle is a pain Grabbing a group of units and moving them forward as a group results in the creation of an artificial 'battle line' which is overly broad, ill-formed, and unwieldy 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 Both of these result in unnecessarily slow movement. Unit speed Current Modes: Advance : in Battle formation (slowest) Double-quick : in Battle formation (fast, but tiring) Charge : in Battle formation (top speed - only for short bursts) What's missing: Route-step : in Column formation (speed without exhaustion) "A march to battle would be made in light marching-order, the men four abreast, and generally on the double quick." 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 are more vulnerable to artillery or a surprise attack from skirmishers or cavalry They incur the overhead of deploying to/from battle formation If one of the other modes (advance, double-quick, charge) is selected, then the unit automatically deploys into battle formation All units - if placed on a Road - will use the Road to reach their destination, if the destination is in the vicinity of the road and they are in route-step/column mode For artillery "route-step/column" is the same as "limbered" (i.e. move swiftly/undeployed) On large battlefields (Bull Run, Shiloh, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, etc.), newly-arriving units are far from the fighting and need fear little from surprise attack or artillery. Wise commanders would move their units to the battle area as swiftly and efficiently as possible. In-Column Route Step is a sensible, realistic solution. There may be a "proximity trigger" which automatically deploys a unit into battle formation when it gets close enough to enemy units.

"experience / promotion' among senior officers is an ongoing issue. I find that I am buying all of the historical commanders I can in Career tab - because I lack both BG's and Colonels as I try to grow my army. Hope to see accelerated performance/rewards soon. Perhaps consider promotion based on unit performance, as well: losses inflicted / losses incurred, successful defense, successful assault, overall victory : are all possible factors

Will 'battlefield smoke / obscured vision' ever be a feature? - either in ui design (graphics presentation on the map) or functionally (diminished command control / effectiveness of musket fire)

Thanks. Makes sense to me - and I like the little 'gift'. I enjoy playing now with detached Skirmishers on. Will be interested to see what happens with next phases of rebalance, so that they can be seamless part of the default mode: I feel that they're an integral part of the history and the game.

I get the sense that this happens sometimes: Playing the Confederates Port Republic : says that I have 13 Brigades for the engagement I form my attacking corps with a total of 16 brigades ugcw starts battle by giving me 3 brigades but my reinforcements bring my troop total to 15 brigades I don't really mind having a bigger force, but ... ?

Don't know if you can implement, but seems to me that a reasonable functional feature is that when you detach Skirmishers from an infantry brigade the Skirmishers automatically deploy in the direction of the host unit movement This would save some extraneous/redundant clicking. i.e. IF brigade x is heading northeast for a distance of 600 yds THEN the detached Skirmishers will automatically deploy in a northeast direction for a distance of 700-800 yds By the same token IF brigade x is engaged with the enemy (i.e. firing) THEN Skirmishers deploy in the opposite direction at a distance of 100 yds imo These are both reasonable defaults for detached Skirmishers. As a player I can, of course, override them. But probably not.

Although I don't obsess a lot over junior officers - Why not simply use the same method for battlefield replacement at that level? Common sense says that there are probably a few Captains around ... If not, then a competent Lieutenant or two

* grouping & labeling are obvious, though the icons are still legacy (i.e. "not obvious" and sometimes confusing ... because of legacy usage). It may seem minor, but is there anything you can do w/ UI icons? https://tcscraft.wordpress.com/2017/12/19/branding-icons/

Good call : esp re canister

RE: Promotion https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-promotion-system-operate-in-the-confederate-army-during-the-civil-war "... if the colonel of an infantry regiment was killed or forced to retire due to wounds, the lieutenant colonel would usually be promoted to take his place as colonel." (i.e. battlefield promotion) Seems to imply that - if a commander is killed or wounded - his replacement would likely be of the same rank. If implemented, This makes the current situation - re promotions & commander casualties - slightly less painful. Quora is an excellent resource for well-researched crowdsourced insights including me : https://www.quora.com/profile/John-Vaughan

Thanks. Good luck in getting the machine to behave

A not-so-wonderful artifact of the legacy version of ucgw is the confining attribute of the mapEdge, which allows troops to be 'pinned'. On the one hand, it's a feature which can often be 'gamed' to advantage on the other hand, it's kinda cheap and false It deserves some consideration. Perhaps: If a unit is in a severe 'routed' state and is pushed 'off the board', it cannot return, though not all of the troops are casualties If it is not routed , then it might return - but with a time/ strength / exhaustion penalty In a related vein I find it kind of exasperating when I've beaten the enemy fairly decisively, but individual isolated enemy units still continue to fight steadfastly. Although history tells us that this COULD happen (in rare instances) - it was far likelier that you would have a historical First Bull Run result, where panic and flight could spread to many units.

Correction. I misspoke myself when referring to "horse artillery' I meant "Short Range Focus", which has the canister advantage. I like very much your speed/short-range/long-range perks for artillery. Appropriate groupings and labeling is obvious.

Sounds reasonable. The howitzers are bears, tho a little slow compared to the napoleons. I tend to use my rapid-firing short-range artillery in close tactical support of infantry units. Longer range Parrotts and Ordnance for more strategic bombardment. BTW: You've got Parrots and Ordnance now firing at about 2x the rate they did in the base game, which was only about 33. Rationale? Note: Haven't tracked it that closely, but infantry in-line within 500 yds does not seem to take the losses I'd expect from a battery of 12 napoleons firing (I assume) canister. I also expect heavier losses (and shock) when artillery takes an infantry unit in flank. Or at least that's my impression. I'll keep an eye on it.

hmmm. Don't know that this actually comports with historical effectiveness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canister_shot "It was particularly effective during the Napoleonic Wars and the American Civil War, where massed troops at close range (usually less than 400 yards) could be broken up by artillery batteries firing canister. At times, particularly at very close range, artillery crews would fire extremely lethal "double canister," where two rounds were loaded into the gun tube and fired simultaneously using a single charge." I'll take +25% canister impact (HA) any day of the week. Not to dis other perks, but historically ... Does your engine actually reflect that "massed troops at close range (usually less than 400 yards) could be broken up by artillery batteries firing canister"? It should. Suggestion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_artillery_in_the_American_Civil_War

Thanks. Think I get it re the effectiveness of artillery. I use it a lot as an equalizer in fighting when outnumbered against the Union. I'll stick with my observations re the actual, documented effectiveness of artillery-as-compared-to-infantry-fire. It definitely does need to be tuned. The US Civil War was a proving ground for the emergence of artillery (technology) as the battlefield difference-maker, a trend which had been evolving since Napoleon. A lesson not really truly learned until WW1...

Horse Artillery, of course. Still early in the game - haven't received that many perks so far. Which brings to mind another question: Horse Artillery seems to be THE level-1 perk option. If that's the obvious & overwhelming preference pattern among players, then maybe re-think what you're offering.