Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

J & P Rebalance Mod by JonnyH13 and Pandakraut 05/06/2023 1.28.4


JonnyH13

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Grimthaur said:

Hm. Detached and dedicated Skirmishers have been - at least for me - the one OP unit since the game was released. In the mod my armycomposition is 80% Skirmishers and 20% longrange Artillery. A ***Unit with WW(TS) flanking an AI-Advance is able to break 3-4 Infantry before they even reach their opponent. In my current CSA-Campaign most Battles are like shooting ducks, i only lose men, if i am too lazy and go for max-speed while watching sth. on 2nd screen. This also makes Napoleons or 24PDs completely useless since the AI never reaches their most effective range. Capping Skirmishers at 750 wont change that. The Spotting- and Stealth- advantages even on one star are way too powerful and since i dont deploy any infantry at all AIs armysize is quite small and even 1.000-***-AI-Skirmishers dont give challenge because they often equip 300-Range-Sharps. The visibility-Change could be interesting though, if it doesnt mess up the AI (dont see, how an infantry-unit can reach a Sharpshooter shooting from 600+20% range). Do you have a video showing the new effect, i think you called it stealth-penalty?

I haven't heard of anyone trying a mostly skirmisher setup in the new version yet, so any feedback along those lines would be appreciated. There are a lot of changes that affected that army comp. These changes might not be sufficient, we didn't want to overcompensate given all the other changes.

The WW(TS) has 50% reduced stock in the shop now and also had it's reload rate cut by around 30%. The AI is much more likely to charge in a semi-competent fashion and it is much harder to convince it to stop, though that will depend somewhat on what difficulty you are playing on. Several modifications were made to scaling that should keep things a bit more even when the player is deploying mostly skirmishers. AI skirmishers are also more likely to get improved weapons now.

I don't have a video of the stealth changes at the moment. The basic idea is that anytime an AI unit is damaged it gets a bonus to spot. Anytime a unit fires it gets a small stealth penalty. This penalty lasts longer than it takes a unit to reload, so the penalty will continue to get worse and worse the longer you keep firing. This should make it much harder to keep units equipped with  400-500 range weapons hidden for more than a few volleys. Scoped whitworths will still be much safer, but given their lack of availability any mistakes will be very costly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pandakraut said:

I haven't heard of anyone trying a mostly skirmisher setup in the new version yet, so any feedback along those lines would be appreciated. There are a lot of changes that affected that army comp. These changes might not be sufficient, we didn't want to overcompensate given all the other changes.

The WW(TS) has 50% reduced stock in the shop now and also had it's reload rate cut by around 30%. The AI is much more likely to charge in a semi-competent fashion and it is much harder to convince it to stop, though that will depend somewhat on what difficulty you are playing on. Several modifications were made to scaling that should keep things a bit more even when the player is deploying mostly skirmishers. AI skirmishers are also more likely to get improved weapons now.

I don't have a video of the stealth changes at the moment. The basic idea is that anytime an AI unit is damaged it gets a bonus to spot. Anytime a unit fires it gets a small stealth penalty. This penalty lasts longer than it takes a unit to reload, so the penalty will continue to get worse and worse the longer you keep firing. This should make it much harder to keep units equipped with  400-500 range weapons hidden for more than a few volleys. Scoped whitworths will still be much safer, but given their lack of availability any mistakes will be very costly.

Ok i will defnitly give it a try once im done with my campaign. Just to clarify: WW(TS) is nerfed from 1.25 to 1.26 (so fireing-rate down from 75?) and you also adjusted scaling between the two patches? The "charge-wave" sounds good although it would make certain battles on legendary extremely hard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Grimthaur said:

Ok i will defnitly give it a try once im done with my campaign. Just to clarify: WW(TS) is nerfed from 1.25 to 1.26 (so fireing-rate down from 75?) and you also adjusted scaling between the two patches? The "charge-wave" sounds good although it would make certain battles on legendary extremely hard.

Yes, both of those changes are in the new patch.

Legendary has certainly been quite the adjustment. The union start received several reward increases to give the player a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pandakraut said:

I haven't heard of anyone trying a mostly skirmisher setup in the new version yet, so any feedback along those lines would be appreciated.

For reference, fighting the Union Campaign on MG.

In 1.25 I was a skirmisher heavy army on either side.  Once you hit 3 stars, those units were unstoppable. 

I tried the skirmisher heavy approach with 1.26 and found that the charging of larger AI units was almost unstoppable in the early missions.  Thinking I was smart, always mistake 1, I rolled into distress call with 4 skirmisher units at 750 with a mix of 1841s and 1855s to compliment a pair of artillery and my infantry.  The infantry had no stopping power, 1 star at best that early, and questionable weapons to say the least.  Needless to say, I got rolled.  2000+ man CSA mobs, 1 and 2 stars but equipped with charge bonuses, didn't notice the volley or two I could get off when they were in range and I was falling back.  Even the tried and true crescent moon formation in the SW woods couldn't save me.  I had to restart (went heavy training backstory) and bake some 1500 man infantry units of 1 star to make anything work.  I had 1 skirmisher unit that picked away at the units to the NW from cover of the woods.  Not really effective.  At Bull Run, new skirmishers were almost useless.  I need the new infantry units to face down the 12k man disadvantage I was at to start the battle. 

Grains of salt, I'm not the best player but I enjoy playing.  I've beaten both campaigns on MG in vanilla (oh the days of the OP artillery) and in the 1.25 mod (love my light infantry).  I like to watch the YouTube videos Pandakraut puts out when I'm looking for inspiration.  I feel competent at what I do but also love the new challenges of being beaten by the game with the new mods.  I've found a use for melee cavalry in the new mod, though it's not cost effective until later.  Right now I'm staring at the Shiloh challenge.  Only outnumbered by 11k or so, but I also know that this battle is a deployment puzzle for me (I haven't memorized how 2nd and 3rd divisions get split on the initial phases) and will grind down my best units.

In the end, and belatedly in short, I was a huge skirmisher guy in 1.25 but have really struggled to employ a similar strategy in 1.26.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Grimthaur said:

Hm. Detached and dedicated Skirmishers have been - at least for me - the one OP unit since the game was released. In the mod my armycomposition is 80% Skirmishers and 20% longrange Artillery. A ***Unit with WW(TS) flanking an AI-Advance is able to break 3-4 Infantry before they even reach their opponent. In my current CSA-Campaign most Battles are like shooting ducks, i only lose men, if i am too lazy and go for max-speed while watching sth. on 2nd screen. This also makes Napoleons or 24PDs completely useless since the AI never reaches their most effective range. Capping Skirmishers at 750 wont change that. The Spotting- and Stealth- advantages even on one star are way too powerful and since i dont deploy any infantry at all AIs armysize is quite small and even 1.000-***-AI-Skirmishers dont give challenge because they often equip 300-Range-Sharps. The visibility-Change could be interesting though, if it doesnt mess up the AI (dont see, how an infantry-unit can reach a Sharpshooter shooting from 600+20% range). Do you have a video showing the new effect, i think you called it stealth-penalty?

I'm sorry I can't share your view

Just win shilo on legendary...

the new mod is a real challenge and you will be pushed to your limits.
Especially at the beginning of the campaign it's hard to complete the missions successfully...

The charing units are very strong and the most attacks come in very big numbers...

i don't know how far you are in your campaign right now
but i'm dependent on cavalry and regular infantry...

80% Skirmishers and 20% longrange artillery is unrealistic and far-fetched for me, is it possible that you are talking about the older mods and not about the current 1.26 ???

which unit with Sharpshooter shooting from 600+20% range do you mean here exactly ???

you can only detached 8% skrimishers of your infantry unit...

so you dont get a very strong additional skrimishers..

This is not attack on you
i will only understand your point off view

THX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sirwaldi said:

I'm sorry I can't share your view

Just win shilo on legendary...

the new mod is a real challenge and you will be pushed to your limits.
Especially at the beginning of the campaign it's hard to complete the missions successfully...

The charing units are very strong and the most attacks come in very big numbers...

i don't know how far you are in your campaign right now
but i'm dependent on cavalry and regular infantry...

80% Skirmishers and 20% longrange artillery is unrealistic and far-fetched for me, is it possible that you are talking about the older mods and not about the current 1.26 ???

which unit with Sharpshooter shooting from 600+20% range do you mean here exactly ???

you can only detached 8% skrimishers of your infantry unit...

so you dont get a very strong additional skrimishers..

This is not attack on you
i will only understand your point off view

THX

The 80% skirmisher setup being described was on 1.25. With the changes in 1.26 it should be much harder to get going.

The whitworth ts scoped rifle that the CSA can buy is 600 range and a 3* skirmisher unit can extend the range even further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the ideal cannon count in a battery with this mod? "~12 to 14" like in vanilla or "bigger?"

I was under the impression that "bigger" is always "better" with this mod, but I upped my batteries from 14 to 18 and they all seem to be kinda lackluster now. Strictly anecdotal but, yeah . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anthropoid said:

What is the ideal cannon count in a battery with this mod? "~12 to 14" like in vanilla or "bigger?"

I was under the impression that "bigger" is always "better" with this mod, but I upped my batteries from 14 to 18 and they all seem to be kinda lackluster now. Strictly anecdotal but, yeah . . .

There is no mathematical ideal size. 18 will do more damage than 14. But the damage difference between 10 and 14 guns will be larger than the difference between 14 and 18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see that mod is still active and constantly developing. With 1.26 I installed UG once again and tried beat the game as CSA on legendary. Unfortunately I got stuck on Newsport News, xD. I don't know if I do not remember how to play or it's new charge ai. However 20k~21k union army against my modest 3x 1250 infantry brigades + 1 art seems a little bit overwhelming. That's like 2.5 ratio. Any tips for that mission?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always interesting to log in and observe comments.  Here're mine:

Am pretty much done with Medium Level (BG) now and am working on Hard Level (MG).  By the way:  Does anyone actually use Easy Level for any length of time?  It would be nice to have a game structure which allows for even more variety in in the challenges.

Newest mod improves the tooManyColonels/noBrigadiers problem.  Many Thanks.  Shuffling commanders to gain an additional star is now a de facto exercise (and it works) but it's still gaming-the-rule rather than playing-the-game.  Hope you can also accommodate 'the value of consistency' in retaining a beloved&trusted commander ...

Speaking of which:  The fascination with armies consisting primarily of hi-octane Rangers/Sharpshooters and highly powered artillery like Whitworths is proving to be a real counter-historical un-balance.  Guess it works for many players, tho I personally prefer a little more historically-valid play, and hope to see ugcw accommodate that, as well.  Actual 'detached' Skirmishers fulfill some of that harassment/flanking/mobility role, as does wise use of Cavalry.

Speaking to Anthropoid's question about optimal number of battery guns:  Does cannon fire (and/or rifle fire) from multiple directions/sources have an increased demoralization effect? (i.e. "Fire from three 6-gun batteries demoralizes more than fire from one 24-gun battery.")  Seems to me that the effect would be more than just the number of guns.

In a sort-of-related vein:  I currently must invest most of my Government perks in growing my army Organization at the beginning of the game, so that I can have enough units to fight the early battles (when my army is still tiny).  Specifically:  As the CSA, I want to be at ArmyOrg:3 for 1st Bull Run (5 brigades) and prefer to be at ArmyOrg:6 (24 - or at the very least 18 Brigades) for Shiloh.  I appreciate that developing an army is a critical challenge in the early days, but the ArmyOrg parameters seem a little arbitrary and skewed: i.e. Technically, I can build a 4500-man Brigade which  is as large as many historical Divisions, but that unit size is also far beyond what most early commanders can handle.

  • What are the practical (battle) implications for brigade officer whose unit is "too large" for his abilities?
  • If I can place a brigade officer in command of a unit that is 'too large', then why not allow a divisional officer to command 'too many' brigades? For example: a division at ArmyOrg: Level3 might be allowed to have 8 very small brigades. Such a division could  have no more troops than a "legal" division that has only 5 brigades, but it would be affordable.  The value:  In early days (with fewer resources), I can build an army of small units with minor officers and 'grow' them in size and rank over the course of several battles. I often don't have enough weapons or ranked officers to build substantial brigades without bankrupting my treasury  .

The current AmyOrg structure arbitrarily limits me to a small number of units - even tho it allows me to make those individual units unrealistically large.  Net/Net:  The ArmyOrg aspect of ugcw is kind of a pain.   

  • Wikipedia: " Union brigades averaged 1,000 to 1,500 men, while on the Confederate side they averaged 1,500 to 1,800... Divisions were formed of two or more brigades. Union divisions contained 2,500 to 4,000 men, while the Confederate division was somewhat larger, containing 5,000 to 6,000 men... The strength of a Union corps averaged 9,000 to 12,000 officers and men, those of Confederate armies might average 20,000."  By all evidence, artillery batteries tended to be quite small (4-6 guns), as compared to the scale allowed in ugcw.

It is worth noting that - historically - the Union Army tended to organize itself into a larger number of weaker units, whereas the CSA tended to have fewer-but-stronger units. I don't propose that ugcw become unrealistically constrained - but a more historically accurate game might also be engineered-to-be-fun.

Funds, ammo and weapons are adequately addressed in ugcw, but not the essential issue of transport - specifically horses.  I don't want to get into the tall weeds here, but I think you get my drift:  Horses are an essential war commodity, as well as funds, weapons, and ammo. 

  • " Late in the war, and lacking horses and mules, generals on both sides were known to say that it was easier to replace a soldier than a horse. providing and caring for the equines... At the start of the Civil War, the Northern states held approximately 3.4 million horses, while there were 1.7 million in the Confederate states. The border states of Missouri and Kentucky had an additional 800,000 horses. In addition, there were 100,000 mules in the North, 800,000 in the seceding states and 200,000 in Kentucky and Missouri."

Horses are necessary for Cavalry, Supply, and - specifically - the ability to create Horse Artillery.  In that sense, creating Horse Artillery (and even Cavalry units) should be a function of available equine resources.  I realize that this might be kind of a redesign bitch, but it's relevant - and I believe it would be valuable to accommodate it. 

Net/net:  "horse artillery" is not a perk in and of itself, it's a function of resource (can't build horse artillery if you don't have horses).  Value-added: You might gain horse resource as a result of a successful battle, occupying territory, or as a Government perk.

Thanks again for the updates & improvements.

Edited by dixiePig
clarity
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2020 at 11:38 AM, sirwaldi said:

I'm sorry I can't share your view

Just win shilo on legendary...

the new mod is a real challenge and you will be pushed to your limits.
Especially at the beginning of the campaign it's hard to complete the missions successfully...

The charing units are very strong and the most attacks come in very big numbers...

i don't know how far you are in your campaign right now
but i'm dependent on cavalry and regular infantry...

80% Skirmishers and 20% longrange artillery is unrealistic and far-fetched for me, is it possible that you are talking about the older mods and not about the current 1.26 ???

which unit with Sharpshooter shooting from 600+20% range do you mean here exactly ???

you can only detached 8% skrimishers of your infantry unit...

so you dont get a very strong additional skrimishers..

This is not attack on you
i will only understand your point off view

THX

As i stated, i was referring to 1.25 not the new patch. I hope, 1.26 will be a challange because up until now neither vanilla nor rebalance is if you know how to use dedicated (NOT detached) skirmisher-brigades. Skirmisher wih 600+20% range is equipped with WW(TS) and ***. I hate to play with Cav, it just doesnt fit my playstyle and its pathfinding is still unsettling to me. Just to illustrate, what evry battle looks like for me on 1.25 - without really tryharding: 439337C42A395E5EFFA0CABDF486B6160A93726E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t tried the latest version of the mod yet. However I have been experimenting on BG to try to get colonels to rank up faster and I’ve now had more success than in the vanilla game. I have 22! LGs as the Union right before Cold Harbor. I’ve never had more than 4 in the vanilla game even playing on colonel. By putting colonels in weak units until they  reach BG. Then placing them in charge of a corps (usually the less important corps in early battles) until they reach MG then back into divisions. I made sure to move them around so they participated in every battle and it seems to have paid off rather well. 
 

On a side note one of my favorite things about vanilla play was getting A.I. officers in my barracks and learning about them. This mod seems to have significantly increased the amount of wounded, historically accurate officers that appear. Looking forward to playing the latest update.
 

Edited by Jeepcreep2019
Spelling error
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I've managed to beat on legendary Newsport's News and I am not satisfied with that result. I lost my artillery, whole brigade, and two remaining was also badly bruised. Like 50-70% of their initial manpower, and lost an officer. And there comes the reward - I got a draw, yeah hurray. So also shit gratification, mainly loosing reputation is a big bummer for me, as I really heavily on rep request early game to build up my army.

So I've searched for youtube playthrough that will reveal the secrets of winning this battle. Unfortunately on current 1.26 version there was none. But on Fiasco games has pretty nice CSA legendary series on 1.25, so close enough I assume. And there was the revelation. In his game union got only 13.6k troops. Wow that is massive difference from 20k.

Did scaling also go up with 1.26? If so I don't think how can I beat that battle.

On the other hand finally union army wasn't completely destroyed, with huge casualties on both sides. Whole battle feel much more realistic and dramatic which was great. So I am suggesting adjusting the rewards and/or victory conditions so at least you are compensate for your loses accordingly. I mean if successfully defending town against army 2.5 larger then yours isn't a victory I don't know what is xD. There is possibility that my game timers requires some adjusting in csv files as I prefer to play with normal game speed. But overall I think increasing rewards is a good idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2020 at 11:01 AM, zyszczak said:

Nice to see that mod is still active and constantly developing. With 1.26 I installed UG once again and tried beat the game as CSA on legendary. Unfortunately I got stuck on Newsport News, xD. I don't know if I do not remember how to play or it's new charge ai. However 20k~21k union army against my modest 3x 1250 infantry brigades + 1 art seems a little bit overwhelming. That's like 2.5 ratio. Any tips for that mission?

The very early battles in both campaigns tend allow you to kill yourself with scaling depending on how you setup your army. With the 3 starting units you'll be facing around 13-14k. Adding more infantry units scales the AI at around 2:1. You do seem to have gotten a bit of bad luck though. With the setup you described I'm only facing 17-18k on legendary.

Some tips for the battle with the new charge changes. Jumping into the city fortifications when a charge reaches melee range can save you a lot of condition in the following melee. You do want to try and get back out of the fortifications afterwords as they aren't great for taking ranged fire. Detached skirmishers can save you some flanking shots or delay the initial union units until your reinforcements arrive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2020 at 11:45 AM, dixiePig said:

Am pretty much done with Medium Level (BG) now and am working on Hard Level (MG).  By the way:  Does anyone actually use Easy Level for any length of time?  It would be nice to have a game structure which allows for even more variety in in the challenges.

A surprising number of players do play on that difficulty. There is a very wide range of player skill that is hard to accomodate.

On 2/9/2020 at 11:45 AM, dixiePig said:

Hope you can also accommodate 'the value of consistency' in retaining a beloved&trusted commander ...

Have some new ideas on how to achieve this on the technical side. Perhaps in the next version.

On 2/9/2020 at 11:45 AM, dixiePig said:

Does cannon fire (and/or rifle fire) from multiple directions/sources have an increased demoralization effect? (i.e. "Fire from three 6-gun batteries demoralizes more than fire from one 24-gun battery.")

Assuming there is no flanking fire going on no. It's just a total damage dealt in a given time frame.

On 2/9/2020 at 11:45 AM, dixiePig said:

the ArmyOrg parameters seem a little arbitrary and skewed: i.e. Technically, I can build a 4500-man Brigade which  is as large as many historical Divisions, but that unit size is also far beyond what most early commanders can handle.

The AO settings have to accommodate the union campaign as well which allows for far more units early on. Supporting a large unit focused playstyle also means there are some non-historical options for a player trying to stay closer to historical sizes. One of the necessary compromises to allow different players to build how they like.

On 2/9/2020 at 11:45 AM, dixiePig said:

allow a divisional officer to command 'too many' brigades?

Balance issues and technical limitations.

On 2/9/2020 at 11:45 AM, dixiePig said:

Funds, ammo and weapons are adequately addressed in ugcw, but not the essential issue of transport - specifically horses.  I don't want to get into the tall weeds here, but I think you get my drift:  Horses are an essential war commodity, as well as funds, weapons, and ammo. 

Technical limitations probably mean that this won't be possible. In that direction we do plan on looking into giving extra cash rewards for capturing cavalry units in the future.

Thanks for the feedback, glad the officer changes have largely resolved your concerns though I know it's still not quite what you're looking for.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zyszczak said:

Today I've managed to beat on legendary Newsport's News and I am not satisfied with that result. I lost my artillery, whole brigade, and two remaining was also badly bruised. Like 50-70% of their initial manpower, and lost an officer. And there comes the reward - I got a draw, yeah hurray. So also shit gratification, mainly loosing reputation is a big bummer for me, as I really heavily on rep request early game to build up my army.

So I've searched for youtube playthrough that will reveal the secrets of winning this battle. Unfortunately on current 1.26 version there was none. But on Fiasco games has pretty nice CSA legendary series on 1.25, so close enough I assume. And there was the revelation. In his game union got only 13.6k troops. Wow that is massive difference from 20k.

Did scaling also go up with 1.26? If so I don't think how can I beat that battle.

On the other hand finally union army wasn't completely destroyed, with huge casualties on both sides. Whole battle feel much more realistic and dramatic which was great. So I am suggesting adjusting the rewards and/or victory conditions so at least you are compensate for your loses accordingly. I mean if successfully defending town against army 2.5 larger then yours isn't a victory I don't know what is xD. There is possibility that my game timers requires some adjusting in csv files as I prefer to play with normal game speed. But overall I think increasing rewards is a good idea.

It's definitely possible to get through newport with lower losses and a win. I listed some tips in another recent response. Not sure if you're a discord user, but there are a few people who will stream there and if the timing works out can probably get someone to do a run through of it.

There were some scaling adjustments in 1.26, but nothing that should have affected newport much. In my save I can face 14k when I have 2 infantry units and 18k with 3, so army setup can change the situation drastically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks panda, little to late with that video I manage to win Newport already. I watched it anyway and there is much smaller union army compared to what I have experienced. Although I go with 3rd infantry brigade. Now I am struggling with ambush convoy mission. Once again I am massively outnumbered 12.7k to ~35k. When I tried to encircle them on spawning location they just rout through my army, because they are so massive. It's weird that Union protects their convoy with more troops then they send to First Manassas (32k) XD. Maybe scaling just hates me in this playthrough.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zyszczak said:

Thanks panda, little to late with that video I manage to win Newport already. I watched it anyway and there is much smaller union army compared to what I have experienced. Although I go with 3rd infantry brigade. Now I am struggling with ambush convoy mission. Once again I am massively outnumbered 12.7k to ~35k. When I tried to encircle them on spawning location they just rout through my army, because they are so massive. It's weird that Union protects their convoy with more troops then they send to First Manassas (32k) XD. Maybe scaling just hates me in this playthrough.

Ambush can also scale up very high depending on what you build. Could also be some bad luck with the battle size modifier. Ambush you can at least always back off if you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 2/10/2020 at 1:43 PM, pandakraut said:

One of the necessary compromises to allow different players to build how they like.

Kinda my point:  I'd like to be able to build an army of more smaller units armed  with lower-ranked officers, esp since in hard (MG) mode ... that's pretty much what I've got, since the spoils of war are so reduced.  Rather than fighting with what I have, I'm obliged to buy a lot of weapons. 

In the early stages I often have a substantial total number of weapons, but they're of different types.   InTheRealWorld :  If I have only a few of different types of weapons, then I'm going to build multiple units of the appropriate size. Wouldn't you? The current AO structure makes that difficult, since it proliferates divisions before extends the number of units in the division. It says, "You can only have 4 brigades in a division.  Got enough guns & men to arm 7 weaker brigades?  Tough luck."   Heck, ugcw even allows me to build tiny 500-man infantry brigades.  It seems silly for a commander to say, "Well, we've got the men and guns to form a couple of more weak brigades to help fight this next important battle, but  ... y'know ... policy."

I can understand implementing some constraints so that things don't get unmanageable, but the current system penalizes through awkward rules. Ugcw has it sorta right when it acknowledges that officers can't really command more men than a certain threshold.  Therefore, it follows that - If a divisional commander can handle 4500 infantry and 20 artillery - then it doesn't really matter that much how those units are configured: 1 bde of 4500 infantry and 1 bde of 20 artillery ... or 5 bdes of 900 infantry and 2 batteries of 10 artillery.  In certain battle situations, a wise commander might reasonably choose to have more smaller units (That is one of the tactical advantages of detached skirmishers)

I realize that some of these issues may be baked into the legacy ugcw game, but I believe they would add a lot of playablility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2020 at 1:43 PM, pandakraut said:
On 2/9/2020 at 11:45 AM, dixiePig said:

allow a divisional officer to command 'too many' brigades?

Balance issues and technical limitations.

Can you elaborate?  Balance (if I understand it) should be a function of 'the number of men that an officer can command" rather than merely "the number of units".  i.e. A divisional commander should be able to handle at least 5000 men - and possibly as many as 15000.

I can understand volume of units as an overall technical limitation.  But the current rules limits the number of units in the early stages.  imo This is an unnecessary constraint during a period when it's most important.  Allowing an early commander to have a division with 6 Bdes is not a technical limitation.  It's a choice.

Also: 

On 2/9/2020 at 11:45 AM, dixiePig said:

What are the practical (battle) implications for brigade officer whose unit is "too large" for his abilities?

We get the warning message in red text.  What actually happens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dixiePig said:

Kinda my point:  I'd like to be able to build an army of more smaller units armed  with lower-ranked officers, esp since in hard (MG) mode ... that's pretty much what I've got, since the spoils of war are so reduced.  Rather than fighting with what I have, I'm obliged to buy a lot of weapons. 

You can absolutely do this, I regularly play with 1k units through Shiloh.

As an aside. Another modder has been working on a submod which focuses on Regimental style play. Smaller max infantry sizes, so it might be something you are interested in. It's available on the discord, I'll talk to him about getting a post up on the forums as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Can you elaborate?  Balance (if I understand it) should be a function of 'the number of men that an officer can command" rather than merely "the number of units".  i.e. A divisional commander should be able to handle at least 5000 men - and possibly as many as 15000.

I can understand volume of units as an overall technical limitation.  But the current rules limits the number of units in the early stages.  imo This is an unnecessary constraint during a period when it's most important.  Allowing an early commander to have a division with 6 Bdes is not a technical limitation.  It's a choice.

Also: 

We get the warning message in red text.  What actually happens?

Technical restrictions in that allowing variable amounts of units in a brigade is difficult to add as the amount must currently come from a hard coded value in the assets file.

Balance in that if the player can throw their best officer into a single division and support a large number of brigades, even at reduced efficiency, it lets the player get around to many restrictions. If the player wants to field a lot of units, they should have to invest in AO and in officers. To do this they must sacrifice something else. Alternately, the player can choose not to focus on these and use fewer better equipped units. This would also make it easier to empty the recruit pool to allow units to be disbanded. Given how powerful that mechanic currently is it does not need any power boosts.

Using an officer of insufficient experience to command a large unit results in an penalty to the efficiency stat. This results in a corresponding loss of ranged and melee damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm back in familiar territory.  I'm playing a Union campaign on MG, 1.26 mod) and Shiloh has proven to be my undoing.  I've built up with good results with heavy emphasis on experience and a second campaign with heavy logistics/economy focus.  I've also blended the approaches.  I've got 4 2 star INF (1100-1500) with 2 BG spread in my 3 divisions, 5 artillery (4 are 1*), and 2 1* Cav (1 shock, 1 carbine).    I've watched the 1.24 video by Pandakraut about the legendary campaign (AO is very different now and changes that ability to set up camp) and I'm stuck. 

Also, what is the rhyme and reason around how your units deploy at Shiloh?  3 divisions, not where I expect them, I'm sure I'm just missing something.  I'm not looking for "the secret," I know it's about how you play more than anything else, just hoping for suggestions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...