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

[dixiePig]

The [Fallback] function is a little weak.

In battle, the order to 'Fall Back' is understood to mean "... to a safer or superior position": 'A withdrawal may be undertaken as part of a general retreat, to consolidate forces, to occupy ground that is more easily defended, force the enemy to overextend to secure a decisive victory, or to lead the enemy into an ambush.' -- wikipedia

These factors do not seem to be often reflected in UGCW. Troops which are ordered to fall back will often

1. stop before reaching a clearly safer or superior position
2. withdraw in an unwise direction (which makes no sense at all)

It is often necessary to repeatedly order a unit to fallback, despite common sense. The Unit will often fallback in an undesired and even illogical direction. It's annoying, unnecessary, and distractive. 

Of course,  withdrawal always has the risk of turning into a Rout, but that is just a statistical possibility.  The order to Fall Back is a valid military maneuver, with a purpose which should be respected..

Is it possible to set the fallback parameters - as a commander would - when ordering a fallback, just as you would for forward movement (i.e. "Fall Back to here.")?

 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by dixiePig
clarification & follow-up

[pandakraut]

On 2/9/2023 at 6:53 PM, Aericles1775 said:

1. Are the first tier perks global? Strategy makes distinction between arty and inf. Tactics with a +25% charge implies Inf by the picture and following the tree down makes sense. Trainer with the 15% to speed does it apply to horse, or globally?

2. Are any of the 2nd tier perks arty/inf/cav specific as well?

3. 3rd tier - In vanilla the perk only applies to the area the commanders AO, is that the case with JnP mod as well?

Tier 1 and 2 perks apply to all units in a corps regardless of position or type.

Tier 3 perks apply to all friendly units within the generals radius, even if they belong to another corps. The tooltip has an aura tag to try to indicate this.

Glad to hear you're enjoying the mod, if you have more questions just ask

[pandakraut]

16 hours ago, statesrights said:

Hi Pandakraut - I am trying to install your UIAI customization mod 1.9 into to base game (GOG download).  I'm having real trouble.  When I unzip your file, it has a "managed folder" with the sharp file.  I replace that one.  Then the game fails to load -- it just holds up on the "Loading" screen.

What I'm I doing wrong?  Thanks

There should also be a resources.assets file and a mod folder that go into the ultimate general civil war_data directory. What you're describing sounds like you got the sharp file into the right place but not the mod folder.

[pandakraut]

11 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Is it possible to set the fallback parameters - as a commander would - when ordering a fallback, just as you would for forward movement (i.e. "Fall Back to here.")?

Fallback uses very basic logic to try to go directly away from the largest concentration of enemy units. This only takes units into account, objectives, map edges, etc are not considered. This can result in undesired directions depending on where enemy units are at. Fallback isn't really special in terms of movement other than keeping facing and being somewhat automated. If you oblique move the direction you want to fallback and set the unit to run you can effectively replicate falling back wherever you want with a bit of extra micro.

Updating the pathing logic is likely beyond me.

Units on fallback will retreat for a set period of time. There is a fallbackDuration in the unitmodifiers file that might allow you to adjust how long a unit retreats. I've never tried updating it so it may or may not work as expected as it could be overriden or adjusted elsewhere in the code.

[dixiePig]

11 hours ago, pandakraut said:

Fallback uses very basic logic to try to go directly away from the largest concentration of enemy units. This only takes units into account, objectives, map edges, etc are not considered. This can result in undesired directions depending on where enemy units are at. Fallback isn't really special in terms of movement other than keeping facing and being somewhat automated. If you oblique move the direction you want to fallback and set the unit to run you can effectively replicate falling back wherever you want with a bit of extra micro.

Updating the pathing logic is likely beyond me.

Disappointed, but thanks.  The "Run Away! Run Away!" option above is a possibility which I use, but still often results in the fleeing unit being flanked and routed.

[dixiePig]

Interesting Artifact/Feature/BUG:

I was shuffling my troops in CSA prep for Malvern Hill.  I shuffled divisions from one corps to another (and then back again) so that I could rearrange units.

• This is an annoying aspect of legacy UGCW:  No UNDO and inability to gracefully move units between corps without a bunch of shuffling

When I started battle setup w/ my first Corp, I discovered that my troops were labeled 1st Div, 2nd Div, 4th Div and ... 1st Div.  The troops, weapons & commanders were correct, but the division labels were wrong. 

• [restart] didn't fix it
• [reload] of South Camp made order of battle 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 1st Div
• cold reboot of game (exit) didn't fix it

I am now going to send this note and try more dramatic solutions.

No biggie, but annoying to me and you May want to look into it

UPDATE: 02/23/23

Tried shuffling units between Corps again.  Nope. Curiously, even a cold reboot of my computer + reload of game did not solve this one.  Eventually I just gave up.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by dixiePig
follow-up

[dixiePig]

Just found myself wondering again about Army Organization:  Having reached a level where I can have 3 Corps / 4 Divisions / 5 Brigades at Gaines Mill / Malvern Hill, I find little need to increase AO after Level 5. 

• AO no longer allows me to have 6 Brigades in a Division
• I receive a functional maximum of 4 Divisions and 3 Corps at AO: Level 5 (no real growth until Level 9)
• I have no need to build huge troop formations; excessive unit size thresholds mean nothing to me
• I can increase my supply easily thru Logistics (and also gain other perks)

So there's no need to increase AO, once I've reached Level 5:  I've already maxed out my Divisions and Brigades.  Seems like an unnecessary plateau.

Army Organization - as noted in my previous posts - actually was a BIG issue for both North and South throughout the first 2 years of the war.  Especially as regards how to organize & use ARTY and CAV.  The game might better reflect that historical reality - and become more playable as a result, by adjusting AO.

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by dixiePig
clarity

[Aericles1775]

Hello all, i have a few questions and may have found a potential bug.

Playing on  BG CSA and have been making quite a few changes in the common configs (the configfile.txt, AIconfigfile, configfile.csv, and one change in the unitModifiers.txt for the limber range.) I've found logistics isnt raising any of the weapon quantity values after Antietam. I only can get it to 4 to test, i've raised it to 3 and then did a battle just to see if it was behaving in a matter that only raises after battle and it still does not raise. The amount of supply to the wagon increases but no wpns.

A couple of general questions:

1. Do speed perks have the side effect of keeping condition up for your soldiers during marching or running because they will reach their destination faster? I've made Stonewall Jackson all speed for the foot cavalry and i really don't notice it much on larger battles when compared to no speed perk MG's. The 2nd tier speed perk is noticeable on Skirm Cav for the rotation bonus which is excellent, i don't think i would ever take the 1st tier speed bonus over the others.
2. I'm playing BG and have been steadily raising AI stats once i've figured out the perk spread for success, i've raised AImulti to 1.40, AIscalingXPmulti to 1.40, and AIwpnmulti to 1.40 and while i notice my unit commanders dying a bit more and more losses i don't seem to see any more 2 or 3 star units on the field.
3. Similar to question 2, what sort of configs would you recommend for achieving MG and Legendary level of hardness for a BG campaign? I like the idea of the harder AI but putting up the scaling so high really hampers the tactical maneuvering on smaller maps due to the sheer size of the AI.
4. Does the 3rd tier Commander +25% xp make a noticeable difference on say a 2nd lvl vet? I think it would be great for a melee heavy strategy with medicine to send green troops into the meat grinder nice and cost effective but i used for a major battle compared to another save and didn't see a huge difference. (granted its hard to replicate the same conditions.)

 

[dixiePig]

Game balance has been fairly reasonable with minor adjustments to ai sizing and strength in config files, along with the downward (historical) adjustments to ARTY and CAV, as documented previously.  Play has been reasonable, if challenging,  on the previous battles. But was disappointed with game balance of 2nd Bull Run, playing as CSA: 

Union had far more troops (as expected), but also had overwhelming xp - many 3-star and 2-star units (I counted a total of at least 10 by the time I was wiped out), whereas I had only one 2-star unit.

Doesn't make logical or historical  sense: There just weren't that many top caliber union brigades 1 year into the war.  The Union had superior numbers in many battles, but the US troops did not have overwhelmingly superior experience and fighting ability to CS units in mid-1862.  At least not on that scale.

In any case, the mismatch is not really playable.

Any observations or insights? 

• Perhaps the game engine is not dealing gracefully with my adjustments to limitations on ARTY and CAV in configFiles? 
• I have actually downgraded several size and xp attributes already:

AIscalingSizeMultiplier, .8
AIscalingExperienceMultiplier, 0.8

historicalNorthSizeMultiplier, .85

The game has responded pretty well up to this point, but  2nd Bull Run is disappointing.

[pandakraut]

On 2/21/2023 at 2:58 PM, dixiePig said:

Any observations or insights? 

• Perhaps the game engine is not dealing gracefully with my adjustments to limitations on ARTY and CAV in configFiles? 

I don't think dropping the sizes on either of these should affect too much. Smaller cav limits their use as a fire brigade rushing up and down your line to deal with charges and pressure a little, but should still be functional.

Similarly arty should work on even if you're only using fairly small units. Most of mine were only at 8 in this battle.

Did you end up changing the amount of brigades per division? While it can be done with less, not having the full 25 units in your 1st corps makes 2nd bull run a lot harder for the CSA. Just hard to hold that length of line for that long as is.

I'm not sure why the experience is that high with you reducing it and on a lower difficulty, but those numbers are largely carried over from the base game. On legendary it's common enough I didn't think twice about it.

The battle plays out fairly differently now depending on when porter shows up(he can delay till the third day) and if the big flank attack happens instead of the center push.

Its very important to have some scouts out to know where they are going to push from so you can adjust your line accordingly. If you get the flank you'll want to either push hard to wrap up the units in the north. Or start siphoning off units to the south until you're at the the bare minimum up north. You'll also want to try to get some detached skirms and cav into the middle of the flanking column to slow up and distract them before they can all slam into your line at once. You want the let the first few units pass so you can start taking them out.

If you get the center attack it's a little more normal, just keep intercepting units as they move up, try to clear artillery and focus charges as they come in. I usually start in the fortifications and gradually draw back towards the trees on the ridge. This tends to string out the ai so you can get more time on their artillery. I usually have some strong rifled artillery brigades by the point, if you don't then the enemy artillery will probably just have to be suffered if you can't get it before it gets near your line.

[dixiePig]

Hi PK>Yes to all of the above (It's pretty much how I use skirmishers, ARTY and CAV.  

I tried 2ndBR several times with the settings I described, and found that AI still had outrageously high XP.  Really can't get past it.

Yes, if Porter attacks in North or Center, it is slightly more manageable.  The attack from South Flank is impossible (esp with high AI xp - and the lack of fortification.

You seem to be unsure about the high level of ai xp I have experienced.  All I can say is that 2ndBR seems unplayable. 

fwiw: I am playing MG.  And - for the sake of some historical accuracy the AI's exceptionally high xp (1 year into the war) - is just not credible.  Or playable.Just played 2ndBR again after adjusting AIconfig again:

AIArtilleryMaxSize, 200
AIInfantryMaxSize, 2800
AICavalryMaxSize, 300
AISkirmisherMaxSize, 500
AIOtherMaxSize, 640
varianceMode, true
sizeRandomProbability, 0.15
weaponRandomProbability, 0.3
attributeRandomProbability, 0.3
duplicateRandomProbability, 0.2
sizeIncrease, .8
artilleryLimberedRangeModifier, .75
AIscalingSizeMultiplier, .8
AIscalingExperienceMultiplier, 0.85
AIscalingWeaponMultiplier, 1
AdvancedChargeLogic, true
historicalNorthAddStat, 0
historicalSouthAddStat, 0
historicalNorthSizeMultiplier, .9

Still have 9 or more AI 3* INF units + 6 AI 2* units coming at me

I have 1 2* INF unit.

Is this really how it is meant to work?

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by dixiePig
follow-up

[pandakraut]

On 3/4/2023 at 2:53 PM, dixiePig said:

I tried 2ndBR several times with the settings I described, and found that AI still had outrageously high XP.  Really can't get past it.

I checked and even on legendary usually only about 9-10 units are 3* out of ~ 55. A lof of the rest are 1 with some 2. 

On 3/4/2023 at 2:53 PM, dixiePig said:

Yes, if Porter attacks in North or Center, it is slightly more manageable.  The attack from South Flank is impossible (esp with high AI xp - and the lack of fortification.

The flank attack is nasty, definitely need to try to break up and delay the middle to rear parts of the column to buy yourself time. I ended up pushed all the way back to the VP, just have to keep reforming a concave and trying to make sure they are focusing their fire on units in the trees while your units in the open on the flanks get in shots. On my test run through the campaign I did make sure to play against that version, so it has been done.

Only one 2* unit is likely part of the problem. Should be aiming for closer to 5-10 by that point with nearly everything else 1*. If you're limited on resources, focus on building up that first corps more than filling out the 2nd or 3rd. By the time your reinforcing corps arrive it's just mop up, so they don't need to be all that strong.

FYI the sizeIncrease doesn't apply when varianceMode is enabled. While historicalNorthSizeMultiplier and AIscalingSizeMultiplier do stack, there's no real benefit from doing so. Can just use the scalingMultiplier value for adjusting the AI.

I will add a note to try to add some kind of AI stat cap option into the configs so that units which have hundreds in stats on higher difficulties(no additional benefit above 100) can actually have their stats/perks reduced. This would let you cap the number of *s by year similar to what you're doing with AO.

[dixiePig]

On 3/8/2023 at 9:46 AM, pandakraut said:

Only one 2* unit is likely part of the problem. Should be aiming for closer to 5-10 by that point with nearly everything else 1*. If you're limited on resources, focus on building up that first corps more than filling out the 2nd or 3rd. By the time your reinforcing corps arrive it's just mop up, so they don't need to be all that strong.

• JV> I understand that some of this is 'the rules of the game', but if I can be satisfied (and win battles successfully) with fewer advanced xp units, then that works for me.  Apparently the ugcw engine is incapable of 'mirroring' my xp level on 2ndBR, even tho it does so adequately on other battles preceding 2ndBR. The mismatch is sudden and extreme. I'm going to propose that the game engine is flawed and needs to be adjusted.  I've won all of the previous battles (they were a challenge - but winnable).  Telling me that I really should have more higher-xp units in my army for 2ndBR is advice that comes just a little too late.  Especially given the new dynamics of xpGrowth, I prefer to allow my units to strengthen organically (through battle), rather than by gaming the numbers in CAMP. Plus there's the historical and common-sense observation that the Union army simply did NOT have that many powerhouse units in the summer of 1862.  Not by a long shot.
• Clearly, I prefer to play a slightly different, slightly more 'historical' ARMY.  If the Rebalance can accommodate my gameplay style, that would be great.
• I understand the practicalities of First Wave: Very Strong / Reinforcements: Mop-up.  But if you can't survive the first wave of battle because of a faulty engine, then it just doesn't matter.

PK> FYI the sizeIncrease doesn't apply when varianceMode is enabled. While historicalNorthSizeMultiplier and AIscalingSizeMultiplier do stack, there's no real benefit from doing so. Can just use the scalingMultiplier value for adjusting the AI.

• JV> So ... varianceMode is currently enabled in my setup. If I set varianceMode, false then the sizeIncrease, .8 attribute will actually be enabled ... ?  BTW:  What does varianceMode do/mean?
• And setting historicalNorthSizeMultiplier, .9 has no effect whatsoever, because (in this instance) only AIscalingSizeMultiplier, .8 is recognized ... ?

PK>I will add a note to try to add some kind of AI stat cap option into the configs so that units which have hundreds in stats on higher difficulties(no additional benefit above 100) can actually have their stats/perks reduced. This would let you cap the number of *s by year similar to what you're doing with AO.

• JV> I really don't really know what this means (I gather that stats are cumulative and can get out of hand), but if it causes the effect you describe, I'll gladly use it.  Please let us know when this 'stat cap option' happens - and How to set it.

NOTE:  Although the concept of building Veteran units is intriguing and valuable, it can be a real problem and a distraction when you end up trying to 'game' the system artificially.  Just as with commanders, you get more value when veterans remain with their 'home' unit and xp grows organically. IMO, units should gain xp most effectively when they have unit cohesion over the course of a number of battles. 

As a solution: You might split a high-xp unit in order to grow more veteran units:  The infrastructure of officers & NCO's at all levels, battle experience, and identity over time makes for a strong core unit, which can then be grown with replacements.

In the Civil War - and up until WWII - most military units were 'regional':  Troops, their commanders, and their identities were all from a specific area - for purposes of unit cohesion and 'esprit'. Individual units were NOT a melting pot of random troops from a central pool of replacements.

• The advantages: unique identity, group morale, cohesiveness
• the disadvantages: high casualties could be devastating to a community on the home front
• only the few 'regular' army units lacked a local identity

Thanks again to you guys for all the excellent work.

Edited March 13, 2023 by dixiePig
clarity

[dixiePig]

Why is there no artilleryMinSize value in the configFile?

This makes it difficult to build/advance historically accurate ARTY (about 4 cannons) in the early battles

[pandakraut]

On 3/14/2023 at 1:56 PM, dixiePig said:

Why is there no artilleryMinSize value in the configFile?

There wasn't a need to increase the minimum size like was done for the other unit types, so I didn't go to the effort of adding in the extra value.

On 3/11/2023 at 4:02 PM, dixiePig said:

Apparently the ugcw engine is incapable of 'mirroring' my xp level on 2ndBR, even tho it does so adequately on other battles preceding 2ndBR.

There is no mirroring that happens in terms of enemy unit XP. Size is the only value of the AI units that adjust based on the players units.

On 3/11/2023 at 4:02 PM, dixiePig said:

• JV> So ... varianceMode is currently enabled in my setup. If I set varianceMode, false then the sizeIncrease, .8 attribute will actually be enabled ... ?  BTW:  What does varianceMode do/mean?
• And setting historicalNorthSizeMultiplier, .9 has no effect whatsoever, because (in this instance) only AIscalingSizeMultiplier, .8 is recognized

These are three different modifiers to size that were intended for three different scenarios. SizeIncrease was intended for testing purposes where all AI units were split and works outside of the randomized system used by the campaign.

The historical multiplier was intended for use in custom battles, but happened to work in the campaign by accident. It has been left unchanged since it can be useful for adjusting the size of allied units.

Size multiplier was intended to be used in the campaign as part of the scaling calculation. Using more than one of these in combination with each other will just stack the multiplier assuming the options all apply. So instead of using .9 for one and .8 for another just set the scalingsizemultiplier .85 or whatever the desired value is.

VarianceMode originally referred to the system that added extra randomness in the form of ai units splitting and/or changing their weapons/size/XP. It encompasses a bit more than that overall these days, so I'd recommend adjusting the individual probabilities if you don't want them to occur rather than turning variance off. Since the other multipliers are available there's no need to disable it to use sizeIncrease.

We did consider a more complex veteran system tied to specific units, but ended up deciding against it due to the added complexity and the limitations of what we could accomplish within the games existing UI. 

[dixiePig]

12 hours ago, pandakraut said:

There wasn't a need to increase the minimum size like was done for the other unit types, so I didn't go to the effort of adding in the extra value.

I figured as much.  Makes sense.  Historically, there were often ARTY units with only 2-4 cannons (of mixed types, too) during the first year of the war - and even longer. I realize that it isn't critical, but if there is a ArtilleryMinSize, then it allows a little more flexibility in rendering a 'historical' setup.

Curious Artifact: Runaway AI Unit

• About 3/4 of the way through Cross Keys (playing as CSA) a Union AI INF unit in the southern area of the map which was unengaged, but moving towards the northwest, suddenly took off and sped towards my units in the woods defending the northern VP next to the river. The unit sprite lost visual cohesiveness and looked like a unit which is routed. It sped toward the target defenders in a matter of a few seconds (at several x Run speed), appearing to hit first as a detached skirmisher, then as a whole unit. It was quickly destroyed by my defending troops.  It all happened very quickly - but that's what I remember.  Have never seen any other behavior like that. FWIW: VarianceMode was false.

Thanks again for the detailed insight and advice on how to deal with unit sizing.

[pandakraut]

Sounds like a unit's central point got out of sync with its sprites. Can happen rarely. Shouldn't have anything to do with varianceMode, all of its impacts occur when setting up battles and spawning units.

[pandakraut]

On 2/21/2023 at 2:18 PM, Aericles1775 said:

Playing on  BG CSA and have been making quite a few changes in the common configs (the configfile.txt, AIconfigfile, configfile.csv, and one change in the unitModifiers.txt for the limber range.) I've found logistics isnt raising any of the weapon quantity values after Antietam. I only can get it to 4 to test, i've raised it to 3 and then did a battle just to see if it was behaving in a matter that only raises after battle and it still does not raise. The amount of supply to the wagon increases but no wpns.

Sorry for not responding earlier, I thought I wrote up a response but must have never posted it.

When increasing logistics were you testing against a side battle or a major battle? The armory stock only updates after major battles, so you would need to complete the next major battle to see that effect of logistics.

On 2/21/2023 at 2:18 PM, Aericles1775 said:

Do speed perks have the side effect of keeping condition up for your soldiers during marching or running because they will reach their destination faster? I've made Stonewall Jackson all speed for the foot cavalry and i really don't notice it much on larger battles when compared to no speed perk MG's. The 2nd tier speed perk is noticeable on Skirm Cav for the rotation bonus which is excellent, i don't think i would ever take the 1st tier speed bonus over the others.

The speed perks don't directly affect condition, but since the unit moves faster it will reach its destination sooner resulting in less total condition lost to cross the same distance.

The t1 speed perk I tend to like on a 2nd or 3rd MG. This lets me take all accuracy perks on my infantry and still get some kind of speed bonus, but early in the campaign I prefer full damage perks on my general. Once my infantry has skilled up a bit and I have the t2 accuracy bonus from the general, then I can afford to not take the t1 damage.

On 2/21/2023 at 2:18 PM, Aericles1775 said:

I'm playing BG and have been steadily raising AI stats once i've figured out the perk spread for success, i've raised AImulti to 1.40, AIscalingXPmulti to 1.40, and AIwpnmulti to 1.40 and while i notice my unit commanders dying a bit more and more losses i don't seem to see any more 2 or 3 star units on the field.

The experience scaling for the AI on BG has a fairly low base, so you need a pretty big multiplier in some battles. This is why I usually recommend starting on MG and lowering the multipliers a bit rather than starting from BG. But that doesn't help with an ongoing campaign. I'd just keep increasing the scalingxp multiplier until you start seeing more 2 and 3* units.

On 2/21/2023 at 2:18 PM, Aericles1775 said:

Similar to question 2, what sort of configs would you recommend for achieving MG and Legendary level of hardness for a BG campaign? I like the idea of the harder AI but putting up the scaling so high really hampers the tactical maneuvering on smaller maps due to the sheer size of the AI.

 The difficulty on MG/Legendary partially comes from getting less resources which can't be replicated through the configs currently. You also end up facing more experienced and larger units early on, so it makes it a lot harder to get your army rolling. I don't have a good feel for what values get you up to legendary values from BG, but I've heard of people using values as high as 1.8 at times to try to get a challenge on BG. Restarting on MG and using the configs to adjust down a bit is probably the best option here without a lot of trial and error.

On 2/21/2023 at 2:18 PM, Aericles1775 said:

Does the 3rd tier Commander +25% xp make a noticeable difference on say a 2nd lvl vet? I think it would be great for a melee heavy strategy with medicine to send green troops into the meat grinder nice and cost effective but i used for a major battle compared to another save and didn't see a huge difference. (granted its hard to replicate the same conditions.)

This sort of thing is definitely hard to test. The higher a stat the more kills/movement/time/reloads respectively you need to increase the stat again, so 2* units progression will be a lot slower than newer units. This is pretty much always my first t3 perk choice. Cover is also very nice as less losses preserves the xp you gain more.

[dixiePig]

I prefer to play with much less ARTY in the campaigns of 1861 and 1862 because there were far fewer cannons in those earlier battles.  UGCW still gifts me with a high number of cannons in the Spoils of War.  Is there any way to adjust that gracefully?

[pandakraut]

11 hours ago, dixiePig said:

I prefer to play with much less ARTY in the campaigns of 1861 and 1862 because there were far fewer cannons in those earlier battles.  UGCW still gifts me with a high number of cannons in the Spoils of War.  Is there any way to adjust that gracefully?

Currently the only way to adjust weapon recovery is across the board for all weapon types. You're already capping the size of ai artillery units to smaller values? I would have thought that would have cut down the amount of cannons you recovered by quite a bit?

[dixiePig]

2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

Currently the only way to adjust weapon recovery is across the board for all weapon types. You're already capping the size of ai artillery units to smaller values? I would have thought that would have cut down the amount of cannons you recovered by quite a bit?

Me, too.  But no noticeable reduction in cannons recovered.

 

[pandakraut]

Did you end up increasing the base recovery rates? That combined with some investment in recon would result in recovering most of the cannons you capture or kill. From your allied units as well.

Especially with you not building many arty units and those being very small, you'll probably have a good amount of excess either way. Probably just need to sell the excess off.

[dixiePig]

12 hours ago, pandakraut said:

Did you end up increasing the base recovery rates? That combined with some investment in recon would result in recovering most of the cannons you capture or kill. From your allied units as well.

Yes: I increased recovery rate and have substantial Recon perks, too.  Numbers still seem high, given the number of ARTY actually deployed in the field.  No biggie, and - like I said - It's a gift.

Have been juggling various parameters in order to find a workable/playable balance (i.e. Do I increase Recovery Rate or invest perks in Recon? or both?).  The play quality was fairly good at MG level until I hit that 'outrageous XP' wall at 2ndBR, where the Union AI force has an unplayable overwhelming advantage in powerful units.  Am now experimenting with more powerful AI config numbers while playing at BG level. We'll see what happens when I get to 2ndBR again.

• It seems that the Union AI seems to be far more 'passive' at BG level; If I set up a good defensive line and slap them a couple of times, then they become less aggressive and I can wear them out.
• It seems that at MG level the Union AI is far likelier to be fanatically aggressive; It's unrealistic and suicidal, but can be very tough to beat.  

My underlying agenda is to implement more 'historical' army profiles during the first 2 years of campaign: mainly smaller ARTY and CAV units for both armies. I am generally satisfied with the results, but it's still a work in progress.

Edited March 18, 2023 by dixiePig

[dixiePig]

I am now trying different profiles with the new rebalance version. As you know, I have adjusted the configFiles so as to use  'historical  profiles" of ARTY and CAV:  Both are much smaller for both armies until mid 1862 or 1863, when they actually started to make both branches a bigger, more cohesive part of their armies.

Playing MG / CSA: Because the AI's xp  balance is so outrageously off for 2ndBR (far too many 2* & 3* AI units to be playable - imo), I decided to try playing BG / CSA this time around, with higher AI perks in configFile. The games are playable, tho the AI itself seems to be far less aggressive. Probably need to tweak config some more for optimal play experience.

• I experienced the same artifact as I did before (with MG / CSA) that my troops are redundantly identified in first wave of Malvern Hill:  one 4th Division, one 3rd Division, and two 1st Divisions.  The units themselves are accurate, except for their Divisional identification.

Am approaching 2ndBR again.  We'll see what happens.

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by dixiePig

[dixiePig]

On 3/25/2023 at 1:27 PM, dixiePig said:

Am approaching 2ndBR again.  We'll see what happens

2nd Bull Run

Unfortunately, playing CSA at 2ndBR on MG = the-same-all-over-again: i.e. outrageouly high proportion of 3* and 2* AI units

Historically, it is waaay off - and I feel that it doesn't even work in terms of straight 'playability'

Maybe the battle is winnable IF Porter doesn't show up until day 2, but right now it does not seem at all balanced

In any case, I've reached a hard stop with the campaign

Hope you get it fixed