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

[pandakraut]

24 minutes ago, gracchus said:

I have, however, stalled at Stones River.  I usually like to pull back and make the CSA attack over open ground where I have better sight and shorter internal lines of support.  Nope, got overrun 2 or three times.  I tried defending the trees in the south and have been torn apart in the center.  Put my best corp in the south?  No dice. 

For Stones River I usually pull back to the line of trees above the J shaped part of the line. Once the map opens up again I'll pull back further north to the next line of trees. I would start with most of my best corps along with a few newer units to soak fire/charges. Preferably hold from there, but can pull back to the turnpike if needed.

I have seen some other players in the discord mention that they leave a throwaway division of new units in the south to slow up the CSA attack, unsure if that is necessary though.

You've got a lot of open ground to work with that carbine cav could make some good use of for flank shots if you aren't already using some.

[MarkShot]

15 hours ago, pandakraut said:

For the values I'd recommend just incrementing by .15 or .25 and see how that goes for you.

Can I change these values in the middle of an on going campaign?  If so, when should I do it, and when will I see the impact?

Will changing those values make a change in a CUSTOM/SCENARIO battle setup so that I can play around with the impact?

Thanks.

[pandakraut]

12 hours ago, MarkShot said:

Can I change these values in the middle of an on going campaign?  If so, when should I do it, and when will I see the impact?

Will changing those values make a change in a CUSTOM/SCENARIO battle setup so that I can play around with the impact?

Thanks.

Values can be changed mid campaign. You will have to restart the game and start a new battle for them to take affect though.

Custom/scenario battles do not have scaling so there isn't really a comparison there. These values can be used for those

historicalNorthAddStat, 0
historicalSouthAddStat, 0
historicalNorthSizeMultiplier, 1
historicalSouthSizeMultiplier, 1

[EndlessDreamZ]

I just downloaded the mod, have been using 1.25 for the longest time, the issue I am running into is where my Infantry detach Skirmishers, but once they are detached I am not longer able to merge them back into the Infantry.  Not sure if there is a fix to this or if this is a known issue, just wanted to mention it.

[pandakraut]

13 hours ago, EndlessDreamZ said:

I just downloaded the mod, have been using 1.25 for the longest time, the issue I am running into is where my Infantry detach Skirmishers, but once they are detached I am not longer able to merge them back into the Infantry.  Not sure if there is a fix to this or if this is a known issue, just wanted to mention it.

This is an intentional change. Back in 1.25 detached skirmishers were disabled by default. In 1.27 they are enabled again, but they have a few minute cooldown to re-attach, and cannot be detached if enemy units are too close.

These changes were made to restrict the various exploits that exist without removing their use entirely. Just need to plan ahead a little bit for most uses.

Edited December 2, 2020 by pandakraut

[EndlessDreamZ]

3 hours ago, pandakraut said:

This is an intentional change. Back in 1.25 detached skirmishers were disabled by default. In 1.27 they are enabled again, but they have a few minute cooldown to re-attach, and cannot be detached if enemy units are too close.

These changes were made to restrict the various exploits that exist without removing their use entirely. Just need to plan ahead a little bit for most uses.

Ahhh ok, that makes since, I know of the exploits that your mentioning lol, guess I just need to be careful as I used to not using them and accidently detached, and then got them killed :(.  Thank you for the reply, also mod is getting better and better as I struggle through CSA Legendary.

[Jack_234]

Is there a way to change the  weapon Capture Percent?

[pandakraut]

12 hours ago, Jack_234 said:

Is there a way to change the  weapon Capture Percent?

Only by changing the starting difficulty for a campaign currently. Col and BG have higher returns, MG and Leg use the same values.

[Col_Kelly]

A quick message from an old veteran in order to congratulate both Johny and Panda for their work. Just retried the mod yesterday and it now brings a completely different game to the table. I especially like the importance of fatigue as it forces us to be way more realistic in our tactics (No more sweeping attacks on the double quick across entire miles). Being able to merge brigades is also quite huge (way more than it seems at first) as army management becomes a lot simpler (and once again, more realistic).

 

A quick question : Is there still an efficiency drop for artillery batteries beyond 12 guns or has that been fixed as well ?

[lunario]

Anyone finished the Siege of Suffolk on the Union side yet?

On my legendary run I'm facing 30k men and 131!!!!! guns. I can only field 9 units at the start.

Tried multiple times without any hope of holding the flag till my reinforcement.

Too many enemy guns I can't counter them quickly enough. My 24p howitzer got shot to pieces in minutes.

And it's a really small map so no room for cavalry to maneuver(plus enemy got around 2-3k cavalry and skirmish, can't maneuver even it's a big map).

Tried retreating back to the city but enemy just set up their guns and no unit can withstand so many guns.

Any suggestions? Or should I just skip it.

[pandakraut]

8 hours ago, Col_Kelly said:

A quick message from an old veteran in order to congratulate both Johny and Panda for their work. Just retried the mod yesterday and it now brings a completely different game to the table. I especially like the importance of fatigue as it forces us to be way more realistic in our tactics (No more sweeping attacks on the double quick across entire miles). Being able to merge brigades is also quite huge (way more than it seems at first) as army management becomes a lot simpler (and once again, more realistic).

 

A quick question : Is there still an efficiency drop for artillery batteries beyond 12 guns or has that been fixed as well ?

No efficiency drop beyond 12, damage always goes up the bigger the unit gets. Though there are diminishing returns.

Happy to hear that you're enjoying it

[pandakraut]

58 minutes ago, lunario said:

Anyone finished the Siege of Suffolk on the Union side yet?

On my legendary run I'm facing 30k men and 131!!!!! guns. I can only field 9 units at the start.

Tried multiple times without any hope of holding the flag till my reinforcement.

Too many enemy guns I can't counter them quickly enough. My 24p howitzer got shot to pieces in minutes.

And it's a really small map so no room for cavalry to maneuver(plus enemy got around 2-3k cavalry and skirmish, can't maneuver even it's a big map).

Tried retreating back to the city but enemy just set up their guns and no unit can withstand so many guns.

Any suggestions? Or should I just skip it.

This is a really tough battle. I've seen a couple different options work.

One option is to bring somewhere around 3-4 of your best rifled artillery, pull all the units back into the trees with a detached skirmisher on the vision point so that the AI advances it's cannon into range. This lets you focus down as much arty as possible before their infantry close and you have to switch targets to break charges. The allied artillery stays slightly further forward in cover to tank any counter battery as long as possible to save your guns.

Rest of your units is one sniper with the rest infantry. Sniper goes to the south of the map where there is a cluster of trees along the map edge. If you're careful you can setup here and either go after artillery that move by or sometimes halt their progress entirely(AI just stands around for some reason). This also provides good vision for your rifled artillery to keep hitting their cannon. Priority to focus fire any unit coming in to charge. Try to actually rout them so not too many units stack up close to your line where a multi unit chain charge can kill you.

The other option involves making several 4-5k meat brigades to just suffer through the attrition until the rest of your army arrives. This works best when the rest of your army is bit smaller so that the scaling doesn't think you are playing a max size army and attempts to compensate. Haven't used this one myself, but I can see it working in combination with option 1 to limit the damage to your good units dealing damage from the flanks. 

There might also be merit to trying to hold the fortifications at certain points in the battle now that they have been improved, haven't experimented with this myself though.

[lunario]

21 hours ago, pandakraut said:

This is a really tough battle. I've seen a couple different options work.

One option is to bring somewhere around 3-4 of your best rifled artillery, pull all the units back into the trees with a detached skirmisher on the vision point so that the AI advances it's cannon into range. This lets you focus down as much arty as possible before their infantry close and you have to switch targets to break charges. The allied artillery stays slightly further forward in cover to tank any counter battery as long as possible to save your guns.

Rest of your units is one sniper with the rest infantry. Sniper goes to the south of the map where there is a cluster of trees along the map edge. If you're careful you can setup here and either go after artillery that move by or sometimes halt their progress entirely(AI just stands around for some reason). This also provides good vision for your rifled artillery to keep hitting their cannon. Priority to focus fire any unit coming in to charge. Try to actually rout them so not too many units stack up close to your line where a multi unit chain charge can kill you.

The other option involves making several 4-5k meat brigades to just suffer through the attrition until the rest of your army arrives. This works best when the rest of your army is bit smaller so that the scaling doesn't think you are playing a max size army and attempts to compensate. Haven't used this one myself, but I can see it working in combination with option 1 to limit the damage to your good units dealing damage from the flanks. 

There might also be merit to trying to hold the fortifications at certain points in the battle now that they have been improved, haven't experimented with this myself though.

Thanks panda for your reply.

After about 10th try I got through with acceptable lost.

My final strategic is a modified version of your second option. With 2 4k meat shields guarding the fortification and I bring no artillery. Only infantry. Just grind through the 2 and half hours using fortifications. Once a brigade routed another fill in. After dozens of failed charges enemy units start to surrender or shatter and after that it's just waiting for your reinforcement to clear the enemy artilleries. Wiped the enemy with 8.2k lost, about 2-3k are friendly units. I guess it's a quite good result.

AI has too many artilleries. Tried several times with counter artillery units, can't reduce their number quickly enough. And it seems the fortification melee bonus combined with 4k big unit works quite well.

Oh btw I turned off unit splitting for this. I guess it helps too.

Anyway, now I can prepare for the major battle.

Thanks again for the great work you've done on this mod and your very helpful suggestion.

[N. B. Forrest]

On 12/8/2020 at 6:42 AM, lunario said:

Thanks panda for your reply.

After about 10th try I got through with acceptable lost.

My final strategic is a modified version of your second option. With 2 4k meat shields guarding the fortification and I bring no artillery. Only infantry. Just grind through the 2 and half hours using fortifications. Once a brigade routed another fill in. After dozens of failed charges enemy units start to surrender or shatter and after that it's just waiting for your reinforcement to clear the enemy artilleries. Wiped the enemy with 8.2k lost, about 2-3k are friendly units. I guess it's a quite good result.

AI has too many artilleries. Tried several times with counter artillery units, can't reduce their number quickly enough. And it seems the fortification melee bonus combined with 4k big unit works quite well.

Oh btw I turned off unit splitting for this. I guess it helps too.

Anyway, now I can prepare for the major battle.

Thanks again for the great work you've done on this mod and your very helpful suggestion.

I'm afraid General Sir, you only get one shot to fight a battle, you will have to accept the losses and outcome from your first attempt.

"There can be only one"

No saving and reloading

Your men are relying on you, Inspire them !

 

Kind Regards

[lunario]

On 12/18/2020 at 4:38 AM, N. B. Forrest said:

I'm afraid General Sir, you only get one shot to fight a battle, you will have to accept the losses and outcome from your first attempt.

"There can be only one"

No saving and reloading

Your men are relying on you, Inspire them !

 

Kind Regards

Yes, in real life it is very much so.

But in this game I'm afraid I'm not capable for "ironman" campaign on legendary level.

I'd probably be sacked or running out of money/manpower within 10 battles.

[dixiePig]

@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]

9 hours ago, dixiePig said:

@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...

Carbine cav are actually proving more of a problem than melee cav given their ability to quickly get multiple shots into the flanks of units and pursue routing units indefinitely.

If melee cav manages to actually get into melee with skirmishers without getting shot to pieces, it's going to do very well. Especially if the melee cav has an experience or perk advantage. The key to defending against melee is having units be in position to support each other. An isolated carbine unit is probably not going to be able to get enough volleys off in time to win a melee with their weaker melee weapons.

In the above case you might have been better off mounting up and falling back. It's hard to micro as well as the AI does, but carbine cav can kite melee cav to death under the right conditions.

There is no easily configurable way to adjust cavalry at the moment. Would have to hexedit the melee value on their weapons or get into dll editing.

[dixiePig]

3 hours ago, pandakraut said:

If melee cav manages to actually get into melee with skirmishers without getting shot to pieces, it's going to do very well. Especially if the melee cav has an experience or perk advantage. The key to defending against melee is having units be in position to support each other. An isolated carbine unit is probably not going to be able to get enough volleys off in time to win a melee with their weaker melee weapons.

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]

Glad you're enjoying it overall

4 hours ago, dixiePig said:

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.  

Mounted cavalry in melee against a unit in 100% cover currently have their melee damage cut in half. This value may need to be adjusted a bit. Though in general, my opinion is that skirmishers caught by cavalry anywhere except in a fortification should have a fairly difficult time holding against cavalry in the game. 

Melee cav is definitely more effective in game than it was historically, especially against formed up units. Some of this is to allow the AI to actually threaten the player with this unit type since the AI basically only knows how to frontal charge. Some of this is to give them enough punch to be worth fielding as especially later in the campaign they have trouble finding opportunities to do anything on less wide open battlefields. It's definitely an area we'd like to fine tune more in the future.  

The distinction of saber and carbine cavalry is definitely one of the more gamefied aspects, but it does allow for some more interesting specialization and alternate history approaches if the player chooses.

5 hours ago, dixiePig said:

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

Cavalry are one of the best potential scouting units the player can field, so I think that aspect at least sort of carries over. The recon career stat is hard to balance since, depending on playstyle, it's either incredibly strong or near worthless. An artillery and sniper focused army loves it, an infantry heavy army probably doesn't care. The extra features we've added do give more information on the status of enemy units which can help with super optimizing play, but it's still mostly a luxury.

An issue I see with getting more reconnaissance information based on the number of cavalry units in the player army is that they can just disband and create them at will now that horse cost is refunded on disband.

Adishee's historical submod has gone with the cavalry on the field direction, where units are nearly blind without a nearby cavalry unit or general to spot for them. Cavalry itself cavalry being mostly ineffective in a combat role as I understand it. That's much further than I think we want to go with it, but there might be some spot in between that makes sense.

[dixiePig]

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?

2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

An issue I see with getting more reconnaissance information based on the number of cavalry units in the player army is that they can just disband and create them at will now that horse cost is refunded on disband.

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.

2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

Cavalry are one of the best potential scouting units the player can field, so I think that aspect at least sort of carries over.

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

2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

Some of this is to give them enough punch to be worth fielding as especially later in the campaign they have trouble finding opportunities to do anything on less wide open battlefields. It's definitely an area we'd like to fine tune more in the future. 

'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.

 

 

 

 

 

[pandakraut]

23 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

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?

Can be found here, it's the only submod available currently https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/34966-historical-submod-of-jp-rebalance-mod-release-thread/

24 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

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.

We've debated it, but it kills off an entire style of play to penalize it too harshly. The battles led change for officers was a step in the direction of providing at least some trade off though.

26 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

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.

It's not that the AI can't do them, it's just that the player tends to be so much better at setting them up, and at countering the AI attempts do the same that effectively the AI only attacks frontally. Every now and again you'll see it hit a flank with cav, but it's fairly rare.

28 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

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

I would argue this opportunity cost is already pretty high. Cavalry have one longer melee, maybe two in them and then they are out of commission for a while to rest. And they are quite expensive to maintain, especially at higher veterancy levels. Even taking a single volley can cost you thousands or 10s of thousands to restore. 

The AI gets around the cost since it doesn't really pay to maintain the high veterancy units, but it also rarely gets to deploy cavalry in any real concentration unlike the player. It always feels bad as a player when a unit gets overrun, but in most cases the AI unit can really only pull this off once as they will get horribly punished by any nearby units firing into the melee.

34 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

'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. 

I would qualify this as starting around Antietam. Some of that is difficulty based though as the weapon quality on legendary compared to MG or BG can be quite significant. Chickamauga is the last battle I tend to really enjoy, past that it does become quite the slog. Not really sure how that would get fixed, as that's kind of what trench warfare would be.

We might be able to change up existing battles some more, but it isn't possible to add new ones as far as we've figured out.

[dixiePig]

12 hours ago, pandakraut said:

I would qualify this as starting around Antietam.

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?

12 hours ago, pandakraut said:

but in most cases the AI unit can really only pull this off once as they will get horribly punished by any nearby units firing into the melee.

#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.

[pandakraut]

3 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Is it possible to 'slope' the game dynamics so that firepower, casualties, etc. alter as we move into the later stages of the game?

Could you elaborate more on what you mean by this?

3 hours ago, dixiePig said:

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"

Our options within the battles are unfortunately fairly limited. On a campaign level we're probably limited to the reputation system and casualties. I feel like the issue with adding this kind of thing is that in a static campaign they are just arbitrary cutoffs, since the player can't actually affect how the war progresses beyond winning.

Also it seems like these systems would just double down on penalties to the player. Taking high casualties is already bad, losing more rep because of it just makes the death spiral hit faster.

Or to go a different way, the campaign could be changed to end when one side takes x casualties, but this seems like it's just encouraging various exploits and just shortens the campaign in most cases. Feels more appropriate for a sandbox style campaign.

A lot of this just the limitations of modding. With more access I could definitely see ways of implementing this kind of thing more.

[ug_might]

Hey

So i’ve been playing the J&P mod for the very first time. I’m enjoying it so far, but I have noticed some annoying oddities.
Union Legendary on JP 1.27.1a - I’m up to 2nd Bull Run

1) Officer experience gain
As this is my first run with the JP mod, I don’t know if its intended, but officer promotions are glacial slow. I fought all the way through Malvern Hill and ended up with only about 10 Brigadier Generals and no Major Generals.
I can get officers to full bird Colonels reasonably fast but not beyond.

I (temporarily) adjusted the officer experience settings in the config file to get around this (perceived) issue.

2) ‘Battles Led’ doesn’t work
I think this is a J&P addition? Been a while since I played the base game. I doesn’t work – nearly all my officers show only 1 or 2 led battles, even when I used them since the start of the game. I suspect this could be related to the perceived experience issue mentioned above.

Random thought, could a reload screw this up? I usually save and reload quite often during a battles.  
Maybe the game doesn’t account for experience gained before a reload and only counts battles if there aren’t any reloads?

3) Full Army and 2nd Bull Run third day
I’ve been playing this battle the default way, ie blast everything with artillery on the second day (when the map first opens up). Works as per usual and I almost completely wiped out the confederate army. About 30k casualties.
However, on the third day of the battle the enemy kinda just respawns again and I’m facing another full blown CSA army, including many units wiped out the day before.

For comparison, pandakrauts playthrough had just 15k and 55 guns on the third day (39:25),    while I’m at 45k and 159 guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G5WWMUvsE0

I can still beat this army easily enough or just win on the second day outright of course, but I’m wondering if this is caused by the mod or some other random occurrence I haven’t run into before.

[adishee]

On 1/9/2021 at 5:50 AM, ug_might said:

2) ‘Battles Led’ doesn’t work

 

If I'm not mistaken, this figure refers to the number of times that officer has led that particular unit. It seems like you're thinking that the figure refers to how many times an officer has led *any* unit.