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

[pandakraut]

17 hours ago, PaulD said:

In the configuration files, does "sizeIncrease" stack with "AIscalingSizeMultiplier"?

Not really, sizeIncrease is intended to be used for custom battles instead of when scaling is enabled. AIscalingSizeMultiplier should allow you to make any necessary changes in the campaign.

17 hours ago, PaulD said:

Also changed duplicateRandomProbability to 1.3.

This caps at 1 FYI

17 hours ago, PaulD said:

I am also going to assume that Philippi is a set amount based on difficulty level since playing around with any increases in the configuration files makes no change on CSA army size.

This battle doesn't technically scale so those values won't have any affect.

[Bark]

Started a Confed campaign using v1.27.4.3 GOG. In the first battle, two/all detached skirmishers (auto-)retreated out of the map after reloading a save during the first phase without any chance to interfere. I had only saves with detached skirmishers before, so I had to say good-bye to them, no matter how often I reloaded. Later saves during phase 2 luckily didn't behave that way.

Any idea what could have caused that?

What else I've noticed throughout the battle is that the AI was very passive. Brigades often stood still and let themselves get shot for minutes at max range without return fire. I've never observed such behavior with the un-modded/UI-mod game so far as long as you don't use hidden sniper-skirmishers. My own units were always visible to the AI. Maybe the reason was that the AI used the M1842 with 340 range compared to my 400er firearms. Sticking with the same default MxRange for infantry is maybe easier for the AI to handle.

About ranges: is Close factor 0.1 or 100 p/yd/m? As this category is missing for some firearms, the muzzle point dmg at range 0 would be interesting to know for a complete damage curve.

Fire rate: lower values are faster in this mod compared to original?

6pdr Field: 80, 4.5-inch Siege: 30, Springfield M1842: 100, Spencer Rifle: 60, Maynard (carbine, 12 rds/m): 250?

Springfield M1855 seems way worse compared to the M1842 despite the slight range increase.

Whitworth (TS) ammo cost 10 compared to Whitworth 1? Even a value of 2 can already drain twice as much supply by a brigade with advanced firearms. Running out quickly of ammo should be enough penalty for repeaters.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Bark

[pandakraut]

13 hours ago, Bark said:

Any idea what could have caused that?

This is a temporary fix to resolve a battle crash that was caused by giving detached skirmishers their parents perks. Turns out it has more frequent side effects than we initially realized, sorry for the inconvenience. This will be fixed in the next patch.

13 hours ago, Bark said:

What else I've noticed throughout the battle is that the AI was very passive.

Which difficulty were you playing on? Usually these units have a high chance of charging when you are using 400 range weapons which fend to have lower melee values.

13 hours ago, Bark said:

About ranges: is Close factor 0.1 or 100 p/yd/m? As this category is missing for some firearms, the muzzle point dmg at range 0 would be interesting to know for a complete damage curve.

Close is range 100 for artillery and range 50 for other weapon types that display it. Those ranges are basically the peak of the curve, they usually drop down to 10% less at 0. The close range is hardcoded so it isn't displayed for shorter ranged weapons. If you would like to see what the original base game curves look like in more detail you can find them here https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/26142-hidden-mechanics-and-weapon-damage-degradation/

13 hours ago, Bark said:

Fire rate: lower values are faster in this mod compared to original

Higher values mean the reload bar fills faster same as the base game. Presumably the repeaters and revolvers are confusing you here. These weapons have a custom magazine system added by the mod. So while their reload rate is comparatively slow versus muzzle loaders, they only have to go through that full reload after emptying their magazine.

13 hours ago, Bark said:

Springfield M1855 seems way worse compared to the M1842 despite the slight range increase.

The SF55 trades damage for range. While the damage is lower it's also more consistent compared to the 1842. It also reloads faster for mostly spurious Maynard tape related reasons. Should probably get standardized, but it's a quirk people like. I'd recommend checking out this spreadsheet for average damage comparisons https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E5ZFCAHEY8EyBkEkWIHOfdFlwaYpSDVA00w9a71jq1c/edit

13 hours ago, Bark said:

Whitworth (TS) ammo cost 10 compared to Whitworth 1? Even a value of 2 can already drain twice as much supply by a brigade with advanced firearms. Running out quickly of ammo should be enough penalty for repeaters.

Balancing for the 600 range as the best sniping weapon in the game. The infantry version doesn't need this penalty. This doesn't decrease the number of shots before a supply refill is needed, it just increases the cost of that refill. I think you'll find that it's not as big of a downside as it might initially appear.

Edited September 20, 2021 by pandakraut

[Bark]

9 hours ago, pandakraut said:

 

Thanks for all the answers. I think I'll stick with your UAC-mod that has already worked perfectly fine for me. I don't need any extra challenge with my simple BG-diff playing anyway.

[dixiePig]

Hi guys.  Am currently playing v.1.27.3d / MG / Confederate

My army unit profile is 1K-1.3K Inf, 12 cannon Arty units, 250 - 600 Cavalry, 300-500 Skirmisher/Ranger

Fairly balanced: Each division has 3 Inf, 2 Arty, 1 Cav or Ranger

Modest INF & ARTY size means maximal perks & power for each unit w/ manageable enemy strength (imo)

Spend all of my Government funds on Good Rifles (mostly Enfield for the CSA during '62 and '63)

Do minimal 'command switching', so Commanders generally stay w/ units (if a wounded commander returns to his 'home' unit when healed, is there any advantage?)

Always have a coupla CAV with even the smallest army (1 Carbine / 1 Melee):  Reconnaissance, behind-the-lines distraction, and raiding of Supply units.  Use sparingly to counter enemy attacks.  Try to keep them fresh and strong for mop-up at battle's end. 

For major campaign battles I have heavier CAV presence in the waves of reinforcements:  Often consisting of many smaller units.  I use 'swarm' tactics late in the game to knock out weakened enemies, thwart their final desperate attacks, and as 'shock' units leading INF and ARTY to sieze Victory locations late in the game.  As a result I almost always suffer higher CAV casualties than the enemy - and few of my CAV units achieve that many perks ... but they are both effective and expendable.

RANGERS are essentially agile harrassment fire supporting INF in line battles and 'foot cavalry' working in conjunction with CAV to quickly sieze strategic positions.

The enemy is dangerously and foolishly aggressive at MG level: They will attack.  I sieze good INF defensive ground (hills, woods, streams, entrenchments) and mass my ARTY, with CAV in reserve.  Maintain a supporting line, replace weakened units, concentrate fire on enemy attacking units, counter-punch as necessary, but don't take the bait.  By battle's end they've knocked themselves out and it's just an issue of mop-up.

Have been enjoying your mods for a while now:  Great work.  Like to play a sort-of historic profile.  It's true that the battles become predictable and less challenging Later in the game (after '63).  The challenge is winning Shiloh, Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg on Day #1.  Exciting challenges in '61 and '62, but now Have little interest in continuing the game after '63.  Got any suggestions?

Edited October 13, 2021 by dixiePig
clarity

[pandakraut]

On 10/12/2021 at 9:55 PM, dixiePig said:

Do minimal 'command switching', so Commanders generally stay w/ units (if a wounded commander returns to his 'home' unit when healed, is there any advantage?)

If they had any prior stacks of battles led, they will retain those stacks when placed in command of the unit again.

On 10/12/2021 at 9:55 PM, dixiePig said:

Exciting challenges in '61 and '62, but now Have little interest in continuing the game after '63.  Got any suggestions?

Not sure what to recommend for '63 onwards, those levels struggle to hold my own interest as well. We are continuing to work on the next version which includes an adjustment pass on all the battles to clean them up a bit and add some more variety to the scenarios. This has been progressing slowly though as it's very time intensive. The CSA campaign up through Antietam is done, but taking a bit of a break before pushing on through the rest of the battles.

[dixiePig]

 

19 hours ago, pandakraut said:

If they had any prior stacks of battles led, they will retain those stacks when placed in command of the unit again.

Not sure what to recommend for '63 onwards, those levels struggle to hold my own interest as well. We are continuing to work on the next version which includes an adjustment pass on all the battles to clean them up a bit and add some more variety to the scenarios. This has been progressing slowly though as it's very time intensive. The CSA campaign up through Antietam is done, but taking a bit of a break before pushing on through the rest of the battles.

What are the other advantages to retaining a commander/unit relationship?  Perks faster?  It's always tempting to try to trigger perks by playing XP musical chairs with commanders.

Delighted to hear about 'next steps'.  Happy to field test your CSA improvements, if you're so inclined.

I see maps re-used in the existing game:  Is it possible to add more smaller battles to the existing line-up? - These might be reandomly-generated or based on historical battles.

Might even craft more historically accurate campaign sequences (i.e. Control of the Missisippi, The Cumberland, etc.)

ALSO:

The ArmyOrg settings are a little frustrating, since I prefer to have more smaller (historically-sized) units in my army.  I'm obliged to ramp ArmyOrg up quickly in order to accommodate my preferred unit profile.  Am sure that ArmyOrg is arbitrary and a-historical.  Is there any way to better serve someone like me?

Edited October 14, 2021 by dixiePig
follow-up

[Radek1]

In 2 days battle if I refill my brigades after 1 day, do I get benefit from medicine from 1 day?

[pandakraut]

14 hours ago, dixiePig said:

What are the other advantages to retaining a commander/unit relationship?  Perks faster?  It's always tempting to try to trigger perks by playing XP musical chairs with commanders.

If you hover over the XP bar of the officer in command of the unit, the tooltip has been updated to show the bonuses provided by battles led. Stacks provide increased XP towards a star, increased XP gained by the officer, and increased command.

Moving a higher ranking officer to a new unit or divisional command can be the right choice, bit there is more incentive to leave officers in command of a specific unit for longer periods.

Adding new battles or even adjusting the map boarders has proven impossible so far unfortunately.

The amount of brigades/divisions provided by AO is set in the assets. Theoretically that could be edited to allow the max amount at 1 point and 0 out all the other increases. Having to put points in AO to be able to field more units is a pretty important drain on career points early on though so being able to ignore it would be a significant advantage.

If hex editing is something you're up for attempting let me know and I'll dig up a screenshot on what the AO section looks like.

A public test version is currently available on the discord. For various reasons of convenience those don't get posted on the forums.

[dixiePig]

2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

If you hover over the XP bar of the officer in command of the unit, the tooltip has been updated to show the bonuses provided by battles led. Stacks provide increased XP towards a star, increased XP gained by the officer, and increased command.

 

• thanks

2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

The amount of brigades/divisions provided by AO is set in the assets. Theoretically that could be edited to allow the max amount at 1 point and 0 out all the other increases. Having to put points in AO to be able to field more units is a pretty important drain on career points early on though so being able to ignore it would be a significant advantage.

• Don't know how much additional effort it is for you & Jonny, but I would certainly appreciate it.  PS:  Is it possible to set something like "Historic Mode" to trigger appropriate unit size ... and even Commanders?

2 hours ago, pandakraut said:

Moving a higher ranking officer to a new unit or divisional command can be the right choice, bit there is more incentive to leave officers in command of a specific unit for longer periods

• Unit Identity & cohesiveness :  Seems to me that 'promoting' within a unit should also provide reward - esp. in Morale  (i.e. A Brigade commander becomes Divisional commander within its same division - or a Brigade commander is moved to command another brigade within the same division)

PK>Adding new battles or even adjusting the map boarders has proven impossible so far unfortunately.

• Too bad

Thanks again for excellent playability improvements.

[pandakraut]

15 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Unit Identity & cohesiveness :  Seems to me that 'promoting' within a unit should also provide reward - esp. in Morale  (i.e. A Brigade commander becomes Divisional commander within its same division - or a Brigade commander is moved to command another brigade within the same division)

Will see what can be done when we get around to some kind of bonus system for division commanders.

15 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Don't know how much additional effort it is for you & Jonny, but I would certainly appreciate it.  PS:  Is it possible to set something like "Historic Mode" to trigger appropriate unit size ... and even Commanders?

How small are you trying to go? Despite the significant size increases provided by points in AO, there's no need for the player to use those sizes. Would probably need to use configs to reduce the size of AI and allied units if you want to use the absolute minimums. Shifting to a system like what the historical submod for dynamic splitting would unfortunately be quite a bit of work.

In terms of # of divisions, you'd probably be more constrained by battles deploy limits more than by points in AO. The maximum deploy amounts should be scaled pretty closely with each point of AO up through Shiloh?

With historical commanders, the test version makes them a bit cheaper relative to other options, but I'll look into adding an option to make officer rep buys cost only 1 which should make it easy to grab all of them if you want.

Edited October 15, 2021 by pandakraut

[dixiePig]

On 10/15/2021 at 12:18 PM, pandakraut said:

Will see what can be done when we get around to some kind of bonus system for division commanders.

• That would be great addition, imo

Quote

How small are you trying to go? Despite the significant size increases provided by points in AO, there's no need for the player to use those sizes. Would probably need to use configs to reduce the size of AI and allied units if you want to use the absolute minimums. Shifting to a system like what the historical submod for dynamic splitting would unfortunately be quite a bit of work.

In terms of # of divisions, you'd probably be more constrained by battles deploy limits more than by points in AO. The maximum deploy amounts should be scaled pretty closely with each point of AO up through Shiloh?

With historical commanders, the test version makes them a bit cheaper relative to other options, but I'll look into adding an option to make officer rep buys cost only 1 which should make it easy to grab all of them if you want.

• Sensible suggestion.  I already limit enemy unit size somewhat in config - will just do more.
• "how small"?  It's tempting to goRegimental - but that's just not a manageable game. 
• Is it possible to make Order of Battle more conditional on a relationship between Total Number of troops : Unit Size (as set in config)?  This would accommodate both the folks who want to GoBig and those who would rather have more smaller units

If, for example, AO allows 6 Brigades in each division from the start, and a battle army size is determined by 'number of troops' (based on config limits), then I can field a division with 3 brigades of 6000 INF each (total: 18000 INF) or a division with 6 brigades of 1000 INF each (total: 6000 INF) - and the AI will size & scale enemy forces appropriately.  The player who prefers larger units will probably face (and can field) a proportionally  larger army.   The player who prefers smaller units will probably face (and can field) a proportionally smaller army.  

I haven't spent a lot of energy researching it, but it seems that this is already what the AI is doing:   Army size for a battle sort-of echoes historical numbers.  Army makeup sort-of echoes the historical structure. Enemy army unit size and XP roughly reflects your unit size and XP.

Net/Net: Does it really matter how many brigades are in the Order of Battle?

A division made up of 6 brigades may actually be much smaller than a divison made up of 4 brigades.  It's a matter of command preference.  The AO "structure" rules are merely an awkward obstruction to gameplay.

Edited October 18, 2021 by dixiePig
clarification & follow-up

[PaulD]

On 10/15/2021 at 4:41 AM, Radek1 said:

In 2 days battle if I refill my brigades after 1 day, do I get benefit from medicine from 1 day?

I think Panda may have overlooked this question during his replies to dixiePig, so I'll comment to give it a bump.

I know that it doesn't work correctly in the base game. The calculation of losses seems to only look at how many of each unit type you had at the start of the battle vs how many you had at the end of the battle. So, it does under report total losses in the battle wrap up displayed at the end of each battle if you refilled them.  For example, if an infantry brigade had 1000 troops at the start of the battle and lost 200 on day one, you refill to 1000 and they lose 200 more on day two, the base game will say you lost 200 troops when you really lost 400.

I don't know the facts, but it has always seemed to me that having the limited "camp" screen available between days of a multiple day battle might have been a late add to the base game because the programmers don't seem to account for changes made during those screens. 

Then again, the base game often doesn't update the condition of troops that supposedly just sat overnight (the condition is the same between the end of day 1 and the start of day 2 even with a large amount of supposed down-time). However, Panda and Johnny's mod DOES correct the condition issue, so maybe the mod does accurately account for refilling units.

[PaulD]

@pandakraut Not that I am saying anything new here - but when I started playing the base game I did Col once, BG a bunch of times as Union and CSA, then about half an MG campaign where I was playing Union and CSA at the same time - taking the Union up to a major battle, then taking CSA up to the same major battle, but I never actually finished MG before starting on the Mod early this year, but I do remember it being a difficult challenge for me back then. Now, 9 months of playing the mod, I'd rate myself as "above average" (not good, definitely not great) with the mod on MG difficulty after playing up to Gaines' Mill with over 12 different career stat and perk configurations before taking one build to the end.

A couple of weeks ago I loaded the base game and started a Legendary campaign and by the time I finished 2nd Bull Run I'd clearly realized that there was no challenge to it.  Since the mod removes all the cheesy ways to control enemy charges, you have to learn to fight differently and much more effectively, so going back to the base game you are just way ahead of the Legendary AI. I feel MG in the mod is harder than Legendary in the base game (although I've been playing with boosted AI Scaling Size Multiplier at 1.2 and size & weapon random prob 0.3). I just found it so interesting how much of a contrast there is between the two after learning how to fight in the mod.

So, now I start my Legendary "education" with the Mod and we'll see how it goes.

Edited October 18, 2021 by PaulD

[pandakraut]

On 10/15/2021 at 1:52 PM, dixiePig said:

Is it possible to make Order of Battle more conditional on a relationship between Total Number of troops : Unit Size (as set in config)?  This would accommodate both the folks who want to GoBig and those who would rather have more smaller units

It can be done, the historical submod goes more down this path. Scaling does take into account the number and size of the brigades the player fields, so roughly if you build small you face small and if you build bigger you face bigger. With various ups and downs depending on battle and specific setups.

One of the problems with making this more dynamic is that changing the number of brigades that can be deployed in a battle results in a giant mess of trying to get all the units to show up at the right time. The deploy system is just not setup to be easily adjustable unfortunately.

[pandakraut]

On 10/15/2021 at 4:41 AM, Radek1 said:

In 2 days battle if I refill my brigades after 1 day, do I get benefit from medicine from 1 day?

Sorry, I did miss this. @PauldD is correct that medicine only applies at the end of battles, so if you refill between days you'll get less total return out of medicine.

On 10/18/2021 at 9:01 AM, PaulD said:

Then again, the base game often doesn't update the condition of troops that supposedly just sat overnight (the condition is the same between the end of day 1 and the start of day 2 even with a large amount of supposed down-time). However, Panda and Johnny's mod DOES correct the condition issue, so maybe the mod does accurately account for refilling units.

Certain battle phases are marked as refreshing ammunition and others specifically do not. The multi-phase multi-day battles are complex enough by the end of the campaign I'm not surprised there are various issues. I've cleaned up a few where I can, but truly fixing it would require a lot of extra work to track various stats.

[PaulD]

Thanks panda.

Is there a mathematical percentage in regard to wounded allied officers showing up in the barracks after a battle? Is it only for Division commanders, or does it also apply to brigade?

Thanks

[pandakraut]

31 minutes ago, PaulD said:

Thanks panda.

Is there a mathematical percentage in regard to wounded allied officers showing up in the barracks after a battle? Is it only for Division commanders, or does it also apply to brigade?

Thanks

This is a bug that is either inconsistent or with somewhat obscure conditions. If i figure out what causes it I'll fix it.

[dixiePig]

On 10/19/2021 at 12:11 PM, pandakraut said:

It can be done, the historical submod goes more down this path. Scaling does take into account the number and size of the brigades the player fields, so roughly if you build small you face small and if you build bigger you face bigger. With various ups and downs depending on battle and specific setups.

One of the problems with making this more dynamic is that changing the number of brigades that can be deployed in a battle results in a giant mess of trying to get all the units to show up at the right time. The deploy system is just not setup to be easily adjustable unfortunately.

I hear ya, though it seems that most units arrive as part of a complete divisional or corps group.  Perhaps the comparatively rare 'partial' arrivals could be reconciled through some math, with a little rounding error?  I assume that the current version is already doing some of that math, since you can choose your number of brigades through the current AO.

For example:  I could maintain a 4-brigade divisions for quite a while by ignoring AO - or I could ramp up to 6-brigade divisions quickly by concentrating solely on AO.  But I'll take a pass on both ...

In any case:  Would greatly appreciate it if the game could lose (or modify) the ArmyOrg limitations altogether, as imo they add only unnecessary complexity and difficulty.  An upper limit of 6 brigades to a division seems sensible (and wouldn't break the system).  Might need to reduce the number of campaign points earned per-battle - perhaps making Reconnaissance more valuable (I find it to be useless in the current game).

Thanks again for your fine work.

ADDENDUM to the ArmyOrg thing:

UGCW pretty much demands that you maximize AO quickly - As the Confederate you should have a 1-corps / 24-brigade army for Shiloh, which is the 6th battle.  This can only be done if you are at Level 6 in AO.  It means that you must  advance your ArmyOrg in Career practically every battle ... at the expense of other arenas .... hmmm

Of course you can fight Shiloh with a smaller army (and win), but the AO limitation is artificial and very, very limiting.

Most of the battles require only a modest number of brigades (many are in the 10-15 unit range).  The AO limit is an issue only during the the earliest stage of the game  The challenge of 'army structure' is reasonable - and could be interesting, but AO - as defined by ugcw - is merely an annoyance.

Edited November 23, 2021 by dixiePig
clarification & follow-up

[PaulD]

@pandakraut

I've been playing MG with AI Scaling Size Multiplier anywhere from 1.3x up to 2x (depending on the battle).  Often, the limiting factor is not casualties nor CSA unit size, but rather, the killing speed of my units - just literally being able to kill enough enemies during the allowed time.  I crank up the multiplier just to get a bigger return of weapons after the battle and to farm more experience for my units. 

I often do not have an issue managing charges. Between getting multiple INF firing on a charging target, snipers flanking, carb cav stepping up to fire, cannister fire, and if that doesn't work, then falling back with the unit being targeted while other units continue to fire...  River Crossing is a great example. As soon as you take the first VP nearly all remaining CSA units will come up from the south VP and it's not uncommon for 4 to 6 CSA units to all charge at once to try and push you off the VP. I can cancel most of them and only end up dealing with one or two that make it all the way through.

Shiloh is a completely different animal. Is there anything about Shiloh that is programmed differently?  I need to blunt scaling down to .8 just to realistically manage it without crazy casualties...  CSA units just seem to completely ignore typical charge cancellations at Shiloh... especially if 3 or more get rolling at one time.  I watch peoples YT vids and see them take a single fallback step and the CSA unit stops charging - I think, how many times did they need to replay this to get it to work once?

My feeling has always been that the charge logic is such that at Shiloh the CSA knows you are massively outnumbered, so it calculates that it should just keep charging. However, if that is true, it should happen in battles when I've cranked the multiplier way up, but it doesn't.

 

[PaulD]

Do weapon random prob and attribute random prob work at higher settings than the defaults (.3 and .2 respectively)? I've put the weapon random prob as high as .9 but don't seem to notice any difference in the weapons I'd usually see at a given battle?   Can't say about attribute random prob because I don't have enough recon to see them in game unless I capture a unit.

[pandakraut]

1 hour ago, PaulD said:

My feeling has always been that the charge logic is such that at Shiloh the CSA knows you are massively outnumbered, so it calculates that it should just keep charging. However, if that is true, it should happen in battles when I've cranked the multiplier way up, but it doesn't.

The AI charge logic is based around the firepower and melee power of nearby units. Size influences this somewhat, but weapons, stats, and perks also have a major impact. Generally the only way to cancel charges is to drop line of sight or have more local strength in an area so the AI decides to stop. It's really hard to compare playthroughs since so many factors could be different.

Even with values cranked up you're probably only looking at a 2:1 or 3:1 disadvantage at river crossing. Even with base settings the initial phases at Shiloh can have you outnumbered by 5 or 6 to 1. The AI also has considerably more brigades than the player does at these stages, which also contributes a lot.

24 minutes ago, PaulD said:

Do weapon random prob and attribute random prob work at higher settings than the defaults (.3 and .2 respectively)? I've put the weapon random prob as high as .9 but don't seem to notice any difference in the weapons I'd usually see at a given battle?   Can't say about attribute random prob because I don't have enough recon to see them in game unless I capture a unit.

These values are the chance that a units weapons or stats get adjusted. When they get adjusted there is a range that their default values can be moved up or down. So even if you set the probabilities to 1, you'll still get a number of units who don't end up changing noticeably. Some battles will be more noticeable than others because of the weapon defaults and current campaign values will provide a greater range of possible weapon outcomes.

[dixiePig]

When the game initially places your units in "the box" so that you can arrange them for battle, your brigades are 'jumbled':  Generally a couple of brigades from the same division are placed together, but the other brigades from that division are on the other side of the box.  And this is true of all your divisions.

If you'd like to maintain divisional integrity, you have to do a bunch of petty re-arrangement.  

I gather that it is a minor glitch, but wouldn't it be nice (convenient and commonsensical) to have the units of a division grouped when you start the game?

For some reason ugcw appears to give divisional aspect of the ArmyOrg short shrift.  Will this change?

[dixiePig]

I'm now at a point of familiarity with the game patterns that I'm starting to 'game' the game in anticipation of the pattern.  I realize that it is not really possible to easily construct new battles.  But, Hoping that it's possible to introduce a little variety within the current structure:

Variable Government rewards

• Vary the size and profile of resources that I can spend reputation on dynamically over the course of the game  (i.e. different weapons, larger and smaller amounts of weapons)
• A battle result might even trigger perks, the appearance of a leader, or a cache of weapons (i.e. Harpers Ferry Weapons Factory)
• Perhaps even vary the amount of Victory rewards (slightly) A couple of points can make a difference
• fwiw:  I never purchase additional  money or troops in Government. Does anyone?

Force the scheduling of battles

• Choosing which battles to fight when is part of 'gaming the system'.  The 'surprise' mini-battles (s.a. Rufus King at 2nd Bull Run, or the bridge crossing at Fredericksburg) were challenging surprises ... until they became predictable 
• If a battle is forced on you - and you don't expect it - Then things get interesting
• This provides also some much-needed value for Reconnaissance (which is otherwise fairly useless).  i.e Increased reconnaissance allows you to anticipate surprises.

Flexible battle set-up (applies to large multi-corps  battles s.a. Antietam)

• Allow me to select & place my units in the unit grouping boxes - perhaps limited by divisions.
• I often end up reverse-engineering my corps makeup to reflect whatever silly-assed decision the game makes about where to position my troops
• This might also vary, depending upon the nature of the battle: If the enemy has the initiative and is attacking me, then I might be 'stuck'with a pre-set disposition.  If I have the initiative and am the attacker, then I should be able to select my disposition

I realize that these suggestions assume that you have access to these attributes and engines.  Perhaps not, but if any of them are possible, then I believe that it will improve the long-term playability of the game, by introducing some challenge and variety that is not so dependent on an AI engine.

Currently the gameplay follows the same form pretty consistently. 

Kudos again on your fine work

Edited December 27, 2021 by dixiePig
clarification & follow-up

[dixiePig]

I just experienced it again:  While constructing my Army in the Camp mode (which is, as you know, a big part of the game) ... I accidentally moused one unit onto another and they merged. 

• Is there any way to un-do a unit merge?  Much wasted time & effort.

A nice-to-have:

• An experienced line officer is wounded
• I want to put him back into command (and regain the xp) when he is healed
• Is there any way to identify/link him to his 'home' unit?  or do I need to take written notes

Also:

• Is there any way to disband a division?

I occasionally must create a 'dummy' division (especially in the early days) in order to rearrange my Army and order of battle

Edited December 27, 2021 by dixiePig
clarification & follow-up