'Historical' Submod of J&P Rebalance mod, release thread

[mroduin44]

@adishee

3 Questions if you dont mind.

1. Do you have a documentation file for the historical.csv file? I have been messing around with the values trying different layouts of the mod and been having to guess regarding what each of the values are which is reasonable for most of the items but some I am just curious of what they do.

2. I noticed that the officer traits list is missing from the documentation files. Was it moved somewhere else? I know you can look hovering over each officer but the documentation list made it really easy to identify valuable officers and put them in place without having to hover over and look through the different abilities of dozens of officers based on the hover mechanic in the camp.

3. Would you mind putting a link for the JP discord so people looking through this conversation can easily find it?

Edited March 8, 2021 by mroduin44

[adishee]

On 3/7/2021 at 6:15 AM, mroduin44 said:

@adishee

3 Questions if you dont mind.

1. Do you have a documentation file for the historical.csv file? I have been messing around with the values trying different layouts of the mod and been having to guess regarding what each of the values are which is reasonable for most of the items but some I am just curious of what they do.

2. I noticed that the officer traits list is missing from the documentation files. Was it moved somewhere else? I know you can look hovering over each officer but the documentation list made it really easy to identify valuable officers and put them in place without having to hover over and look through the different abilities of dozens of officers based on the hover mechanic in the camp.

3. Would you mind putting a link for the JP discord so people looking through this conversation can easily find it?

Hey @mroduin44

1) I don't, I'll put that on the to do list for next version.

2) Same as #1. It's easy enough to copy/paste from the code where the descriptions are stored.

3) https://discord.gg/zqWzGkjB  <-- note that this is not MY channel per se, anyone can make a submod and post it here. 

[dixiePig]

@Adishee: Is there any way to disable "ironman'?

I'd like to be able to save mid-game and come back to it later

[adishee]

It disabled by default now.

[adishee]

On 3/7/2021 at 6:15 AM, mroduin44 said:

@adishee

3 Questions if you dont mind.

1. Do you have a documentation file for the historical.csv file? I have been messing around with the values trying different layouts of the mod and been having to guess regarding what each of the values are which is reasonable for most of the items but some I am just curious of what they do.

2. I noticed that the officer traits list is missing from the documentation files. Was it moved somewhere else? I know you can look hovering over each officer but the documentation list made it really easy to identify valuable officers and put them in place without having to hover over and look through the different abilities of dozens of officers based on the hover mechanic in the camp.

3. Would you mind putting a link for the JP discord so people looking through this conversation can easily find it?

FYI latest version includes 1 and 2 in the documentation folder.

[dixiePig]

12 hours ago, adishee said:

It disabled by default now.

hmmm ... I installed v.1.3.5 and the game seems to be working okay

• I can save a battle, mid-play

but I get "Can't be loaded. Delete?"  [Okay] [Cancel] panel

• when I attempt to reload a battle that has been saved mid-play

When I attempt to go to MainMenu from inside a battle, I get "Ironman - Save and exit to Main Menu?"

Playing as Confederate, I was able to save Newport News at the end of the battle (When offered the [Finish] button - and I could re-load that battle (and only that battle).  All other Saved mid-battle present me with "Can't be loaded. Delete?" panel

Is there somewhere in a config file that I can check - and control - the status of the ironmanFeature?  It's really annoying.

Am hoping to get this resolved, as your mod is a terrific improvement - especially for those of us who like to 'play historical'.  But ironman is really awful.

Edited March 17, 2021 by dixiePig
clarity

[adishee]

1 hour ago, dixiePig said:

hmmm ... I installed v.1.3.5 and the game seems to be working okay

• I can save a battle, mid-play

but I get "Can't be loaded. Delete?"  [Okay] [Cancel] panel

• when I attempt to reload a battle that has been saved mid-play

When I attempt to go to MainMenu from inside a battle, I get "Ironman - Save and exit to Main Menu?"

Playing as Confederate, I was able to save Newport News at the end of the battle (When offered the [Finish] button - and I could re-load that battle (and only that battle).  All other Saved mid-battle present me with "Can't be loaded. Delete?" panel

Is there somewhere in a config file that I can check - and control - the status of the ironmanFeature?  It's really annoying.

Am hoping to get this resolved, as your mod is a terrific improvement - especially for those of us who like to 'play historical'.  But ironman is really awful.

So that is not Ironman. Let me explain. There is a small bug where it says Ironman is on sometimes when you quit the battle, but it is not actually on. Then, your ruined savegames are a separate bug.

Yesterday I put out hotfix 1.3.5.c and I'm hoping that should fix the savegame issue. So please upgrade to that version and see if your savegames are still getting fouled. Again, Ironman is not really on, and you can turn it on/off in the Historical config file in the Mod folder.

Hope that fixes it, please let me know!

Edited March 17, 2021 by adishee

[dixiePig]

1 hour ago, adishee said:

Yesterday I put out hotfix 1.3.5.c and I'm hoping that should fix the savegame issue.

Thanks for the speedy reply, @adishee.

Actually, my current version is 1.3.5.c. - so it appears that the bug persists.

Found 'ironManMode' in historical file.  Yep - it's 'false'

found another issue:

'Autosave Camp' after Newport News displays Infantry units with less than 1025 troops (i.e. the strength bar is less than full)).  The slider and arrow appear, but do not operate:  I cannot increase the total. If I click away from the unit and then return - the strength bar now displays as full (even though it is only 961 men).

• bug in the troop strength details display
• bug in the ability to increase troop levels

Enjoying the battle playability of your submod tremendously and appreciate the details (additional range in perks is splendid). Hope to see saveGame fixed soon, as I would hate to lose my current savedGame state in 1st Bull Run

• BTW:  What is godMode?

Edited March 17, 2021 by dixiePig
follow-up

[adishee]

1 hour ago, dixiePig said:

Thanks for the speedy reply, @adishee.

Actually, my current version is 1.3.5.c. - so it appears that the bug persists.

Found 'ironManMode' in historical file.  Yep - it's 'false'

found another issue:

'Autosave Camp' after Newport News displays Infantry units with less than 1025 troops (i.e. the strength bar is less than full)).  The slider and arrow appear, but do not operate:  I cannot increase the total. If I click away from the unit and then return - the strength bar now displays as full (even though it is only 961 men).

• bug in the troop strength details display
• bug in the ability to increase troop levels

Enjoying the battle playability of your submod tremendously and appreciate the details (additional range in perks is splendid). Hope to see saveGame fixed soon, as I would hate to lose my current savedGame state in 1st Bull Run

• BTW:  What is godMode?

The frozen reinforcements bar is a feature, not a bug (ha!). You cannot change the troop strength of infantry regiments after forming them with the slider; you can only combine them and there are penalties for that. I will concentrate on writing a guide for the mod in the coming months, because I'm going to take a long break from working on it (after the 1.3.5 bugs are all fixed).

*edit* -- There is an exception: you can change the strength via slider of infantry units between multiday battles only. 

Re the save bug: I've isolated where the problem is, it comes from some detached skirmisher changes I tried to make and forgot about. I think I've already fixed it but don't have time to test it right this minute. I'll put out a patch later today -- but if you want to save your battle just recall all your detached skirmishers back into the main unit and you will be able to save.

God mode is = your units can see everything, and give 1000x damage and take no damage. I use it for testing.

Edited March 17, 2021 by adishee

[dixiePig]

1 hour ago, adishee said:

I will concentrate on writing a guide for the mod in the coming months

"Excellent", says the ex-Documentation Manager.

1 hour ago, adishee said:

because I'm going to take a long break from working on it (after the 1.3.5 bugs are all fixed).

"Ha!" says the guy who worked for decades in the software industry.

1 hour ago, adishee said:

frozen reinforcements bar is a feature, not a bug

Haven't easily found much info on how units were reinforced historically : I know that unit-merging & destruction was a solution - but it sounds kind of absolute.  Was it the only way? Perhaps you could allow more limited flexibility, as well?  i.e. A unit might receive a maximum of 10% reinforcement from the 'pool' of replacements every cycle 

1 hour ago, adishee said:

recall all your detached skirmishers back into the main unit and you will be able to save.

Do the detached units need to actually be re-merged into the host unit in order to fix the bug - or just ordered to re-merge?  What about an 'orphan' skirmisher unit {i.e. the host unit has been destroyed}?

Am hoping your quickfix will solve it. 

Please give a heads-up when it's ready.

Edited March 17, 2021 by dixiePig
clarity

[adishee]

4 hours ago, dixiePig said:

"Excellent", says the ex-Documentation Manager.

"Ha!" says the guy who worked for decades in the software industry.

Haven't easily found much info on how units were reinforced historically : I know that unit-merging & destruction was a solution - but it sounds kind of absolute.  Was it the only way? Perhaps you could allow more limited flexibility, as well?  i.e. A unit might receive a maximum of 10% reinforcement from the 'pool' of replacements every cycle 

Do the detached units need to actually be re-merged into the host unit in order to fix the bug - or just ordered to re-merge?  What about an 'orphan' skirmisher unit {i.e. the host unit has been destroyed}?

Am hoping your quickfix will solve it. 

Please give a heads-up when it's ready.

Alright, d version is up. Saves are no longer corrupted for me, let me know @dixiePig . Just trying to get 135 buttoned so that I can ride off into the sunset (yes I really am!).

[dixiePig]

1 hour ago, adishee said:

Alright, d version is up

hmmm ... Dropbox sez:

This item was deleted

You might be able to find it in your deleted files. If it's not there, try asking the person who shared it with you.

 

Haven't encountered that before.  Any ideas?

Edited March 18, 2021 by dixiePig
clarity

[adishee]

31 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

hmmm ... Dropbox sez:

This item was deleted

You might be able to find it in your deleted files. If it's not there, try asking the person who shared it with you.

 

Haven't encountered that before.  Any ideas?

A thousand sorries try again.

[dixiePig]

@adishee: Loaded v.1.3.5.d today 03/18.2021

When attempting to load old saved 'ironman' battles

• still receive get "Can't be loaded. Delete?"  [Okay] [Cancel] panel

When initiating new battle (First Bull Run) as Confederate

1. Several of my Detached Skirmisher units Rout spontaneously and some are destroyed after a few seconds (about the time the Union troops first appear on screen).  They have not come under fire.
2. All Union units rout spontaneously when my artillery begins to fire (some are destroyed)
3. My supply unit goes into 'scaredyCat' mode and flees from its position

When I load old P&J ReBalanceMod battles (v1.2.7.1a) / Stones River

1. Detach Skirmishers is not active

Have not QC'd extensively, but that's what I've found ...

Thanks for your attention

Please keep me posted

PS: godMode  = true in v.1.3.5.d

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

[adishee]

 

Quote

still receive get "Can't be loaded. Delete?"  [Okay] [Cancel] panel

I think you'll have to give those saves up, they're no good.

Quote

Several of my Detached Skirmisher units Rout spontaneously and some are destroyed after a few seconds (about the time the Union troops first appear on screen).  They have not come under fire.

I actually noticed this too yesterday. I tried to put in the new J&P feature of detached skirms taking perk values but maybe it's not working well in my mod.

Quote

All Union units rout spontaneously when my artillery begins to fire (some are destroyed)

Hmm, are they being fired upon or near routing units? There is a unique morale engine in the submod that causes a dispersion of bad morale to adjacent units. Inexperienced units will easily route if some nearby units are also routing & they are not well led, etc.

Quote

My supply unit goes into 'scaredyCat' mode and flees from its position

Yeah they will.

Quote

When I load old P&J ReBalanceMod battles (v1.2.7.1a) / Stones River

1. Detach Skirmishers is not active

What do you mean?

[dixiePig]

It appears that disabling godMode has fixed most of the skirmisher, spontaneous routing,  & supply flakiness- also in the old P&J ReBalanceMod battles (v1.2.7.1a) - or so it seems.  Am not doing rigorous testing

Since godmode is mostly a development function - perhaps it should be removed from the player environment? It certainly created a bunch of badArtifacts for me

16 minutes ago, adishee said:

I think you'll have to give those saves up, they're no good.

Yep.  I agree.  Too bad - I was in a good situation.  meh

But the rest of it seems to be working & stable.  It's a rainy day here.  Good for inside play.  I will keep you posted.  Thanks for the extra effort.  

And - please - get rid of godMode before it explodes someone else...

[adishee]

Just now, dixiePig said:

It appears that disabling godMode has fixed most of the skirmisher, spontaneous routing,  & supply flakiness- also in the old P&J ReBalanceMod battles (v1.2.7.1a) - or so it seems.  Am not doing rigorous testing

Since godmode is mostly a development function - perhaps it should be removed from the player environment? It certainly created a bunch of badArtifacts for me

Yep.  I agree.  Too bad - I was in a good situation.  meh

But the rest of it seems to be working & stable.  It's a rainy day here.  Good for inside play.  I will keep you posted.  Thanks for the extra effort.  

And - please - get rid of godMode before it explodes someone else...

Yeah you are right, god mode is somehow on by default. Idk how that slipped through!! Uploading a corrected version, thanks for your feedback and patience. Enjoy the rainy day.

[dixiePig]

Okay, I give up

What do the | M! | and | C! | {}  next to infantry units mean?

[adishee]

4 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Okay, I give up

What do the | M! | and | C! | {}  next to infantry units mean?

m & c = morale and condition: m, M, M!, M[!] and c, C, C!, C[!] (brackets means flashing) are progressions to quickly give the unit's status.

{} are for infantry units only, and they refer to exposed flanks. { means left flank exposed, } for right. Infantry suffer iirc -10% morale debuff for each exposed flank. You can see it change in the stats area.

*edit* a flank is exposed if there is no friendly unit within, iirc, 200 distance of that unit's side.

Edited March 18, 2021 by adishee

[dixiePig]

Suggest that unit status might expressed more concisely w/ graphics & visuals, s.a.: 

• Condition: a vertical bar, white bar on black background
• Morale: outline of bar becomes red as morale deteriorates
• Flanking:  white dots at each side of the status bar which flash when enemy units flanking within 200  on that side

These aren't necessarily the best design solutions, but I think you get my drift.  It's good to provide info ... but without clutter

Edited March 19, 2021 by dixiePig

[adishee]

8 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Suggest that unit status might expressed more concisely w/ graphics & visuals, s.a.: 

• Condition: a vertical bar, white bar on black background
• Morale: outline of bar becomes red as morale deteriorates
• Flanking:  white dots at each side of the status bar which flash when enemy units flanking within 200  on that side

These aren't necessarily the best design solutions, but I think you get my drift.  It's good to provide info ... but without clutter

I certainly would have done it a different way if I had access to the source project files. But in terms of making fundamental graphical changes -- like adding whole new artwork and graphical fields which is what you're describing -- it really isn't possible for us modders. We have to work with what we have.

If you press the tilde key, there is another hud mode that has less clutter.

Edited March 19, 2021 by adishee

[dixiePig]

4 hours ago, adishee said:

adding whole new artwork and graphical fields

A workaround in theBadOldDays (1980's) was to store the graphical images as a font (imagine each visual change as a unique character). Then invoke the appropriate characters - as you do now - and display them with that fontType.  Easy to store & manage. 

It was a fast &  effective technique, born of necessity in a time when we had few tools or options.  Often not known, understood, or used these days.  But it works. Not trying to make your life harder.

I'll check out the tilde-mode.

[dixiePig]

Command Control (mechanics) centered on the commanding general is appropriate, though it results in a lot of running around - especially when you're trying to command a large army or a far-flung battlefield (like First Bull Run). 

• The delay in receiving and executing orders by distant units is also appropriate and a good feature.

However, The little popup boxes displaying orders status messaging in the upper left are merely annoying.  

• They obscure the map.  
• They are often redundant.  
• They also often communicate  non-events (i.e. "an order was not received by a distant unit")  
• They don't even tell you which commands were NOT communicated.
• The kicker:  IRL The general wouldn't even know "what didn't happen" ... so What's the point?

Command Control: Local Initiative

The central command dynamic ignores the ability - and likelihood - that a distant unit commander can act sensibly or with initiative.  In your mod isolated 'un-commanded' units are remarkably static & stupid.  This can be useful if they are holding a line and in a strong defensive position.  But I have seen un-commanded units stubbornly hold an exposed position under withering superior fire until they are routed. Sorry ... no. Neither local commanders nor their troops are - as a rule - that stupid.

* "isolated" units are those troops which are not within the army commander's Command Control "aura"

In any case, the army commander's orders lack 'stickiness': 

1. I move the commander to bring isolated units under his control
2. I order them to [F] Fallback
3. I send the commander elsewhere to microManage something else
4. The local unit falls back a few yards
5. ... and then stops
6. Apparently the local unit commander has no memory

• Potential Solution: Order the unit to [F] Fallback + identify where you want them to fallback TO. (i.e. "Don't just fallback a few yards.  Fallback to this hill or wooded area or group of supporting units".  

Command Control: CAVALRY

The army commander micromanagement flaw is especially evident when dealing with cavalry units.

Cavalry commanders generally have particularly strong intiative because they are often operating independently - and are expected to do so.

I was a bit miffed at the underperformance of Stuart's cavalry in 1st Bull Run.  I am obliged to run a commanding general over to accompany the cavalry, if I expect them to do anything.  Let's face it, we know that historical Jeb Stuart would not arrive on the battlefield and say "Gee, I dunno what to do. So I won't do anything. Unless you come hold my hand."

As general rule, cavalry units should be able to operate effectively and independently, even if a commanding general is not nearby. Because that's what they do.

Command Control: subcommanders

The same Command Control dynamics may apply to other units, as well. You provide ~4 profile attributes for individual unit subcommanders, s.a.   "Sharp, Vigorous, Diffident" etc.  but ... what do they mean? What effect do they have on actual performance?  I don't really see any effect on unit performance or behavior.

Your subcommander profile attributes sort-of echo qualities which one might find in a Military Fitness Report.  These qualities evaluate how an officer will behave in a combat situation, and might include:

• Initiative : responsiveness/attack
• Steadiness : organization/defense
• Leadership : morale

These qualities effect a units ability to attack, defend, move speedily, respond to orders, etc. ... AND the ability to act competently without direct orders

If the subcommander's profile is actually meaningful, then those qualities should inform his unit's behavior in the field. Ditto for army commanders, too, of course.  PS:  You should provide Profile attributes for them, as well.

It is possible that unit subcommanders might be 'stuck' and inactive without Command Control from a general, but it's not necessarily the norm

Net/Net:

• You're on the right track with Command Control features ... but there are some implementation problems
• Order Status Messaging popups are mostly just a distraction:  They can go away
• Refine the ability of isolated units to act.  They are currently quite stupid and totally lacking in initiative.
• Give some 'stickiness' to the generals Command Control.  He should not be obliged to micromanage his army.
• Allow appropriately skilled units to act without having the army General present.  Cavalry is an obvious example.
• Allow subcommander's profile to influence their behavior when not under direct command control of the general.

I realize that you are dealing with significant implementation issues and other limitations because this is a submod. You are on the right track in your attempts to make  command control more realistic and challenging.  It's a tough balancing act, but I like what you're doing, @adishee.  Good luck.

 

Edited March 22, 2021 by dixiePig
typo

[adishee]

5 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Command Control (mechanics) centered on the commanding general is appropriate, though it results in a lot of running around - especially when you're trying to command a large army or a far-flung battlefield (like First Bull Run). 

• The delay in receiving and executing orders by distant units is also appropriate and a good feature.

However, The little popup boxes displaying orders status messaging in the upper left are merely annoying.  

• They obscure the map.  
• They are often redundant.  
• They also often communicate  non-events (i.e. "an order was not received by a distant unit")  
• They don't even tell you which commands were NOT communicated.
• The kicker:  IRL The general wouldn't even know "what didn't happen" ... so What's the point?

Command Control: Local Initiative

The central command dynamic ignores the ability - and likelihood - that a distant unit commander can act sensibly or with initiative.  In your mod isolated 'un-commanded' units are remarkably static & stupid.  This can be useful if they are holding a line and in a strong defensive position.  But I have seen un-commanded units stubbornly hold an exposed position under withering superior fire until they are routed. Sorry ... no. Neither local commanders nor their troops are - as a rule - that stupid.

* "isolated" units are those troops which are not within the army commander's Command Control "aura"

In any case, the army commander's orders lack 'stickiness': 

1. I move the commander to bring isolated units under his control
2. I order them to [F] Fallback
3. I send the commander elsewhere to microManage something else
4. The local unit falls back a few yards
5. ... and then stops
6. Apparently the local unit commander has no memory

• Potential Solution: Order the unit to [F] Fallback + identify where you want them to fallback TO. (i.e. "Don't just fallback a few yards.  Fallback to this hill or wooded area or group of supporting units".  

Command Control: CAVALRY

The army commander micromanagement flaw is especially evident when dealing with cavalry units.

Cavalry commanders generally have particularly strong intiative because they are often operating independently - and are expected to do so.

I was a bit miffed at the underperformance of Stuart's cavalry in 1st Bull Run.  I am obliged to run a commanding general over to accompany the cavalry, if I expect them to do anything.  Let's face it, we know that historical Jeb Stuart would not arrive on the battlefield and say "Gee, I dunno what to do. So I won't do anything. Unless you come hold my hand."

As general rule, cavalry units should be able to operate effectively and independently, even if a commanding general is not nearby. Because that's what they do.

Command Control: subcommanders

The same Command Control dynamics may apply to other units, as well. You provide ~4 profile attributes for individual unit subcommanders, s.a.   "Sharp, Vigorous, Diffident" etc.  but ... what do they mean? What effect do they have on actual performance?  I don't really see any effect on unit performance or behavior.

Your subcommander profile attributes sort-of echo qualities which one might find in a Military Fitness Report.  These qualities evaluate how an officer will behave in a combat situation, and might include:

• Initiative : responsiveness/attack
• Steadiness : organization/defense
• Leadership : morale

These qualities effect a units ability to attack, defend, move speedily, respond to orders, etc. ... AND the ability to act competently without direct orders

If the subcommander's profile is actually meaningful, then those qualities should inform his unit's behavior in the field. Ditto for army commanders, too, of course.  PS:  You should provide Profile attributes for them, as well.

It is possible that unit subcommanders might be 'stuck' and inactive without Command Control from a general, but it's not necessarily the norm

Net/Net:

• You're on the right track with Command Control features ... but there are some implementation problems
• Order Status Messaging popups are mostly just a distraction:  They can go away
• Refine the ability of isolated units to act.  They are currently quite stupid and totally lacking in initiative.
• Give some 'stickiness' to the generals Command Control.  He should not be obliged to micromanage his army.
• Allow appropriately skilled units to act without having the army General present.  Cavalry is an obvious example.
• Allow subcommander's profile to influence their behavior when not under direct command control of the general.

I realize that you are dealing with significant implementation issues and other limitations because this is a submod. You are on the right track in your attempts to make  command control more realistic and challenging.  It's a tough balancing act, but I like what you're doing, @adishee.  Good luck.

 

Thanks for taking the time to give thorough feedback.

 

First I have to respond generally to the critique that controlling individual units is too unwieldy and that they are too dumb. I sort of accept this criticism that those units wouldn't just stand around taking fire, but then I'm not actually too sure the degree to which they historically did operate independently at the regiment level. I would have to do more reading to actually get a better sense of how command and control shook out during the war and at which phase.

But second, insofar as we are just speaking of the game/mod, the difficulties in C&C are kind of the point. My aim with the mod has always been -- since a good player can trash the AI in vanilla or J&P unless they are facing 2:1 odds and all 2-3 stars -- to make the game much harder for the player to play. It may in fact be a bit of a learning curve to train yourself to send orders ahead of time to more than one unit, and time those orders with orders sent to different parts of your army. The game then becomes one more of choosing your regimental officers more carefully insofar as where they are placed on your line, and sort of hoping for the best when you (carefully) send out an order for two or three brigades to advance on a different part of your line. Because I don't know if you noticed but there are several unit officer traits which profoundly affect that unit's performance at a micro level: the traumatised, narcissistic traits will destroy the coherence of a line, cowardly, religious, hardheaded officers can also greatly upset coherence in the right circumstances.

So while I take your point, to a certain extent I don't want that fine control. I have had the idea in the past to make all units which are 'isolated' as you termed it (nice) immediately fall under the game's built in AI control, and immediately return to player control when out of isolation. I have not got around to figuring out how to get that working yet, but this will perhaps be a main priority for the future of the mod.

More specifically, you a very early in the campaign it sounds like, and there are several tools as the campaign goes on which allow the player much better C&C. The general perk trait 'wig wag' itself completely returns control to much of the army, and the level 2 perk 'delegated command' allows the player to field as many sub-commanders as they want. Not to mention just putting more points into AO greatly improves how units perform when in isolation: their speed returns, their vision returns, and the speed at which they receive orders greatly improves such that at AO 10 you have almost a vanilla level of control.

Also, the 'Reliable' officer perk allows a high degree of fine control including charge, fallback, facing, holding fire. So if you know a specific group of units are going to be operating away from the lines, you should try to find some of those officers that will not be useless.

Also, again because your campaign is early, it sounds like you haven't got the chance to field any Division HQ commanders which will extend your control out. I think there are still some bugs in this... but the idea is that you need to have at least 7k units, a brigade commanded by a general, and a cav unit in that brigade which has the Division HQ perk and only melee weapons and that unit will then become a divisional command who can control units.

Regarding description of the officer traits, I have written a description for every combination of trait explaining what they do. You must mouse-over the unit's xp progress bar to access this field -- see attached screenshot.

The Jeb Stewart problem is an easy fix, I can just hardcode him to have control -- will fix that because you are correct. Please keep those suggestions coming if you continue to play. I can also add a config option to turn off the message spam.

So to conclude I certainly appreciate the feedback a lot. But forgive me for saying that it doesn't sound like you have explored all the mechanics I put into the mod which allow the player to overcome the C&C issues -- issues which I put in by design rather than as flaws. My probably cursory understanding of the early war was that it was a completely amateurish cluster-fudge in terms of control. So I find this articulation in the mod not unwarranted -- and again, if you continue with the campaign, you will certainly have the chance to ameliorate this deficit I think.

 

Anyway, hope to hear more feedback. 

Edited March 22, 2021 by adishee

[adishee]

3 hours ago, dixiePig said:

 

In any case, the army commander's orders lack 'stickiness': 

1. I move the commander to bring isolated units under his control
2. I order them to [F] Fallback
3. I send the commander elsewhere to microManage something else
4. The local unit falls back a few yards
5. ... and then stops
6. Apparently the local unit commander has no memory

• Potential Solution: Order the unit to [F] Fallback + identify where you want them to fallback TO. (i.e. "Don't just fallback a few yards.  Fallback to this hill or wooded area or group of supporting units".  

 

Follow-up: although I did not design this and it just sort of happens somehow, I think this only occurs with 'narcissistic' unit officers. Is it possible for you to verify if this was the case? Other units should fall back correctly even after your general has left the area. Note that falling back is very costly.