AGEOD Forums

I know that there has always been a historic debate regarding 'historic' unit names, and copies of such names, but here goes anyway!

To keep things in line with each other, how about matching Event-given brigade names to brigades one could recieve when player constructed?

For example, many event given brigades have the name(s)...

"1st Ohio Bde"
"1st MD Brigade"

While if a player constructs a brigade from Ohio, they get the following name...

"1st Ohio"
"1st Maryland"

There doesn't seem to be a standardization in naming, also, you can easily end up with two brigades which are really named the same (i.e., I have seen 1st Ohio and 1st Ohio Bde in the same city) AND are 'regular' forces (i.e., I know that militia did have duplicate names, so no problem here).

So, I would suggest the following...

#1. Standardize brigade names.

Either have...

1st Ohio
or
1st Ohio Bde
or
1st OH Brigade

I personally perfer "1st Ohio", as it feels more from the era.

*For Militia they could be... "1st Ohio Volunteers" or "1st Ohio Militia"

#2. Eliminate 'doubles'

If there is a "1st Ohio" which appears via events, then remove it from the list of buildable brigades (i.e., start at "2nd Ohio"). *This shouldn't apply to 'militia' brigades, as there may have been a 1st Ohio Militia Brigade, and a 1st Ohio Volunteers Brigade.

One question... Does the game recognize when a name already exists in-game? For example, if you get the "1st Ohio" unit in an event, and then create a new brigade in Ohio, does it recognize that there is already a "1st Ohio" deployed, and skip to the next unit name in the list?

if the event specify the name, then it is given. If the unit is to be auto named, then the code check if the name exists.

There is still some work to do on unit naming true, but this is a tough work.

OK, I am working on fixing this in my game files, but I cannot find the list of player made brigade names. I have found the scenario start files with unit names, but I need the other file for comparison purposes. Where or more importatntly what is the player built brigade file named and located?

in the gamedata\units directory, but if you want to do serious modding or even help us get all the names straight, it is better to use the master excel files

I would be willing to help. Let me know what or where I need to start.

OH S***, I see why there are doubles now. OK, these master files you speak of, are they in the game or do you have to download them from somewhere?

I did a quick scan of the scenario and event files, quickly renaming forces.

While probably having to redo this for 1.02c, it only took about an hour to change it for the 1861 scenarios.

Also, I am working on the files in the unit directory. While using notepad, I don't think modifying it negatively affected the file.

Pretty much named the following.

All 'Regular' Infantry used the following pattern.

# State (i.e., 1st Ohio)

All 'Militia' Infantry used the following pattern.

# State Militia (i.e., 1st Ohio Militia)

All 'Volunteer' Infantry used the following pattern.

# State Volunteers (i.e., 1st Ohio Volunteers)

When modifying the event files, check for units that disappear via event as well, if left unchanged it will cause an error.

so you are removing the historical names then... for example here is the list of infantry brigade from Texas:

Texas 'Greyhounds'|2nd Texas|3rd Texas|4th Texas|5th Texas|6th Texas|7th Texas|8th Texas

Notice that the first one has a nice flavor name.

Few issues here guys.
I beg you not too change too much as we did our best to include all historical names of regiments. Some standardization is ok, but IMHO, not for all units. PhilThib did ask as to provide about 15% of flavor names.
Also, you have to be cerefull with lenght of names. I belive that it is 25 spces, but PhilThib will confirm that.
Anyway, it is good to see that there are people here that are willing to clean the data base as this game will get even better then it already is.
Keep up the good work and no hard feelings.


Godspeed

I'm not seeking help in deflavorizing the names, they are very good in my opinion, but the database format is wrong at some places, like listing states that don't exists in game for example. You did a great job with le Ricain!

I don't think that I said that I removed historic names, but I will clarify that I did not touch a single 'named' brigade in any of the databases. All that I did was to go through and make sure that the Militia had 'Militia' attached to the end (if they just had 1st Texas, changed to 1st Texas Militia or 1st Texas Vol. depending on the unit type, since Texas 'Greyhounds' is an Infantry unit only, it didn't have to be modified at all, even if it was, I left them alone anyway). Any named brigade was left alone, unmodified, as were most of the 'regular' infantry. Virtually all changes I made to regular forces were in the scenario to begin with.

Some of the 'cleaning' I did was to remove the word 'Brigade' or 'Bde' from some units on the map (i.e., NJ Volunteer Bde renamed to New Jersey Vol. and 1st Michigan Bde renamed to 1st Michigan) primarily because the database of units players can build omits the 'Bde' reference (in order to standardize). Other times, 'Bde' was extended to 'Brigade' (i.e., the I/1st Bde renamed to I/1st Brigade) since it would easily fit and (in my opinion) looks better.

Also, some of the unit files themselves have little things to fix. In the Tennessee file, all of the Brigades up to about 8th Tennessee have an extra space at the end of the name, making the name "2nd Tennessee " instead of "2nd Tennessee". In the Maryland Infantry area, the "1st Maryland" has "1st Maryland Bde" while no other unit has "Bde" attached.

So I didn't remove flavour names, just looked at how things were named in the unit files, and tried to make the scenario files use the same process (as I did have the 1st Ohio and 1st Ohio Bde as regular troops given different scenario naming compared to unit naming). MOST of my changes were changes on the scenario files, with the rest primarily being with Militia and Volunteer units using 'basic' number and state names (all of the militia/volunteers using 'flavour' names were left alone as well). Also, just a few consistency checks on the other unit files as well, to make sure that they are consistent with one another (in regards to the use of the word Brigade, or Bde).

For example, here is the original Volunteers Unit File for 146CSAVolunteers (AL)

CustomNames = $AL|1st AL 'Mobile Guards'|1st Alabama|1st Alabama Home Guards|2nd AL 'Mobile Greys'|2nd Alabama Vol.|3rd AL 'Volunteer Guards'|3rd Alabama State Troops|3rd Alabama Reserves|4th Alabama Vol.|4th AL 'Citizen Guards'|5th AL 'Washington Guards'|9th Alabama Vol.|23rd Alabama|25th Alabama|31st Alabama|31st Alabama Reserves|45th Alabama|46th Alabama|48th Alabama Vol.|48th Alabama|69th Alabama|89th Alabama Vol.|94th Alabama Vol.|95th Alabama Vol.

All that my changes for this file would be... (in bold)

CustomNames = $AL|1st AL 'Mobile Guards'|1st Alabama Vol.|1st Alabama Home Guards|2nd AL 'Mobile Greys'|2nd Alabama Vol.|3rd AL 'Volunteer Guards'|3rd Alabama State Troops|3rd Alabama Reserves|4th Alabama Vol.|4th AL 'Citizen Guards'|5th AL 'Washington Guards'|9th Alabama Vol.|23rd Alabama Vol.|25th Alabama Vol.|31st Alabama Vol.|31st Alabama Reserves|45th Alabama Vol.|46th Alabama Vol.|48th Alabama Vol.|48th Alabama Vol.|69th Alabama Vol.|89th Alabama Vol.|94th Alabama Vol.|95th Alabama Vol.

I personally think that this would remove any confusion. However, looking at that there was a 48th Alabama and 48th Alabama Vol., both were volunteer brigades, it may have been more intentional to leave out the 'Vol.', even though there would be two 48th Alabama Volunteer Brigades at the same time.

Great job. If I did offend you, then I apologize.
We indeed needed to standardize the names.

Thank you

McNaughton wrote:I did a quick scan of the scenario and event files, quickly renaming forces.

While probably having to redo this for 1.02c, it only took about an hour to change it for the 1861 scenarios.

Also, I am working on the files in the unit directory. While using notepad, I don't think modifying it negatively affected the file.

Pretty much named the following.

All 'Regular' Infantry used the following pattern.

# State (i.e., 1st Ohio)

All 'Militia' Infantry used the following pattern.

# State Militia (i.e., 1st Ohio Militia)

All 'Volunteer' Infantry used the following pattern.

# State Volunteers (i.e., 1st Ohio Volunteers)

When modifying the event files, check for units that disappear via event as well, if left unchanged it will cause an error.

'Volunteer' was used in unit designation in the USA to signify those units formed for Federal service, hence, Volunteers are Regulars in that sense, not U.S. Army Regulars but Volunteers doing extended regular Federal service.

So, in reality there were no such Infantry units designated simply the '1st Ohio' or '1st Any State', these Volunteers were designated as the '1st Ohio Volunteer Infantry Regiment' and the '1st Any State Volunteer Infantry Regiment' or Regiment of Volunteers. These units were called Volunteers but they were in effect serving as Regulars in the Federal service.

It is wrong to have 1st Ohio Regulars and 1st Ohio Volunteers as the Volunteers were the Regulars and formed the majority of the Federal armies, with the minority being composed of U.S. Army Regulars. The manner in how you are trying to classify troops is in error and redundant.

For game simplicity, there should be one class of troops composed of the regular Volunteer forces of the States that made up the majority of the Federal armies, and a second class encompassing all the various State Militias and National Guards etc. (Ohio had a National Guard for example, and Federal Missouri had at least 3-classes of Militia). The 3rd class of troops would be the U.S. Army Regulars.

I hope the Developers are not using your troop classifications because they are very wrong.

Chris

christof139 wrote:I hope the Developers are not using your troop classifications because they are very wrong.

Chris

I tend to strongly disagree here. Of all ACW games on the market, this one probably has the best data base of regiments, brigades and such. We don't need to get to radiculous levels just to be 100% historically correct .
Soon somebody will say that 3rd Mississippi didn't have shoes and that their picture looks unhistorical.

For me this is a minor issue and I belive for most of the players too. McNaughton is doing a great job and I hope he will have strenght to finish it .

Just my two cents

marecone wrote:I tend to strongly disagree here. Of all ACW games on the market, this one probably has the best data base of regiments, brigades and such. We don't need to get to radiculous levels just to be 100% historically correct .
Soon somebody will say that 3rd Mississippi didn't have shoes and that their picture looks unhistorical.

For me this is a minor issue and I belive for most of the players too. McNaughton is doing a great job and I hope he will have strenght to finish it .

Just my two cents

You're wrong Marecone about the troop classification!!! Look at the official names of any of the majority of the USA Infantry Regiments, they are in this form or similar: 24th Michigan Volunteer Infantry Regiment, or 24th Michigan Volunteers, etc.

It is not a minor issue, and using that erroneous classification is adding very inacurrate data to the game. THERE WAS NO SUCH CLASSIFICATION AS THE '1ST ANY STATE REGULARS', they were all Volunteers serving as Regulars in the Federal service. It is RIDICULOUS to add something as inaccurate as this to the game!!!

State Volunteer units were regulars after aceptance into the Federal service.

You and whomever else do not know what you are speaking of and it is making a confusing mess out of the game!!!

I state simple FACT, not fiction.

Volunteer units as so designated in the ACW became Regulars upon acceptance into the Federal service, whether USA or CSA.

Why have this type of inaccuracy in the game!??! IT STINKS!!! It also clutters the game with unnecessary and erroneous garbage.

You confuse this VERY IMPORATNT matter of TROOP CLASSIFICATION, and it is making the game confusing and unrealistic.

It is not a minor issue!!!

If the Developers use that type of erroneous data and logic then I pity them and this game and any other game where such nonsenscial BS is used.

Ask any ACW buff, historian etc. from where the ACW occurred and they will tell you the same thing.

You all are cluttering up the game with this type of erroneous troop classifications.

Chris

Until now, nobody complained so I guess it is not a major issue . Then on the other hand, if you are ready to work, and not just talk , then go for it.
Make our data base perfect .

Godspeed

P.S. Do not put your words in capital letters as this looks to me as if you were yelling at me and I really don't like that. I am trying to have a civilized converstaion on this forum and in my 1,149 posts I never got into any fight.

Well I am an ACW buff and an amateur historian and was born "where the ACW occured" and for you to deign to speak for me is insulting, as is your entire response.

marecone wrote:Until now, nobody complained so I guess it is not a major issue . Then on the other hand, if you are ready to work, and not just talk , then go for it.
Make our data base perfect .

Godspeed

P.S. Do not put your words in capital letters as this looks to me as if you were yelling at me and I really don't like that. I am trying to have a civilized converstaion on this forum and in my 1,149 posts I never got into any fight.

You are darned right I AM YELLING!!!

This is so off-base, wrong, out in space it is RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I already did and do work, and just I gave the correct troop classifications in a matter of a few minutes!!!!

It is not my fault that you and whomever do not know what you are speaking of or doing period.

Seems you simply deny facts, then get angry when someone points this out.

You all are with your erroneous interpretation of troop classifications and types as you all put forth in this thread.

Chris in Detroit, not in Europe or on Mars or elsewhere thank you.

NewAgeNapolean wrote:Well I am an ACW buff and an amateur historian and was born "where the ACW occured" and for you to deign to speak for me is insulting, as is your entire response.

Well, you certainly don't realize the mess it is making by having erroneous classifications such as the 1st Ohio and the 1st Ohio Volunteers when the 1st Ohio is in reality the 1st Ohio Vols. and fucntioned as regular infantry
in the Federal service. very simple and accurate, and you are na insult to my intelligence and knowledge.

Typical hogwash.

Have a great day and go play army, Chris in Detroit

We (me and le Rician) did our best when we did this data base of units. Weeks of work. I have never said that everybody else is wrong and I am the only smart kid here. I am always open to listen a good suggestion but I tend to like it more if it is suggested in a civil way.
And another thing is; You came here not so long ago and only because Gil from FoF forum kicked you out of their forums. Everybody can check what you did there and how you acted.
Nobody is questioning your knowledge here. Only tact.
I hope that you won't countinue in same manner.

Godspeed

It's a minor issue for me, that's all I can say.
I have seen this guys contributions at Matrix forum. Exactly the same. Hilarious.

I full well know the difference between the 'regular' and the 'volunteer' army in the American Civil War, and so do the developers and beta testers (check the order of battles, and events). These classifications are more for 'game purposes' than complete historic representation. There are three-four levels of units in this game (top down) based on the current AGEOD system.

Regular Army - Those labeled such as... "11th US"
Frontline Volunteers - Those labled such as... "1st Ohio"
Volunteers - Those labeled such as... "1st Ohio Vol."
Militia - Those labeled such as... "1st Ohio Militia"

In Reality, all of the differentiations are correct. Rarely would anyone, during the American Civil War, comment on their force being 1st Ohio Volunteers, but many just called themselves 1st Ohio. There were always second and third rate formations, not really suited for frontline duties, but, some better trained than others. This is what the AGEOD "Volunteer" formation represents. A force of units, usually lightly equipped and less trained when compared to a frontline volunteer force, but, much more combat ready and battle organized than a militia unit.

Realistically, all could be called "1st Ohio" and get away with it (since it was a commonly used term), as well as called "1st Ohio Vol." and get away with it (since it was the official term). Both were interchangable. The only reason for the differentiation that I see is purely for gameplay purposes. These troops exist, and if they are given the same terminology as the frontline volunteers, then confusion may reign, as to which 1st Ohio do I need to track down, as there may be 3-4 of them!

My, and I believe AGEOD's, classification of the unit as 'regular' was in comparison to the units in the volunteer army. There were 'regular' (frontline troops), 'light' (troops for garrison or combat), and 'militia' (troops suited for garrison duty). I guess it is a matter of a mixup of discussion terminology rather than of knowledge of the unit structure here.

I have modded, betatested, and help develop many games in the past decade. One thing that you learn doing these games is that sometimes you have to cut corners in order to make things fit. For example.

1st Ohio Volunteers Infantry Brigade simply won't fit in the naming system, since it is too long.

#1. We know that it is a brigade, as all large forces (except for Zouave) are in brigades. So, we can delete Brigade from the name. Leaving us with...

1st Ohio Volunteers Infantry

#2. NATO symbols are used, meaning all you have to do is look at the unit, and see it is Infantry based on the symbol. So, we can delete Infantry from the name. Leaving us with...

1st Ohio Volunteers

#3. There are two tiers of volunteer units, plus we have 'regular US army'. The Regular US army has their own designation, such as "11th US" or "2nd US Cavalry". This means that in order for the player to tell the difference between a 'regular army' and 'regular volunteer' formation they just need to see if the unit has "US" or a state name. Now we can get rid of the word volunteer for the 'regular volunteer' since we have a way to tell between 'Regular Army' and 'Regular Volunteer'. This leaves us with...

1st Ohio

Why would we do this? Simply to eliminate clutter on the screen. Making a wargame game is 1 part history, and 1 part gameplay. It suits both history and gameplay to name these troops just by their state name and 'brigade number'. Why have 1st Ohio and 1st Ohio Vol.? Because it simply suits gameplay purposes to have these two different forces named differently. It also does fit historically, as the 'regular volunteer' 1st Ohio Volunteers tended to call themselves the 1st Ohio (humans tend to knock off terms that are redundant, since most in the force are volunteers, why keep on reminding them?). Why not have Regular US Army and Frontline Volunteers as completely different formations? Other than terminolology, the Frontline Volunteers, as you just said, basically were 'regular infantry' in all but name. Equipped and trained the same, other than classificaiton, they were the same. As what AGEOD did, other than in classification, they are the same!

We can't call these second teir formations Militia (already used for 1 regiment formation state militia). What can we call these units compared to the frontline volunteers? Well, we call them volunteers, simply for gameplay. Technically, the 1st Ohio Volunteers did exist twice, but, for gameplay purposes we need a way to differentiate. So, we clal one 1st Ohio, and the other 1st Ohio Vol. Simple necessity.

Both are technically 'correct', as it is a simple matter of what information we put down in writing, vs. what information we infer to the player via designation and other methods (prior knowledge, graphics, etc.).

So, I hope that you can understand what AGEOD was doing here, in regards to their naming system. I was merely trying to help continue this differentiation that was already in existance. One that I completely agree with.

OK, I love the under 10 turn games with all the flavor names included, but I don't care for them in the campaign. My main problem with the names in campaign games is that you end up with divisions with say 1st-4th AL, and infantry, cavalry, and 6 lb. pounder (still haven't figured out that one yet).

I would be ok if all produced regiments came in with a name, not just infantry, cavalry, xxxxx pounder. Not too sure what adding a couple thousand extra unit names would take, but I imagine too much. So I figured it would be easier to go in and change all given regiment names to infantry, cavalry, xxxx pounder.

My main concern now is that if I change the names in the files, will this affect the scripted battles where you don't get to produce units.

Please let me know if I am in the wrong ballpark on that issue. I don't want to touch anything if it is going to change the scripted scenarios.

NOTE: I do not want to change any Brigade names other than the duplicate ones. I am thinking more about the Regiments.

OK, here is a screenie about what I am talking about.



Note how it contains both named Regiments and just plain old infantry, cavalry, and cannon.

The reality of the situation is, that, each State had a unique "Official" nomenclature for the units raised within the respective States. The following are some examples of the "Official" titles of some units from the Gettysburg OoB:

CSA:

4th Alabama Infantry Regiment

3rd Arkansas Infantry Regiment

2nd Florida Infantry Regiment

10th Regiment, Georgia Volunteer Infantry
3rd Battalion, Georgia Sharpshooters

5th Louisiana Infantry Regiment

1st Maryland Battalion Infantry
1st Maryland Cavalry Battalion

13th Mississippi Volunteer Infantry Regiment

6th North Carolina State Troops Regiment (early war-raised units)
21st Regiment, North Carolina Troops (mid war-raised units)
19th North Carolina State Troops Regiment (2nd Cavalry) (NC Cavalry was numbered in the same sequence as Infantry, with a separate suffix with the cavalry designation)
1st Battalion, North Carolina Sharpshooters

2nd South Carolina Volunteer Regiment
1st South Carolina Regiment of Cavalry

1st Tennessee Volunteer Infantry Regiment (Only early "Provisional Army" units carried the title "Volunteer")
7th Tennessee Infantry Regiment

1st Texas Infantry Regiment

8th Virginia Infantry Regiment
1st Regiment, Virginia Cavalry

39th Battalion, Virginia Cavalry

USA:

27th Regiment, Connecticut Infantry Volunteers

2nd Regiment, Delaware Volunteers

82nd Illinois Infantry Regiment
8th Cavalry Regiment, Illinois Volunteers

19th Regiment, Indiana Volunteer Infantry
3rd Regiment, Indiana Cavalry

16th Regiment, Maine Volunteer Infantry
1st Maine Cavalry Regiment

3rd Maryland Infantry Regiment
1st Regiment, Maryland Cavalry

13th Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

24th Regiment, Michigan Volunteer Infantry
1st Regiment, Michigan Cavalry

1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment

5th Regiment, New Hampshire Volunteers

12th New Jersey Volunteer Infantry Regiment
1st New Jersey Regiment of Cavalry

76th Regiment, New York State Volunteers
8th New York Volunteer Cavalry Regiment

4th Ohio Volunteer Infantry Regiment

56th Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry
6th Regiment, Pennsylvania Cavalry

2nd Regiment, Vermont Volunteers
1st Vermont Cavalry Regiment

1st Regiment, West Virginia Cavalry

2nd Wisconsin Infantry Regiment

1st Regiment of US Sharpshooters
3rd Regiment, US Infantry
1st Regiment, US Cavalry


It would be rather tedious to re-name all of the units to match official State naming conventions. As long as the game differentiates between "1st-line" and lower-grade, militia-type units, with whatever reasonable terms that the develpers wants to use, who cares??

LOL

Due to the fact we are dealing primarily with Brigades and not Regiments, I say we just keep with a generic naming system unified via nation rather than state.

On a side note, we need to eliminate the confusion between unit size. Some are pure regimental sized units (U.S. Regulars, Militia, most Cavalry), while most are brigades. Either we should list Regiments with 'Rgt.' or 'Regt.' or Brigades with 'Bde' (or both) to eliminate confusion as to unit size.

Would changing names to the following be suitable or are they getting too long?

1st U.S. Regt.
3rd Alabama Cav. Regt.
1st New Jersey Militia Regt.
2nd Maryland Bde.
11th Tennesee Vol. Bde.

We could always do the following, but seems less 'historic' to me...

1st U.S. Regiment
3rd AL Cav. Regiment
1st NJ Militia Regiment
2nd MD Brigade
11th TN Vol. Brigade

It may be best just to label the regiments...

1st U.S. Regt.
3rd Alabama Cav. Regt.
1st New Jersey Militia Regt.
2nd Maryland
11th Tennesee Vol.

Or, we could leave the status quo, which may be the best option.

1st U.S.
3rd Alabama Cav.
1st New Jersey Militia
2nd Maryland
11th Tennesee Vol.

My thing is, as shown in the above pic, is I want one or the other not both. That and brigade doubling(tripling). In the game I am playing right now, I just produced THREE 2nd Tennesse Brigades. All 3 where raised in Nashville, so I am thinking the nameing may be city based also.

Actually, the reason for those multiple 2nd Tennessees are probably due to small differences in type. For example, I found that some of the files had a space after Tennessee, and according to the computer, would be a completely different name than without it. That's probably why you had so many 2nd Tennessee units.

I believe that Pocus still didn't implement all data base for units into game. Because of that you have regiments called infantry.

How are you doing McNaughton? Any progress in fixing those names?

Godspeed

I am not really sure if that is the reason for the multiple copies of the 2nd Tennessee. I built 3 of the 134 power TN brigades over 3 turns. So all 3 are the same structure wise.

I will look at them again this afternoon to look for spaces and such. I am pretty sure though that all 3 are the same name though.