Leader Optimization Project Mod for 1.06

[McNaughton]

I have not modded events, but what are possible triggers that we can have in regards to triggering events?

As far as I know, events can be triggered by the following...

1. Time/Date (on June 23, 1863 for example)
2. Territory (if you conquered a territory, lost a territory, have X many units in a territory)

Is there a way to get these promotion events triggered to be based more upon who is in command where, there was a large successful, or unsuccessful battle, etc. that will be more believeable than just 'on this date X happens'.

Maybe a Joe Johnston wounding event is in place, where if his command is involved in heavy fighting (as the Peninsula), a chance he is wounded comes into play (freeing up Lee for service this way). This could happen in 1861, or 1863, depending on the situation.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

I have not modded events, but what are possible triggers that we can have in regards to triggering events?

As far as I know, events can be triggered by the following...

1. Time/Date (on June 23, 1863 for example)
2. Territory (if you conquered a territory, lost a territory, have X many units in a territory)

Is there a way to get these promotion events triggered to be based more upon who is in command where, there was a large successful, or unsuccessful battle, etc. that will be more believeable than just 'on this date X happens'.

Maybe a Joe Johnston wounding event is in place, where if his command is involved in heavy fighting (as the Peninsula), a chance he is wounded comes into play (freeing up Lee for service this way). This could happen in 1861, or 1863, depending on the situation.

McNaughton, I am not sure at this point. I just dont know enough about the game event engine yet, but hope to learn enough to figure out the best way to do this.

[runyan99]

Does the community like this idea, or think that it is too historically pre-deterministic? I am not looking to put the game on rails, but would like to see at least major things like the presence of the Big 3 in the East develop as it historically did.

I didn't like the events in BoA that made Burgoyne or Gage disappear, or magically move on the map when promoted to army command. I wouldn't want the same issues in AACW. I generally don't like events which force the player to follow the historical timeline. Promoting leaders is one thing, but switching army commanders and moving generals around without input from the player isn't fun, in my opinion.

I think playing the AI is a waste of time, so if the AI isn't smart enough to use Lee as the army commander in the east, I really don't care.

On the other hand, in two ongoing CSA games I'm using Beauregard as the army commander and Lee as the corps commander for two reasons. One, a corps can command more divisions, and two a corps can initiate a battle. So I want Lee to command one of those big stacks I can use offensively if needed. So, maybe the AI isn't so dumb after all...

Incedentally, I seriously doubt that the AI will put Grant in command in the east in 1864 either. I wouldn't force it though.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Bodders]

It is more than that. By default, when something is incorrectly input, either you get an error message, or the game assumes it is NULL. No way should the computer find the old 'militiaman' trait and assign it to McClellan if it is changed in the unit files.

Well, it does - it's in the 'model' rather than the unit file and any ability that hasn't been entered correctly will show up as 'militiaman' This is also ongoing -make the changes in the model section and they'll apply to all your games (saved ones included).

Go ahead and try it - remove a $ sign or change the wording slightly and you'll see it appears as 'militiaman'. Unless you make the changes in the original models, Mclellan will never get 'poor spy network'. It looks like he should but $Poor_Spy_Network will return militiaman and $PoorSpyNetwork will work properly.

So, in many cases it might return 'NULL' by default but in this case if you put in an ability line, it will return 'Militiaman' by default.

[McNaughton]

Regarding the model/unit issue, here's how it is affected.

I believe that connections between files are hardcoded to the extent that if you assign a unit (say "223USAInfantry Bde (PA).uni") to use a particular model (say "mdl_USA_Inf2") each scenario, at it's conception, will by default look for this particular model. Even if you go into the unit files, and edit "223USAInfantry Bde (PA).uni" to use "mdl_USA_Inf22", and have a mdl_USA_Inf22to use, it still will keep every single "223USAInfantry Bde (PA)" using mdl_USA_Inf2.

However, every time that you create a scenario, it 'resets' to what the units officially use (somewhere in the initial 'solidification' of scenarios that you have to do in Edit Mode in ACW). I tested this, and it works this way (all my new units work, on the map and in new construction/events, however, I tried to make further changes and fixes, which my new scenario refused to acknowledge in regards to units on the map).

Bodders, I believe that what you are experiencing is the problem that I have noticed. It isn't that the game, in general, sees this as McClellan's perogative, but, that the scenario may have some 'hard coding' in it. Even though you change some things, the scenario itself does not 'read' these changes, if the unit starts on the map at the beginning of the scenario.

I know, 100%, this affects existing units modded to use different models, or graphics designations, but believe there are probably countless other little things that get mixed up in the process as well.

So, my advice is still to create new scenarios (relatively easy to do) based on the latest XLS files, after making modifications. Every time that a new addition is made, it is 'best' to remake the scenarios as well (easier as time goes on, you aren't starting from scratch). It will just save headaches in the future (in fact, in the 'how to' modding section it is fully advised not to edit existing scenarios, but, to use the XLS files as a basis and create new ones).

[bstarr]

I didn't like the events in BoA that made Burgoyne or Gage disappear, or magically move on the map when promoted to army command. I wouldn't want the same issues in AACW. I generally don't like events which force the player to follow the historical timeline. Promoting leaders is one thing, but switching army commanders and moving generals around without input from the player isn't fun, in my opinion.

I think playing the AI is a waste of time, so if the AI isn't smart enough to use Lee as the army commander in the east, I really don't care.

On the other hand, in two ongoing CSA games I'm using Beauregard as the army commander and Lee as the corps commander for two reasons. One, a corps can command more divisions, and two a corps can initiate a battle. So I want Lee to command one of those big stacks I can use offensively if needed. So, maybe the AI isn't so dumb after all...

Incedentally, I seriously doubt that the AI will put Grant in command in the east in 1864 either. I wouldn't force it though.

I agree with your opinion on the AI. I tend to play hotseat against myself. I'm weird like that.

however, there's a difference between forcing a player to follow the historic timeline and making the historic timeline impossilbe. Davis may have made a mistake by giving Pemberton command in Mississippi and Bragg command in Tennessee, but the player should have the option to make that mistake as well. If these leaders start at * and have little success on the battlefield (historically they didn't) it is impossible to put them in command of an army.

[bstarr]

I agree with your suggestion on Pemberton. It would seem that he should be the 'Confederate Rosecrans' or 'Confederate Buell' and arrive with 3 stars and an ability to command an army, based on the historical record.

With regard to Bragg and Hardee, I would think it could be argued that both were senior enough and respected enough to get an auto-promotion around the time of Shiloh. My fear would be that if they arent auto-promoted at some point, there will be no Rebel 2-stars in the West other than Bishop Polk in early 1862, whereas the Union will have at least Pope and Grant, and possible Hurlburt and McClernand. It would seem a bit ahistoric to me to give the Union that much of a command avantage in the West, that early, particularly against the AI. While the hard-luck Confederate Army of Tennessee had a much maligned command structure, it cant be overlooked that prior to Shiloh, Johnston, Bragg, Hardee and Polk pulled off an impressive strategic concentration of troops and combat power, particularly given the limited rail and materiel resources of the South.

I would be interested in thoughts and comments on this from the community as well before I would consider implementing it.

My concerns exactly. Sounds like we're on the same page. Of course, I figured that when I looked over your leader stats. Something that might work is to give poor leaders or leaders in rough theaters (Union in the east, Confed in the west) auto promotions at or near the time they were actually promoted, but give better leaders who are in areas where they will probably recieve seniority points auto promotions later in the game (a year to 6 months, I guess); this way the player will have to get some seniority points to get them into action, but they still won't get lost in the shuffle if the theater turns against them.

Another idea - this one's probably something to think about for on down the road, but . . . since leaders very seldom bite the bullet (I've seen one; poor Keyes), why not having an event for each general who didn't finish the war where there is, say a 25% to 50% chance that a leader will be killed by event on the day he was historically killed.

[bstarr]

I've got an idea that might make everyone happy. Can you give seniority points through events? Instead of an auto promotion, give a leader 4 seniority points. If the player feels this is unrealistic in their current game, they don't have to promote the leader, but if a player wants a leader promoted along historic lines then the promotion is availible. Also, a leader who has recieved negative points won't be able to promote.

[Dan]

With regard to Bragg and Hardee, I would think it could be argued that both were senior enough and respected enough to get an auto-promotion around the time of Shiloh. My fear would be that if they arent auto-promoted at some point, there will be no Rebel 2-stars in the West other than Bishop Polk in early 1862, whereas the Union will have at least Pope and Grant, and possible Hurlburt and McClernand. It would seem a bit ahistoric to me to give the Union that much of a command avantage in the West, that early, particularly against the AI. While the hard-luck Confederate Army of Tennessee had a much maligned command structure, it cant be overlooked that prior to Shiloh, Johnston, Bragg, Hardee and Polk pulled off an impressive strategic concentration of troops and combat power, particularly given the limited rail and materiel resources of the South.

I would be interested in thoughts and comments on this from the community as well before I would consider implementing it.

I like the idea to auto-promote Bragg/Hardee in late March/early April. I would throw in an auto-promotion for Jackson and Longstreet to ** around early/late June of 1862 as well. That should take care of the situation in the East if the CSA is unable to get either of these generals promoted in the 1st year.

[Drakken]

I've got an idea that might make everyone happy. Can you give seniority points through events? Instead of an auto promotion, give a leader 4 seniority points. If the player feels this is unrealistic in their current game, they don't have to promote the leader, but if a player wants a leader promoted along historic lines then the promotion is availible. Also, a leader who has recieved negative points won't be able to promote.

I like this idea, seriously. It i's flexible, yet allows full control to the player to decide where to assign its Generals.

In the same vein, I would like also to see gain or loss of seniority AND/OR politics for random leaders, for example a leader is seen publicly as a drunkard or a womaniser, is severely rebuked by his superiors, or falls out of favour with his political supporters.

[McNaughton]

One can justify some auto promotion, as much as you can justify the way AGEOD has generals appear in the first place.

Many commanders were promoted 'without warrant', sometimes men had to be picked for command without knowing how they would command.

This is outmost paramount in 1861 and early 1862. As the armies grew, the need for Corps commanders grew as well. One of McClellan's strains was Lincoln's insistance of creating Corps within the Army of the Potomac. McClellan said he was unaware who would make a viable Corps commander, and wanted the units/commanders to be bloodied somewhat to determine who is viable. However, given that Corps were a reality before major combat, (few, if any, corps commanders in the Army of the Potomac were veterans of Bull Run, or other major combat) McClellan had to make a choice.

In this extent, commanders were promoted without combat pushing them to the level of command. So, in this extent, I fully support the idea of some way of getting generals promoted without necessarily 'battle experience' leading the way.

I kind of like the seniority system, where this is increased (instead of an automatic promotion). This can be justified in the event in many ways (mainly due to necessity of gaining Corps commanders with the creation of larger forces in early 1862 on both sides). However, how about this wrinkle?

A) Take all of the generals with rank potential at the time (i.e., all those possibly with high enouch politics/seniority) and put them in the possible 'pool of premotees' (choose 20 or so generals for each side, 10 from the East, 10 from the West.)

B) Figure out how many higher ranking commanders were promoted at given times (i.e., McClellan had 4 corps in 1862, needing 4 commanders, Johnston had 4 corps out west, needing 4 commanders, etc.). By all accounts, each side needs about 3-5 commanders promoted per theatre in 1862 (total about 10 men). So, an event needs to be in place

C) Create three or so events. These events are mutually exclusive. If one fires, the other two are slept forever. In each of these events, a certain combination of generals are promoted/given seniority. This adds a bit of randomness to the game, as you won't always have the same set of generals promoted every time.

For example, event 1 has the following combination (I am posing only a few examples, not all 8 or so are needed).

Event 1: Bragg, Hardee, Cheatham, etc.
Event 2: Cheatham, Clark, Breckinridge, etc.
Event 3: Bragg, Hardee, Breckinridge, etc.

Event 3 is the historic promotion, but, there would also be the possibility that Cheatham or Clark recieved the promotion and became corps commanders instead of divisional commanders (should Event 2 or 1 happen).

[anarchyintheuk]

All of the initial corps commanders of the AoP (including McClellan's choices: Porter and Franklin) had either seen combat during the Mexican-American War or at Bull Run. At that time of reorganization into corps they were either senior divisional commanders or had held other high ranking posts (McDowell, Sumner). That was about all you could go on.

McDowell Mexican-American War, Bull Run
Sumner MAW (dept. of pacific com. replacing ASJohnston)
Heintzelman MAW, BR
Keyes MAW (couldn't tell if he was at BR)
Porter MAW
Franklin MAW, BR

[bstarr]

In the same vein, I would like also to see gain or loss of seniority AND/OR politics for random leaders, for example a leader is seen publicly as a drunkard or a womaniser, is severely rebuked by his superiors, or falls out of favour with his political supporters.

I've thought about that too. It would be a nice add to the game itself, not just a mod. Some sort of random seniority generator that occasionally gives a plus or minus to a general's seniority - usually a plus, but a minus here and there could throw a kink in things as well.

[PBBoeye]

Thanks again for the mod effort. Utilizing it now.

Btw, I'd like to suggest you make an installation note alteration:

5. Copy and paste the Combats.opt file into the ACW/Settings Folder. Answer yes to overwrite the file (once you have made your backup)

That is the original text - but suggest you mention the Combats.opt file in instruction #1 as a backup, too (as it isn't included there).

Otherwise, easy to follow.

[PBBoeye]

Quick question - how many abilities max for a leader? Four?

[McNaughton]

Quick question - how many abilities max for a leader? Four?

Yes, maximum is 4 attributes.

[PBBoeye]

*heelclick*
*salute*

[Gray_Lensman]

<deleted>

[PBBoeye]

So on Grant and Lee, I find it interesting that we have Grant with the 'Strategist' (at **** level) and Lee always with the Reckless trait. No probs with Lee having 'Reckless', but it would seem Grant should also have the trait, as it seems to be the best trait to mimic their 'go forth to the slaughter' tendencies.

This is why I bring up the limit on traits. Would be ideal if we could have 5-6 traits, because I think both of them should have the 'Strategist' and 'Reckless' traits, as well as the others they are assigned.

Pocus, is it possible to increase the number of traits a leader may have?

[PBBoeye]

So on Grant and Lee, I find it interesting that we have Grant with the 'Strategist' (at **** level) and Lee always with the Reckless trait. No probs with Lee having 'Reckless', but it would seem Grant should also have the trait, as it seems to be the best trait to mimic their 'go forth to the slaughter' tendencies.

This is why I bring up the limit on traits. Would be ideal if we could have 5-6 traits, because I think both of them should have the 'Strategist' and 'Reckless' traits, as well as the others they are assigned.

Pocus, is it possible to increase the number of traits a leader may have?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[McNaughton]

Actually, it isn't the models so much, as the units. You cannot edit a unit to tell it to look for a different model, unless you create a new scenario, as all units will revert back to their original models. I have tried, reinstalled, and tried again. This is a common result for me.

Because of this, and because I know that creating a new scenario fixes it, plus Pocus recommends creating new scenarios for mods (basically the scenario is the same, but for your additions), I would think that maybe there are things that are currently not coming up, which may be an issue in the future.

Better safe than sorry, especially when a lot of work comes into play.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[McNaughton]

I'm still not seeing what does not work.

As stated above, you yourself are claiming the units will revert back to their original models. If you replace the original model files with "repaired" files, the specific units will be corrected, as it is in all my scenarios, specifically regarding McClellan and a few other .mdl files that I have edited to fix mis-entered traits.

Unit A looks for Model B

If you tell Unit A to Look for Model C, it doesn't do so for scenario files, and looks for Model B instead.

So, if you edit Unit files to use different Model files, it won't work. This, to me, says the game system of tinkering with individual scenarios isn't as 'stable' as creating scenarios on your own. While you don't SEE any problems, at this point, modding the April 1861 scenario (when very little is on the map to begin with), when things are done to later scenarios, this problem may be more evident. I am not saying that there WILL be a problem, but, why set yourself up for a problem that may happen and frustrate you later?

[Winfield S. Hancock]

One can justify some auto promotion, as much as you can justify the way AGEOD has generals appear in the first place.

Many commanders were promoted 'without warrant', sometimes men had to be picked for command without knowing how they would command.

This is outmost paramount in 1861 and early 1862. As the armies grew, the need for Corps commanders grew as well. One of McClellan's strains was Lincoln's insistance of creating Corps within the Army of the Potomac. McClellan said he was unaware who would make a viable Corps commander, and wanted the units/commanders to be bloodied somewhat to determine who is viable. However, given that Corps were a reality before major combat, (few, if any, corps commanders in the Army of the Potomac were veterans of Bull Run, or other major combat) McClellan had to make a choice.

In this extent, commanders were promoted without combat pushing them to the level of command. So, in this extent, I fully support the idea of some way of getting generals promoted without necessarily 'battle experience' leading the way.

I kind of like the seniority system, where this is increased (instead of an automatic promotion). This can be justified in the event in many ways (mainly due to necessity of gaining Corps commanders with the creation of larger forces in early 1862 on both sides). However, how about this wrinkle?

A) Take all of the generals with rank potential at the time (i.e., all those possibly with high enouch politics/seniority) and put them in the possible 'pool of premotees' (choose 20 or so generals for each side, 10 from the East, 10 from the West.)

B) Figure out how many higher ranking commanders were promoted at given times (i.e., McClellan had 4 corps in 1862, needing 4 commanders, Johnston had 4 corps out west, needing 4 commanders, etc.). By all accounts, each side needs about 3-5 commanders promoted per theatre in 1862 (total about 10 men). So, an event needs to be in place

C) Create three or so events. These events are mutually exclusive. If one fires, the other two are slept forever. In each of these events, a certain combination of generals are promoted/given seniority. This adds a bit of randomness to the game, as you won't always have the same set of generals promoted every time.

For example, event 1 has the following combination (I am posing only a few examples, not all 8 or so are needed).

Event 1: Bragg, Hardee, Cheatham, etc.
Event 2: Cheatham, Clark, Breckinridge, etc.
Event 3: Bragg, Hardee, Breckinridge, etc.

Event 3 is the historic promotion, but, there would also be the possibility that Cheatham or Clark recieved the promotion and became corps commanders instead of divisional commanders (should Event 2 or 1 happen).

McNaughton -- this is an excellent idea. I am attempting to do this right now. I am trying to figure out how if one event fires, another event or two can be slept permanently. Any idea what the commands are to do this?

I am pretty sure how to make it random whether an event fires or not, you simply assign it a probability value in the Conditions section. Although, if you had three events for CSA Army of Tennessee Corps commanders, and you used just probability, it is still conceivable all 3 events never make their probability check and thus never fire, meaning no corps commanders for the CSA in the West. Any help here?

If I cant figure this out, I will just do regular promotions for now, until it can be determined how to make this more random. I have to go to LA on a business trip this Sunday and will be gone for a week, so for play balance, I want to get some CSA changes out there to equal out their leaders for high commands.

[Pdubya64]

I have to go to LA on a business trip this Sunday and will be gone for a week, so for play balance, I want to get some CSA changes out there to equal out their leaders for high commands.

This would be great Hancock. It's looking on Turn 7 of my AAR that I won't be able to do much of anything with the AOP as I have no one other than Johnston (who I have already sent to TN to form the next Army) to be Corps commander. I may just stand by before making any moves this turn until you have an update ready.
Thanks for all the hard work bud!
pw

[Jabberwock]

McNaughton -- this is an excellent idea. I am attempting to do this right now. I am trying to figure out how if one event fires, another event or two can be slept permanently. Any idea what the commands are to do this?

Looking at the code, this is how Pocus would do it:

Conditions
EvalEvent = evt_nam_******;=;0

in each dependent event.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

OK, the latest changes, virtually all CSA enhancements for the leader optimization mod, which will even the score for the Rebels in terms of getting some corps commanders available for the East and West.

Here are the changes:

Automatic promotion to 2 star rank for Jackson and Longstreet around June 1 1862, reflecting the historical organization of the Army of Northern Virginia at that time. (note that Gustavaus W Smith is also promoted to 2 stars already, in April 1862, so the ANV also has his far less competent abilities to take a corps as well)

Braxton Bragg arrives at 2 star rank. Bragg automatically promoted to 3 star rank April 8, 1862. Bragg was historically given the rank of full general and command of the Army of Mississippi that day, without any consideration of prior battlefield performance.

Pemberton arrives in fall of 1862 at his 3 star rank, as he was promoted to army command without any consideration of prior battlefield experience and performance in the Civil War.

John Bell Hood. Since no human player in his right mind is going to promote Hood above division general, yet he historically rose right up the chain of command as a favorite of Jeff Davis, I looked to model this in some way. In early 1864, there is a 50% chance Hood will be promoted to 2 stars. In August 1864, there is a 33% chance he will be promoted to 3 stars and become eligible to command an army.

Edward ‘Allegheny’ Johnson no longer gets automatically promoted to 2 stars.

33% chance each for EK Smith and John C. Breckinridge to be promoted to 2 stars in the West at the same time as Hardee, representing the chance these men might have been given corps commands for the Army of Tennessee and Army of Mississippi as they were organizing.

Robert E. Lee loses trait Siege Engineer. Lee gains traits Gifted Commander. I believe this better reflects Lee’s command of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Braxton Bragg 3 star counter gets the Quick Angered trait. The Army of Tennessee’s high command under Bragg was one constant feuding and fighting mess.

John Bell Hood’s 3 star ratings increased to 5-1-1. Hood’s attacks with his army were pretty vicious and while unsuccessful, deserve better than a 0 rating. Hood’s 2 star ratings changed to 5-4-2. Dispirited leader trait removed from Hood at 2 stars. Hood’s 1 star rating changed to 5-6-3.

James Longstreet upgraded to 5-5-6 at 1 and 2 star levels. Also gets traits Good Commander and Strong Morale. Besides his strong defensive skills, he delivered several of the most devastating offensive blows of the war, illustrating his ability in the attack as well. He was both a good commander, and the Strong Morale is representative of any number of the elite ANV units that earned their status as part of his corps.

Stonewall Jackson upgraded to 6-5-5 at 1 and 2 star levels.

OK, if anyone has any feedback, bug corrections, or any more quick USA or CSA improvements, let me know quickly. With business travel next week, I will not be able to make any further changes to the mod after this evening. (The good news is that for all of you considering starting new games, it is likely to stay stable for some time now -- even though all new changes are compatible with your saved games AFAIK)

[bstarr]

OK, the latest changes, virtually all CSA enhancements for the leader optimization mod, which will even the score for the Rebels in terms of getting some corps commanders available for the East and West.

Here are the changes:

Automatic promotion to 2 star rank for Jackson and Longstreet around June 1 1862, reflecting the historical organization of the Army of Northern Virginia at that time. (note that Gustavaus W Smith is also promoted to 2 stars already, in April 1862, so the ANV also has his far less competent abilities to take a corps as well)

Braxton Bragg arrives at 2 star rank. Bragg automatically promoted to 3 star rank April 8, 1862. Bragg was historically given the rank of full general and command of the Army of Mississippi that day, without any consideration of prior battlefield performance.

Pemberton arrives in fall of 1862 at his 3 star rank, as he was promoted to army command without any consideration of prior battlefield experience and performance in the Civil War.

John Bell Hood. Since no human player in his right mind is going to promote Hood above division general, yet he historically rose right up the chain of command as a favorite of Jeff Davis, I looked to model this in some way. In early 1864, there is a 50% chance Hood will be promoted to 2 stars. In August 1864, there is a 33% chance he will be promoted to 3 stars and become eligible to command an army.

Edward ‘Allegheny’ Johnson no longer gets automatically promoted to 2 stars.

33% chance each for EK Smith and John C. Breckinridge to be promoted to 2 stars in the West at the same time as Hardee, representing the chance these men might have been given corps commands for the Army of Tennessee and Army of Mississippi as they were organizing.

Robert E. Lee loses trait Siege Engineer. Lee gains traits Gifted Commander. I believe this better reflects Lee’s command of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Braxton Bragg 3 star counter gets the Quick Angered trait. The Army of Tennessee’s high command under Bragg was one constant feuding and fighting mess.

John Bell Hood’s 3 star ratings increased to 5-1-1. Hood’s attacks with his army were pretty vicious and while unsuccessful, deserve better than a 0 rating. Hood’s 2 star ratings changed to 5-4-2. Dispirited leader trait removed from Hood at 2 stars. Hood’s 1 star rating changed to 5-6-3.

James Longstreet upgraded to 5-5-6 at 1 and 2 star levels. Also gets traits Good Commander and Strong Morale. Besides his strong defensive skills, he delivered several of the most devastating offensive blows of the war, illustrating his ability in the attack as well. He was both a good commander, and the Strong Morale is representative of any number of the elite ANV units that earned their status as part of his corps.

Stonewall Jackson upgraded to 6-5-5 at 1 and 2 star levels.

OK, if anyone has any feedback, bug corrections, or any more quick USA or CSA improvements, let me know quickly. With business travel next week, I will not be able to make any further changes to the mod after this evening. (The good news is that for all of you considering starting new games, it is likely to stay stable for some time now -- even though all new changes are compatible with your saved games AFAIK)

Simply outstanding. I love it.