Brigade Mod version 1.07e

[McNaughton]

Couple more clones that have shown up.
BF Kelley comes up twice in same folder Jan 62
Crittenden also twice ,in his own tab and with the other Louisville generals.

Also Huger seemed to have switched to the British (when I switched to AI to check he had disappeared).

per my previous post McLellans switch to AoP went without a hitch when replayed.

Do you have recommended settings for AI aggression and FOW?

The attrition may be a bit high -my armies have melted away!, but I hadnt really picked up on it and had allowed NM below 100 so desertion will have been at play to.

Going to restart and lay in more replacements S!

I figure that there may be clones, as the event system does not seem to check for the leaders actually being on the map (for some unknown reason!!?!). Anyway, I will just eliminate some from the events (given that they appear via scenario).

Also, thanks for pointing out the doubles in the event files. Sometimes while moving a general around, or adding or removing, I had some leftovers (the generals events were an afterthought, and were very recently done).

Regarding attrition, I really don't know how much it will affect gameplay. Possibly my rates (chance of it affecting one point of damage) are too high and the drain and ability to keep up too low (you have to devote a lot of resources to replacements, much more than before). Plus, keep in mind you have a larger starting army. I usually buy 20 replacement infantry my first turn, of which about 12 or so are used up replacing empty units (i.e., a brigade that only has 3 of 4 regiments in the scenario start). You require a large number of replacements, especially early on, and make sure you have a good buffer in the game (a good reserve of 10 or so, depending on your force size).

Also, you are going to have to 'rest up' your formations after some heavy campaigning. If a unit gets low due to battle attrition, you really need to pull it back and rest the force, since attrition could cause the loss of regiments (if significantly low).

However, the attrition rates may be too high as is (they do go double with lower morale as you said).

Huger baffles me, I believe it has something to do with the general upgrade event, he is fine as a brigadier, (I believe) but he goes all crazy when he is a major general...

I cannot really recommend any aggression or FOW settings presently, as I have not tested it significantly. I figure that keep it close to the best ones for 1.07e (recommended) and go from there. The AI does get a cohesion bonus every round, so they may be a tad bit more aggressive than usual (seeing that their cohesion levels don't drop to the pitifully low levels as before).

Also, I would recommend giving the AI (especially the Union AI) a +1 bonus to their strategic ratings, as their forces would be active more often, and will do aggressive warfare at greater rates.

[Rafiki]

I figure that there may be clones, as the event system does not seem to check for the leaders actually being on the map (for some unknown reason!!?!).

Can you use EvalUnqUnit for this?

[McNaughton]

Can you use EvalUnqUnit for this?

I did, they were the original events, but I 'fixed' some of the names in the files as well as these events as they added an extra space ( ) after each of the generals. Now, this space did not exist in the events, but did for the model and unit names. Also, I made sure that the scenario names matched the names in the events exactly (in fact, copied and pasted some, but for some reason the event trigger did not work).

[McNaughton]

I am also interested in what people like, and what they do not like, in this mod. A lot of stuff is untested, and would be keen on seeing the results of some play experience. I fear (as I believe I said before) the CSA may be too handicapped.

[Le Ricain]

McNaughton,

I am currently playing the Union and it is end Oct 1861. My first impression is that this mod poses a challenge to the Union player which is good.

Some bugs and questions:

In the recruitment screen for cavalry there is a Colored Brigade available to build. While building US Army regular units was certainly possible, recruiting black units in 1861 would not have been conceivable.

There are two Hurlbuts.

The sprite for Meagher is blank.

It is not possible to merge militia. Is this WAD?

I have built all of the KY militia and now am being offered KY Vols in the militia section. Are these volunteers as per the unit definitions or are these volunteer units in name only?

In my game I was successful in capturing both Harpers Ferry and Manassas by July end and therefore have missed the McClellan event train. I can try this option next time.

[gbs]

Playing as the CSA I am getting wacked pretty good. I don't think I have won an individual battle yet. This is through Sept. 61.

[Eugene Carr]

<per> Ricain

If you unattach Meagher from the Irish Bde and then reattach you will see him.
Doesnt seem to be a graphical fault but relates to him being merged with a unit?

[McNaughton]

McNaughton,

I am currently playing the Union and it is end Oct 1861. My first impression is that this mod poses a challenge to the Union player which is good.

I figure that the game is probably challenging for human players since the AI is given a few more 'boosts' in some regards. It does not experience attrition like the human player (albiet they do experience their own variation by moving out of supply). It also gets +15 cohesion added to their land combat units every turn (which barely keeps them at higher rates, since they tend to lose about 10-20 on average per turn) so their units are probably fighting better than they were before.

Some bugs and questions:

In the recruitment screen for cavalry there is a Colored Brigade available to build. While building US Army regular units was certainly possible, recruiting black units in 1861 would not have been conceivable.

Thanks, this was a leftover for a future addition. I wasn't planning on adding it in game yet, as I have not put it in the correct arrival time. I will remove the unit from construction next release.

There are two Hurlbuts.

The sprite for Meagher is blank.

I removed the extra Hurlburt for the next trial, and will do a check on Meagher (although as mentioned already it may be an attachment issue).

It is not possible to merge militia. Is this WAD?

Yeah, I removed it for a couple of reasons. For one, the AI doesn't do it as much as a human (therefore a distinct advantage to double your possible militia pool). Also, there is a significant command benefit. When you merge the two militia, the CP value is that of a single militia unit (1). Unmerged it costs 2 CP.

I have built all of the KY militia and now am being offered KY Vols in the militia section. Are these volunteers as per the unit definitions or are these volunteer units in name only?

I am not sure about this, can you post a save so I can check myself? Or, could you post a picture?

In my game I was successful in capturing both Harpers Ferry and Manassas by July end and therefore have missed the McClellan event train. I can try this option next time.

Yeah, for some reason the CSA AI withdraws all of their troops to Richmond in the first few turns, then moves north to counter-attack the Union advances into their territory. I guess they move back to reorganize, then move up north again once the USA starts their attack. However, some times I have seen Johnston go and contest Patterson's attempt on Harper's Ferry (usually to the dismay of Patterson who gets thrashed). I figure that if I try hard enough, and send support from McDowell, I can accomplish the two goals fairly easily. I may put Fredricksburg as part of the criteria to keep McDowell to make the conquest that much more thorough and immediate (to do so you have to start your attack on day one).

[McNaughton]

Playing as the CSA I am getting wacked pretty good. I don't think I have won an individual battle yet. This is through Sept. 61.

This may be due to the benefits the AI are getting (is less of a pushover due to cohesion benefits), plus that of the Attrition experienced on your forces (if you let it get too high it affects the strength of your army, making it weaker).

However, I am thinking of modifying the CSA infantry to make them a bit more effective in their early war variation. I am thinking about adding a bit more cohesion to their stats (maybe +5), plus to add to the cohesion damage they inflict at range and during an assault (their ability to crush union morale rather than to crush union lives to win battles).

Also, I am toying with the idea of changing what an elite unit does, and possibly the number of elite units. The Union gets a lot of free elite forces via events. I have removed a few of them already (Union Brigade, Washington Brigade, for example) due to reasons of real deployment (Washington Brigade was only in existence for a short while, never saw combat as a unit) and size (the Union Brigade was actually just a regiment). I think that some 'elite' formations were added as such primarily because they had a historic name rather than they were seen as 'elite'. Also, the bonus for Elite forces is pretty powerful, as it increases the strength of an entire division, and even with the reduciton in numbers the Union still get a lot of them. I am thinking about having Elite represent individual strong units in your division, which last longer (i.e. have high cohesion) and may be good for assaults (good assault values).

[Le Ricain]

McNaughton

I am up to early June 1862.

The KY Volunteers are militia units, but instead of being named as State Troops (as is the case for every other state) they are called KY Vols. If you want I can post a pic when I open the game back up tomorrow.

I note above the fix for the missing Meagher pic.

New problems:

There are two Crittendens. It was actually quite handy as one was inactive and 'his brother' was active.

Franklin is missing. I received the notification that he was available, but he was AWOL. Clicking on the log message took me to Washington, but he was not there.

Having avoided the McClellan event train, I notice that the 'Virginia Creeper' is not promotable. This is actually a bit of a problem as he has a seniority of 1 and causes a NM hit every time I promote a ** to a ***. I would think that if he had enough political clout to negatively impact the National morale, he should have enough to get himself promoted.

I think that the attrition/desertion rate seems a bit high. It seems that for almost all turns, all of the conscripts raised go into replacements. This would be fine if I could see that my battered armies were being rebuilt, but often I end up with a message that the arsenal at Rock Island has received a new conscript unit. I am not sure that I am keeping up with the losses.

[McNaughton]

McNaughton

I am up to early June 1862.

The KY Volunteers are militia units, but instead of being named as State Troops (as is the case for every other state) they are called KY Vols. If you want I can post a pic when I open the game back up tomorrow.

I note above the fix for the missing Meagher pic.

New problems:

There are two Crittendens. It was actually quite handy as one was inactive and 'his brother' was active.

Franklin is missing. I received the notification that he was available, but he was AWOL. Clicking on the log message took me to Washington, but he was not there.

Having avoided the McClellan event train, I notice that the 'Virginia Creeper' is not promotable. This is actually a bit of a problem as he has a seniority of 1 and causes a NM hit every time I promote a ** to a ***. I would think that if he had enough political clout to negatively impact the National morale, he should have enough to get himself promoted.

I think that the attrition/desertion rate seems a bit high. It seems that for almost all turns, all of the conscripts raised go into replacements. This would be fine if I could see that my battered armies were being rebuilt, but often I end up with a message that the arsenal at Rock Island has received a new conscript unit. I am not sure that I am keeping up with the losses.

What is really odd are the double leaders. In fact, I did not do a thing to those that are reporting to have doubles (crittenden, and others), and cannot find a single reason for the doubles (there is only one gained via event, and none at the starting scenario so there should only be one).

Where and how do you gain the Crittendens? (same place, same time?). Is it possible that Franklin was replaced by Crittenden for some reason (even though I didn't do a thing to this part of the file?).

So, I have no clue why there are multiple leaders, unless for some reason the original leader file is imposing into my scenario specific one! An undocumented feature?

Also, there are many weakened and understrength units at the beginning of the scenarios (less so in my mod) so for the first few turns a significant amount of replacements will be fed into these units. However, after they are full you don't have to worry about this happeneing and replace only attrition and battle losses. So, try the mod well into 1862 to guage the losses rate (also be aware that with low morale your losses are doubled via attrition).

[BreckInridge]

I have never really posted in a forum before. But I have become addicted to ACW and today is as good a day as any to learn.

I just wanted to know if anybody else gets Alabama cavalry names when they recruit TX ranger brigades. If I am the only one, then I assume I installed the mod wrong and will re-install it. It works well otherwise.

And I just want to say, I love the mod. It has a more realistic feeling to the beginning OOB and puts you in an interesting tactical postition with lots of possibilites.

I am just glad other people like this game as much as I do, so I can read about when I am not playing it!

[Le Ricain]

What is really odd are the double leaders. In fact, I did not do a thing to those that are reporting to have doubles (crittenden, and others), and cannot find a single reason for the doubles (there is only one gained via event, and none at the starting scenario so there should only be one).

Where and how do you gain the Crittendens? (same place, same time?). Is it possible that Franklin was replaced by Crittenden for some reason (even though I didn't do a thing to this part of the file?).

So, I have no clue why there are multiple leaders, unless for some reason the original leader file is imposing into my scenario specific one! An undocumented feature?

Also, there are many weakened and understrength units at the beginning of the scenarios (less so in my mod) so for the first few turns a significant amount of replacements will be fed into these units. However, after they are full you don't have to worry about this happening and replace only attrition and battle losses. So, try the mod well into 1862 to gauge the losses rate (also be aware that with low morale your losses are doubled via attrition).

The two Crittendens arrived at the same time and place (Louisville). As I said, the odd thing was that one was active and the other was not. One Crittenden arrived via a log message the same as vanilla AACW. The second was included in a group of generals labeled as per your mod. The second odd thing is that I noticed during early July 1861, that the Crittenden I did not chose is now a ** general while his brother who has been doing all the fighting is still a *.

The Franklin arrival notification (and no show) was meant to be in Washington and was at a different date than the Crittendens.

I have reached late September 1862 and have finally passed the 100 NM mark. I see what you meant in your earlier post. Replacements are finally having a positive impact on my forces.

Problems as of September 1861:

I received a ** General Orlando Wilcox. However, he is a ** in name only. He is unable to assume command of a corps and when place in a stack with other generals, he places himself in the group as per his seniority when compared with other * generals.

I promoted Andrew Smith from a * to a **. Nice touch, by the way including Andrew Smith as he has always been one of my favorites. However, the next turn instead of Andrew, I had a ** W F Smith in his place. The stats appear to be consistent with what I would expect Andrew to have. The real 'Baldy' Smith is already in the game.

Meade's first name is misspelled.

Rosecrans is not promotable.

Still, all in all, this is a very enjoyable game.

[McNaughton]

The two Crittendens arrived at the same time and place (Louisville). As I said, the odd thing was that one was active and the other was not. One Crittenden arrived via a log message the same as vanilla AACW. The second was included in a group of generals labeled as per your mod. The second odd thing is that I noticed during early July 1861, that the Crittenden I did not chose is now a ** general while his brother who has been doing all the fighting is still a *.

Ok, this is bothering me because there is only one general Crittenden in my events. Can you list of who else you get via event (it may be that AACW converts one of the other generals into Crittenden for some reason). You should get the following in the 62' Division Generals stack...

Lovell H. Rousseau
Thomas J. Wood
Robert O. Mitchell
C. C. Washburn
Horatio Van Cleave
John M. Palmer
Eleazer A. Paine
Schuyler Hamilton

The Franklin arrival notification (and no show) was meant to be in Washington and was at a different date than the Crittendens.

Odd, because I didn't do a thing with this. Did you do a search via the roster? Maybe it says he is in Washington, but he was deployed somewhere else (due to proximity of enemies, or other reasons).

I have reached late September 1862 and have finally passed the 100 NM mark. I see what you meant in your earlier post. Replacements are finally having a positive impact on my forces.

That's good to hear! Let me know if the rates above 100 NM are stable, and how much of a drain the lower than 100 NM is (I may reduce the rate at which you experience desertion so it isn't totally crippling to be below 100 NM, just greater attrition).

Problems as of September 1861:

I received a ** General Orlando Wilcox. However, he is a ** in name only. He is unable to assume command of a corps and when place in a stack with other generals, he places himself in the group as per his seniority when compared with other * generals.

This was a new addition via the Leader Optimization Project. I just double checked, and his model is rated at rank 2. However, I noticed that he and mower were incorrectly given the appearance (graphics and title) of a Major General. Must have been a copy-paste error. Corrected (he should appear as a Brigadier General anyway).

I promoted Andrew Smith from a * to a **. Nice touch, by the way including Andrew Smith as he has always been one of my favorites. However, the next turn instead of Andrew, I had a ** W F Smith in his place. The stats appear to be consistent with what I would expect Andrew to have. The real 'Baldy' Smith is already in the game.

Andrew Smith is another Leader Optimization Project addition, he was given the upgrade link to "_Smith2" instead of "_ASmith2" thanks for catchng this!

Meade's first name is misspelled.

I only see 'George G. Meade' for all of the spellings of his name. Is his model misspelt, or his scenario name? Found it, it was an original mis-spelling in the units file! Thanks!

Rosecrans is not promotable.

I double checked the models, and for both is 1-star and 2-star rank he has YES for is he promotional, and there is a link to the next version ($ldr_rosecrans2 and 3). Do you have enough seniority to promote him? I am working on events to have him auto promoted anyway (given the removal of Pope or Fremont for command of the Army of Virginia, Rosecrans will take their former position).

Thanks a lot for the help! Pretty soon the bugs should be ironed out!

[Le Ricain]

Ok, this is bothering me because there is only one general Crittenden in my events. Can you list of who else you get via event (it may be that AACW converts one of the other generals into Crittenden for some reason). You should get the following in the 62' Division Generals stack...

Lovell H. Rousseau
Thomas J. Wood
Robert O. Mitchell
C. C. Washburn
Horatio Van Cleave
John M. Palmer
Eleazer A. Paine
Schuyler Hamilton

I did not save the turn in which I received the 62 generals. However, the generals will still be present and I will check for them when I go back in.

Odd, because I didn't do a thing with this. Did you do a search via the roster? Maybe it says he is in Washington, but he was deployed somewhere else (due to proximity of enemies, or other reasons).

Yes, the first thing that I did was to check the roster for the reasons you listed. He is not there.

That's good to hear! Let me know if the rates above 100 NM are stable, and how much of a drain the lower than 100 NM is (I may reduce the rate at which you experience desertion so it isn't totally crippling to be below 100 NM, just greater attrition).

Above 100 NM the rates appear to be stable, but it is early days yet. Below 100 NM, the situation is a bit of a nightmare. For much of 62, I had NM in the mid 70's to mid 80's. Converting each turn's conscript allocation completely to replacements did not seem to come close to stemming the tide. Most of my stacks operated with 100% of the infantry completely in the red. While the concept of high attrition/desertion is good, the rates seem unusally high.

This was a new addition via the Leader Optimization Project. I just double checked, and his model is rated at rank 2. However, I noticed that he and mower were incorrectly given the appearance (graphics and title) of a Major General. Must have been a copy-paste error. Corrected (he should appear as a Brigadier General anyway).

Good to hear. He is a pretty decent BG.

Andrew Smith is another Leader Optimization Project addition, he was given the upgrade link to "_Smith2" instead of "_ASmith2" thanks for catchng this!

Good. As I said earlier, Andrew is one of my favourites.

I double checked the models, and for both is 1-star and 2-star rank he has YES for is he promotional, and there is a link to the next version ($ldr_rosecrans2 and 3). Do you have enough seniority to promote him? I am working on events to have him auto promoted anyway (given the removal of Pope or Fremont for command of the Army of Virginia, Rosecrans will take their former position).

Both McClellan and Rosecrans definitely list in their stats screens that they are not eliglble for promotion.

Thanks a lot for the help! Pretty soon the bugs should be ironed out!

After posting this, I will go back to my game.

[McNaughton]

I did not save the turn in which I received the 62 generals. However, the generals will still be present and I will check for them when I go back in.

Thanks!

Yes, the first thing that I did was to check the roster for the reasons you listed. He is not there.

This is odd, as it is one of the events or leaders that I did not touch!

Above 100 NM the rates appear to be stable, but it is early days yet. Below 100 NM, the situation is a bit of a nightmare. For much of 62, I had NM in the mid 70's to mid 80's. Converting each turn's conscript allocation completely to replacements did not seem to come close to stemming the tide. Most of my stacks operated with 100% of the infantry completely in the red. While the concept of high attrition/desertion is good, the rates seem unusally high.

I may reduce the % chance for both to occur, but probably reduce the desertion one by even more (so there is a pressure, but not overwhelming).

Both McClellan and Rosecrans definitely list in their stats screens that they are not eliglble for promotion.

Oh, I get what is happening. They are currently not promotable as their seniority isn't high enough. However, increase their seniority and they will be promotable (check out Grant in his 2-star form, it will say he is unpromotable even though later he can be promoted to 3-star, this message deals with their immediate situation, not wether or not they can ever be promoted).

[McNaughton]

I have never really posted in a forum before. But I have become addicted to ACW and today is as good a day as any to learn.

I just wanted to know if anybody else gets Alabama cavalry names when they recruit TX ranger brigades. If I am the only one, then I assume I installed the mod wrong and will re-install it. It works well otherwise.

And I just want to say, I love the mod. It has a more realistic feeling to the beginning OOB and puts you in an interesting tactical postition with lots of possibilites.

I am just glad other people like this game as much as I do, so I can read about when I am not playing it!

Were they Texas Ranger Regiments (don't believe there are ranger brigades, but there are cavalry brigades to be built now)? As far as I can tell, there are some possible naming irregularities with some units. I didn't change a thing regarding these in my mod, so it is probably a basic AACW issue. Glad to see you are enjoying the mod and the game!

[Guru80]

McNaughton

I am up to early June 1862.

The KY Volunteers are militia units, but instead of being named as State Troops (as is the case for every other state) they are called KY Vols. If you want I can post a pic when I open the game back up tomorrow.

I note above the fix for the missing Meagher pic.

New problems:

There are two Crittendens. It was actually quite handy as one was inactive and 'his brother' was active.

Franklin is missing. I received the notification that he was available, but he was AWOL. Clicking on the log message took me to Washington, but he was not there.

Having avoided the McClellan event train, I notice that the 'Virginia Creeper' is not promotable. This is actually a bit of a problem as he has a seniority of 1 and causes a NM hit every time I promote a ** to a ***. I would think that if he had enough political clout to negatively impact the National morale, he should have enough to get himself promoted.

I think that the attrition/desertion rate seems a bit high. It seems that for almost all turns, all of the conscripts raised go into replacements. This would be fine if I could see that my battered armies were being rebuilt, but often I end up with a message that the arsenal at Rock Island has received a new conscript unit. I am not sure that I am keeping up with the losses.

I can verify (don't know if it has been updated since I am just checking back in on this thread after a couple of days) that I have all the same issues mentioned and the double commanders. I am at the turn were a bunch of generals came available for the USA, either Dec 61 or maybe Jan 62.

What I have noticed is that even with seriously outnumbered forced as the the US I easily wipe the map with the CSA through the first few months no matter my position, stance, attacking, defending....didn't seem to matter. Outnumbered 10 to 21? wipe the map with them. Now once winter came in that all changed. The CSA AI was moving all over during the winter and if I did I went to 0 power around 2 turns and lost half or more of my corps and had to spend a a few turns just trying to get replacements and cohesion back up. Also, ALL my conscripts have to go to replacements specifically Line Infantry and Cavalary. If I didn't I wouldn't have any left after 6 months.

I think some things need to be tweaked and I don't know if any have been yet but i need to play it a bit more to determine what and why. These are just my observations as I am playing my game.

[Guru80]

I have the turn with the 62 Generals. I will post it in a minute after I look it up.

Ok here are the Generals I see in early Jan. 62. I will group them as the stacks they showed up in.

John McArthur
Andrew J Smith

B. Prentiss
W.H.L. Wallace

T.Crittenden (one of 2) (both show up in the same place, different stacks)
Thomas J. Wood
Robert O. Mitchell
John M. Palmer
H. Van Cleve
C.C. washburn

T. Crittenden (the second)

Morgan L. Smith

John A. Dix
George W. Morell
Benjamin F. Kelley
S. Cook
Henry Prince

Phil Kearny
John Parke
James B. Ricketts
I. Richardson
William F. Smith
Isaac Stevens
Alpheus S. William

C. Schurz (sp?)

And someone that is in command of a monitor, riverboat or whatever. Can't remember off hand.

[McNaughton]

I have the turn with the 62 Generals. I will post it in a minute after I look it up.

Ok here are the Generals I see in early Jan. 62. I will group them as the stacks they showed up in.

John McArthur
Andrew J Smith

B. Prentiss
W.H.L. Wallace

These appear to be ok...

T.Crittenden (one of 2) (both show up in the same place, different stacks)
Thomas J. Wood
Robert O. Mitchell
John M. Palmer
H. Van Cleve
C.C. washburn

T. Crittenden (the second)

It should look like this...

Group Thomas L. Crittenden
Thomas L. Crittenden

Group 62' Division Generals
Lovell H. Rousseau
Thomas J. Wood
Robert O. Mitchell
C. C. Washburn
Horatio Van Cleave
John M. Palmer

So, to me, it seems like Lovell H. Rousseau has somehow morphed into a second Thomas L. Crittenden (as all other generals appear in your group, but, Rousseau is missing and Crittenden is replacing him).

Ok, I think I figured out what is going on! In the verison I released there is only a 2-star verison of L H Rousseau, yet, I changed the event to have a 1-star version appear. Since there is no unit/model for the 1-star is probably just repeats the previous commander (crittenden) and adds a double. In my version that I have been testing and running there is a 1-star version of Rousseau (why I don't see the problem and you do!).

Later today (EST) I will release the version I am working on presently, which should have all of the fixes and most problems mentioned removed (if I can track them down).

Morgan L. Smith

John A. Dix
George W. Morell
Benjamin F. Kelley
S. Cook
Henry Prince

Phil Kearny
John Parke
James B. Ricketts
I. Richardson
William F. Smith
Isaac Stevens
Alpheus S. William

C. Schurz (sp?)

And someone that is in command of a monitor, riverboat or whatever. Can't remember off hand.

From what I see, the majority of problems were because of missing models/units files (which I assumed existed), or incorrect labelling (for example, the huger2 upgrade looked for the unit instead of the model, which resulted in the event changing huger into British Militia).

As I said earlier, I will release a version that has fewer bugs, plus a few additions with other generals changes and such.

Thanks again for everyone's help!

[McNaughton]

What I have noticed is that even with seriously outnumbered forced as the the US I easily wipe the map with the CSA through the first few months no matter my position, stance, attacking, defending....didn't seem to matter. Outnumbered 10 to 21? wipe the map with them. Now once winter came in that all changed. The CSA AI was moving all over during the winter and if I did I went to 0 power around 2 turns and lost half or more of my corps and had to spend a a few turns just trying to get replacements and cohesion back up. Also, ALL my conscripts have to go to replacements specifically Line Infantry and Cavalary. If I didn't I wouldn't have any left after 6 months.

Here's what I am thinking is going on. Since I have changed brigades to have larger numbers of infantry in them (4 regiments on average), the scale of forces is ranged more in favour of quantity for the USA (since the largest brigade for the USA reached 3 infantry, 1 light artillery, 1 cavalry and the largest brigade for the CSA reached 4 infantry, 1 light artillery, 1 medium art, 1 cavalry, plus USA formations have more medium artillery, and USA artillery is 'better' than CSA artillery).

Also, I modelled regiments to be based on the equipment most likely used. The CSA used smoothbore muskets to a significantly greater extent than the USA, so starting forces (1861-1862) will have the CSA utilize many more weapons of dubious quality. So, in a way, USA regiments of Infantry are better equipped (since the vast majority will start off with rifled weapons).

I think that modifying the CSA infantry regiment to have more cohesion themselves (last longer in battle) plus for their ranged and assault variations to inflict more cohesion damage compared to their US counterparts will help 'route' more USA soldiers based on CSA shock tactics.

This won't be in today's update, as I want to get bugs cut first, then worry about improving the game balance.

[Le Ricain]

I have the turn with the 62 Generals. I will post it in a minute after I look it up.

Ok here are the Generals I see in early Jan. 62. I will group them as the stacks they showed up in.

John McArthur
Andrew J Smith

B. Prentiss
W.H.L. Wallace

T.Crittenden (one of 2) (both show up in the same place, different stacks)
Thomas J. Wood
Robert O. Mitchell
John M. Palmer
H. Van Cleve
C.C. washburn

T. Crittenden (the second)

Morgan L. Smith

John A. Dix
George W. Morell
Benjamin F. Kelley
S. Cook
Henry Prince

Phil Kearny
John Parke
James B. Ricketts
I. Richardson
William F. Smith
Isaac Stevens
Alpheus S. William

C. Schurz (sp?)

And someone that is in command of a monitor, riverboat or whatever. Can't remember off hand.

McNaughton,

Having checked the 1862 generals in my game, I also am missing Eleazer A Paine and Schuyler Hamilton when compared to your list. However, I did get a * Rousseau. he was quite useful in those early days. I have his division inside a corps where by early 1863 he has morphed into a 'non arty/supply enemy unit captured bug' unit. When you place tool tip over his unit, his regiments are coloured dark blue and you get an error message which can lead to a game crash. The game is still playable as long as you ignore Rousseau. This bug was fixed in a earlier Pocus patch.

In the 1863 generals, you get two George Gettys at the same time, both in Washington, but in different stacks.

I have noticed that you get two Fremonts. One arrives in 1861 in St Louis as per vanilla AACW. The second appears in 1862 in VA, by event with the Army of Virginia HQ.

In my game I have fallen below 100 NM again due to five NM hit with the 1863 event, 'Lincoln Announces Conscription'. However, the situation appears manageable perhaps because I am more aware of the pitfalls.

I understand what you are saying concerning generals having a 'not eligible for promotion' status until their seniority improves. This can not be the case for McClellan as he had a seniority of one and was still not eligible.

I am in late May 1863 and the game continues to be a challenge. Although I am closing in on Richmond, I have never played a game where Richmond has eluded me this long.

[Guru80]

My national Morale is 83 in Feb. 62. I just can't seem to keep it up. Only one turn was I ahead of the CSA and that was at 97 and they were 96. I then did some building up and taxes plus losing a couple of battles due to exhaustion of my men at strategic cities even though I didn't lose them which caused more morale to drop. Sucks that I lose a battle at Springfield out west but hold it and lose 3 morale but on the very next turn I come out of the city and attack (instead of staying besieged) and wipe the floor with them sending them running for home and I get nothing back.

[McNaughton]

My national Morale is 83 in Feb. 62. I just can't seem to keep it up. Only one turn was I ahead of the CSA and that was at 97 and they were 96. I then did some building up and taxes plus losing a couple of battles due to exhaustion of my men at strategic cities even though I didn't lose them which caused more morale to drop. Sucks that I lose a battle at Springfield out west but hold it and lose 3 morale but on the very next turn I come out of the city and attack (instead of staying besieged) and wipe the floor with them sending them running for home and I get nothing back.

I find that the morale gain/loss via battles to be very random, and it is difficult to actually do something in order to gain morale.

One thing I am working on is to have a set of events to gain morale for the capture of specific cities based on timeframes.

Take Vicksburg (a common example of a high priority goal)
Captured by the Union in 1861 - Gain +30 NM
Captured by the Union in 1862 - Gain +20 NM
Captured by the Union in 1863 - Gain +10 NM
Captured by the Union in or after 1864 - Gain +5 NM

Capturing would have to be controlling the city, plus having a certain number of infantry forces in the territory (to stop points being gained by a quick and determined cavalry raid or attack early in the game). The returns for capturing the cities deminish with time (to provide some impetuous to actually attack early). Also, some cities may deminish faster than others (say a border city/fort like Donelson) meaning that you really have to move, and be on the ball, in order to gain NM.

When this is done there will be greater control over national morale.

[McNaughton]

McNaughton,

Having checked the 1862 generals in my game, I also am missing Eleazer A Paine and Schuyler Hamilton when compared to your list. However, I did get a * Rousseau. he was quite useful in those early days. I have his division inside a corps where by early 1863 he has morphed into a 'non arty/supply enemy unit captured bug' unit. When you place tool tip over his unit, his regiments are coloured dark blue and you get an error message which can lead to a game crash. The game is still playable as long as you ignore Rousseau. This bug was fixed in a earlier Pocus patch.

In the 1863 generals, you get two George Gettys at the same time, both in Washington, but in different stacks.

I have noticed that you get two Fremonts. One arrives in 1861 in St Louis as per vanilla AACW. The second appears in 1862 in VA, by event with the Army of Virginia HQ.

In my game I have fallen below 100 NM again due to five NM hit with the 1863 event, 'Lincoln Announces Conscription'. However, the situation appears manageable perhaps because I am more aware of the pitfalls.

I understand what you are saying concerning generals having a 'not eligible for promotion' status until their seniority improves. This can not be the case for McClellan as he had a seniority of one and was still not eligible.

I am in late May 1863 and the game continues to be a challenge. Although I am closing in on Richmond, I have never played a game where Richmond has eluded me this long.

Well, Franklin was due to the fact that I had 'demoted' him via event to a brigadier, yet didn't realize there wasn't a model/unit representing him as one. So, I have created one.

Fremont should only appear via event as commander of the Army of Virginia if the USA player is the AI. I double checked the event, and it still has the requirement of "CheckAILevel = 1" (which means it activates if the AI is on easy or harder, meaning it won't activate if the USA is human controlled).

I think that maybe Rousseau is a model connection problem, something similar as to what happened with Huger's upgrade. I will scavange through all references to Rousseau to see if there is a LDR where there should be a UNI.

Thanks again for everyone's help!

[Guru80]

Well I guess I also got the -10 national morale for the Richmond event and I got hit for passing over Banks for Army Commander as well. Were there any other events that hit the US morale? Seems there are a lot of things that pick away at the US morale but not much that adds to it.

[Le Ricain]

Well I guess I also got the -10 national morale for the Richmond event and I got hit for passing over Banks for Army Commander as well. Were there any other events that hit the US morale? Seems there are a lot of things that pick away at the US morale but not much that adds to it.

My game was similar to yours in terms of living in a world of mid 70's to mid 80's NM. In my case the big improvement came with the captures of Nashville and Memphis. I went over the 100 NM hurdle.

[McNaughton]

My game was similar to yours in terms of living in a world of mid 70's to mid 80's NM. In my case the big improvement came with the captures of Nashville and Memphis. I went over the 100 NM hurdle.

I have modified the hits that regiments have, from 20 to 30, this probably will reduce the effect of the attrition (hopefully) by 1/3, making even fighting under less than 100 NM capable (especially with larger forces) since the damage is still the same, but, a unit has 50% extra hit points to absorb damage (this will probably reduce casualties and destroyed units as well, which are already lower than in-game for early era infantry and cavalry).

Check out the 1.07f version, which should fix most of the general problems, plus having the new additions of general attributes and infantry hit points, plus I increased the cohesion damage that the CSA infantry inflicts on USA forces, plus gave their infantry a +1 to attacking and defending accuracy of their infantry. Hopefully this will balance things slightly better.

However, for the next release (most likely next saturday) I am thinking of reducing the accuracy for attacking and defending for early units (since they are pretty close to late war as is).