Civil War Historical Accuracy Pre-Patch

[Comtedemeighan]

Merry Christmas and Thanks Gray

[Comtedemeighan]

Gray in the 1862 Battle Scenario and 1862 Grand Campaign start the 2nd Division 5th Corps has the Wrong commander. J Dix should not be the leader for this division it should be George Sykes. I got this information from T.F. Rodenbough's 1896 History of the Army of the United States. This Division was Sykes Regulars. Dix was in charge of the Maryland Dept and then the Commander at Fort Monroe he wasn't the commander of this division.

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Comtedemeighan]

Gray I guess he was posted on the Yorktown Peninsula in May 1861 is my understanding because he fought the battle of Big Bethel there. He was initially in command of some troops in Richmond in April '61 I know that.

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[cwhomer]

I've been studying USA double units for the April 1861 scenario over the last couple of weeks, and wondered if this was something needing fixing. Most are being created in early June, and again in late June, in the USA events file (I've confirmed some more today, but haven't pinned down the dates for both appearances yet).

My question is: Should, the way the campaign is initially balanced, Union players be receiving all of these units (meaning the flavor names are just repeated)

1st Maryland Brigade
Late May Baltimore
Late June Baltimore
1st Indiana Volunteers
Early June Hendricks
Late June Cincinatti
1st Ohio Volunteers
Early June Cincinatti
Late June Cincinatti
2nd Ohio Volunteers
Early June Columbus
Late June Cincinatti

NVA First Brigade/1st Pennsylvania Brigade (Col. Thomas)
NVA Second Brigade/2nd Penn (Col. Wyncoop)
NVA Third Brigade/3rd Penn (Col. Williams)
NVA Fifth Brigade/4th Penn (Col. Negly)

or just half of them? If it's the second case, the Union is receiving 8 extra brigades. If it's the first, it would be nice to have the appropriate names.

It's a fairly easy thing to fix, something I feel comfortable doing. In fact there are several things that I'd like to see cleaned up in the April scenario (the Monitor, for example, unlocks far too early). If you'd like to have me take a look at these things, please let me know.

[Clovis]

I've been studying USA double units for the April 1861 scenario over the last couple of weeks, and wondered if this was something needing fixing. Most are being created in early June, and again in late June, in the USA events file (I've confirmed some more today, but haven't pinned down the dates for both appearances yet).

My question is: Should, the way the campaign is initially balanced, Union players be receiving all of these units (meaning the flavor names are just repeated)

1st Maryland Brigade
Late May Baltimore
Late June Baltimore
1st Indiana Volunteers
Early June Hendricks
Late June Cincinatti
1st Ohio Volunteers
Early June Cincinatti
Late June Cincinatti
2nd Ohio Volunteers
Early June Columbus
Late June Cincinatti

NVA First Brigade/1st Pennsylvania Brigade (Col. Thomas)
NVA Second Brigade/2nd Penn (Col. Wyncoop)
NVA Third Brigade/3rd Penn (Col. Williams)
NVA Fifth Brigade/4th Penn (Col. Negly)

or just half of them? If it's the second case, the Union is receiving 8 extra brigades. If it's the first, it would be nice to have the appropriate names.

It's a fairly easy thing to fix, something I feel comfortable doing. In fact there are several things that I'd like to see cleaned up in the April scenario (the Monitor, for example, unlocks far too early). If you'd like to have me take a look at these things, please let me know.

For the Monitor a system like the one I use since some month in SVF could be applied: Monitor event has now a probability condition and will fire with much or less delays, then time needed to get the first monitor is now 12 turns.

On brigades: I would change the name but let the number.

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[cwhomer]

edit> The "doubled" units are indeed supposed to be there. They are the result of Lincoln's several calls for volunteers. However, the flavor names, should be different. Thanks for the feedback.

Thanks for clearing that up. Might I suggest making a note of this over in the doubled units thread as well?

I also forgot to mention that the California/Philadelphia Brigade is still appearing twice in the April scenario. Again I'm not sure if that is being left as is, for balancing reasons, or if it's just on the "to do" pile. And thanks for all the good work.

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Eugene Carr]

I think its important to realise that its the names/numbers being duplicated not the units. (well except for the California/Philadelphia Brigade).
You get 13 brigades of volunteers in the "Call for Volunteers" event as per the text, there are 2 entries in the DB as there are 2 mutually exclusive events.
The other brigades appear due to other events and are different units.

The files have a few gems in them M. Broderick of the Chasseurs d'Afrique for instance.

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[aryaman]

CP cost is not based on the number of men or guns in the unit, but is reflective of the organizational nature of the unit. There's a single artillery leader in command for any artillery unit regardless of whether that artillery unit has 4 guns, 12 guns, or even 24 guns whatever. I did however, recently increase the cost of the larger USA artillery units to reflect the increased amount of materials necessary to produce them.

CSA divisions were larger than their counterparts, but there were fewer of them, so this balances out. It would be an unnecessary complication to add to the game design to allow for larger CSA divisions, but then reduce the total number available or to reduce the size of the USA divsions, but then have to increase the total number of USA divisions available. All the current OOBs would have to be redesigned to accomodate this change. This is not something that I would want to do, prefering instead to enhance the game using its current design capabilities.

But the problem remains that in game terms the Union player can command more artillery without spending more Command Points.
OTOH if Union Divisions were smaller Union player would need more Corps to acomodate them, just as historically happened. I don´t know if that is possible, but if the size of Union divisions could be limited to a maximum of, say 13 elements, you would probably not need to rework scenarios, because in the OOBs of those scenarios Union divisions are already small.

[aryaman]

Now this is a Class one suggestion I had made a reply earlier today on this post, but I was in a hurry to get to work, so it must have gotten lost in Cyberspace. I could use some help tallying up the NMs gained by the US player/gamer for doing nothing. That would give me an idea how much to use as a possible penalty. Are you guys up to it?

During 1862 the Union player receives the following events granting him additional National Morale points

Early March
French Intervention +3 NM

Late May
Free Land +5 NM

Early June
Policy on treatement of prisoners +1 NM

Late July
A Military Award for Valor +2 NM

Late August
The Great Sioux Uprising +5 NM

Early September
Sink of CSS Alabama +5 NM

Since he receives no negative event during the whole year, Union player gets a net automatic gain of 21 NM, just for doing nothing.
My suggestion is to implement 2 events similar to the get close to Richmond or lose 10 NM, one for first half 1862 and one for second half of 1862, so that they can counterbalance the stream of positive events for Union in 1862 and motivate Union player to actually attack in the East.

[Clovis]

During 1862 the Union player receives the following events granting him additional National Morale points

Early March
French Intervention +3 NM

Late May
Free Land +5 NM

Early June
Policy on treatement of prisoners +1 NM

Late July
A Military Award for Valor +2 NM

Late August
The Great Sioux Uprising +5 NM

Early September
Sink of CSS Alabama +5 NM

Since he receives no negative event during the whole year, Union player gets a net automatic gain of 21 NM, just for doing nothing.
My suggestion is to implement 2 events similar to the get close to Richmond or lose 10 NM, one for first half 1862 and one for second half of 1862, so that they can counterbalance the stream of positive events for Union in 1862 and motivate Union player to actually attack in the East.

good idea to the condition to implement this for an human player only, it would be much too harm for the US AI.

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Clovis]

Easily enough done, but I question the harm that would be done. The AI should be attempting to move on Richmond much more readily than a human player that is armed with "historical" knowledge. Of course, like the Kentucky work, I could specifically cut the AI NM penalties in half or something, instead of cutting them out altogether... This would be a matter of playtesting and maybe some specific AI priority changes. (Another item on the never ending list of work to be done)

Ai will try but its success is somewhat more...mixed. On second thoughts, such events will give to CSA player a real advantage by giving him certitude USA will try to reach RICHMOND, so I guess he will "prepare" the "welcome" apparatus.. So it would be certainly useful to give to US, human or not, some alternatives...by example, by imposing USA to have at last 35 units in Virginia south of the Rapidan at any moment during 1862. The event verifying this condition would be fired each turn until the condition is met, and in this case disabling an automatic event in january 1863 giving a NM penalty to the US side...

[aryaman]

Aryaman:

Thanks for the feedback regarding the 21 NMs.

As for the artillery/different division sizes, I'm afraid the amount of work that would be required is way more than I would want to devote to it since the current game system works reasonably well. This would not only involve just the changes to the unit structures themselves, but almost all the OOBs of the scenarios would have to be extensively rebalanced to use the new reworked units.

Is there a command to limit the number of elements in a division for a side? If that exists I can take a look myself to the OOBs and see how they could fit

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Maqver]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aryaman
Daxil and me are playing a game with house rules in which we try several options for historicall accuracy, one of them is to force the Union player toattack in the East at least twice in 1862. We noticed playing the vanilla Grand Campaign that in 1862 the union player can happily sat on his hands, waiting for more troops, better generals, and in the process he is rewarded by several events that push up his NM. I wonder if such a couple of events could be included in the Historical Mod, similar to the 1861 event in which the Union player has to get close to ichmond or being penalized with 10 Nm points.

Now this is a Class one suggestion I had made a reply earlier today on this post, but I was in a hurry to get to work, so it must have gotten lost in Cyberspace. I could use some help tallying up the NMs gained by the US player/gamer for doing nothing. That would give me an idea how much to use as a possible penalty. Are you guys up to it?

If you want the Union to be more aggressive then they need commanders with higher strategic ratings. Most of the time one is active and two are inactive. Even if the Union player wants to attack and be aggressive he (or she) can't do it.

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[boudi]

hello,

Is there (and where) a single file to download the full list of this wonderfull job ?

Will it be inserted in a next official patch ? (i'm patched 1.12)

Thx !

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[boudi]

I'm speaking about the General officiers pictures. I can not change the "hardcore" of the game, because PBEM. Just the graphics.