Leader Optimization Project Mod for 1.06

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Only two things you need to change are to download the new files, then go to the models folder of the downloaded mod, copy the W. Nelson 559 Model file and G. McClellan 278 model file and then paste them into your game directory at AACW/ACW/GameData/Models. You should be asked for overwrite permission and answer yes. That should take care of the problem, no need to restart your AAR.

Are you planning on posting your AAR? I would be very interested in reading it.

[Rafiki]

Are you planning on posting your AAR? I would be very interested in reading it.

I would be very surprised if it isn't this one: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=5045

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Nice AAR PDubya. Keep it up. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction Rafiki.

[Pdubya64]

Only two things you need to change are to download the new files, then go to the models folder of the downloaded mod, copy the W. Nelson 559 Model file and G. McClellan 278 model file and then paste them into your game directory at AACW/ACW/GameData/Models. You should be asked for overwrite permission and answer yes. That should take care of the problem, no need to restart your AAR.

Alright! That's great news, I was hoping the small changes would not be too cumbersome to do.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I have looked at other AARs for inspiration and clues to things like file size for images, just hope people like it- so far, so good.
Well, back to the grind!

[gbs]

Question for Winfield. When you post updated files will we have to go through the entire process again of cutting and pasteing or is there a shortcut? Mods like this give this game renewed life. Thanks.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Depends on what the update is. In general, you wont have to go through a whole process of cutting and pasting to update if all I am doing is correcting a model file or two when errors are spotted, as above.

I think the mod is at the point where I dont anticipate making wholesale changes, rather just doing some bug squashing if necessary, which should be only minor quick fix items.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Drakken]

Minor bug : When Lewis L. Wallace becomes active and appears on turn 2, the mention "evt_nam_USA_1861WestGenerals" appears in the message log.

[JB Hood]

Minor bug : When Lewis L. Wallace becomes active and appears on turn 2, the mention "evt_nam_USA_1861WestGenerals" appears in the message log.

most messages (when generals gets activated) are missing

[Prussian Prince]

When do we get a download with an auto-installer

[bstarr]

Nice Mod. I like the adjustments you've made.

There are a few Confederate Generals who might need bumped up in the ranks when they appear in the game.

Pemberton - His first command was the Department of South Carolina,Geargia and Florida; then he was transferred to the command the Department of Mississippi and Eastern Lousiana (including, of course, Vicksburg). He never commanded a division (or even a brigade, to my knowledge); in fact, he jumped all the way to important Departments and full fledged armies. He needs to start out as a *** general, like Rosecrans and other Union Generals who come into the game with the ability to lead Armies. (btw, even Warner in "Generals in Grey" commented "His early Confederate service . . . was hardly such to warrant his rapid promotion to major general.)

Van Dorn - after resigning his commission he served a stint in Virginia then was transferred to the TransMississippi as commander of the Army of the West. He probably deserves a *** rating as well, but considering the size of the TransMiss armies a ** rating may work just fine.

(oh hell, I gotta go to work, let me rush a couple more through)

Hardee - in the early war he organized a brigade in Arkansas, but his first combat command was a Corps commander at Shiloh. PRobably a **.

Bragg - commanded Pensacola, then a corps at Shiloh. Possible **.

Jackson (stonewall) - actually you've got it more historically correct with your current change, the problem is he has to get 4 promotion points at Bull Run or the South has no corps commander in the east. Unless of course they use Beauregard, but that would be a lot more unrealistic than giving JAckson his two stars early - there's no way Bearegard and Johnston would have worked well together at this point. I'd say either keep him at ** or change his seniority to "3" so he only needs one point to go up. Maybe even give him a seniority or "1" like Thomas, this way it's more asthetically and functionally correct.

[gbs]

One of the really fun things about this game is that you can do things that were not done in the real war and see how they work out. As in the case above, I moved Johnston to Nashville and gave him command of the Army of Tennessee with A.S. Johnson and Polk as Corp commanders. E. K. Smith had won a promotion and took over as Corp commander under Beauregard's AOP. Its early Jan,62 and the toughest thing for me now is finding decent Division Commanders for both theaters (the MOD has really effected this). I also hope another promotiion is due in the east, hopefully Jackson , so I can form AOPs second Corp and take advantage of his ratings. Fun.

[anarchyintheuk]

Nice Mod. I like the adjustments you've made.

There are a few Confederate Generals who might need bumped up in the ranks when they appear in the game.

Pemberton - His first command was the Department of South Carolina,Geargia and Florida; then he was transferred to the command the Department of Mississippi and Eastern Lousiana (including, of course, Vicksburg). He never commanded a division (or even a brigade, to my knowledge); in fact, he jumped all the way to important Departments and full fledged armies. He needs to start out as a *** general, like Rosecrans and other Union Generals who come into the game with the ability to lead Armies. (btw, even Warner in "Generals in Grey" commented "His early Confederate service . . . was hardly such to warrant his rapid promotion to major general.)

Van Dorn - after resigning his commission he served a stint in Virginia then was transferred to the TransMississippi as commander of the Army of the West. He probably deserves a *** rating as well, but considering the size of the TransMiss armies a ** rating may work just fine.

(oh hell, I gotta go to work, let me rush a couple more through)

Hardee - in the early war he organized a brigade in Arkansas, but his first combat command was a Corps commander at Shiloh. PRobably a **.

Bragg - commanded Pensacola, then a corps at Shiloh. Possible **.

Jackson (stonewall) - actually you've got it more historically correct with your current change, the problem is he has to get 4 promotion points at Bull Run or the South has no corps commander in the east. Unless of course they use Beauregard, but that would be a lot more unrealistic than giving JAckson his two stars early - there's no way Bearegard and Johnston would have worked well together at this point. I'd say either keep him at ** or change his seniority to "3" so he only needs one point to go up. Maybe even give him a seniority or "1" like Thomas, this way it's more asthetically and functionally correct.

An additional $0.02:

Hardee's 'corps' at Shiloh consisted of only 3 brigades. 1-star w/ high seniority seems appropriate.

Jackson needed his performance at Bull Run to earn recognition (those 4 points). At that time he was just one of 3 (or 4?) brigade commanders in Johnston's Army of the Shenandoah. Sherman performed well at Bull Run at the same rank (Colonel) and level of command (Brigade) yet he doesn't appear as early as TJ does. Play balance shouldn't be a reason for changes. As you said, Beauregard is there. He functioned quite well w/ AS Johnston, why wouldn't he have functioned well under JE? Confederate division and corps designations were more informal than the Union but iirc Beauregard was actually the first corps commander in the Confederacy (1st corps, AoP).

[Bodders]

Up to Jan '62 now and the only model change for the early '62 Union officers is this one I believe :-

562USAR. Schenk.mdl

Needs Ability0 = Dispirited_Leader to be Ability0 = $Dispirited_Leader (missing $ sign).

Found one more later, although this is an AGEOD one, might as well change it in the mod. It's Uncle Billy's one-star version, he's supposed to have poor intelligence...

328USAWilliam T. Sherman .mdl

Needs Ability1 = $Poor_Spy_Network to be Ability1 = $PoorSpyNetwork

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bstarr]

An additional $0.02:

Hardee's 'corps' at Shiloh consisted of only 3 brigades. 1-star w/ high seniority seems appropriate.

Jackson needed his performance at Bull Run to earn recognition (those 4 points). At that time he was just one of 3 (or 4?) brigade commanders in Johnston's Army of the Shenandoah. Sherman performed well at Bull Run at the same rank (Colonel) and level of command (Brigade) yet he doesn't appear as early as TJ does. Play balance shouldn't be a reason for changes. As you said, Beauregard is there. He functioned quite well w/ AS Johnston, why wouldn't he have functioned well under JE? Confederate division and corps designations were more informal than the Union but iirc Beauregard was actually the first corps commander in the Confederacy (1st corps, AoP).

I see your point, but I've seldom seen a general get 4 points in one engagement and it was never for an engagement as closely fought as Bull Run. Also, if we only look at the game from the size of an officer's first command Polk and Rosecrans should be a *, Banks and Butler should be ** (Pope's a **, why not the two Bs as well). Also, notice that several Northern officers get free upgrades, yet only E Johnson gets one for the South (and I've yet to figure that one out).

And as far as Corps commands for the Confederates, a lack of formality doesn't mean they didn't exist. Besides, by 1863 in the East they were every bit as formal as their northern counterparts, maybe more so considering the changes that the regular changes in the Union Corps' structures and the fact the 3 Confederate Corps remained pretty much as they were.

Why not a compromise - an event promotion for Jackson around the time of the Shenandoah campaigns and another one for Longstreet near the end of the 7 Days. And Hardee and Bragg get promoted near Shiloh.

As for Beauregard and JE Johnston, both men were major egotists, expecially Beauregard, who resigned once and reenlisted as a private in the Louisiana State Militia (basically this was a publicity stunt). After their quarel over who deserved credit for Bull Run, there's simply no way they could have worked together in any sort of Army/Corps relationship for any length of time. Of course this is a history issue, not a game issue, but, then again, so is keeping Jackson a **.
bs

ps. actually, I'm getting a little side-tracked here. my real gripe isn't so much the Confederate corps setup, it's the fact that so many of the historically interesting army field commanders simply won't exist. Can you really see Bragg, Van Dorn, Pemberton, and Hardee rising to *** when they start off * and have to face the likes of Grant and Sherman in the West? I could live with Jackson and Longstreet as * since they will more than likely rise eventually, but no Pemberton to pitty and no Bragg to hate? That's just wrong, haha.

[Rafiki]

Why not a compromise - an event promotion for Jackson around the time of the Shenandoah campaigns and another one for Longstreet near the end of the 7 Days. And Hardee and Bragg get promoted near Shiloh.

I absolutely hate event promotions based solely on when people where promoted historically. If the guys perform well, then they should be promotable, but if in my game they have lost each and every battle they fight (for whatever reason), an event promoting them simply doesn't make sense.

Pet peeve: the events that fire for the union designating that McClellan has done poorly or whatnot, when they in my game have no relevance to my current game. They simply don't make any sense.

[jimwinsor]

Speaking of Poor Spy Network...is it working?

I cannot ever remember seeing a leader with the trait in the scenarios...McC is supposed to have it, according to the Leader Appearance List...yet in game, no, not there.

Why is that? Was it an oversight? Or is the trait not working right (hence not implemented as yet)?

[runyan99]

I absolutely hate event promotions based solely on when people where promoted historically. If the guys perform well, then they should be promotable, but if in my game they have lost each and every battle they fight (for whatever reason), an event promoting them simply doesn't make sense.

Either way, it needs to be an equal playing field for both sides. If the USA gets automatic promotions for Sumner, Heintzlman and Keyes, then the CSA should have the same for Jackson, Longstreet and Bragg.

[Rafiki]

Of course.

What I'm advoctaing against is the kind of promotion where you get an event for a leader saying that "X performad admirably in the Whatnot campaign in 1862" anf then promotes him to a 2-star, while in *your* game, he has been comfortably commanding a garrison in the hinterlands since the start of the war.

We may be talking about different things here

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

Of course.

We may be talking about different things here

If I read the documentation for the mod correctly, Sumner, Heintzelman and Keyes are all automatically promoted in the mod on or around the proper dates. There is just no accompanying message.

I guess you're just protesting against the message, not really the promotion itself.

McClellan is the only general I am aware of that has such an event, while many generals are scripted to be promoted quietly on a certain date.

[Rafiki]

I guess you're just protesting against the message, not really the promotion itself.

Nah, I'm protesting promotions "out of the blue"

However, if such promotions ar enecessary from a gameplay point of view, in order to make the game more enjoyable, I'll (reluctantly) accept them; not sure if that's the case here.

[runyan99]

I think it's playable either way. It just needs to be the same for both sides.

If the Union gets more two star generals than the CSA, then obviously the USA will have a better command structure and more options and flexibility.

By the way, the infusion of 'extra' leaders that this mod provides would seem to make it easier to form stacks of brigadiers, which makes the formation of corps less necessary than in the original scenario.

[McNaughton]

It's because of an error in McClellan's model files. All five of McClellan's model files have his Poor Spy Network trait incorrectly entered so the program doesn't recognize it and assigns the default "Militiaman" instead.

It was mentioned earlier in one of the two Leader mod threads and was corrected in the Leader Mod files, however, if you are running vanilla AACW, you still have "Bugged" McClellan files. In the case of the Poor Spy Network trait, it's correct entry as an ability is $PoorSpyNetwork, not $Poor_Spy_Network as it is in the vanilla files.

FYI, there are 5 McClellan model files in the vanilla AACW to be corrected:
246, 247, 248, 249, and 278.

If you read back through the Leader threads there are a few others to correct also in the vanilla files.

Regards

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.

I think that there is something 'odd' with models and units on the map in existing scenarios.

I have tried to modify existing units, by assigning new elements (models) to them. Any new build represents these old units with new elements, but, any unit already on the map at the start of the scenario ignores whatever changes I make to the models (elements) or units.

There may be some hard-coding in the scenarios, where integrated in the scenario file are the makeup of the unit. Therefore, any changes you do to unit files, and model files, will only appear in new builds and events (as they are created from the pool of unit and models).

This may be why there is difficulty with McClellan, as even though the models have been changed, since he starts off on the map, he won't be changed in the game. In the model files, he has Poor Spy Network, but, every scenario still has Militiaman (because I believe that in the scenarios, all units, generals and regiments, are hardcoded within the scenario itself).

As far as I know, this mod is based on the 1861 scenario, where the number of on map units is very low. However, try and apply this to the 1862, or later, scenarios, and I think the problem becomes more evident. My graphics mod is on hold, because I cannot figure out how to apply model and unit changes into units on the map at the start of scenarios.

[McNaughton]

Just ran a test with a clean install of ACW and applying my graphics mod to it.

Here's what my mod does.

New Graphics (do not over-write)
New Models (uses new graphics, do not over-write)
Old Units (modified to use new models, do over-write old Units)

What happens in game, all Units that appear on the map, at the start, are using the old configuration, old Unit, old Models, old Graphics.

However, any unit that appears via event (i.e., McDowell's army in April 1861) use the new configuration, old Unit, new Models, new Graphics. Any new build will also have the new system in place.

In the June 1861 scenario, McDowell's army is already on the map, and, like the other units on map, are using the old Unit, old Models, and old Graphics.

Strangely enough, whenever I create divisions of 'on map units', their picture when you hover over the division is of my new system (even though, if you click on the individual regiments, they appear to still be the old system). I believe this is what is happening to McClellan (one of the few generals modded that appears on the map in the April 1861 scenario), and will become more apparant (I believe) once you start applying this Leader Project to other scenarios.

So, there is something in the scenarios that affect units already stationed on the map. It may be, that in order for mods that affect game units to work, totally new scenarios must be developed.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Newly updated files for the mod have just been uploaded to the first post, including the fixes for problems identified here with Sherman, Schenk, Pillow, and ML Smith.

I appreciate the reports from all of the mod users. Sorry I havent updated the files earlier, it has been a busy last few days at work.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

When do we get a download with an auto-installer

Alas, I have know idea how to do this, and am not computer-literate enough to figure it out. If there is another board user who knows how to do this, and is willing to undertake the job, that would be great.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Good debate and discussion on this topic. Here are my thoughts.

I agree with the post that with Keyes, Sumner, Heintzleman and Porter all getting their automatic promotion to 2-stars as the Army of the Potomac is historically organized might give the North an unfair advantage for game play purposes if there is no corresponding actions modeling the organization of the Army of Northern Virginia. This is probably particularly true in the case of the Confederate AI. Additionally, there appears to me to be another problem, which is that in the games I have played so far, the Lee does not take command of the Army of Northern Virginia for the Rebel AI, but rather, Joe Johnston remains in command even after Lee is released.

I am leaning towards the following solution, and would like some feedback. Assuming it can be done, I believe that there should be a historical event that occurs in late May 1862 entitled 'Lee takes Command' which would do the following -- remove the Confederate Army of the Potomac HQ in the east, replace it with an Army of Northern Virginia HQ with R.E. Lee in command in Richmond. While this might possible screw up some tactical deployments in a few rare cases, in general, any CSA Corps anywhere in VA or the mid Atlantic should immediately be in the command range of Lee. I would then propose another event, for mid June, which is 'Lee Organizes the Army of Northern Virginia', which would then promote both Jackson and Longstreet to 2 star rank. Given the importance of having these two leaders in concert with Lee in the eastern theater in order to give the Confederate AI a fighting chance against a human Union, it may even warrant an event that removes their on map counters first, and then returns them as 2-star reinforcements with the largest CSA army in the East immediately. This will, the Rebel AI will be given an Army of Northern Virginia with Lee, Longstreet and Jackson in command to confront the North in the key eastern theater.

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.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Nice Mod. I like the adjustments you've made.

There are a few Confederate Generals who might need bumped up in the ranks when they appear in the game.

Pemberton - His first command was the Department of South Carolina,Geargia and Florida; then he was transferred to the command the Department of Mississippi and Eastern Lousiana (including, of course, Vicksburg). He never commanded a division (or even a brigade, to my knowledge); in fact, he jumped all the way to important Departments and full fledged armies. He needs to start out as a *** general, like Rosecrans and other Union Generals who come into the game with the ability to lead Armies. (btw, even Warner in "Generals in Grey" commented "His early Confederate service . . . was hardly such to warrant his rapid promotion to major general.)

Van Dorn - after resigning his commission he served a stint in Virginia then was transferred to the TransMississippi as commander of the Army of the West. He probably deserves a *** rating as well, but considering the size of the TransMiss armies a ** rating may work just fine.

(oh hell, I gotta go to work, let me rush a couple more through)

Hardee - in the early war he organized a brigade in Arkansas, but his first combat command was a Corps commander at Shiloh. PRobably a **.

Bragg - commanded Pensacola, then a corps at Shiloh. Possible **.

Jackson (stonewall) - actually you've got it more historically correct with your current change, the problem is he has to get 4 promotion points at Bull Run or the South has no corps commander in the east. Unless of course they use Beauregard, but that would be a lot more unrealistic than giving JAckson his two stars early - there's no way Bearegard and Johnston would have worked well together at this point. I'd say either keep him at ** or change his seniority to "3" so he only needs one point to go up. Maybe even give him a seniority or "1" like Thomas, this way it's more asthetically and functionally correct.

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.