1) No idiocy rules
It's always difficult to draw the lines between more realism and « idiocy rules » forcing player to do the same errors made during a war.
By example, USA didn't formed more than 6 cavalry regiment until August 1861, considering useless to form more as the war would be very short and terrain was considered being very adverse to the cavalry.
USA cavalry was yet plagued by poor tactics, primarily lack of grouped use, in the first year.
Player is taking the place of Lincoln or Davis for the essential, relying on chosen general to execute strategic plan ( even if the game let players elaborate too part of operational implementation of these strategic moves, even if sucess or failure is partially the result of the General ratings).
So I 've sorted modifications by this criteria: nothing should delay the possibility for the North to create immediatly more cavalry brigades, but the tactical roblems being out of the scrutiny of the high Command, I've lowered a bit some US cavalry stat for the first mid-game.
2) Small changes to units
a) until now, I haven't noticed sufficiently strange battle results to undermine my belief into the unit ratings ( even if from time to time a strange result may occur, no proof such an occurrence comes from erroneous unit sats)
b) battle combat procedure, albeit complex, remains an abstraction. Introducing new stats, even if more realist in theory, could result in wrong results, simply by being made to a system which doesn't is a realistic portrayal of battle but a simulation destined to give accurate outcomes.
So I have made rather light changes in regards to these 2 considerations.
These changes are coming from interesting posts from McNAUGHTON ( and I'm waiting to see if the more fundamental changes he's going to create for units will give yet better results).
In short:
? I didn't reduced the number of sharpshooter units, but raised their cost in manpower ( reflecting not the real number of men but the difficulty to find elite riflemen in quantity). It should force the player to avoid recruit in mass sharpshooters but let him possibility to do so.
? I reworked US cavalry to give CSA a real edge at start.
? I modified artillery. Basically, I enforced differences between smoothbores and rifle guns.
Smoothbores have short range, rather low attack accuracy, high defense accuracy and reinforced assault values, in order to stress their defensive use in the game system limits. The 6 pdr is cheap but weak, the 12pdr have the same value than the 10 parrot.
Rifled guns on the contrary have greater range and are more accurate than smoothbore in attack , less in defense, making them useful for attack.
The 20 parrot is delivering more punch at higher range than the 10.
But...never forget most battles are beginning at range 4 or less ( the range of smoothbores)...Lee stated the 12 pdr « Napoleon » to be the best gun not without reasons. The theorical advantage of rifled guns are so challenged .
Last, Horse artillery is now representing the 3 inch, rifled gun having the same values than the 10 parrot but with greater accuracy and better reliability ( parrot hits number being reduced by one). Price is higher too...
So, with 5 types having special functions and limits, field artillery is now without « must have « model. 6Pdr is inexpensive but of marginal value, 3 inch is the best rifled gun but is the most difficult to buy, the 20 parrot delivers on attack greatest puch, but is costly and its range isn't really useful, the 10 parrot remaining so interesting beacause of its lower cost.
Artillery forts changes are fewer ( work in progress...) . I just disabled Rodman and Columbiad models, reinforced the hit value of naval guns, added the siege ability to siege guns but reduced their damage values.
3) Divisions.
In the current system, 1861 divisions get the same advantages than 1863 ones.
It's highly unrealistic.
What plagued both sides at start was the lack of skilled officers and the absence of HQ staff doctrine. If the first problem was somewhat solved with time, second remained much more pregnant until 1865. Some progress was made but slowly.
For thes 2 reasons, corps weren't used until the first half of 1862 and I'm seriously questining the eistence of functional divisional HQ in the first months of the war.
In game terms, it signifies, as corps can't be prohibited, to delay the appearance of 2 and 3 stars generals, and to postpone divisions formation until the end of 1861.
So divisions can't be formed before october 1861.
The divisions in the 2 Eastern armies have been disbanded too.
Now your leaders will move and fight with penalties. The strategic plans will so be slower to start and the first battle in Virginia ( first Bull Run) a real challenge.
It will too hinder gamey tactics, like forming a cavalry division to raid into enemy land. You will be yet able to group several cavalry units under a leader in 1861 but you will get out of command penalties...
Then winter should postpone your raid projects until the spring of 1862...
4) Cohesion
I've reduced too the cohesion value of all units. First, because I think it will made units more prone to rout and so will reduce the number of destroyed regiments, a little too high. Secondly, as cohesion improves with experience, it should enforce the need for players to take attention to experienced units, peculiarly for the Union player, whose replacement penalty could be giving headaches in the last years of the war...Last, the 1861 battles should be shorter and plagued by routing units....as in reality.
So all cohesion levels have been reduced by 10.
not only it will give real edge to experienced units, whose cohesion is raised, it will emphazize a bit more National Morale influence.
You will need both yet more.
battles will be less costly, shorter, peculiarly in the first months, with troops routing quicker than stubbornly renewing deadly assaults.
5) Draft and Money Policies
I feel too easy to take the conscription and the printing money ways. Both sides had huge problems with conscription laws and their enforcement, and printing money in the game hadn't penalties sufficient to prohibit its use each turn.
So I raised both NM and VP losses for conscription options and limited the money printing to one turn by month.
6) I've introduced a few changes in strategic cities list: Manassas, Harrissonburg and Grafton have now a VP value whereas Winchester, Fredericksburg and the region north to Fort Pickens have lost their VP value. It should help CSA AI to be less obnoxious about Harper's Ferry and Fort Pickens.
7) East Tenessee regions have now a strong US influence at start, when Southern Illinois ( "Little Egypt") has a small CSA sympathy at start.
8) The mod is using the current leaders mod made by Winfield S Hancock.
9) Nominal figures for infrantry regiments has been reduced from 1,000 to 700
10) This mod is using a slighty modified version of the cavalry mod by Jabberwock. The only difference is the new ability is only given to INDEPENDANT Cavalry units ( not embedded into an infantry brigade).
11) Draft isn't possible until 1862. USA side gets more volunteers ( if Sufficient funds are at disposal) and less draftees.
This mod isn't in any case achieved or balanced. It's just an experience about some floating ideas on the Ageod forum I wanted to try.
Test, enjoy or grumble
