Coming Fury mod

[Clovis]

The experimental mod has a new name...

And a new version too:




---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To use the files, do the following:

1. put modpath.ini file and "ComingFury mod" folder into the AGEod's American Civil War folder

2) Copy the contents of the ACW folder ( and not the ACW folder itself !) located in the AGEod's American Civil War folder into the ComingFury mod folder

2. Copy and paste the USA Leaders, CSA Leaders, April 1861 Campaign, and Various Events files (.sct) into the ComingFury mod/ ACW/Events Folder. Answer yes to overwrite files (once you have made your backup)

3. Copy and paste the mdl_alias ,uni_alias and Abi_alias files into the ComingFury mod /ACW/Aliases folder.

4. Go to the experimental mod /ACW/GameData folder and delete your current Structures, Models and Units folders . Then copy the structure, Models and Units folders from the Mod into the ComingFury mod /ACW/GameData folder

5. Copy and paste the Bombard&Blockade.opt, Combats.opt and Command and Leaders.opt files into the ComingFury mod /ACW/Settings Folder. Answer yes to overwrite the files (once you have made your backup)

6. Copy and paste the 48HQ command.abi and the 76Unitskirmisher.abi files into the Abilities folder in the ComingFury mod /ACW Game data folder

7. Copy and paste the Localstring file to the experimental mod /settings folder

8. Copy and paste the 1861 april campaign in the ComingFury mod /Scens folder

9. Launch AACW and enjoy the mod!!!

TO REVERT TO NORMAL PLAY, just move the modpath.ini out from the AGEod's American Civil War folder.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HIGHLIGHTS

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.

The same way about events. I will avoid any event which would have for effect to force player to act historically whatever the context. By example, I don't want have event putting McClellan in charge of Army of the Potomac, but I prefer to set a leaders situation where McClellan choice is an interesting one ( by his training and organizational abilities).

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 greatly modified 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

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 is much better and really versatile gun.
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 that useful, the 10 parrot remaining so interesting because 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 these 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 appearing in may 1861 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.

Draft isn't possible until 1862. USA side gets more volunteers ( if Sufficient funds are at disposal) and less draftees. CSA will have to rely more on draft.

Global numbers of buildable troops will remain roughly the same than in the official version but this difference should create interesting dilemnas, the South being forced to get back the NM lost when USA will have to find money for volunteers and accept to lose 8 or 10 NM for a number of conscripts much lower than before...

Printing money will at last give much less money in the first months, and will raise with Victory Point total. So long for some gamey tactics at start to use printing money for building a very large army...

6) I've introduced a few changes in strategic cities list: Manassas,Hampton Roads, Norfolk, Fort Donelson, Columbus, Harrissonburg and Grafton have now a VP value whereas Winchester, 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. There are some slight changes here and there ( But I'm really agreeing the values of this mod).

Primary changes:

-Mc Dowell decreased to 1-2-1. Mc Dowell attacked at First Bull Run because of presidential order. At second Bull run, his performance was poor as he lost too much time to play a real rôle in the battle. I know, he was a scapegoat too... But it was less than stellar anyway.

-Forrest increased to 6-6-4. Forrest made some really competent defensive operations.



9) Nominal figures for infrantry regiments has been reduced from 1,000 to 700. Number of hits remains the same

10) This mod is using a slighty modified version of the cavalry mod by Jagger. The only difference is the new ability is only given to INDEPENDANT Cavalry units ( not embedded into an infantry brigade).

11) The War supply production has been reduced for both sides. Now you will have a real interest for industrialization of blockade runners ( or raising transport fleet for USA).

12) Brigades reworked for both sides. Most Federal brigades are made of 3 infnatry regiments ( and cvalry or artillery assets sometimes). CSA brigades are larger.

[GShock]

These changes are coming from interesting posts from McNAUGHTON

and

The mod is using the current leaders mod made by Winfield S Hancock.

and

This mod is using a slighty modified version of the cavalry mod by Jabberwock.

If i may ask, why didn't you bring in the f variant of Mc's brigade mod?

---------------------------

I'm happy you proceeded enough to give a name to your mod, i like the name you picked.

You assigned specific stats to generals. Does this mean using this mod with randomized leader stats would spoil the gaming experience?

Installing

[Clovis]

and



and



If i may ask, why didn't you bring in the f variant of Mc's brigade mod?

---------------------------

I'm happy you proceeded enough to give a name to your mod, i like the name you picked.

You assigned specific stats to generals. Does this mean using this mod with randomized leader stats would spoil the gaming experience?

Installing

Because I disagree on many moints with McNaughton's mod ( unit stats, his conception of State militias, events about McClelland to cite a few).

As modders here are gentlemen, we have took the habit to use here and there what we like in other mods without merging them.


To be frank, I never used my mod with randomized generals. I suppose it should work like in vanilla, neither better or worse.

Thanks

[runyan99]

Good call reducing McDowell's stats. If his stats are more similar to McClellan's, the player has some incentive to use McClellan as the commander of the Army of the Potomac, because McC at least has some good abilities.

[Clovis]

Good call reducing McDowell's stats. If his stats are more similar to McClellan's, the player has some incentive to use McClellan as the commander of the Army of the Potomac, because McC at least has some good abilities.

It's one of the intended goal

[gbs]

In your instructions for installing this mod you refer to "experimentalmod" and 'coming fury mod" . Are these not one and the same?? I just don't want to get confused.

[Clovis]

In your instructions for installing this mod you refer to "experimentalmod" and 'coming fury mod" . Are these not one and the same?? I just don't want to get confused.

all experimental mod occurences should be read as Coming Fury mod.

I've updated the mod in the first post.

thanks

[GShock]

I found it useful to totally backup the game folder and spawn a new .lnk file.

The statement:
2) Copy the contents of the ACW folder ( and not the ACW folder itself !) located in the AGEod's American Civil War folder into the ComingFury mod folder

...is a bit misleading.
There's a parent ACW folder (The homepath of the game) and a child game folder you refer to with the same name ACW (in my case C:\Programmi\Copia di AGEod's American Civil War\ComingFury mod\ACW). Perhaps instructions should contain the full default paths so it's easier to understand.

I've played some turns and i am really thrilled about it.
A bit hard to get going at the beginning with the different events.
What is absolutely certain, even after just a few turns is that battles are much heavier on casualties and YES, troops rout more than in "vanilla" (and i don't think it's just the new arty settings).

The AI seems to be more aggressive and stacking more troops.
Yes, the new Bdes were a very smart move.

More details will come as i play it.

[Clovis]

I found it useful to totally backup the game folder and spawn a new .lnk file.

The statement:
2) Copy the contents of the ACW folder ( and not the ACW folder itself !) located in the AGEod's American Civil War folder into the ComingFury mod folder

...is a bit misleading.
There's a parent ACW folder (The homepath of the game) and a child game folder you refer to with the same name ACW (in my case C:\Programmi\Copia di AGEod's American Civil War\ComingFury mod\ACW). Perhaps instructions should contain the full default paths so it's easier to understand.

I've played some turns and i am really thrilled about it.
A bit hard to get going at the beginning with the different events.
What is absolutely certain, even after just a few turns is that battles are much heavier on casualties and YES, troops rout more than in "vanilla" (and i don't think it's just the new arty settings).

The AI seems to be more aggressive and stacking more troops.
Yes, the new Bdes were a very smart move.

More details will come as i play it.

You're right about the install.

Routing is largely caused by the lower cohesion levels.

About AI, I guess it's mostly the result of the improvments made by Pocus. I noticed a real one with the 1.07e and I suspect the 1.07f to have here and there some new beneficial ameliorations.

[Jabberwock]

This looks very well thought out in the details and fun to play.

I don't know if this is the best place to bring it up, . . . but I've always been under the impression that artillery's relatively poor performance on offense was mainly due to the increased vulnerability of the artillerists once rifled muskets and rifles became common issue. Has anyone tried to mod for that?

[McNaughton]

2. I don't know if this is the best place to bring it up, . . . but I've always been under the impression that artillery's relatively poor performance on offense was mainly due to the increased vulnerability of the artillerists once rifled muskets were common. Has anyone tried to mod for that?

From what I understand, the difficulty was positioning the guns while they are in range of enemy artillery. Defending with artillery is much easier, since you are already positioned and wait for your enemy to approach you (plus you can set up rudamentary fortifications for the guns as well). While attacking, your guns must be moved up and positioned possibly while under fire.

It is a very complicated situation, since the range of guns, concealment, etc. all played a part in determining how easy a particular type of gun would be positioned. In the open, positioning a 3-in ordnance was much easier than a 12-lb Napoleon because the 3-in could be placed well out of range of other artillery and rifle fire, while in brush and rough terrain moving a gun up is somewhat easier due to the added cover (albiet slower).

So there is no real adequate solution as to fixing the difficulty that artillery had while attacking, however, rifled artillery should gain an edge on smoothbore (due to a greater effective range puts them at significantly less risk and can support an advance from a greater distance and provide accurate fire).

[Clovis]

This looks very well thought out in the details and fun to play. Two notes:
1. I believe the cavalry mod was Jagger's work. The "all cavalry" strategy is what I've been working on.
2. I don't know if this is the best place to bring it up, . . . but I've always been under the impression that artillery's relatively poor performance on offense was mainly due to the increased vulnerability of the artillerists once rifled muskets were common. Has anyone tried to mod for that?

Oops. You're right. Sorry Jagger

About artillery: of course, artillery was vulnerable to rifled muskets. But my readings are pointing out other causes. First, broken and wooden lands were the most common for battles and so reduced the usefulness of artilleru on offense as long range sighting was difficult. Secondly, the use of artillery by small packets rather than as a massed force was too adding to artillery vulnerability as guns were often neighbouring the infantry they were attached.

In current game terms, most battles are fought at range 4 at most. Riflearms have a range of 3 so the artillery is soon under infantry firing range.

[Clovis]

here's the US prod figures in April 61



The War supply production is about the half it is in the vanilla scenario.


Then my choices as Federal player:



A large part of War supply is spent on industrialization, now mandatory.

And the War supply obtained by naval trade are most useful:



There is the second turn result. I will raise the number of transport in the naval shipping box as soon as possible.

US situation at the end of July 61:



The War supply prod is rising slowly. A great number of conscript ( I took again the 2,000 bounty option, but I will need many turns to equip as much men with so few money and WSU...)

CSA AI seems able to cope with this penury ( starts with 29 WSU by turn, and the Gorgias event will raise prod significantly). AI is building units, from militia to large brigades), spends on industrialization too. Here the CSA situation at the end of July 61:

[Clovis]

Here the results with more naval transports in the shipping box:



29 War supplies aren't so bad...

[Clovis]

Even with the rarity of ressources at hand, CSA AI is building large brigades:



You will notice too building time of land units have been increased. This change as others is aimed to slow the build up of armies in 1861... That's not to say there aren't battles but it remains in general small engagments as it was in reality...except for the first Bull Run, even battles in Missouri were small affairs...

[Pocus]

Be sure to use 1.07f for a better policy of the AI regarding replacements.

[Clovis]

Be sure to use 1.07f for a better policy of the AI regarding replacements.

I'm using it. There's indeed improvment. Nice.

[GShock]

The fact 1.07f AI builds more replacements is a good thing but if CF mod was built on 1.07e perhaps the new replacements discipline will have to be re-finetuned. After all there are more elements in CF for each unit. (i'm still on 1.07e+CFmod)

However, as MC also said, big improvement in stacking ability of AI shows there are much fewer single-unit raiders and much more large AI stacks who pose much more credible threats. That came definitely with 1.07e and it looks like CF mod likes it.

I'm still wondering, since this is a "what if" mod if it wouldn't be a good idea to randomize some unit spawn locations, especially at the beginning as to kill the "theory of the openings" that makes each game very similar.
I'm so far playing the same moves over and over again when i begin the CF scenario and i think this could be improved.

I've noticed something today about the portraits where a cav portrait was basically appearing on map rather than the leader. Simple DIV = leader+Cav (and 1 supply out of div in same stack). I had thought the leader would appear but instead the portrait shows the cav unit...odd. If nobody else has spotted this, i'll go frap an SS

Anyway the ai is much more aggressive. CF financial options are more credible imho. It takes me a lot to build ships but they do the job, finally.

Pocus if there's enough feedback on 1.07f would you call it a "final" release? In that case i will install otherwise, i'll wait for your call

[Clovis]

The fact 1.07f AI builds more replacements is a good thing but if CF mod was built on 1.07e perhaps the new replacements discipline will have to be re-finetuned. After all there are more elements in CF for each unit. (i'm still on 1.07e+CFmod)

However, as MC also said, big improvement in stacking ability of AI shows there are much fewer single-unit raiders and much more large AI stacks who pose much more credible threats. That came definitely with 1.07e and it looks like CF mod likes it.

I'm still wondering, since this is a "what if" mod if it wouldn't be a good idea to randomize some unit spawn locations, especially at the beginning as to kill the "theory of the openings" that makes each game very similar.
I'm so far playing the same moves over and over again when i begin the CF scenario and i think this could be improved.

I've noticed something today about the portraits where a cav portrait was basically appearing on map rather than the leader. Simple DIV = leader+Cav (and 1 supply out of div in same stack). I had thought the leader would appear but instead the portrait shows the cav unit...odd. If nobody else has spotted this, i'll go frap an SS

Anyway the ai is much more aggressive. CF financial options are more credible imho. It takes me a lot to build ships but they do the job, finally.

Pocus if there's enough feedback on 1.07f would you call it a "final" release? In that case i will install otherwise, i'll wait for your call

Thanks.

About replacement, I've for now under 1.07f noticed CSA AI is keeping one or two line infantry replacements each turn. It doesn't hinder AI to build new unit.

One side effect I feared with "big" brigades was Ai turning on building units with low conscript requirements. It doesn't seem to be the case until now but I lack sufficient datea for now.

I indeed want to transform financial in a "game into the game", vanilla being a no brainer on this point. With USA you will not avoid a moderate inflation and you will need to make choices, mainly in the 2 first years.

As CSA....poor CSA.... But the AI is surprinsigly doing rather well in this matter . Until now, CSA AI is able to expand industrialization. It seems to have given up on naval building but I suppose it's only temporary. As far I know, AI is computing how much units of each type is expected versus the number yet existing. So I guess sooner or later, CSA AI will do some naval effort...

[Clovis]

The first Bull Run...Union defeat...a bit misleading as in fact a small 2 brigades force under Sumner was trying to join McDowell army and was wiped by Beauregard's army of the Potomac:



It explains why 4 regiments were destroyed...


Esatern situation at the end of Augsut 61:



War supply production is slowly increasing for the North. Merchan fleet supply is yet vital. Manassas is ours but the CSA AI keeps his forces well grouped.

On the Western theater, Union is slowly building its forces when CSA is doing the same and aggressively pushing toward Ohio and Illinois:



AI is even doing cavalry raid:



So even with all restrictions I putted in production, CSA is yet able under Athena rule to do some fight...

And to win:




I've suffered more losses than AI.

VP are favoring CSA at start ( more VP locations for South at start). Most of the new VP location are close to the frontier, so when USA will have taken offensive, it will force CSA to try some counterstrikes.... when offensive is mandatory for USA on initial stages.

About NM, I feel current levels aren't very different than they were in reality

[GShock]

I can only relate to USA AI...i will most likely never even play once with USA against CSA AI

A big hit on the AI threat for me would come if USA attacked via ships my southern states. VA is the big battles, MO and KY are another couple of key spots in CSA defense but those southern states are completely undefended and it sucks that USA AI doesn't attack them (Help USA AI with armies being spawned instead of transported --> event perhaps?).

A sure difference between the vanilla and cf mod as of USA strategy is the far west. I've had absolutely no opposition coming from indian territory or Tucson while in vanilla i had many problems with securing the west.

If im not mistaken, in vanilla kentucky is "invaded by csa troops" is an event...red text in log. I presume that kentucky was neutral before this event...then what happens, joins the side of CSA who invaded? Maybe CFmod could take care of this (disable all KY incomes, VPs, Supplies/Ammo/WSU till the event comes)?

About the "game in the game", the factors behind the battles on map are all a game in the game. The foreign intervention and all financial options need a lot of testing to find good balance...we will see but surely it's a *big* improvement.

[Clovis]

I can only relate to USA AI...i will most likely never even play once with USA against CSA AI

A big hit on the AI threat for me would come if USA attacked via ships my southern states. VA is the big battles, MO and KY are another couple of key spots in CSA defense but those southern states are completely undefended and it sucks that USA AI doesn't attack them (Help USA AI with armies being spawned instead of transported --> event perhaps?).

A sure difference between the vanilla and cf mod as of USA strategy is the far west. I've had absolutely no opposition coming from indian territory or Tucson while in vanilla i had many problems with securing the west.

If im not mistaken, in vanilla kentucky is "invaded by csa troops" is an event...red text in log. I presume that kentucky was neutral before this event...then what happens, joins the side of CSA who invaded? Maybe CFmod could take care of this (disable all KY incomes, VPs, Supplies/Ammo/WSU till the event comes)?

About the "game in the game", the factors behind the battles on map are all a game in the game. The foreign intervention and all financial options need a lot of testing to find good balance...we will see but surely it's a *big* improvement.

US amphibious operations: Pocus has stated somewhere he should do something to improve AI in the future ( a distant future...). Events will maybe be necessary but I'm very reticent to go this way as events aren't really "context sensitive" leading to serious aberrations.

Ky events: I must admit I've yet to fully understand how vanilla Ky events are working... leure: For now Coming Fury system is the same than in Vanilla

Far West: I suspect here AI is choosing to discard this secondary theater as troop production is slower. I hope USA AI will do something before 1865 here...

[Clovis]

1861 isn't without battles...

Lyon is targeting Springfield in Missouri



This first battle against the weak garrison is a huge success but Lyon's force was highly dizaorganized by the march to Springfield, lowering its efficiency.

Then Price is joining the battle:



Sterling Price is leading a weak militia force but Lyon's troops are too exhausted to keep the ground.

Fluvial war is too raging:



So even with all the delays in production matter, 1861 is a year of battles. Small battles often as it was, but sufficient to keep my interest into play... and it is my first aim

[GShock]

US amphibious operations: Pocus has stated somewhere he should do something to improve AI in the future ( a distant future...). Events will maybe be necessary but I'm very reticent to go this way as events aren't really "context sensitive" leading to serious aberrations.

As i said, units or small stacks (not historically placed, so, with marginal hit on the historical accuracy) spawning in randomized (but controlled) locations, especially at the beginning, would seriously add some spice to the game forcing all players, regardless of their side, to devise new strategies instead of making the same moves in every new game they start. I'm thinking about militia units and small stacks only. If neither side knows where they will spawn, they can't pre-plan a strategy based on the fact they already know where they will spawn. (theory of the openings)

As of Amphibious assaults, I don't think it's an easy thing to build and, based on my personal XP, all games of this kind never had a good going with amphibious assaults.

AI manages ships and land units differently and is unable to coordinate building ship -> keeping it in the docks -> build troops -> load them on ship -> move ship to tgt zone -> land troops on tgt location.

If there's a way to make it come true is by event. Since each unit once built enters the "Matrix" (the AI logic) a major retouch of the whole logic would be needed before such assaults can be done properly. Perhaps an event could be done to spawn no-cargo ship in sea zone and land troops in tgt settlement, possibly randomizing the seazone and tgt settlement.
AI's inability to do it, especially USA vs FL, TX, LA is a huge flaw in what i still think being the best AI logic I ever saw built in a game.

On the possibility of amphibious assault events, since AI is attracted by VPs, (and we know CSA has no spare resources to counter an event-based amphibious assault, especially if targetted at random town/fort) it's all about how the CSA player reacts. The only real issue with AI side would be to assign a credible cost to this spawning by hitting the VP/Sup/WSU accordingly...so yes, it's a hard balance to find but i think the event would achieve the goals.

Ky events: I must admit I've yet to fully understand how vanilla Ky events are working... leure: For now Coming Fury system is the same than in Vanilla

The only thing i see about KY is a red text message saying that CSA invaded it. I think this has to do with me building Mil units into it to prepare countering USA invasion. I'm not even sure this is a real event but I'm sure Pocus will open the shutters on this and shed some light.
Probably KY should have been handled the same as with the Foreign intervention. This is, perhaps, linked to that part of software still under development.

Far West: I suspect here AI is choosing to discard this secondary theater as troop production is slower. I hope USA AI will do something before 1865 here...

I can tell you the diff between vanilla and CFmod is huge in this theater. I am almost already close to San Fran having met zero opposition in CFMod but in vanilla, SF was garrisoned by 6 units so it's something in CFMod i think. Did you touch the VP in Laredo or Tucson perhaps? Maybe USA AI is producing but sending troops elsewhere (MO for example) bc it's not attracted to TX?

[Clovis]

As i said, units or small stacks (not historically placed, so, with marginal hit on the historical accuracy) spawning in randomized (but controlled) locations, especially at the beginning, would seriously add some spice to the game forcing all players, regardless of their side, to devise new strategies instead of making the same moves in every new game they start. I'm thinking about militia units and small stacks only. If neither side knows where they will spawn, they can't pre-plan a strategy based on the fact they already know where they will spawn. (theory of the openings)

As of Amphibious assaults, I don't think it's an easy thing to build and, based on my personal XP, all games of this kind never had a good going with amphibious assaults.

AI manages ships and land units differently and is unable to coordinate building ship -> keeping it in the docks -> build troops -> load them on ship -> move ship to tgt zone -> land troops on tgt location.

If there's a way to make it come true is by event. Since each unit once built enters the "Matrix" (the AI logic) a major retouch of the whole logic would be needed before such assaults can be done properly. Perhaps an event could be done to spawn no-cargo ship in sea zone and land troops in tgt settlement, possibly randomizing the seazone and tgt settlement.
AI's inability to do it, especially USA vs FL, TX, LA is a huge flaw in what i still think being the best AI logic I ever saw built in a game.

On the possibility of amphibious assault events, since AI is attracted by VPs, (and we know CSA has no spare resources to counter an event-based amphibious assault, especially if targetted at random town/fort) it's all about how the CSA player reacts. The only real issue with AI side would be to assign a credible cost to this spawning by hitting the VP/Sup/WSU accordingly...so yes, it's a hard balance to find but i think the event would achieve the goals.



The only thing i see about KY is a red text message saying that CSA invaded it. I think this has to do with me building Mil units into it to prepare countering USA invasion. I'm not even sure this is a real event but I'm sure Pocus will open the shutters on this and shed some light.
Probably KY should have been handled the same as with the Foreign intervention. This is, perhaps, linked to that part of software still under development.



I can tell you the diff between vanilla and CFmod is huge in this theater. I am almost already close to San Fran having met zero opposition in CFMod but in vanilla, SF was garrisoned by 6 units so it's something in CFMod i think. Did you touch the VP in Laredo or Tucson perhaps? Maybe USA AI is producing but sending troops elsewhere (MO for example) bc it's not attracted to TX?

I don't despair about AI progress. Gary Grisby's World at War has an amphibious AI quite able. Pocus is quite able too considering how good is Athena in AACW to deal with a multitheater war ( and progress since the 1.0 version are real).

I know a AACW 2.0 is envisioned since the map creation ( Nassau and European locations...:sourcil I suppose we will have to wait the introduction of a diplomatic module in 2008 to get a real Kentucky overhaul.

I will chack the Far West situation. Maybe I made some changes in the past I don't remember.... How much turns you have played?

[GShock]

I will chack the Far West situation. Maybe I made some changes in the past I don't remember.... How much turns you have played?

Coming Fury start till late dec 61. 1.07e

I've arrived to san fran and it's garrisoned normally (4 units) but i didn't meet any opposition up there not even a single raider unit. Ft Lawrence is definitely an issue here as my indian units are offensive and city is ungarrisoned but doesn't fall. Same goes if i switch to assault posture...it's either a city-bug or there's something about indians and this town, either related to the state this town belongs to or to their specific unit type (unable to capture a town but only indian villages perhaps?).

Ulysses has appeared and backed me off from Louisville during my siege (actually he didnt back me off he *kicked* me off). Polk had to run off St.Louis too
I am gladly enjoying the numerous elements at my disposal and thanks to the stronger economic boosts (coming from my ships) I am replacing units just nicely...despite losses from epidemics. Everything is looking great but for this with the TX/IT/AR/LA scenario where AI is totally missing.

You said you touched some city values...perhaps the AI is more attracted elsewhere?

[Pocus]

1.07f is now official, it is stable.

[Clovis]

CSA january 62 leading largely for VP and NM and a War supply production yet rising



The AI has chosen to go for the 2,000 bounty volunteer option:




the next turn the draft becomes possible and taken by the AI:




On the contrary, I don't take the draft way: I've yet a high conscript number, my NM is low ( around 91) and the NM penalty ( 8 or 10 points) is simply unaffordable for Union. Last, the number of recruits is much lower than for CSA:





Grant has taken Donelson:



In Virginia, CSA army, after maneuvering around Manassas in the last turrns is falling back

[Drakken]

I have a question : Why do you give Forrest the godlike stats of 6-6-4? Wouldn't make him invincible against your run-of-the-mill Union Leader?

And in general, isn't there a danger to give boosted stats to Southern Leaders in general, following usual trendy myth of "Southern leadership superiority"?

Thank you.

[McNaughton]

I have a question : Why do you give Forrest the godlike stats of 6-6-4? Wouldn't make him invincible against your run-of-the-mill Union Leader?

And in general, isn't there a danger to give boosted stats to Southern Leaders in general, following usual trendy myth of "Southern leadership superiority"?

Thank you.

Based on his performance he did pretty much win every battle he fought, against the odds. However, I think a lot of it had to do with the force under his command. I doubt he would have been able to achieve the same results had he commanded an Infantry Division. This is what concerns me about the stats being so high, he is basically the equivalent of Grant in regards to his combat stats. He will most likely be used as a balanced Corps Commander given his new and improved statistics (6-6-4 is the best anyone can be), even though he would not perform as well commanding infantry as he does cavalry.

Also, in game terms, with 3-1-1 being the average low general, in order to have your good commanders as good they have to have very high stats. A zero, is seen as a very poor stat, but in reality it means no bonus. This is why generals like Forrest are rated so high, because the bar has been risen for every general (due to 3-1-1 being basic, when it probably should be 3-0-0).

There's my little rant on generalship!