AGEOD Forums

There has been some discussion of how realistic brigade composition is in the game. I've written a computer program that I can use to get statistics about regiments, brigades, divisions, etc and their commanders from orders of battle on wikipedia. From this, I've done a lot of work on my unit names mod. A second task I've begun is to look at the composition of brigades. In particular, looking at the major battles, I can count brigades which consist of, for instance, 3 infantry and 1 artillery, or 4 infantry and 1 sharpshooter. There are a few bugs in my work, and I my unit of analysis isn't brigades, but rather brigades-battles. So the same brigade in 2 battles is counted twice. I feel like this is ok, since I'm not concerned about replicating every brigade, but rather that the brigades we build are representative. Sharpshooters are greatly under-counted: CSA sharpshooter battalions were often created out of the regiments in a brigade and thus are not counted. When available, USA sharpshooter companies were often distributed to different divisions or brigades in a battle, for instance at Gettysburg, the 1st Berdan's had companies attached to various divisions at different times.

Below, I have presented a table which has the number of brigades of different types for the CSA and USA broken down by year. I have included the most common 29 types. I have assigned names to brigade types according to a simple rule. The first digit is the number of artillery regiments in the brigade, the second digit is the number of cavalry, the third is artillery, fourth is sharpshooters, and fifth is engineers (zouaves are included as infantry and can't be counted separately by my program). As you can see, brigades with 4 infantry are the most common, while brigades with 4 infantry and 1 artillery are the most common mixed brigade and 6th most common overall. Also the only brigade with integrated cavalry in the list is the 25th most common, having 3 infantry and 1 cavalry, and is much more common for the CSA than the USA.

[ATTACH]27715[/ATTACH]

What do you all think? The only brigade on the list that I see that is in the game is the 2 infantry only, which is 10th most common in this list.

Hi Tripax. Looks like you are doing some more good work!

And I was thinking along the same lines as you until I started playing the game again. It suddenly struck me, the game is a division game and not a brigade game. Brigades are always integrated into divisions. Once into division, the total number of elements determines when a division is at full strength, not by number of brigades. Brigade structure is not important once into a division. The total number of elements is important. The only time brigade structure is important is at the beginning of the game when division formations are not available or if you find it necessary to deploy brigades independently. And I am assuming CSA brigades are larger than Union brigades because they are much more likely to deploy independently since total CSA army should be smaller than the total US army. The CSA may have to plug holes with independent brigades if they get streched out. Also the Union may need to create more garrisons. If so, you don't want large brigades wasted on garrison duty. I am not sure I am explaining this properly but hopefully I am making sense. I suspect this was the rational in creating the different types of Union and CSA brigades for recruitment.

Remember I mentioned there may have been a mistake in the Union regimental names. Now I don't think so. I think it may have been intentional to allow regiments from multiple states to assemble in one state. So you may recruit a brigade from Connecticut but when it appears, it may have regiments from several nearby states included in the brigade. The brigade won't be a monolithic CT brigade but may include regiments from Maine or NH or Mass, etc. I need to look at the names again but I suspect that might be what is going on. It would be very easy to go in and list regimental names in order by actual brigade composition. When you create brigades, the engine simply goes along the list picking out the regimental names for the regiments in the brigade. (For example, if the first four names listed in the database for a 2 regiment NY brigade were 44th New York, 16th Michigan, 83rd Pennsylvania and 20th Maine, when you recruited 2 NY brigades of 2 regiments each, you would receive the regiments of Vincent's brigade-44th New York, 16th Michigan, 83rd Pennsylvania and 20th Maine-even though they first appear on the map in New York. And once you put them into a division, the brigade structure disappears but you have those 4 regiments in the same division.)

The one area that bothered me a little were the brigades with cavalry. Many of the CSA brigades had cavalry regiments attached at Bull Run. But I am pretty cavalry was pulled out of brigades and divisions very shortly afterwards-probably end of 61 or earlier. Yet you can never pull cavalry out of a created brigade. Which means once in a division, that division will always have cavalry in the division when that wasn't true for the great majority of the war. The brigades with artillery are fine because divisions had artillery throughout the war and many of the Union brigades at Bull Run and Shiloh had artillery directly attached to brigades. So brigades or divisions with artillery doesn't bother me but the cavalry does bothers me a little.

Jagger2013 wrote:Hi Tripax. Looks like you are doing some more good work!

Thanks!

Jagger2013 wrote:...It suddenly struck me, the game is a division game and not a brigade game...

I agree. In fact, while using my unit names mod, I rarely notice the new regiment or brigade names because I'm really only concerned with the divisions. The main thing I notice is the flavor names for the support units. I am happy, though, that I don't have as many nameless units, which sometimes distracted me before. Similarly, I imagine a mod changing brigade compositions could make division formation a bit easier, but wouldn't greatly change division composition. And since the cost of a brigade is mostly a function of the cost of the regiments in the brigade, it wouldn't greatly effect game balance - which is controlled more by geography and economy.

Jagger2013 wrote:...And I am assuming CSA brigades are larger than Union brigades because they are much more likely to deploy independently since total CSA army should be smaller than the total US army. The CSA may have to plug holes with independent brigades if they get streched out. Also the Union may need to create more garrisons. If so, you don't want large brigades wasted on garrison duty. I am not sure I am explaining this properly but hopefully I am making sense. I suspect this was the rational in creating the different types of Union and CSA brigades for recruitment.

I'm not sure if CSA brigades did deploy independently or anything like that in real life. But I do agree that reducing the number of large, integrated brigades would potentially change gameplay. I think that if I modded the game to allow fewer large, integrated brigades, I would want to increase the number of generals so that smaller brigades could be combined into divisions to create the same structures without making command more difficult. The mod would also allow for more precisely calibrated garrison divisions (for instance, many of my garrisons have cavalry, I'm not sure if that is optimal or historical).

In real life, the CSA seemed to use large integrated brigades a bit longer than the USA did, for instance at 1st Manassas in VA, Wilson's Creek and Carthage in MO, and even Mill Springs in Kentucky. But by Fort Donelson, a few weeks after Mill Springs, that trend seems to have ended. In game armies of Missouri/Arkansas, Tennessee/Kentucky, and Virginia are hard-coded. So in order to replicate those large brigades, it is fine to have them hard-coded - as they already are - and not necessary to have so many recruitable ones.

Jagger2013 wrote:...I think it may have been intentional to allow regiments from multiple states to assemble in one state. So you may recruit a brigade from Connecticut but when it appears, it may have regiments from several nearby states included in the brigade...

I like the idea of having brigades recruited in one state have regiments from other states. But I also like the idea of being forced to recruit brigades from various states and to deal with the problem of moving brigades to the front-lines. and waiting for divisions to form. In reality, regiments in the east were moved to camps in Maryland or around DC and then formed into brigades (and similarly in the West but moved to various district command points). I don't think there is a simple way to replicate that, and I don't like the idea of having regiments recruited one at a time. In the long run, I think it would be interesting to sprinkle more out-of-state regiment names into brigades recruited in a given state. But doing that makes it harder to keep track of which regiments are where, and so I haven't gone down that road very much yet.

Jagger2013 wrote:The one area that bothered me a little were the brigades with cavalry. Many of the CSA brigades had cavalry regiments attached at Bull Run. But I am pretty cavalry was pulled out of brigades and divisions very shortly afterwards-probably end of 61 or earlier. Yet you can never pull cavalry out of a created brigade. Which means once in a division, that division will always have cavalry in the division when that wasn't true for the great majority of the war. The brigades with artillery are fine because divisions had artillery throughout the war and many of the Union brigades at Bull Run and Shiloh had artillery directly attached to brigades. So brigades or divisions with artillery doesn't bother me but the cavalry does bothers me a little.

I agree. Once possible consequence is that reducing the number of integrated infantry-cavalry brigades could increase the number of cavalry divisions. I think that is ok (realistic even). I don't understand the game mechanics well enough to know if having a cavalry unit in a division is an advantage over having a dedicated cavalry division. If it is, people would just put single cavalry regiments into divisions if there were no integrated infantry/cavalry brigades - which is fine I guess.

A couple of thoughts and infos.

Firstly, to the games structure. The game consists of units and combi-units. Combi-units are created by combining two or more independent units. These are also know as divisions. Everything else in the game are stacks, which consist of 1 or more units and/or combi-units.

If you're a stickler about exactly how you want to build your divisions, like I am , one of the biggest jobs of organizing your forces is knowing exactly which units you have and which you want to combine into which division; for example trying to have at least 1 regiment of infantry with Strong Morale in every division.

The problem with this is the game gives you no tools with which to do this. The only solution I have found is to use a spread sheet, which must be held meticulously accurate.

If brigades were build much the same as division --which technically I'm sure would be possible with similar mechanisms as with division and a lot of work on Pocus' part-- the problems of organization would increase greatly, again for the lack of tools for organizing your units.

I'm no expert on military organization during the civil war, but I've picked up a thing or two over the years. One of them is, once the war solidified into a major conflict spanning the entire continent and armies expanded into forces of tens of thousands of men and their equipment, the makeup of brigades on the battlefield generally lost meaning when it comes to their auxiliary units --artillery and cavalry regiments. Cavalry was generally pulled together from all brigades of a division and all divisions of a corp to build a cavalry force capable of sustaining itself on a large battlefield and fulfill its duties of protecting flanks, scouting the enemies position, limiting the enemies mobility, guarding the withdraw of friendly formation as well as attacking and hindering the withdraw of enemy formations. Artillery, especially heavier batteries, was often pulled together to allow their strategic use. Smaller caliber batteries were often left with their brigades as support for their infantry regiments, but they might also be allocated to a point in the battle line where a brigade might not have their own or not have sufficient artillery support.

The game covers the aspect of allocating artillery to the battle line and will holding cavalry in reserve automatically and independent of from which brigade they may originate or be they of independent organization.

I personally find the limits to the makeup of brigades to at times be a hindrance to my own organizational strategy, especially late in the war when many types of brigades have been "bought out" and I find it increasingly taxing to build the divisions I wish. A change in this direction would certainly be possible, but I have some apprehension as to how accepted such changes might be.

I would find it an ease to my burden of organization where each state able to build forces equal to a certain number of CC's (conscript companies) that can be raised in their state and the player be able to put them into what ever type of regiment or battery he chooses and build what ever brigade configuration he wants. This would however require the game to keep track of how many CC's each state has, their influx and usage and I don't see that happening.

In the beta-forums there have also been discussion of how one might induce the player to more evenly call upon the troop resources of all the states under a player's control as opposed to only building brigades in Pennsylvania and New York, for example, in the East and Ohio, Illinois and Indiana in the West while in the states further from the front practically no units are purchased. It would be however exceedingly difficult to even asses this and was deemed to be far too difficult to implement compared to what it might bring in realism and game-play enjoyment.

I find you analysis to be interesting, tripax, and I'm curios as to what conclusions you might come and the ultimate solutions you will present.

Captain_Orso wrote:Firstly, to the games structure. The game consists of units and combi-units. Combi-units are created by combining two or more independent units. These are also know as divisions. Everything else in the game are stacks, which consist of 1 or more units and/or combi-units.

2 militia units can be combined as well as a general and a unit. I have a secret wish that there was a benefit to combining generals and HQ units, a sort of aide de camp bonus that can only be achieved in that way.

Captain_Orso wrote:If you're a stickler about exactly how you want to build your divisions, like I am , one of the biggest jobs of organizing your forces is knowing exactly which units you have and which you want to combine into which division; for example trying to have at least 1 regiment of infantry with Strong Morale in every division.

The problem with this is the game gives you no tools with which to do this. The only solution I have found is to use a spread sheet, which must be held meticulously accurate.

I'm not sure what tool could be used. One would be a rally to the flag device, like what I kind of remember existing in warcraft games. I'm pretty confident that such additions are out of my hands. A second option would be to design divisions in the units DB, so you can recruit division-sized brigades exactly to your liking. This probably isn't what you mean and wouldn't be something I would create.

Captain_Orso wrote:If brigades were build much the same as division --which technically I'm sure would be possible with similar mechanisms as with division and a lot of work on Pocus' part-- the problems of organization would increase greatly, again for the lack of tools for organizing your units.

Yeah, this doesn't sound like fun to me. Similarly, I don't want to recreate the exact same brigades/divisions at the exact same time as historically occurred.

Captain_Orso wrote:I'm no expert on military organization during the civil war, but I've picked up a thing or two over the years. One of them is, once the war solidified into a major conflict spanning the entire continent and armies expanded into forces of tens of thousands of men and their equipment, the makeup of brigades on the battlefield generally lost meaning when it comes to their auxiliary units --artillery and cavalry regiments. Cavalry was generally pulled together from all brigades of a division and all divisions of a corp to build a cavalry force capable of sustaining itself on a large battlefield and fulfill its duties of protecting flanks, scouting the enemies position, limiting the enemies mobility, guarding the withdraw of friendly formation as well as attacking and hindering the withdraw of enemy formations. Artillery, especially heavier batteries, was often pulled together to allow their strategic use. Smaller caliber batteries were often left with their brigades as support for their infantry regiments, but they might also be allocated to a point in the battle line where a brigade might not have their own or not have sufficient artillery support.

The game covers the aspect of allocating artillery to the battle line and will holding cavalry in reserve automatically and independent of from which brigade they may originate or be they of independent organization.

I think I agree with this and I think the game does a great job in this regard. I don't wish my proposal for changing brigade makeup to change division brigade makeup very much. One thing that could happen if infantry-only brigades are more common is that people might be less likely to fill divisions out with loose militia or with brigades with unwanted integrated extra sharpshooters or extra cavalry.

Captain_Orso wrote:I personally find the limits to the makeup of brigades to at times be a hindrance to my own organizational strategy, especially late in the war when many types of brigades have been "bought out" and I find it increasingly taxing to build the divisions I wish. A change in this direction would certainly be possible, but I have some apprehension as to how accepted such changes might be.

I hope my proposed changes would be an improvement in this regard. I also hope that these changes would be widely adopted, but I would probably play a mod in this direction even if very few others did. I thing such a mod would be a scenario, as I could just add the new brigades to the end of the Units DB and forcepool changes are controlled by the events DB, which can be different for different scenarios.

Captain_Orso wrote:I would find it an ease to my burden of organization where each state able to build forces equal to a certain number of CC's (conscript companies) that can be raised in their state and the player be able to put them into what ever type of regiment or battery he chooses and build what ever brigade configuration he wants. This would however require the game to keep track of how many CC's each state has, their influx and usage and I don't see that happening.

This burden I'm not quite as interested in easing. My goal is to more closely model history - again with the caveat that I don't want to recreate the war, just the conditions thereof. I think the player should be able to recruit only regiments that really existed (except perhaps in Kentucky and Missouri (and possibly Maryland, but I don't think so), where the political-military realities in game can justify more units recruited from those states than historically occurred.

Captain_Orso wrote:In the beta-forums there have also been discussion of how one might induce the player to more evenly call upon the troop resources of all the states under a player's control as opposed to only building brigades in Pennsylvania and New York, for example, in the East and Ohio, Illinois and Indiana in the West while in the states further from the front practically no units are purchased. It would be however exceedingly difficult to even asses this and was deemed to be far too difficult to implement compared to what it might bring in realism and game-play enjoyment.

One way to achieve this is that the total number of regiments that can possibly be recruited from each state be historically accurate (which is controlled by forcepool sizes) and that the total number of regiments recruited from all states by 1865 be similar to the historical number (this can only be induced by in game economic conditions and unit strengths being calibrated just right - I think the current system is very good in this regard with a small caveat I won't bring up just now).

Captain_Orso wrote:I find you analysis to be interesting, tripax, and I'm curios as to what conclusions you might come and the ultimate solutions you will present.

Thanks! A big difficulty is that I don't get to see how the game developers dealt with these issues and made the decisions that they made. I know I am partially retracing their work. As I go, I often can see that they did a great job dealing with difficult decisions. And I have the advantage that I'm not interested in changing the guts of the game mechanics, only the surface where the game intersects with issues which closely intersect my interest in history. Rarely I find that I don't understand why they did what they did and thinking that perhaps I can do better. I like to think aloud, posting my ideas on the forums, because I'm curious if my ideas seem appealing to gameplayers. I'm very happy to have your responses and I'm sorry to be so long-winded.

It would be more of a brigade game if there would be more useful brigades.

The 4-5 infantry regiment brigade is useful for many situations, why send a division when you can easily detach one of these.
The command cost for this brigade should be 2 CP, that way you can give it some cavalry and artillery and under one leader can perform well.

Most (all?) of the troops who fought in the first major battles of the war (Wilson's Creek, 1st Manassas) are hardcoded into the game. Since the hardcoded brigades need to be programmed into the models file, certain regiments are combined or left out (for instance the 5th & 6th Alabama in Ewell's Brigade). I wonder why this was done, it isn't hard to add the new brigade composition structure into the units file, even if that particular unit isn't recruitable or even used anywhere else. Certainly this could be changed.

How much do people like/dislike the level of accuracy and the number of units that arrive by event in the first months of the war? I assume people would be happy to see more accuracy (I would), but what about the number - do people think it would be better if fewer units arrived by event? If more did? One justification for more is that many units began their recruitment even before the fall of Fort Sumter.

tripax wrote:Most (all?) of the troops who fought in the first major battles of the war (Wilson's Creek, 1st Manassas) are hardcoded into the game. Since the hardcoded brigades need to be programmed into the models file, certain regiments are combined or left out (for instance the 5th & 6th Alabama in Ewell's Brigade). I wonder why this was done, it isn't hard to add the new brigade composition structure into the units file, even if that particular unit isn't recruitable or even used anywhere else. Certainly this could be changed.

Actually it's the other way around. A unit is defined as consisting of a certain number of models and also defines which units my be added to it (combining leaders with a brigade). The unit itself has rather few characteristics beyond what I have already described. The element models however are packed full of characteristics.

The spawned brigades have specific regiment and battery names assigned to them which are historical, or at least to the greatest extent.

The Union also has a few units that spawn with their Eastern Army missing a couple of regiments. It was like this already in AACW 1.07. Whether there is an historical reasoning for this or it's just to keep the player on his toes I have no idea.

There are also some units you can buy which have slots for adding another infantry regiment. The XX/ you can buy as the Union player in Missouri are an example. The dumb thing is, that regardless of the number of elements the unit has, it still has the same command cost. So these XX/ units have the CC of a XXX/, but missing one regiment.

There are a number of units you cannot buy in any scenario, like cavalry brigades, but there are also some infantry brigades. Why? I have no idea.

tripax wrote:How much do people like/dislike the level of accuracy and the number of units that arrive by event in the first months of the war? I assume people would be happy to see more accuracy (I would), but what about the number - do people think it would be better if fewer units arrived by event? If more did? One justification for more is that many units began their recruitment even before the fall of Fort Sumter.

If you start modding the allocated units in the scenarios you will be opening a big barrel of pickles. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but balance will have to be watched very, very carefully, which is very hard to do, because there are so many variables in the game.

Two players might test a mod thoroughly and find it balanced, while a third player might find some aspect in the new mod which presents him with an advantage.

One thing I'd really like to see gone are all the units with very generic names like "U.S. Artillery" or "Maryland Volunteers" or all the transport squadrons that all have the name --you guessed it-- "transport squadron" *duh*

Captain_Orso wrote:Actually it's the other way around. A unit is defined as consisting of a certain number of models and also defines which units my be added to it (combining leaders with a brigade). The unit itself has rather few characteristics beyond what I have already described. The element models however are packed full of characteristics.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that the hard-coded brigades are actually special instances of existing units. So Bartow's Brigade in the Carolina Department is an example of a unit "uni_CSA_Bde4GA" consisting of regiments/models given the names: "7th Georgia|8th & 9th Georgia|Wise Artillery|NULL" where Null is recruited later as you describe. My understanding is the command cost and of the brigade comes from the command cost of that type of unit and, as you say, the strength of the regiments comes from the strength of the model for each regiment. There is no reason Bartow's Brigade couldn't be the 1st, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 11th Georgia and Wise Artillery, as it was in the Seven Days (Bartow himself died at Bull Run, so it had a different commander by then), we would just have to make a unit that had 5 infantry and 1 artillery.

Captain_Orso wrote:The spawned brigades have specific regiment and battery names assigned to them which are historical, or at least to the greatest extent.

I'm not sure why, but the names are often a bit off. Also, the flavor commanders seem to be random. In AACW, you could see who the commander of a unit was, but not in CW2 that I can see. I'm in favor of correcting flavor commanders in case this functionality is added back (which I'd support, but I understand that removing it adds a bit of screen space for more useful information).

Captain_Orso wrote:There are also some units you can buy which have slots for adding another infantry regiment. The XX/ you can buy as the Union player in Missouri are an example. The dumb thing is, that regardless of the number of elements the unit has, it still has the same command cost. So these XX/ units have the CC of a XXX/, but missing one regiment.

I wasn't aware of this. It might be because the second model is militia, and you can combine militia into two militia brigades without adding CPs.

Captain_Orso wrote:If you start modding the allocated units in the scenarios you will be opening a big barrel of pickles. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but balance will have to be watched very, very carefully, which is very hard to do, because there are so many variables in the game.

Two players might test a mod thoroughly and find it balanced, while a third player might find some aspect in the new mod which presents him with an advantage.

I agree. One way to ameliorate this is to add the units/models with only partial strength (lots of red) so the player has to spend replacement chits to effectively fight with it. Thus the new units don't affect the economy of the game. That is, to the player it is almost the same as if the new unit was purchased the normal way. Another way is to have the new units be locked to a region for a certain amount of time. Beyond this, you are right that it would have to be done carefully and sparingly.

Captain_Orso wrote:One thing I'd really like to see gone are all the units with very generic names like "U.S. Artillery" or "Maryland Volunteers" or all the transport squadrons that all have the name --you guessed it-- "transport squadron" *duh*

I agree. Also how units like the 2nd Artillery appear both in Oregon and in Tyler's Division on the march to Bull Run (it did exist in both places, but not at exactly the same time, luckily). My model/unit names mod is pretty complete now (although I gave up with adding Naval units), and my next goal was to mod the hard-coded unit names, but I'm finding it hard to disentangle the task of changing the names with the task of reconfiguring the brigade compositions. It seems like the units involved in major battles before August 1861 (so that includes Bull Run, Wilson's Creek, but not Rich Mountain, I think) are currently in the game, but with issues. Many regiments who mustered by the end of April are roughly included (the Pennsylvania Reserves or 1st South Carolina Rifles are somewhat represented in the 2nd South Carolina and the Pennsylvania Volunteer regiments) but often given odd names (I can't find any unit called SC Guards, SC Rifles, or Fairmont Rifles which make up the 2nd South Carolina).

As you might guess, I'm starting to go through the event DB files and look at some of the changes that might need to be made. If anyone would like to help with the research, let me know.

tripax wrote:Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that the hard-coded brigades are actually special instances of existing units. So Bartow's Brigade in the Carolina Department is an example of a unit "uni_CSA_Bde4GA" consisting of regiments/models given the names: "7th Georgia|8th & 9th Georgia|Wise Artillery|NULL" where Null is recruited later as you describe. My understanding is the command cost and of the brigade comes from the command cost of that type of unit and, as you say, the strength of the regiments comes from the strength of the model for each regiment. There is no reason Bartow's Brigade couldn't be the 1st, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 11th Georgia and Wise Artillery, as it was in the Seven Days (Bartow himself died at Bull Run, so it had a different commander by then), we would just have to make a unit that had 5 infantry and 1 artillery.

I'm not sure of something you're saying here. Bartow's Bde starts the April '61 scenario in Richmond with the makeup you've noted, not in SC.

If you can show that Bartow's Bde actually had the regiments and artillery on hand at the point in time they may well be willing to change that. It would require creating a uni_CSA_Bde3GA unit for it, but that would just be copying one of the other Bde3 units definitions from one of the other states and changing the state and force pool settings. No big deal. The names of the regiments and artillery are just text in the scenario spread sheet, so they are the easiest to change.

If there were any question of whether all of the regiments were actually on hand, those that were not could also easily be left off the unit at scenario start, but I imagine, since the bde is locked in Richmond for a number of turns, if the player allowed for enough CC in his pool there is a good chance that any missing rgt might well reinforce the bde by the time they unlock.

If the only unit in contention is Barlow's Bde, I don't imagine that change would endanger balance enough to worry about it. If there were a lot of bde's that needed to be modded to be historical, that would be different.

I'm sure the devs have some formula for determining the CP cost of a unit. I know for sure that it's not the same for Union as for CS units; CS units practically always have a lower CP cost. Many of the flavor units, like the Laurel Bde, have special CP cost, which I allow them to be commanded by their historical commander alone without having to add a number of "filler leaders" to fulfill the CP needed to command them. But those are special cases.

tripax wrote:I'm not sure why, but the names are often a bit off. Also, the flavor commanders seem to be random. In AACW, you could see who the commander of a unit was, but not in CW2 that I can see. I'm in favor of correcting flavor commanders in case this functionality is added back (which I'd support, but I understand that removing it adds a bit of screen space for more useful information).

Most of the element and commander names were researched years ago. At the time the results were probably the best answers that could be found. Also realize that commanders were often changed throughout the war, so some names might only reflect a unit's commander at a specific point in time.

tripax wrote:I wasn't aware of this. It might be because the second model is militia, and you can combine militia into two militia brigades without adding CPs.

I could speculate a lot on what the reasoning might be, but it would still be just that, speculation. The only qualms I have with it are:
- It's not apparent. One cannot readily see that a rgt slot is empty and thus that the CP cost is inflated for the unit.
- The unit will never pick up the missing rgt through replacement. The missing rgt must be manually combined into the bde. I think this is because the game only considers that ModelType's in the definition for replacements, and the FamilyType's are what allow the player to combine the 3rd rgt into the unit.

At any rate, at the beginning of the war it kind of screws the Union player, because although it is one of the few units in the West that can be purchased with non-militia infantry and at a time when leadership is at a premium and the need for using independent commands can be great, these units are just the worst until they can be put into divisions where their CP cost losses its meaning.

tripax wrote:I agree. One way to ameliorate this is to add the units/models with only partial strength (lots of red) so the player has to spend replacement chits to effectively fight with it. Thus the new units don't affect the economy of the game. That is, to the player it is almost the same as if the new unit was purchased the normal way. Another way is to have the new units be locked to a region for a certain amount of time. Beyond this, you are right that it would have to be done carefully and sparingly.

Well... yes - no - maybe If we are only talking about Flavor Brigades, they can be spawned by event with elements missing or with elements understrength. That would slow them down some, but it will still cost the player in CC and time to bring them up to strength, plus as long as they are below strength they will have a CP penalty when comparing strength relative to CP cost.

For units already locked in place for a number of turns that can actually be an advantage in comparison with the way things are now. Now the spawned forces have strength X and when looking at those that start out already missing rgt and/or elements, the scenario is already tuned to allow for those units to get up to full strength at about the time they are unlocked.

If you add more empty element slots or filled slots, but with understrength elements, it might well be that by the time they are unlocked the force will now have strength X+Y thus possibly unbalancing the scenario at the time they are unlocked.

Remember, replacements arrive at the unit where they are. Units you build take time to be built and then have to travel to where they are needed.

tripax wrote:I agree. Also how units like the 2nd Artillery appear both in Oregon and in Tyler's Division on the march to Bull Run (it did exist in both places, but not at exactly the same time, luckily). My model/unit names mod is pretty complete now (although I gave up with adding Naval units), and my next goal was to mod the hard-coded unit names, but I'm finding it hard to disentangle the task of changing the names with the task of reconfiguring the brigade compositions. It seems like the units involved in major battles before August 1861 (so that includes Bull Run, Wilson's Creek, but not Rich Mountain, I think) are currently in the game, but with issues. Many regiments who mustered by the end of April are roughly included (the Pennsylvania Reserves or 1st South Carolina Rifles are somewhat represented in the 2nd South Carolina and the Pennsylvania Volunteer regiments) but often given odd names (I can't find any unit called SC Guards, SC Rifles, or Fairmont Rifles which make up the 2nd South Carolina).

Historically which brigades and regiments were where and when has never been my interest, other than perhaps a specific few units that interest me, as a Michiganian the Iron Brigade for example . I just find unit names like "U.S. Artillery" for a battery of artillery sound so darn cheesy .

tripax wrote:As you might guess, I'm starting to go through the event DB files and look at some of the changes that might need to be made. If anyone would like to help with the research, let me know.

I can't really help you here. As I said, unit research is my weakness and is not really my interest. I'd be glad to help you where I can with looking at where changes to scenario setup might be tweaked, but that's about as far as I can go.

Captain_Orso wrote:I'm not sure of something you're saying here. Bartow's Bde starts the April '61 scenario in Richmond with the makeup you've noted, not in SC.

If you can show that Bartow's Bde actually had the regiments and artillery on hand at the point in time they may well be willing to change that. It would require creating a uni_CSA_Bde3GA unit for it, but that would just be copying one of the other Bde3 units definitions from one of the other states and changing the state and force pool settings. No big deal. The names of the regiments and artillery are just text in the scenario spread sheet, so they are the easiest to change.

In my games and in the DB I'm looking at, Bartow's Bde is part of the force meant to attack Sumter in the first turn. Maybe there is a second brigade with the same name that arrives in Richmond, I haven't found it as I'm going through the event and script files and I don't play confederate enough to be sure. I agree that these changes won't be a big deal, but I'm finding a lot of brigades where I feel some (usually small) changes would make them more historical.

Captain_Orso wrote:I'm sure the devs have some formula for determining the CP cost of a unit. I know for sure that it's not the same for Union as for CS units; CS units practically always have a lower CP cost. Many of the flavor units, like the Laurel Bde, have special CP cost, which I allow them to be commanded by their historical commander alone without having to add a number of "filler leaders" to fulfill the CP needed to command them. But those are special cases.

What you say sounds consistent with my experience. I think the Confederate brigades sometimes have a lower CP that Union of the same type, so the formula is a bit complicated, though. That said, if more large brigades are added, I would add them more after divisions are enabled, so the associated CP won't be as important.

Captain_Orso wrote:Most of the element and commander names were researched years ago. At the time the results were probably the best answers that could be found. Also realize that commanders were often changed throughout the war, so some names might only reflect a unit's commander at a specific point in time.

Yeah, I'm going with the commanders at the start of the war or when the brigade/regiment was formed. As it currently stands in the code, many commanders seem to be not correct, and I can't even find a soldier with that name being associated with that brigade or regiment. I think I've even seen some named brigades commanded by brigade commanders with the right last name (it is the name of the brigade, after all) but the wrong initials. I'd love to have confirmation that there are many made up ones, as I'm nervous "correcting" them when I might just be looking at different/wrong sources. I'm double and triple checking things, where I can, though. I'm not sure why they would be incorect in the code, probably just a time constraint. On the other hand, some commanders in the game are obvious Easter eggs (M. Broderrick and K. Costner, for instance) which I might as well leave in (although Broderrick could be changed, or at least spelled correctly).

Captain_Orso wrote:I could speculate a lot on what the reasoning might be, but it would still be just that, speculation. The only qualms I have with it are:
- It's not apparent. One cannot readily see that a rgt slot is empty and thus that the CP cost is inflated for the unit.
- The unit will never pick up the missing rgt through replacement. The missing rgt must be manually combined into the bde. I think this is because the game only considers that ModelType's in the definition for replacements, and the FamilyType's are what allow the player to combine the 3rd rgt into the unit.

At any rate, at the beginning of the war it kind of screws the Union player, because although it is one of the few units in the West that can be purchased with non-militia infantry and at a time when leadership is at a premium and the need for using independent commands can be great, these units are just the worst until they can be put into divisions where their CP cost losses its meaning.

I still haven't looked into this one, have ever you brought it up on the "Help Improve CW2" forum?

Captain_Orso wrote:Well... yes - no - maybe If we are only talking about Flavor Brigades, they can be spawned by event with elements missing or with elements understrength. That would slow them down some, but it will still cost the player in CC and time to bring them up to strength, plus as long as they are below strength they will have a CP penalty when comparing strength relative to CP cost.

For units already locked in place for a number of turns that can actually be an advantage in comparison with the way things are now. Now the spawned forces have strength X and when looking at those that start out already missing rgt and/or elements, the scenario is already tuned to allow for those units to get up to full strength at about the time they are unlocked.

If you add more empty element slots or filled slots, but with understrength elements, it might well be that by the time they are unlocked the force will now have strength X+Y thus possibly unbalancing the scenario at the time they are unlocked.

Remember, replacements arrive at the unit where they are. Units you build take time to be built and then have to travel to where they are needed.

I agree that this is all tricky, and it is clear that AGEOD did an incredible job with the research and balancing that made the game we play. Don't forget that if a brigade is created by event understrength, it ends up costing the player in terms of money, conscripts, and WS almost as much as recruiting the regiment, so any effect such a unit has on balance is minimized.

Captain_Orso wrote:Historically which brigades and regiments were where and when has never been my interest, other than perhaps a specific few units that interest me, as a Michiganian the Iron Brigade for example . I just find unit names like "U.S. Artillery" for a battery of artillery sound so darn cheesy

Cool, I'm definitely in favor of reducing unnecessary cheese.

Captain_Orso wrote:I can't really help you here. As I said, unit research is my weakness and is not really my interest. I'd be glad to help you where I can with looking at where changes to scenario setup might be tweaked, but that's about as far as I can go.

No problem. That you are interested enough to comment is very nice (thank you).

There were regular artillery units in the federal forces during the course of the war. These units had names such as the: "4th U.S. Artillery Battery B" Etc.

Gen.DixonS.Miles wrote:There were regular artillery units in the federal forces during the course of the war. These units had names such as the: "4th U.S. Artillery Battery B" Etc.

Yeah. I'm going to try to distribute those companies more accurately. For instance, currently the 2nd Artillery appears in the Far West, which makes it nearly impossible to move east. In reality A battery of the 2nd was in Washington by January of 1861, and (almost?) all of the batteries fought in the east, many arriving in Fort Pickens by April and thence sailed east. "U.S. Artillery" is a bit ambiguous and not realistic.

tripax wrote:In my games and in the DB I'm looking at, Bartow's Bde is part of the force meant to attack Sumter in the first turn. Maybe there is a second brigade with the same name that arrives in Richmond, I haven't found it as I'm going through the event and script files and I don't play confederate enough to be sure. I agree that these changes won't be a big deal, but I'm finding a lot of brigades where I feel some (usually small) changes would make them more historical.

My Bad. I was looking wrong. I confirm that Bartow's Bde starts in Fort Johnson SC. Sometimes I'm a bit ...

tripax wrote:What you say sounds consistent with my experience. I think the Confederate brigades sometimes have a lower CP that Union of the same type, so the formula is a bit complicated, though. That said, if more large brigades are added, I would add them more after divisions are enabled, so the associated CP won't be as important.

If there were some large brigades not yet in the game and you can place there creation to before Oct. '61 I would be for first looking at what they are, if maybe they are made up of 2 or more brigades that are now in the game and what their impact might be. A fat brigade sitting in Atlanta and locked for 6 months from April '61 is not going to make much difference for at least 6 months. But let's see what you dig up first

tripax wrote:Yeah, I'm going with the commanders at the start of the war or when the brigade/regiment was formed. As it currently stands in the code, many commanders seem to be not correct, and I can't even find a soldier with that name being associated with that brigade or regiment. I think I've even seen some named brigades commanded by brigade commanders with the right last name (it is the name of the brigade, after all) but the wrong initials. I'd love to have confirmation that there are many made up ones, as I'm nervous "correcting" them when I might just be looking at different/wrong sources. I'm double and triple checking things, where I can, though. I'm not sure why they would be incorect in the code, probably just a time constraint. On the other hand, some commanders in the game are obvious Easter eggs (M. Broderrick and K. Costner, for instance) which I might as well leave in (although Broderrick could be changed, or at least spelled correctly).

Yeah, that's definitely not how you spell Baldrick ...

tripax wrote:I still haven't looked into this one, have ever you brought it up on the "Help Improve CW2" forum?

I believe I did way-back-when, plus in the beta forums . Though I must admit, that at the time things were pretty hot with release impending.

I've gotten pretty used to them now. Once you get a 3rd inf in them they're not half bad. Having one in a division that you can break out to hit some pesky militia or so while the rest of the division moves on is useful.

tripax wrote:I agree that this is all tricky, and it is clear that AGEOD did an incredible job with the research and balancing that made the game we play. Don't forget that if a brigade is created by event understrength, it ends up costing the player in terms of money, conscripts, and WS almost as much as recruiting the regiment, so any effect such a unit has on balance is minimized.

Yes, I'm not contending the cost, only the time-to-service. If you buy a single infantry regiment, it will take something like 30 or 45 day to "build/train-up". If you pay to put some of your CC into a replacement pool, they are there on the next turn and can go immediately into a field unit.

tripax wrote:Cool, I'm definitely in favor of reducing unnecessary cheese.

Cheese I like, just French cheese.. JUST KIDDING!! just kidding.. Phil.... no worry................. *psst* brie smells like dirty baby diapers....

tripax wrote:No problem. That you are interested enough to comment is very nice (thank you).

My pleasure. I just like to help where I can.

Captain_Orso wrote:If there were some large brigades not yet in the game and you can place there creation to before Oct. '61 I would be for first looking at what they are, if maybe they are made up of 2 or more brigades that are now in the game and what their impact might be. A fat brigade sitting in Atlanta and locked for 6 months from April '61 is not going to make much difference for at least 6 months. But let's see what you dig up first

By adding a brigade, I mostly mean adding recruitable brigades. I don't think I'd add many hardcoded brigades, just change things around so that the hardcoded brigades are more historical (and recruitable brigades will still have nice flavor names after historical brigade commanders as I'll use the same name pools that I've been editing in my other mod).

And as for cheese, I like Brie well enough, its Camembert that disgusts me. One note, Vermont and Wisconsin Cheddar are both definitely better than English Cheddar - at least in my experience having lived in upstate New York, Chicago, and now Northern England.

Camembert? Camembert is harmless. There are some that I even line. But Brie is like Camembert on steroids and then blasted with radiation so that it goes runny and starts melding like the blob. And the smell is something between a. if just before summer vacation after a hard, sweaty workout you forgot to empty your gym bag and stuffed it into the last corner of your closet, and you only opened it again after school started in Fall , and b. if you have kids you know, after they've been fed, especially with a bottle, because bottle-nipples never work as well as Real-Nipples™, and they always dribble milk down their chubby chins and it gathers in the fold of their neck, and because it's summer and warm/hot and you don't want to wake them when they fall asleep while drinking you just lay them down and a couple of hours later the heat, baby-sweat and baby-milk have fermented to this horrid smelling goo, and after a couple of hours when they wake up and they want you to pick them up, and when you put them on your shoulder and they lift their head all the goo starts seeping onto your shoulder and you're like


and they see the funny look on your face and start laughing and rubbing their face on your shoulder and into the goo and you panic because you don't want their eyes to melt or their face to get 3rd degree burns and try to keep their face out of the goo, and they think it's funnier and funnier and alternate between throwing their head back laughing which surprises you so much you almost drop them and then slam their face back into your shoulder giggling and rubbing their face in the goo again .... and ... and ..... yeah, *pffff* that cheese is baaaad.

I'm definitely no expert, but at the local grocery store, the cheap Brie is much more palatable than the cheap Camembert. I've never bought expensive versions of either, and if they are served to me, I can't tell the difference anyway.

I've updated the mod (which still has plenty of issues, but feel free to comment on it) to have the larger brigades and I'm not sure what to think. First, it a bit tricky to set it up so that the number of regiments is correct, it isn't going to work to have the exact same percentage of brigades of different sizes as occurred in real life. But it is easy enough for the sizes to be larger and thus more historical. One big difference is that early in the game you don't get to build as often. Also, larger brigades are a bit tougher for the resource strapped CSA, but not really since the size of the units is mostly infantry, which cost mostly conscripts.

Larger brigades are somewhat unwieldy before divisions are enabled and when divisions are first enabled, it is harder to fit brigades together to form divisions. Dealing with this require a bit more discipline on the part of a player while building the brigades, with an eye towards their future use in divisions. But ultimately, it isn't too bad. I'm not worried about it because I feel the standard of 1 sharpshooter, 1 cav and 4 artillery per division is optimized for standalone divisions in clear terrain and weather more than for divisions in corps, and really shouldn't be followed too strictly (I usually have 1 sharp, maybe a cav, 1-4 art and the rest infantry with militia minimized). I'll have to look more closely at how Athena handles building divisions with the larger brigades, but she is handling it ok, from what I've seen (in the mod, the larger initial armies makes her more aggressive in the early going, not sure if I should turn down her aggressiveness in the settings, live with it, or do something else).

Also, I've decided to use sharpshooters in CSA brigades but not in USA. From what I can tell, many CSA sharpshooter battalions were more often recruited from within brigades while USA sharpshooter companies/regiments were recruited and trained separately and attached to brigades for specific battles. In the game already, CSA sharpshooters are faster to train than USA sharpshooters, so adding them to CSA brigades more than USA brigades doesn't increase training time like it would for USA brigades.

Well, the forum was dying anyhow. Captain_Orso's post just put it out of it's misery.

khbymum, you silly person. The forum is slow at times, but you are not a very good physician. You seem like my doctor who pronounce me dead a decade ago.

khbynum wrote:Well, the forum was dying anyhow. Captain_Orso's post just put it out of it's misery.

Yeah, is there a post I'm missing, or is this about the cheese? Also, I think that a cheese making sim game is AGEOD's next project, so it was a perfectly good post anyway.

8<

Okay, sorry, enough unsinn from me.

How about I post something controversial. I suggest a balloon brigade. Count Zeppelin was an observer during the Civil War.

Gray Fox wrote:How about I post something controversial. I suggest a balloon brigade. Count Zeppelin was an observer during the Civil War.

Let me reply to that in a new thread.

Captain_Orso wrote:8<

Okay, sorry, enough unsinn from me.

Captain_Orso, my comment was written late at night and without a smilie to indicate humor, not criticism. Please believe I hold you in high esteem. It's just that, for a couple of posts you reminded me of a comment by one of my favorite authors, Stephen King (I parapharase): If you can't write terror, go for horror. If you can't write horror, go for the gross-out. He should know, on all counts.

That's okay. I realized myself that I was getting carried away a tad-bit

---

On a more on-the-subject note, I was looking through the brigades in the Orders of of Battle in the Wiki. It seems that the brigade "names" are seldom actually named as opposed to their organizational position, EG 1st Division, 1st Brigade.

In the Second Bull Run Union order of battle the III Corps, 2nd Division, 2nd Brigade consists of the 70th, 71st, 72nd, 73rd and 74th New York, which makeup the "Excelsior Brigade".

If you look at the First Bull Run Union order of battle you find that the 71st New York was also present, also in the 2nd Division, 2nd Brigade, but without any of the other '62 regiments belonging to the Excelsior Brigade. At that time the 2nd Div., 2nd Bde. consisted of the 2nd New Hampshire, 71st New York, 1st Rhode Island, 2nd Rhode Island and the 2nd Rhode Island Battery.

During the Battle of the Wilderness in '64 the "Excelsior Brigade" is present in the II Corps, 4th Division, 2nd Brigade, but has been augmented with the 11th Massachusetts, 120th New York and the 84th Pennsylvania.

This shows that during the war, even in these "special" brigades, their constituent regiments and batteries were shifted around, probably to fit the circumstances.

Basically, I think you can only create a "snapshot" of brigades and their elements at a certain point-in-time, before and after which there may be large differences.

Personally I don't like having brigades named 1st and 2nd etc. I like to be able to create divisions the way I want to have them and then having a division with maybe two 3rd Brigades just kind of bugs me.

Tripax, I'm wondering how are you dealing with this.

Captain_Orso wrote:...This shows that during the war, even in these "special" brigades, their constituent regiments and batteries were shifted around, probably to fit the circumstances.

Basically, I think you can only create a "snapshot" of brigades and their elements at a certain point-in-time, before and after which there may be large differences...

This is definitely true. There are lots of reasons brigade structures change. I'm not sure of all, but in the case of the 71st NY, for instance, there seems to have been a reoganization (they were mustered out and back in) between 1st Bull Run and 2nd Bull Run. From what I've seen, Union brigades were organized largely from Washington, and not at the state level, but replacement troops probably came from states (although states often politically preferred to create new regiments so they could create new officers). So if a regiment becomes undersized relative to other regiments in a brigade who recieve more replacements, it might get sent to the back or assigned garrison duty or whatever. I think it was hard for brigades to get broken up so long as their brigadier was in command (just like it was hard to demote an Army commander or whatever), but when a brigadier died or was promoted, brigades were sometimes broken up and redistributed.

On both sides, 1st Bull Run preceded a lot of reorganization. For the CSA, Cocke's, Early's, Ewell's, Jones', Bonham's, Longstreet's and Mahone's (and others maybe) brigades had regiments which later were parts of special brigades in the game. I have a similar list on the Union side. My thought is that special brigades should get precedence, so for instance the 7th Louisiana will be left in the Tiger brigade and removed from Early's brigade. I could either leave Early's brigade a regiment short or give Early's brigade a "NULL" which will be recruited from the pool (this is what happens already in many places). My preference is to give Early's brigade a "NULL". This is easier to program and means Early's brigade gets to be full strength by mid- to late-summer, 1861.

So, anyway, I'm dealing with this by putting regiments only in where they were most famous (or where I guess it to be so) and leaving "NULL" in their places in other brigades where they could be found.

A similar but different case is the Union Blanket Brigade, which really was only one regiment, the 16th Maine. In the game, the 16th Massachusetts is added. In my version, I'll probably replace the 16th MA with "NULL".

As far as numbered brigades, I've mostly replaced numbered brigades with the name of their commander (or at least their initial commander). The exception is that I've left McDowell's army as is (except added regiments to the brigades so that they are closer to correct). Thinking about it, I could follow a middle path, changing "I/3rd Brigade", for instance, to "Sherman's I/3rd Bde". "Richardson's I/4th Bde" would be the longest name but would still fit in most resolutions I think.

Looking at my notes, I noticed the 71st NY was another special case, it might be reasonable if it appeared in both places because it is more like a case of the same name given to two regiments. In this case the two regiments didn't exist at the same time and didn't necessarily share troops or officers, but in other cases sometimes two regiments did share a numeric designation for whatever reason.

Just a (relatively) quick reply, I don't have the time to read through th whole thread.

During testing I was workin on quite different force pools and tables of establishments from the ones that ended up in the game. Unfortunatelly my laptop had a fatal crash (literally, fell off the table while under power) and I lost some of that work and it took me weeks before I could return to it. Essentially this work didn't make it into the game...

One of the differences was that indeed the 4 regiment brigade would have been the norm and not the exception. By the way, work for the Union except brigade names was complete by the time of the crash so I will mention the Union most here. One thing to consider though is that organisation of brigades varied from army to army and theater to theater. Essentially the further west you went the smaller brigades tended to be. One other thing to consider is that later in the war artillery was nominally gathered in specialist brigades at division, corps and army levels, in reality though brigades tended to have a battery more or less permanently attached. Accordingly I retained most front line brigades throughout the war with a minimum of one battery and accordingly deduced those batteries from the buildable artillery brigades (usually 4 batteries per brigade) if the later war force pool. I also tried to find a solution for the early war tendency to have specialists in brigades but ain't sure it could (have) work(ed) in game. Essentially I had planned to have most early war brigades form with an additional cavalry, sharpshooter, light battalion (note battalion) or artillery battery which would eventually upgrade into an infantry regiment (so start as for example a 4/1/1 and turn into a 5/0/1 later). Those specialists would have used infantry regiment names (not very elegant), for instance a 36th NY Infantry (just chose a random name now) which would serve as cavalry for a year or two and only then change type to infantry. Many of those specialists were indeed formed as additional companies of existing infantry regiments (L and M companies often, making 12 company regiments when only 10 were authorised), started serving with their regiment but were rapidly grouped in batalions and would eventually be separated from their original commands to form new regiments of the then correct type (cavalry companies of various infantry regiments plus a few new formed companies of the same state forming a new cavalry regiment etc.). I haven't ever really gotten into testing (or playing the game) so I don't know what the current situation is in game (I only have a pretty old build on the computer, just barely after publication), so the following could not reflect AACW-II. I also had sharpshooters and all regulars as battalions instead of regiments to better reflect their use (and also state based recruitment as for instant Berdan's two regiments, also most states that eventually formed sharpshooters ended up in multiples of 3 companies which made it easy to determine force pools), most of those sharpshooters would also have been separate units (as in, not in brigades), as would some of the regulars (all at start of the game but with a number of regular brigades added by event later, generally with open slots to attach pre-war battalions to). One more thing I considered was the need for brigades on garrison duty which would be smaller and usually without artillery. That would also give the players some added choices, whether to build strong combat units for the main battles, or smaller ones for small detachments. Essentially most Union states would have ended with 2-3 different infantry brigade types (mostly 4/1/1 (remember specialists in such brigades would upgrade to infantry), 2/1/1 and 2/0/1 (the later representing heavy artillery regiments and similar formations)), 1-2 cavalry brigade types (like infantry larger ones out east than further west), 0-1 artillery brigade type, 0-1 sharpshooter battalion type, but all of that reflecting the individual states' needs etc. (for instance California having only 2/1/1 and 2/0/1 infantry brigades and later separate cavalry regiments instead of brigades, or Colorado with a 1/1/0 (where the specialist is a sharpshooter that will not upgrade) brigade etc)...

But there would have been a lot of work to do yet including brigade names (AACW ones were usually based on brigades in famous battles and did not reflect formation histories and the like (I had started work on NY brigade names and found that I would have had to rename 4/5 of existing brigades (I'd usually opt for first commander))).

Note that all research for the confederates is much tougher in this area than the same for the union. At least these days as a few excellent internet sites that used to exist in the late 90's have dissapeared and not all data can be reconstructed via waybackmachine or other archives.

Lastly one more thing to consider is that as the war lasted longer Union brigades tended to have more regiments, but that largely coincided with moving specialists in separate commands, which was one more reason for the 4/1/1 brigade evolving into 5/0/1...

I still have most of those files of mine (not sure I handed them to other testers once I became inactive (the loss of that computer played a big role in that), so if anyone wants to continue on that work, or just use it for comparison let me know. But I'm no longer checking the forums on a regular basis, so don't expect an immediate response...

tripax wrote:This is definitely true. There are lots of reasons brigade structures change. I'm not sure of all, but in the case of the 71st NY, for instance, there seems to have been a reoganization (they were mustered out and back in) between 1st Bull Run and 2nd Bull Run. From what I've seen, Union brigades were organized largely from Washington, and not at the state level, but replacement troops probably came from states (although states often politically preferred to create new regiments so they could create new officers). So if a regiment becomes undersized relative to other regiments in a brigade who recieve more replacements, it might get sent to the back or assigned garrison duty or whatever. I think it was hard for brigades to get broken up so long as their brigadier was in command (just like it was hard to demote an Army commander or whatever), but when a brigadier died or was promoted, brigades were sometimes broken up and redistributed.

On both sides, 1st Bull Run preceded a lot of reorganization. For the CSA, Cocke's, Early's, Ewell's, Jones', Bonham's, Longstreet's and Mahone's (and others maybe) brigades had regiments which later were parts of special brigades in the game. I have a similar list on the Union side. My thought is that special brigades should get precedence, so for instance the 7th Louisiana will be left in the Tiger brigade and removed from Early's brigade. I could either leave Early's brigade a regiment short or give Early's brigade a "NULL" which will be recruited from the pool (this is what happens already in many places). My preference is to give Early's brigade a "NULL". This is easier to program and means Early's brigade gets to be full strength by mid- to late-summer, 1861.

So, anyway, I'm dealing with this by putting regiments only in where they were most famous (or where I guess it to be so) and leaving "NULL" in their places in other brigades where they could be found.

A similar but different case is the Union Blanket Brigade, which really was only one regiment, the 16th Maine. In the game, the 16th Massachusetts is added. In my version, I'll probably replace the 16th MA with "NULL".

As far as numbered brigades, I've mostly replaced numbered brigades with the name of their commander (or at least their initial commander). The exception is that I've left McDowell's army as is (except added regiments to the brigades so that they are closer to correct). Thinking about it, I could follow a middle path, changing "I/3rd Brigade", for instance, to "Sherman's I/3rd Bde". "Richardson's I/4th Bde" would be the longest name but would still fit in most resolutions I think.

Note, I'd go for named brigades only as I was always annoyed with the numbers once I started re-organising forces (you tend to try and keep 1/1 and 2/1 together in the same force or division, while you would not feel so restricted with say Robertson's and Trimble's (just random names)). So one thing I did in AACW after every patch was run through the scenario files and edit numbered unit names and replacing them using the name of their flavor commander. Brigades on both sides were regularly switched around between divisions, corps and even armies and would change designation regularly. Even though most brigades changed commanders throughout the war, they are still easier to trace by commander names than by numbers which could change a lot in a short time (a commander in this sense need not necessarily be the officer in the field with the unit, it could be an absentee (Jackson is a good example))...