Durk wrote:Nice menu of items. I agree with many, but not all.
I agree it would be very nice to have a separation of state and national units.
I do think many of your other suggestions fall into the category of interpretation of historical realities and numbers, and so are debatable. This game does provide a much higher production system to the CSA than it had historically, but this is well handled to provide a decent game balance.
I had not thought about leader numbers/limits. I am thinking and perhaps will be rethinking, but the CSA has an abundance of 3 star leaders. They are just more of a challenge to manange, as opposed to the Union leaders who are a bit easier to manage. But there is never a shortage of essential three stars.
I do think your suggestion have merit and ought to be considered.
There are historical numbers and realities that are well recorded, these should be corrected, CSA production can be corrected to a historical level if these other issues are corrected more close to reality.
One thing are the terrain penalties, similar to overcrowding rules in cities and forts, massive armies in the swamps should get higher penalties in movement, combat, cohesion and disease.
One of the best defenses CSA had was nature, Union avoided many regions totally for their logistical costs.
Other is the huge naval transport capacity, if the Union had this in real life the war would have lasted under a year, not even talking about the magic transport capacity that is readily available even behind enemy lines.
Union has a huge amount of *** generals to use even as corps commanders, a *** corps commander has a better frontage than an ** star, especially when you hook him up to Grant.
Historically it was CSA that had the *** corps commanders, I understand that the game handles ranks differently but I pointed out also how the game also uses rank to determine frontage.
Here is my previous take on the leadership issue, does not sound very fair IMO.viewtopic.php?f=331&t=52746
Agree that the leaders should be revised, McCulloch is just one but there are many more.
In the orginal AACW game CSA could promote for example Stuart and Forrest to *** rank, this was removed from CW2.
Was the reason to prevent using them as infantry commanders?
Both showed potential to infantry command also in RL and in comparison Union gets a *** Sheridan.
Cleburne was also removed from that list of potential army commanders yet he had an strategic mind and sound judgement for the job.
Strategic rating is the key for army command and CSA was culled for CW2 in this regard, those that remain promotable are the ones that get negative traits.
Jackson gets the quickly angered trait, Bragg gets the dispirited leader and arrogant traits and Hood gets dispirited leader and hothead traits.
In comparison Union gets for example these potential *** commanders ported over from AACW:
(None of them have negative traits; many have positive)
Jackson, Bragg and Hood might deserve negative traits bur arguments can be made to their effects and their overall rating compared to the Union leaders above.
Here on Hood for example.https://www.c-span.org/video/?435557-3/
In current state the leadership is unbalanced in favor of the Union.