Leader Optimization Project Mod for 1.06

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Since the other thread on this has grown quite long, I thought I would post a separate thread for the release version of the USA/CSA leader optimization project here for comments, suggested further improvements, and identifying any problems.

Some Key Features of the Mod:

Addition of many new USA army leaders and new promotion counters for several 1 star leaders who held higher commands historically.

Revision of key statistics and addition of new traits for dozens of Union leaders reflecting their historical attributes and performance. This results in greater differentiation between many of the Union leaders, and far fewer leaders rated at an average 3-1-1. Also, many incompetent Union leaders have been further penalized with negative traits and lower ratings, making it significantly tougher on the North during the first 18 months of the war. You now have to wait longer for good leaders to emerge.

Redistribution of Union leader arrival times and theater locations to better reflect the historical disposition of these leaders. No longer will you have a mass of Western theater commanders show up in Washington DC -- they will instead appear in Cairo, Louisville, St. Louis, or elsewhere. Many arrival times changed to reflect more accurate when and where leaders rose to historical prominence (for purposes of this mod, historical prominence is achieving divisional command in the field)

Removal of a few leaders who did not play a significant role in the conflict and who did not have the potential to do so.

Reduction in starting rank of several leaders who now arrive at 1 star rather than 2. They must now brave combat and get promoted as they did historically.

About two dozen new CSA generals, including some promotion counters as well.

CSA generals optimized for correct arrival time and theater as per Union leaders were.

Several CSA generals, including Stonewall Jackson and Holmes, reduced down to 1 star entering rank.

A few flavor changes on historically famous brigades.

An increase in the frequency of leader casualties, which should make the war more bloody. The goal here is to make sure that in every major battle, at least some leaders were killed or wounded, which is an accurate historical result. Based on gameplay experience, these settings may be further revised.

Number of divisions allowable for both sides increased -- USA can now build up to 72 divisions, CSA can build up to 48.

I hope you have as much fun playing this mod as I had in working on it.

As always, your comments and insights are welcome.

Update -- 07/21/07 -- 18:23 GMT -- files updated with error corrections for Nelson and McClellan 2 star rank.

Update -- 07/27/07 -- 15:58 GMT -- files updated with error corrections for Schenk, M.L. Smith, G. Pillow, and W.T. Sherman leader abilities.

Update -- 07/28/07 -- 20:02 GMT -- files updated with auto promotions for several CSA generals for historic and play balance reasons. Some CSA generals ratings and traits tweaked.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Bodders]

Just a couple of minor corrections to some model files I've found...

258USAHenry W. Halleck.mdl

Ability0 = $Slow_Mover should be Ability0=$Slow_Move

246USAGeorge B. McClellan.mdl
247USAGeorge B. McClellan.mdl
248USAGeorge B. McClellan.mdl
249USAGeorge B. McClellan.mdl
278USAGeorge B. McClellan.mdl

All these have Ability2 = $Poor_Spy_Network which should be Ability2 = $PoorSpyNetwork

The Mclellan one is in the AGEOD original models but we might as well correct it while doing others in the mod I think

These are fairly easy to spot as the ability shows as 'militiaman', I assume the default if the alias isn't recognised. Anyway, I'll check every leader who has 'militiaman' as I play and let you know of any others I find if there are any

Had to do a quick edit because I put Banks instead of Halleck first, not there for long though so hopefully no one went to change the wrong one

[anarchyintheuk]

Oops, posted this on the other thread . . .

My $0.02. I would disagree w/ applying the poor spy network to Halleck, Burnside and Rosecrans.

Halleck's failings (he moved slowly and disliked Grant) had nothing to do w/ his lack of situational awareness. His drive to Corinth was slow but unstoppable. The fact that Beauregard conducted a masterful retreat from Corinth is rewarded w/ his "master deceiver" trait or whatever it's called. Halleck was never defeated.

Burnside's lack of tactical ability is reflected in his ratings. At Antietam no cavalry was provided by McClellan to forwarn him of McLaw's approach. In any event his attacked was unfortunately/poorly time by McClellan so as to allow for McLaw's appearance. Burnside knew enough of Lee's dispositions to outmaneuver him at Fredericksburg. By the time he attacked he was aware that he faced the whole ANV. The fact that he still did is reflected in his tactical ratings. It wasn't Burnside's fault that Meade/Grant removed Ferraro's division from the Crater assault either.

Again Rosecran's penalty is adequately represented by his mediocre tactical ratings. He performed creditably on the battlefield during the Iuka-Corinth campaign and at Stones River. Lets face it, he lost at Chickamauga because he didn't know where his own troops were not because he didn't know where the AoT was. He was never strategically surprised in any of his battles and was familiar enough w/ Bragg's dispositions to maneuver him out of most of Tennesse w/ barely a shot being fired. One of the finest campaigns of the CW.

Finally, most of those commanders listed are being penalized, at least in part, for the poor performance/organization of Union cavalry or its complete absence in the early part of the war just as Lee gets the spy network benefit because of his cavalry's abilities, not his own. Lee, with better cavalry, lost track of the AoP at least 5 times during his command but doesn't get tagged w/ the "clueless" trait (maneuvers prior to Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg and Grant's attack against Petersburg). I don't think it's particulary fair to penalize those commanders for something not entirely under their control. It should only be applied to delusional types such as McClellan and Pope (although Pope was also let down by the performance of his cavalry vs. the performance of the ANV's cavalry). Maybe give the trait to Miles as well.

Sorry, I took up so much space. Other than the above, I like what you've done w/ the leader mod.

[PBBoeye]

Just bought, so I am scooping up these little mods. Thanks for the effort.

I'd like to ask if any knows if it is possible to increase the likelihood of commanders being KIA? I am thinking specifically brigadiers, but I would think the ability to influence each rank (with a descending likelihood factor) would be best.

[McNaughton]

Oops, posted this on the other thread . . .

My $0.02. I would disagree w/ applying the poor spy network to Halleck, Burnside and Rosecrans.

Halleck's failings (he moved slowly and disliked Grant) had nothing to do w/ his lack of situational awareness. His drive to Corinth was slow but unstoppable. The fact that Beauregard conducted a masterful retreat from Corinth is rewarded w/ his "master deceiver" trait or whatever it's called. Halleck was never defeated.

Burnside's lack of tactical ability is reflected in his ratings. At Antietam no cavalry was provided by McClellan to forwarn him of McLaw's approach. In any event his attacked was unfortunately/poorly time by McClellan so as to allow for McLaw's appearance. Burnside knew enough of Lee's dispositions to outmaneuver him at Fredericksburg. By the time he attacked he was aware that he faced the whole ANV. The fact that he still did is reflected in his tactical ratings. It wasn't Burnside's fault that Meade/Grant removed Ferraro's division from the Crater assault either.

Again Rosecran's penalty is adequately represented by his mediocre tactical ratings. He performed creditably on the battlefield during the Iuka-Corinth campaign and at Stones River. Lets face it, he lost at Chickamauga because he didn't know where his own troops were not because he didn't know where the AoT was. He was never strategically surprised in any of his battles and was familiar enough w/ Bragg's dispositions to maneuver him out of most of Tennesse w/ barely a shot being fired. One of the finest campaigns of the CW.

Finally, most of those commanders listed are being penalized, at least in part, for the poor performance/organization of Union cavalry or its complete absence in the early part of the war just as Lee gets the spy network benefit because of his cavalry's abilities, not his own. Lee, with better cavalry, lost track of the AoP at least 5 times during his command but doesn't get tagged w/ the "clueless" trait (maneuvers prior to Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg and Grant's attack against Petersburg). I don't think it's particulary fair to penalize those commanders for something not entirely under their control. It should only be applied to delusional types such as McClellan and Pope (although Pope was also let down by the performance of his cavalry vs. the performance of the ANV's cavalry). Maybe give the trait to Miles as well.

Sorry, I took up so much space. Other than the above, I like what you've done w/ the leader mod.

See my response in the other thread, I think that they are pretty much on the money already for the designation of poor spy network, as this represents a general's ability to understand not only what his enemy is doing, but his own troops as well, and the best way to achieve their missions. While they may have won a battle (Halleck at Corinth) it may be in lieu of their general inability (possibly sheer numbers won the battle?). From what I have read, Halleck was a good administrator, but is not someone who is an effective commander in the field (most of 'his' victories can be attributed to others).

The only general I say should not have this trait is McDowell. He tended to have good intelligence, and did react to it positively. 1st Bull Run was lost (in my opinion), on the fact that he was the one who was forced to attack with an untrained force, and the route happened by circumstance, not by surprise or because of poor planning (indeed, his intelligence of Confederate forces was dead on, and his attack was very good). His actions at 2nd Bull Run weren't incompetent, as strategy was primarily directed by Pope (I don't think it was McDowell's troops who were surprised by Longstreet, indeed he was the first to find and engage Jackson).

[gbs]

This Mod looks like the best addition to the game yet. The problem is, I don't get it. The readme on how to install is quite complicated to me and not clear. For example we are aked to paste a file "April 1861 Campaign" to a Folder and there is no file by that name that I can see in the mod. I have tried twice and both times the game got totally screwed and would not run. It was to the point where I have now deleted the game from my hard drive and am starting over. Is it just me? A good question for the developers is when will this mod become official and come out in patch form? Even I can handle a patch. Got to be more people like me out there. Any comments or advice would be quite appreciated. It looks like great work and for that thanks. Now if I could only figure out how to access it.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

GBS -- maybe I can help.

Paste April 61, Various Events, USA Leaders, and CSA Leaders to the AACW/ACW/Events folder, which is where the original event files are at. You will get a prompt to overwrite them.

Paste the uni alias and mod alias files into the AACW/ACW/Aliases folder, where you will be prompted to overwrite the originals.

Paste the combats file into the AACW/ACW/Settings folder, where it will prompt you to overwrite the original.

Go to AACW/ACW/Game Data directory, and remove the current folders for Models and Units entirely. Then paste the Models and Units folders in the mod files to the AACW/ACW/Game Data directory, where they will take the place of the ones you just removed.

At that point, you are done, and the game should run correctly.

Sorry to hear that you are having trouble. If you have any further difficulties, I will be monitoring the boards and PM tonight.

Good luck.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Just a couple of minor corrections to some model files I've found...

258USAHenry W. Halleck.mdl

Ability0 = $Slow_Mover should be Ability0=$Slow_Move

246USAGeorge B. McClellan.mdl
247USAGeorge B. McClellan.mdl
248USAGeorge B. McClellan.mdl
249USAGeorge B. McClellan.mdl
278USAGeorge B. McClellan.mdl

All these have Ability2 = $Poor_Spy_Network which should be Ability2 = $PoorSpyNetwork

The Mclellan one is in the AGEOD original models but we might as well correct it while doing others in the mod I think

These are fairly easy to spot as the ability shows as 'militiaman', I assume the default if the alias isn't recognised. Anyway, I'll check every leader who has 'militiaman' as I play and let you know of any others I find if there are any

Had to do a quick edit because I put Banks instead of Halleck first, not there for long though so hopefully no one went to change the wrong one

Thanks for catching this bug Bodders. I will fix the master files and repost shortly with the corrections.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Thanks for your work, and also for including the Change Log DOC

FWIW, once you get around to the CSA changes, Lee's CustomNames should be "Marse", not "Mars". At least that's how I read it in history accounts.

BTW, I found out how to use the "ingame" Generals graphics pics in my Word Docs, so once you have completed the CSA, I should be able to make a Leader Mod.PDF file complete with the Generals pics similar to the original USA & CSA Leader PDFs. It'll take some work, but not as much as what you have accomplished.

Gray Lensman -- thanks for volunteering to do this pdf file project. It will be a great enhancement to the mod. I will make the nickname change for Marse Robert. As far as work on CSA generals goes, I am through making any changes there. Any further refinements will come from Stonewall whenever he is able to commit the time. But as of right now, I have made dozens of changes to the CSA generals on arrival, added several new ones, and have made at least one promotable that wasnt before. This is both in the interest of play balance (since the Union got a bunch of new guys, we need to even things out) and historical accuracy. As it sits right now, without any further changes, this should be a very solid and playable mod that will enhance the game experience for those who choose to use it.

I look forward to seeing the PDF file when completed. Let me know if you have any questions about my notes or need any assistance in compiling the work.

[tony luke]

Thanks for catching this bug Bodders. I will fix the master files and repost shortly with the corrections.

Hi, I know that you have a 'real life' to lead as well and really appreciate the excellent work you have done on this Leader Mod. I am about to start a new campaign but am waiting for you do repost the corrections. Do you anticipate a long time to complete? Please forgive my 'impatience' but it's a great game and you are putting icing on the cake. Many thanks.

Tony

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Tony, give me about 30 minutes. Just got home from work, going to have a quick bite to eat, and I will make the edits and repost.

If you are like me, weekends are gaming time, so I can understand folks being anxious to get going on a Friday night with a new campaign. It is what I am planning on doing myself.

[tony luke]

If you are like me, weekends are gaming time, so I can understand folks being anxious to get going on a Friday night with a new campaign. It is what I am planning on doing myself.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, Saturday morning here in Australia! Sorry to disturb your'e dinner. I shall patiently await the update and follow your recently posted update guide.

Mnay thanks and have a good weekend.

Tony

[Winfield S. Hancock]

See my response in the other thread, I think that they are pretty much on the money already for the designation of poor spy network, as this represents a general's ability to understand not only what his enemy is doing, but his own troops as well, and the best way to achieve their missions. While they may have won a battle (Halleck at Corinth) it may be in lieu of their general inability (possibly sheer numbers won the battle?). From what I have read, Halleck was a good administrator, but is not someone who is an effective commander in the field (most of 'his' victories can be attributed to others).

The only general I say should not have this trait is McDowell. He tended to have good intelligence, and did react to it positively. 1st Bull Run was lost (in my opinion), on the fact that he was the one who was forced to attack with an untrained force, and the route happened by circumstance, not by surprise or because of poor planning (indeed, his intelligence of Confederate forces was dead on, and his attack was very good). His actions at 2nd Bull Run weren't incompetent, as strategy was primarily directed by Pope (I don't think it was McDowell's troops who were surprised by Longstreet, indeed he was the first to find and engage Jackson).

Thanks for the comments on the PoorSpyNetwork trait. I think McNaughton has hit it on the head with regards to what I am trying to do with adding this characterstic to several of the incompetent Union leaders and a few others of questionable competence. While the trait is called 'Poor Spy Network' it is actually the effects of the trait that I desire for these leaders. They really did not have a whole lot of situational awareness on the battlefield or during the campaign. This can manifest itself through leaders that get surprised by enemy movements, leaders who dont know where their own troops are, or leaders who lack the ability to appreciate opportunities or dangers in a campaign situation. If the trait were entitled 'Indecisive Leader' or 'Unable to Cope with Command of Unit this Size' perhaps that would better reflect the effect I am trying to produce.

Nonetheless, Anarchy makes some good points. The leaders he picked out were among the toughest decisions as far as what to do with them or not. Rosecrans peformed superbly in the Tullahoma campaign, yet at Stones River and particularly at Chickamauga, seemed ill at ease commanding a large force and being aware of his surroundings. However, I accept the argument that he was a bit better than I was portraying him, so what I have done is to remove the poor spy network trait from him but lower his strategic rating to 2 and his defensive rating to 2, making him harder to activate and reflecting some mediocrity in his defense abilities (good at Stones River, bad at Chickamauga). While Tullahoma was a great campaign, it did take him 8 months to maneuver his army a relatively short distance from Murfreesboro to Chickamauga, so the lower strat rating should model this. Hopefully the 2-2-2 rating is a better reflection of his abilities as an army commander.

With Halleck, I agree that he generally did have a decent strategic vision, but was just generally quite slow and inactive, and what he accomplished took a long time in the field. I have removed the poor spy network from Halleck, and changed his ratings from 1-0-1 to 1-1-1, giving him a bit of a boost.

As far as Burnside goes, he was just a disaster as a commander and never had a good feel for what his troops or the enemy was doing. While he did steal a march on Lee to get to Fredericksburg, he then dawdled for too long waiting to throw a bridge across the Rappahannock, allowing Lee time to build strong entrenchments across the river. The Mud March was another fairly good idea gone awry due to poor planning and bad luck with the weather. His performance at the Crater was abysmal. Also, he was a terrible army administrator, with troops going wanting for warm blankets, shelter, and basic supplies. Hooker and Butterfield later redeemed this sorry situation once they took over the AOP. He keeps the Poor Spy Network -- I only wish their were a trait that better reflected his inability to command large bodies of men -- something like 'Poor Army Administrator' that works the opposite of the Good Army Administrator trait.

Finally, McDowell. McNaughton is right that he had a good idea what was facing him at First Bull Run, and as such, it is unfair for the PoorSpyNetwork at his three star rank. However, at Second Bull Run, he seemed to have a poor grip on what was going on (no doubt exacerbated by Pope's incompetence) and his abortive and uncoordinated attacks on Jackson did not help in any way. His two star model keeps Poor Spy, while his 3 star model loses it.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Newly updated Leader Mod now posted. Enjoy.

[tony luke]

Newly updated Leader Mod now posted. Enjoy.

Excellent, where might it be located? Again, many thanks.

Cheers,

Tony

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Files are attached at the bottom of the first post in this thread.

[gbs]

GBS -- maybe I can help.

Paste April 61, Various Events, USA Leaders, and CSA Leaders to the AACW/ACW/Events folder, which is where the original event files are at. You will get a prompt to overwrite them.

Paste the uni alias and mod alias files into the AACW/ACW/Aliases folder, where you will be prompted to overwrite the originals.

Paste the combats file into the AACW/ACW/Settings folder, where it will prompt you to overwrite the original.

Go to AACW/ACW/Game Data directory, and remove the current folders for Models and Units entirely. Then paste the Models and Units folders in the mod files to the AACW/ACW/Game Data directory, where they will take the place of the ones you just removed.

At that point, you are done, and the game should run correctly.

Sorry to hear that you are having trouble. If you have any further difficulties, I will be monitoring the boards and PM tonight.

Good luck.

Thanks for this Winfield. I do not see a file called April 61. I use power archiver and always highlight files and then extract them to the folders. When I do this I have not gotten a request to overwrite, yes or no. I will try to cut and paste and see what happens.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

The file you are looking for is 1861 April Campaign. It is an event file. The file Icon graphic should look the same as those for the USA leaders, CSA leaders, and Various events files.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Thanks for this Winfield. I do not see a file called April 61. I use power archiver and always highlight files and then extract them to the folders. When I do this I have not gotten a request to overwrite, yes or no. I will try to cut and paste and see what happens.

Yes, dont use a power archiver, just cut and paste. I think the archiver is your problem, as my files in the mod are not seperated out by folders that will take them to the correct destination in the AACW program files if you just simply unzip to AACW. Unzip to another temp folder, then cut and paste out of the temp folder.

[Bodders]

Finally, McDowell. McNaughton is right that he had a good idea what was facing him at First Bull Run, and as such, it is unfair for the PoorSpyNetwork at his three star rank. However, at Second Bull Run, he seemed to have a poor grip on what was going on (no doubt exacerbated by Pope's incompetence) and his abortive and uncoordinated attacks on Jackson did not help in any way. His two star model keeps Poor Spy, while his 3 star model loses it.

Don't think there's a two-star model for McDowell is there? He remains at three star all game but low seniority so you can replace him easily enough doesn't he?

It's fine though, the Second Bull Run situation is covered by Pope having the trait.

Speaking of two-star versions, Mclellan's two star model (278) still needs his 'poor spy network' ability changed so it's recognised. Doesn't matter too much, he'll be three star before you get to do much anyway but just so you know

[Pdubya64]

photos lost

[McNaughton]

Hancock:
Thought I would post this here as I am using your latest mod files. Of course even if this is a problem, it may not be your issue.

I started a v1.06 (no a or b) grand campaign as CSA and have Pike out in Rolla, MO to hopefully stem the tide. So, he gets there, and lo and behold, actually activates with his pitiful 1 strategic rating. Cool! Let's form a division.
Here is where things seem to go awry...

Here is the screenshot of before I actually bring the militia unit under Pike's command:

Notice the 2nd Missouri command cost of 1 CP. So far, so good.



Now here is the "after" shot of the newly formed division under Pike:

I understand that Pike is penalized (10%) due to the "out of command" rule, that means he has 2 CP instead of 4, right? But notice the CP cost for the 2nd Missouri militia. It's suddenly 4 CP! Huh? What happened? The unit power rating went from 9 to 10, that's all. I have checked the rules and quick reference and am at a loss here.

Thanks,
pw

This has nothing to do with the mod, but based on the command system.

Pike was giving the stack 2 CP when he was commanding the stack. The Militia unit required 1 CP, leaving a surplus of +1 CP (you could have Pike commanding 2 Militia without any penalty at all).

Pike no longer commands the stack requiring 1 CP, and divisions, by default, cost 4 CP. Pike provides 2CP, the Division (any size, 18 elements or 1 element) needs 4CP, resulting in a decicit of 2CP.

Divisions are designed to take large numbers of elements and make them more efficient to command. Take 12 Militia and Pike, and the stack is maxed at 35% penalties (total cost is 12 CP, 1 per militia), but combine them into a division and the penalty is 10% (total cost is 4 CP, 4 per division). So, placing 1 unit in a division is an inefficient use of a divisional commander. 5 elements or more results in an efficient use of a divisional commander.

'Technically' the unit is superior as a division, due to the stat bonus Pike directly has on a regiment (hence the 10 vs 9 stat). If you had a 2 star genreal in the stack (even outside of corps command), or 6+ militia in the stack, then it is worth while to create a division.

[Pdubya64]

Jeez, did I miss the boat on this one or what?

Alright, so merging a leader with a unit makes them the "stack" leader. And this is where the combat efficiency of 5% per ability point comes into play, right?
So can you better explain the following for me?

"Increase in combat efficiency per Off/Def Division/embedded Brigade leader ability point: 3%"

Thanks
ps, this would be good stuff to put in the Quick Reference that was just created on the forum.

[McNaughton]

Jeez, did I miss the boat on this one or what?

Alright, so merging a leader with a unit makes them the "stack" leader. And this is where the combat efficiency of 5% per ability point comes into play, right?
So can you better explain the following for me?

"Increase in combat efficiency per Off/Def Division/embedded Brigade leader ability point: 3%"

Thanks
ps, this would be good stuff to put in the Quick Reference that was just created on the forum.

I believe that this is when you have another brigadier sitting in the stack.

Lets say you have this situation.

1 Major General (commands the corps)
5 Brigadier Generals
8 Brigades of infantry

Situation 1

1 Major General commands the stack
3 Brigadiers make 3 Divisions of 2 Brigades (efficient use of CP)
2 Brigadiers make 2 Divisions of 1 Brigade (inefficient use of CP, no bonus given at all, in some situations more CP will be used)

Situation 2

1 Major General commands the stack
4 Brigadiers make 3 Divisions of 2 Brigades (efficent use of CP)
1 Brigadier unattached, provides +3% to all units in the stack, plus gives +2CP bonus command points to the stack (until it maxes at 16 I believe).

Situation #1, has 5 divisions, but 2 are inefficient uses of CP. All brigadiers have official command of divisions, but is actually a bad way in organizing your forces. It would actually be better to have 2 brigadiers command brigades, rather than to form divisions (some brigades use 2 or 3 CP, while all divisions use 4 CP).

Situation #2, has 4 divisions, with 1 Brigadier left over out of command of a direct unit. However, this situation results in this Brigadier providing extra command points to the stack (until it reaches max), as well as provides +3% bonus to units in the stack.

So, it pays to maximize your divisions (better to have 4 large divisions than 5 small divisions CP wize), and have extra brigadiers stay in the stacks, as they provide CP bonus as well as extra strength for the units in the stack.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Bodders]

Just one more model change I've noticed from playing so far...

559USAW. Nelson.mdl

Abilitiy 0 = Quick_Angered should be Ability 0 = $Quick_Angered (missing the $ sign).

[Winfield S. Hancock]

Got it. Made the change. Thanks for spotting this.

[Winfield S. Hancock]

New files are posted reflecting correcting minor errors with Bull Nelson and 2 star McClellan.

[Pdubya64]

Hancock, do I need to recopy all the files or just a few with these latest updates? I have an AAR I just started and am hoping the changes won't affect my saved game.
Thx