After the stalemate, the victory:
I will even get the luck to kill Forrest who came later to defy Grant....
Grant gains a higher seniority but is yet superseded by Halleck...
feb 1862 : I decide to use Grant with 3 divisions ( as histocally) againts Fort Henry and Donelson. Grant isn't yet army or corps general as I've yet to get an army HQ to the region ( the first one being used for Fremont, now in West Virginia region, in order to neutralize him).
After the stalemate, the victory:
I will even get the luck to kill Forrest who came later to defy Grant....
Grant gains a higher seniority but is yet superseded by Halleck...
After the stalemate, the victory:
I will even get the luck to kill Forrest who came later to defy Grant....
Grant gains a higher seniority but is yet superseded by Halleck...
I use the combat option file provided in the leaders mod ( except I've upped a little the penalty for being out of command but it's irrelevant here).
The CSA attempted the first day to retreat but failed ; results weren't inappropriate.
The second day CSA force was equal to....zero. So these units, totally disorganized, didn't put a fight... so the 3 losses for USA gets a logical explanation.
I rationalize that by assimilate such a result to a surrender ( partial or total) of a side after a harsh defeat, without hope to be rescued or to escape...
I don't think too it is a side effect of the changes I made to some units.
The CSA attempted the first day to retreat but failed ; results weren't inappropriate.
The second day CSA force was equal to....zero. So these units, totally disorganized, didn't put a fight... so the 3 losses for USA gets a logical explanation.
I rationalize that by assimilate such a result to a surrender ( partial or total) of a side after a harsh defeat, without hope to be rescued or to escape...
I don't think too it is a side effect of the changes I made to some units.
I should post a new version tonight.
HIGHLIGHTS
1) No idiocy rules
It's always difficult to draw the lines between more realism and « idiocy rules » forcing player to do the same errors made during a war.
By example, USA didn't formed more than 6 cavalry regiment until August 1861, considering useless to form more as the war would be very short and terrain was considered being very adverse to the cavalry.
USA cavalry was yet plagued by poor tactics, primarily lack of grouped use, in the first year.
Player is taking the place of Lincoln or Davis for the essential, relying on chosen general to execute strategic plan ( even if the game let players elaborate too part of operational implementation of these strategic moves, even if sucess or failure is partially the result of the General ratings).
So I 've sorted modifications by this criteria: nothing should delay the possibility for the North to create immediatly more cavalry brigades, but the tactical roblems being out of the scrutiny of the high Command, I've lowered a bit some US cavalry stat for the first mid-game.
2) Small changes to units
a) until now, I haven't noticed sufficiently strange battle results to undermine my belief into the unit ratings ( even if from time to time a strange result may occur, no proof such an occurrence comes from erroneous unit sats)
b) battle combat procedure, albeit complex, remains an abstraction. Introducing new stats, even if more realist in theory, could result in wrong results, simply by being made to a system which doesn't is a realistic portrayal of battle but a simulation destined to give accurate outcomes.
So I have made rather light changes in regards to these 2 considerations.
These changes are coming from interesting posts from McNAUGHTON ( and I'm waiting to see if the more fundamental changes he's going to create for units will give yet better results).
In short:
– I didn't reduced the number of sharpshooter units, but raised their cost in manpower ( reflecting not the real number of men but the difficulty to find elite riflemen in quantity). It should force the player to avoid recruit in mass sharpshooters but let him possibility to do so.
– I reworked US cavalry to give CSA a real edge at start.
– I modified artillery. Basically, I enforced differences between smoothbores and rifle guns.
Smoothbores have short range, rather low attack accuracy, high defense accuracy and reinforced assault values, in order to stress their defensive use in the game system limits. The 6 pdr is cheap but weak, the 12pdr have the same value than the 10 parrot.
Rifled guns on the contrary have greater range and are more accurate than smoothbore in attack , less in defense, making them useful for attack.
The 20 parrot is delivering more punch at higher range than the 10.
But...never forget most battles are beginning at range 4 or less ( the range of smoothbores)...Lee stated the 12 pdr « Napoleon » to be the best gun not without reasons. The theorical advantage of rifled guns are so challenged .
Last, Horse artillery is now representing the 3 inch, rifled gun having the same values than the 10 parrot but with greater accuracy and better reliability ( parrot hits number being reduced by one). Price is higher too...
So, with 5 types having special functions and limits, field artillery is now without « must have « model. 6Pdr is inexpensive but of marginal value, 3 inch is the best rifled gun but is the most difficult to buy, the 20 parrot delivers on attack greatest puch, but is costly and its range isn't really useful, the 10 parrot remaining so interesting beacause of its lower cost.
Artillery forts changes are fewer ( work in progress...) . I just disabled Rodman and Columbiad models, reinforced the hit value of naval guns, added the siege ability to siege guns but reduced their damage values.
3) Divisions.
In the current system, 1861 divisions get the same advantages than 1863 ones.
It's highly unrealistic.
What plagued both sides at start was the lack of skilled officers and the absence of HQ staff doctrine. If the first problem was somewhat solved with time, second remained much more pregnant until 1865. Some progress was made but slowly.
For thes 2 reasons, corps weren't used until the first half of 1862 and I'm seriously questining the eistence of functional divisional HQ in the first months of the war.
In game terms, it signifies, as corps can't be prohibited, to delay the appearance of 2 and 3 stars generals, and to postpone divisions formation until the end of 1861.
So divisions can't be formed before october 1861.
The divisions in the 2 Eastern armies have been disbanded too.
Now your leaders will move and fight with penalties. The strategic plans will so be slower to start and the first battle in Virginia ( first Bull Run) a real challenge.
It will too hinder gamey tactics, like forming a cavalry division to raid into enemy land. You will be yet able to group several cavalry units under a leader in 1861 but you will get out of command penalties...
Then winter should postpone your raid projects until the spring of 1862...
4) Cohesion
I've reduced too the cohesion value of all units. First, because I think it will made units more prone to rout and so will reduce the number of destroyed regiments, a little too high. Secondly, as cohesion improves with experience, it should enforce the need for players to take attention to experienced units, peculiarly for the Union player, whose replacement penalty could be giving headaches in the last years of the war...Last, the 1861 battles should be shorter and plagued by routing units....as in reality.
So All cohesion levels have been reduced by 10.
not only it will give real edge to experienced units, whose cohesion is raised, it will emphazize a bit more National Morale influence.
You will need both yet more.
battles will be less costly, shorter, peculiairly in the first months, with troops routing quicker than stubbornly renewing deadly assaults.
5) Draft and Money Policies
I feel too easy to take the conscription and the printing money ways. Both sides had huge problems with conscription laws and their enforcement, and printing money in the game hadn't penalties sufficient to prohibit its use each turn.
So I raised both NM and VP losses for conscription options and limited the money printing to one turn by month.
6) Weather
I've integrated some of the files of the weather mod thread.
HIGHLIGHTS
1) No idiocy rules
It's always difficult to draw the lines between more realism and « idiocy rules » forcing player to do the same errors made during a war.
By example, USA didn't formed more than 6 cavalry regiment until August 1861, considering useless to form more as the war would be very short and terrain was considered being very adverse to the cavalry.
USA cavalry was yet plagued by poor tactics, primarily lack of grouped use, in the first year.
Player is taking the place of Lincoln or Davis for the essential, relying on chosen general to execute strategic plan ( even if the game let players elaborate too part of operational implementation of these strategic moves, even if sucess or failure is partially the result of the General ratings).
So I 've sorted modifications by this criteria: nothing should delay the possibility for the North to create immediatly more cavalry brigades, but the tactical roblems being out of the scrutiny of the high Command, I've lowered a bit some US cavalry stat for the first mid-game.
2) Small changes to units
a) until now, I haven't noticed sufficiently strange battle results to undermine my belief into the unit ratings ( even if from time to time a strange result may occur, no proof such an occurrence comes from erroneous unit sats)
b) battle combat procedure, albeit complex, remains an abstraction. Introducing new stats, even if more realist in theory, could result in wrong results, simply by being made to a system which doesn't is a realistic portrayal of battle but a simulation destined to give accurate outcomes.
So I have made rather light changes in regards to these 2 considerations.
These changes are coming from interesting posts from McNAUGHTON ( and I'm waiting to see if the more fundamental changes he's going to create for units will give yet better results).
In short:
– I didn't reduced the number of sharpshooter units, but raised their cost in manpower ( reflecting not the real number of men but the difficulty to find elite riflemen in quantity). It should force the player to avoid recruit in mass sharpshooters but let him possibility to do so.
– I reworked US cavalry to give CSA a real edge at start.
– I modified artillery. Basically, I enforced differences between smoothbores and rifle guns.
Smoothbores have short range, rather low attack accuracy, high defense accuracy and reinforced assault values, in order to stress their defensive use in the game system limits. The 6 pdr is cheap but weak, the 12pdr have the same value than the 10 parrot.
Rifled guns on the contrary have greater range and are more accurate than smoothbore in attack , less in defense, making them useful for attack.
The 20 parrot is delivering more punch at higher range than the 10.
But...never forget most battles are beginning at range 4 or less ( the range of smoothbores)...Lee stated the 12 pdr « Napoleon » to be the best gun not without reasons. The theorical advantage of rifled guns are so challenged .
Last, Horse artillery is now representing the 3 inch, rifled gun having the same values than the 10 parrot but with greater accuracy and better reliability ( parrot hits number being reduced by one). Price is higher too...
So, with 5 types having special functions and limits, field artillery is now without « must have « model. 6Pdr is inexpensive but of marginal value, 3 inch is the best rifled gun but is the most difficult to buy, the 20 parrot delivers on attack greatest puch, but is costly and its range isn't really useful, the 10 parrot remaining so interesting beacause of its lower cost.
Artillery forts changes are fewer ( work in progress...) . I just disabled Rodman and Columbiad models, reinforced the hit value of naval guns, added the siege ability to siege guns but reduced their damage values.
3) Divisions.
In the current system, 1861 divisions get the same advantages than 1863 ones.
It's highly unrealistic.
What plagued both sides at start was the lack of skilled officers and the absence of HQ staff doctrine. If the first problem was somewhat solved with time, second remained much more pregnant until 1865. Some progress was made but slowly.
For thes 2 reasons, corps weren't used until the first half of 1862 and I'm seriously questining the eistence of functional divisional HQ in the first months of the war.
In game terms, it signifies, as corps can't be prohibited, to delay the appearance of 2 and 3 stars generals, and to postpone divisions formation until the end of 1861.
So divisions can't be formed before october 1861.
The divisions in the 2 Eastern armies have been disbanded too.
Now your leaders will move and fight with penalties. The strategic plans will so be slower to start and the first battle in Virginia ( first Bull Run) a real challenge.
It will too hinder gamey tactics, like forming a cavalry division to raid into enemy land. You will be yet able to group several cavalry units under a leader in 1861 but you will get out of command penalties...
Then winter should postpone your raid projects until the spring of 1862...
4) Cohesion
I've reduced too the cohesion value of all units. First, because I think it will made units more prone to rout and so will reduce the number of destroyed regiments, a little too high. Secondly, as cohesion improves with experience, it should enforce the need for players to take attention to experienced units, peculiarly for the Union player, whose replacement penalty could be giving headaches in the last years of the war...Last, the 1861 battles should be shorter and plagued by routing units....as in reality.
So All cohesion levels have been reduced by 10.
not only it will give real edge to experienced units, whose cohesion is raised, it will emphazize a bit more National Morale influence.
You will need both yet more.
battles will be less costly, shorter, peculiairly in the first months, with troops routing quicker than stubbornly renewing deadly assaults.
5) Draft and Money Policies
I feel too easy to take the conscription and the printing money ways. Both sides had huge problems with conscription laws and their enforcement, and printing money in the game hadn't penalties sufficient to prohibit its use each turn.
So I raised both NM and VP losses for conscription options and limited the money printing to one turn by month.
6) Weather
I've integrated some of the files of the weather mod thread.
Can't wait to try this out.
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
HIGHLIGHTS
1) No idiocy rules
It's always difficult to draw the lines between more realism and « idiocy rules » forcing player to do the same errors made during a war.
By example, USA didn't formed more than 6 cavalry regiment until August 1861, considering useless to form more as the war would be very short and terrain was considered being very adverse to the cavalry.
USA cavalry was yet plagued by poor tactics, primarily lack of grouped use, in the first year.
Player is taking the place of Lincoln or Davis for the essential, relying on chosen general to execute strategic plan ( even if the game let players elaborate too part of operational implementation of these strategic moves, even if sucess or failure is partially the result of the General ratings).
So I 've sorted modifications by this criteria: nothing should delay the possibility for the North to create immediatly more cavalry brigades, but the tactical roblems being out of the scrutiny of the high Command, I've lowered a bit some US cavalry stat for the first mid-game.
2) Small changes to units
a) until now, I haven't noticed sufficiently strange battle results to undermine my belief into the unit ratings ( even if from time to time a strange result may occur, no proof such an occurrence comes from erroneous unit sats)
b) battle combat procedure, albeit complex, remains an abstraction. Introducing new stats, even if more realist in theory, could result in wrong results, simply by being made to a system which doesn't is a realistic portrayal of battle but a simulation destined to give accurate outcomes.
So I have made rather light changes in regards to these 2 considerations.
These changes are coming from interesting posts from McNAUGHTON ( and I'm waiting to see if the more fundamental changes he's going to create for units will give yet better results).
In short:
? I didn't reduced the number of sharpshooter units, but raised their cost in manpower ( reflecting not the real number of men but the difficulty to find elite riflemen in quantity). It should force the player to avoid recruit in mass sharpshooters but let him possibility to do so.
? I reworked US cavalry to give CSA a real edge at start.
? I modified artillery. Basically, I enforced differences between smoothbores and rifle guns.
Smoothbores have short range, rather low attack accuracy, high defense accuracy and reinforced assault values, in order to stress their defensive use in the game system limits. The 6 pdr is cheap but weak, the 12pdr have the same value than the 10 parrot.
Rifled guns on the contrary have greater range and are more accurate than smoothbore in attack , less in defense, making them useful for attack.
The 20 parrot is delivering more punch at higher range than the 10.
But...never forget most battles are beginning at range 4 or less ( the range of smoothbores)...Lee stated the 12 pdr « Napoleon » to be the best gun not without reasons. The theorical advantage of rifled guns are so challenged .
Last, Horse artillery is now representing the 3 inch, rifled gun having the same values than the 10 parrot but with greater accuracy and better reliability ( parrot hits number being reduced by one). Price is higher too...
So, with 5 types having special functions and limits, field artillery is now without « must have « model. 6Pdr is inexpensive but of marginal value, 3 inch is the best rifled gun but is the most difficult to buy, the 20 parrot delivers on attack greatest puch, but is costly and its range isn't really useful, the 10 parrot remaining so interesting beacause of its lower cost.
Artillery forts changes are fewer ( work in progress...) . I just disabled Rodman and Columbiad models, reinforced the hit value of naval guns, added the siege ability to siege guns but reduced their damage values.
3) Divisions.
In the current system, 1861 divisions get the same advantages than 1863 ones.
It's highly unrealistic.
What plagued both sides at start was the lack of skilled officers and the absence of HQ staff doctrine. If the first problem was somewhat solved with time, second remained much more pregnant until 1865. Some progress was made but slowly.
For thes 2 reasons, corps weren't used until the first half of 1862 and I'm seriously questining the eistence of functional divisional HQ in the first months of the war.
In game terms, it signifies, as corps can't be prohibited, to delay the appearance of 2 and 3 stars generals, and to postpone divisions formation until the end of 1861.
So divisions can't be formed before october 1861.
The divisions in the 2 Eastern armies have been disbanded too.
Now your leaders will move and fight with penalties. The strategic plans will so be slower to start and the first battle in Virginia ( first Bull Run) a real challenge.
It will too hinder gamey tactics, like forming a cavalry division to raid into enemy land. You will be yet able to group several cavalry units under a leader in 1861 but you will get out of command penalties...
Then winter should postpone your raid projects until the spring of 1862...
4) Cohesion
I've reduced too the cohesion value of all units. First, because I think it will made units more prone to rout and so will reduce the number of destroyed regiments, a little too high. Secondly, as cohesion improves with experience, it should enforce the need for players to take attention to experienced units, peculiarly for the Union player, whose replacement penalty could be giving headaches in the last years of the war...Last, the 1861 battles should be shorter and plagued by routing units....as in reality.
So all cohesion levels have been reduced by 10.
not only it will give real edge to experienced units, whose cohesion is raised, it will emphazize a bit more National Morale influence.
You will need both yet more.
battles will be less costly, shorter, peculiarly in the first months, with troops routing quicker than stubbornly renewing deadly assaults.
5) Draft and Money Policies
I feel too easy to take the conscription and the printing money ways. Both sides had huge problems with conscription laws and their enforcement, and printing money in the game hadn't penalties sufficient to prohibit its use each turn.
So I raised both NM and VP losses for conscription options and limited the money printing to one turn by month.
6) I've introduced a few changes in strategic cities list: Manassas, Harrissonburg and Grafton have now a VP value whereas Winchester, Fredericksburg and the region north to Fort Pickens have lost their VP value. It should help CSA AI to be less obnoxious about Harper's Ferry and Fort Pickens.
7) East Tenessee regions have now a strong US influence at start, when Southern Illinois ( "Little Egypt") has a small CSA sympathy at start.
8) The mod is using the current leaders mod made by Winfield S Hancock.
9) Nominal figures for infrantry regiments has been reduced from 1,000 to 700
AI settings
AI CSA: I find CSA tobe a little too agressive at normal settings, peculiarly when given some fog of war advantage. But FOW advantage is needed to give AI a little more strategic " accuracy". For now, I play with low aggressiveness, medium FOW. It gives surprising results.
AI USA : you may try playing with the same settings to the condition to help AI to cope with bad generals Union gets at start. You could play without activation rule but you should lose a great part of the gameplay... Another solution is to play with highly randomized generals.... Otherwise, I should advise you to use normal agressiveness with medium FOW advantage.
1) No idiocy rules
It's always difficult to draw the lines between more realism and « idiocy rules » forcing player to do the same errors made during a war.
By example, USA didn't formed more than 6 cavalry regiment until August 1861, considering useless to form more as the war would be very short and terrain was considered being very adverse to the cavalry.
USA cavalry was yet plagued by poor tactics, primarily lack of grouped use, in the first year.
Player is taking the place of Lincoln or Davis for the essential, relying on chosen general to execute strategic plan ( even if the game let players elaborate too part of operational implementation of these strategic moves, even if sucess or failure is partially the result of the General ratings).
So I 've sorted modifications by this criteria: nothing should delay the possibility for the North to create immediatly more cavalry brigades, but the tactical roblems being out of the scrutiny of the high Command, I've lowered a bit some US cavalry stat for the first mid-game.
2) Small changes to units
a) until now, I haven't noticed sufficiently strange battle results to undermine my belief into the unit ratings ( even if from time to time a strange result may occur, no proof such an occurrence comes from erroneous unit sats)
b) battle combat procedure, albeit complex, remains an abstraction. Introducing new stats, even if more realist in theory, could result in wrong results, simply by being made to a system which doesn't is a realistic portrayal of battle but a simulation destined to give accurate outcomes.
So I have made rather light changes in regards to these 2 considerations.
These changes are coming from interesting posts from McNAUGHTON ( and I'm waiting to see if the more fundamental changes he's going to create for units will give yet better results).
In short:
? I didn't reduced the number of sharpshooter units, but raised their cost in manpower ( reflecting not the real number of men but the difficulty to find elite riflemen in quantity). It should force the player to avoid recruit in mass sharpshooters but let him possibility to do so.
? I reworked US cavalry to give CSA a real edge at start.
? I modified artillery. Basically, I enforced differences between smoothbores and rifle guns.
Smoothbores have short range, rather low attack accuracy, high defense accuracy and reinforced assault values, in order to stress their defensive use in the game system limits. The 6 pdr is cheap but weak, the 12pdr have the same value than the 10 parrot.
Rifled guns on the contrary have greater range and are more accurate than smoothbore in attack , less in defense, making them useful for attack.
The 20 parrot is delivering more punch at higher range than the 10.
But...never forget most battles are beginning at range 4 or less ( the range of smoothbores)...Lee stated the 12 pdr « Napoleon » to be the best gun not without reasons. The theorical advantage of rifled guns are so challenged .
Last, Horse artillery is now representing the 3 inch, rifled gun having the same values than the 10 parrot but with greater accuracy and better reliability ( parrot hits number being reduced by one). Price is higher too...
So, with 5 types having special functions and limits, field artillery is now without « must have « model. 6Pdr is inexpensive but of marginal value, 3 inch is the best rifled gun but is the most difficult to buy, the 20 parrot delivers on attack greatest puch, but is costly and its range isn't really useful, the 10 parrot remaining so interesting beacause of its lower cost.
Artillery forts changes are fewer ( work in progress...) . I just disabled Rodman and Columbiad models, reinforced the hit value of naval guns, added the siege ability to siege guns but reduced their damage values.
3) Divisions.
In the current system, 1861 divisions get the same advantages than 1863 ones.
It's highly unrealistic.
What plagued both sides at start was the lack of skilled officers and the absence of HQ staff doctrine. If the first problem was somewhat solved with time, second remained much more pregnant until 1865. Some progress was made but slowly.
For thes 2 reasons, corps weren't used until the first half of 1862 and I'm seriously questining the eistence of functional divisional HQ in the first months of the war.
In game terms, it signifies, as corps can't be prohibited, to delay the appearance of 2 and 3 stars generals, and to postpone divisions formation until the end of 1861.
So divisions can't be formed before october 1861.
The divisions in the 2 Eastern armies have been disbanded too.
Now your leaders will move and fight with penalties. The strategic plans will so be slower to start and the first battle in Virginia ( first Bull Run) a real challenge.
It will too hinder gamey tactics, like forming a cavalry division to raid into enemy land. You will be yet able to group several cavalry units under a leader in 1861 but you will get out of command penalties...
Then winter should postpone your raid projects until the spring of 1862...
4) Cohesion
I've reduced too the cohesion value of all units. First, because I think it will made units more prone to rout and so will reduce the number of destroyed regiments, a little too high. Secondly, as cohesion improves with experience, it should enforce the need for players to take attention to experienced units, peculiarly for the Union player, whose replacement penalty could be giving headaches in the last years of the war...Last, the 1861 battles should be shorter and plagued by routing units....as in reality.
So all cohesion levels have been reduced by 10.
not only it will give real edge to experienced units, whose cohesion is raised, it will emphazize a bit more National Morale influence.
You will need both yet more.
battles will be less costly, shorter, peculiarly in the first months, with troops routing quicker than stubbornly renewing deadly assaults.
5) Draft and Money Policies
I feel too easy to take the conscription and the printing money ways. Both sides had huge problems with conscription laws and their enforcement, and printing money in the game hadn't penalties sufficient to prohibit its use each turn.
So I raised both NM and VP losses for conscription options and limited the money printing to one turn by month.
6) I've introduced a few changes in strategic cities list: Manassas, Harrissonburg and Grafton have now a VP value whereas Winchester, Fredericksburg and the region north to Fort Pickens have lost their VP value. It should help CSA AI to be less obnoxious about Harper's Ferry and Fort Pickens.
7) East Tenessee regions have now a strong US influence at start, when Southern Illinois ( "Little Egypt") has a small CSA sympathy at start.
8) The mod is using the current leaders mod made by Winfield S Hancock.
9) Nominal figures for infrantry regiments has been reduced from 1,000 to 700
AI settings
AI CSA: I find CSA tobe a little too agressive at normal settings, peculiarly when given some fog of war advantage. But FOW advantage is needed to give AI a little more strategic " accuracy". For now, I play with low aggressiveness, medium FOW. It gives surprising results.
AI USA : you may try playing with the same settings to the condition to help AI to cope with bad generals Union gets at start. You could play without activation rule but you should lose a great part of the gameplay... Another solution is to play with highly randomized generals.... Otherwise, I should advise you to use normal agressiveness with medium FOW advantage.
To give some illustration:
We're in early October 1861; after a first very unconclusive battle at Manassas, I'm trying with Union to take advantage of the Beauregard move to Winchester to smash Johnston corps...
McDowell has won the last turn the first point by inflicting some losses to Johnston, but letting both sides with almost all their regiments but greatly dizorganized.
Howewer Beauregard is coming back this turn, letting just a few troops in Winchester to screen Banks group.
The battle is a great Union defeat, losing 2 NM points:
The battle lasted one day, with a very low number of regiments destroyed and much more routing...
We're in early October 1861; after a first very unconclusive battle at Manassas, I'm trying with Union to take advantage of the Beauregard move to Winchester to smash Johnston corps...
McDowell has won the last turn the first point by inflicting some losses to Johnston, but letting both sides with almost all their regiments but greatly dizorganized.
Howewer Beauregard is coming back this turn, letting just a few troops in Winchester to screen Banks group.
The battle is a great Union defeat, losing 2 NM points:
The battle lasted one day, with a very low number of regiments destroyed and much more routing...
Clovis wrote:]
The battle lasted one day, with a very low number of regiments destroyed and much more routing...
My initial response is this...
My follow-up thought would be cohesion. I like what you have done. What I'd really like is for AGEod to tweak the cohesion variable in the combat formula to account for it, so we don't have to keep tweaking files. I'd like to roll with their values, but have them adjust the combat formula. Clearly cohesion is important to get more realistic battle responses from stressed units.
Your testing is great. This is important stuff, Clovis!
Is there any way you can get it to work the v1.06d Leader Mod update?
Well, I d/l your mod file and did the installation. Even got it properly set up with v1.06d leader mod and incorporated all your unit/model files and such.
However, even before it can get to loading all of that, I get the following errors in succession.
Note that I even copied AgeSettings.exe into the experimental mod folder, but doesn't change anything.
So I'd be interested to know if anyone else has gotten this setup to work for them? I'd like to try it and see the improvements, but no worky for me.
However, even before it can get to loading all of that, I get the following errors in succession.
Note that I even copied AgeSettings.exe into the experimental mod folder, but doesn't change anything.
So I'd be interested to know if anyone else has gotten this setup to work for them? I'd like to try it and see the improvements, but no worky for me.
PBBoeye wrote:Regardless, that hasn't anything to do with the errors above, I don't think. So I'd like to know if anyone else has gotten this setup to work for them?
tried to install on my laptop with the zip file my mod. Worked flawessly. seems the problem isn't in the file I uploaded but I've no clue for now.
another sketch..
Early 1861: I'm playing the Union and applying the historical plan... Mc Dowell is about to attack Beauregard at Manassas
This screenshot is taken from the CSA AI side. Interestingly, we can see Johnston is programmed to run into Grafton Union has taken. Magruder force is about to replace Johnston in the Shenendoah valley to screen Harper's Ferry...
But the next turn will be marked by a total change in AI plan.
Johnston and Magruder come to Manassas before McDowell arrival. The battle is only a US victory in name:
The loss results are very interesting, coming close to the historical ones. I'm going to consider changes I've made to the units to work very well to create more historical results...
The "victorius" McDowell is forced to retreat and the US situation looks grim on eastern front in late July 1861:
Last, The CSA AI (low aggressiveness, FOW medium advantage) isn't acting as stupidly as the Union side.... Now, of course, I wonder what plan must be devised to get better results...
Early 1861: I'm playing the Union and applying the historical plan... Mc Dowell is about to attack Beauregard at Manassas
This screenshot is taken from the CSA AI side. Interestingly, we can see Johnston is programmed to run into Grafton Union has taken. Magruder force is about to replace Johnston in the Shenendoah valley to screen Harper's Ferry...
But the next turn will be marked by a total change in AI plan.
Johnston and Magruder come to Manassas before McDowell arrival. The battle is only a US victory in name:
The loss results are very interesting, coming close to the historical ones. I'm going to consider changes I've made to the units to work very well to create more historical results...
The "victorius" McDowell is forced to retreat and the US situation looks grim on eastern front in late July 1861:
Last, The CSA AI (low aggressiveness, FOW medium advantage) isn't acting as stupidly as the Union side.... Now, of course, I wonder what plan must be devised to get better results...
My question is, if you are playing the Federals, how do you go in and get images of the CSA movement like that? How do you get to see what the CSA is planning?
I've said it before, but truthfully I am excited about what you're doing and the results you're getting. I'd like to see how either large army fairs by about 1863.
I've said it before, but truthfully I am excited about what you're doing and the results you're getting. I'd like to see how either large army fairs by about 1863.
Clovis wrote:Johnston and Magruder come to Manassas before McDowell arrival. The battle is only a US victory in name:
Interesting. Here's what I find fascinating - the AI was moving the troops elsewhere, but then they responded to the Union advance. So I wonder if they started on their initial routes, then backtracked and marched to the guns?
I would want to believe that, and it looks that way. I hope that is how the AI responded on purpose, although I don't imagine either MacGruder or Johnston were a part of Beauregard's command. But anyhow, if they did march to the guns, it would mean that the AI picked up Union movement into Manassas, and delayed engagement until Day 9, when their forces were joined and at fullest CSA power.
That's how I perceive what happened. Agree?
Anyhow, what I really like are your casualty values and the routed numbers.
Well, I got it to work, but not quite as you stipulated.
I did a fresh install exactly as you worded, not using my v1.06d leader mod but only your files. Still the same issue.
So I took ALL the files from the main Ageod American Civil War main directory game exe, settings.exe, dlls, etc) and copied them into the experimental mod folder, and deleted the modpath.ini file. Then fired up the .exe and it worked.
I suspect it's some type of syntax or hierarchy issue. Anyhow, off to test it!
I did a fresh install exactly as you worded, not using my v1.06d leader mod but only your files. Still the same issue.
So I took ALL the files from the main Ageod American Civil War main directory game exe, settings.exe, dlls, etc) and copied them into the experimental mod folder, and deleted the modpath.ini file. Then fired up the .exe and it worked.
I suspect it's some type of syntax or hierarchy issue. Anyhow, off to test it!
PBBoeye wrote:My question is, if you are playing the Federals, how do you go in and get images of the CSA movement like that? How do you get to see what the CSA is planning?
I've said it before, but truthfully I am excited about what you're doing and the results you're getting. I'd like to see how either large army fairs by about 1863.
There's a button on the Load game screen which shows AI save files you may open to play...
PBBoeye wrote:Interesting. Here's what I find fascinating - the AI was moving the troops elsewhere, but then they responded to the Union advance. So I wonder if they started on their initial routes, then backtracked and marched to the guns?
I would want to believe that, and it looks that way. I hope that is how the AI responded on purpose, although I don't imagine either MacGruder or Johnston were a part of Beauregard's command. But anyhow, if they did march to the guns, it would mean that the AI picked up Union movement into Manassas, and delayed engagement until Day 9, when their forces were joined and at fullest CSA power.
I don't believe it was a march to the guns as their moves were finished before the battle.
As Johnston and Magruder were merged with Beauregard's army, i guess too they weren't only passing by Manassas to join other regions.
I guess AI correctly assessed the risk of McDowell attack into Manassas during the planning phase, taking into account replacements and reinforcements for the mcDowell army the last turn.
I can't stress more the need for AI to have an edge in Fog of war. Without, AI is blind, concentrating only where opponent is showed and targeting regions where enemy units are masked.
With more knowledge of enemy disposition, AI is really able of nice moves.
In another game, CSA AI after the loss of Forts Henry and Donaldson retreated the next turn from Columbus ( being in my mod a Victory location) to concentrate on Corinth and Memphis... AI is correctly assessing risk of flanking move in this case...
yet playing against CSA AI with low aggressiveness medium FOW advantage.
I'm yet really happy with battle results as losses aren't resulting in regimental destructions.
And my artillery tinkering doesn't seem too bad as CSA guns aren't sufficient to negate US entrenchments...
Surprinsingly, Ai is taking offensive, Polk coming to Cincinnati to seize the town.
AI is really not totally driven by VP hexes. Here the situation in the East in January 1862.
Fredericskburg isn't anymore a VP region but since some months, CSA AI has sent the largest part of the NVA army here, letting only a small corps under Van Dorn at Manassas, which is now a VP region.
McCLELLAND being at least active, I launch the Potomac army against the CSA lone corps. But Beauregard is coming back from Manassas.
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Is this a test with the 1862 scenario or the 1861 scenario?
Anyway, outlook looks good here, any chance of a more precise layout of changes (i.e., exactly the changes to each unit, etc.).
I believe that the AI takes a lot of factors into play. I did some changing of VP areas, and it seems like the AI does react to these changes, but, it also shows that there are other factors. I believe that priority is placed on depots as well as VP (probably other factors, like city size, fortress, etc.). Yet, modding VP has improved things (like "The Valley" no longer being the primary field of battle).
The AI does love Fredricksburg. In my tests I fortified Manassas, and the Federals went straight for Fredricksburg. When I left Manassas, they went for it. It does seem that the AI does have a high priority to move into the least defended area with the maximum force avaliable.
VP can help the AI, but it cannot directly control it.
Anyway, outlook looks good here, any chance of a more precise layout of changes (i.e., exactly the changes to each unit, etc.).
I believe that the AI takes a lot of factors into play. I did some changing of VP areas, and it seems like the AI does react to these changes, but, it also shows that there are other factors. I believe that priority is placed on depots as well as VP (probably other factors, like city size, fortress, etc.). Yet, modding VP has improved things (like "The Valley" no longer being the primary field of battle).
The AI does love Fredricksburg. In my tests I fortified Manassas, and the Federals went straight for Fredricksburg. When I left Manassas, they went for it. It does seem that the AI does have a high priority to move into the least defended area with the maximum force avaliable.
VP can help the AI, but it cannot directly control it.
McNaughton wrote:Is this a test with the 1862 scenario or the 1861 scenario?
Anyway, outlook looks good here, any chance of a more precise layout of changes (i.e., exactly the changes to each unit, etc.).
I believe that the AI takes a lot of factors into play. I did some changing of VP areas, and it seems like the AI does react to these changes, but, it also shows that there are other factors. I believe that priority is placed on depots as well as VP (probably other factors, like city size, fortress, etc.). Yet, modding VP has improved things (like "The Valley" no longer being the primary field of battle).
The AI does love Fredricksburg. In my tests I fortified Manassas, and the Federals went straight for Fredricksburg. When I left Manassas, they went for it. It does seem that the AI does have a high priority to move into the least defended area with the maximum force avaliable.
VP can help the AI, but it cannot directly control it.
April 1861 scenario.
No more precise layout for now ( lack of time and yet another AGEOD patch coming) but my mod being freely downloable
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests