Coming Fury mod

[Clovis]

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

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

Thank you.

In vanilla version, Forrest has 6-6-2 stats. I just feel defensive vlaue to be a bit low comparing to his performances in some defensive battles. Moreover, the current battle system isn't totally the reality. Forrest in defense used sometimes offensive tactics...

Buut as Forrest will remain a 1 star general, these values will be applied at most for one division under his command when several Union leaders will become 2 or 3 star generals.

About leaders in general, I know endless discussions will be pursuived forever about values... But I'm inclined to think, considering both material and manpower advantages Union had, one of the answers about CSA victories at start is the worse qualities of Northerrn leaders. The only theater Union dominated from the start was the Mississipi river, where Grant was. On the Eastern front, the odd ratio between South and North wasn't so different in 1863 and 1864, but the 1864 campaign wasn't the same than in 1863. It's why I don't really buy all critics made to Grant. With the same army, neither Hooker, Meade were able to push Lee on total defensive attitude.

[McNaughton]

In vanilla version, Forrest has 6-6-2 stats. I just feel defensive vlaue to be a bit low comparing to his performances in some defensive battles. Moreover, the current battle system isn't totally the reality. Forrest in defense used sometimes offensive tactics...

Buut as Forrest will remain a 1 star general, these values will be applied at most for one division under his command when several Union leaders will become 2 or 3 star generals.

About leaders in general, I know endless discussions will be pursuived forever about values... But I'm inclined to think, considering both material and manpower advantages Union had, one of the answers about CSA victories at start is the worse qualities of Northerrn leaders. The only theater Union dominated from the start was the Mississipi river, where Grant was. On the Eastern front, the odd ratio between South and North wasn't so different in 1863 and 1864, but the 1864 campaign wasn't the same than in 1863. It's why I don't really buy all critics made to Grant. With the same army, neither Hooker, Meade were able to push Lee on total defensive attitude.

To me, this reflects strategy vs ability.

Strategy (as in Grant's determination to follow through his campaigns) is represented by high strategy. He didn't fight better than Meade or Hooker or even McClellan based on his battle record. The difference was, after a defeat Grant did not go back to Washington and reform his army, he kept on fighting and he kept up the pressure. This is what strategic ratings do, they keep your troops active. Grant's high strategy rating keeps his corps active in the game, meaning that you have the ability to keep on fighting. Grant's aggression boosts up his strategic rating, but, it should not affect his ability to win battles. Grant is over-rated in his attack and defence abilities, as history does not correlate to what he can do in game (he is treated by players like how the population treated McClellan, as a near God).

Ability, which is what Forrest had. He had the ability to fight and win in battle situations (attack and defense). To me, his 6 strategic rating is way too high, should be around 4. I really don't know if he could plan a large campaign and get good results, as the most he commanded was a corps sized unit (probably divisional in scale). I doubt he could have been an effective strategist beyond the limited scope of combat that he knew.

Also, as far as I know, Forrest can be promoted to 2-star.

We can determine 'benchpoints' and limitations of usefullness based on stats, (anyting above a 0 is a benefit for attack and defence, 4 or more strategy ratings keeps a 1/2-star general activated, 3 or more strategy ratings allows a 3-star general to transfer some strategy to their corps commanders, etc.).

[Clovis]

Also, as far as I know, Forrest can be promoted to 2-star.

With the same stats as in vanilla version

[Big Muddy]

Clovis, really enjoying your mod, however I can't add production nor change domestic policy in the state of wisconsin. Also I can't build gatling guns, (clean install), is this intentional? I'm in early '62 and playing the '61 campaign. Do you have any other additions or is this the final version.

[Clovis]

Clovis, really enjoying your mod, however I can't add production nor change domestic policy in the state of wisconsin. Also I can't build gatling guns, (clean install), is this intentional? I'm in early '62 and playing the '61 campaign. Do you have any other additions or is this the final version.

Will check for Wisconsin.

Gatling guns: yes, it's intentional... The problem was any player will build Gatling guns massively ( defensive fire of 36) for the same cost in War Supply than a 10 Parrot. Requirements in money are higher but nothing unaffordable for the Union player.

So I decided to limit drastically number of Gatling. Eventually I will raise aagin this number but for a HUGE cost... a better way to simulate this .

Oh no it's not the final version. I'm currently yet toying with units composition, march to the guns conditions; I will too add some events in the next weeks ( 1864 Union 3 years volunteer departure, some events to help AI to build forts in some key locations like Richmond, Petersburg, Washington...

I plan too to revise slighty some leaders attributes and have a serious look at the units created by events in the first turns.

Thanks for the kind words

[Big Muddy]

I should clarify wisconsin production, at the start of a new campaign whichever counties have production will produce, so there is some, just unable to add. I know what you mean about the gatling guns, i'd build alot of them. I agree, a higher price would be good, when they become available, their sound is good, could you mod in that sound to hear during battles

[Clovis]

Field artillery in the next version of Coming Fury:

Sources:

Civil war artillery at Gettysburg by Philip M. Cole
Field Artillery weapons of the Civil War By James C. Hazlett, Edwin Olmstead and M. Hume Parks
Cannon Blasts, civil War Artillery in the Eastern Armies by L. VanLoan Naisawald
Cannoneers in gray, the field artillery of the army of tennessee by Larry J. Daniel

I've reworked first attack values of field guns. All sources are concluding to the weak value of artillery for attack and the small part of losses by artillery fire ( less than 10%). On the contrary, artillery remained useful thanks to its defensive power and its psychological effect on nearby troops or enemy.

So the attack values will now be much lower, and attacks will need to get first a real number superiority and/or good leaders.

These sources give accurate numbers on proportions of Parrot, Napoleon and ordnances guns. Amazingly, the 10 and 20-pounder parrots weren't so frequent, both Napoleon et 3-inch ordnances being the most common in both armies. Of course, Western theater was rather poorly equipped in new models, even for Union side until 1863.

I modified so numbers of artillery units buildable as reinforcments. I too delayed for some months the possibility to build great numbers of Napoleon, Parrot and 3-inch.

Pre-war howitzers remain represented by the 6-pounder, because of their shorter ranges and all other "deficiencies" which hampered their field value.

I didn't created new types as other models were anecdotical.

Last, machineguns will remain really limited. Sources are confirming their non-use was not only because of stupidity, but for technical reasons.

[marecone]

Sounds great

[Clovis]

Sharpshooters:

Sources:
Osprey book (like many Osprey book, good to discover but rather low on real historical indsight)
Shock troops of the Confederacy by Fred L. Ray

Interestingly, when USA formed from the start Large sharpshooter units, CSA was slower to seize the tactical value of these troops.

But from 1862 the trend wads inversed: Union more and more let divisional commander free to form or not real skirmisher units which were often company sized whereas Army of Northen Virginia developed until 1865 sharpshhoter battalions which became especially useful from 1864 in the trenches...

In the mod, both sides will be able to create a few skirmisher units from the start, but will have to wait from 1862 and after to get more sharpshooter troops. Union side will keep the possibility to create greater number of these units than in reality( no idiocy rules), but as in the current version, the cost is much higher for both sides....

[Clovis]

1861 volunteer and militia:


I envisioned first to differenciate more clearly " simple" militia and State militia of some States like Virginia where the pre-war militia was really a military formation rather than a social club or a mere paper unit.

But when my readings pointed out these better units were quicly integrated in the fireld armies, I decided to keep the abstract but accurate AGEOD model, where militia is cheap rabble.

On the contrary, as the same readings showed many examples of badly organized, discilined, armed or led regiments, I created "volunteer regiments". These subunits are part of some of the larger brigades a player can buy. They can be trained and upgraded.

But at statrt, their fighting value is low, reflecting their initial bevahior.

[Clovis]

A. S Johnston

Certainly, prior to Shiloh, he made his share of mistakes as others have noted. However, in his favor, he did manage to hold part of Kentucky for several months with inadequate resources, and he drove Tecumseh Sherman mad (ok, perhaps not much of an accomplishment). After the disaster at Donelson, he did effect a rather nifty convergence of the available forces.

The alignment of the troops at Shiloh was certainly improper, but the Victor of First Manassas come up with that bit of genius. Certainly, Johnston should have overruled his deployment, but Beauregard did have high prestige at the time.

Johnston made plenty of mistakes. It is most likely that had he not been killed at Shiloh he would have been found wanting, which is the case of most of the generals of the War (certainly, he would have been superior to Bragg), but glimpses of competency can be espied in his performance.

Not even Winfield Scott had commanded such large forces - everyone was trying to figure out how to command and deploy so many troops. (Consider Lee's sorry performance in western Virginia.)

I raised a bit attack and defense values of AS Johnston.

[Big Muddy]

When will the new version be ready, I'm sure you're very busy with the new version, but have you had a chance to check on Wisconsin.

[veji1]

I loved the first version and played a very interesting game with it, as the CSA, but human genius being what it is, Even being conservative I eventually outsmarted the AI and by late 1864 was really roling.

I really liked the fact that it is very hard to build troops and that one can never have too much, while in vanilla you end up with way too many soldiers..

What I would really like would be to be able to start your mod in 1862 or 1863, because as the CSA I feel that the Mod+the difficult situation would make for a great game..

[Clovis]

I loved the first version and played a very interesting game with it, as the CSA, but human genius being what it is, Even being conservative I eventually outsmarted the AI and by late 1864 was really roling.

I really liked the fact that it is very hard to build troops and that one can never have too much, while in vanilla you end up with way too many soldiers..

What I would really like would be to be able to start your mod in 1862 or 1863, because as the CSA I feel that the Mod+the difficult situation would make for a great game..

The next version should get all the primary changes I wanted to implement. So, if things go well, I would be able to mod other scenarios. The most painful changes don't have to be redone, only minor ones.
Now it will be interesting to see how much the AI has improved in the 1.07h version...

[Clovis]

When will the new version be ready, I'm sure you're very busy with the new version, but have you had a chance to check on Wisconsin.

I will but I've for now no clue about this strange omission. If anyone knows why Wisconsion isn't selectable on the industrialization or policy screens... help me leure:

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Guru80]

Wisconsin is awesome for Industrialization ;-) Only 4 - 6 for light industry and excellent potential. It always returns well for me and is the only place I bother with industrializing due to its low cost. By 62 I usually have more war supplies than I can handle so I probably don't even need to industrialize as the US but the price is right.

[Clovis]

Wisconsin problem is fixed.

[aryaman]

One thing I would like to see in a realistic mod is a radical reduction of depots at the start of the game, it is as if the armies already had a chain of depots organized even before they were recruited. IMO there should be only a few depots at the start, the large cities, mainly ports, like New Orleans or Charleston for CSA, in order to force the player to build his own chain of depots, that would slow down considerably operations and concentration of troops the first year of play.

[Clovis]

One thing I would like to see in a realistic mod is a radical reduction of depots at the start of the game, it is as if the armies already had a chain of depots organized even before they were recruited. IMO there should be only a few depots at the start, the large cities, mainly ports, like New Orleans or Charleston for CSA, in order to force the player to build his own chain of depots, that would slow down considerably operations and concentration of troops the first year of play.

Interesting point. It will not be in the next version though because i wonder how AI will react.... and the build cost will be really high for WSU peculiarly.

[GShock]

Just out of a CF game, crashed
The only thing i noticed is that zollicofer's portrait is blank...no clue on why this crash happened.

I agree with the depots, too many of them but probably caution is the key as who knows how the AI chooses to build depots and forts...AI is supposed to destroy depots when knowing the position can't be held for long and ...it doesn't.
I like the pricelist of CF mod, and i like a lot the free replacements especially with heavy artys. With better costs on Supply carts building those depots would be possible.

Same story for that interesting idea of setting the MC to 75% if u want to use rail....it's all about AI handling it, just like in the first point.

[aryaman]

What about having a PBEM version of CF in which we don´t have to worry about the AI? that version could be open to every improvement to make the scenario play more historically

[GShock]

What about having a PBEM version of CF in which we don´t have to worry about the AI? that version could be open to every improvement to make the scenario play more historically

Yes, i wanted to say that when i saw Jagger vs KillCavalry was over but then i didn't because i think they're already playing

Just out of crash again...I'm starting to think CF is not compatible with 1.07h

(the perfect excuse to release the new version of the mod lol)

[Clovis]

Yes, i wanted to say that when i saw Jagger vs KillCavalry was over but then i didn't because i think they're already playing

Just out of crash again...I'm starting to think CF is not compatible with 1.07h

(the perfect excuse to release the new version of the mod lol)

I 'm playing with the new without problemS. When crashes are produced? Immediatly at start?

[GShock]

I 'm playing with the new without problemS. When crashes are produced? Immediatly at start?

ehr....i patched to 1.07h and started immediately with CF mod, i've had a crash, restarted and another crash, both in the planning phase (btw, the crash message is in french). Moved the CF folder, along with modpath.ini and am still playing...It could be a unit mismatch? Anything to do with Zollicofer appearing blank? I don't really know.

[Clovis]

What about having a PBEM version of CF in which we don´t have to worry about the AI? that version could be open to every improvement to make the scenario play more historically

Why not? It suffice to strip depots from the scenario file. i've no time for now but feel free to do it. My mod isn't a personal property.

[Clovis]

ehr....i patched to 1.07h and started immediately with CF mod, i've had a crash, restarted and another crash, both in the planning phase (btw, the crash message is in french). Moved the CF folder, along with modpath.ini and am still playing...It could be a unit mismatch? Anything to do with Zollicofer appearing blank? I don't really know.

New version is running well. I guess your crashes are certainly tied to something wrong for region or units. The log dfile could help.

[tagwyn]

RE: Coming Fury mod. Just a comment, Mr. Lincoln was "over the shoulder" of every Union General, even Grant. His interference had a direct effect on several battles and all strategic movement. Not always good either. I will await treatment by Pocus before trying this. T

[Big Muddy]

[quote="Clovis"]The experimental mod has a new name...

And a new version too:




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


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



Is this where to download the newest version, I don't recall backing up USA Leaders, CSA Leaders, April 1861 Campaign, and Various Events files (.sct). I do play off a backup copy, but do I need to backup these files.

Where do USA & CSA events go, I don't see any mention of this, I put them into into the ComingFury mod/ ACW/Events Folder, is this correct. Sorry to ask what I am sure a simple questions, but I do want to get this right.

[Clovis]

The experimental mod has a new name...

And a new version too:




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


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



Is this where to download the newest version, I don't recall backing up USA Leaders, CSA Leaders, April 1861 Campaign, and Various Events files (.sct). I do play off a backup copy, but do I need to backup these files.

Where do USA & CSA events go, I don't see any mention of this, I put them into into the ComingFury mod/ ACW/Events Folder, is this correct. Sorry to ask what I am sure a simple questions, but I do want to get this right.

Yes. I will write again instructions. many thanks

I've not yet published the new version. I've many things to do before uploading it. Hoping it will be soon.