1. The way units are named seems a little haphazard to me. Because the unit value doesn't always change when the model does, confusing artifacts from the unit file can show up. Artillery upgrades are one example. I have re-enabled 6-lb -> 12-lb artillery upgrade events. I have tested the events by giving both factions the same artillery models and filtering the faction selection (SelectSubUnits = Models $mdl_CMN_Art1;FactionTags ABC) to make sure I limit the upgrade scope. This seems to work as I intend, and I'll keep playing with it. The problem comes around when 6-lb units are pointing to 12-lb models. The unit file "name" field for 6-lb arty was, of course, "6 lb pounder". A battery might be uniquely named when it is created, e.g. "grimjaw's Motherhuge quarter-pounder", and that unit might be upgraded to 12-lb. That seems to work OK, and the correct types are shown in the unit description area. If Motherhuge is captured and combined with other units, the unique names are wiped out and it reverts to the unit file fields, meaning it will show up on tooltips as "6 lb pounder" when it fact it is a 12-lb. Since 6-lb batteries are the only ones being upgraded, they're the only ones with the problem. There were some old events that upgraded 12-lb smoothbore to rifled artillery but I have decided not to use those.
The artillery "name" field in the artillery unit and model files has been made more generic and standardized amongst the different files. "Customnames" are being fleshed out. It's a low priority right now. I considered creating an event to modify captured artillery to conform to the new crew and I did try a few tests, but it's also a low priority.
2. At the start of the campaign, I am going to lock Missouri. Missouri and Kentucky had enough similarities that I feel justified in doing so. MO & KY were both de jure Union-but-neutral states. KY was invaded by CSA forces; Claiborne's overthrow attempt started within, albeit with clandestine CSA support. If MO is not locked from the start, Camp Jackson, the Missouri State Guard formation and the Price-Harney truce don't make much sense. It will stay locked until the original date of the Camp Jackson affair. Here are some options, and I'd welcome feedback.
2a. MO unlocks the day after Camp Jackson, Lyon and Union forces spawn in Saint Louis and elsewhere, Price and company spawn where I've stated previously in this thread. After that it's open season.
2b. MO is set to unlock the day after Camp Jackson, but like in Kentucky you can choose to enter before then. Similar penalties/bonuses would apply for early entry.
2c. MO is set to unlock on 06/11/1861. Spawns would be similar to 2a, with slightly more CSA units (since they would have had a month to prepare).
2d. Same as 2b except the date is the one from 2c.
3. As you can see from the graphic, the resource totals are out of whack. Many of the structures in the vanilla game (henceforth abbr. to VG) are already at their lowest possible values of production. For teh sake of argument, let's say a level one city produces 1 money in the base game. That field only accepts integer values, so you can't type in 0.5 and expect it to work. The same applies to many other resource production rates: money, WSU, conscripts, supply, experience, foreign intervention, ammo. The workaround for this will be to increase consumption of everything that's being produced at increased rates since the turn change. It might lead to some numbers that will look oddly inflated to long-time players, but it should work out. There's not much alternative.
I don't think the CW2 engine was built with any serious contemplation of enabling 7-day turns. It's a shame. Now that I have play-tested it a few times, I can't abide playing two-week turns anymore.
4. Foreign intervention, the value, is handled differently by the engine than something like money or WSU. I can double the one-time FI changes from events (e.g. territorial concessions), but I don't think I can modify the rate of change. Even if it was in the user-editable code, the per-turn change is already at 1, and I assume like many other values it's stored as an integer. I think the foreign intervention value might top out at 150, so it won't scale for 7-day turns.
The problems with FI are not a big deal, though. FI, the value, is just that. If you reach it, it's not the engine that makes Britain and France go ballistic. It's an event that checks the FI, the current value, versus another number ("MAX"), plus a probability check, which if true then a cascading series of events happens. In the VG, there's a 1% chance that FI, the event, won't fire even if you hit MAX, and it's easy to change that probability value as well as add additional dice rolls or condtions. You can also set FI, the value, to HARD, which will help.
5. New replacement configuration, work in progress.
After the forcepool is increased in May, the cost of replacements for CSA light artillery goes up. If you aren't familiar with the way replacement costs are calculated (I wasn't), it takes the number of models using a family and averages. There's some rounding or discarding of fractional values, obviously.
Let's say costs for three units with family "light" are 2, 4 and 6 money. That means the replacement costs for any of those units is 4 money, so long as all those units are in the forcepool or on the board. There's no set replacement cost of a family. It *can* vary from turn to turn during a game, depending on the number of models using the it. This is why in the VG, the replacement cost for CSA fort artillery is 62, while the cost listed in the model file is only 40. The high $ value for CSA models using $famHvyArty is $90, and the low is $40. Three of the units using $famHvyArty are cheaper to build than replace. Same reason it costs more to replace a 6lb CSA battery than buy a new one.
Working as designed? I couldn't tell you, but I don't like it so I tried modifying it.
I retasked families that are in the engine code but are unused in the CW2 campaigns. These are things like famAirNukeBomber which obviously won't have any place in CW2, but still exist as aliases. I'd rename them to make more sense if I could, but it's not currently possible. I did have the option of altering their string descriptions and graphic, though, so you wouldn't have to translate "famAirFighter" into "Mounted Bty".
Horse arty, 6lb (and, maybe, 12lb howitzers), 12lb, 10lb (and 3-in. Ordnance, new model), 20lb, Columbiad, Rodman, Siege, fort batteries and coastal artillery each had their own families. The idea was to have your build cost equal your replacement cost, or at least stay really close to it. It may not bother you that you only had to pay $62 for CSA coastal arty or siege replacements, but you were getting ripped off for everything else (anywhere from $12-22/replacement for 20lb, Columbiad and fort). The same replacement cost calculation applies to conscripts and war supplies.
There were at least two problems with my solution. Problem one had to do with sharing supply. Some of the families I tried using didn't want to play nice when it came to sharing supply. Maybe they are grouped into subtypes (arty, inf, airplanes, ICBMs, etc). That would be merely annoying, but when this conflict happens it crashes the game. If that was the only problem, I could probably avoid using families that conflict.
Problem two is that the families have some kind of tag (maybe the same subtype mentioned in the previous paragraph, total speculation here) that is used by the Recruit Panel to decide if and how they are displayed. For example, Rodmans are one of the units that show up when you filter for artillery because $famHvyArty is, I suspect, one of the families listed as qualifying for that filter button. $famMedVehicle, however, shows up in the Recruit Panel under two other filters, neither of them arty. There are enough families unused to achieve my goal of having build cost = replacement cost, but unfortunately it screws up the Recruit Panel too much. I don't think this is something I can edit. I think the code relating to that part of a family is in the engine. Some of the code for the Recruit Panel display is available, but not enough to change which families qualify for which filters.
For the time being, I'm going to make a few small changes to families to reign in the cost of the worst offenders, but I'm disappointed that I can't do more. There are only three families of artillery used in the VG, and five different classes of artillery are using $famHvyArty. There is at least one additional artillery family available that works fine: $famSHvyArty. Why they included it and didn't use it, I have no idea. I have tested up to five families with only one issue. I *think* $famArmoredTrain falls under subtype artillery. It is working correctly in the Recruit Panel as such, anyway. The issue arises when the unit is manipulated individually. The sound of movement for those units is a train, rather than the sound of men or horses moving. Not too hard to live with.
6. Ship costs will increase.
In the VG, it costs $20, 2 conscripts and 5 WS to build an 8-HP 6lb battery. Each HP in that case represents a single gun. A 6lb has a ROF of 2 and range of 5. A single element brig (you're limited to building them in squadrons of two), costs $20, 1 conscript and 10 WS. For that you get an AllWater model with 100% MoveRatio, commerce ship + transport abilities, and very efficient supply/ammo usage. You also get 10-HP (representing 10 guns), ROF 3 and a range of 5. The hit probability for a brig is less than a 6lber, but the damage done before coefficients are applied is the same as a 6lb battery.
So it takes fewer men (half as many) to fight and move eight guns on land than it does to fight and move ten guns (with a higher ROF) at sea. Maybe the ship only has enough men to fight one side of the ship? Whatever. Most of the ships with combat capability are like this, very much underpriced (or arty is too high).
What makes this even worse is the "Land Sailors" and "Strip Guns" RGDs, AKA Union Navy freebies. "Land Sailors" has no direct money, WS or conscript costs. If you use the ships available from the start of the game, there are also no indirect costs. Two 1-conscript light warship elements can produce one 20-conscript sailor unit which is removed from the forcepool (big deal). There are no negative effects on the warships being used. "Strip Guns" at least costs 10 WSU to use, and advertises that it will also affect the ships ("Various: At least 4 heavy warships must be adjacent. They will be slightly weakened"). However, the ships are not affected nor is there any RGD mechanism I'm aware of to do so. There's nothing in an RGD that says where it's being played *from* other than adjacent regions. If you have three water regions that qualify for this RGD around a land region, which one is it supposed to pick to weaken ships? All this is to say that the Union player, already blessed with resource production wealth, is also getting unwarranted freebies that.
There are abstractions and there is bullsh*t. This is the latter. Yes, the Union is supposed to be more powerful than the CSA, but I think end result here is too much.
In addition to increasing ship costs, contemplating reducing sailor unit size. Reducing a 20-hit 600-man detachment (please, 600 men is practically the entire crew of a ship of the line of that time period) to more like a 4-hit 50- or 100-man landing party, modifying fighting effectiveness to be more like marines.