AGEOD Forums

I was reading the manual but I couldn´t find an explanation as to why the limit in the number of divisions.

The 48 limit for the Union is not a big problem but the 24 limit for the CSA is, at least to me, even forming 9 thousand troops divs. Evenly distributed it allows, for example, only to 8 corps of 3 divisions, after that you are left with a lot of uncommanded brigades or "semi divisions" under a general.

What is the rationale for this limits? Is it an engine limitation? Is it posible to change it without breaking the game?

Thanks

I think it's because it's historically accurate.

I also think you can change it. But someone more familiar with 1's & 0's will have to tell you how.

To change the number of divisions each side gets, go to the following folder

AACW/ACW/Events Then find the 1861 April Campaign file, and open it up (use word pad or note pad). You will then be looking for a particular command, which is SetCombiUnits = 0;0;24. This is the line that caps the CSA at 24 divisions in the long campaign. Change the 24 to another number, such as I have done below with a clip from my leader mod, where the Rebels get 48 divisions max.

I would suggest that if you change the Rebel max divisions, you should also increase the number of USA divisions. I am not sure what the rationale was for setting the vanilla numbers where Pocus put them, but I am sure that some type of game play balance was reflected in that original ratio of giving the Union a 2 to 1 advantage in the number of divisions that can be built.

EXAMPLE


SelectFaction = $CSA
StartEvent = evt_nam_CSA_ForcePoolJuly61andfollowing|1|0|NULL|NULL|NULL|NULL

Conditions
FixedDate = 1861/07/01

Actions
SetCombiUnits = 0;0;48
ChangeUnitPool = $uni_CSA_Bde1VA;2

Thanks, I´ll try to tweak the file and see what happens, I´m not familiar with the historical facts regarding the organization of the armies but 2 to 1 seems too much of a difference though, especialy in a game that allows some departure from history once the war is in motion. Maybe 48 and 36 would feel more balanced and no so restrictive.

I wonder at times if the 2:1 division issue is a fair representation or if a stronger replacement capacity for the Union isn't the proper answer.