Changes to units and models from SVF 1.0 I will keep in SVF 2.0
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 stats)
b) battle combat procedure, albeit complex, remains an abstraction. Introducing greatly modified 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 with regards to these 2 considerations. These changes are coming from interesting posts from McNAUGHTON
- I reduced the number of sharpshooter units, and raised their cost in manpower ( reflecting not the real number of men but the trouble to find elite riflemen in quantity). It should force the player to avoid recruit in mass sharpshooters but let him possibility to do so. The number will increase with years ( see Shock troops of the Confederacy by Fred L. RAY for more details).
– I reworked US cavalry to give CSA a real edge at start. The end of the war will be marked by the contrary. CSA units will cost more at the end of war, to show the lack of horses this side suffered then.
– 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 is much better and really versatile gun. 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 that useful, the 10 parrot remaining so interesting because of its lower cost.
The cohesion value of units was reworked. 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.
Brigades reworked for both sides. Most Federal brigades are made of 3 infantry regiments ( and cavalry or artillery assets sometimes). CSA brigades are larger. New Brigades model will appear for both sides in 1862 with only Infantry units.
Marines and Sailors have no more pontooner ability. Pontoneer ability has ben added to Engineers units, btoh for simplicity and AI…
Ironclad and Monitor have now a random turn of entry, simulating for both sides either the technical difficulties or the lack of interest into armored navy in the first months. CSA ironclads have a very slow construction rate.