Precise scaling factors (on MG)

[AJ McCully]

Been giving Antietam a shot as the CSA on Major General and I'm finding the scaling of the Union army fascinating. Often when people talk about scaling, it's only in vague terms ("add a few thousand, lose a few thousand") and I haven't seen exact figures for how the game decides on the size of the army you face. Ideally, I want to find the optimal army size to bring to Antietam.

Is it possible to look into the mathematics behind it? Has this topic of precise scaling factors been discussed before?

[Wandering1]

As I mentioned in several other posts by now, if you want to see the precise scaling factors, they're already getting printed out in the log files.

As far as Major General's scaling goes, the enemy army size is 25% larger on top of any other scaling factors.

 

[Wright29]

8 hours ago, AJ McCully said:

Been giving Antietam a shot as the CSA on Major General and I'm finding the scaling of the Union army fascinating. Often when people talk about scaling, it's only in vague terms ("add a few thousand, lose a few thousand") and I haven't seen exact figures for how the game decides on the size of the army you face. Ideally, I want to find the optimal army size to bring to Antietam.

Is it possible to look into the mathematics behind it? Has this topic of precise scaling factors been discussed before?

The optimal army size at Antietam is whatever you'll need at Fredericksburg... Because all you should be doing at Antietam is running away Monty Python style. 

[william1993]

The other day I played an Antietam on BG where i had 55K and the union had 73K and I slaughtered them to death.  I thought the scaling was worse than that

[Beruldsen]

What level were you playing?  On Normal (BG) I'm sure the scaling was twice my army (44 vs 83)...