Leaderboard

Well, to be honest... The dismounted troopers on the first day are in skirmish formation, so while they are generally in a "line" its a pretty loosely defined line, and I don't really have a problem with that. The Videttes...well, I actually agree with you. They have no formation. Not even a skirmish line. They just wander around in a mob. Which I would not care less about if Videttes were as unimportant in the game as they should be. The word "vidette" refers to mounted troops used as pickets, sentries, scouts. They served an important function in the real army, in those capacities. But on a battlefield? In a game like this one? They should be worthless, as they are not truly "tactical units". Having said that, how many of you who've played multiplayer have watched the Videttes charge like an actual cavalry unit, and drive off or mangle your artillery? In the first day scenario, once Union Infantry arrives, the Confederates need every Brigade at the front, and cannot assign them to the ridiculous task of "herding the Videttes" away from the guns. I've seen savvy Union players swing wide around my line and park their Videttes on the edge of the map in the exact spot where they know my artillery will enter, engaging them the very second they appear! Videttes just should not have this kind of power... But Lannes, I have noticed in the 3rd day scenarios where Stuarts command arrives with some sizable units of actual mounted cavalry capable of making a formed charge, that they do not retain any kind of formation in a charge. None of the units do. And I realize that neither cavalry or infantry kept perfectly-dressed ranks when charging...but I think the game exagerrates the reality. A big infantry brigade will spread out over a huge area, and find itself fighting several brigades of the enemy...and its even worse with Cavalry. When I charged with a single brigade of Stuarts cavalry against one battery of Union reserve artillery, I soon found the entire area behind Cemetary Ridge filled with a wild swirl of berserk cavalrymen! Sigh. That's not really how it worked...

You are correct in the respect of long guns out ranging carronades by quite a considerable distance and the longer barrel makes them significantly more accurate. Carronades however were rarely used as a principle armament especially in ships the size of a frigate or above due to the shorter effective range. It is true that they were more commonly employed by the royal navy (they were invented by a scottish arms manufacturer). As to the spanish my limited experience suggests that whilst they often over gunned their ships and built perfectly monstrous vessels such as the Santissima Trinidad they were not considered in general to have a high standard of gunnery nor seamanship like that of american warships of the period. IMO there shouldn't be any single ship type available to players which is the be all and end all of fighting and so used by everyone. I'm perfectly aware that it takes time and effort to make additional ship models and I would not expect different frigates to be made at this early stage of development but certainly later on.

While USS Constitution was an uncommonly heavy frigate (the heaviest I could find) with her 21 inch thick hull planking and 50 broadside guns (30 24pd great guns and 20 32pd carronades) She, like all ships, was by no means unbeatable. She unarguably had an advantage over any british ship on the station by broadside weight but she was by no means faster as a ship. Having been successfully clean just before the outbreak of war and refitted again under Bainbridge during the war she would have had a significant advantage over the blockading squadron perpetually on station or running up and down to halifax for rapid provisions and no time for a real overhaul. However time and again history has shown us that it does not always come down to broadside weight to determine an engagement the captains of engaging ships played a huge part in any out come and both Hull and William Bainbridge were notably competent seamen whereas for example Captain Dacres of Guerriere had been ashore for the 4 years prior to the command and had only one major action (and this was storming a fort) before. I'm rambling terribly from my point which is if wind, condition of ship, skill of command and luck were to favour an opponent it is far from inconceivable that the ship itself could be taken by a much lighter ship. Were it for example to be demasted by a lucky or skilled shot it would be no better off than any other ship. In regards to the game I would be quite unhappy to see everyone bumming around in constitutions because it wouldn't reflect the period well at all and as Destraex mentioned in the OP they would certainly be a match for all but the heaviest ships especially if it is capable of the same speed as a lighter frigate.

И в следующий раз этого долбо...ба в группу не возьмут. Пойдёт в другую группу, в третью. К четвёртому разу его уже ни кто с собой брать не будет. А один он будет огребать за милу душу от потенциальных врагов и твинками потенциальных друзей. Правильно Дравт. Достаточно минуса в репу и штраф за ремонт пострадавшего в тройном или пятерном размере. А штраф в репу, это будет пострашней чем х3 или х5 за ремонт, если её завяжут на карьере. Так что у таких людоедов быстро головы остынут.

Да ёк, просто Navalyashka)))

Не хочу показаться грубым, но так точно в тестеры не попасть. Разве что с выходом раннего доступа.

не согласен, зачем эти условности? всё должно быть по-взрослому - сколько попал - такой и урон

Advancing in good order is necessary to constrain each man to advance along with his comrades on each side, although a final surge at close range discharges the emotional tension of the attack and gives it extra impetus. I don't mind the somewhat wild Highland-charge style depiction so much as the Hollywood-style multi-brigade furball melee that often results. On the scale depicted, there will always be an approximate "front line" for each side that has not routed, and the fleeing run away if they can or surrender.

Clicking Find Opponent - its working today though

А если вдруг всплывут какие-нибудь баги, то будет БАГОС.

The French had quite similar vessels, the Egyptienne and Forte. They were essentially the same size as constitution and sisters, but had nowhere near as successful careers. Egyptienne was captured with the fall of Alexandria to the British. Forte was captured in he Indian Ocean in a night duel with the HMS Sybille, a French built 38 that was a near-sister to HMS Java. While there was an element of surprise in the battle, with a thoroughly well trained crew she should've been able to overpower Sybille. The forte was wrecked before it could reach England, but Egyptienne served in the RN. The Brits found her even more weakly built in proportion than most French frigates, so despite excellent sailing performance, high maintenance costs and hogging problems meant she didn't see a ton of use, and I'm pretty sure she was broken up by the time the war of 1812 came around. With the capture of the USS President by a squadron consisting of HMS Majestic, 58 (a razeed 74) HMS Endymion, 40, and Pomone, Junon, and Tenedos (all 38s) the Brits had their strategy for dealing wih 44s. While 24pdr frigates were quite expensive for such a large navy, they could fairly effectively blockade and mob them with squadrons of 18pdr frigates and maybe a 24pdr flagship. many Brits like to pretend that Endymion captured USS president alone, because it was the only instance in the war where 24pdr frigates exchanged broadsides, so it's a prime opportunity for national pride building because president was eventually captured. However, president used star shot to shred the sails of Endymion forcing her to drop out of the chase, while Endymion had been firing into president's hull, causing higher casualties(though certainly less than a hundred). For a moment it seemed like president had escaped, but eventually one of the 18pdr frigates caught up, and after exchanging some broadsides and finding another 18pdr frigate on her quarter, and with the prospect of the razee coming up as well, President was forced to surrender to overwhelming force. Claiming that the Endymion beat president is as ludicrous as when Americans claim the victories of the USN 44s were wholly equal fights. Even the captain of the Endymion forced a newspaper to withdraw a claim that Endymion had beaten president alone, because he knew he couldn't back it up. I'm not super well informed on the pocket battleships, but as can be seen above, the strategy developed was to overwhelm them with a frigate squadron. Also All the original US 44s had 24pdrs like Forte and Egyptienne, not 32s.

From what I understand you have been playing on the first map, This map is completley imbalanced in my oppinon (which is expected of a "Historical" Scenario) Try playing the other map the "META" is ALOT different and more balanced. What I notice playing the "2nd" map most players Run their troops to the ridge at the start of the game. I have been letting them take the ridge and when they move their cannons up to the ridge attack before they are set in place. That is pretty much it, Just direct attack the ridge and win. This has not failed me yet. You seem like someone I want to play with, shoot me a message and we can set a game up!

First of all, I want to say hi, and note that I really like the game. It's best early access I participated. It runs rock solid, and have more tactical depth than 90% RTS on the market. I would love to final version of the game have: - Ability to zoom out to see whole map, with vicoty locations, friendly units and spoted enemy units marked with some kind of flags/icons. - Ability to continue to create unit's already set route, by grabbing the arrow's tip and dragging it further. - Ability to set my units facing after it moves to final location. - More detailed mid battle brieffings and better battle decisions explanation - map with marked locations etc. - Useful cavalry. - Ability to set my formation, manually and auto. We should be able to set column, line and square.

There's a realistic comparison. No need to get all uppity about it and compare me to a political party that eventually was responsible for genocide, or do you not know what that word "nazi" means? I'm pointing out that you're adding elements that are already covered in the game. Don't you think the condition bar handles "ammo"? AS PER THE GAME RULES and how it was intended by the developers : "Your unit status is calculated dynamically. The summary of these parameters is visualized by their morale, condition (simulating fatigue and ammo replenishment), cover and reload bars in unit info panel. Unit status has an immense impact on a unit's performance and should always be considered when making decisions" Voilà! I don't see a need to separate and micromanage something already covered and factored into the game by those that created it. Do I think ammo and supply is important in strategy games like this? Yes. Do I think having direct sources for supply makes sense in a segmented time period battle game? I do not. I'm quite content with having to pull your men off the line once your condition is beat to crap to resupply. You do feel the need to have the devs develop an entire AI strategy that's based around supply, wagons, and defending the supply sources instead of spending all their time towards the battle AI...and that's fine; we can agree to disagree. To me it's just complicating something (albeit and important something) that's already being handled in the game. I won't resort to comparing you to a mass murdering and genocidal faction though