UGCW Feedack 0.75

[Aetius]

Just had a cavalry unit surrender to the artillery unit it had just charged, approximately 500 men remaining to 340-ish for the artillery unit. Seems ... unreasonable.

[Label]

On 14/02/2017 at 6:50 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Can you provide a specific example where timer forced you to rush in order to win the battle?

Yes, the first or second mission for the Union. I had the Confederates surrounded and I was about to win when I was greeted with a defeat screen just for taking my time. I realise it is realistic and what not, but there is a point where realism and game balance need to be taken into account, Napoleon total war did it right, giving players plenty of time to manoeuvre their army into position and be careful not to take excessive amounts of casualties, I feel like this game punishes this type of behaviour forcing players to act fast leading to more casualties.   

Edited February 27, 2017 by Label

[Lannes]

On 26/02/2017 at 0:21 AM, Admiral666 said:

I wouldn't advise yelling at them.

Capitalization is not 'yelling' it is only emphasis.

[Lannes]

Some Issues

1. The cavalry is still haphazard in its movement. It does not move like cavalry at all. The cavalry brigade moves in a cloud not in a formation. The brigade moves forward and back without reason, even when it has orders to advance. Why is that?

2. The cavalry charge is slower than normal movement.

3. When I declare a charge, some cavalrymen go backwards instead of forwards.

4. It would be good clarify what ratio there is of figure-to-number-of-men. At the moment, it varies. It can be 1 : 8 or 1: 10. For cannon, I have counted 5 cannon pieces to represent 12 guns. It seems odd.

5. I suggest using one ratio only for infantry and cavalry (1 : 10), and one for cannon (1 : 2).

6. I have no idea how to man field fortifications.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Lannes

[Squadron HQ]

On 2/26/2017 at 10:48 AM, waldopbarnstormer said:

Just noticed that following brandy station I can now bring 50,000 supply for each corps, when did that change? 

I have noticed that if the value of supplies you capture in one battle exceeds 25k, assuming what you spend in the battle is not more than what you capture, you will get a 2nd wagon.

I.e. you start a battle with 25,000 supplies. you use 1000 supplies and capture a train worth 2000. in camp u will have 27000 supplies (which u can then push to 50,000) and 2 trains.

[Aetius]

Quote

Can you provide a specific example where timer forced you to rush in order to win the battle?

Confederate Stones River comes to mind as an outstanding example. The only reasonable way to attack the two Nashville Pike VPs is from the north, which requires a lengthy trip into the NW corner of the map and then across into attack position, or a lengthy trip into the northeast corner of the map and then west across the river (which is risky). You can't even get into attack position until the 3rd phase of the battle - you're forced to wait repeatedly at the map's edge and fend off Union units that catch up to you while you're waiting. During the 3rd phase, the displayed timer runs out quickly, but the real timer is very long. This is helpful, because teasing apart the blob on Nashville Pike North can be a challenge. Once in position, you have to do a slow careful crawl into the rear of the fortifications - anything else invites the remaining blob units on the VPs to wipe you out.

At the end of the 3rd phase, if you haven't completely taken both VPs, you're forced out of your position automatically by the scenario and repositioned to the south of the fortifications again (grrrr!!). Just getting back into attack position in the north requires almost all of the displayed timer, but the battle continues afterwards ... but not for as long as the 3rd phase real timer.

Another example of timer problems is the Union battle Crossroads. If you try to hold the VP until the displayed timer runs out, you'll be demolished as you get overrun by attacks from every direction. However, if you defend the woods instead, ignore the displayed timer, and focus on thinning out the Confederates, you have plenty of time to beat them up, push them back, and retake the VP. The player seeing this battle for the first time has no idea that's the case, and will potentially sacrifice units fighting a hopeless battle.

These problems are especially acute on Legendary, due to the need to whittle down the massive forces opposing you without taking too many casualties. The current displayed timers are ruthlessly short, and when enforced promote brute-force frontal-attack tactics that leave no room for maneuver and subtlety.

I would also like to highlight the fact that the player has no idea if the displayed timer matters or not, nor any idea what the real timer is. Many battles permit going beyond the displayed timer, and indeed require it. Cedar Mountain as the Confederates is nearly impossible to win inside the timer, and you'll take incredible casualties if you try. In my most recent Legendary Ironman playthrough, the displayed timer expires at 28:34, but the battle continues for another 20 minutes and ended in victory for me.

 

[A. P. Hill]

Not sure if it's just me ... but for a couple updates now, it seems that the prelude introductions to the battles has gone a bit dark ... Rather than being clear and bright there is a darkened hue to the map that makes details a bit hard to see.

I suppose like I said, I'm the only one experiencing this!

Can we get the brighter prelude introductions back?   Thanks.

[Nicolas I]

14 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

Not sure if it's just me ... but for a couple updates now, it seems that the prelude introductions to the battles has gone a bit dark ... Rather than being clear and bright there is a darkened hue to the map that makes details a bit hard to see.

I suppose like I said, I'm the only one experiencing this!

Can we get the brighter prelude introductions back?   Thanks.

I have also experienced that and didn't knew if it was a bug or these scenarios where early/late in the day or to simulate some kind of fog of war.

[Lannes]

21 hours ago, Nicolas I said:

I have also experienced that and didn't knew if it was a bug or these scenarios where early/late in the day or to simulate some kind of fog of war.

Me, too.

[Lannes]

Topic: CAVALRY

Apart from my criticisms of the poor design of cavalry as to movement and formation in other posts: Cavalry is useless just as it was in the American Civil War. I have used cavalry brigades of 750 men to no avail. Now, I have disbanded them and am using infantry brigades instead.

Question: What is the use of cavalry in a WARGAME if they are designed to be useless?

[A. P. Hill]

24 minutes ago, Lannes said:

Topic: CAVALRY

... Question: What is the use of cavalry in a WARGAME if they are designed to be useless?

It's historic!

[waldopbarnstormer]

I have found cavalry to be hard to manage but definitely not useless, it all depends on what you expect from them and what you use them for. They are great for scouting out the map and countering skirmishers and artillery and for making flank attacks but if you try to use them in the shock role or to attack well supported units then you will suffer badly. I think with the way melee works at the moment even for infantry I try to avoid it because once engaged you can't disengage easily and are open to supporting fire.

[Nicolas I]

1 hour ago, waldopbarnstormer said:

I have found cavalry to be hard to manage but definitely not useless, it all depends on what you expect from them and what you use them for. They are great for scouting out the map and countering skirmishers and artillery and for making flank attacks but if you try to use them in the shock role or to attack well supported units then you will suffer badly. I think with the way melee works at the moment even for infantry I try to avoid it because once engaged you can't disengage easily and are open to supporting fire.

I agree, cavalry is somewhat fragile and has a limited role but is useful against skirmishers, routed infantry (not too big units though) and to overrun artillery.

As confederates, capturing cannons in itself is quite valuable to replenish/build your batteries for free.

Cavalry (when mounted) should be able to disengage more quickly from melee than infantry. For now you are at risk if you enter melee tot close to other brigades.

[Hitorishizuka]

9 hours ago, Lannes said:

Topic: CAVALRY

Apart from my criticisms of the poor design of cavalry as to movement and formation in other posts: Cavalry is useless just as it was in the American Civil War. I have used cavalry brigades of 750 men to no avail. Now, I have disbanded them and am using infantry brigades instead.

Question: What is the use of cavalry in a WARGAME if they are designed to be useless?

They're not useless at all.

Melee cavalry are your best tools to kill enemy skirmishers, they do fine against artillery if you can match up 1:1 even if they're slower than they used to be, they're valuable countercharge defense for your infantry, and given vague number parity they're your fastest tools for killing isolated infantry brigades.

Ranged cavalry are safer harassers in almost all circumstances so long as your lines are vaguely static, they're arguably better against artillery these days, and they're usable in a pinch to defend your own lines if your infantry have broken if you need a hole to plug. I've had battles where given sufficient micro I have ranged cavalry brigades with 1500 kills in a battle where the enemy only even brought about 20k total to the field.

[Lannes]

18 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

It's historic!

Historically, Sheridan and Wilson were the most successful at using CAVALRY. American cavalry could not be used in the European fashion because it had no history nor training in that role. In the ACW they were used most successfully by the Union when they brought troops armed with repeating rifles rapidly to battle. Dismounted, they pinned down the enemy with withering fire while a mounted flanking force charged on horseback. (This tactic was also successful in WW II at Isbuscenskij, on 24 August 1942, when the Savoia Cavalleria--1 Regiment of 700 men--overthrew 2,000 Soviet infantry. It was the last cavalry charge in history.)

In the game, this TACTIC is impossible to do. The cavalry movement is too haphazard, does not obey my orders, and the charge is too slow. Indeed, I have seen my cavalry stand still while galloping and sabreing at nothing. The fire I can bring to bear is innocuous and ineffective, even with 750-man brigades. The developers have not been able to fix cavalry movement since UG Gettysburg was in Early Access. In fact, all movement seems of a technology long surpassed.

My SKIRMISHERS, too, do not behave anything like skirmishers and certainly do not behave like the AI's skirmishers. I have given up on using skirmishers as well. This for me has reduced the game to an infantry battle.

I would still like to know how to man FORTIFICATIONS.

(Nota Bene: I use capitalization only for emphasis or to mark a topic.)

Edited March 2, 2017 by Lannes

[karlito]

 I know the game isn't finished and this is therefore no criticism on the developers but the way the adaption to battle results and especially the scaling works ruins the fun in the game for me.  I Keep beating the enemy and partly destroy completly his army an he keeps getting 3 star brigades with high end equipment. If i win the war in 1962 than thats how it is. You could finish UG Gettysburg on day one without an enemy who deploys 10000s of veteran soldiers out of nowhere. The point of a campaign is to see how one battle influence the next and the overall war. I dont mind the game being difficult(thats what the difficulty lever is for) but the lack of immersion that results out of the scaling. It would be wonderful if this current system is only a placeholder for the real campain. A campaign that fits to that otherwise great game

 

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by karlito