civsully1 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said: You guys got nothing. Here's a real Diorama or mess of toy soldiers for ya. :) Enjoy. You got that right!!! Reminds me of the diorama at the Alamo in San Antonio depicting the final day of battle...they are amazing artworks that really catch a "moment in time"! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannes Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 There was a diorama of Waterloo made by Captain Siborne and completed in 1838. It had tens of thousands of figures. I used to know the details but cannot now recall them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral666 Posted March 26, 2017 Share Posted March 26, 2017 (edited) Union, Chancellorsville. I took all VPs on day 2, and did not click finish until they were not contested. I still went to Day 3, where I was on the defensive -- is this WAD? If so...there's no point in doing anything in Chancellorsville but defending throughout the entire battle. The casualties I took from attacking were a total waste. @Koro Any insight? Edited March 28, 2017 by Admiral666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koro Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 On 26/3/2017 at 7:44 AM, Admiral666 said: Union, Chancellorsville. I took all VPs on day 2, and did not click finish until they were not contested. I still went to Day 3, where I was on the defensive -- is this WAD? If so...there's no point in doing anything in Chancellorsville but defending throughout the entire battle. The casualties I took from attacking were a total waste. @Koro Any insight? Not sure Admiral. I reported this on the beta as well but it wasn't made possible to have a Union Victory on day 1. It's supposed to be possible for the CSA but it's bugged still I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral666 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Hm. I don't mind it not being an immediate victory, but I do mind taking those positions only to be arbitrarily thrown back to the camp -- and then required to take them again! UGG style what-if phases would be the solution, but I imagine that's no small task. Thanks for the reply! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koro Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Admiral666 said: Hm. I don't mind it not being an immediate victory, but I do mind taking those positions only to be arbitrarily thrown back to the camp -- and then required to take them again! UGG style what-if phases would be the solution, but I imagine that's no small task. Thanks for the reply! Unfortunately the game doesn't allow different outcomes to take place over days. It's a huge amount of work and if you really think about it, would probably be like making the game 10 times over, exploring all of the opportunities for each battle. So the only options are ending the battle prematurely or having the troops "teleport" back to their historical locations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral666 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Yeah, I certainly recognise the difficulty inherent in doing that. One day In the interim, I'll replay the battle without the needless sacrifice of my troops. Can't wait to get to Gettysburg! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civsully1 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 17 hours ago, Admiral666 said: Hm. I don't mind it not being an immediate victory, but I do mind taking those positions only to be arbitrarily thrown back to the camp -- and then required to take them again! UGG style what-if phases would be the solution, but I imagine that's no small task. Thanks for the reply! Yup I agree, having to be thrown off your ground that you've taken for the sake of the next phase/stage/day of the battle is terribly unrealistic and needs to be addressed. I'd be surprised if the Developers didn't do something to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCLBR Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 On 3/21/2017 at 10:11 AM, veji1 said: Look my point is that it's a matter of realism to accept that improvements are going to be incremental at this stage, and on the issue of how well the soldiers are rendered, it is a matter of opinion, some of us are fine with the current degree of detail that allows the game to run smoothly. ill take performance over pretty any day 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veji1 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 14 hours ago, XCLBR said: ill take performance over pretty any day So will I, having a great game like this able to run on a normal work labtop is fantastic ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigjku Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Long time Civil War Generals 2 player and Total War series player. Love the game. I actually think most of the combat dynamics are spot on with the exception of the melee creeping that can occur which is particularly annoying when you say to hold position. Things I like about this game so far. 1. You are forced to really think about how to use terrain. It plays a huge role in things which it should. 2. I think the game places a huge premium on keeping control of your units and issuing a limited amount of orders which probably throws a lot of Total War players off. It really seems to reward patience and planning which I love. 3. I think the battles are well paced. Units in cover aren't shattered in seconds and can hold on against big odds for an appropriate amount of time. Some suggestions for improving things. 1. Artillery controls and display could be improved (or I am missing something as I only have 15-20 hours of play so far). I think a more informative range display would tell me the range of roundshot, shell and canister when I am deploying. I would also be thrilled if I could set certain restrictions on what to shoot at within those ranges. For example I don't want my 12 pound napoleons wasting ammo firing round shot at skrimishers or other artillery. Would love to be able to issue an order at times that says only Fire shell and canister at infantry. Or my rifled artillery to focus on counter battery fire. The steel panthers engine at one point had a version of this. It was clunky but I think could be simple here as there are just four unit types. All you really need is the ability to restrict firing certain ammo types at certain targets. 2. The idea of corps supply is still a bit opaque to me. Just feels like more explanation is needed. 3. Moving Generals around in camp is a bit clunky. As far as I can tell I can't leave a unit empty while I shuffle around. That would simplify reorganization a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redmarkus4 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 On 29/03/2017 at 0:18 AM, civsully1 said: Yup I agree, having to be thrown off your ground that you've taken for the sake of the next phase/stage/day of the battle is terribly unrealistic and needs to be addressed. I'd be surprised if the Developers didn't do something to fix it. Yes, this is the only major annoyance I've faced so far. It's the same in any multi-day battle. As the CSA at Stones River for example, I managed to take the first Turnpike VP on Day 1, only to get teleported right back across the map overnight. I wouldn't mind it so much if my units were restored to full strength as a compromise, but with the losses I'd taken on Day 1, there was no way to win on Day 2. To play the battles and win you often need to exploit your knowledge of what's coming next. This feels very gamey and needs to be fixed somehow. Frankly, I'm sceptical about the wisdom of portraying multi-day battles at full scale. What might work better is to use a branching model (as used in several battle's early phases already) where you are confronted with, a most, Corps-level taskings. If you win, you move on to Scenario 2a, if you lose you go to scenarion 1b etc. Effectively, this would be similar to the campaign system, but at the level of a grand battle. You should even be allowed to make decisions on the grand battle (campaign-style) map, such as send Longstreet around the flank, or defend vs. attack in the centre... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civsully1 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 5 hours ago, Redmarkus4 said: Yes, this is the only major annoyance I've faced so far. It's the same in any multi-day battle. As the CSA at Stones River for example, I managed to take the first Turnpike VP on Day 1, only to get teleported right back across the map overnight. I wouldn't mind it so much if my units were restored to full strength as a compromise, but with the losses I'd taken on Day 1, there was no way to win on Day 2. To play the battles and win you often need to exploit your knowledge of what's coming next. This feels very gamey and needs to be fixed somehow. Frankly, I'm sceptical about the wisdom of portraying multi-day battles at full scale. What might work better is to use a branching model (as used in several battle's early phases already) where you are confronted with, a most, Corps-level taskings. If you win, you move on to Scenario 2a, if you lose you go to scenarion 1b etc. Effectively, this would be similar to the campaign system, but at the level of a grand battle. You should even be allowed to make decisions on the grand battle (campaign-style) map, such as send Longstreet around the flank, or defend vs. attack in the centre... I like what you're thinking here Red. And on these larger battlefields as they expand I find for myself I'm all over the place from one edge of the battlefield to the other and to the middle and back to the edge. I'm beginning to feel like a tennis ball in an extended volley! And heaven help me when I notice one of my units doing something unwanted (Stupid) and have to stop to address it. Then switch back into the big picture and see that a flank has been taken or collapsing while I stopped to correct one unit. Now a lot falls on me for lack of RTS playing time. So maybe I'll get better in that regard. Combine all of this with the "frenectic" nature of the AI to love to charge and it makes for a lot to manage. So for me I like your idea above. I've felt that after these larger battles that I haven't enjoyed them as much as the smaller ones where I really have the focus to be in the weeds and enjoy the battle as it/they occur. This is why I suggested and think that having a "replay" video capability built into the game would at least let me see what all really happened big picture-wise. Not to mention having the time to reassess one's strategic placement as well as tactical moves. With that all said..I can't think of another strategy game that has me so transfixed! And if it would die today I could still live with it as is. But hopefully it doesn't and the Developers continue to really fine tune this game. A very ambitious undertaking to be sure! I commend the effort to date. And now having fought the Union to a decisive positive position at Antietam I am preparing to see it all come crashing down in the final part of the battle. Humility in a soon to be defeat is a bitter pill for me to swallow later today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. P. Hill Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I got this handed to me again at Shiloh. I was within 100 yards of the marker when I got slapped back to half a mile out. And as said with my depleted units, and nowhere near the organization I had them before teleport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col_Kelly Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 11 hours ago, civsully1 said: And now having fought the Union to a decisive positive position at Antietam I am preparing to see it all come crashing down in the final part of the battle. Humility in a soon to be defeat is a bitter pill for me to swallow later today. If you have enough reputation do not hesitate to retreat and save what's left of your army. Fighting Antietam is a mistake in itself. It was historically and it's definitly the case in this game as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ McCully Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 10 hours ago, Col_Kelly said: If you have enough reputation do not hesitate to retreat and save what's left of your army. Fighting Antietam is a mistake in itself. It was historically and it's definitly the case in this game as well. Pretty sure you need to at least Draw at Antietam to avoid a game over. So that means holding Sharpsburg and keeping losses below 50%, a task that I've found harder than just cheesing the Victory conditions by taking the capture points in the final moments of the battle. I'd much prefer the option to simply retreat with my army intact and take the loss but I can see why it would be redundant to make an ACW game where the player can say 'meh, dont feel like fighting that major, decisive battle' and suffer no repercussions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col_Kelly Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 You can retreat with your army intact... and it's here for a reason. You also suffer repercussion in the form of a huge reputation drop (-44), you just have to anticipate it. A commander could do it historically and that's what Lee should have done at Antietam. I played the draw several times and it's siimply not worth it campaign-wise, even though I have to admit Antietam is a fun battle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civsully1 Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 20 hours ago, Col_Kelly said: You can retreat with your army intact... and it's here for a reason. You also suffer repercussion in the form of a huge reputation drop (-44), you just have to anticipate it. A commander could do it historically and that's what Lee should have done at Antietam. I played the draw several times and it's siimply not worth it campaign-wise, even though I have to admit Antietam is a fun battle. These are interesting perspectives on maintaining the Army at the expense of losing the battle. I have a decently hold on the woods around the church. BUT with the last final and few reinforcements I have only one supply wagon in Sharpsburg. The rest of my units north around the troops are nearly out of ammo. There's little chance that wagon can reach the church in time with enough ammo to make a difference there. My delaying force of a brand newly created infantry brigade broke fairly quickly on the second attack across Stone Bridge facing the fire of roughly 10,000 union forces. Across the other bank I have 3 brigades holding off 3 as the union climbs up the hill. So given the situation I have really two choices of; 1) Fall all troops to Sharpsburg and attempt to hold out until the timer (now at 4:32) runs out and take the Draw or 2) Retreat everyone The only advantage of defending Sharpsburg is I might cause more casualties than receiving which would or should carry over into the next battle perhaps. So having never retreated from the battlefield....what is the method for leaving the battle? Is it hitting the G button for every unit? Or do you do it by Corps or Division? Boy I don't like leaving this battle but with only one supply wagon to "feed" a ton of units now I wonder if I can hold out at Sharpsburg? But falling back to the town should improve condition of my troops and the union forces coming up from the river should be low in condition by the time they try to storm the city. I think I'm sitting at 43% casualties at this point of the game. And although I hate the situation I'm in.....the game has really made this decision tough! What more can you ask of a simulation? Nice! And thanks for everyone's comments on this too. I enjoy the cerebral discussion as much as the battles themselves!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Sanford Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, civsully1 said: The only advantage of defending Sharpsburg is I might cause more casualties than receiving which would or should carry over into the next battle perhaps. If you are stating/asking that casualties inflicted on the AI army carry over, then no they don't. AI armies are zombie armies and casualties inflicted on them don't really matter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col_Kelly Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 You can retreat from the very beginning by hitting G on everyone. You walk out with 0 losses (and a reputation loss ofc, just be sure to have more than 44 rep before starting the battle) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aetius Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 If an infantry brigade loses its attached skirmisher unit, it is no longer able to deploy skirmishers. Not sure when this changed, but it makes very little sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col_Kelly Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Thought the same but in fact it does make sense, skirmishers were a trained and specific unit. You can't just say 'take 200 boys and have them dance in front of the ennemy'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ McCully Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 6 hours ago, Col_Kelly said: You can retreat from the very beginning by hitting G on everyone. You walk out with 0 losses (and a reputation loss ofc, just be sure to have more than 44 rep before starting the battle) This is what happens when I try to retreat from Antietam. 0 losses but apparently there was no-one left to defend Richmond. I guess Jackson, Beauregard and the other 40k confederates just went straight home after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Soldier Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 @AJ McCully The result of not having enough Reputation when you decided you wanted to pass over Antietam. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ McCully Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 7 minutes ago, The Soldier said: @AJ McCully The result of not having enough Reputation when you decided you wanted to pass over Antietam. In reality, I think I'd have a pretty good reputation in the South for leaving Antietam with an intact army. It's more than Lee can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts