UGCW Feedback v0.78+

[Aetius]

17 hours ago, Jamesk2 said:

I think you got hit by the "random super AI" dice roll. Last patch I got hit by one at Shiloh, with my 24k facing their 50k. I still crushed it, but Shiloh obviously is a particular case where I think even if AI got 75k I would still able to crawl to victory.

Also the number report seems suspicious. It counts only 212 Confederate cavalry, while Stuart alone commands 245 at the start of the battle.

I do not believe so. I played Gaines' Mill after the patch at the end of my last round, before we knew about the store bug. All the Union infantry were 3-star 2950-man brigades. The sharpshooter brigade was 750 men, and all the other skirmishers were over 600. There was another 1,050-man cavalry brigade in that fight, and I received only 20pd Parrots from the 600-man artillery units. The only reason I was able to win was because the forces were relatively even, manpower-wise.

I suspect that what they've done is remove all limits on equipment, manpower, and experience, except for some hard limits imposed by the time period (i.e. no Springfield 1861s in 1861, no 3-star units in early 1861). The only scaling factor for Legendary now is the number of brigades. This is going to make some battles MUCH more difficult, like Newport News and Distress Call, because it more than doubles the number of enemy troops and you only have a few green, poorly armed brigades because you just started. Compare my Round 4 video above with my previous Round 3 Newport News battle, which was already a hard fight:

 

[Wandering1]

Well. Practically speaking, the 3* units only didn't spawn because the initial unit stats were so low that doubling their stats didn't push them into 3* range.

I.e. if they're 0* units, they'll at best be 1* units. When they're effectively 1 and 1/2* units to start with, they all become 3* units.

[Slobodan]

19 hours ago, The Soldier said:

@civsully1

Results are here:

Batteries larger than 12 guns are still terrible.  And 20pdr Parrotts are still terrible.  As you can see from that, a 12-gun battery of actually much less experienced men wielding 24pdr Howitzers (Pugh's Artillery) and a Captain leading them was at the very, very top of my list.  The 20pdr Parrott crews were all Vet 3 with the Logistics, Accuracy, and Long-Range Fire perks.

After playing Saunder's fields as CSA, I must say that there is noticeable improvement  in 20pdr Parrots. Now, they have actual usage (with long range canister)

 

[vren55]

... I think the victory system percentages needs to be tweaked a bit. I bum rushed the Union at Cold Harbour, I held the Old Cold Harbour point, and yet I drew. Admittedly, I lost a lot of men from my first and 2nd divisions, but nowhere near 40% of my entire army. Either one, clarify that its 40% of the army on the field, or two, alter it so it's actually 40% of your entire army. 

Edit: That being said, I figured out how to win Cold Harbour on the first day, so yay! 

Edited April 6, 2017 by vren55

[Aetius]

1st Bull Run seemed normal enough - the brigades were larger (the initial Union brigades at the bridge were 2000+), but the infantry had Palmettos and the cavalry were 500-man units. In Ambush Convoy, however, things reverted back to maximum - all the Union units were two-star 2950 man brigades and 1,050-man cavalry. The infantry were all (!!) carrying Harpers Ferry 1855s, and the cavalry had Wessons. It looks like the scaling is different for the Grand Battles, and still relatively sane, while the small battles got huge buffs.

[AJ McCully]

Only had the chance to play the campaign as the CSA (playing on BG) for now. I had varying experiences with the minor battles and a kinda anti-climactic experience with Cold Harbor.

Mansfield was pretty great, no problem with it really that doesnt get into general mechanics issues.

Laurel Hill was was pretty fun and felt most like the way the Overland campaign should feel, however the AI failed to take advantage of a massive hole in my right flank for the entirety of the battle. Towards the end of the battle, I managed to march 6000 men through a gap between the far left flank of the Union fortifications and the map edge which the AI made no attempt to stop until my men were massacring their artillery behind their lines. Even then, the resistance was pretty weak and I secured a victory by pulling back to the top right corner of the map and pushing onto the Union victory point in the last seconds of the battle. Fun but I cant help but feel that I was exploiting the game.

I completely bypassed Saunders Fields after one attempt that resulted in a draw. It's one of those minor battles like Rio Hill where the cost of winning is greater than the reward, the main difference being that you're fielding a large force against an even larger force. The incentive to win, or even fight it in the first place, is so low that I wasnt interested in wasting valuable confederate lives on it.

Won Cold Harbor on the first day by taking Old Cold Harbor and holding it for a very short time. Yet to see the rest of the battle. From what I've read, the Overland campaign was a pretty desperate time for the CSA, with shortages of just about everything and lines stretched thin. I dont feel any of that, I've got plenty of recruits, can equip everyone with weapons to spare and you can bring 8 brigades right off the bat at CH (8*2000 man brigades=16k men for the first phase). I think more thought needs to be put into the intended difficulty level of the CSA campaign at this stage of the game. Lee survived throughout the Overland campaign and months on a lot of luck and Union incompetence, using the bottom of the barrel. I expect to be outnumbered heavily, that's a given, but scaling up the enemy isnt good enough. The CSA should be a slog at this point, for recruits, for weapons, for constantly having to extend your line to avoid being flanked. That's what the Overland campaign should be about.

[vren55]

36 minutes ago, AJ McCully said:

Won Cold Harbor on the first day by taking Old Cold Harbor and holding it for a very short time. Yet to see the rest of the battle. From what I've read, the Overland campaign was a pretty desperate time for the CSA, with shortages of just about everything and lines stretched thin. I dont feel any of that, I've got plenty of recruits, can equip everyone with weapons to spare and you can bring 8 brigades right off the bat at CH (8*2000 man brigades=16k men for the first phase). I think more thought needs to be put into the intended difficulty level of the CSA campaign at this stage of the game. Lee survived throughout the Overland campaign and months on a lot of luck and Union incompetence, using the bottom of the barrel. I expect to be outnumbered heavily, that's a given, but scaling up the enemy isnt good enough. The CSA should be a slog at this point, for recruits, for weapons, for constantly having to extend your line to avoid being flanked. That's what the Overland campaign should be about.

... What game are you playing? i'm actually in a fairly desperate strait as CSA, which necessitated me rushing the Old Cold Harbour Point. Reason being is that while I have equipment, my army has only about 47K men in total, no manpower int he barrel. 

[AJ McCully]

8 hours ago, vren55 said:

... What game are you playing? i'm actually in a fairly desperate strait as CSA, which necessitated me rushing the Old Cold Harbour Point. Reason being is that while I have equipment, my army has only about 47K men in total, no manpower int he barrel. 

Having almost 50k is not a desperate situation. I think Antietam and the battles following it are a better representation of the difficulty levels I'm talking about. You make the decision to commit to these battles knowing that you might not be able to replace the soldiers you lose and that effects the strategies you employ. Post-Antietam, it can be hard to get back to your former glory but I think the Overland and Chickamauga campaign are pretty generous with recruits and it didnt cause me any problems on the field.

[Koro]

2 hours ago, AJ McCully said:

Having almost 50k is not a desperate situation. I think Antietam and the battles following it are a better representation of the difficulty levels I'm talking about. You make the decision to commit to these battles knowing that you might not be able to replace the soldiers you lose and that effects the strategies you employ. Post-Antietam, it can be hard to get back to your former glory but I think the Overland and Chickamauga campaign are pretty generous with recruits and it didnt cause me any problems on the field.

Time to play hard then :). Difficulty is perceived very different from person to person. 

[Col_Kelly]

I can confirm that the hard campaign is pretty rough and resembles exactly what you described : shortages in guns, men, reputation, only the money's ok. If you don't decide to go for a 1st day victory you'll definitly enjoy Cold Harbor

Btw how did you get that early victory ? It's supposed to be almost impossible.

[Wandering1]

The changes to Cold Harbor in 0.79, if I were to recall, only affected the Union side of Cold Harbor. Because it was easy to walk onto the point in the second phase, or just march 2 corps of men through 1 brigade at the very bottom for the third phase.

[civsully1]

4 hours ago, Koro said:

Time to play hard then :). Difficulty is perceived very different from person to person. 

Never a truer statement spoken Koro! My costly victory in fighting at Antietam is showing it's affect at Fredericksburg. Very unlikely I will hold onto to earn a draw.  As not enough units in depth along the expanding line to Telegraph Hill. Combined with not enough artillery to field in each phase of the battle. So unique for each player especially given their skill level of play. I continue to be amazed how the game is continually changing and improving as patches are released. And everyone is entitled to say how they like or dislike a game. But I find more challenge in this game than others I've played over the years.

One thing is certain that many of Youtube videos from 3 or 4 months ago are certainly way out of date. Still good for basic game play but the patches make this version now look like a totally new game in many ways. Would enjoy seeing one of the better players due a new series using the most current patch.

[Admiral666]

I imagine this has been suggested before, but an Ironman mode for non-legendary games would be very welcome. It's a small thing, but a nice one.

[AJ McCully]

3 hours ago, Col_Kelly said:

I can confirm that the hard campaign is pretty rough and resembles exactly what you described : shortages in guns, men, reputation, only the money's ok. If you don't decide to go for a 1st day victory you'll definitly enjoy Cold Harbor

Btw how did you get that early victory ? It's supposed to be almost impossible.

I marched 16,000 men onto Old Cold Harbor and held it until the timer counted down, that meets the middle victory conditions and you can end the battle with maybe 4k losses. I had 4 brigades in the centre (double layered) blocking Wright from the point and 2 on either side of him doing morale damage with flank attacks. With a good rout of his leading brigades, you can hold him off long enough.

If the timer was maybe 30 seconds longer or I started with a smaller force, I would have very likely been pushed off by Wright and decided to avoid attacking at all in future runs.

[Col_Kelly]

Weird you should have been over-run or even flanked by the AI for a cap of your own point. Guess I'll try your move

 

[AJ McCully]

2 minutes ago, Col_Kelly said:

Weird you should have been over-run or even flanked by the AI for a cap of your own point. Guess I'll try your move

 

The AI never really went for my point. Even just now when I went defensive to see what the rest of the battle is like. 

After playing through the rest of the battle, I've concluded that the first phase win is definitely the easiest outcome for CH. Even a Draw in the later phases is more difficult. Though I was handicapped by the fact that half of my left flank was artillery brigades and outnumbered 5 to 1.

[sonnypemberton]

8 hours ago, civsully1 said:

Never a truer statement spoken Koro! My costly victory in fighting at Antietam is showing it's affect at Fredericksburg. Very unlikely I will hold onto to earn a draw.  As not enough units in depth along the expanding line to Telegraph Hill. Combined with not enough artillery to field in each phase of the battle. So unique for each player especially given their skill level of play. I continue to be amazed how the game is continually changing and improving as patches are released. And everyone is entitled to say how they like or dislike a game. But I find more challenge in this game than others I've played over the years.

One thing is certain that many of Youtube videos from 3 or 4 months ago are certainly way out of date. Still good for basic game play but the patches make this version now look like a totally new game in many ways. Would enjoy seeing one of the better players due a new series using the most current patch.

watch Aetius.. nuff said.

[vren55]

15 hours ago, AJ McCully said:

Overland and Chickamauga campaign are pretty generous with recruits and it didnt cause me any problems on the field.

Chickmauga was more generous than I expected, which was much needed :P. Though I still ended up with a deficit.

Granted, Cold Harbour was great for me because I kind of used the same trick I used at Gettysburg... win the battle on the first day and avoid having to make contact with your entire army against the AI's. 

[Aetius]

On 4/9/2017 at 0:47 PM, civsully1 said:

Would enjoy seeing one of the better players due a new series using the most current patch.

I've got a Legendary Ironman Confederate run going:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLl9g3AKsEm20uIM8vM9rb6O2vRZgq7H0r

I restarted because of the store issues, so I believe it's all on the 0.79 hotfix so far.

[AJ McCully]

18 hours ago, vren55 said:

Chickmauga was more generous than I expected, which was much needed :P. Though I still ended up with a deficit.

Granted, Cold Harbour was great for me because I kind of used the same trick I used at Gettysburg... win the battle on the first day and avoid having to make contact with your entire army against the AI's. 

Exactly. If the game framed the campaign in line with a real continuous war (i.e. the Union army decreased in size after each battle or grew larger as you avoid it) then I'd be incentivised to fight at CH so that I'm not fighting a monster army in the next battle. I really wanted the Overland campaign to be like that for the CSA. You're facing this huge army to begin with that you can only defeat by wearing it down progressively at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania and CH before it's finally defeated in some alt-history battle, and if you avoid the Union army then it'll just get stronger.

Also, I tried the same thing at Gettysburg and had the Union on the run but my army was exhausted from constant fighting and walked so slowly up to cemetery ridge that I almost threw my keyboard out of a third storey window when the timer clicked down to zero. Luckily my next day reinforcements took Little Round Top and calmed the rage. Was not happy with Ewell afterwards.

[civsully1]

4 hours ago, Aetius said:

I've got a Legendary Ironman Confederate run going:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLl9g3AKsEm20uIM8vM9rb6O2vRZgq7H0r

I restarted because of the store issues, so I believe it's all on the 0.79 hotfix so far.

Hey great Aetius! Look forward to watching your battles. Thanks for the link!

[Artyom]

Good afternoon. I know Russian from a bad language, because it may not be clear. Passed the game to the second bull wound. There were questions.
1. First: to diversify units. Add Zouaves / light infantry (will occupy a niche between the infantry and skirmishers. Sometimes you do not have enough units for a workaround, let have a reduced performance of the melee, and health, but the increased speed, endurance and shooting, compared to a conventional infantry). Add Rangers: The second type of Kovaler, with a very weak hand to hand, but with a quick fire (armed with revolvers main function of intelligence (often lacking the usual cavalry for reconnaissance) Pioneers / Engineers (establishment of fortifications in the battle crossings device and another, weak.. combat effectiveness indicators). Mortars (kind of heavy artillery, though poorly used in the field, but still present). Another would be to make a new design with separate elite team (the same iron brigade luizinanskie tigers, with povysh nnym characteristics relative to conventional infantry, but very expensive). I play for the confederation, because did not see whether there kartechnitsy Gatling, but to see them in the game you need to think.
2. Add to abilities of commanders of divisions and brigades (and that is the ability and the rest have no corps of generals, the mere presence of images).
3. Can add any builds for units (arc, square and others ...).
4. A bit annoying time of the game, its somewhere you need to add somewhere to cut (I have increased it in the major battles for placements and intelligence, because of the need to defeat the Confederates, and this requires maneuvers and exploration, of which due Over time there).
5. If there is a selection of shooters from the brigade, it may be worth making the division of the brigade into two parts, 50% each. A choice of either the riflemen or the two regiments.
Maybe that will make and diversify more.
 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Artyom

[AJ McCully]

15 hours ago, Aetius said:

I've got a Legendary Ironman Confederate run going:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLl9g3AKsEm20uIM8vM9rb6O2vRZgq7H0r

I restarted because of the store issues, so I believe it's all on the 0.79 hotfix so far.

Waiting to see how you approach Antietam. I want to see the struggle happen to someone else.

(Dont embarrass me by making it look easy)

Edited April 11, 2017 by AJ McCully

[Aetius]

9 hours ago, AJ McCully said:

Waiting to see how you approach Antietam. I want to see the struggle happen to someone else.

(Dont embarrass me by making it look easy)

Heh, don't worry - I've been steamrolled as the CSA at Antietam every time I've tried so far. I think I managed to pull off a draw once. I have a new plan for this time, but I had a plan last time too.

[AJ McCully]

33 minutes ago, Aetius said:

Heh, don't worry - I've been steamrolled as the CSA at Antietam every time I've tried so far. I think I managed to pull off a draw once. I have a new plan for this time, but I had a plan last time too.

Currently, the only options I have for this battle are

1. Conventional draw by defending and retreating (and failing most of the time)
2. Cheese victory by withdrawing to Sharpsburg, luring the Union army there and then sneaking individual brigades onto all victory points
3. Retreating right at the beginning taking 0 losses and taking the reputation hit