UGCW Feedback v0.78+

[Hitorishizuka]

4 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

It's consistent behavior.  The entire enemy force will always scale to your entire force, with the weapon quality is averaged out.  So if you've got one unit armed with sniper rifles, the quality is going to be at it's highest, but if you then make another unit with Hunters, the quality is going to average out between those two weapon, whatever that happens to be. Rio Hill however, even if you have precisely no skirmishers (meaning lowest weapon quality) will always have repeaters as it's lowest.  It will scale to sniper rifles very easily, though.

I swear that it's not because I have past battles (literally just before in both 1st Franklin and Blackwater) where the enemy Skirmishers only had Spencers without me having to change anything. For this battle, they all had JF Browns unless I went and removed the JF Browns off one unit off in my camp screen (and a unscoped Whitworth for good measure), then they had the Spencers and mix of other carbines.

Unless the difference is that for this battle they're only scaling specifically to skirmisher weapon quality whereas in other battles they are scaling to infantry and skirmisher weapon quality.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Hitorishizuka

[The Soldier]

I've determined that some battles have different modifiers for weapons.  Rio Hill is one of those - because of the unique modifier, they will *always* start out with repeaters even if you've got the lowest weapon or no skirmishers at all.  I've covered this a while ago in a Steam post, here:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/502520/discussions/0/133257324796878125/

One or two exceptions for gameplay reasons are fine for me - honestly, if these skirmishers didn't have repeaters or sniper rifles, this battle would be a cakewalk.

[Wandering1]

As a general note, all of the modifiers have scenario specific multipliers; one set for every difficulty level (army multipliers, weapon multipliers, etc).

[civsully1]

I am always amazed at the quality of interpretation by forum members. Amazing.

But I must add that I find it interesting that the developers share nothing regarding scaling. In my own simple assessment of this is that...as the "leader" of whichever side....you should be able to equip your own forces with whatever firearms you've been able to; start off with, research, produce, and/or acquire....INDEPENDENT of AI choices.  The issue of scaling as is now is a legit shortcoming to the game as a whole. I don't know of another war game I've seen where this degree of scaling exists. Totally and historically inaccurate.

It should be all about availability of weapons per a historical timeline AND result of battlefield capture. And influenced to a degree by the amount of money put into R&D, manpower, training and supply choices.

The AI losses don't appear to impact the next missions too much other than a minor less availability percentage.

Love the game to date but not the weapon or manpower scaling. Just my own opinion.

[formothertexas]

I've experienced anomalies in the battles for kettle run and south mountain.  In each battle, my tactical preference is to outflank the rebels on their left.  Not sure if this is considered "gamey"  but attacking head on in either scenario is a bloody affair.  Anyways, it appears that after successfully passing their lines and securing the objective, the AI will not attempt to retake the objective at all.  Even if they have several fresh brigades.  Does the AI choose not to attack or is it unaware that it's losing the objective?

Edit: I play on Colonel difficulty without fixed strength.  It seems like the most historically accurate mode.

Edited May 17, 2017 by formothertexas

[Andre Bolkonsky]

On 5/16/2017 at 8:21 PM, formothertexas said:

I've experienced anomalies in the battles for kettle run and south mountain.  In each battle, my tactical preference is to outflank the rebels on their left.  Not sure if this is considered "gamey"  but attacking head on in either scenario is a bloody affair.  Anyways, it appears that after successfully passing their lines and securing the objective, the AI will not attempt to retake the objective at all.  Even if they have several fresh brigades.  Does the AI choose not to attack or is it unaware that it's losing the objective?

Edit: I play on Colonel difficulty without fixed strength.  It seems like the most historically accurate mode.

Tactics and 'Gamey' are synonymous. We prefer the former, not the latter. 

Personally, I refuse to attack head on into a reinforced position. Frequently, a simple demonstration and a flank march are preferable to a full frontal assault. John Bell Hood might disagree, Stonewall will not. 

But what do you mean by 'anomoly'

Good luck, Texas

Signed, 

Houston

[Koro]

On 17/5/2017 at 3:21 AM, formothertexas said:

I've experienced anomalies in the battles for kettle run and south mountain.  In each battle, my tactical preference is to outflank the rebels on their left.  Not sure if this is considered "gamey"  but attacking head on in either scenario is a bloody affair.  Anyways, it appears that after successfully passing their lines and securing the objective, the AI will not attempt to retake the objective at all.  Even if they have several fresh brigades.  Does the AI choose not to attack or is it unaware that it's losing the objective?

Edit: I play on Colonel difficulty without fixed strength.  It seems like the most historically accurate mode.

Not sure why you'd expect attacking head on to be any less than a bloody affair. The whole point of doing flank attacks Irl and in the game is to reduce casualties and punch through the enemy line more easily. This isn't a bug, it's a feature :). 

[vren55]

1 hour ago, Koro said:

Not sure why you'd expect attacking head on to be any less than a bloody affair. The whole point of doing flank attacks Irl and in the game is to reduce casualties and punch through the enemy line more easily. This isn't a bug, it's a feature :). 

OFC, flanking isn't always an option. But that's the whole point to this game. Sometimes you can flank, sometimes you can't. It adds variety, forces you to come up with techniques (like assault columns) to overcome your enemy.

The fun part is you sometimes do better than what historically occurred. Eg. Muleshoe. I was told to surround it from two sides, I decided to go hit the tip of the shoe and well... I did pretty well b/c I didn't put myself into crossfires.

Edited May 19, 2017 by vren55

[formothertexas]

22 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

 

But what do you mean by 'anomoly'

 

I mean to say, that I am able to take the objective while both of our forces are still intact.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that I would appreciate the AI a little more if it would counterattack in this scenario.  

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I just found the feature where you can see the history of each and every unit throughout the progression of the war. Had never seen that before. Very nice easter egg you left hding in the bushes, Dartis.