Let's talk about (campaign) difficulty.

[The Soldier]

12 minutes ago, Wandering1 said:

I suppose along that vein, the better question to ask: what is the definition of difficulty?

Does difficult mean it requires you to think out of the box? Does it mean one is forced to think/compute faster in order to attain results? There is really no one answer to this; some definitions sit better to some people than others. Exploits will still happen regardless; just what one considers an exploit is a different matter.

For me at least, difficulty is determined partially by the strength of the enemy as well as their intelligence, not by my own abilities.  Both of those can only go so far before it gets stale - being truly difficult requires both.

As a developer, I think I can say with some authority that an exploit is taking advantage of how a mechanic works to the player's advantage not originally intended by the devs, in a way that is not nessesarily a bug.  For example, the Combine Brigade exploit is definitely an exploit - there's nothing bugged about it, the system is working perfectly as intended, but how it works can be gamed in ways not originally envisioned.  Being able to dismount Shock Cavalry, however, is a bug - you're not supposed to be able to do that in the first place.

Rather enjoying this discussion, by the way. For the first time in a while, come to think of it...

Edited April 4, 2017 by The Soldier

[Wandering1]

Just now, The Soldier said:

For me at least, difficulty is determined partially by the strength of the enemy as well as their intelligence.  Both of those can only go so far before it gets stale - being truly difficult requires both.

As a developer, I think I can say with some authority that an exploit is taking advantage of how a mechanic works to the player's advantage in a way that is not nessesarily a bug.  For example, the Combine Brigade exploit is definitely an exploit - there's nothing bugged about it, the system is working perfectly as intended, but how it works can be gamed to the player's advantage.  Being able to dismount Shock Cavalry, however, is a bug - you're not supposed to be able to do that in the first place.

And as for me, I would consider the Combine Brigade exploit a bug; ideally it should just mix the guns as appropriate, and not homogenize the guns of the combined units. However, implementing that is a bit out of the question at this point for the engine. There are ways of making it less exploitable, however; like, say, taking the higher number unit's gun as the gun standard of the unit. Meaning if you want a 2500 man Fayetteville unit, you need 1251 Fayettevilles. At that point, you're trading unit count for temporary free guns; and as some of us playing on Hard/Legendary can attest, unit count matters a lot when you need be able to cover a wide area.

[Wright29]

I have a playthrough going on every level (but not fixed strength) so hopefully I can offer some perspective. Hard is what I would call "even." My spawn camping, prior knowledge, and superior tactics are evenly matched with the AI's oversized and highly experienced units. Normal is the most fun. Colonel is just for maximizing kill to death ratio for my own ego and for trying really random things like marching all the way around the map to see if I can do my own version of Chancellorsville. 

Legendary sometimes has me swearing at my computer. Oversized melee cavalry will through my infantry line to kill artillery behind me. 3* 2500 brigades in the early missions simply do not break to 1* units with Springfield 1942s. Early Union missions may require 6 or 7 restarts for me to beat. But every missions is beatable without doing some of the game's worst exploits (combine division, slaughtering scenario troops). It truly tests your patience and problem solving skills. That said, I will switch between Legendary and the easier levels quite regularly simply to maintain my sanity. 

[Koro]

4 hours ago, Admiral666 said:

In another thread, I saw a couple testers mention that they were playing on easy and normal, and it led me to wonder if that was their preferred difficulty, rather than Hard/Legendary.

I've played a couple of campaigns on Hard...But they just aren't fun. The unending hordes of elite and lavishly equipped enemy armies become tedious rather than challenging. One of the decisions one can make in this game is to withdraw rather than press a pointless attack. On hard, the objectively correct decision is almost always to withdraw.

I want to stress: I've managed to win every battle on hard through Chancellorsville. It's certainly possible. However, it is not fun. Battles are rarely won through clever manuevering or bold strategy, but instead by gaming the system to survive the aforementioned AI armies of doom. There's little choice when the alternative is to fight "properly" and lose half or more of your army in every battle.

Personally, I find normal to be a good, fun challenge. Easy is great when you just want to build the order of battle of your dreams and maintain it throughout. Anything past normal, as stated, becomes tedious, rather than challenging.

What do you think, @Koro, @Mr. Mercanto, others? Do you enjoy the higher difficulties, or are they more of a tedious experience? Or something else?

 

To be perfectly clear, this is directed at everyone, not just testers.

It depends on lot on how you handle the game tbh. For me, hard seems to some extent make up for the AI's "challenges" occasionally, while bordering on being unplayable in some of the minor missions unless you do tedious puzzle solving to try and break the AI in some of the minor missions. It usually involved falling back from the VP's and then counterattacking to snatch the VP.

I did have a blast as Union at 1. Bull Run. The major battles are more fun for me on hard. Since there are more units involved and more space to flank and actually make a strategy, the extra numbers simply give the AI a chance to compete with me.

I fully understand why it can be too much for most people though.

I mostly test normal though.. I think that's where the vast majority of the players are, it's where I can rather leisurely play the game, get a big army, which I also enjoy, and there, I can find if the game will be too hard for most people. The notion is if I find it too hard or impossible, then the average normal player will as well and there will be downfall. 

[veji1]

I play on BG level as this is where I get the best "historical" feel for the game, means I bit the AI quite easily of course (except as CSA Antietam, that battle is a massive b***). And of course I sort of role play a little bit because otherwise the player can too cleverly play on tactical defense all the time and ruin the AI. So When I am supposed to attack, I do, I don't bait the AI into foolhardely attacking itself.

[Jamesk2]

The problem with ultra-hard mode in most games is the same: How to make the game just hard enough that players have to sweat their way to victory by being correct every step of the way without being next to impossible without cheesing the *** out of it. I think that the current Legendary is pretty close to the latter case, and a fix to artillery reverse scaling may fully make it impossible to win.

[Major Grigg]

I definitely fall under the category of casually playing while drinking a beer or 10. Colonel is the way to go.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Major Grigg

[Admiral666]

14 hours ago, Koro said:

It depends on lot on how you handle the game tbh. For me, hard seems to some extent make up for the AI's "challenges" occasionally, while bordering on being unplayable in some of the minor missions unless you do tedious puzzle solving to try and break the AI in some of the minor missions. It usually involved falling back from the VP's and then counterattacking to snatch the VP.

I did have a blast as Union at 1. Bull Run. The major battles are more fun for me on hard. Since there are more units involved and more space to flank and actually make a strategy, the extra numbers simply give the AI a chance to compete with me.

I fully understand why it can be too much for most people though.

I mostly test normal though.. I think that's where the vast majority of the players are, it's where I can rather leisurely play the game, get a big army, which I also enjoy, and there, I can find if the game will be too hard for most people. The notion is if I find it too hard or impossible, then the average normal player will as well and there will be downfall. 

That's my experience with hard as well: initial challenge eventually folding into tedium. As you say, the grand battles are usually less rough, but only in relative terms.

I plan to start a new campaign with the new patch, and I think I'll choose Normal to see how it feels in comparison to the Hard game I've been playing. Based on the feedback thread, it seems the AI has gotten quite a boost. Let's hope!

[vren55]

18 hours ago, Wandering1 said:

And as for me, I would consider the Combine Brigade exploit a bug; ideally it should just mix the guns as appropriate, and not homogenize the guns of the combined units. However, implementing that is a bit out of the question at this point for the engine. There are ways of making it less exploitable, however; like, say, taking the higher number unit's gun as the gun standard of the unit. Meaning if you want a 2500 man Fayetteville unit, you need 1251 Fayettevilles. At that point, you're trading unit count for temporary free guns; and as some of us playing on Hard/Legendary can attest, unit count matters a lot when you need be able to cover a wide area.

.,. what is this combine brigade everybody has been talkinga bout?

[Wandering1]

23 minutes ago, vren55 said:

.,. what is this combine brigade everybody has been talkinga bout?

The long story short is: Combine a 2500 farmers brigade into a 500 Fayetteville brigade, get a 3000 Fayetteville brigade.

Combining brigades is not explicitly mentioned in the game, but the option is there to allow two understrength brigades to merge into one brigade temporarily.

[MishaTX]

Hi there, new user here.

Campaign difficulty? Must've been something in that latest patch that just landed, because hoo boy, things got hairy in a hurry, or maybe it's just me.

I'm not a vet to this game, just got started a bit ago, but I'm no newcomer to wargames either, and I have to say that this one likes to kick me in the face since about yesterday.

Positions that were once easy to hold fall like nobody's business and my once sturdy troops melt away at the drop of a hat.

I guess the good old days (of two weeks ago) of holding back the Yankees at the crossing at 1st Manassas with a brigade of skirmishers and a battery of artillery are gone (mind you, that was a bit silly if you ask me, and that's putting it mildly). :-)

But now? Did the AI suddenly get equipped with 155mm Howitzers and G3s?

Just not used to getting myself whipped on Easy mode, I guess.

[barrydylan]

So I've been running my second Union campaign on Hard/MG and its been the most satisfying one so far. And through Antietam at least it hasn't been unpleasantly difficult. The AI's experience and numbers bonus makes up for its strategic ineptitude. The only exploit I know is the combine brigade, and I don't use it. Unless we consider flanking an exploit, because the AI is so bad at dealing with flanking maneuvers... 

So in sum I think MG/hard is the best difficulty level and I'm surprised the more experienced players here prefer BG/Normal. It all comes down to personal preference though. 

[The Soldier]

4 minutes ago, barrydylan said:

So in sum I think MG/hard is the best difficulty level and I'm surprised the more experienced players here prefer BG/Normal. It all comes down to personal preference though. 

Think that mostly comes down to mental strength and resistance. I don't hesitate to say that my brain nearly melted after Chancellorsville as the Union on Hard, heh.

[Admiral666]

 

 

Just finished Shiloh on a new Confederate Normal/BG campaign. So far, it has been more or less easy, but fun! Thoughts on the battles follow:

The Potomac Fort

 

5165 Union casualties to 1715 Confederate.

Interestingly, I actually lost the first battle on my first time around! Rather than waiting for me to assault the fort, the Union pushed its forces south to meet me, and used its skirmishers far more effectively. After the initial shock, however, I sent my reinforcements to flank right, and carried the point. The second phase, however, was rough. The Union pushed hard and fast, mounting a mass charge that won them the western half of the fort, and, importantly, control of the point. I managed to mount a counter-attack with my reinforcements, but failed to dislodge the enemy from the point before the contested timer ran out. Defeat!

On my second attempt, I ran down the clock on the first phase by leaving one battery intact as I ran down the remaining enemy brigades. I then allowed my troops to fully recover condition before destroying the final battery. The second phase was initially went just as the first -- mass Union charge into the fort. However, with my troops fully rested, I was able to repel them relatively quickly. By that time, my reinforcements had arrived, and the Union never regained their momentum. I suspect the allowing my troops to recover before ending the first phase made all the difference. However: Why do I need to do that at all? The two phases are purported to be some time apart, so why are my troops in the same condition in the second phase as in the first?

All in all, the AI became noticeably more capable. Excellent!

Newport News

 

Statistics (Union v Confederate)

Strength:

7717 v 6211 Infantry

24 v 16 Guns

502 v 461 Cavalry

Casualties:

4043 v 1087 Infantry

1 v 0 Guns

0 v 13 Cavalry

0 v 0 Missing

Relatively straight-forward. I detached skirmishers, pushing them to the northern edge of the central forest while pulling my brigades back to the town. Delayed the Northern Union thrust with skirmishers and cavalry, before withdrawing them to the town. My reinforcements arrived before the Union so much as spit at the town itself, and they reached positions in and around the town relatively soon after the main Union assault began. Had the AI been more aggressive, they may have been able to take the town. However, they failed to press the attack/charge where they had numerical superiority, instead allowing their brigades to be whittled down by my troops entrenched in the town. By the end of the battle, I had collapsed their right flank and was pushing toward their center. 

Overall, more or less easy. The Union cavalry attack my left, but quickly routed in the face of two infantry brigades. There was no real moment of panic here. I don't believe any of my units in the town ever routed. As stated, more aggression by the AI would be warranted.

First Bull Run

 

Statistics (Union v Confederate)

Strength:

22827 v 23816 Infantry

49 v 27 Guns

660 v 350 Cavalry

Casualties:

16652 v 5267 Infantry

35 v 4 Guns

533 v 50 Cavalry

2916 v 0 Missing

I clobbered the Union at 1st Bull Run, never retreating from Stone Bridge nor allowing McDowell's main attack to reach Matthew's Hill. Indeed, I counter-attacked and obliterated the Federal forces on both sides of the battlefield. Notes here: Sherman's brigade did not attempt to cross the ford north of Stone Bridge until the last phase of the battle. Had he done so initially, my position at Stone Bridge would have likely been untenable, as one of my 3 initial Infantry brigades was integral in delaying McDowell's advance. Instead, Sherman sat and watched smaller Union brigades grind themselves into oblivion against my defenses at the Bridge. Also, McDowell's force significantly outnumbered mine for well over an hour. Had he pressed the attack and charged my position (a line in the forests North of Matthew's Hill), I likely would have been forced to retreat. Instead, he exchanged fire with my better-entrenched force for several hours, only attempting to force my right flank just as 3 of Jackson's brigades arrived to reinforce that position. 

 

Overall, the theme continues: AI overly cautious. Granted, there's certainly historical precedent to point to!

Out of time for the moment. I'll add my experiences up to Shiloh in a following post.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Admiral666
Spoiler tags run amok..

[USPostman]

Having played through Chickamauga on Legendary, ( playing through Cold Harbor right now on Union, and I think Muleshoe is impossible) I use an excessive amount of saved games but no cheese or gaming the scaling system. It is the exact opposite of "Ironman" style but is incredibly rewarding.

Playing through the Grand Battles and saving your progress it allows you to really work difficult problems and find ways to minimize your losses.  On maps like Antietam it's all to easy to have an entire wing of your army decimated accidently, so you find yourself playing for a "perfect" game.  

Having done that for a while I find the normal mode to be too easy.

Edited April 6, 2017 by USPostman

[Admiral666]

Hi there. Go ahead and open all the spoiler tags. I have no idea how to remove them when editing posts, and the bottom one isn't even visible when editing. Sorry about that.

Ambush Convoy & Stay Alert

 

 

 

Both of these went smoothly. Ambush convoy is always a quick affair for me, regardless of difficulty. I charge my infantry forward, overwhelming the initial Federal force, while my cavalry capture the wagons. As soon as the wagons are past my infantry, I withdraw my entire force, using my cavalry to screen them. In and out.

Stay Alert was also relatively easy. I blunted the Union cavalry, and my reinforcements arrived quickly enough to consolidate my defenses. By the end of the battle, I had counter-attacked and destroyed or captured every enemy brigade sans one. As before, the AI was not aggressive enough, choosing to fight a battle of attrition from an inferior position.

 

 

Shiloh

 

Statistics (Union v Confederate)

Strength:

29087 v 29519 Infantry

99 v 65 Guns

1470 v 962 Cavalry

Casualties:

14929 v 6999 Infantry

40 v 12 Guns

938 v 638 Cavalry

1111 v 0 Missing

Shiloh also went smoothly. The first phase was quite easy. I led with my 3 2* infantry 1st division, quickly routing the 2 union brigades east of Shiloh Church, while another 5 infantry brigades secured my center and left. The second phase then began, in which I kept all of Bragg's corps to the left (Larken Field(sp)), with a divsion facing east toward Spain Field to prevent an attack from that direction. When Breckenridge's reserves arrived, I sent them to the left as well. I then went to the third phase, the 'counter-attack' at Shiloh Church, where I crushed the remaining Union troops, advancing as far north as I could. The attack on the Hornet's Nest then began. I entirely bypassed it, working my way up woods to the west and placing my troops in position to push north. The final phase then began, and I quickly overran Pittsburgh Landing with Bragg and Breckenridge's force, my own 1st Corps not far behind. Once I took the Landing, the Union never mounted a major attack to retake it. Buell's reinforcements were obliterated on arrival.

All in all, the battle was easy. The only real fault in the AI was, once again, a lack of aggression. The Union right, at Shiloh Church, had little chance regardless, as they were up against my best troops, and I attacked relentlessly. Their center and left, however, could have potentially overwhelmed my right, had they mounted a concerted attack. Furthermore, there was no major attack mounted on my position at the Landing whatsoever. Buell's troops entering to the east just marched straight south to join the Union forces north of the Hornet's Nest, rather than attacking my flank.

 

 

Consistently, the AI is simply not aggressive enough. They don't take the initiative when they have the advantage, often waiting until I have consolidated my position before attacking. However, I do feel that it has improved overall outside of that: there have been far less instances of blatantly stupid or unintended AI behaviors.

I don't know that I'll have the time before another patch, but I'd like to run through the current campaign on normal, and then again on Hard to compare. I may continue to report on my progress in this manner, especially if anyone finds this interesting/useful.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Admiral666
SPOILERS ON THESE FORUMS MAKE NO SENSE

[Bobby Fiasco]

Jeez, I must be pretty bad at this!  

I'm feeling comfortably challenged in my first playthrough on Easy/fixed size!

[vren55]

On 4/4/2017 at 8:00 PM, Wandering1 said:

Combining brigades is not explicitly mentioned in the game, but the option is there to allow two understrength brigades to merge into one brigade temporarily.

Wait. HOW? instructions please!!!!

10 minutes ago, Bobby Fiasco said:

I'm feeling comfortably challenged in my first playthrough on Easy/fixed size!

Dwbi. Normal (Colonel) difficulty is quite challenging. Doable, but often requiring you to experiment a lot with strategy and tactics, and to take risks that may or may not pay off. Expect to savescum like a bastard because it's often the only way to figure out an expedient way to win. Eg. There was one battle (Saunder's Fields) where it told me to hold and I was like... yeah but I found out through 2 attempts at that battle that the missions needs me to counterattack and take the point... Solution: Bum rush the enemy and establish a forward position so that counterattacking was easier. 

[Bobby Fiasco]

3 minutes ago, vren55 said:

Dwbi. Normal (Colonel) difficulty is quite challenging. Doable, but often requiring you to experiment a lot with strategy and tactics, and to take risks that may or may not pay off. Expect to savescum like a bastard because it's often the only way to figure out an expedient way to win. Eg. There was one battle (Saunder's Fields) where it told me to hold and I was like... yeah but I found out through 2 attempts at that battle that the missions needs me to counterattack and take the point... Solution: Bum rush the enemy and establish a forward position so that counterattacking was easier. 

I agree! And thank you for your guide. That's helping me out a lot.

[The Soldier]

3 minutes ago, vren55 said:

Wait. HOW? instructions please!!!!

If two brigades in the same Division have a combine strength of 2500 or less, then move them near each other and give them the Combine Brigade command (the icon looks like two arrows coming together).  It'll combine the two brigades into a single brigade under the command of the Division.  Pretty standard command to use if some of your units take a lot of casualties, especially if it's early on in the game.

Edited April 6, 2017 by The Soldier

[vren55]

6 minutes ago, Bobby Fiasco said:

I agree! And thank you for your guide. That's helping me out a lot.

Welcome! Don't be obliged to stick to it though (well aside from the Officer advice... that's fairly important and patches have not changed this. plus if you do this, I'll guarantee you'll have an excess of Major Generals by Gettysburg/Chickamauga). The thing about UG CW, which I will always compliment the devs for. Is  that its immensely flexible and there a thousand possibilities. My build is very infantry heavy, less micro intensive (b/c cav and skirmishers are micro intensive) but the lack of specialization is... hurting me slightly in the lategame as it restricts my strategies to certain infantry focused strategies. Great for Union... meh for Confederates.

Just remember to savescum hard... really hard.  

 

Edit. How did you find my guide btw? I'ts like... buried by forum posts lol.

Edited April 6, 2017 by vren55

[Bobby Fiasco]

1 hour ago, vren55 said:

Edit. How did you find my guide btw? I'ts like... buried by forum posts lol.

I don't remember. I think I googled "UG:CW guide"

[Col_Kelly]

The new hard campaign has a reduced difficulty now (ennemy strength is only +15% instead of 25%) which makes it a bit easier : AI has improved imo and apart from a few scenarios he'll make better use of his numbers.

I'd encourage those how struggled / did'nt enjoy fighting doom stacks before to retry Major General (from the start) and see how it goes.

[Zwerty99]

AI really needs to be priority when coming to difficulty levels imo but I understand how people might also want control over enemy scaling and such. I'm a BG player because of this, and get happy whenever I see an increase in AI because at the moment I'd rather not face unhistorical numbers just for a challenge. I too enjoy making a pet army, but it usually ends up being an elite but randomly sized collection of brigades

[A. P. Hill]

AI also needs to be more consistent.   It can't be reduced for one battle and not touched on a second or third battle.

Any and all changes to AI need to be across the board for all engagements.  

So Devs have some work to do ... let's make sure you put some routine in for correcting weaponry.  If a battle is played before a particular weapon is available then the program should default back to weaponry of the time not some undeveloped and unreleased weapons.