UGCW Feedback v0.80

[Nick Thomadis]

The game's finalization is now playable with the latest patch!

Read the notes!

What else can we improve? Please let us know.

[i64man]

Awesome Nick! One question, are the changes made to the initial battles for both side on the customs battles, are also included on the campaings? And do you recommend to start a new game or will apply to save games. Thanks again.

[vren55]

*blinks*... Hall's Ferry Road... I just tried it once but... I have no idea how to beat it. I honestly might just skip it. the positions are far too well fortified for me to even try going for it. 

[Col_Kelly]

Going for a draw by capturing only two points is easier : the rewards are bigger than usual for this battle so it can still be worth a fight. Try some attack columns ;).

 

[vren55]

1 hour ago, Col_Kelly said:

Going for a draw by capturing only two points is easier : the rewards are bigger than usual for this battle so it can still be worth a fight. Try some attack columns ;).

 

Welp, that worked... unfortunately Washington seems.... i mean the forts... the people in the forts seem to have laser guided guns ... 

Edited May 23, 2017 by vren55

[Col_Kelly]

Taking a fort is a subtle art , not sure I want to give this one away, unless you're really blocked.

[ross42899]

I have a few things I would love to see added/changed to the game, before the final release. I really hope this will be added/changed sometime:

-       Give us an option to choose the portrait of our own General/character

-       Add a few more „real“ portraits of historical Generals (instead of placeholder portraits)

-       Let us zoom in a little bit closer to the battlefield

-       Change color of lines indicating firing range (they are hard to see right now, especially in morning/evening phases of battles, when the map is a bit darker)

-       Add non campaign versions of battles of Washington & Richmond (either as historical battles or custom battles) [as they are major battles in the game and I would love to play them without having to play the campaign]

-       Add non campaign , historical versions of the „minor“ battles of Wilderness & Spotsylvania [they are just minor battles in the campaign but I would love to play them outside of the campaign as they are historical battles and pretty large battles for „minor battles“]

Gettysburg map:

-       Add cemetery gatehouse to the map

-       Change appearance of Lutheran semenary building so it looks a bit more like the real building [building with tower]

 

Antietam map:

 

-       Change appearance of Dunker church so it looks a bit more like the real building [white building, without tower]

 

 

The following is absolutely not necessary, but if this is somehow possible I would like to see the following graphical improvements/additions added tot he game:

 

- Add flags to infantry units

- add a handful of unique uniforms to each side (3 or 4, unique uniforms on each side like Iron Brigade and Zouaves)

[vren55]

1 hour ago, Col_Kelly said:

Taking a fort is a subtle art , not sure I want to give this one away, unless you're really blocked.

Thank you for your discretion  I'll try again... and again.

[Bigjku]

1 hour ago, Col_Kelly said:

Taking a fort is a subtle art , not sure I want to give this one away, unless you're really blocked.

Somewhat is jest but I wouldn't mind the answer being to bring up siege artillery (if you have money) and pound it to sand.

[resq350]

Final thoughts before general release.

Agreed - best CWG ever.

From a CSA perspective:

1. Gettysburg 1st day is actually a little easier than I expected it would be, compared to the Gettysburg stand alone game. Not complaining - but it is surprising.

2. I'm finding the whole Cold Harbor battle set hard to win, though I've won every game on the Confederate campaign up to that point (except for one - which I skipped because it was too costly to fight). I was expecting to have more of an advantage in light of my massive victories up to that point (playing at the Brigadier General level). I thought I had it won on the last try by skipping the minor games and then taking one of the left flank objectives - but still ended up with just a draw because I couldn't keep my casualties below 40%. Have a couple of different tactics to try, but it's been challenging. I can understand making the game challenging - but there should still be significant morale and material boosts for victory, and concurrent losses in the same for the other side. 

3. Does anyone else have tactics they want to share on tackling cold harbor from the CSA side - I would love to hear them?

4: Agree with earlier comments by others:

   a. Captured weapons amounts acquired now seems smaller than earlier, and smaller than realistic

   b. Would be nice if artillery could be broken in to smaller units.

   c. Likewise if cavalry could be combined into larger units up to the max

5. REALLY, REALLY would like a way to more easily manipulate veteran units in camp. For instance - if I have 17k recruits, I have to find weapons for all of them before I can combine two veteran units that are down to 800 men each.

6. When you box in opposing units - as in a peninsula - like in Harper's Ferry - the units eventually break out instead of surrendering - and often make toward the objective. Which seems pretty unrealistic - since in the real battle - Dixon's troops surrendered. And the weapons captured here are minimal - when in reality - they were a major resource.

7. In a similar situation - in battles like 1st and 2nd Manassas - when you corner the routing troops into a corner - instead of either exiting or surrendering - they keep fighting and often break out and make toward the objective - and after resting - can capture it if you haven't adequately guarded it. Seems pretty unrealistic for a totally routed unit to be able to then win the battle.

8. I would also love to see more games from the Western and Trans Mississippi theaters of War. Both the earlier battles - Fort Donaldson, Forrest's battles, etc. Possibly an add on pack? ( I can't believe how many great battles are already included in this game so I believe you have already given fair value for the basic game).

(on  a similar note - if you developed other games based on this structure that fought the American Revolutionary War, The French and Indian War, or the Napoleonic Wars - I would probably buy them too - but then would need to quit working to feed my addiction - so maybe hold off a little while...)

9. I'm surprised that the Siege of Petersburg isn't included in the choices. That was a pretty major part of the war. I was hoping to at least see the Battle of the Crater played out.

10. I'm pretty sure the Salem Church is on the wrong side of the road in the end battle of the Chancellorsville campaign. Unless the CSA troops were coming from Fredericksburg - which wouldn't make sense because they were coming from the battle 5 miles west of town. Unless the road then was on the back side of the church as compared to now, which also doesn't make sense because the front of the church faces Highway 3 today. Not a big deal, but it bugs me. Anyway have enjoyed it.

On to Washington!

CSA Watkins

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wandering1]

Small text bug for the Battle of Fort Stevens on Union. When looking at the career history, the battle text is blank.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=931716442

[Wandering1]

Re: Harrison River (St. Petersburg) Minor Battle, for Union

Is there a reason why the fortifications on the northern half don't extend all the way to the edge of the map? The little gap that is there is a really easy way to crack the northern defenses by getting flanking shots on the fortifications. Granted, you throw away about 500 men crossing the river, but that's trivial compared to the cost of charging the fortifications.

 

[i64man]

Hi guys,

one quick observation, when the patch came out, I was about to start the battle of Gaines Mills for the Union and after reading the notes, I decided to play the 3 small battles before Gaines Mills. What I have notice is that when you deploy your units in the deployment zone, specially on the secure the river mission, I wanted to use the boundary to move units up the hill, and on the previous patches you can move the camera back to see the boundary and your units. Now, the camera sits right on top of the boundary and you can't move back to allow a better view. Also if the revels move to the boundary as in rendevouz mission, units chasing them can fire you see the red arrows indicating the range but you can move the camera beyond that point.

[Col_Kelly]

8 hours ago, Bigjku said:

Somewhat is jest but I wouldn't mind the answer being to bring up siege artillery (if you have money) and pound it to sand.

Artillery is only a part of the answer !

[veji1]

6 hours ago, resq350 said:

5. REALLY, REALLY would like a way to more easily manipulate veteran units in camp. For instance - if I have 17k recruits, I have to find weapons for all of them before I can combine two veteran units that are down to 800 men each.

This would be great. A few adjustments to camp would make life a lot easier :

- give the player the option of increasing unit size to the hundreds. Like many players I think I like to start the battles with my brigades at a roundish number, so say after a battle I have quite a few units at 1123, 1673, 941, etc... manually upping them to 1200, 1700 and 1200 for example doesn't take ages per se, but is a bit annoying, being able to make the unit go to hundreds in a single click would be great. So for a brigade at 1123, first click brings you to 1200, second to 1300, etc.. and you still have to confirm at the end.

- Combining brigades in camp would be great as well. sometimes you have 2 veteranish units at 652 and 847 men after a big nasty battle, you don't want to dilute them into rookies and bringing them back up to 1200 or 1500 is really costly. merging them would be the preferred option but it's not possible;

Great game anyway and looking forward to the next ones !

[Jake4228]

Love the patch. One brief thing:

The Battle of Washington should not advance to the final phase if the Confederate player has already "lost" the battle. During Grant's counter-attack I lost Fort De Russy and was unable to get it back (although I was damn meters away) before the timer expired. The battle then shifted south again to Washington, Forth Washington, and Fort Thomas. I fought this portion of the battle but didn't get another shot at retaking Fort De Russy, so I had already "lost" the battle. I don't think the battle should advance to this phase if the battle is already "lost."

Thanks, really enjoying the new battles!

 

[Kloiste]

Quote

Fixed an issue that caused AI campaign opponent strength to be either underpowered in some early battles or overpowered in many late battles.

Not sure if this change is the one that is reducing the size of AI brigades in the last phase, but if it was it might be a tad bit too much. I grew kind of used to facing 3 star 2950 Confederate brigades in my Union Legendary playthrough, but on the newest battles they are only around 2400 - 2600 in size - although I have only played Battle of Fort Stevens and another one of the smaller battles after Cold Harbor so far. The AI does seem a lot better at attacking fortifications now though, so it sort of makes up for it.

I'll see how it goes when I get more experience with the patch.

[sonnypemberton]

12 hours ago, i64man said:

Hi guys,

one quick observation, when the patch came out, I was about to start the battle of Gaines Mills for the Union and after reading the notes, I decided to play the 3 small battles before Gaines Mills. What I have notice is that when you deploy your units in the deployment zone, specially on the secure the river mission, I wanted to use the boundary to move units up the hill, and on the previous patches you can move the camera back to see the boundary and your units. Now, the camera sits right on top of the boundary and you can't move back to allow a better view. Also if the revels move to the boundary as in rendevouz mission, units chasing them can fire you see the red arrows indicating the range but you can move the camera beyond that point.

I do not like the new map edges that are cut off or out of view for the camera - the battle mentioned, as well as Shiloh and others you cannot even see your troops to move them since you cannot see all the deployment zone. I have had this also mess with reinforcements as I can see  them on the mini map, but not the large map. This is the only glaring issue with the patch.

 

AI is indeed better, and scaling seems to be better too.

 

 

[vren55]

 

6 hours ago, Jake4228 said:

The Battle of Washington should not advance to the final phase if the Confederate player has already "lost" the battle. During Grant's counter-attack I lost Fort De Russy and was unable to get it back (although I was damn meters away) before the timer expired. The battle then shifted south again to Washington, Forth Washington, and Fort Thomas. I fought this portion of the battle but didn't get another shot at retaking Fort De Russy, so I had already "lost" the battle. I don't think the battle should advance to this phase if the battle is already "lost."

 

Speaking of that battle... I have no idea how to hold the forts against the counter attack with my depleted troops. I... The only option I can think of is not actually using all my manpower to prep for washington and just keeping most of it in reserve, but urgh, even then I just have no idea how to hold Fort De Russey in particular.

[Col_Kelly]

You should have at least 90.000 men to beat Washington on hard. 75-80 should be enough on normal. Most importantly you need to have a lot of brigades (70+) to hold all the fortifications with some reserves.

Quick tip for Ft de Russy : You can stack a lot of brigades in reserves by piling them up, put them on top of each other and press hold.

Tough one I know

[resq350]

Final, final thought before GR.

Agree with comments that I see very little benefit currently for recon career points. If there were increases in detection capabilities - maybe. But as it is now, I can justify everything else before that/

 

[resq350]

And why don't enemy artillery units surrender?

[Jake4228]

6 hours ago, vren55 said:

 

Speaking of that battle... I have no idea how to hold the forts against the counter attack with my depleted troops. I... The only option I can think of is not actually using all my manpower to prep for washington and just keeping most of it in reserve, but urgh, even then I just have no idea how to hold Fort De Russey in particular.

Hmmm... I went into Washington with 120k men (playing max army size campaign) by the second day I had 90kish left, which should have been enough to hold everything. The mistake I made was leaving a massive force to defend Fort "Let's leave one side completely open" Slocum, which I figured would be the hardest to keep. Turns out the Union barely pressed Slocum at all and so De Russy was the oddball out in my plan and was overrun. Luckily I made a few saves through the battle and I have no doubt I can shift things up a bit and claim victory day 2.

Really it seems that if you want to conquer Washington, you need an ungodly amount of troops. I can't imagine a "lean but mean" army doing too well there.

Additionally, I feel like Washington's defenses can hold without Fort De Russy - I wish victory were not contingent upon this isolated fort that really plays no major part in the more interior defensive lines - sure, I lost it, but still held every other fort including the associated trench lines, and Grant's force had suffered appalling casualties in every other assault... but my general sees doom and gloom without this crappy fort and so I guess decides to surrender for no good reason at all. Sigh.

[Nox165]

First battle for the union campaign when the train shows up there is no text and when it leaves there is no text.

[vren55]

2 hours ago, Jake4228 said:

Additionally, I feel like Washington's defenses can hold without Fort De Russy - I wish victory were not contingent upon this isolated fort that really plays no major part in the more interior defensive lines - sure, I lost it, but still held every other fort including the associated trench lines, and Grant's force had suffered appalling casualties in every other assault... but my general sees doom and gloom without this crappy fort and so I guess decides to surrender for no good reason at all. Sigh.

Agreed. I don't get why we actually have to hold ALL the forts in the first place and why we can't switch troops around various sectors to fend them off. Plus... yeah my mean and lean army's basically a goner. I think I need to abandon my Confederate campaign as I see no way I can win Washington with the army I have left... as I set out with about 75,000 but lost an ungodly amoung. The initial fighting just dwindles my forces down to too small a group.