Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Further Enchancment Suggestions


Bigjku

Recommended Posts

At about the midpoint of my third campaign and had some suggestions I think were worth discussing.

1.  I think the rifle buying dynamic at least for the Union is still not there.  As I approach Fredricksburgh there simply aren't enough rifles to be bought on BG level to outfit even three corps.  The cost seems to high and availability seems too low.  It works a bit better on Colonel due to the huge capture numbers but once those are gone it gets hard to afford the guns necessary and it leads to some pretty goofy situations.  I still have lots of 1842 muskets when I really shouldn't have any.  My suggestion is that each side have a progression of standard rifles that are both plentiful and cheap.  

For the Union is would be 1842 muskets through Shilo, 1861 muskets from Shilo to Chancellorsville, the 1863 from then on.  For he Confederates it would be he devoted farmers, the Enfield and then the Richmond on roughly the same schedule.  The standard rifle would be cheap ($20 or so) and available in large numbers.

This would have the effect of making rare weapons like the 1855 rifle rare in the early game (and thus very important to have) and basically extinct as the campaign moves along.  Spencer's and Fayettvilles would still be highly prized weapons as well and would be rare due to their expense.

2.  Troops traits should advance simply for being in formed units and under arms.  I believe most players stick to deploying their 1st corps for almost all minor battles. I try to use my second and third corps from time to time to buy them experience but it doesn't often work out.  The reality of the situation is the new troops would advance to a certain level simply by being under arms and training.  The AotP had almost no combat experience going into the Penensuliar Campaign but it fought well tactically largely due to he training time it had had.

I am not suggesting lots of gains and it should be capped in my view in the high 1 star to low 2 star range.  But IMHO troops formed up should gain traits simply from being formed.  It would be more realistic, would discourage min-max attempts and would encourage the use of other corps in the army as more than cannon fodder.

3.  This doesn't relate to my campaigns but came to mind reading others issues with falling behind the manpower curve.  It may be being solved by .90 patch already. My suggestion would be to simply inform a player who is way behind the historical ratio for a battle of two things.

First that they are being dispatched whatever the necessary amount of guns and arms are to bring them up to a reasonable historical ratio.  Second that if they lose this battle they will lose the war.  Wipe out their reputation points to do it.

I suggest doing this simply because you c an have a lot of hours tied up in the game to get to the first major battles in the east and discover you are in trouble.  Having to start over is going to grate on new players and drive them away from the game.  Give them a chance and pressure.

Just my thoughts at the moment.  Good progress so far.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Have you seen the 0.9 upcoming changelog?  More guns in the Armory specifically for the Union.

2. Depending on the rank of the brigade officer and average experience of the recruit, you can get your soldiers to Vet 1 right off the bat.  A Brigadier General of some rank is usually enough to do this for both the Union and the Confederates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  I am not a huge fan of the way they described wanting to do it.  It sounds to me like 1855's will just be around in large numbers later so you can buy more.  The proposed solution is more historically accurate and would give the campaign more distinct phases IMHO.

2.  I am aware but there are rarely enough officers of that level to go around.  In general it is frustrating to have whole brigades of relatively long service that are pretty much ineffective.  One can play around it to a degree but I still maintain simply being in the military and in a formation should generate ongoing experience gains.  I am not sure how experience is tracked.  My guess is it is a static number for each battle and changes based on the recruits you add.

My suggestion would really just need to track how long a formation has been around and add traits for that.  Then adjust the effective formation date based on the new recruits you add.  So if it's a two year brigade and I add 25% new recruits it's now a 1.5 year brigade.

Honestly I would prefer this to being able to add veterans at all.  I have never intellectually figured out just where these veterans come from.  They aren't in my other units which are often green as grass.  I didn't disband anyone to get them.  I can't just buy a new unit of veterans.

If all one could add are recruits to a formation it would make a devestating loss to elite groups much more impactful. Historically after the battles of 1862/63 much of the regular army and many of the elite brigades people remember were never the same again.  This would reflect that better.  Your units would evolve over time and brigade numbers would vary much more as players adopt truely different replacement policies.

Just seems like it would give better options to me.  Have never loved the veteran replacement system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The veterancy/etc would require a complete overhaul of the game. Your men, the strength of the unit, are actually just hitpoints. The other stats are not related to the hitpoints, but the the unit("container") itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Karri said:

The veterancy/etc would require a complete overhaul of the game. Your men, the strength of the unit, are actually just hitpoints. The other stats are not related to the hitpoints, but the the unit("container") itself.

I understand that it may well do that.  Not a programmer just giving my $.02 on it.  As it stands it's just kind of illogical.  You would still be doing the same way, just using different drivers for the metrics on the containers that IMHO make more logical sense, would encourage better gameplay dynamics in how it interacts with other features and would add much more variety to player strategic options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bigjku said:

At about the midpoint of my third campaign and had some suggestions I think were worth discussing.

1.  I think the rifle buying dynamic at least for the Union is still not there.  As I approach Fredricksburgh there simply aren't enough rifles to be bought on BG level to outfit even three corps.  The cost seems to high and availability seems too low.  It works a bit better on Colonel due to the huge capture numbers but once those are gone it gets hard to afford the guns necessary and it leads to some pretty goofy situations.  I still have lots of 1842 muskets when I really shouldn't have any.  My suggestion is that each side have a progression of standard rifles that are both plentiful and cheap.  

For the Union is would be 1842 muskets through Shilo, 1861 muskets from Shilo to Chancellorsville, the 1863 from then on.  For he Confederates it would be he devoted farmers, the Enfield and then the Richmond on roughly the same schedule.  The standard rifle would be cheap ($20 or so) and available in large numbers.

This would have the effect of making rare weapons like the 1855 rifle rare in the early game (and thus very important to have) and basically extinct as the campaign moves along.  Spencer's and Fayettvilles would still be highly prized weapons as well and would be rare due to their expense.

2.  Troops traits should advance simply for being in formed units and under arms.  I believe most players stick to deploying their 1st corps for almost all minor battles. I try to use my second and third corps from time to time to buy them experience but it doesn't often work out.  The reality of the situation is the new troops would advance to a certain level simply by being under arms and training.  The AotP had almost no combat experience going into the Penensuliar Campaign but it fought well tactically largely due to he training time it had had.

I am not suggesting lots of gains and it should be capped in my view in the high 1 star to low 2 star range.  But IMHO troops formed up should gain traits simply from being formed.  It would be more realistic, would discourage min-max attempts and would encourage the use of other corps in the army as more than cannon fodder.

3.  This doesn't relate to my campaigns but came to mind reading others issues with falling behind the manpower curve.  It may be being solved by .90 patch already. My suggestion would be to simply inform a player who is way behind the historical ratio for a battle of two things.

First that they are being dispatched whatever the necessary amount of guns and arms are to bring them up to a reasonable historical ratio.  Second that if they lose this battle they will lose the war.  Wipe out their reputation points to do it.

I suggest doing this simply because you c an have a lot of hours tied up in the game to get to the first major battles in the east and discover you are in trouble.  Having to start over is going to grate on new players and drive them away from the game.  Give them a chance and pressure.

Just my thoughts at the moment.  Good progress so far.

 

.0.90 addresses your two salient points directly. 

I spend a lot of time fine tuning OOBs. Figuring out how to get the most veterans I can on the field with the best weapons available. I am very impressed with what I have seen so far. My last campaign I had over 80,000 Union Volunteers that could not be deployed due to shortages of weapons and cash to arm them; so this is a topic with which I am very familiar. 

The scaling solutions? The initial results are very promising. The development team has done cartwheels, imho, trying to listen to the gamers. 

These guys deserve a huge pat on the back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to hear.  I just throw out my suggestions mostly to kill time at work.  More rifles solves the gameplay issue most certainly.  My preference for certain rifles in numbers is simply for historical flavoring of the game.  Will just seem like a civil war game if most union regiments are carrying 1861/63 Springfields.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think it's hogweed that union forces use Confederate weaponry. All my study and reading has never produced any sufficient evidence that the Union tossed their weapons in favor of a few captured Confederate arms.  Any arms captured were usually shipped to a facility where they were either crated and stored, or dismantled and destroyed.

The Union produced more than enough weaponry for their forces without needed to scavenge for Confederate leftovers.

However that was never the case with the Confederacy, and many times many Union commanders accommodated the Confederates by stock piling large stores and supply dumps fairly close to the theater of operations and just enticed the Confederates to come help themselves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:

I still think it's hogweed that union forces use Confederate weaponry. All my study and reading has never produced any sufficient evidence that the Union tossed their weapons in favor of a few captured Confederate arms.  Any arms captured were usually shipped to a facility where they were either crated and stored, or dismantled and destroyed.

The Union produced more than enough weaponry for their forces without needed to scavenge for Confederate leftovers.

However that was never the case with the Confederacy, and many times many Union commanders accommodated the Confederates by stock piling large stores and supply dumps fairly close to the theater of operations and just enticed the Confederates to come help themselves.

Now all I can see is Rolf Steiner carrying a Russian PPSH41 through the champagne cellars of the Crimea. 

And don't cut off my weapons supplies. Ever. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:

 

However that was never the case with the Confederacy, and many times many Union commanders accommodated the Confederates by stock piling large stores and supply dumps fairly close to the theater of operations and just enticed the Confederates to come help themselves.

Civil War Gunwalking? Are you suggesting an Operation Fast and Furious prequel? 

Oh wait. Union officers would have tried to keep the weapons away from the Rebels. The FBI was encouraging the Cartels to help themselves. You can figure out why for yourself. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

I still think it's hogweed that union forces use Confederate weaponry. All my study and reading has never produced any sufficient evidence that the Union tossed their weapons in favor of a few captured Confederate arms.  Any arms captured were usually shipped to a facility where they were either crated and stored, or dismantled and destroyed.

The Union produced more than enough weaponry for their forces without needed to scavenge for Confederate leftovers.

However that was never the case with the Confederacy, and many times many Union commanders accommodated the Confederates by stock piling large stores and supply dumps fairly close to the theater of operations and just enticed the Confederates to come help themselves.

I think this is an important thing that shouldn't be overlooked.  Union troops should have access to plenty of weapons to buy fairly cheap.  They should also be far more likely to drop their weapons on the battlefield as they know they can get new ones fairly readily.  Confederate soldiers would be much more careful.  The dynamic should be different for both sides really.

Some other thoughts on weapons...

1.  Certain captures really should just become cash.  It's well documented that the CSA simply couldn't produce ammunition for certain repeating arms.

2.  There should really be a minimum size of arms available for any type.  Offering me up a dozen Spencer's or 122 Henry Rifles is silly.  I would say no rifle or carbine should even make the list if you can't buy 1,000 of them.

3.  Cavalry in general should get a look at removing or lessening the difference between Melee Cav and Carbine Cavalry. Very few units of carbine equipped cavalry didn't have sabers.  This would make high end cavalry far more versatile and useful to have in your army.  Indeed it's what made late War union cavalry a decisive weapon on numerous battlefields.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bigjku said:

3.  Cavalry in general should get a look at removing or lessening the difference between Melee Cav and Carbine Cavalry. Very few units of carbine equipped cavalry didn't have sabers.  This would make high end cavalry far more versatile and useful to have in your army.  Indeed it's what made late War union cavalry a decisive weapon on numerous battlefields.

 

I have advocated it earlier : there actually should only be one type of cav, mainly for scouting/dismouting and fighting at the end of the line or in the woods, etc.. and good at meleing arty, skirmishers or routing infantry but that would be very brittle when meleeing non broken infantry. Of course depending on the weapon it would be more or less good at everything, but all in all it should fit that mold. the division between rifle cav an shock cav is interesting in terms of gameplay but doesn't really make sense (imho and the game is great !!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am against blending all cavalry into one type. The current configuration of Hussars and Dragoons works brilliantly well and should be retained. Phil Sheridan had a proscription against sabers, so putting sabers with Wilder's Lightning Brigade (A brigade which the soldeirs paid for Spencers out of their own pocke) is historically inaccurate. 

However, I am always in favor of more weapons. Captured, bought for cash in the Shop, prestige, whatever. Weapons are the limiting reagents keeping the Union army from fully deploying. 

But trying to limit the Rebels because they lacked brass to make rimfire munitions is problematic and is really not going to acheive what you want. In game terms, I have zero problems with a Union brigade carrying Fayetteviles, or a Rebel brigade carrying Spencers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

...trying to limit the Rebels because they lacked brass to make rimfire munitions is problematic and is really not going to acheive what you want. .... 

Of course earlier carbines like the Burnside used paper wrapped cartridges and the breech had a mechanism for removing the paper as it was closed thus exposing the powder.

But the Rebels also had their fair share of brass ... compliments of the U.S. Quartermaster Supply System ... and the Rebels made sure they returned at least part of that in each engagement!  ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/06/2017 at 7:49 PM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

I am against blending all cavalry into one type. The current configuration of Hussars and Dragoons works brilliantly well and should be retained. Phil Sheridan had a proscription against sabers, so putting sabers with Wilder's Lightning Brigade (A brigade which the soldeirs paid for Spencers out of their own pocke) is historically inaccurate. 

However, I am always in favor of more weapons. Captured, bought for cash in the Shop, prestige, whatever. Weapons are the limiting reagents keeping the Union army from fully deploying. 

But trying to limit the Rebels because they lacked brass to make rimfire munitions is problematic and is really not going to acheive what you want. In game terms, I have zero problems with a Union brigade carrying Fayetteviles, or a Rebel brigade carrying Spencers. 

Fair enough, to me weapons' choice, just like for infantry or artillery should have an influence on the best abilities of a cav unit, some units being better at melee and some shooting faster and from further, but what I meant is that all cavalry units should be useable to charge at arty or skirmishers with a massive ratio of success, and all cavalry units should be dismountable to play the skirmisher role, just with variable efficiency. Separating cav units in two very distinct subgroups is excessive imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe Sheridan had a proscription against sabers.  They simply were left on the horse when dismounted.  Everything I have ever read says the standard equipment for Cavalry as organized under Wilson and Sheridan late in the war was a carbine (usually Spencer's), a revolver and a saber with the sword attached to the horse for mounted work.

Edited by Bigjku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...