Admiral666

@Nick Thomadis Would it be difficult to add a borderless windowed mode? It's a small thing, but it's a very pleasant one! Alternatively, is there a launch option to set it up? Thanks!

"Fixed selection rectangle for 4k monitors." Thank you. It has been a long, weary campaign playing without a selection box. Any chance we'll see a UI scaling option, along that same grain?

I think you're misunderstanding how this game works.

Yes, but 1k is frustratingly low. -- often that doesn't even recoup the losses incurred capturing those troops. Yes, some players would game the system and intentionally capture as many enemy troops as possible. Let them. It doesn't need to be a 1:1 ratio, but something more than a 1k cap. What if I captured 10k and still only got 1k recruits? That's exceedingly disappointing. It could be a semi random ratio, or perhaps a mix of recruits and weapons or money. There's definitely room to improve it.

Yeah, I don't really understand the rationale behind playing on legendary in this game. I've played it, sure. I can win battles, yep. But it's stressful, frustrsting, and exhausting. Ramping enemy troops up to 11 doesn't add an interesting challenge, but instead a grueling one. On a different note, I love that I can now actually capture brigades reliably. What I don't love, however... "5024 prisoners exchanged for 1000 recruits." Surely this wouldn't throw the balance off that much? I've captured roughly 10k men total just after Shiloh (CSA normal) and gotten less than 3k recruits out of it. If you're going to reward me, do so in a consistent fashion. The 1k limit on prisoner exchanges (5 federals for 1 rebel? Terrible negotiators...) has done nothing except prevent me from fully filling out my brigades as I'd like to.

I would love to have the option to have horse artillery. I suspect more players would play in that way if they had the option. As it stands right now, it simply isn't feasible to use cavalry in that way. I would love to, though!

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.

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 Shiloh 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.

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

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!

@Wandering1 1. & 4. That's exactly the problem. The player should be able to respond to an increase in difficulty/constraints through intended mechanics and systems, not exploits. Along the same grain, higher troop counts, as you said, don't change the equation. Ergo, they are not an effective way of increasing difficulty. Instead, they create frustrating and tedious experiences: being faced by full 3 star armies when you barely have one or two 3 star brigades, for example. 3. I agree that BG/normal becomes easier as one gains more experience with battles and the game. My purpose in starting this discussion was to find a better solution to creating a higher difficulty so that I could leave normal behind without also forfeiting my enjoyment of the game.

Yeah, I've happily watched it improve since UGCW hit early access. Can't wait to see where the AI is at release!

I'm actually quite happy with the AI currently. It has its downfalls on occasion, but otherwise it's a worthy opponent. I just feel that tuning it to increase difficulty would be a much better solution than just giving it an overwhelming force of veterans equipped with M1 Garands and Flak 88s. Warning: Ask your doctor before mistaking hyperbole for serious discourse. Severe side effects may occur.

Gamers. Very vocal about what they think they want. I would welcome greater difficulty in the form of a more aggressive and unpredictable AI opoonent. That would be much more engaging and organic than the current approach, I think.

Yes, I assumed as much. Preference is telling, however. To be clear, I didn't intend to direct this discussion to testers alone. I'm very curious to hear what the general consensus is. I feel the game experience in Hard/Legendary is somewhat ruined currently. I would argue that the need to find exploits to succeed is damning evidence of that on its own.

It's exactly that reliance on exploits and devolution into stressful tedium that I find concerning. Having greater difficulty need not equate to the loss of enjoyment, nor necessitate an exploitative playstyle.

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.

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. I feel this digression should be its own thread. And now it is!

Interesting to hear that you two are playing on Easy/Normal. 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. 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?

Checked this thread expecting yet another slugfest over MP. I was pleasantly surprised.

Perhaps make it optional.

Yeah, I certainly recognise the difficulty inherent in doing that. One day In the interim, I'll replay the battle without the needless sacrifice of my troops. Can't wait to get to Gettysburg!

Hm. I don't mind it not being an immediate victory, but I do mind taking those positions only to be arbitrarily thrown back to the camp -- and then required to take them again! UGG style what-if phases would be the solution, but I imagine that's no small task. Thanks for the reply!

Union, Chancellorsville. I took all VPs on day 2, and did not click finish until they were not contested. I still went to Day 3, where I was on the defensive -- is this WAD? If so...there's no point in doing anything in Chancellorsville but defending throughout the entire battle. The casualties I took from attacking were a total waste. @Koro Any insight?

Interesting. I only name some units, and usually only as a result of noticeable battlefield performance, i.e. 'Walton's Wall," a particularly stalwart brigade during a defensive action; "The Devil's Brigade," a unit which inflicted massive casualties and ended the battle with 666 combat-ready men; etc. Otherwise, I by and large leave them with their commanders' names. Admittedly, that can be confusing when I lose officers or they are promoted to larger commands. Some interesting naming schemes here. I particularly like the notion of explicitly named Reserves; as it stands currently, if I can afford to hold a reserve, I tend to reserve an entire division, rather than a brigade from each. Hm.