Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

TortugaPower

Ensign
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

TortugaPower's Achievements

Landsmen

Landsmen (1/13)

1

Reputation

  1. @Alavaria I think the desperation system makes sense, especially having the Union as AI (as mostly likely the Union would have rallied many more individuals and increased war production if their lands had been under serious threat). However, I wonder if it is too difficult to implement at this stage of the development.
  2. I believe I had 0 or 1 points in recon, so I had no intel. I was also wondering about the Recon stat. If they put a mission in with (to exaggerate) say 100k Rebel troops, and you were supposed to know not to fight that by using your Recon, I'd be okay with that. But that doesn't appear to be the case here.
  3. I just wanted to pipe in as another test point. I am also seeing a lot of units route in an awkward direction. It doesn't happen all the time, but it definitely happens, and also when using the "Fallback" command they move the wrong way (though it seems less often with this). It would be good to get this sorted out, considering (as mentioned) that it was an issue prevalent in UG Gettysburg. Cheers.
  4. Nicely played, Hito, but also very confusing. You brought more Union troops in but faced less CSA than I did. Is there an RNG element to the AI army size? Otherwise I can't understand this scaling. I finally managed a victory, same setup (my third attempt). I don't like to save scum, and I won't do that if I'm recording for my channel, but I just wanted to see if it was possible to win. It was, but it was *damn* difficult. Tortuga's totals: 8076 Union vs. 15682 CSA (a 1.94 to 1 CSA advantage) Hito's forces, total: 9485 Union vs. 13914 CSA (a 1.47 to 1 CSA advantage) Koro's totals: 12480 Union vs. ~15473 CSA (a ~1.24 to 1 CSA advantage, going off the recon in his video) So I'm still quite puzzled. Perhaps a bug, where the AI size scaling algorithm hits a weird regime if player numbers are too low? I brought in the least forces and yet faced the most. Thank goodness you can view your results afterward in the "career" screen -- a very nice feature. The screenshot is below. So the AI scaling remains a frustration and really an unknown, unless I am just really unlucky and the AI hates me in a special way. I wish the savegame worked, it was quite an intense fight.
  5. Thanks Hitorishizuka. I will likely restart my campaign and make it a focus to go with a large army. Your army is much larger than mine, so either a victory at 1st Bull Run is crucial and is making a difference between my army and the victorious armies (like yours and Koro's), or I'm just playing sub-optimally in some other fundamental way. I'll have to sniff around and see which it is. What were your numbers at the end of the battle? I'd be intrigued to see the scaling, especially for Koro.
  6. It could be very interesting if you took my savegame and showed what your strategy could be with that!
  7. Hi Nick, thanks for the feedback. Your quote seems unlikely to me (based on some quick math), but there is a very high chance I am misunderstanding something. In the battle, it only allows one corps to join the fight, and also lists a maximum of 9 brigades. Most people won't have unlocked Army Organization for 2000-sized brigades, but pretending they do, that puts the maximum number at 18k. If you bring any supporting units, as most people do (artillery, cavalry...), then this max number drops. If you only have 1500 brigade size (as I did), the most you can get with a pure infantry army is 13.5k. For the average player army, is Golem Labs able to track each person's progress? That would be very good to help them (I support it if they do), but if not, I'm curious where this average number comes from. As for using my resources and negative outcomes, I had used all of my resources, and I had won all engagements except a draw at 1st Bull Run. So the problem is somewhere else -- perhaps, on my choice to buy more elite troops rather than building a large untrained army? That's most likely, but I can't say for sure. I have attached my savegame here "grly8mp0.ja1", perhaps it can be of some use to the developers, or if anyone wants to check my situation. From here, you can see I only have $1300 in the bank, and you can see in Career my victories. (Side note: I hope the save names are unscrambled in the future, haha...) Cheers, Tortuga grly8mp0.ja1
  8. Hi Koro, Yes, I've read through the three pages of this discussion. It was good to see confirmation of the AI scaling issue, and a good civil discussion about it overall, including your comments. Thanks for the info about Crossroads. Nick Thomadis informed me (in this topic here) that my troop numbers for Crossroads were too small. I'll have to figure out what that means for me. Anyway, it looks like the AI will have some reaction to battles (in terms of strength) in the campaign as of the next patch, so perhaps this will address the issue that many have presented here.
  9. Hi gang, I find myself making an account and coming on the forum just to talk about this issue. Something feels off with the game as is. In a Union campaign, I was just obliterated (at Crossroads) despite having playing almost perfectly up to that point. I'm okay with that if it's intentional, like maybe I should have put points in Recon in order to see that the Rebel patrol was a full army. But it does feel funny to being doing really well and realize the AI is just going to double my forces no matter what. This is a fantastic game tactically and the economy system they've thrown on top of it is really satisfying. However, once you realize that the AI is scaling, I have to say that I almost lose interest in the game. There is no point in having an economic system if it has no impact on gameplay. If I do well and buy more men, but the AI just scales, why do I waste my time with the economy? Just give me fixed number of troops like in UG Gettysburg. In fact, the Gettysburg system feels better because of losses carrying over.
  10. Greetings all. This game is absolutely fantastic. I love a good challenge, and this delivers (and then some!). Coming off a UG Gettysburg playthrough, I definitely had my sights on this next. A few questions about the Union campaign. [Having read the AI scaling topic on the front page, there are some adjustments made here...] Short version: #1) Is there a way to limit the AI scaling? Does the AI also scale its unit quality (e.g. the guns used) to match the player? #2) Is the Union expected to lose certain battles in the campaign, i.e., are some battle intended to be considerably more difficult? Long version... In my first campaign as the Union, I was playing on an earlier (and maybe more difficult) version and I didn't realize your units in the tutorial carry over and intentionally experimenting a lot... So it was no surprise that I lost (the fatal blow at Crossroads). But I felt very ready to start a new campaign and do better. In this one, I was doing great. All wins except for a [close] draw at 1st Bull Run. But then... Crossroads. That was the one that killed me before so I was hungry for revenge. Because I had done much better this campaign, I had many more troops who were also better equipped. But instead... I was crushed again. I noticed that the CSA were fielding a larger army this time. I come on to the forums and read here that the AI will scale its forces with the player. Well, that's a little disappointing. I can only tell you that it was absolutely impossible to hold. #1) I have read that AI scales its size with the player. If so, it somewhat diminishes the value of doing well in the beginning. I also understand there has to be a small amount of recoil to player success/failure in order to keep the game from snowballing too much. But the CSA army I faced was ungodly large, and the scaling really caught me by surprise. I also really want to know, does the AI scale the quality of their forces to match the Union as well? #2) Is the Union supposed to lose certain battles early on? This would make sense historically. For me, it seems like Crossroads is borderline impossible. And other factors might be in play here, such as level of Reconnaissance showing you the numbers indicates whether you should accept a battle or not. Maybe you need to use your Recon in order to choose which battles to fight. I'm sure there are still other things I haven't considered. I'll be very interested in the responses. Cheers, Tortuga Edit: I'm attaching here a screenshot of my second, most recent defeat at Crossroads. In the first defeat (not shown), the battle seemed more manageable. That's because a larger size army for each side actually hurts the Union, because there is only so much cover defensively, and the larger your army size, the less of your army that gets cover. That creates a weird system, at least for this battle in particular, well you are punished for doing well on the earlier maps. I still did well (about 1.5 kills-per-death). I doubt Lincoln would have considered this battle a defeat when a Union force, outmatched 2-to-1, inflicted a number of casualties on the CSA. It doesn't feel like it should be a loss
×
×
  • Create New...