Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

About veji1

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman
  1. It's a topic about a guy's finished campaigns and his thoughts on the game... anyway it's just a game so sort of a joke in itself I suppose.
  2. Antietam is a joke as CSA ? This is the type of stupid comment from boring optimizers that just makes reading forums a chore sometimes. Like any other battle if you are skilled and want to win at all cost and are ready to use any possible string the game gives you, all battles are jokes, hell the game is just a joke of a puzzle. On the other hand Antietam is one of the most fun battles to play in this game as the CSA if you sort of stick to a conservative/realistic game play. To each his own.
  3. A few idea to add a lil more to the game

    Well adding things to a game is complicated because a game like this is a finely tuned balance between fun/just trying to win real time strategy game and a historical simulation that gives you the feeling of being in actual command during the war. There are few things I would like to see personnally, if possible added into the game, but of course, the overall balance remains key and I am perfectly happy with the game as it is. 2 main things ! 1/ A bit more roleplaying as said with more historical (or randam) leaders that would have traits affecting their battle performance and more importantly behaviour. So you order a brigade to hold but it sees the brigade in front of it rooting an you get a message saying "General Hood has decided to counterattack !" or you want your men to run to a position but you would get a message saying "Corps commander x has decided to go for a more conservative advance in the face of unknown opposition". This would have to be an option of course and would have to be tuned so as to be balanced, ie limited occurrences per battle but with the potential of greatly affecting a well laid plan. 2/ Ability to dig in : particularly later in the war, digging in whenever possible and whenever a suitable position had been found had become a key task of campaigning troops. Games like Robert Lee civil War General had crude but efficient ways of emulating this digging in. Here regarding the map and firing dynamics, it might not be easily doable, but it would also give more tactical flexibility in game to be able to do so. Anyway those are 2 ideas by no means necessary but that would be nice to have.
  4. To be honest I agree with the OP, but to some extent it is normal and a testament to the quality of the game made by the developpers : battles after 1863 are indeed horrible slogs through defense systems where your soldiers die en masse for gains that don't seem worth it... indeed. To make those battles fun they would have had to diverge greatly from the historical feeling of the game. For players, 1861/1863 civil war is fun to play, after that it's just preWW1... It's just the way it is, actually to be honest to me the game pleasure curve plateaus or starts to go slightly downhill after Antietam anyway !
  5. What's Your Favorite Battle?

    Antietam is the most intense, passionnate, struggle for survival where a small confederate army is a blast to play with the feeling of fighting for survival, it really is superb and the devs have really hit a home run on this one, it' just utterly gripping. To be honest I tend to prefer the battles at the beginning were there is more manouvering. After Stones' River ite becomes a lot more brutal and it's less fun. I suppose this is also a testament to the devs in how they have managed to emulate the more direct and attritional style of fighting later on.
  6. Coming next

    Agreed, Too much ambition could backfire badly. A similarish game on a different period would probably be the best bet.
  7. Coming next

    Indeed this engine is made for linear combat, so it probably cannot really work well before 1660/1680 and after 1880.. That's still a good 200 years worth of good stuff !
  8. Further Enchancment Suggestions

    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.
  9. Further Enchancment Suggestions

    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 !!!)
  10. Well there is a problem with the thread's title straightaway that sort of makes it lose much of any credibility : Sun Tzu and tactics in the same sentence... Sun Tzu isn't tactics, his are more philosophical principles and axioms applied to war, more akin to a book of proverbs and parables on war. It's completely different to what Jomini or others did which was more based on actual study of wars being carried out in their time.
  11. UGCW Feedback v0.80

    Of course infantry is the core unit but I do find that Arty is actually quite useful in more ways : Nappys are really solid close range weapons, ie perfect to accompany infantry when you don't have enough 24s, which is always the case. And I find a few long distance batteries useful too for some counterbattery fire at least in the earlier to middle part of the game.
  12. UGCW Feedback v0.80

    wow you don't use much arty.. I use a lot more than what you do, really have about 1 arty brigade for 2 infantry brigade, it gives them a lot more punch and staying power to always be back by an arty nearby.
  13. UGCW Feedback v0.80

    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 !
  14. Civil war generals 3?

    You mean Robert Lee's civil war ? Yes very much so, the campaign engine is very similar but of course battles are completely different. But yes I thought of it immidiately
  15. Upcoming patch

    Thanks devs, you are just awesome... going on a long work trip next week and will play a lot !! yay !