Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'campaign'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Naval Action Legends
    • General Discussions
    • Legends Support Section
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
    • Future games & special projects
    • General discussions
  • Age of Steel historical discussions
    • General discussions
    • Blohm+Voss
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Clan [GWC] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU
  • Congress of Vienna's Historical
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Categories

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Found 8 results

  1. Really quick preface: I love this game. The way battles are displayed and handled is pretty much exactly what I've been dreaming about in games like this. Whoever came up with the detach skirmisher option for infantry brigades - thank you! I've long disliked the portrayal and frankly overemphasis of skirmisher units in games like Empire or Napoleon Total War. Here they play rather realistically, delaying and probing and such. Dedicated skirmisher units can be customized and utilized in a way that feels realistic and satisfying (and also cannot be spammed to take over battles). Finally this game really polished up the look and especially the controls of UG: Gettysburg, that latter part which I found to be the biggest area that needed improvement in that game. Oh and also not having to mess with cannon settings is much appreciated! That all being said, I've played a couple Confederate campaigns in the last couple weeks and have found a few things that I feel are worth bringing up here (hopefully to the developers!). Now I really appreciate a challenging campaign. I really, really do. Whether it be sports or war games, being able to plot and influence the grand strategy and tactical operations is my thing, and it's even better when I know there' s a legitimate chance to lose. That being said, I appreciate just as much a campaign that feels, how do I say this, fair? Now don't get me wrong, I fully understand what I am getting into playing on MG difficulty, I am not here to say there game is too hard because I don't want to swallow my pride. If my complaint was merely the opposing force size, I would play an appropriate difficulty level. My main issue is the lack of a truly dynamic and strategic campaign. I've read up everything here and on other forums about the scaling and what not and I get it, I get the reasoning and function. I also have noticed the little modifiers that appear from success in previous battles. That's very cool and appreciated. However, I think the enemy army size and composition is simply are out of control in some places, especially in minor battles. For one, you're limited in the number of brigades you can take, which fine, it's historical and simulates units holding another area or guarding supply lines or whatever. However I feel that the odds in these minor battles are often times so great that they're not even worth fighting. You may well have enough money and manpower to make up for losses or even build your army, even after a loss, but the needing to replace weapons and the hit to your reputation, even in minor draw battles is brutal. Now the limited supplies thing makes sense and is a good thing (especially as CSA), but the way scaling works as I understand it, means that the AI never feels pain of these battles. I've heard that if you have even one unit equipped with higher level weapons, then the enemy will have that too, in fact even in much greater (or universal?) quantities. I don't mind a challenge at all, but it seems to me that the whole bit about managing your army's logistics is rendered totally useless. It is impossible to get a leg up on the other army regardless of side (unless I've been misinformed). In fact, improving your army at all triggers the AI to do so twofold is what I've heard from other players, can't confirm myself. So really, minor battles all too often serve to only cripple your army (not all of course, which that variety in challenge and scale is also good and historical!). Even if you win, if there aren't enough weapons available to buy, your army will ultimately be downgraded because your losses are too high for you to replace with available weapons and the AI will feel next to nothing (and in fact gain an advantage over you). Now again, I understand the reasoning so that the player can't just steamroll the AI with good or even average management, but I feel like at the very least the AI's weapon scaling should be toned down or adjusted in some logical, fair way. Some sort of adjustment should be made imo so that army management means what it should - an actual component of strategy rather than a glorified upgrade script trigger. Another possible fix would be to tweak the reputation system. In these minor battles especially, while it may prove damaging to take an objective and you may lose up to half your army (and the AI is certainly more than happy to throw it's whole army into the grinder for those objectives, which is a bit of a problem in itself at times, especially since those losses don't hurt it, but do hurt the player) in a minor engagement that you're outnumbered in, it may be even more dangerous to settle for a draw or make a tactical withdrawal. The loss of those reputation points is so severe in those cases, that you may be better inclined to lose half your army trying to take a bloody objective point in a minor battle, rather than lose the reputation (and possibly the game!) and the benefits that go with it. Now I certainly don't want to advocate doing away with this system, because I think it does rather brilliantly (conceptually) reflect a proper historical element. I just feel that somehow in these battles there should be a way to assess a situation before you're committed to an all or nothing type battle in scenarios that really are not supposed to be that. These battles being about 3 hours on average, perhaps there could be a skirmish/disengage window? Like if you elect to withdraw in the first hour, the reputation penalties go down or are nullified? This would really give a smart tactical withdrawal meaning (and would be historical I feel), since it would allow you to make a reconnaissance in force to some extent, without being forced into a major, possibly suicidal, battle all for an objective point. This could also be implemented with regards to number of men engaged or number of casualties (or percent). That is to say, if x percent of your army is engaged or x percent has suffered casualties, then this scenario becomes a proper engagement and the reputation penalties are in full play. I'm sure there are other fixes here and perhaps I have mis- or overstated features of the game in this brief analysis here (if which, I do apologize, I just want to help build a slightly better game that I can sink 1000 hours into!). The campaign is oozing with potential and is already really fun! I just feel the way the enemy's army is constructed and the nature of other systems in the campaign accumulate to give it less variety in strategy and less satisfaction (dare I say frustration?) in the way you and the AI's army interact.
  2. Salem's Church

    Hi all, Finally had a chance to play through Chancellorsville in my union campaign. I like to play the historical battles first before I get there in the campaign to get a feel for the battle and experience it in an "unaltered" way. I play on brigadier general difficulty. Historically, I was able to vastly outperform Hooker (which of course is not terribly hard) by pushing hard (but retreating when I became outnumbered) in the first phase. In the second phase, I immediately had Howard's XI Corps run back to the rest of the army around Chancellor House - they might be exhausted getting there, but at least will be in one piece. I probed to the SW to the two objective points. In the third phase, with my army concentrated, I sat back and blew Jackson's attack to pieces and continued to send probing attacks to the SW. Since I was inflicting far more casualties than I was sustaining, I let each phase go until it forced me to finish: i.e. I did not click "finish" when the timer ran out and it said I could. As a result, by the time the final phase of the battle came where you could re-attempt the attack on the Orange Plank Roads, I still had nearly 50,000 troops and the Confederates were down to 9000. As you might imagine, the final phase was a bit anticlimactic. Final casualty rates were something like 11,000 for me and 40,000+ for the Confederates. Now, when I played the campaign battle it did not go as smoothly. For one, the numbers were a lot closer, and the scaling of the enemy brigade sizes with every one being a 3 star veteran definitely played a role. I ultimately had the same end result, but with casualty rates a lot closer: 22,000 for me, 33,000 for them. A victory is a victory, I guess... So then I get to the Battle of Salem's Church, in which I'm given command of Sedgewick's historical VI Corps and in order to achieve victory I must take Salem's Church and inflict 5% more casualties. Ok...except ultimately you end up outnumbered and trying to force the enemy from some pretty good ground. The best I have been able to get in this battle is a draw (inflict 10%casualties) by positioning the corps in the trees behind the little creek and waiting for Ewell's troops to come from the south. I get my kills this way, but as soon as I try to push towards the Church it starts to turn against me again. I can take the Church, but not without losing more men than the Confederates. Anyone have any tips?
  3. Rewards

    Would like to have these men and units in the game for recruitment or rewards for completing a battle. CSA: officers: James Kemper William T. "Bloody Bill" Anderson John Singleton Mosby "The Gray Ghost" Joseph Johnston Edmund Kirby Smith Edward Porter Alexander Barnard Bee Patrick Cleburne Benjamin Terry Wade Hampton William Quantrill Units: The Alabama Brigade Louisiana Tigers Orphan Brigade Shelby's Iron Brigade‎ Stonewall Brigade Texas Brigade Laurel Brigade Terry's Texas Rangers Hampton's Legion Quantrill's Raiders ____________________________________________________________ Union: Officers: Robert Anderson Nathaniel Banks George Custer Abner Doubleday Arthur Macarthur Daniel Sickles Benjamin Butler George Thomas John Pope Oliver Howard William Starke Rosecrans Adelbert Ames Daniel Butterfield Units: Irish Brigade Lightning Brigade Vermont Brigade‎ Philadelphia Brigade‎ Michigan Brigade‎ Excelsior Brigade‎ Gibraltar Brigade‎ The Lightning Mule Brigade U.S. Horse Artillery Brigade Spinola brigade Mississippi Marine Brigade ____________________________________________________________ Wants: Would like to see a Civil War Newsletter for every battle pop up for realism Need to show the Division Commander as a Corps General unit so that i can keep him alive or know what brigade he's with. Division Commander's should have combat bonuses as well. Brigade cap at 2600. Custom battles within the campaign as a what if scenario. Defensive custom battles for CSA and Offensive for Union. Would like to see naval battles. Detach brigades into five regiments if in a tight spot or able to deploy skirmishers (x3). Able to dispatch all five Corps if available. Unit detail. Able to nickname Divisions. Artillery and Sharpshooters need more damage.
  4. I like to know all the Battles and maybe their "value" without bonusses. Example: Date, type(Major/Minor),Carrer Points,Victory- Money/Recruits/Fame, Draw - Money/Recruits/Fame, Loss - Money/Recruits/Fame (Bonus from winning other battles) Its nice to know what is next and plan your career and troop composition. I am now at fredricksburg with 85k Men because i dont have weapons for more (10 politics and 10 medicine)
  5. Expanded and/or Bonus Victory Conditions

    Hello all, One of the things I've noticed in certain battles is the narrow method of achieving victory based upon certain criteria that are, often, relatively easy to accomplish. This gives you the full "victory reward" so your goal in each battle is simply "satisfy victory condition and sustain as few casualties as possible". That is fine enough, but the fact is that during the Civil War it was rare for a battle to have its objectives so clear cut. Sure, there was a key piece of ground that was defended or seized, or a lop-sided casualty count, etc. But there was a lot more to it than that. As of right now, particularly due to the limited way in which your actions affect the enemy's condition in future battles in the campaign, the player's key objective is to sustain as few casualties as possible. Anything else - even the victory conditions for the battles, outside the reputation points needed to not be removed from command - are secondary. This is counter to what was the ultimate strategy used by each side at one point another, specifically by Lee from 1862 to 1863, and Grant from 1864 until the end of the war, which was the annihilation of the enemy army. Consider, as an example, Second Manassas/Bull Run. As a Confederate player, you need only hold the line, inflict more casualties (which is almost impossible NOT to do) and...well, that's it. You win. There is NO incentive, apart from a dubious gain in unit XP, to use the reinforcements you receive as anything other than men to beef up your already considerable defensive line. Historically, Longstreet's troops counter-attacked and thus won a crushing victory, routing Pope's army from the field. I propose either a "bonus" victory condition or degrees of victory, to encourage the player to act towards a historical objective, while still maintaining freedom to act in an ahistorical way. Since this would generally require inflicting further damage on the enemy at risk to yourself, I do not suggest an increase in the reward given to the player should necessarily be the result, but rather it would function as another malus to the enemy army in the next battle phase - perhaps giving you an advantage in the small battles, just as the next couple small battles give an advantage to the "grand battle" of that phase of the campaign. To return to my example of 2nd Bull Run, this bonus goal might require the Confederate player to counter-attack and seize certain terrain further out, perhaps even as far as Henry Hill, in addition to the other victory conditions related to casualties, holding your original line, etc. It would encourage a player to act decisively as Lee did in such an occasion, rather than simply remain on the defensive. Thanks for the consideration.
  6. Replacement of Officers during battle

    Hi all, Just a thought here. Obviously, it is a good function of the game to represent the decreased effectiveness of a brigade when its commanding officer is killed or wounded. However, in battles that represent multi-day affairs, there is historical precedent to allow officers to be appointed to fill those positions. I am not proposing the player get "free" officers, but I am suggesting that in the event of a multi-day battle, or if a significant phase completes, an option should be presented to assign an available commander to a division, move a brigade commander up into division command, and/or replace a brigade commander with an available officer from the barracks. There is historical precedent for this suggestion. While the decreased effectiveness might still be present for an untested officer, or one new to a level of command, there were ample cases when a brigade commander was temporarily promoted, or an unassigned officer took command of a formation mid-way through battle. The Battle of Gettysburg is the best example since it was a three-day battle that saw many changes in command of divisions and brigades. For the best example of what I am proposing, consider Pender's Division of Hill's Corps. Since Pender was wounded on the second day, his division was given to Major General Isaac Trimble on the third day, who at that time was an unassigned officer attached to Ewell's Corps. So, in a battle like Shiloh, Gettysburg, etc, after each day of fighting, a brigade commander could be reassigned (but not actually promoted) to replace a division commander, or if you have an unassigned brigadier or major general in your command, could be put into that place. It would encourage the player to have a small pool of unassigned field grade or general officers (maybe a couple colonels and a brigadier general) in case such an event was required. Again, for a single day battle no change in existing procedure in the game, and even if this were implemented, perhaps still a smaller malus to the unit to simulate a new commander unfamiliar with his command.
  7. Victory or Defeat?

    Hello all, I am curious as to what seems to be the community experience with victory and defeat and what seems to be the catalyst in each scenario. It seems like it might be somewhat arbitrary. I played the Union campaign first. I found Shiloh unbeatable, but it was due to not realizing that Army Organization needed to be maxed as much as possible - I had assumed until that point that like First Bull Run, my corps would make up just a part of the army. When I restarted, and put points towards organization and went to Shiloh with two small corps, I was able to win. From then on, despite what I considered close calls, I did not lose a battle. By the time I reached Antietam, I had eight divisions in three corps and by the end of the battle was able to completely rout the Confederate Army. I did the same for the Confederate campaign, but found by the time I reached Antietam I had clearly not done as well in minimizing casualties, as I had only six divisions in the three corps. I hoped this would be adequate (especially since while I had fewer divisions than historically, I did have more total men (41k vs 38k, and the North had slightly fewer (81k vs 87k). In the battle, I did not even attempt to hold Nicodemus Hill, and was forced to abandon Dunker Church because I was being flanked as long as I held it. You can see from the final results of the battle in the attached screenshot I held all other objectives and inflicted just shy of twice as many casualties as I sustained. So, I was surprised when I was defeated. I could have at least understood a draw. So it would seem that my failure to hold Dunker Church caused me to be defeated. What would have happened had I held it? A draw or a victory? Holding three out of four of the strategic points on the final map would, in my view, count as a victory taken with the lopsided casualty count, but even if it did not, should it not then be a draw rather than outright defeat? Has anyone else experienced this? I welcome other thoughts.
  8. After losing 1st Bull Run as the Union (as it is supposed to happen, at least historically) I won at River Crossing and instead of going to see after my boys in the camp I was greeted with dismissal. Is this WAD? Also, generally, the game seems to be pretty hard, doesn't it? (yes, I read the guide for new players, and yes I am an UG:G veteran)
×