Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered

[Mr. Mercanto]

The Rebels are still hugely overpowered in the game. I've had whole divisions overrun on high ground with cover and artillery support. Its almost as if all the Rebels have to do to win is charge. The only thing that seems to stop them is canister.

I think giving the Rebels a charging bonus is drastically unfair. It makes defending as the Union impossible.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Not really.

 

Your tactics are wrong. Instead of holding the ground from the start you need to set your Brigades up one behind the other. In at least two rows. A good distance away from the VP. As the Confederates advance you simply fallback one brigade behind the other. Then when the Rebels advance to the next brigade you do the same. By the time you do this 3 or 4 times the Rebels will be exhausted and you can tell your men to hold. They should have more Morale and Organization than the Confederates and then the Rebels will run in fear.

 

I can destroy the game as Union on Hardest difficulty. Its not that hard.

 

Its far harder to beat as the Rebels. Once the 5 different Corps arrive on the field. The Union have far better cannons and If you have not gained  Culps Hill its almost impossible to win as Rebs.

[JohnnyJingles]

I cant say yet but as far as i can see at the moment the confederates are not overpowered. Will do more testing.

[Mr. Mercanto]

@R.E.B. Blunt. Fair enough. I guess I was looking at the defensive action as a simulator rather then game (ie in the actual Civil War the Rebel charge would not have worked). I've had more luck since adopting my strategy to the game, so again, thanks for the advice, albeit bluntly delivered. Though I still think the Union Brigades are under powered. I mean, contrary to popular belief, the Grand Army of the Potomac had more then one effective brigade. I was actually a bit insulted that Adelbert Ames was given a one star rating . 

Though I definitely agree that the Union artillery is excellent. 

Tl;dr I concede to R.E.B. Blunt and JohnnyJingles, though I do hold that offensive tactics were harder to actuate in the actual conflict and defensive tactics were more effective. 
 

[JohnnyJingles]

I have done more testing and i cant really conlude the confederates are OP around 8 hours of gameplay and the only things i would suggest would be... more soldiers killed during engagements but other from that mr. mercanto i would asvise you play with the confederates more and leave the union a while just to see if you change your mind sir.

[Riekopo]

I don't think the game should give the Federals and Confederates different stats. The thing that should matter is human intelligence in regards to tactics not stats. 

[JohnnyJingles]

Played another good while with the union and did not have any problems with the confederates except for that pettigrew regiment aha.

 

By the way i agree with riekopo...

 

I think personally the union's troops had better understanding of tactics where as the confederates used mass volleys and basic tactical approches. However some confederate regiments of the confederacy i would say better than some of the unions best ones.

 

Below examples of some the regiments im talking about.

 

Orphan Bridage.

 

Louisiana Tigers.

 

Stonewall bridade.

[Mr. Mercanto]

Yeah, upon reflection I was overreacting due to frustration. Though I still maintain that the Union soldiers in the game are unfairly presented. The Grand Army of the Potomac gets a bad reputation due to the ineptitude of its commanders before Meade, but the army itself and the soldiers it was composed of were of the best in the war. No other army in the Union inflicted and withstood casualties in the proportions that the Potomac Army did. Also, as I said before I quite like Adelbert Ames he definetly should have at least 2 stars lol. 

Granted, the same can be said of the Army of Northern Virginia in relation to its Confederate counter parts, and the brigades mentioned by Johnny Jingles certainly demonstrate that. I just think that the Union infantry are being a bit unfairly represented. 

[Zelekendel]

The thing is, evening out all the differences between the sides and brigades potentially does make it easier for the matter to be decided based on tactics, a few things:

 

a) To say that asymmetric troops take out tactics is false. It simply means the full tactical picture is more challenging to grasp - and as a consequence, tactics will not be adapted for the differences. More information about stats and such is key.

 Ironing out the differences makes the game much less authentic, accurate and most imporantly, bland. 

 

I've seen this line of thinking in wargaming (that all differences must be ironed out) but have never agreed with it. It's simply a preference for people who have difficulties grasping detailed nuances that don't necessarily stay constant.

[Husserl]

Hi everybody! The Ai is under constant revision by Nick. As noted we do not use cheat bonuses for the Ai. If we did it would be a piece of cake to make the player's opponent always with better stats no matter what side the Ai is. However, we've chosen the hard way to make a real Ai. An additional headache for Nick is that, as far as the game will be improved in EA and new features/improvements are added, a new re-balance must be implemented and this sometime takes a while. With your valuable feed back Nick will make his magic with the Ai and the opponents balance.

 

About the units, there are already some superior and elite brigades (see the golden stars at the bottom of their commander's portrait) based on historical facts. Soon we'll start a thread to ask suggestions about renaming some more brigades to the historical names they used like Louisiana Tigers, etc.      

[Riekopo]

The only stat that should be different between units of the same type should be experience levels in my opinion. If that is even in the game. It's not historically correct to make broad generalizations about Federal and Confederate troops.

[Mr. Mercanto]

Yeah I still take issue with how the Union soldiers are portrayed. They were excellent fighters. 

[TheRomanRuler]

No? When i at first played as Confederates, i got massacred, altough that is also becouse it was my very first game, but when i switched to Union i managed to win, in fact it felt easy. 

Now i have played a lot on both sides, and i think they are very balanced, if you can hold Confederates, you can also stop them, but if you can`t slow them down, they will overrun you. 

[67th Tigers]

Yeah, upon reflection I was overreacting due to frustration. Though I still maintain that the Union soldiers in the game are unfairly presented. The Grand Army of the Potomac gets a bad reputation due to the ineptitude of its commanders before Meade, but the army itself and the soldiers it was composed of were of the best in the war. No other army in the Union inflicted and withstood casualties in the proportions that the Potomac Army did. Also, as I said before I quite like Adelbert Ames he definetly should have at least 2 stars lol. 

Granted, the same can be said of the Army of Northern Virginia in relation to its Confederate counter parts, and the brigades mentioned by Johnny Jingles certainly demonstrate that. I just think that the Union infantry are being a bit unfairly represented. 

 

It sounds like you got seduced by a "magic hill" (a reference to the Telamon episode of Time Commanders:

).

 

High ground in (real) combat is good only for extending the range of artillery. Infantry should probably be positioned at the base of the hill, with the supports and artillery up it.

[TheRomanRuler]

It sounds like you got seduced by a "magic hill" (a reference to the Telamon episode of Time Commanders:

).

 

High ground in (real) combat is good only for extending the range of artillery. Infantry should probably be positioned at the base of the hill, with the supports and artillery up it.

No infantry also gains advantage when it is on a hill. Why? Well, they can shoot down huge mass of enemy, becouse they seem them above. 

 

Also, i just won my most decisive battle yet, Union lost 10 000 men, i lost 4 500, i don`t remember how many victory points they got since i fought another battle after it, but i believe they got 1 000 and i got 4 000. But had battle continued another day, they would have easily been driven off from those positions, there were only 3 brigades, surrounded by artillery and infantry from 3 sides. And reinforcements would have been decimated, i already got most of them. Retreat would be only thing they should do

Battle however did not continue due to deadlock bug, but i fought custom battle after it. But at the time of deadlock, AKA "battle of Gettysburg has ended",  they had 12 000 victory points, and i had 17 500, their losses were 14 000 and mine 9 500, i lost first battles, hence their high number of victory points, Confederates are not over powered, i just did everything correctly in that last battle  

So:

is in order

[Townsendvol]

I played a few times as the CSA before the patch and won everytime.  However I played after this most recent patch and while I didnt get the finish all the battles I was losing slightly.  Seemed pretty balanced, going to have to be a bit more careful and tactful now I guess.

[Mr. Mercanto]

It sounds like you got seduced by a "magic hill" (a reference to the Telamon episode of Time Commanders:

).

 

High ground in (real) combat is good only for extending the range of artillery. Infantry should probably be positioned at the base of the hill, with the supports and artillery up it.

Have to disagree with you on that. High ground is very useful for infantry, so long as they are on the military crest rather then the topographical crest. It provides inertia for counter charges, makes charging for the enemy extremely difficult, and allows for a greater range of fire. The enemy is constantly exposed to fire while those on the hill are not. Certainly being on a hill doesn't guarantee success, but the positive effect experienced by infantry fighting on higher ground is well documented. 

[Mr. Mercanto]

Hi everybody! The Ai is under constant revision by Nick. As noted we do not use cheat bonuses for the Ai. If we did it would be a piece of cake to make the player's opponent always with better stats no matter what side the Ai is. However, we've chosen the hard way to make a real Ai. An additional headache for Nick is that, as far as the game will be improved in EA and new features/improvements are added, a new re-balance must be implemented and this sometime takes a while. With your valuable feed back Nick will make his magic with the Ai and the opponents balance.

 

About the units, there are already some superior and elite brigades (see the golden stars at the bottom of their commander's portrait) based on historical facts. Soon we'll start a thread to ask suggestions about renaming some more brigades to the historical names they used like Louisiana Tigers, etc.      

Are you sure you got all of the skill levels for the Brigades right. Ames was a pretty damn good commander at the regimental, brigade, and division level, yet you guys only give him one star . 

[soccercw]

Are you sure you got all of the skill levels for the Brigades right. Ames was a pretty damn good commander at the regimental, brigade, and division level, yet you guys only give him one star . 

 

I think they're intended to represent the quality of the brigade and not the commander

[Mr. Mercanto]

I think they're intended to represent the quality of the brigade and not the commander

Fair enough but Ames's brigade fought with distinction at Gettysburg. 

[kondor999]

Based on my extensive reading on the battle, had Lee or his subordinates acted more decisively, they would have won this battle decisively.  The fact that they came close at all - despite a plethora of large mistakes - is mute testimony to this assessment.

 

For instance, in the game, if Ewell's corps has a chance to secure a strategic hill with zero opposition, you would instantly seize this gift, correct? 

 

Well, that's exactly what Ewell didn't do IRL.  Had he done so, the entire Union defense plan would have been untenable.  All the confederates really needed was a hill with a flat top, overlooking the union position.  This is exactly why they fought so hard for Little Round Top.  Had the confederates been able to park a Napoleonic-style "grand battery" up there, the union troops could not have remained in their entrenched positions for long, and any assault against them would go in with massive artillery support.

 

As it was, Lee never did secure the key high ground, and Hancock made brilliant use of interior lines to shuttle troops to threatened sectors.  Pickett's Charge was Lee's final throw of the dice, and it failed for the same reasons that all the other assaults had - lack of proper artillery support, insufficient numbers for the task, and the sheer folly of frontally assaulting unsuppressed (note this also refers to the poor artillery support) entrenched defenders in an era filled with massively greater firepower than Napoleon's tactical system ever had to cope with.

 

Getting back to the point now - after knowing these facts, do you still find the Army of Northern Virginia "overpowered"?  Because they had never lost a battle up to that point and weren't even that badly damaged by this "defeat" at Gettysburg, although the South's chances of winning were all but extinguished on July 3rd, 1863.  In contrast, all the Union had to do was "not lose" in order to win.  Time was on their side in a massive way.  But this isn't a strategic wargame. It's about a single battle, and in that battle, the Army of Northern Virginia was probably the finest field army on the planet as of July 1st. 

 

To be accurate, the game *must* reflect this.  And your tactics as the Union player must deal with it.  Don't blame the game just because your opponent doesn't make the same mistakes as Lee, Heth and Ewell did.  Or if you are unable to assemble a defensible position and use interior lines to keep it firm, as Hancock did.

 

To the devs, please consider these points before Nerfing the Confederates any more than has already (unfortunately) been done.

[Husserl]

Fair enough but Ames's brigade fought with distinction at Gettysburg. 

 

Yes, but the problem of Ames is actually his Division commander (Barlow's). He did a very bad choice to rush to defend Blocher's Knoll and the result was to abandon their positions almost just after they had Early's troops in sight.

[soccercw]

I think the 11th corps as a whole fought with distinction. With the lay of the ground and their exposed position I doubt any Union corps would've held that ground North of town. They put up a hell of a scrap again the night of July 2nd

[soccercw]

I think the ratings are very fair in a 3 star system though

[R.E.B.Blunt]

The game for me is getting boring. I have unlocked all the different maps. I can beat the game as Confederacy on Hardest difficulty with no issues. As Union I can Slaughter the Confederacy before the end of the first day on hardest difficulty. In fact I can beat both armies before the end of the First Day, no problem.

 

It is far easier to play as Union than Confederacy. At least for me. They get more men, they get Better Guns, and they get the high ground. Used correctly the AI is just not smart enough to counter this.

 

I do like how the reinforcements come in at different times depending on how you are doing in the battle. Adds a sense of unknown to the game.

 

Instead of Set VP's it would be nice if there was a Random generator that picks different spots within the map to set the VP as. Would give the game more replay ability. As of right now there is only so much you can do before you do everything.