2nd Bull Run suggestions

[Koro]

I think this battle has the potential to become one of the most epic fights of the campaign for both sides but there are a few things preventing it from becoming so, at least in my opinion.

For the Union, you get to deploy your entire first corps which can consist of at least 40.000 men that can be easily used to overcome the forces Jackson has, around 28.000. The deployment zone will hopefully be fixed so you can't deploy almost right on top of the fortifications but I still see having the potential of 40.000 men at once as being too much. What I'd suggest is to simulate the uncoordinated attacks that Poke did, is that half of the corps comes in as reinforcements after maybe 1 hour of game time in to the first phase. This would allow the 10 brigades you have to secure some frontal positions and still do something but you won't be allowed to simply overwhelm the Confederate forces right from the start.

I also think a second victory point on top of Stony Ridge would help immensely to prevent the player from making a sort of beeline towards the flag and capture it without really making an impact on Jackson's forces and win the battle with relatively little fire being exchanged. The reality was to "win" this battle would be for Poke to run Jackson pretty much off the field, which is far from necessary in order to capture the 1 victory point located in the middle. 

 

For the CSA, my biggest beef is in the victory conditions. It is only necessary to hold Stony Ridge and get 5 % more casualties done to the Union, which when you are defending, is fairly easy to do. If you manage to hold Stony Ridge there is no way you haven't inflicted 5 % more damage to Poke's army. 

The real battle saw the Confederates win because they did a massive counterattack on the Union flanks and basically drove them off the field. With the 5 % victory condition, both sides can easily remain on the field, which looks more like a draw than a victory. It simply allows the player to move the reinforcing flank force in to position on the ridge and if you didn't have the 5% before, you will for sure get it now as you have the height advantage and more numbers to boot.

I'd like to see the victory condition only include driving the Union off Henry Hill only so the players can experience the immense strategic impact this has on the battlefield and the force that is needed to drive the Union back. For me, in some of the earliest stages when victory conditions weren't available, this was one of the best experiences I had in the game. When I learned that you could win with just 5 % casualties in your favor, I felt like I would be cheated out of the experience in future battles.

In my campaign play through I am arriving at 2nd Bull Run soon and while I don't assume that anything will change at that point, I will still execute the counterattack, both for the experience and the hope that it will be changed in future patches

[vren55]

I actually think that if you added a victory point for the union to get... welll it'd make the battle even harder. It was near impossible for me the first time I got it. I played the battle on Wednesday and I couldn't beeline for the Stone Ridge... i had to punch through all of Jackson's defenses, and turn his flank REALLY hard, REALLY fast. Another victory point would have doomed me. 

[Hitorishizuka]

If making changes to 2nd Bull Run, one has to also remember Thoroughfare Gap. It was only possible for the CSA to drive the Union off the battlefield due to Longstreet's reinforcements, which the Union failed to block at that battlefield and basically doomed the attack before it even started. A more dynamic campaign map should play into how the objectives are constructed on this one.

I'd personally like to see more done with the first stage of the battle. There's basically no reason at all to fight as Union given you're at a manpower disadvantage and the enemy already has a strong defensive position around the VP.

[KaleRaven]

When I played this battle during my initial normal difficulty Union campaign, I won the battle during the first stage also. I pushed across the river with artillery and overwhelmed the Confederate left, then rolled up the line. I think Koro's idea to stagger reforcement is a good one.

[Hitorishizuka]

NB - Sorry, when I said first stage, I meant the small skirmish battle at I think it was called Brawner's Farm. No reason to fight, complete waste of time, and the AI won't even pursue you since they're sitting on the meaningless VP.

[Nick Thomadis]

This battle has been set up like this for long time but the big difference is that after complains of players that wanted the campaign to be easier at some battles, we nerfed the AI opponents and we got to the situation of players always having maxed out brigades of 2500K which made some battles more easy than they should be, because players can have 2x or more army than they should have. We will look how to fix this particular battle with the right way. Thanks for reporting.

PS. In other occasions the AI tries to reinforce its armies to counter the bigger player armies, creating an opposite problem (too big AI armies).

[Hitorishizuka]

13 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

This battle has been set up like this for long time but the big difference is that after complains of players that wanted the campaign to be easier at some battles, we nerfed the AI opponents and we got to the situation of players always having maxed out brigades of 2500K which made some battles more easy than they should be, because players can have 2x or more army than they should have. We will look how to fix this particular battle with the right way. Thanks for reporting.

PS. In other occasions the AI tries to reinforce its armies to counter the bigger player armies, creating an opposite problem (too big AI armies).

FWIW being able to finish the battle early is probably 'okay'. My biggest fear going in to that battle on the Union side was that it's very difficult to have the guns and money necessary to fill all of the brigade slots theoretically offered in reinforcements. The longer the battle goes the more likely the player won't have reinforcements available, so depending on how the autoscaling works they can basically get screwed.

[Koro]

11 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

This battle has been set up like this for long time but the big difference is that after complains of players that wanted the campaign to be easier at some battles, we nerfed the AI opponents and we got to the situation of players always having maxed out brigades of 2500K which made some battles more easy than they should be, because players can have 2x or more army than they should have. We will look how to fix this particular battle with the right way. Thanks for reporting.

PS. In other occasions the AI tries to reinforce its armies to counter the bigger player armies, creating an opposite problem (too big AI armies).

Hey Nick, Ive had these thoughts for a long time, I just havent put them in to words before. I did make an ingame report a while ago about the victory conditions for the Csa side.

It has little do to with your own numbers. If I had a third less troops as Union, I'd still be able to deploy 40.000 of them in the first corps and then just have less coming in as reinforcements.  And perhaps have an easier time actually due to scaling making Jackson's forced smaller. 

For the CSA side, the issue remains the same, that it's very likely any counterattack will be necessary. 

 

@hit. It is not possible or necessary to have that many brigades at the battle and I'm not sure why it is even an option. It's never affected any of my battles there, at the most I think I had 26 in the main army and 20 in front 

[Hitorishizuka]

8 minutes ago, Koro said:

It is not possible or necessary to have that many brigades at the battle and I'm not sure why it is even an option. It's never affected any of my battles there, at the most I think I had 26 in the main army and 20 in front 

For science maybe try deliberately drawing the battle out as Union as long as possible and see what happens.

[Koro]

What happens is the CSA will receive reinforcement and since you opted out of having no rear guard, most likely, you just won't  have any troops deployed in the rear, on the points the CSA counterattacks. The numbers coming in are adjusted accordingly so you won't face down an overpowered force. You'll have whichever men you deployed.

In beta due to some imbalances, the map was near impossible to win for both sides so I got to play through all of it. 

[Nick Thomadis]

1 hour ago, Koro said:

What happens is the CSA will receive reinforcement and since you opted out of having no rear guard, most likely, you just won't  have any troops deployed in the rear, on the points the CSA counterattacks. The numbers coming in are adjusted accordingly so you won't face down an overpowered force. You'll have håbe whichever men you deploysed

In beta due to some imbalances, the map was near impossible to win for both sides so I got to plau through all of it. 

I remember those times  We will look to fix any remaining issues for the next update.

[Koro]

I just noticed the victory condition about Henry Hill is redundant.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/97221552655260322/C3ED6CE4560FC01DA3E02A959D76E0B7FA95742B/

Both require 5 % extra casualties done to the enemy, so that's all that's required really and the 1. victory condition might as well not be there at all. I've just played the battle and had a lot of fun executing the counterattack but it was completely unnecessary actually and even more so, since I might have lost a lot of men in the counterattack and lost out on the 5 % gain I had from earlier.

I just think it's a shame that Confederates don't have to counterattack :).

[Grognard_JC]

Ah yes. I had told myself the same thing at the time. But I was to greedy and I pressed the counter-attack whatsoever.

 

Anyway, as a general note, we'd certainly benefit a more dynamic battle mechanic, like in UGG, where victory points amounted to a certain number. Guess it's another topic though.

 

 

What's more, in my first CSA run, the Union did not start the attack in the first part of the battle. I defended all the railroads and I suppose the AI had some pathfinding issues with this. Because, in my 2nd run, I didnt defend them, and the Union attacked like a sweeping wave!

Edited December 4, 2016 by Grognard_JC

[Koro]

Yes, I am going to do my thoughts on how the maps can be made more dynamic though i'm sure they've already thought about it. I think they're mostly focused on finishing the last maps. Then they can be tweaked once they all work

 

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

i do think CSA should have to counter-attack and hold Henry Hill to have a victory and like Koro I always do it even though it is not currently a victory condition.  

[Koro]

My battle of it is here 

 

I think it shows clearly that the railroad has too much defense against melee for the player. 1 brigade kills several thousand in melee and barely loses any condition or moral. 

The 2nd line is probably fine but it shouldnt be this easy to hold the first line. I retreat but it would probably have been better to stick around at the front. 

[Grognard_JC]

Very nice video. I'm posting it in my clan forum.

 

I agree with you, and would even add : as a general rule fortifications are way too strong. The AI usually fails at attacking them, but the player too. My biggest problem in all the CSA campaign has always been the Hornest Nest in Shiloh. I alway fail at taking it. Even encircled by alldirection with artillery and infantry, even charged simulteanously by 7 divisions, I fail taking it.

Why not scale fortification bonus with difficulty ? What's more on the Potomac Fort, the CSA should not be able to fill the fortifications. It's gamey, once I found it, I understood it was the key to a very easy victory there. But you should not get bonus from being inside the fort fighting who tehsmeves are inside !

[A. P. Hill]

Not bad overall observations Koro.

One comment, as a spelling Nazi, the union commander's name at 2nd Manassas was Pope,   Not Poke.

[Koro]

1 hour ago, A. P. Hill said:

Not bad overall observations Koro.

One comment, as a spelling Nazi, the union commander's name at 2nd Manassas was Pope,   Not Poke.

Thanks, haha. Poke lol. 

And thank you Grognard too

[Karri]

One solution to massive brigades is to allow more corps and more brigades to be brought in at different stages. Right now the campaign kinda pushes you towards a 20 brigade corps maxed out. There are far fewer changes to bring multiple smaller corpses than there is to bring massive corps in the scenarios overall as well. 

You could tweak that, and then with difficulty levels limit the amount of men players can bring. For example in easy you could deploy up to 3 to 1 advantage, whereas at hard you can't deploy more than 50% more men/brigades than the enemy(but would gain reinforcements with casualties?). I wouldn't aim to completely eliminate the massive brigades from player arsenal, as it is quite fun to play that way, but I would leave them at the easy difficulty.

 

2nd Bull Run could use a third victory point between Stony Ridge and Henry Hill

 

Also, units in Nicodemus Hill get cut off from the battle when map extends to stone bridge. They should transfer back to battlefield.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Karri

[Koro]

On 3/12/2016 at 6:02 PM, vren55 said:

I actually think that if you added a victory point for the union to get... welll it'd make the battle even harder. It was near impossible for me the first time I got it. I played the battle on Wednesday and I couldn't beeline for the Stone Ridge... i had to punch through all of Jackson's defenses, and turn his flank REALLY hard, REALLY fast. Another victory point would have doomed me. 

I actually missed your post completely somehow.

You can see me rolling up the hill here in about 10 mins. and capture the point virtually unscathed. I won, but it didn't feel like much of a victory.

 

[vren55]

5 hours ago, Koro said:

I actually missed your post completely somehow.

You can see me rolling up the hill here in about 10 mins. and capture the point virtually unscathed. I won, but it didn't feel like much of a victory.

Huh. I see what you mean. I didn't nearly have such a large army as I put more into training and economy for my career skills instead of army organization and so I out-shot them instead of charging in.

I think it'll have to be up to the developers. I had a smaller army so well that wouldn't have work, but someone who yanked everything into army organization would have been able to just charge in...

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

What I will say from watching these videos is that Koro is going to be very difficult to beat in multiplayer.  You do a fantastic job of eliminating salients in your line and constantly dressing to avoid enfilade.  I'm impressed.  The only time I would lose back in UG: Gettysburg was when my opponent was good at this.  

Edited December 6, 2016 by Don't Escrow Taxes

[Hitorishizuka]

The AI scaling was most interesting to me, I think. Koro had 40k troops vs AI 23k in his post-battle screen. I think in mine it reported 17k infantry vs AI 22k.

[Koro]

1 hour ago, vren55 said:

Huh. I see what you mean. I didn't nearly have such a large army as I put more into training and economy for my career skills instead of army organization and so I out-shot them instead of charging in.

I think it'll have to be up to the developers. I had a smaller army so well that wouldn't have work, but someone who yanked everything into army organization would have been able to just charge in...

Army org. only gets you so far - you still need the men to fill the ranks :).

The battle has to be difficult for the Union since Jackson held a very strong position here. I don't think it's unrealistic for players to arrive with 45-50.000 troops there and be able to do what I did.

In the end it's always up to the developers; I write this posts both because I can see ways to improve things and also for my own enjoyment.

1 hour ago, Don't Escrow Taxes said:

What I will say from watching these videos is that Koro is going to be very difficult to beat in multiplayer.  You do a fantastic line of eliminating salients in your line and constantly dressing to avoid enfilade.  I'm impressed.  The only time I would lose back in UG: Gettysburg was when my opponent was good at this.  

Hehe thanks. I was not easy to beat in MP. On my channel you can also find MP UGG videos. Did we ever play against each other in UGG?

25 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:

The AI scaling was most interesting to me, I think. Koro had 40k troops vs AI 23k in his post-battle screen. I think in mine it reported 17k infantry vs AI 22k.

There is a limit to how far the AI will scale down. Your force seems very small though at 2nd Bull Run. Was 17k your entire force?