Koro

For the record I've only my said it's top complicated for me to dedicate the time to at the moment

Question is too damn complicated . Some artillery is rifled in the game which gives them longer range on their attacks. This is also the only way to distinguish them.

No, not the historical gamer . My youtube channel is here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqVM9uRxrMdB72ViZTrpOYw So someone has warned you, eh? Well.. we can play the opening scenario if you want to see how the Confederates can attack . It's not too long and you can use the knowledge in the campaign. Dont play boosted btw, it's really tough and not necessary for new players.

You can add me on Steam, it's Koro t*r*y* I would also recommend to watch some of my videos that are in the sticky post or on my channel on YouTube in general

TCS, your comments have been increasingly desperate and you're starting to sound more and more crazy. Your posts have not been constructive for a long time and this really takes the cake. If you want to write feedback, be specific and suggestive, this ranting here does nothing.

Woah!!

Artillery used to move according to your targeting orders but it could have bad outcomes as the artillery would move in a straight line towards the target and sometimes way out of your lines only to be destroyed. This is before artillery was able to limber. Now it would be even worse as artillery would limber if no where near is suitable and targeting would never be used as the risk of limbering would be too high. For artillery to do as you request new code would have to be written which the developers stated will not happen anymore with this game. In the new game though I do agree that it needs to be more clear whether your targeting command is accepted or the artillery is somehow unable to shoot at the desired target. Also commands like "focus artillery" or focus infantry" would be useful.

Oh, and it seems the first new feature of the new game has been unofficially announced

I apologize if I was too sure of myself.. it seems like I was on the right track though, given Nick's response.

Not the same issue. It's not "hidden" here in the same way, your cover percentage still shows that you can take in to account. His strategy was a game-breaking cheat, this hardly is.

Not going to speak for Nick but I think in the long term the effect might be noticable as you'll take more damage then you would have otherwise.

I haven't noticed rivers doing much either. You always have a percentage of cover and that's what "matters" and even though the river might reduce it slightly it is not something I have noticed.

We haven't played on ages dude.. and the only one to consistently beat me is Yuejin. There are few enough that I remember who beats me.. I'm not responding until you decide to play a game. Your entire post is nothing but nonsense based on things you seem to have little knowledge.

It's funny, I've been accused of being responsible for the Union to be ridiculously overpowered too the last few patches... Not guilty at all, no. My guess is that you run the Union troops all over the place and attempt to fight with exhausted troops. I've seen other people do that and then complain that the Union is shafted when they only have themselfs to blame. Yes, the game is harder now on careless play. So how about it.. a game then? I don't think we're going to settle it here. I suggest Devil's Den where you can be the CSA.

I don't agree. Overhyped drama this thread. There is nothing constructive here at all. All I see is rebs is overpowered. Which scenarios are you talking about here? When you've made similar threads I've asked you to play a game with me but I'll doubt you ever will. If you do change your mind, I'll even record it and if you beat me with the rebs as badly as this post suggests you would, it'll be a good record for making corrections. And I'll eat my boot too. How's that?

I just really don't see this in WW1 . Battles seem much more extended and with hundreds of thousands of troops. On top of that there are machine guns, barbed wire, and trenches to somehow manage in to the game. Maybe it's just me. I am excited to hear about the next battle and can't wait until they release more info about it.

It is but LRT can be exposed as your brigades might have flanks open for attacks and the heavy fire coming from BRT can lead to a lot of deaths on it. High ground will be even more important in the next patch.

TDuke, it's actually a bit funny. This guy is complainging about overpowered Confederates. The other guy is complaining about overpowered Union.

What specificially is unbalanced? If I may be so bold to ask. Original poster is talking about factions I think. Not sure. I disagree though. Are you talking about factions too?

Again, I dont agree at all. I've challenged you before to play a game with me but you seem unwilling to put your money where your mouth is. In which scenarios is it that the Union is so overpowered? Benner's Hill and Metting on Cemetery Ridge are the only ones I think favour the Union in particular but that has more to do with the map than the armys. So.. find me on Steam, Koro { W.A.R and you can be the Union.

I am laughing a lot right now . What's your Steam name? You are right about getting on the flank is not as deadly as it probably were in real life but it's still very useful to attack the enemy flank. If you can extend your line around the enemy Moral is inderectly affected as troops have higher moral is their flanks are covered. Thus, if a unit next to them routs, the remaining will be lower too though perhaps not as much as I could have. I've found it a bit silly as I get better at using reserves that I just walk a 100 % moral brigade through a routed unit. Imagene their thoughts: "OMG RUN AWAY WE'RE BEING OVERPOWERED" vs. "LET'S GIVE THEM HELL BOYS". In that sense you are right and moral should be more corps wise than unit wise.

Aggressive_Kunst, I have seen a lot posts by you talking about balance and I am not convinced you play this game well enough to really understand what is happening. Much like TCS and Juga put it rather well. I dont have this problem you speak of of unbalance. Neither does any of the good players I play against. I get my ass handed to me once in a while but I cannot blame the game for that. Just like I've challenged TCS I'll challenge you to show me which side you think is unbalanced. You can pick pretty much any map (though beware that a few have inherent unbalance in the map itself) and I will play the side you think is being unfavoured. It looks like you are playing Chance to Change History on the screenshot. That would be a good place to start. My name is Koro { W.A.R } - please add me on Steam. After we play, we can revisit this thread. Deal? Time to put down the guantlet

I guess you have a fair point.. no pun intended . I dont think the results would have been the same had I committed all my forces, especially the Iron Brigade. So lucky I was playing carefully I guess. The last comment I will make on this matter is that if it were intented behavior, it would be possible to make this maneuver without having to use a brigade separated from the rest. Right now the arrow stops at the edge if you attempt to do this. How can it not be exploitive behavoir to have to deliberately place a brigade apart from the ones you want to move in order to perform a maneuver?

I dont agree at all that the Confederate player can just charge away at the Union and expect good results. Most often, people who trye that, at least in my games, are repulsed with Pickett's Charge-like casualties to boot. Perhaps this video might be of some inspiration: We can also play any scenario you'd like in which you think the Confederates can easily win. I'll be Union and I'll eat my words if you can just throw troops at me and win

This video shows it: - and yes, I got a bit upset.From 16.00. I think it's blatant abuse of game mechanics. Blizzard defines the difference between clever use of game mechanics as something like: Clever use is using a skill from a player that may not have been intended for the purpose to counter a mechanic from a boss. Cheating is when you take a lowlvl item that for whatever reason destroys the point of the entire encounter. Moving of the map like that, as No Pasaran says, leaves the other player in a state of not being able to counter it. What's the point of having flanks protected or making a line if the opposing player can just move around it and appear in any location on the map. It isn't even remotely realistic. This move in this scenario would have you cross Cemetery Hill, that the Union is holding and there would be troops there had it not been for the limits of the map. It follows logically that the limits of the map are then where the borders are. It's not about camping on the hill as you put it. One side is defending, one side is attacking, as it usually were IRL. Your personal need to always be on the attack is not a fault of the game . It's still very possible to get a defending force of a hill or the high ground, even when "camping".