Koro
-
Posts
1,255 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Koro
-
-
Hold is fully functional in the next patch and skirmishers won't run back and forth anymore if you put them on hold.
-
4 hours ago, william1993 said:
In the Battle of Antietam, does the Union army automatically be double the size of the Confederate army?
On normal, yes. Usually it's still better to have more troops because you can fill gaps in your lines and have reserves. Your troops will also be of better quality than theirs.
-
12 hours ago, Nox165 said:
imo, fburg is the worse map they have released, it was designed to be a full battle ( ie all forces in the field at one time) but due to performance concerns they had to do phases but they never redesigned the map to meet that change. So fburg feels wired, Personally I think they should do a test version or let least give us a sandbox for it. I would love to through my 6700k 1080 gtx set up at it.
Nox, your issue is different from what is being discussed here. It's not helpful to bring it up every time someone mentions Fredericksburg.
The casualties would probably get even higher if the whole map was there anyway.
Fredericksburg won't be made whole.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Squadron HQ said:
do you know how itll be harder? fortifications are being nerfed right, which should make it easier? porter's corps doesn't turn up until the last twenty minutes or whatever and taking the farm on day one means much less resistance than day three.
Not sure if anything has changed but the whole army of the Potomac is bearing down on this single point. It should be hard. If it's not, things should probably change :).
-
2 hours ago, Squadron HQ said:
It's not possible: you can't win Chancellorsville on day one. I had all three objectives, not contested, and at the end of the timer it ran to "proceeding to the next day."
I ran this only as a test to see if I could do it, but it's kind of frustrating. If you capture all the objectives on Stones River on the first day, it lets you win. Why can't you win Chancellorsville on the first day?
I lost 10,000 men on a super aggro push into the farm but by the end of the timer I had all objectives and forty thousand men and 100 guns on the field, with all the fortifications of the farm, and plenty of supplies (about 35,000). The AI couldn't have taken that position from me - however many men from Porters corps ended up arriving were torn to shreds, so why did I lose?
In the next patch it will be winnable by day 1 though it should be hard.
-
On 2/2/2017 at 4:16 AM, Hobo said:
I loved UGG and was very impressed how much effort was expended to improve the game engine after its successful release. There are lots of developers out there (Battlefront hint hint) that take a great game engine and just clone the game over and over with a different battle or set of units. I figured you guys would go down this same path and I probably would have bought a game or two before tiring of the engine. Instead, you folks did something extraordinary and instead of the cheap way out, placed a real campaign layer on top of a great tactical engine. For this I am both pissed and thankful. Pissed as it has sucked an enormous amount of my time. Thankful that for the $/entertainment value that is unrivaled.
Now that I have buttered you up. I look forward to the 3.0 release in 2018/19 when you have moved from a static to a real dynamic campaign where you move troops across the country at strategic level similar to what Graviteam does with their Operation *** WWII sims:} Until then, I plan to spend many hours playing with this new toy.
Dont forget to write a positive review.. half of the negative ones are from people who played less than one hour and somehow managed to determine all kinds of things wrong with the game that aren't wrong at all, at least imo.
-
2
-
-
On 1/2/2017 at 5:10 AM, MikeK said:
I think it can't be emphasized enough that players should emulate the professional soldiers in the ACW who systematically sought to outflank their enemy on the grand tactical and strategic as well as tactical levels, seeking the same sort of decisive results witnessed in the preceding century by great captains, Napoleon I most of all. As the ACW reference book I cite in my signature discusses,these were men sharing the same or a similar education, similar weapons of war, similar logistic methods, similar methods of tactical maneuver, and similar troop quality. That they were able so often to mind their flanks and counter their opponents' flanking attempts is to be expected in such circumstances.
It's possible to surround and destroy the entire confederate army this way and not suffer many casualties like I did. I just didn't manage to block their retreat to the south in time and they all slipped through the gap in my surrounding forces.
-
12 hours ago, Nox165 said:
3 weeks at the most I am guessing.
Pure guesswork :).
-
1 hour ago, Acika011 said:
Hitori, do you have a YouTube channel? I would really like to see how you play to achieve incredible results like in this battle.
I don't think he does but with 131.000 against 71.000 of mine, I suffered 27.000 casualties here.So the ratio of casualties is about the same compared to the numbers.
-
12 minutes ago, GeneralPITA said:
The map is labeled on UGG but with the hand drawn maps of UGCW it would be difficult to implement.
This is not entirely correct. They are hand drawn in both games.
It is the 3D nature of the maps in UGCW that makes the overlays difficult to implement :).
-
3 hours ago, CSA Watkins said:
On the Battle Field you cannot pick multi Units by using Ctrl. Us the Box(Frame?) to pick/ or group units on field This is only when units are very close, n is sometimes hard to manipulate to box you units.....
...... and/ or Hold ""Ctrl n select /click units 1 by one from you Corps, HUD." What I do is select a Division than deselect unit(s) I do not want to move via HUD.etc etc, just play around with it... Hope this helps..
You can actually. In the beginning I thought you couldn't either but it turned out it was because I was clicking on the unit icon which for some reasons doesn't work with control. Click on one unit and then ctrl + left click on another but in the center of the unit and then use right button to move them, either draw a line or click.
-
15 minutes ago, Wandering1 said:
Would argue that medicine is much more useful if you're buying expensive gear, instead of always using the basic gear.
Saving a Fayetteville or a 24 pdr from medicine is a lot more handy than saving Farmers or 6 pdrs.
Also a lot more noticeable if you're running max-size armies (as in putting at least 2000 men in each infantry brigade) than if you're running smaller armies, if only because you have lots of spare manpower for min-size armies rather than max size armies.
Which actually sort of begs the question as a small border case that I didn't consider until now: if you get drops from 'rescues', are those 'rescues' immediately reused to equip infantry saved from medicine, or do they essentially become duplicates?
Hadn't thought of that. They probably become duplicates.
-
13 minutes ago, vren55 said:
oh wow. He has really good micro and yeah I think I took too many risks with my initial pushes. I should have gone slower and conslidated a longer line instead of pushing divisions up.
I'm playing :P. Col_kelly is just talking, hehe.
-
6 minutes ago, vren55 said:
Agreed. Though I'm annoyed because historically the Confederates won... with far less casualties. Granted the Union had less casualties as well, but the scaling seems a bit... off for some of the battles, especially when you compare them to historical counterparts. I don't think Antietam is a problem mainly b/c casualties were reduced due to an insane amount of union mistakes, but Chancelloresville casualties seemed a bit excessive.
The battles play differently for all of us and casualties vary wildly. That's part of the charm I think :). I lost 16 out of 63.000 in my video with col_kelly here
-
2 hours ago, vren55 said:
It's... POSSIBLE, but frankly in Chancelloresville, the best way to win it is to space it out. Day 1, arrive and bleed the Union a bit, Day 2 execute the flanking maneuver to kill as many as Porter's corp as possible as well as continue to bleed the Union on their defensive positions by having like 3 brigades shoot up those fences before the forest. Day 3 you rinse and repeat, (keeping some big bridages in reserve) and then surround the union around the farm to create a salient (basically surround them on three sides) gradually slowly tightening the noose until you seize Chancelloresville by bleeding the local Union forces in area. (do not try to charge, it doesn't work :P)
I tried this... and won... but I have to say that I'm somewhat unsatisfied because the position of Chancelloresville was ridiculously well fortified. I killed more Union troops despite being outnumbered, but lost half my entire army in the process... and Gettysburg is next. Honestly I'm not sure if I should have just gone for a draw and save my forces...
These are the decisions you have to make as a general. We blame the historical generals for making these types of mistakes.. In the game you are free to replicate them, or not, as you see fit, but the decision to keep bleeding men trying to achieve victory is always yours.
The fortifications will recieve major overhaul next patch
-
8 hours ago, Jamesk2 said:
Yeah Medicine late game is OP, even when compared to Politics which most people are maxing first. With Medicine you're getting extra manpower, extra EXP and extra gun - like a combination of Training + Politics or Training + a little Politics + Economy.
The only issue I have with my medicine is that you have to take casualties for it to have a purpose, and generally, my goal is not to :P. Late game, it just becomes impossible to not take heavy losses, so yeah, that's where it gets my thumbs up.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Twosp said:
Interesting I was playing only on normal, just not as good as some of you lol, and it seems I faced quite a few more confederate troops than you did Koro based on your screen shot. I brought 108,000 and was facing about 72,000 I wonder how the scaling worked in this situation? I was actually a little surprised it was even this close.
The last CSA reinforcements had not arrived at this point where I won the battle, that counts for quite a few men. Perhaps they arrived in yours. Also, did you win the battles prior? That can give the enemy less troops as well.
-
Between Fredericksburg, stones river and Chancellorsville I lost about 90.000 union troops. Having 18.000 returning in full and with experience is about twice the reward for winning Fredericksburg in the first place. That seems worth it to me. Especially as the rewards are getting smaller towards the end of the war.
-
4
-
-
4 hours ago, Gen. Szatkownik said:
Hey! If anyone has recorded a Confederate victory on yt? -
5 minutes ago, Aetius said:
Sigh, I never even considered falling back across the river. It would help a great deal in this game to know which VPs will actually cause you to lose, and those you can lose and retake.
The victory conditions can be found by clicking on the icon in the top right corner.
-
52 minutes ago, Jamesk2 said:
I don't want to be rude but seriously if you guys are having problems even on Easy than you should take a long look at how you're playing the game. Go watch some YouTubers that play well (Koro from the forum is a good choice, although he may not be as optimal as can be).
My channel is here, either way
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, GeneralPITA said:
Koro posted this to the tester forum today, it will be looked at. The hope is that the new performance tweaks may make it possible to expand to a full map but don't quote me.
I use my monogolian horde in both stages of battle at Fburg to great effect. I know, I'm cheap.
That was my hope and there's a reason I posted it there, to keep it sort of quite and not revive the whole discussion :P. It seems nothing can change though.
-
4 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:
You will fry out half the computers that play this game.
But i like it otherwise.
So 150000 might be too much but the size of the map shouldn't really matter, should it?
-
8 minutes ago, Nox165 said:
Nox, when you quote, don't write in the box :P. You did the same thing on the steam forum ^^
Info about Gettysburg
in General Discussions
Posted
It's important to understand the deployment and how Gettysburg progresses in order to play the battle properly.
For the CSA, you are allowed to deploy 3 corps. The first two will attack on day 1 and the third will be the one attacking on day two at the round tops, unless you capture Cemetery Hill first, which wins you the battle. It's not easy to do though (shouldn't be anyway), if it is, do report back.
You can move troops in to your third corps in the camp between days so if you lack the forces to make a 3. corps, just make sure it has 4. divisions made before the start of the battle and you can shift troops around before starting the attack on the Round Tops.
It needs a full corps of brigades to function.
As Union, it is less important how you deploy - you'll be able to deploy all of your potentially 5 corps as the battle progresses. The first corps on the field will occupy Culp's Hill and the Cemetery and the second will occupy Sickles position on day two.