Grognard_JC

Some quick remarks after reaching Gains Mill in my 4th CSA run. I miss the previous atmosphere of army management. The sounds had more variation, more looping to it, and it was more hypnotic. Going for full ARMY ORGANIZATION might be used in a way I had not seen before, and that I'm not actually doing now : maximizing your number of brigades while keeping your army small in numbers. You can create plenty of small brigades actually, certainly escaping the army scaling problem. I was too idiotic to think of it from scratch and I had rather create my first corp with full 2500 men brigades. The last patch has made the game more challenging : your rescue less weapons than before, and you capture MUCH less weapons than before. So it makes it harder to fill new fresh brigades for free. The money you are not saving this way prohibits you from buying veterans for your old elite brigades, so your best units start to diminish in size quickly. Is it me, or the vets cost more now ? Seems to me the cavalry is much more expensive than it was ? (I could maintain 3x750 charge cav before, now I can hardly spare 1!) All in all, army management and battles certainly have become more challenging. This is very strange, because that's not in the patch notes. Keep up the good work devs !

I agree with Hitorishizuka's statement, though, playing them that way is gamey, and therefore, shoudl not be possible.

This happens in the last part of Shiloh when you play as the CSA if I remember well. It also happens on the right flank of Shiloh in the North. I'm not that sure, but I'll try to "log" it on paper next time I see this.

Indeed! I sometimes got attacked by teleported troops this way. I think a general rule should be to stick to UGG, that is EVERY unit comes from off-map. Plz devs, do not start working like the Creative Assembly. The more they created games, the more they lost after each new one!

In the late 90s I used to love the Close Combat 3 system of operation. 5 maps, your start at map 1 : one defender one attacker. The attacker must take all objectives on the map to proceed to the next map. Each round 15 minutes. You can refill or buy new units btw each round. Very simple, very deep, very interesting. Too bad the CC series never made it to 2v2 or 3v3 multiplayer. This would be a great franchise by now. I can't understand how the devs never understood it.

Do you really think that's it ? I doubt it. Porobably balance issue IMO.

Good point guys. Indeed, chasing the AI down because it's not withdrawing is gamey. The AI should know when to withdraw, and, in this case, we could start chasing it without guilt ! The stay alert scenario is a real problem in this regard. Seems the AI does not scale with the army in this scenario.

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 !

I find the Union is harder to start with. You should try the CSA, same difficulty.

We live in the age of modding. UGCW must be the only game I play in Vanilla. Look at M&B Warband, all its audience and success comes from the modding tools...

What you are refering in part to, is "the AI scales with my army" situation. There's a whole topic on the forum for it. In the long run, I think the Devs will give the player more options for the campaign. You'd have to pick beforehand the level of difficulty, including wether you want the AI to scale with your army. What's more I think there could be a VERY HARD mode (the so called AI BOOST from UGG, where each ennemy soldier was a übermensch). Last but not least, there could be a "dead is dead" difficulty mode, when you can't "restart" battles that aren't going your way. This could lead to an achievment what's more.

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!

Playing as CSA I love to use like 3 full brigades of melee cavalry (with one having Lemat when possible for the extra damage). Max melee/charge bonus + cavalry Corps commander. They can be very strong but you have to have a real method here. Never ever charge them on massed enemies, they are here to chase the loners. It's a hunt ! @fallendownI understand your point and agree with it somehow. I'm Napoleonic wargame player first, and I like the way it is now for devious reason.

Just a long shot

I agree skirmishers can be pretty boring in this situation. You can force them to stand in their position issuing HOLD order, but this attracts the balls (a big unit might face towar it and kill it). That's certainly why the were scripted to run away after each volley, Currently, skirmishers demand huge micro-management, and I'm afraid they'd be game-breakers if we were to have an MP mode. Because we need MULTIPLAYER.

@ Fallendown Though I would first completely agree on what you're suggesting, I, in a second time came to an opposite conclusion : Darth knows about it. He knows about the failed LoS and he knows about the canister shooting through melee without friendly fire. 1) About LoS : he knew it would not look realistic, and that it could make artillery overpowered. Therefore he chose to turn down the impact of long range artillery. 2) About the canister : he knew it could not look realist, but the situation that would happen on the field IRL, is that the enemy is charging straight at an infantry among which there's a full battery of artillery standing. You have to take huge casualties. Think about it. The other way around, if you cant shoot canister in the melee, you are making the game way easier for charge-blobers, as they will use charge wherever they can to NULLIFY artillerye, making jump-up tactics pay... This would be very poor. All in all, this is more about making the game smoother to play. Less micro-management, more "in-depth" thinking, real choices, not just mass-click starcraft thing. @ Darth : Don't forget to send me the 20 bucks

Server down because they are making tests for UG CW MP mode !

I agree we need MP. This has to be both coop and competitive and NOT JUST 1V1 !!! I disagree about campaign. You are a pessimist, that's all . I've been playing almost continuously to NTW2 and NTW3 (napoleonic multiplayer 4v4 mods for Total War games, around 10 battles fought EVERY single evening) since 2006 with the same community of players, and although they are not very numerous, they do make a lot of noise. I have immense hopes about MP campaign. Ofc not every player will be interested in this, and there will be lot of noob quiters, yes. But once the community is forged, and that you know your opponents as friends on TS, you never dare quit a fight. What's more, I suppose campaign could be 2v2 or 3v3 with 1 player in each team assuming command on the campaign map. If one drops, someone else can take up the lead (see how paradox games have developped in teh right direction concering drops recently.) (as a side note, why not create a MP Team Speak server one day ?) In fact, the only very concern I can see, is the budget Darth and his team have. I suspect they still have a very small team, though extremely efficient, they certainly don't have the means (time and money) to develop such things as an MP campaign. I keep believing though. 1) in MP Campaign, Lincoln' Mullet style could be fun. 2) True modding tools for the fans (Darth is one of the most famous modder of all times, and he failed releasing modding tools for UGG!!! How could this happen ?) Keep the faith!

I just started my 1st Union campaign on hard. I get the feeling playing the Union is actually harder than the CSA. Am I alone to think so ? It feelks like your troops have very low morale. And.. I actually put all my carreer points in army organization as I had promissed here (kind of scaling-challenge...). Although my army is still tiny, it does feel like the enemy got widely boosted. I won 1st Bull Run, but I got completely crushed at crossroad, with a full brigade surrenderng what's more.

What I have to say is that artillery dies pretty quickly against melee-cavs. Having a pair of elite-melee-cavs run in the enemy's rear can completely turn the battle as you will certainly wipe em all. As a general rule, infantry does poorly in charge againt artillery, but that's not true with melee-focused veterans. However, I try to never charge artillery wwith infantry. Withworth guns can kill them so fast anyways... UGG art was more squishy, and I prefer UGCW now.

Having played the dynamic campaigns of Matrix Games Pike and Shots, I must testimony that it looks very good on the paper, but it gets very boring once you've played some campaign against the AI, because the AI usually makes it predictable. Therefore, going full dynamic like this, or going free dynamic (like in Total War games) may look appealing at first but they're, in truth, less appealing in the long run, than what we already have in the early access. Therefore, I put much hope in Lincoln's Mullet proposals. We could have this semi-dynamic campaign too. The devs must be thinkig we are mad...

Agreed. And AI Boost already was in UGG by the way. What's more, we already need a very hard mode. Hard is not hard enough. I want to lose the campaign while trying my best.

Aye, this is true. However, with a more dynamic approach to the battle, like in UG:G (victory points counter-weighted by your own losses), players would be "dissuaded" from all-out strategies. What's more, you Koro especially know this well, that in UG series, it takes 2 players to have very different levels of gaming to finish up wining with a complete wipe. I hardly won ever of my game in 1v1 in UG : G, nor was I defeated that way either. So I'd be very confident in an MP campaign if I were you.

As an alternative to making AI stronger or smarter... We could maybe think of going MULTIPLAYER for the campaign. There would be much less trouble, and this would be most exciting. No more scaling problems and you really have to manage your ressources in the long run this time.