Grognard_JC
-
Posts
114 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Grognard_JC
-
-
I agree with Hitorishizuka's statement, though, playing them that way is gamey, and therefore, shoudl not be possible.
-
8 minutes ago, Koro said:
To be fair, it only happens in those two battles that I noticed it but still
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.
-
48 minutes ago, Koro said:
I just fell victim to the map getting cut off at Antietam too. Is this necessary to do? I lost two units up there that were otherwise holding the flank in the woods up there..
And is it possible to have a more elegant way of introducing the units in the third phase of Antietam? They just spawn at the bridge and if you have men there, they'll get shot at.
Likewise, if you're almost on top of Henry Hill, someone reported to me, that Jackson just spawns a top the hill as well and is able to shoot down on you immediately. It could be made better perhaps
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.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Lincolns Mullet said:
Historically the Union had it harder than the CSA in the beginning. Keep in mind the last half of the war hasn't been implemented yet, where CSA should have increasingly difficult odds.
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.
-
1
-
-
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 !
-
21 minutes ago, mgganimal said:
I seem to be having trouble with the Historical Campaign. I can't even survive until the Battle of Shiloh before I get sacked. I am playing at the Brigadier General difficulty think it would provide a bit of a challenge, but instead, I am crushed in every battle. Playing as the Union, I am outnumbered in every battle and my units can't go toe to toe with the Confederates for long before retreating. Even enemy skirmishers are able to push back my divisions. As a Civil War buff, I am very aware of the early advantages held by the Confederates, but it is getting to the point where the game is no longer even fun. Is this the AI scaling everyone is talking about?
For example, in the 1st Battle of Bull Run, I have a large force that is pushing the Confederates back, but then I run out of time and it is chalked as a defeat. Then I am defeated in the minor engagements and fired.
My officers are wounded or killed too easily. Division commanders did not lead from the front during battle. But my commanders get shot so easily. After every battle I am replacing all of my commanders.
I will be trying it again on easy. Maybe I am just terrible at this game?
I find the Union is harder to start with. You should try the CSA, same difficulty.
-
7 minutes ago, James Cornelius said:
This sort of proves my point: a full, or at least semi-full, scenario editor for UGCW would add TREMENDOUS replay value. I don't of course know Game Labs' business model, but consider the avenues that open up with just this limited ability to, for lack of a better word, mod the game (please don't misunderstand me here, as I am not asking for full modding ability - just a scenario editor).
There are many games out there that demonstrate the value of limited ability to edit scenarios or other parameters. If UGG can be seen as the "prototype" of UGCW, then I don't see the lack of an editor there as any argument against one here. Again, I'd cite Civil War Generals 2 as a good example in that it made it easy to not only do your own battles from scratch, but easily have a modified historical battle to easily show what might have been.
I'd respectfully ask the Developers to consider this proposal.
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...
-
48 minutes ago, NickAbbottt said:
Hello Game-Labs.
I love how you guys are taking tactical strategy to a whole new level with Ultimate General.
I have played through the Confederate campaign to Antietam on normal and I almost (should have) won! in the last 20 mins of the battle i just lost control of the sunken road and ran out of time taking it back! Lots of memorable moments in these battles, a really great game.
However, there is one or two issues I would like to raise.
The first is win/loss objectives. Antietam is a good example. I repelled all attacks, held all but one "objective" location (sunken road) with my defensive line still intact by nightfall and caused significant casualties on the enemy but still lost? I checked out the real battle and discovered the battle was technically a defeat for the Confederates as they were forced to eventually withdraw in the face of losses and overwhelming numbers. But in my battle I held and caused tremendous Union casualties. Surely that would be a victory? Or am I not supposed to win the battle?
The second issue is the persistent campaign. I certainly works well for the player as I have to manage losses and make hard choices on whether an attack is worth the casualties in the long run. Building my army is a fantastic aspect of the game.
But it doesn't seem to work for the AI.
For example, I won all battles up to Antietam and suffered 94,834 Confederate casualties but inflicted 196,891 Union casualties. I know the union had a larger manpower pool but the losses I inflicted do not seem to affect the AI armies in any way and they also have many 2 and 3 star brigades by Antietam, which would be difficult considering the number of replacements they would need.
In conclusion, it feels like the "persistent campaign" is one sided. I hope this will change.
Thanks for your time.
Nick
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.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, JEWMEN said:
so they will put Gettysburg offline when UG:CW mp releases? in my opinion i think Gettysburg is way better than cw.
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
-
1
-
-
Server down because they are making tests for UG CW MP mode !
-
1
-
-
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!
-
2
-
-
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...
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Lincolns Mullet said:
Right. This would work great in PvP or skirmish PvAI where its more about army balance than historical numbers. The way the campaign works now, your force vs the AI force should be closer to the historical ratio of forces during a specific battle so you experience the battle on similar footing. Thats really the crux of the matter. You're able to greatly vary your army size and strength vs a fixed force opponent which can either make the battle impossible to beat, a rollover, or anywhere inbetween (if you removed scaling).
AI "boosts" to morale, damage, and/or numbers all have the same given effect to make the game more difficult. These are all easy to implement in some degree or another. And without creating a brilliant AI, this is how you make the enemy stronger.
The alternative is that you scale down the amount of resources you receive for winning battles, so that you have to be ultra careful with your men to be able to realistically face a 63k strong Union army at Shiloh for example. Then you put the burden of difficulty on the player rather than the AI, which would reward skill.
The key, then, is making hard realistically "hard" and then figuring out what normal and easy would be.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, Koro said:
Then what happens when player 1 wipes player 2 off the map? Same problem really, at least if you're going for a campaign :). I think you'd just see lots of people quitting and very few actually making it through the campaign.
I'm all in for the MP battles though and at some point I'll write a thread about all the good and bad reasons I see for it.
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.
-
16 minutes ago, Koro said:
If this is the case, the AI would run out of men against me and many others after 2 or 3 battles and I'd never experience the full campaign.
In almost all strategy games, the AI "cheats" somehow. In Total War they get extra resources and don't pay upkeep for huge amounts of troops f.x. This is all generally accepted as an AI will always have a handicap. While this solution isn't elegant the only alternative I can think of this:
Have each stage of the campaign set for a certain amount of men, that can perhaps vary a bit. If you're behind as a player you get more men, same terms as the AI. You'll not have veterans though if you throw away your army but always be replenished. I'm not sure this would be more fun though.
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.
-
39 minutes ago, fallendown said:
If Gettysburg is representative of Civil War Battles then it took 300 shots to cause 1 casualty. While this may seem strange, what you have to remember is that this is the age of black powder. Unless there was a breeze, the smoke from rifles and artillery quickly obscured vision on the battlefield. Also, the ranges were extremely short, while rifles then were easily capable of killing at 600 meters (yds)+ most engagements happened at 150m(yds) or less.
It would be cool if the game could create "fields of smoke" that would make prolonged fire fights less lethal and reduce visibility.
-
2
-
UGCW Feedback v0.68 (UPDATE: 28/11/2016)
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by Grognard_JC
Some quick remarks after reaching Gains Mill in my 4th CSA run.
I was too idiotic to think of it from scratch and I had rather create my first corp with full 2500 men brigades.
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 !