Grognard_JC
-
Posts
114 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Grognard_JC
-
-
2 hours ago, Luckybluemoon said:
I think scaling either needs to be adjustable, or an option to turn off/on. From a historical perspective, it makes sense. but from a gameplay perspective, its rather annoying to be playing the union and inflicting a 8/1 kill/death ratio on the CSA and they keep coming back with more 3-star brigades. On the other hand, this would make the end of the campaign very boring as we would just have overwhelming force. Maybe for the beta allow a ratio slider for the players to try out and let us figure out what a good balance would be?
You said it. The late game could be very boring.
So maybe it's better to to keep the current system.
However, difficulty could come from other sources : it could be about hasards of a dynamic campaign or hasards of dynamic battles.
I won Shiloh as the CSA yesterday, and, as it was my 2nd run, I knew perfectly what to do... And the objectives are quite easy to take if you are ready to pay the high price. I therefore miss UG Gettysburg system, where you'd sometimes prefer to watch and see, rather than rush for the objectives.
-
Alright, let me explain. I played so far 2 campaigns as the CSA.
First run, I was discovering the game engine, plus, I was focusing entirely on creating few but very elite units. When I came to Shiloh, I got so terribly outnumbered the AI I was supposed to suprise crushed me to pieces. His skirmishers got me flanks and started running in depth while all my units where getting massacred. There were many stacks of 2000 + units in front of me.
Second run, this time I put more emphasis on army organisation, so that I can deploy more units, though rookie ones. So my corps was this time like twice as big as what I had in the first run. What's more, I had like 3-4 artillery too. Guess what. This time I was not outnumbered. I slighlty outnumbered the Union even, though that was only in the beginning. After this, I kept winning ground without much casualties.
My guess : in the first run, the AI had not scaled down.
-
I'm not convinced the AI scales with you when your army diminishes, then. That was my point.
-
However, as a counter-point, if you play poorly and you have your armies die like flees, the AI does not scale with you. It keeps growing stronger with every battle. That's what happened in my first campaign. So, I don't think the AI scales with you. The AI is pre-scripted to be a challenge to you from the start of the campaign in each and every battle, presuming you'll play with average/good performance.
So, if you play well, you must start to feel you're gaining an edge over the AI after a few decisive battles.
Ofc, this applies to the "historical" campaign in its current state. I do hope we'll get a dynamic campaign (and that it will be playable in MP!)
-
1
-
-
2nd hotfix got released 30 minutes ago. Looks good.
http://steamcommunity.com/games/502520/announcements/detail/670303337230917871
-
1
-
-
There's so much potntial in MP.
We could organize Tournaments (with real prizes) like we currently do for NTW3. http://goldenmusket.strikingly.com/
This would bring more and more people, more videos on youtube/twitcher etc.
We need MP!
-
2
-
-
I agree with this too.
Some of your points are also proposed here :
-
1
-
-
You have a point about the flux. Yet we should be able to make more decisions.
-
I'm not against this feature actually. In board games, charging is very critical measure you take. It can go perfectly well... Or it can be a disaster. When clicking charge, you should not expect this unit to be fresh again soon, in the best of cases.
-
1
-
-
Good points Butch.
To say it simply : we'd like more Gettysburg spirit both in Civil War campaign and battles. Bring back the sandbox thing! It was great.
And don't forget to make it a multiplayer game 4v4.
-
Some topics are already dealing with this.
-
Hello here,
Playing CSA hard..
I've just experienced a very frustrating bug in my second campaign.
In the last part of the Shiloh battle (that I hadnt reached in my first campaign), I got my game frozen as I was starting to outflank the Union on their right (fortifications there). Some secs ago, I was telling myself : where does this infantry (more than 2k) and artillery come from (more than 300) as they seemed to teleport inside my stack of flanking units... Maybe it's linked, maybe it's not...
The game froze there (I was winning!!!) and although I tried to alt-tab shift-tab or press escape, nothing would happen. I got no error report. It looked like the game was still calculating someting. I eventually managed to switch to antother program. When I switched back to UGCW i heard like a big canon boom. That's all.
I suppose something's wrong with this battle's last part.
Overhaul, I find this battle pretty hard in this last part, as you all of a sudden have to manage all these units, while the union units are everywhere on the map...
-
I hope it will help you. Fingers crossed!
-
Good point.
-
21 minutes ago, Legioneod said:
Along with the things I mentioned above, I'd like to see more of a dynamic campaign.
I'd like to see the ability to plan your own campaigns and not be set to the historical campaigns (overland, Gettysburg, etc)
I'd like to see battles have more consequence on each side and to actually have an effect on the war. And I'd like to plan the battle stages myself or fight the battle on one big map instead of being stages.
If the timer runs down then the battle will go to the next day if you don't lose, or you could choose to pull out and fight another day.
The campaign is just real linear at the moment and I was hoping for something my dynamic.
I agree with Legioneod. It seems the campaign could become a little bit more dynamic or sandboxy. I hope the devs can bring us more of this.
I'm very satisfied so far (short experience though) with the HARD difficulty that actually offers me a good challenge. I even lost my second battle as I was overconfident.
I won the third battle, but I lost 90% of my corps, ruining all the XP and money I had gathered so far. This feels very good.
(And plz, add MP!)
-
1
-
-
I bought the game. Haven't had the time to play much, but it has huge potential.
Plz, give us a 2v2 campaign mode... Please
-
1
-
-
In the first battle a Confederate, my supply wagon went somewhere without the actul order to do so. First, I told myself it had maybe the same mechanic as a general... But, maybe it was the same problem.
-
1
-
-
Hi there.
Unfortunately my computer started to crash after the first batlle while I was in the Army trying create some units. M computer rebooted. Tried again, It rebooted after a few minutes again.
So I started MSI Afterburner. And there it comes : in the game, even when you seem not to be using your GPU much, your FPS is going at around 800 FPS!!!! So my GPU temperature steadily rose to over 100 degree. Hence the computer rebooted each time.
Is there a way to force FPS at 60 FPS please ? I can't play the game overwise.
I play games like Naval Action in Ultra and I never get these temperatures.
Thx in advance!
--------------------------------------
Edit :
I found a work around thx to MSI Afterburner using RivaTunerStatisticsServer
I forced FPS to 60 and my GPU is quite cold... Constan 30 degree. Hurra!
But I do hope the devs can find a solution.
JC
-
Thank you!
-
On 15/11/2016 at 4:52 PM, Fellvred said:
I'm sure we'd all love multiplayer maps and co-op/vs campaigns but only a tiny percentage of players touched the Gettysburg multiplayer mode.
If there was 'spare' dev time at the end of release I'd rather have a speculative mini campaign, or even some simple mods tools to allow players to design some battles on the existing maps
This is true, but as I already said in another topic, there's a lot of people stuck on total war games playing 4v4 huge battles, and they would DEFINITELY come to civil war if they knew it had a 4v4 mode. 1v1 is not satisfactory.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, michaelsmithern said:
i would like to see what it is the multiplayer aspect of this game will be. I'm not sure it will be like the previous title, but maybe more intricate, with purchasing units in a total war style way. on top of this with a "campaign" you could have 1v1 head to heads(possibly more if you could code it in)
This would be great.
-
Hello Darth & co,
Congratulations for the new game. I will definitely buy it.
Lots of lads among the NTW2 - NTW 3 mod community (www.thelordz.org or www.grognards.org ) would certainly buy it too, if there was a way to play battle in large multiplayer combats.
We are used to play 4v4 games, so 1v1 MP games would not do. They did not attract much of us in the previous game.
I really look forward for Civil War to be 4v4 battle big with possibility of custom battle and custom unit picking.
What's more, the campaign mode of Civil War could be awesome in MP too : 4v4 could also do, provided there'd be a team leader in each faction.
So far I read nothing about the MP aspect, but I think it is maybe the most important. Could you maybe give us a hint ?
Thanx in advance,
JC
-
1
-
-
David,
I'm not trying to lure you into a semantic argument or something.
Accurate figures of battle or campaign casualties are a very modern, and almost contemporary concept. It's only historians since the late 19th century that started working on it seriously.
Historians do tend to make rules out of examples. You take a series of fact, seeing they repeat themselves under apparently the same circumstances, you then draw "rules". Ofc, this always a bit arbitrory. Even you, in your points about artillery in the ACW are using this process. You've gathered facts to make a series of "rules" (which, in this case I agree with), which could be used, here, in video game.
However, sometimes, you can't draw such "rules" when there are two few evidences, or when there are obvious counter examples. That's why I disagreed ond the casualties report - manpower shortage "rules". Napoleon, has you pointed out, was hiding hos losses, while he had all the ressources, even the biggest manopwer ressources in Europe.
What's more, there might be a confusing point in this dicussion. About propaganda. Propganda in the free press is relatively young phenomenon. It has to deal with faith, ideology or "great causes" (Independance War), while Propaganda, not in the free press, but as a tool of the ruling elites, can certainly dated back to the Antiquity. Caesar used it in its Gallic Wars, quoting numbers as well. From this, I suspect from the above post you are talking about propaganda in the free press. Well, we should ask ourselves when the press started to be free at all ? Certainly, you can't date it back to the middle ages, and it has to be born a minima with the Humanists.
Alright, that was certainly not the bulk of the discussion though, and I'm watching closely you current research on the casualties of the ACW. I'm curious to know wether figures were made out of propaganda or out of amateurism, or a combination of both. I can't make an opinion of what you've already brought on the table.
-
1
-
-
Grognard_JC,
As requested - you've been corrected.
Thank you for the answer, but there's no need to use such a peremptory tone.
"To lie like a bulletin" distorted fact frequently including the reported casualty figures on both sides. This cliche predates the Russian invasion. Examples are numerous and include the casualty figures from Eylau in 1807 and Napoleon's Spanish Ulcer. In addition to major battles events such as the Tyrolean uprising/revolt were masked from the French public. Dupont's surrender of 17,600 men at Bailen in 1808 was misrepresented in the French press.
So basicly, we do agree, this is more about distorting facts and giving good impressions on the war resultats. Julius Caesar was not doing something else in its "Gallic Wars". Figures were just a tool, an argument, but it had hardly anything to do with reality. However, there is no general logical rule that would link manpower shortage and leaders hiding the "true" figures of casualties, that would result of this.
These bulletins often closed with a note that the Emperor's health has never been better; regardless of the previous content/distortion.
The goal is political. The Bulletin you refer to, and which is very famous and often "mocked" by historians, was written when Napoleon's heard of Mallet's failed coup that had happened during the Russian campaign. I can't recall other bulletins refering to his health in the same way.
Ideal Campaign Start?
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by Grognard_JC
What you just wrote actually is where I ended up. Yes you are definitely right.
My first run, I tried full logistics + mass training to get an elite army... FAIL
However, as an opening, isn't it a concern that you actually have to prioritize some perks other the others ?
For instance, Army Organization and Politics are campaign winners. In comparaison, Veteran and medicine are very very bad choices.
So, maybe the devs could make it evolve a bit so that we really get to make real choices there (big dillema you know!)...
Being a Paradox Games player, I'd say, each perk should come with bonus and malus. You get good stuff from it, but it also comes with drawbacks, so you may not want to put too much points in one skill.
Being strong in politics could certainly be more fun, more hasardous.
Army organization should only be a way to open the army tree to new choices, not linear ones.
Just a thought.