Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

IheardITthruTHEgrapeshot

Ensign
  • Posts

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IheardITthruTHEgrapeshot

  1. This is exactly what I'd envision, actually. Lower the number of casualties but make rifles and artillery have a much bigger impact on morale. This way battles would become even more tactical and would require and additional layer of thinking by the player.
  2. That's exactly what I'm talking about. In UG:G (which I own) and in UG:CW again (which I don't own yet) the casualties seem to be more or less inevitably around 50% every time one plays a battle or a part of it, as in UG:G. This is way more of what happened in real life, and it applies not just to the ACW.
  3. Well, it is also a matter of volume (I think everybody would agree that ca. 50% in game vs ca. 16% in real life is too big a difference). However, having different types of casualties i.e. dead, severely wounded and lightly wounded, with the latter coming back to active duty after a while (just like it was in the old Close Combat series) would be a very welcome addition and another step into reaching a better level of realism and immersion, IMHO.
  4. Only by a slight margin. In the battles I've seen the forces ranged between 20.000 and 21.500 troops on each side. In real life, both armies committed about 18.000 soldiers each. So, the RL battle had about 18.000 troops engaged and 2-3.000 casualties (not meaning by that dead men; those were about 4-500 on each side). The UG battle sees some more men but around 11.000 casualties on each side. A quick math shows us that, while in the real battle there had been a casualty rate of about 16%, in the game that value skyrockets to a whopping 50% or more. TL,DR: no, it has nothing to do with that. I can't access the link, Ambrose - however, I agree that something should be done to at least come closer to more realistic casualtiy rates (16% vs 50% is a bit extreme).
  5. Hi all, as the title says. I haven't purchased UG:CW yet but I've watched some YT videos of it and it seems to me like the casualty rates are way off. For example, in a couple of 1st Bull Run battles the casualties for each side (player and AI) ranged from 10k to 12k (circa). The historical battle saw some 2k casualties for the CSA and less than 3k for the USA, so 20-25% of what one can achieve in UG:CW. It would also be cool if a percentage of those casualties were actually able to get to fight again on the next battle (i.e. being considered just as light wounded). I'm overall loving what I'm seeing so far, though. Keep up the great work, guys!
  6. I unfortunately can't give you any pieces of advice right now re: the new patch strategies, as I find myself struggling a lot with it, too. Still, in order to gather more reads and thus more replies, I can advise you to switch from an almost white colour to black. Your current font colour makes what you typed almost undistinguishable from the background (ok, one can highlight it with the mouse by dragging the pointer over it, but it's still rather annoying. I purposedly coloured the central part of my sentence with the same hue to let you judge by yourself).
  7. Sounds good! Among others, I especially like these two elements: Keep up the good work! ### EDIT : I really think the 66% casualties threshold to abandon the battlefield was a much better one; maybe it could be restored? 80% might be better gameplay-wise but makes very little sense from a realistical and historical point of view (also, if it's just gameplay related, it could well be increased to 100%... i.e. total annihilation. No?).
  8. Well, in that spirit even Fredericksburg or Chancellorsville wouldn't have been bad ones
  9. Then why not the 18th Century? Think about directly commanding Frederick the Great's armies on the battlefields of central Europe... ah
  10. ...and what if your carefully placed artillery harassed and routed enemy advancing brigades (especially when hitting them on the flank)...? Wouldn't that give you some sense of tactical fulfillment? Besides, no one said artillery should not cause any casualties at all: it should, but mainly with canister fire. The other two types of ammunition should be much less effective than they are now (well, even canister should be toned down a little, probably). Otherwise, if we're not interested in history, we might as well be playing some random Assassin's Creed title.
  11. Muskets and rifles would keep doing the same damage they do now (if not more). Artillery casualties, on the other hand, would be "converted" mainly into morale drops, as it should be. That would help balance the game and make it more faithful to RL history. I see no "impossibilities" in that - quite the contrary.
  12. Yup, it's most probably what you were looking for. Try it and report back, though!
  13. Have you tried pressing the TAB key and moving the mouse cursor around while you have a unit selected? That will rotate the unit without the need to drag an arrow and thus cause it to move from its position.
  14. Well, as I was typing in that other post, and as Nick confirmed, it's UG:Antietam
  15. What...? The game has been out since some two years... little to no improvement has to be expected for it, in Nick's own words. We're going to see something new in the next installment, though (UG:Antietam).
  16. I'm afraid you're right, but let's hope time will disprove us...
  17. ...or, if I may add, simply make it moddable for all those who'd like to get those more realistic results!
  18. Other games have an option (within Steam) to opt for beta patches to be used instead of the last, official one. Maybe this could be done for UG:G as well - this way, only those who would like to revert to a previous version would do so, intentionally. All the others would go on with 1.6 as if nothing happened. Another win-win situation, IMHO. The icing on the cake would be making possible for two users with a previous patch to play together in MP (but I guess there should be really no problem with this).
  19. Paulus, another way to obtain this is to select multiple units at once (either by the "lasso" feature or by ctrl-left clicking on them). Then, if you ctrl-right click on the destination you want, you'll see that the game will handily arrange them in a tidy line upon arrival.
  20. Hi Paulus, you need to have that friend on your Steam list first. Then, you launch the game (MP), select the friend you wish to play with from the list, send the invite and voila.
  21. Ha ha, yes, it seemed indeed strange that you were daunted by a game like CW2... I concur the time factor plays an important role, though, but the game seems to be totally worth it (especially if one is fond of the ACW). That being said, I'll back off from this thread as well now heeding David's advice (and Nick's will).
  22. I guess so, especially if you chose the historical setup (i.e. no expanded OOB, etc.). But I think this way is cooler since one can try to change history starting from (more or less) the same setup. By the way, I especially like the National Morale concept, a way to win even without actually conquering large swaths of territory from the enemy but e.g. by just inflicting heavy casualties on him. Oh, and the Foreign Entry is another nice touch, too (very difficult to achieve but still possible, just like in OTL).
  23. Err, I think you replied in the wrong forum (hint: it's not Naval Action)
  24. Well, he plays Crusader Kings II so CW2 shouldn't be that much harder to get into, in fact... but that's something you should be better at convincing him of, given that you've already seen how the game actually plays. I'm eager to try it myself, by the way, and I'll remember your pieces of advice! Now, if only Ageod had another sale...
×
×
  • Create New...