Col_Kelly
-
Posts
864 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Col_Kelly
-
-
25 minutes ago, Don't Escrow Taxes said:
- I have not mentioned this before but it puzzles me that right-clicking to order a unit to move causes that unit to move more slowly than if you were to draw a line to the same spot instead.
It's because a unit will always deploy in line if given an attack order, which kinda makes sense as they need to be ready for a fight. Only moving orders will make them move in column.
Also sometimes you will feel ur unit is excessively slow but its because terrain speed modifiers have been added for swampy/muddy areas, just hover the mouse on the map to see the speed bonuses/maluses for each part of it.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sandermatt said:
Can you see in advance what rhe small battles will provide as bonus?
Yes you can. When you're on the battleS map (not the same as the battle map), the one with a map of North America on it, you can see some tiny squares in the upper right, hover over them to see which bonuses/maluses you can get
-
Y'all should be banned for making such jokes XD
-
1
-
-
Part 2 is now up for the Battle of Bull Run
Can I whip Jackson's legendary counter-attack ? Place your bets
-
As CSA you won't need a second corps before the battle of Gaine's Mill, as Union not until Shiloh. I'd advise you to make sthe strongest 1st corps possible until then.
-
1
-
-
Hi everyone
Chatting with Koro the other day we came up with a tempting concept : what if we were to play the campaign like a real commander would ? only ordering a part of his army while other divisions and corps do their own thing ?
From this rambling came out the 'Tales of Meagher's men' a fictional yet historical let's play about the evolution of an Irish division from the very early days of 1861. It's a first-timer for me but don't hesitate to make any suggestion or even laugh at my poor editing skills
Videos will be hosted on Koro's channel, a big thanks to him for letting me do so
This is merely a teaser, and it's hard to see the concept at work since so few men are fighting. Bull Run is coming soon for all of you bloodthirsty viewers
Enjoy !
-
3
-
-
Koro will probably add to it but to reply shortly, it's very important to know at least the starting numbers of your opponents because his army size vary and sometimes he will largely outnumber you. You can't just go blind and attack if you don't know how much of an advantage you have or not. You should, imho, start the campaign with at least two in recon.
Medicine is not a popular stat but I came to like it, since it can save a bunch of veterans from death and weapons from being lost, and God knows both are extemely expensive.
-
6 hours ago, Don't Escrow Taxes said:
The biggest benefit is that if or when multiplayer is released we will all know how to defeat this very skilled player, which will result in a great user experience for all of us including our Danish friend!!!!!!
From experience I can tell you that watching Koro's vids wont make you better than him, it will just make you better, which is already good enough.
EDIT : The beta isn't out yet so Koro won't livestram at 5 o' clock but probably will be able to later in the evening.
-
3
-
-
- Yes being hidden from the ennemy's sight is different from being under deep cover. Both can happen in-game
- No forrests don't provide that kind of disadvantage, its always gonna be a bonus with no weak point in it. Its just more tiring for troops to maneuver thru them.
TBH I've been researching a bit about the lethality of wooden debris in the Civil War and I mostly stumbled upon naval battles accounts. It feels that in most cases deeps woods were mostly acting as better cover, their biggest disdvantage being the fact that units could get lost in dense areas, like at Shiloh for instance. You're not the first to refer to that example of 'wooden canister' created by solid shots hitting tree trunks so I assume it comes from a somewhat famous anecdot, but I doubt it represents a common fact of the ACW . I dont think positions like the hornet nest and little round top would have been considered so valuable if wood cover had been that kind of death trap all the time.
-
No cover is cover, definitly. Visibility is handled by a minor unit stat called stealth and it's linked to terrain configuration (i.e. forests offers good cover AND good concealment). A unit with good stealth will be able to hide better in such terrain but they won"t be invisible if in the open.
-
I'd say no stat is useless actually. Veterans is not a priority but still very useful. Getting a 10% discount on them will matter in the late game as 3 stars units are extremely expensive to replenish. I also tend to go for logistics, ammo, and medicine in the very late campaign so i can save at least some of my fallen veterans. Not bad also to have a few points in economy, especially as CSA since a southern player really struggle to equip its troops with rifles.
-
1) Prioritize army organization, politics, training and reconnaissance => (2 to know the ennemys starting number, 4 to have a power bar telling them thei numbers at all time)
2)Skirmishers are very useful for delaying ennemy units and capturing empty positions quickly. They can also rout large brigades if you get on their flanks and fire. However if u bring some be sure they're at least 350 to make a difference.
3)Cavalry is mostly worth capturing ennemy cannons and skirms. Not advised to go for them in the early game imo.
4) Dont go for large batteries as it will make them less efficient, just progressively add a couple guns after each battle so they can get more experienced officers and afford to get larger. In battle place them behind your lines, not to close so they wont get shot, not too far so that the gun shots matter.
5) You want to prioritize veterans and the best rifle for ur best brigade. However its more important to have a large army otherwise your unsupported elite troops will be exposed and need a lot of replenishment. If you only have a few rifles to distribute try to make new brigades as much as possible.
6) u will have to check while in battle. Try to go 3-400 in very early campaign then more after shiloh, ull see how much u need or not.
-
2
-
-
You are right to voice your concerns of course, just wanted to be sure I understood you.
One way to counter the AI scaling (for now) is to avoid building super large brigades. If your limit is 2000 max then try to build lots of brigades with 1700/1800 rather than a few with 2000. This way the AI will adapt and bring smaller units to the fray, leaving you more options. Doing so it's possible to outnumber the AI in SOME battles
Although you're right to say your army size is not that important, it does matter in a way : the more units you have the more flexible your plan can become, you can stretch very thin lines in most places and then build a reserve for a decisive counter attack that can negate the AI's very large numbers. Even if the ratio stayed the same I'd still rather have 55000 as CSA at Antietam than 35000. That's how I convince myself to still build the largest possible army throughout the campaign
PS : You might already know this but your units will also be easier to command for officers and will have better stats if they're smaller
-
13 hours ago, LongstreetJohnson said:
This is not my point
I love loosing a great game, as i am all for historical odds (to some degree), but if you are going to drag history into a game as an argument, dont forget that army frontage,combat width,supplies etc works very differently in real life.
Example ingame the AI pushed 40 000 men over a small stonebridge to attack my 3000 men where in reality this would be an equal if not favor the defender no matter the numbers. So dragging lines to the real battle could be wrong from a games perspective.
Anyways as i said this is not my point you just sidelined me there for a bit. Check my post in general to see my point about scaling.
I feel like I answered the question you've been asking here and in your thread. Yes AI scales with your forces according to your own numbers and there is a reason to that : balance. In the first beta versions this game had barely any scaling which meant late campaign got 'boring' for a successful player since his army was getting far superior to the AI over time.
Your point in your bridge example is a bit absolute. At Burnside bridge one Union brigade managed to draw back the 300 georgians skirmishers holding it as they got brave enough to charge. So no you're not able to beat 10 to 1 odds all the time simply because you're able to hold a small chokepoint.
-
20 hours ago, LongstreetJohnson said:
Hi, first of all congratulations on the Early Acess and a great base of a game.
I have voiced some of my concern on the general forum, please take a look.
And any feedback on the subject would be much appriciated.
Managed to build up a confederate army of 68000 troughout the campaign with careful planning and micro before the battle of Antietam, and it scales the AI forces up to 140 000!! infantery and 400 guns.
I lost the battle ended up killing 79000 loosing 46000 and the whole campaign ended, because of the 100 rep drop.
Please try to find a solution instead of AI force scaling.
Thread: AI forces scale with your forces.
The campaign ended because the early acces doesnt go any further, new battles will be added over time. Would have been the same if you had won. Overall the point of the game is not to win every battle, sometimes its better to retreat and admit a reasonable defeat rather than trying to win at all costs. (Although I admit it's hard to retreat from what is now the last battle of the campaign)
They try to represent the historical ratio for each battle, at Antietam the confederates fought agaisnt an ennemy that was almost twice superior in numbers and that is reflected in the campaign. At Gaine's mill or Bull Run you would not have been dealt such bad odds.
-
Yeap, Are you struggling putting brigades in fortifications ?
-
1
-
-
Fortifications are displayed with a white shield on the map, just have any infantry unit click on it and they will position themselves in 'fortified' mode. If you don't see any its because there are none or because they're already occupied.
-
2
-
-
After a few weeks I must say this patch favors defense way too much. Simply camping on hills and canister your way to victory is frustrating, no matter which side you're on.
Besides the morale penalty for exposed flank is really crippling, especially since brigades are set to auto-turn even if that exposes them to that penalty. The only way to counter this is an exhausting micro of your brigades to prevent them from their own doom.
I guess energy has to be put elsewhere for the new game but I truly hope this newly implemented flanking mechanics could just be removed alltogether in some quick hotfix so the game felt less random.
-
It's clearly not possible although the idea sounds nice. I guess you could watch a few short documentaries about the battle main's movements and reconstitute them from the three days battle in the game. Would take a bit of planification but it can be replicated in a somewhat acurate manner i'm sure.
-
I personally enjoyed most of improvements in multiplayer, especially the new charges mechanics but there are still a few things that need fixing i believe
- Overpowered flanking damage : In a devil's den match against Koro I managed to beat back his attack in a very simple and unthoughtful manner : he just crashed against my lines set up around the hills. I've played a lot of games against him and lost 99% of the time. I reckon this is due to the massive flank damage which is a bit excessive (although I aprove of the principle : tactics matter). When a line start falling back crossfire will happen no matter what which means the attacker's more advanced brigades gets destroyed very quickly, too quickly imo. Attacking was difficult already but there it seems way too hard. Especially since carefully planned attacked can fail because of the time-limit.
- DD bug : In two of my late matches (still Devil's Den) every union brigade that went through the devils den 'location' started loosing morale really fast (down to 13% or so). It never happened anywhere otherwise. Still it can be game killing since those brigades are key to holding DD.
-
1
-
-
In my opinion Total War did this. Millions of strategy games fans are now used to tactically outmach an AI at every battle with simple flanking maneuvers. Now it hurts their feelings to be struggling against an average AI in UGG even if they have a playmode that match their set of skills. I allow myself to say this cause I've been there, til I persisted and I can assure it felt most rewarding to see the improvement. Every AI is beatable, just don't expect to do so after a few tries with the new patch
I don't see the point yet for UGG to engage into mainstream logic and start making easy games. It's still a "niche" game and will remain so for some years at least, the series has plenty of room for improvement and doesn't have to satisfy millions of players like CA does. And it's exactly why it's so refreshing and innovative.
So yes... please keep it hard and challenging above all else. There are 12 billions games that can offer some easy grand-scale massacres, let's not have UG become one of these.
-
4
-
-
Let me first start by saying I've never enjoyed a strategy game as much as I did with UGG, especially the multiplayer matches. Going through those battles just felt epic on many occasions.
Sadly I must side with some here who think the confederates are OP on many scenarios with the last patch, the exception being perhaps Benner Hill and Ewell advance, due to a natural advantage towards union troops (numbers/positions). Previous patch from september wasn't 10/10 perfect, but it was certainly the most balanced.
My simple argument would be that I've defeated players who were more skilled than me just because I chose CSA on the last patch. The opposite is also true.
Regardless I'll remain faithful to this series and eagerly await the next game.
-
1
-
UGCW Feedback v0.70+
in General Discussions
Posted
It depends on each part of the campaign. Winning large battles can affect the ennemy armies in latter major battles, it's not only the smaller encounters that matter. I dont think minor battles get affected by dynamic bonuses however.
The patch will adapt to your save. FX If you won Bull run in the previous version it will still impacts later battles in 0.7 (that's a least what I experimented with Antietam)