Jamesk2

Well the amount that you got from sacrificing allies troops are negligible, compared to the number you got from the enemy and the amount you bought from the shop.

Last time I played BG was quite a long time ago, but I remembered walking out of Fredericksburg with ~80k troops (going max size).

Thanks that explain it. I was wondering why the AI scaling got so ridiculous suddenly. If that's only once per campaign then it's smooth sailing then.

This is the 2nd time I played Shiloh on Legendary. The first time on patch 0.74 I had to improvise a new strategy from the one used in Normal, but in the end it's still a fairly comfortable victory. This time, holy *** it was so hard I had to pull every tricks on the book and still only win with the slightest of breathing room. If the battle lasted 1 more hour in-game I have no doubt I would have been crushed. The only thing that changed was the scaling. I remembered that in the previous patch I would only be slightly outnumbered by the end of the first day, but in this battle, not only did I got outnumbered 2:1 in every aspect, but the enemy also have many 3-star and 2-star brigades. See for yourselves:

After the massive nerf to shock cavalry in the previous patch, skirmishers have lost their natural predator and now being just straight up a pain in the *ss to deal with. The most frustrating thing is that they run almost as fast as cavalry ALL THE TIME, ON ALL TERRAIN without using any condition. Even catching them on open field with shock cavalry only deal a minor amount of damage until they got to the nearest wood and then the table turn. Like seriously, can those people who always scream "history" out of their throat all the time explain to me how is that possible, huh?

The trick is never defend that bridge. Just make a giant pocket around it so that any Union brigades moving out of the bridge will get hit by several of your own.

Actually Malvern Hill is the easiest battle when you're on the attacking side. Focus all your firepower to whittle down the Union on their left flank, then when the 2nd corps arrived just go for the flanking through the farthest road and then double envelop them. Easy peazy.

One times I got 2 Thomas Jackson from the 1st Manassas because the scenario-given Thomas Jackson got wounded.

But if some unit does not have at least one unique thing that they do really well and can't be replaced, then they will most likely not get built, like how most players did not choose to have Carbine Cavalry in the past.

Regarding the performance of Shock Cavalry, it's important to compare it with performance of different types of unit in the same situation. For example, taking supply wagon can be done with Carbine Cavalry (and on the large picture is having limited value anyway), attack artillery can be performed by Skirmishers, and enemy Skirmisher can be beaten by swarming them with detached Skirmishers. The only task that used to be Shock Cavalry-only is counter charging enemy infantry, but since most of the melee that the player found they're on the defending side happens in the woods now I'm thinking to switch to infantry anyway.

Once again, the discussion in the thread is getting dominated by players who want the game to stay true to history as best as it can. While it's not an unsound idea, when applied to the game we're having it's full of problems: 1. Relegating the cavalry usefulness to an even more situational level will inevitably lead to players stop using them in favour of more universal unit. Then it will beg the question of "What is the point of keeping an unit that is both a-historical and useless gameplay-wise?". 2. The main mode of the game is the campaign, and (I presume) it's only there that players can use or meet Shock Cavalry. At this state of implementation, it's a stretch to call the campaign "historical". I mean sure there are the same battles that were fought in the ACW with the terrain that is re-created to be as truthful as possible, but the most important thing in the battle - the forces that each size bring to the field most likely will vary wildly from history. 3. In the end, most people who play this game want to WIN. While people may voluntarily choose to handicap themselves in one way or the other (I refuse to use the combine division exploit, and at least one player choose to play the game Ironman - that is, no reload at any point). But I don't see anyone who choose to get his army smashed in Frederickburg as the Union and accept the lost "because it was historical". Are we being pretentious to ask for 100% historical capabilities of units in a game where ultimately the goal is to change history? 4. At the Brigadier General level, Shock Cavalry is not required to have a successful campaign. People who dislike including Shock Cavalry because of historical reasons can just ignore them when building their army. It's only at higher level of difficulty that they become hard to replace, and at those levels it can be argue that it's the player playing against a set of challenges, and they should be granted every tools that the game offer.

I'll only chime in with one thing, that is 3-star brigade are expensive and overkill. The 1-star bonus give 5 efficiency, and the 2-star bonus give a hoard of firearms bonus are very efficient, but by the time you get to 3 star, it's highly likely that your stats are high enough that the bonus will be just overkill (getting over 100 firearms for example) or the relative increase is not that worth.

While keeping true to history is important, having a fun game is important too. Previously there was a balance between infantry - skirmishers - cavalry - artillery with one type kind of counter the other. Taking cavalry out of the equation will make the game less fun and may very well lead to balance problem that will need to be addressed further down the line.

Well, in my defense, I did wanted to run a pure infantry-artillery campaign, until I had to deal with the nasty charges from AI.

There is no point in using skirmishers if you don't use the longest range rifles possible (Whitworth and up). They can sneak around and behind enemy lines to deliver morale-crushing flanked/rear flanked shot, snipe artillery even when they're standing close to infantry, or just generally dealing damage without fear of retribution. Carbine Cavalry only works when you have ample space to maneuver and at least semi-equal number of infantry brigades to hold the enemy infantry in place. In that case having another Infantry doing the flanking may be even more effective.

Duh duh. Today I captured 24lb Howitzers during Port Republic...

When did YOUR PROBLEM became EVERYONE PROBLEM that should be fixed by a universal change to the game?

Seriously devs, WHAT THE hello kitty IS WITH THIS 4 SHOCK CAVALRY BRIGADES IN THE DEFEND SUPPLY MAP? Do you seriously feel that forcing players to detach skirmishers and dancing endlessly against skirmishers cavalry in previous patch not hard enough? Now the AI not only have more troops, more cannons, but also more of shock cavalry so that instead of having to fight the player, now they're going to just press the "Charge" button to have an auto-win? Seriously if you don't hotfix this pile of shit then I'm off with this game.

After some experiments I have come to a conclusion that the starting perks of your first brigades (Kemper and Sigfried for Confederate, for example) as well as the perk of your general is COMPLETELY RANDOMIZED upon the start of your campaign, or more specifically your first battle. Your background have no effects - you can choose to be an Artillery officer in the Mexican War and still get Infantry as your Major General perk (which is undisputedly the strongest one). This is incredibly important in Major General/Legendary run, you can just go back to Main Menu and restart campaign from the background selection steps until you get the right perks.

If I remember correctly, the 1st stage is the assault on the left by your own Corps, the 2nd stage is the middle & right by the 2nd Corps and the Reserve Corps, and the 3rd stage is back to the left? Hornet's Nest is the 4th stage, and only after that Pittsburg Landing is revealed. So where exactly are your situation?

Oh yeah and when you're at it, why don't take away the chance to restart the campaign again, because in "realism" no one would fight a war twice? This is a f***ing GAME, it's meant to first and foremost present a way for people to enjoy their escape from reality. If you want realism, want to overcome hardship and stay in the fight then why don't you go join the Army or Navy or French Foreign Legion already - I'm sure they offer plenty of what you're asking for, maybe more than you can afford? I repeat, you have your whole right to play the game in whatever way you like, but don't impose that stupid-ass rule on us.

I think the game, currently as it is, is a good reflection of the tactical aspects of battle in most of Civil War, where victories and defeats are decided by who "hold the field" when the battle ends. It's not until Grant that the war are conducted with attrition in mind. Also having clear, defined objectives served to have a good battle, as it allow developers to control where a battle would be fought, how the AI and players would (to a certain extent) react to situations on the field. A map without objectives is pointless to fight over, as both sides would just be content to hold strong defensive position and wait to time out. And who thought that having a "restart battle" button is bad? What is the difference between restarting a battle and restarting the whole campaign? That just serves to inflict useless agony on the player. If you want to take on that hardship yourself, pray do, but don't make other people suffer the same stupidity.

Because what is the damn point of having a better army? Because you want your HARD battles to be easier? Then why are you fighting in a HARDER battle to make your later, already-easy (relatively speaking) battle even easier? You're only profiting because weapon loot and recruits are so abundant in Normal. I'm looking forward to see you bring that approach to Legendary and see how it play out.

It's true... on Normal, but at that level of difficulty you're fighting the game scaling more than the battle itself anyway. And even if it's free money, free experience, it's still so small both in absolute number and relative quantity that unless you're obsessed with min-maxing opting-out does not change anything. You're trying to build a stronger army in a 3/1 battle and then use that army to fight a later battle that will most likely be 5/1 in your favor.

There are battles to farm for kills and experience like Ambush Convoy and Port Republic, and there are battle that are just best left aside. You're getting 3 to 1 K/D ratio on Winchester in what I assume Normal, right? I assume it should be about the worst, or closest to worst of all battles in your campaigns - barely even with Cross Keys. Get to Port Republic and you'll have 10:1 K/D easily, so why bother with such meager gains paid at high prices?