Admiral666
-
Posts
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Admiral666
-
-
"Fixed selection rectangle for 4k monitors."
Thank you. It has been a long, weary campaign playing without a selection box.
Any chance we'll see a UI scaling option, along that same grain?
-
14 minutes ago, antsha62 said:
How could they not provide Lee? Seriously, wait until you win at Antietam? His best work with Jackson and Longstreet and you can't use him until this point. Major point of not purchasing. Back to Civil War II. Loved Ultimate General Gettysburg, but wondering about attention to detail in this game.
I think you're misunderstanding how this game works.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Col_Kelly said:
This cap is intended. in early beta there wasn't any and you could totally break the campaign's balance by abusing it. Imagine how easy the game would be if you captured 3k federals every mission....
Yes, but 1k is frustratingly low. -- often that doesn't even recoup the losses incurred capturing those troops. Yes, some players would game the system and intentionally capture as many enemy troops as possible. Let them.
It doesn't need to be a 1:1 ratio, but something more than a 1k cap. What if I captured 10k and still only got 1k recruits? That's exceedingly disappointing. It could be a semi random ratio, or perhaps a mix of recruits and weapons or money. There's definitely room to improve it.
-
Yeah, I don't really understand the rationale behind playing on legendary in this game. I've played it, sure. I can win battles, yep. But it's stressful, frustrsting, and exhausting. Ramping enemy troops up to 11 doesn't add an interesting challenge, but instead a grueling one.
On a different note, I love that I can now actually capture brigades reliably. What I don't love, however... "5024 prisoners exchanged for 1000 recruits." Surely this wouldn't throw the balance off that much? I've captured roughly 10k men total just after Shiloh (CSA normal) and gotten less than 3k recruits out of it. If you're going to reward me, do so in a consistent fashion. The 1k limit on prisoner exchanges (5 federals for 1 rebel? Terrible negotiators...) has done nothing except prevent me from fully filling out my brigades as I'd like to.
-
1
-
-
I would love to have the option to have horse artillery. I suspect more players would play in that way if they had the option. As it stands right now, it simply isn't feasible to use cavalry in that way. I would love to, though!
-
I imagine this has been suggested before, but an Ironman mode for non-legendary games would be very welcome. It's a small thing, but a nice one.
-
Hi there. Go ahead and open all the spoiler tags. I have no idea how to remove them when editing posts, and the bottom one isn't even visible when editing. Sorry about that.
Ambush Convoy & Stay Alert
Both of these went smoothly. Ambush convoy is always a quick affair for me, regardless of difficulty. I charge my infantry forward, overwhelming the initial Federal force, while my cavalry capture the wagons. As soon as the wagons are past my infantry, I withdraw my entire force, using my cavalry to screen them. In and out.
Stay Alert was also relatively easy. I blunted the Union cavalry, and my reinforcements arrived quickly enough to consolidate my defenses. By the end of the battle, I had counter-attacked and destroyed or captured every enemy brigade sans one. As before, the AI was not aggressive enough, choosing to fight a battle of attrition from an inferior position.
Shiloh
Statistics (Union v Confederate)Strength:
29087 v 29519 Infantry
99 v 65 Guns
1470 v 962 Cavalry
Casualties:
14929 v 6999 Infantry
40 v 12 Guns
938 v 638 Cavalry
1111 v 0 Missing
Shiloh also went smoothly. The first phase was quite easy. I led with my 3 2* infantry 1st division, quickly routing the 2 union brigades east of Shiloh Church, while another 5 infantry brigades secured my center and left. The second phase then began, in which I kept all of Bragg's corps to the left (Larken Field(sp)), with a divsion facing east toward Spain Field to prevent an attack from that direction. When Breckenridge's reserves arrived, I sent them to the left as well. I then went to the third phase, the 'counter-attack' at Shiloh Church, where I crushed the remaining Union troops, advancing as far north as I could. The attack on the Hornet's Nest then began. I entirely bypassed it, working my way up woods to the west and placing my troops in position to push north. The final phase then began, and I quickly overran Pittsburgh Landing with Bragg and Breckenridge's force, my own 1st Corps not far behind. Once I took the Landing, the Union never mounted a major attack to retake it. Buell's reinforcements were obliterated on arrival.
All in all, the battle was easy. The only real fault in the AI was, once again, a lack of aggression. The Union right, at Shiloh Church, had little chance regardless, as they were up against my best troops, and I attacked relentlessly. Their center and left, however, could have potentially overwhelmed my right, had they mounted a concerted attack. Furthermore, there was no major attack mounted on my position at the Landing whatsoever. Buell's troops entering to the east just marched straight south to join the Union forces north of the Hornet's Nest, rather than attacking my flank.
Consistently, the AI is simply not aggressive enough. They don't take the initiative when they have the advantage, often waiting until I have consolidated my position before attacking. However, I do feel that it has improved overall outside of that: there have been far less instances of blatantly stupid or unintended AI behaviors.
I don't know that I'll have the time before another patch, but I'd like to run through the current campaign on normal, and then again on Hard to compare. I may continue to report on my progress in this manner, especially if anyone finds this interesting/useful.
-
Just finished Shiloh on a new Confederate Normal/BG campaign. So far, it has been more or less easy, but fun! Thoughts on the battles follow:
The Potomac Fort
5165 Union casualties to 1715 Confederate.
Interestingly, I actually lost the first battle on my first time around! Rather than waiting for me to assault the fort, the Union pushed its forces south to meet me, and used its skirmishers far more effectively. After the initial shock, however, I sent my reinforcements to flank right, and carried the point. The second phase, however, was rough. The Union pushed hard and fast, mounting a mass charge that won them the western half of the fort, and, importantly, control of the point. I managed to mount a counter-attack with my reinforcements, but failed to dislodge the enemy from the point before the contested timer ran out. Defeat!
On my second attempt, I ran down the clock on the first phase by leaving one battery intact as I ran down the remaining enemy brigades. I then allowed my troops to fully recover condition before destroying the final battery. The second phase was initially went just as the first -- mass Union charge into the fort. However, with my troops fully rested, I was able to repel them relatively quickly. By that time, my reinforcements had arrived, and the Union never regained their momentum. I suspect the allowing my troops to recover before ending the first phase made all the difference. However: Why do I need to do that at all? The two phases are purported to be some time apart, so why are my troops in the same condition in the second phase as in the first?
All in all, the AI became noticeably more capable. Excellent!
Newport News
Statistics (Union v Confederate)
Strength:
7717 v 6211 Infantry
24 v 16 Guns
502 v 461 Cavalry
Casualties:
4043 v 1087 Infantry
1 v 0 Guns
0 v 13 Cavalry
0 v 0 Missing
Relatively straight-forward. I detached skirmishers, pushing them to the northern edge of the central forest while pulling my brigades back to the town. Delayed the Northern Union thrust with skirmishers and cavalry, before withdrawing them to the town. My reinforcements arrived before the Union so much as spit at the town itself, and they reached positions in and around the town relatively soon after the main Union assault began. Had the AI been more aggressive, they may have been able to take the town. However, they failed to press the attack/charge where they had numerical superiority, instead allowing their brigades to be whittled down by my troops entrenched in the town. By the end of the battle, I had collapsed their right flank and was pushing toward their center.
Overall, more or less easy. The Union cavalry attack my left, but quickly routed in the face of two infantry brigades. There was no real moment of panic here. I don't believe any of my units in the town ever routed. As stated, more aggression by the AI would be warranted.
First Bull Run
Statistics (Union v Confederate)
Strength:
22827 v 23816 Infantry
49 v 27 Guns
660 v 350 Cavalry
Casualties:
16652 v 5267 Infantry
35 v 4 Guns
533 v 50 Cavalry
2916 v 0 Missing
I clobbered the Union at 1st Bull Run, never retreating from Stone Bridge nor allowing McDowell's main attack to reach Matthew's Hill. Indeed, I counter-attacked and obliterated the Federal forces on both sides of the battlefield. Notes here: Sherman's brigade did not attempt to cross the ford north of Stone Bridge until the last phase of the battle. Had he done so initially, my position at Stone Bridge would have likely been untenable, as one of my 3 initial Infantry brigades was integral in delaying McDowell's advance. Instead, Sherman sat and watched smaller Union brigades grind themselves into oblivion against my defenses at the Bridge. Also, McDowell's force significantly outnumbered mine for well over an hour. Had he pressed the attack and charged my position (a line in the forests North of Matthew's Hill), I likely would have been forced to retreat. Instead, he exchanged fire with my better-entrenched force for several hours, only attempting to force my right flank just as 3 of Jackson's brigades arrived to reinforce that position.
Overall, the theme continues: AI overly cautious. Granted, there's certainly historical precedent to point to!
Out of time for the moment. I'll add my experiences up to Shiloh in a following post.
-
14 hours ago, Koro said:
It depends on lot on how you handle the game tbh. For me, hard seems to some extent make up for the AI's "challenges" occasionally, while bordering on being unplayable in some of the minor missions unless you do tedious puzzle solving to try and break the AI in some of the minor missions. It usually involved falling back from the VP's and then counterattacking to snatch the VP.
I did have a blast as Union at 1. Bull Run. The major battles are more fun for me on hard. Since there are more units involved and more space to flank and actually make a strategy, the extra numbers simply give the AI a chance to compete with me.
I fully understand why it can be too much for most people though.
I mostly test normal though.. I think that's where the vast majority of the players are, it's where I can rather leisurely play the game, get a big army, which I also enjoy, and there, I can find if the game will be too hard for most people. The notion is if I find it too hard or impossible, then the average normal player will as well and there will be downfall.
That's my experience with hard as well: initial challenge eventually folding into tedium. As you say, the grand battles are usually less rough, but only in relative terms.
I plan to start a new campaign with the new patch, and I think I'll choose Normal to see how it feels in comparison to the Hard game I've been playing. Based on the feedback thread, it seems the AI has gotten quite a boost. Let's hope!
-
1. & 4. That's exactly the problem. The player should be able to respond to an increase in difficulty/constraints through intended mechanics and systems, not exploits. Along the same grain, higher troop counts, as you said, don't change the equation. Ergo, they are not an effective way of increasing difficulty. Instead, they create frustrating and tedious experiences: being faced by full 3 star armies when you barely have one or two 3 star brigades, for example.
3. I agree that BG/normal becomes easier as one gains more experience with battles and the game. My purpose in starting this discussion was to find a better solution to creating a higher difficulty so that I could leave normal behind without also forfeiting my enjoyment of the game.
-
2 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:
The good news is that is exactly what's happening. Every patch, the AI is tweaked a bit more and a bit more. The accuracy of movements now as oppossed to several months ago is pretty dramatic. It is only getting better over time.
Yeah, I've happily watched it improve since UGCW hit early access. Can't wait to see where the AI is at release!
-
2
-
-
I'm actually quite happy with the AI currently. It has its downfalls on occasion, but otherwise it's a worthy opponent. I just feel that tuning it to increase difficulty would be a much better solution than just giving it an overwhelming force of veterans equipped with M1 Garands and Flak 88s.
Warning: Ask your doctor before mistaking hyperbole for serious discourse. Severe side effects may occur.
-
2
-
-
Gamers. Very vocal about what they think they want.
I would welcome greater difficulty in the form of a more aggressive and unpredictable AI opoonent. That would be much more engaging and organic than the current approach, I think.
-
6 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:
No. Different play testers are asked to play at different game levels to check the game experience from different perspectives.
Yes, I assumed as much. Preference is telling, however.
To be clear, I didn't intend to direct this discussion to testers alone. I'm very curious to hear what the general consensus is.
I feel the game experience in Hard/Legendary is somewhat ruined currently. I would argue that the need to find exploits to succeed is damning evidence of that on its own.
-
It's exactly that reliance on exploits and devolution into stressful tedium that I find concerning. Having greater difficulty need not equate to the loss of enjoyment, nor necessitate an exploitative playstyle.
-
In another thread, I saw a couple testers mention that they were playing on easy and normal, and it led me to wonder if that was their preferred difficulty, rather than Hard/Legendary.
I've played a couple of campaigns on Hard...But they just aren't fun. The unending hordes of elite and lavishly equipped enemy armies become tedious rather than challenging. One of the decisions one can make in this game is to withdraw rather than press a pointless attack. On hard, the objectively correct decision is almost always to withdraw.
I want to stress: I've managed to win every battle on hard through Chancellorsville. It's certainly possible. However, it is not fun. Battles are rarely won through clever manuevering or bold strategy, but instead by gaming the system to survive the aforementioned AI armies of doom. There's little choice when the alternative is to fight "properly" and lose half or more of your army in every battle.
Personally, I find normal to be a good, fun challenge. Easy is great when you just want to build the order of battle of your dreams and maintain it throughout. Anything past normal, as stated, becomes tedious, rather than challenging.
What do you think, @Koro, @Mr. Mercanto, others? Do you enjoy the higher difficulties, or are they more of a tedious experience? Or something else?
To be perfectly clear, this is directed at everyone, not just testers.
-
1
-
-
I find normal to be a good, fun challenge. Easy is great when you just want to build the order of battle of your dreams and maintain it throughout.
I feel this digression should be its own thread.
-
Interesting to hear that you two are playing on Easy/Normal. I've played a couple of campaigns on Hard...But they just aren't fun. The unending hordes of elite and lavishly equipped enemy armies become tedious rather than challenging. One of the decisions one can make in this game is to withdraw rather than press a pointless attack. On hard, the objectively correct decision is almost always to withdraw.
I want to stress: I've managed to win every battle on hard through Chancellorsville. It's certainly possible. However, it is not fun. Battles are rarely won through clever manuevering or bold strategy, but instead by gaming the system to survive the aforementioned AI armies of doom. There's little choice when the alternative is to fight "properly" and lose half or more of your army in every battle.
What do you think, @Koro, @Mr. Mercanto, others? Do you enjoy the higher difficulties, or are they more of a tedious experience? Or something else?
-
1
-
-
Checked this thread expecting yet another slugfest over MP.
I was pleasantly surprised.
-
2
-
-
Perhaps make it optional.
-
Yeah, I certainly recognise the difficulty inherent in doing that. One day
In the interim, I'll replay the battle without the needless sacrifice of my troops. Can't wait to get to Gettysburg!
-
1
-
-
Hm. I don't mind it not being an immediate victory, but I do mind taking those positions only to be arbitrarily thrown back to the camp -- and then required to take them again! UGG style what-if phases would be the solution, but I imagine that's no small task.
Thanks for the reply!
-
Union, Chancellorsville. I took all VPs on day 2, and did not click finish until they were not contested. I still went to Day 3, where I was on the defensive -- is this WAD? If so...there's no point in doing anything in Chancellorsville but defending throughout the entire battle. The casualties I took from attacking were a total waste.
@Koro Any insight?
-
Interesting. I only name some units, and usually only as a result of noticeable battlefield performance, i.e. 'Walton's Wall," a particularly stalwart brigade during a defensive action; "The Devil's Brigade," a unit which inflicted massive casualties and ended the battle with 666 combat-ready men; etc. Otherwise, I by and large leave them with their commanders' names. Admittedly, that can be confusing when I lose officers or they are promoted to larger commands.
Some interesting naming schemes here. I particularly like the notion of explicitly named Reserves; as it stands currently, if I can afford to hold a reserve, I tend to reserve an entire division, rather than a brigade from each. Hm.
UGCW Feedback v1.0+
in General Discussions
Posted
@Nick Thomadis Would it be difficult to add a borderless windowed mode? It's a small thing, but it's a very pleasant one! Alternatively, is there a launch option to set it up?
Thanks!