Admiral666
-
Posts
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Admiral666
-
-
Primarily a cosmetic suggestion, however: Currently, if you select a Corps or a Brigade, it shows the respective information, commander, etc, at the bottom left. However, if you select a division, this does not occur. It would be a nice improvement if doing so would show the division commander, current condition, morale, losses, etc, much like selecting a Corps does. Again, a small thing, but it would go a long way toward me actually interacting with/having any connection to division commanders, who are otherwise essentially invisible.
-
4
-
-
My concern isn't beating it so much as how arbitrary it feels. That said, if Crampton's is supposed to be all 3 stars, then, so be it!
-
Crampton's Gap. I'm playing Major General... but this feels excessive. ALL CSA brigades are 3 star, and they have been since 2nd Bull Run. Gaines/Malvern were half 2* half 3*. I don't even have a 3 star brigade yet thanks to the punishment I take grinding through the elite rebel armies. I wish I could just set my difficulty to Normal without restarting -- This feels arbitrarily difficult, not fun & challenging.
-
Reason for borderless is that I run multiple monitors, so it's much nicer to swap between windows without the game losing focus.
-
1. Borderless windowed mode would be a godsend.
2. UI scaling would change my life (I have a 4k display).
3. When using 4k resolutions, selection box dragging does not work properly. It tries to translate the box I am dragging in a 4k space to a 1080 box in the bottom left corner of the screen. Needless to say, unuseable.
-
Gaines Mill, Union, Major General. I did not get all of my 1st Corps during the battle. I was missing at least 2 brigades. The reserve corps deployed properly. Did not catch it until later, so no F11, unfortunately.
On a simlar note: 22k vs 44k. Tough odds, especially when I'm missing troops!
-
A Reserve slot in the camp would be handy -- sometimes you don't need all that artillery, cavalry, etc, and you don't want to waste the money/officers form an additonal corps to hold them in, or you don't have the extra corps slot. Obviously this reserve would not be deployable.
-
2
-
-
Yup, that's my usual tactic. No dice. If I do that, the enemy just redeploys and hammers me with his veterans. Fine, so I'll feint toward one VP, wait til he shifts his troops, then attack the other in force. Nope. Still clobbered on the counter. Fine, let's do the same, but swap which VP I attack. Nope. Okay, let's try to entice him to attack me. Leave cannon in the open, hold inf back in forest. Cool, he's attacking! Pull the cannon back. On he comes! Oh. Wait, no, not like this! Clobbered by veterans even in favourable conditions.
Not sure if I just got worse or if major general got harder!
-
Noticing a definite difference in the tenacity of the AI. Much more effective in attacking one section of the line and exploiting holes.
Also, getting my ass kicked as the Union at River Crossing. Major General. Made it through before, but getting clobbered by a fully 2 & 3 star CSA. All I have are rookies and 1*, too soon for 2*. Any suggestions -- @Koro, @Col_Kelly, others?
-
6 hours ago, Lannes said:
Why? Because I would like an answer from people who know the game as they have created it.
I wouldn't advise yelling at them.
-
3. Your general does gain experience and get promoted. If it's not happening on your end, that's a bug, and I recommend you report it with F11.
Also, why "DEVELOPERS?"
-
Or you just adjust the size of regiments downward, both numerically and terms of how wide their formations are. The complaint was that regiments aren't simulated. That would be the most straightforward way to do it. If the player wishes to use their regiments in an ahistorical manner, who are we to tell them otherwise? It would mean some reorganisation in OOBs, sure, but that would be required with any implementation of regiments. And the ability to split brigades into regiments could easily result in 4x the number of units on the map as well -- why the backlash? No need to write the code to split brigades if you instead account for regiments in your basic unit structure/OOB.
-
I doubt it'd be easy to do, but we essentially have the necessary groundwork as it stands. Shift everything up by one -- current brigades become regiments, divisions become brigades, corps become divisions, and finally create a new level of the OOB for corps level command. I see that as the ideal way to implement this without needing to completely rewrite large portions of code. Hopefully, anyway.
-
I have the same issue, but it's related to using a 4k display. Only one 1080 corner of my screen allows me to drag-select unit, and the selection area is distorted. Frustrating, but I reported it the day it went into early access.
-
That's exactly why it's early access -- our feedback!
-
1
-
-
There's quite a discussion going about this over here.
Also, keep in mind that this is early access. What you see here isn't final.
-
It was a very bad day. 12000 casualties on both sides. They had such a huge advantage in numbers for the first 2/3rds that I really could do little more than try to hold until my reinforcements arrived. Was pushed back to the Hill, and ended in a defeat due to casualties.
Desperately waiting for contour lines. I find it very difficult to effectively plan a defense without them.
-
You're not wrong, but I feel that more flexibility in deployment would not be a bad thing. I've yet to fight the battle, so we'll see how it goes.
-
I should clarify. As it stands currently, I can deploy two Corps to Gaines Mill: One of up to 20 brigades, and one of up to 10. Due to my organisation level, the max number of brigades I can have in a Corps is 12. Thus, I am unable to reorganise my brigades, and am stuck with 12/20 and 12/10 brigades respectively. Ideally, I would simply commit both corps to the 20/20 phase, but that is not an option.
-
On the flip side, I'm about to fight Gaines Mill as the Union. I'm allowed one corps with 20 brigades, and one with 10... My organisation currently only allows 3 divisions, 4 brigades each per Corps. So I'm missing 8 potential brigades, and thus outnumbered by 20k at max brigade size. Going to be rough.
-
One thing I forgot to mention: In addition to splitting units, I'd like to be able to reduce the size of units and return those troops & equipment into the pool.
-
More flexibility in objectives/victory conditions would be excellent. That ties into dynamic campaigns/battles/planning.
Ex: I just finished Antietam as CSA, campaign. 46000, 138 guns vs 86000, 283 guns USA. I won, barely. 56000 Union casualties to 27000 of my own. I held Stone's bridge, after an initial Federal breakthrough. The 2nd Corps on my left suffered 80% casualties, but Dunker Church did not fall. However, I had to send a full division of my center and a brigade of my right, another full 10000 men, to hold it. The sunken road was, at the end, held by a scant 2500 men -- the remnants of the center 1st Corps, plus another brigade from the right.
Had I been able to pull back from Dunker Church, consolidating my forces along a line north of Sharpsburg, I could have greatly reduced my losses, while still inflicting massive casualties on the Union. However, the game would have considered that a draw, rather than a victory. I would argue that 56000 Union casualties vs, say, 15-20k Confederate would be much more of a victory than what it took to hold Dunker Church.
This boils down to dynamic victory conditions -- possibly taking casualties sustained & inflicted in to account. If a dynamic campaign is in the cards, then this fits right in. If not, I think there may still be room to provide some leeway in victory conditions. For ex: holding Stone's Bridge & the Sunken Road splits the Union force in half, leaving whatever troops remain from the assault on Dunker Church the task of a frontal assault on a now-consolidated Confederate line. I wouldn't consider that a draw, not to mention the losses inflicted on the North.
A draw feels like a defeat due to the reputation loss, so I feel compelled to fight to the bitter end -- which, to be fair, is a crafty piece of game design that puts me in the shoes of a general subject to the whims of political masters. So I acknowledge this may well be WAD.
Other thoughts:
- All too often, units are needlessly flanked when I attempt to adjust their facing by, say, 5 degrees. If I don't do it PERFECTLY, they immediately turn 180 degrees, get a full volley in the 'rear,' and suffer heavy losses and a massive morale drop. Alternatively, they'll advance out of cover/out of the line, which means they still have to be 'flanked from the rear' just to move back to the proper position.
- Why does shock cavalry have a charge cool down? I often charge down exposed batteries, but my cavalry invariably gets slaughtered by whichever battery it didn't engage because it has to arbitrarily wait to charge it. Having their stamina run down is enough of a barrier to exploitation.
- If I win a battle, why are units that 'shatter' -- ie, fully break and run -- not reconstituted? Sure, they broke, but we won. Even if it's a shell of its former self, I could reinforce it. Instead, my order of battle suddenly has random holes I have to chase down and fill. It's doubly frustrating when it's one of my favored brigades.
- I notice that at times my regiments & brigades move on their own. I'd like to know more about how that works, as it lulls me into a false sense of thinking that I can semi-safely leave units to their own devices while managing a more active part of the line, only to find them standing out in the open being slaughtered, 10 yards from the cover of thick woods. Further, do individual brigades move on their own ONLY, or will divisions, or even corps, make adjustments as a group? Personally, I'd love to see division commanders take small levels of initiative in pressing situations.
- On the note of divisions & their commanders: I'd love to be able to click on a division and see its statistics like I can for a Corps. Further, I'd be interested to see a visual representation of division commanders on the battlefield, even if it's just choosing a unit to attach them to. I've certainly seen them get killed, so I know they are modeled at some level.
- Contour lines are desperately needed, enough so that I'll repeat it. I'm constantly at a loss as to where to place my batteries and scouts, as well as to where to expect enemy batteries to be located. It's simply far too difficulty to determine elevation when I cannot rotate the map (to my knowledge). Further, an increased zoom level would be brilliant. I very often want to get just a little closer to the action.
- More flexibility in Corps deployment. On several occasions, I've had battles with a limit of, say, 14 brigades, but only two 10 brigade Corps. So I either have to throw my order of battle into disarray, or go into battle with less troops. It'd be excellent if I could deploy both Corps, and choose the units I wanted, OR choose a primary Corps, and then have an option to choose what elements of the other I want to 'detach' in support of the primary.
- Canister shot at extremely close range often seems relatively ineffective. 16 guns firing into a mass of 2000 men at 15-30 yards would probably cause more than 30-50 casualties. In terms of balance, it's their own damned fault for getting that close to front of the guns!
- Carbine cavalry doesn't feel very useful outside of passive reconnaissance. Chasing down broken units or charging an exposed battery goes far more poorly than I'd expect -- and I'm not expecting them to perform as well as Shock cavalry in that role. Further, they seem to utterly fail in a skirmish or harassing role, as they are 'flanked from the rear' the moment they disengage, and tend to rout on the spot. I'll fully admit that cavalry is not my strongest area, though. \
- The availability of weapons in the shop seems rather low. Prior to a rather bloody victory at Malvern Hill, I was running a massive surplus of men (circa 15000) due to the dearth of rifles other than Farmers. Granted, the south had difficulty procuring better weapons, so that may not be too pressing of a concern. Notably, skirmisher weaponry was very hard to come by, even the basic Hunter rifles.
- What happens if I remove myself from Corps command? What IS my greater role here? I see that I'm 'general in chief,' so I think it'd be rather interesting to see myself on the battlefield even if not leading a Corps. Also, why is it that all my other Corps commanders have 500 man units with fairly decent weaponry, while my own unit has 72 men and the most basic weapons? Further: I can rename Brigades and Corps. Why not divisions as well?
- It would be VERY handy if I could split units from the Army screen. IE, take a 20 gun battery and form a new 8 or 10 gun battery from it, or split a 2500 man brigade into smaller regiments.
- What is corps unit recovery? I've not seen anything there the entire time I have played.
- I've had 78 Sharps rifles in my armoury for seemingly this entire campaign, but they aren't available to buy. Why must I have a minimum of 100 men for a unit of skirmishers? Obviously 78 isn't a lot of men, but I'd much prefer to have 78 accurate sharpshooters with Sharps rather than 100 inaccurate skirmishers with Hunters.
- Flag & colour bearers would be a very lovely addition to the atmosphere of the game, though I'm not sure how it would be implemented
Okay, that's probably enough! Let me stress this: I'm having a fantastic time, and I'm very excited to see what the next 2 months hold, as well as the future of this game. Thanks!
-
5
-
-
In addition to the above: The game doesn't function properly on a 4k display. The selection box only works in one corner of the screen. Interface scaling would also be EXTREMELY welcome here. Swapping to regular HD resolutions does not work either--mouse doesn't know where it is.
And:
-Borderless Windowed
-Contour lines are a big miss from UGG. The alternate camera view doesn't do nearly as good a job of giving me an idea of the true topography.
-Dynamic campaigns would be a fantastic addition, and massively increase the replay value.
-Same goes for greater or full control over the stages of battle, deployments, etc. Obviously these two are far from easy to implement -- perhaps expansions?
-I agree with the flanking comments. It's rather annoying when 150 skirmishers 'flank' a 2000 man brigade, or my batteries are 'flanked from the rear' because of a slight movement when they are switching to another target.
Overall, though, I'm having an obscenely good time. Started playing at circa 4pm yesterday, and barely looked up until 2am--and that's only because Malvern Hill was such a bitter tragedy. Loving it!
-
1
-
Inverted Artillery Battery Performance
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by Admiral666
I think the best way to model that would be for the current penalties to take effect immediately, and for a short time thereafter. After this initial period, the penalties should slowly reduce to a less severe level to model that there would indeed be an executive officer, etc, and reorganisation as time goes on. This reduction in penalty could itself be slowed if the unit is still engaged in combat to add a little more depth & realism.
In addition, the player should be able to replace KIA/WIA officers between days. I think this is already the case, but just to be thorough.