clench
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by clench
-
-
On 4/4/2023 at 9:37 PM, clench said:
,
Yeah I had to go back and replay Malvern Hill and the side battles to get 9 AO to get passed 2nd bull run. The few extra brigades made the difference holding the CSA right flank.
-
1
-
-
On 3/28/2023 at 3:57 PM, dixiePig said:
2nd Bull Run
Unfortunately, playing CSA at 2ndBR on MG = the-same-all-over-again: i.e. outrageouly high proportion of 3* and 2* AI units
Historically, it is waaay off - and I feel that it doesn't even work in terms of straight 'playability'
Maybe the battle is winnable IF Porter doesn't show up until day 2, but right now it does not seem at all balanced
In any case, I've reached a hard stop with the campaign
Hope you get it fixed
I'm hard stuck here as well. It would be fine, but the time it takes your reinforcements to arrive is far too long.
And yeah, it's pretty ahistorical for the Union to launch such a coordinated assault on Stony Ridge. This is a battle the CSA won pretty much entirely based on the Union's incompetence and lack of good intelligence.
I've tried multiple strats, but the attack on the CSA right flank is pretty impossible to stop when you only have one corps. I actually have more men deployed to the battle, but never get to see them before my right flank is overrun by non-stop charges by multiple corps that just spawn on top of them practically. If I pull more troops off the left flank, then it gets overrun and I still can't hold the right flank for much longer. The best I've done is my right flank is chain routing just as reinforcements arrive, but it's too late and the loses are my best troops and massive.
For me the battle is 68000 CSA vs 62000 Union, but because of how long it takes reinforcements to arrive it's like 22000 vs 62000. I'm not the best player I'm sure, but not the worst. Doesn't seem doable without doing some really cheese strats. Perhaps with army org high enough to get 25 units per corp, but 20 (21 with forrest) it's pretty impossible. The AI spawns practically on top of your right flank and fresh with like 12+ brigades.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:
Lee's 'Old War Horse' was an admirable Corps commander, in the Mount Rushmore discussion, but I'm not sure he is 'the greatest' officer of the entire war as you imply.
Certainly not the most popular of the retired Confederate generals, just ask his house on the anniversary of Appomattox Court House.
The Southern states were just butthurt over Longstreet's support for the government's Reconstruction and putting down the White League revolt in Louisiana so they spent many decades slandering him.
They also tried to blame him for Lee's failure at Gettysburg for giving Lee good advice.
-
2
-
-
22 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:
If Stonewall hadn't died by friendly fire, it would have been a vastly different battle. Because Jackson did what God told him to do rather than what men expected him to, no one knows how the battle would have been different, but it would have been different. And Jackson had the stones to temper some of Lee's more audacious commands.
IMO, Longstreet was the GOAT civil war commander and he couldn't get through to Lee I doubt Jackson would have made much difference.
-
2 hours ago, Squadron HQ said:
I think MH on Legendary must be impossible!
But in the other modes, the best way to take North MH is to flank it from the south, west, or east (or a combination). By that point you have got the other MH points easily. So I think it is a bit... unusual in setup. But this battle is designed to be challenging so that 2nd Manassas is not a total cakewalk, I think.
On legendary MH can be beaten with less than 9000 / 10000 casualties by sending 8 of your best brigades around the river, even though you must keep a decent force in the north-west to pin down the Union and complete your pincer. It's actually a great scenario to practice your flanking moves.
Your real problem is gonna be Antietam, not MH.
I like to flank from both sides, my best division on the left, my worst divisions in the center and about 6-8 division with cavalry on the right.
Attack the forest fortification from both directions while the cav distracts and kills cannon batteries. The units in the forest fortification usually get fulled wiped or captured, after that it's pretty easy to push the capture point from there.
My elite forces in the left will come in to mop up for free kills because the AI will usually go berserk to cap the point back. Snipers are awesome for this map because you can do so much damage to them from the left flank. Two units of skirmishers can probably get 2000 kills a piece.
-
On 12/16/2016 at 9:10 PM, Hitorishizuka said:
Yeah, the Antietam scaling is a little ridiculous. As usual, ran out of supply on almost everyone, even with capturing a couple early supply from the enemy. The hard cap on Supply just isn't meant to deal with these kinds of numbers, it's pretty frustrating.
To deal with this, you need to use generals with +20% ammo to lead your corps for these larger battles.
It helps a lot. I was able to finish Antietam on major general while only using about 30,000 of my own supplies plus some enemy supplies. Almost everyone had ammo when they needed it.
-
8 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:
If you're being really cheap, do use Captains (put them in artillery brigades) because they're cheaper than farming up Majors by a few hundred and if you were legitimately short on officers you were probably short on cash also.
Mid/late Colonel is actually sufficient FYI. I usually use Colonels in Cavalry brigades to farm up a lot of Brig Generals quickly.
Only really applies to CSA, I'm pretty sure even 2 star generals won't get a fresh Union brigade to 1 Star. 3 star might but if you have spare 3 star generals to risk as Brigade commanders you're doing far better than me. After fresh recruits it really matters moreso only for hitting the next threshold, which is basically random for what level commander you need to do it.
The experience bonus effects both sides. CSA troops just start with higher experience so they can get their skill early.
Having a high level commander for Union is still important because it saves you money by allowing you to keep your unit skills while hiring rookies at a higher threshold.
-
10 hours ago, Wandering1 said:
As far as infantry brigade commanders, if you only have colonels as division commanders, I noticed the following command limits before you start taking efficiency hits:
1500 men - Lt. Colonel
2000 men - Colonel
2000+ - Brig General+
Similarly on Cavalry brigades, only Brig General + allowed me to not suffer efficiency penalties on max size cavalry brigades.
I get the feeling once (if) infantry brigades get expanded to 3000 men, you'll need Major Generals on them in order to not suffer efficiency penalties.
Of course, these limits really only matter if you play max-size armies. If you play min-size armies, you don't really need to worry about having enough high level officers.
This isn't entirely true.
The division commander gives an efficiency/command bonus. A higher level division commander means you can have lower level brigade commanders controlling your brigades. This can come in handy later in the campaign if you're running low on officers but need to put more rifles on the field.
For example, with a Maj. Gen as division commander you can have Lt. Col command 2000 unit brigades with no loss to efficiency or command.
The real reason to have higher level officers for your brigades is for the experience bonus provided.
Another example, a raw recruited Confederate infantry brigade commanded by a Lt. Col will have no skills, but if you assign a raw infantry brigade a Colonel it will get enough experience for the first skill which is a real advantage early on.
-
4
-
-
It happened so bad to me on the minor battle when you have the two boats and you have to attack the CSA uphill.. forget what it's called.
One of my entire 2000 troop 3 star brigades was meleeing a canon, then got charged by enemy cavalry, followed by multiple enemy brigades. It routed and pulled through the massive blob of enemies and shrunk to less than 800 men and I restarted the battle.
This was before the last hotfix that claimed to fix this however. -
2 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:
Geeze, as CSA, I just had my ass handed to me and lost my campaign at this point.
I'll have to try the fancy moved above mentioned next go round.
You can play the map as intended, using the fixed cover, etc and have a pretty easy time..
But the treeline on the hill is massive. You can park your entire line up there and the AI won't be able to do anything since they have to climb up the hill under fire and then trade with your entire army in 100% cover.
-
On 12/26/2016 at 2:52 AM, Lillibullero said:
I found that 12 pdr whitworth is pretty good arty, because of high accuracy and very good range. And they have increased range of the canister shot, thats helps a lot.
I captured some of these in my CSA campaign and it was my strategy to place as many smaller cannon batteries on the field this campaign as I could so I put them to use.
I was shocked to see the range on the cannister for this cannon. I had it placed in the entrenched position for cannons at Fredericksburg in the opening stage and it was shooting cannister at Union brigades parked well outside the forest. It was incredibly effective.
-
2 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:
Hito was saying there is an abnormally high death rate among personal commanders fighting at Brigade and Division level. Have you found this to be true/
There is just a really high chance for any brigade commander to get hit especially if you're rough with your men and they take lots of casualties.
It seems really random and a really high chance as well... seems like you'll have 1-3 wounded officers per minor engagement and probably double in the major engagements plus one or two deaths.
-
23 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:
While we're on the subject, I would love a full blown explanation of how the generals work, how they accumulate experience, and the best way to promote them.
My brigade officers stripe up fast enough, but my Corps leaders gain XP at an attrociously slow rate. I'm thinking of putting my 'personal' general in charge of an elite brigade and keep him in the front line till he hits the third tier.
This is the best way to level your personal general.
Brigades, with Corps commanders that give +10% exp, gain experience way faster that the Corps commanders.
-
1
-
-
They are the best for sure.
-
hahaha patch releases on the day his rage hit max level
-
1
-
-
no, it's South Mountain.
-
11 hours ago, Koro said:
The logistics skill makes your supply last longer, so basically more bang for the buck. Unused supply go back in your supply at camp but I'm not sure if enemy wagons do. I suppose you could test it by capturing 1 and then seeing how much money is withdrawn from the money you get after the battle, though you still have to account for what's left in your own wagon. So not sure
I'm pretty sure captured supplies become money if they are not used.
This is a pretty big tip I think some guides might be missing too. Never use your supplies unless you need to because the game will buy them back automatically. Also always try to capture enemy supplies as early as possible, especially on the historical battles, not only to use, but for money.
Most of the minor battles can be completed without using any supplies at all so I frequently will just leave my cart behind. It's best to use as few supplies as possible to save money to buy more guns.
-
On 12/10/2016 at 0:02 PM, Hitorishizuka said:
And would they be doing anything if we were staying quiet like you have continually advocated for?
It would seem reasonable to me that they planned an entire game before starting to make it. I don't think your opinion on things has changed progress much.
-
11 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:
What? Please read more carefully. I'm saying that right now extending the campaign is currently only a linear extrapolation that will do nothing but complicate future changes further by being in place. It's quite possible to balance a dynamic experience without the rest of the content because the very nature of it being dynamic means you don't -need- that content for extreme scenarios and moderate scenarios don't require much change.
This type of thing is never going to happen if I just stay quiet like you seem to keep advocating for.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The first phase is planned for the next patch.
-
1 hour ago, Hitorishizuka said:
Completing the campaign is a matter of adding maps and expanding the minimum size of the enemy and is a fairly linear extrapolation from what is currently on offer. It's an entirely different effort compared to needing to get the balance right now for what currently exists because of how complex it can be with the different ways of doing it. In fact, fixing balance now while there are less things to worry about is a much easier task than putting it off for the future.
How can it be a linear extrapolation when what you're clamoring is nothing close to linear? You want a more dynamic campaign where your performance effects future battles. How can you balance a dynamic experience that is planned to have over twice as much content as what's currently available until it's all finished?
I mean we're not even into the real meat of the Civil War yet in terms of content. Both the battles and the connections between them are planned to get more complex.. this type of thing isn't going to happen overnight though just because you want it. Scaling is likely always going to be a part of the experience however because the AI is always going to be a step behind the player in terms of competency. In Total War, the AI got infinity money to compensate. In this they're going to sometimes outnumber you and be better equipped to compensate.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:
No, you stated that the campaign wasn't finished and that they needed to add more battles. More battles is completely meaningless for the mechanic we're talking about. Changing the fundamental structure is separate and we already knew was coming, we are discussing what we think the actual nature of changes needs to be.
Saying they've beaten it with maxed AO is meaningless without knowing their actual army composition. I've beaten it with maxed AO but I sure couldn't staff 5 Corps; I could barely staff 3 before flat out running out of guns available in the store of the reasonable ones to buy. The AI simply doesn't have that concern and will continue not to unless we actually speak up about it.
No, it's completely relevant to the discussion.
Why are they going to spend time balancing the campaign when it's only half complete? Complete the campaign first then worry about balance. It's perfectly playable and enjoyable in the current state until it's completed and more focus can be put into balance at a later date.-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Sandermatt said:
I can turn this around and argue that the scaling prevents the player from getting punished for taking losses.
I agree.
Scaling certainly helps when a player is doing poorly as well, which is something I think people are overlooking when they talk about it. I don't think it fails the punish the player however, because your losses are the punishment and then the AI is still going to match you and be slightly better anyway.
-
7 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:
Yes. The campaign should actually be a campaign and not a theme park stop through notable battles.
Afterwards the player should realize they're playing on too easy a difficulty and crank things up.
It's 100% a disadvantage once you factor in the opportunity cost of having not spent money on raising veterans and bringing green brigades that you had to pay money for all of their weapons. You've paid money to get more inferior troops when the AI is going to get more veteran troops for free as a counter.
Further campaign battles are simply more content and don't presage changes of this fundamental a nature.
Again, you are just assuming the state of the campaign is the final version of the campaign. Big changes have already been promised in the next patch that are going to change the dynamic a lot.
Could it be the current state is a just a placeholder to keep the game challenging while continuing to tweak the balance? I think so. The only thing I might agree with is that the AI gets too many 3 star veterans, but I'm sure that will be changed in future updates.
It's not a 100% disadvantage. People have beaten the game on hard with full maxed army org. Buying rookies is cheaper as is turning them into veterans naturally. If you play well you can turn an entire rookie army into an entire veteran army much more cheaply than buying veterans.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:
No, that isn't the complaint here. The complaint is that it's entirely artificial whether brought 60k men or 80k men to a given battle provided you met basic minimums. You're in fact getting doubly screwed by AI auto-scaling because you have a harder time getting enough guns to staff those divisions and less opportunities to train your fresh brigades whereas the AI gets free veteran brigades as necessary. Bringing more men than intended through Army Organization or oversized brigades should be an advantage, not entirely negated/a disadvantage as it is in the current system.
The second complaint is that because the AI auto-scales, it heightens the lack of continuity between battles. Currently optimal play involves getting as much XP for your brigades in as safe a manner as possible, so long as you meet the minimum necessary strategic goals to keep playing. There's no advantage for taking risks or willingly taking higher casualties to completely eliminate enemy brigades because you're actually hurting yourself when doing so because the AI won't have to rebuild after those losses, but you do.
If the game is then too easy, then players should be encouraged to turn up the difficulty.
So you want the AI to manage their own army and then get completely wiped by Shiloh?
Because that's what's going to happen.
I do agree that Army Org could be tweaked, but it's really not a disadvantage to bring more when once you have more of an idea as to what you're doing.
Position, cover, and weapons are more important than numbers.
I want every battle to be a challenge, even the side missions, taking away the AI advantages isn't going to make that happen. Could things be tweaked and streamlined? Absolutely.
But please don't forget you're basing this entire opinion on a half finished game.. there are still 10 more historical battles planned for the campaign and at least as many if not more side missions. I wouldn't expect to see a fully balanced and fleshed out campaign until every battle has been added.
-
1
-
J & P Rebalance Mod by JonnyH13 and Pandakraut 05/06/2023 1.28.4
in General Discussions
Posted
It's a little weird because 2nd bull run requires 9 AO, but then Antietam has your brigade limit for each corps back to 20 instead of 25.