dsfgsdfgsdfgdsfgsdf3q4

Napoleon.

I agree. I think its insane how harder Washington is, i have 50k troops left after the first day and i have to defend against 150k and 350 cannons!? I couldn't believe my eyes because i thought the battle lasted only one day.

This was recorder a long time ago, a lot of things changed in that time period.

Why do you guys even play these battles that drain manpower and resources. I just skip them, i just retreated at Antietam and did the same at Chickamauga because there is no point in fighting them (i'm playing as the confedarates), you get to preserve your army and you will have your reputation back to 100 in the next 2-3 battles.

I would like to see a DLC for the Franco-Prussian war of 1871 or the Second Schleswig war, because the time period is almost the same and the weapons that were used are similar. I would prefer if the devs could make an entire seperate game that focused on the wars in Europe including the two mentioned above and maybe the Prusso-Austrian war but i do realise that the studio is small and maybe the don't have the budged to release a new game that could be made into DLC.

This game is getting better and better with every patch but i do find a few things really annoying. The first being the time limit and the required 20 minutes holding of an objective to have it captured. I just rage quited the battle of Cold Harbour when i playing as the Confedarates lost the entire battle because i didn't cap the objetive in time i.e. the timer ended LITERALLY A SINGLE MINUTE before i "captured" the little forest on the top of the map during the left flank phase, and this was caused by a 2800 strong Union brigade that charged my ranks and i was unable to rout them before they managed to occupy the point again (i did have 2 brigades defending it but i was outnumbered). There should always be a option to prolong a battle for an extra 30 minutes because i don't think that in real life there was a single instance where generals would retreat their forces at exactly 14:00 or 15:00 if there was a chance for a huge breakthrough or victory. Reputation is a feature i really do like, it rewards you for winning battles by increasing your troops morale and giving you extra manpower or guns if they are urgently needed but i don't see why it is caped at all. The "logic" behind this implies that you can win every single minor and major engagment of the Civil War killing hundreds of thousand of enemies and destroying hundreds of guns but if you loose 2 battles like Chicamauga and Cold Harbour you lost the entire war. There shouldn't be a reputation cap but the morale bonus can stay at +15 so that it doesn't get overpowered. Double standards i also find really annoying, but i dont know how prominent they are because i only noticed it once. Because i play two campaings the main one being with the Confederates and my "side" one with the Union, i play the battle of Chicamauga as the Confedarates first and managed to control all objective 1h before the timer ran out, and the game normally proceded to the next phase. So when i replayed the battle with the Union i didn't want to waste my elite 1 Division of the First Corps defending the two river passages on the left of the first phase. Resulting in the Confederates capturing them and i instantly lost that battle. There shouldn't be any double standards because it gives the AI an unfair advantage.

I do think that the scalling is dumb. I wish there was a option that would make enemy armies have the same numbers they did IRL, so that you don't end up fighting against 120000 (50% more that there actually were) Union troops at Antietam.

I think you need glasses fam.

It counts as a separate battle and im pretty sure it doesn't effect the result of Chancellorsville, but you should play to win because the battle is very easy.

Top corner slightly to the right. If you click on the image it becomes bigger and easier to see.

I thought they would be good so i gave my elite cannon battery 24 pieces. They are still bad. I had them shelling the Confederates almost the entire second day at Little Round Top and they got ~350 kills. If they don't get the 3rd buff in the next patch i will just reequip my unit with Napoleons (the best cannon imo). Btw am i the only one that thinks Gettysburg as Confederates is very easy? I just finished playing it and won on the first day taking 10000 casualties which is ~15% of my entire army. Most of my losses were from heavy cannon and infantry fire that were positioned in the woods at the outskirts of town.

Wew lad.

From a legal point of view, did states have a right to peacefully leave the Union in that time period?

Stonewall Jackson, in a minor battle he was a division commander and he was the only officer to be killed in a battle where i lost less than 5k soldiers.

Depends, i usually draw a route for my artillery because they are really slow in forests and its faster to go around them than through them.

But is it really worth losing half of your army? I think its way better if you loose some victory points but keep your army intact and add a few thousand men and a few cannons more. Thats at least what i did at Antietam. Stones River is my next battle and i think i will do the same.

Well i just tried to play Antietam with around 35k men agains 70k enemies. My first atempt was a "succes" i got a victory but 75% of my army was destroyed. The money and manpower i got wasn't able to replenish half of my army. So i loaded a save before Antietam and basically retreated my whole army as soon as the battle started. It was a defeat and i lost 35 victory points but i was able to reinforce my army with ~7500 new soldiers and 24 new cannons.

I watch your videos Koro don't worry ;).

Hitori, do you have a YouTube channel? I would really like to see how you play to achieve incredible results like in this battle.

Do we have an ETA on Gettysburg? I can't wait to play it.

Why should any battle be borderline impossible? Especially if historically it wasn't.

I would not agree with this statement. There are hunders if not thousends of examples in history where a poorly equiped outnumbered force managed to hold their positions and win battles due to a good general and strong defensive position, or a suprise unexpected attack.

What intrigues me is that the name you gave to your general is so offensive you have to black it out every time you post a picture. I have to say that i would take a 2000 man infantry unit over cav in almost every case. I just think its expensive and i lose them quite regularly.

So basically if i lose all battles but win Antietam i will win the campaign in this stage of the game development? I would expect something better even if the game is in EA.