dsfgsdfgsdfgdsfgsdf3q4
-
Posts
29 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by dsfgsdfgsdfgdsfgsdf3q4
-
-
On 6/19/2017 at 2:25 AM, Beruldsen said:
Having played both ... I found Richmond to be much easier in comparison.
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.
-
1
-
-
On 5/18/2017 at 6:30 PM, Bobby Fiasco said:
Wow! I can't wait to replay and try to fight much more like that. I feel like I face a lot more Union though, and a lot of 3 stars. I swear there are three or four Iron Brigades. You also have way more and way better cavalry than me. How do you nurture them throughout the campaign?
This was recorder a long time ago, a lot of things changed in that time period.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
3
-
-
29 minutes ago, Lannes said:
Nice to see an expansion of UG Gettysburg. UG Civil War is definitely worth the money even in early access.
Has no one said anything about the 'figures' being even smaller in UG Civil War than they were in UG Gettysburg?
Is there any plan to increase them even slightly? I have tried adjusting the graphics options to no avail. I have new computer glasses but it still is a great strain on the eyes.
It would be so nice to see the figures just slightly bigger and with uniforms appropriate to the Brigades.
Thanks for the great work!
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.
-
8 hours ago, vren55 said:
P.S. How the hell did you know I captured Stannard by that screenshot? I can't see him :P. I did capture Greene, Stannard, McDougall. and some others..
Top corner slightly to the right. If you click on the image it becomes bigger and easier to see.
-
On 2/15/2017 at 0:17 AM, Aetius said:
I hope they are good now, since they are all you capture on Legendary as the Confederates.
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.
-
On 2/13/2017 at 3:18 PM, fox2run said:
USA was founded by illegal terrorists obsessed by avoiding taxes for the relatively cheap British military.
-
1
-
-
From a legal point of view, did states have a right to peacefully leave the Union in that time period?
-
1
-
-
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.
-
9 hours ago, vren55 said:
Another good idea is to make sure you have three full corps... then ignore the lower VP, hit the top VP, whilst making your way to the NW as fast as possible (not running, marching) Break the Union Salient around the wood/hill with your troops and then with the ones across the river, flank and take Nashville West.
I'd be warey though... Nashville West's cover hasn't been fixed yet. SO even if y ou shoot the enemy from the rear it's not going to rout them (if they're entrenched). It's necessary to sortof do a slow, tigtening of the noose with Stones River from West to East.
On the final day, repeat the same strategy, slowly mind you. And no charging,. that's not a good idea. Unfortunately expect the majority of your losses with this battle to come from the fact you cannot rout garrisoned units by shooting them.
.thumb.png.759e01627cd641d6afcb933f43f5ac6c.png)
Edit: I realize you've been playing on hard... this was on medium so... take my advice with some salt.
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.
-
4 hours ago, Koro said:
I don't think he does but with 131.000 against 71.000 of mine, I suffered 27.000 casualties here.So the ratio of casualties is about the same compared to the numbers.
I watch your videos Koro don't worry ;).
-
On 12/17/2016 at 3:10 AM, 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.
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.
-
On 1/16/2017 at 9:03 PM, mainiac said:
1) I'm not saying that this mission is currently impossible (I have won it) but it should be borderline impossible.
Why should any battle be borderline impossible? Especially if historically it wasn't.
-
On 1/18/2017 at 7:35 PM, A. P. Hill said:
I consider it historical, and not a factor.
That said, I've said before, had the Union forces been led by more competent leaders, they could have beaten every Confederate force ever fielded.
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.
-
17 minutes ago, Lincolns Mullet said:
Hi Acika! This is only because the game currently doesn't go past Antietam. Later, many more battles will be added that occurred after Antietam but as it currently stands this battle is a "do or die" because of how much reputation you stand to win or lose. Once additional battles are added past Antietam, the reputation increase/decrease will be scaled down appropriately.
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.
.png.dd6a0033944d7f0c13243ed083d3bb6d.png)
Post your most wanted sequel to ultimate general no matter how insane they are.
in General Discussions
Posted
Napoleon.