Karri
-
Posts
58 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Karri
-
-
3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
This is not true. Player will often outnumber or outclass the AI as well. Depends on the battle and how well player manages his army in the campaign to enlarge it as necessary. If he takes too many losses and prefers to sacrifice a lot of soldiers for a win, then later it is more probable to have an army that will be outmatched in all aspects.
Nick, how much do you play the game? Because. it. is. true.
I'll run a campaign with Unions and confeds on normal once the new patch comes out. Or maybe the final patch. In any case I never sacrifice soldiers to win, and the AI almost always outnumbers and outclasses me. Unless it is a scenario where you've basically disabled the scaling...
-
Well done. This is why it would be really beneficial to see some of the values(like the supply wagon stockpile, or unit ammo) in pure numbers instead of just bars.
-
3
-
-
I skip the briefings always, they are completely useless and generally wrong.
-
Most likely a timer issue
-
I bought the original Europa Universalis(Paradox Entertainment for those not in the know) when I was still a teenager. EU IV is quite an improvement. Hopefully this is what happens with UG series. For sure this game is worth the money still, even if it doesn't fill all my expectations(or promises, mr 'Campaign fully depends on player actions' ).
-
Well, it's a pointless thought since nothing is gonna change. I am starting to think this game is practice run for the actual title.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:
The actual quote reads, "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics". Problem is, this is a game. It is marketed to people who pay money for fun, not a professional study of a war.
If you think moving a dozen wagons around a battlefield is an improvement in gameplay, let me be the first to disagree with you.
This game is based on elegant simplicity, and adding unnecessary elements doesn't improve its core value.
No, my point was rather that you could fix the armies swelling up to trillion men because the AI sucks, or artificial 20 brigades and 1 corps rules by simply imposing logisitics rule. Ie. the south can only bring x men to Antietamn since they only have x supply. Likewise this would make the side missions way more interesting(capoture the supply depot and you can bring 10k more men, or enemy can bring 10k less etc). I wasn't suggesting that scaling can be fixed by changing all units to supply wagons
-
3
-
-
16 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:
The fallacies about supply is possibly based on an inaccurate knowledge of period regulations. And since some of the members here are triggered, when it comes to seeing actual historical information posted, I won't go into great detail, other than to state, regulations specified that quartermaster wagons for ammo be issued at the regimental level, and increases in number going up the organization.
I would state, I'd like to see at least one wagon per division.
Supply and logistics is what true military professionals study. And had there been some more research gone to that in the game it could have easily replaced the faulty scaling system.
-
1
-
-
Well, the player should be given some extra supply wagons, since the AI seems to have a couple of dozen of them in each battle(I assume because the AI sucks in handling them).
-
18 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:
Sorry, but some of us don't live in our mother's basements and spend countless hours playing games.
Our mother? Brother, who art thou? How is mother? How many basements does she have? Which one were you in? How did you escape? So many questions.
Like I said, amateur gamers. I took care of this long ago by having a freelance job that I can neglect to feed my addictions; such as smoking pot and playing UGCW for days on end.
Btw. is there a roadmap for future updates, or any idea how that is gonna play(asking you devs!)? Not so sure if I wanna play another 300 hours before the game can stand up to scrutiny.
-
5 hours ago, Wright29 said:
By the time you get through Gettyburg, Chickamauga, Cold Harbor, and an entire Confederate campaign, the next patch will probably be out. That's a solid 40 hours of gameplay right there.
40 hours is not even two days, unless you're an amateur gamer.
-
1
-
-
On 4/18/2017 at 1:46 AM, Llewellyn Jones RN said:
No actually a old hand at 'Scourge of war Gettysburg' a game where fatigue made alot of difference to how you fought the game tired troops arriving on the field of battle would be exhausted sooner therefore they would not be able to fight an peek effiency if a game that old can have it coded in then i am sure this one could with real good effects as it is your troops only get tired when you double time the them. Can you imaging how tiring it would to cross a river that has boggy ground either side then have to march into battle without a rest.
One thing that no game tends to simulate is how often moving is impossible because you have no idea where you re, where you are going, and the map is old and of wrong scale. You can't just march through a forest in a straight line. Hell, you can't march anywhere in a straight line because you're not a bird with somekind of supernatural abilities to follow earths magnetic poles or whatever. In fact, getting there is usually the biggest problem(logistics and movement).
Gamewise such a thing shouldn't be implemented, since that would just piss everyone off(I didn't order that brigade there etc). However, it feels a bit stupid that the best moves in this game are generally those that were tactically, operationally and strategically impossible in the real situation. Ie. there is not a brigade guarding a crossing since it was impossible for the opposite side to use the crossing historically; but here we can march the entire army through the same spot...
-
Just a useful tip: as soon as you get a 2 or 3 star unit disband it. Then use the men to create artillery batteries, which with 2 and 3 starts are absolute killing machines.
I do hope there was some sort of combine brigade, as that is how I keep my veterans up to strenght. Now I have to first equip 120k rookies with all kinds of weapons so I can disband a few brigades and use them to reinforce, and then disband all the fake brigades again. Really could use some tools for the army camp...
-
17 hours ago, JaM said:
If I recall correctly, close combat during Civil war was 90% shooting and 10% actual melee combat... same as in Napoleonic wars - only very determined soldiers (on both sides) would actually wait for enemy to get close to fight with bayonets...
And actual melee combat is more a locked pushing match than a free-for-all bayonetfest. That is why a charge/assault order is always to take a position, never to run after enemy like it was agame of tag.
-
Finished a playthrough on colonel as Union. Ideal brigade size seems to be 1 to 1.5k troops, with 6-9 gun artillery batteries, and that pretty much means you are facing equal number confederates. Did I say I hate scaling? I hate scaling. With brigades under 1.5k casualties and battles tend to work somewhat better...I have a feeling that 3k brigades +super guns +maxed out units break the mathematic formulas in the game.
However, with 4 corps of 2 and 3 star brigades I still ran into massive scaling issue by Cold Harbor. I have to raise new brigades to finish some of the missions, or simply disband my veteran units since I cannot reinforce them all to proper size. Or face 3k brigades with 500 men units...I think I'll disband all and just throw in the 150k raw recruits I've been pooling up. Just need some pikes and pitchforks for 'em...
-
There wont be a map editor due to the way the map is built.
-
Min-max and grinding is the name of the game. I'd play MMORPGs if I had any interest in that, which I don't.
My conf army in the easy/fixed size was smaller than on hard/legendary because I couldn't arm them with good enough weapons. This caused more casualties to me in the end. Ludicrously scaling makes it easier to arm and have bigger armies.
-
I am banking that this is still 0.75 early access and the devs have not paid any attention to the campaign yet other than getting the battles there. I honestly don't think the campaign is even a campaign at this point, it's just linked battles.
-
One issue is that once the troops are in the battle they are in the battle. There are no reserves as such(only troops that arrive later), and no units is ever "off battle". I wouldn't mind some of the bigger battles taking more "turns" ie give me changes to go to camp and change corps positions and such. And instead of the AI attacking my one corps with first one, then two then three corps it should take turns deploying each corps by turn each a separate "battle".
-
Scaling remains a major issue, though I think at this point it is caused by a single factor: the AI scales to your whole army, not the units you bring into battle.
So if I have two corps loaded with spencers and 2500 men brigades, and a 3rd corps armed with farmers and 500 men per brigade the AI will still bring 3k men brigades with best weapons. So the only option is to either downsize your army(never an option) or always bring your strongest units. The scaling should apply to only units you bring into battle. However, that can cause some gamifying aspects, as such there needs to be some balancing factor still. like minimum strength.
-
Original Gettysburg wasn't moddable at all, I think. Seems like this one wont be either. A bit strange considering the background...
-
1
-
-
On 12/22/2016 at 9:53 PM, Andre Bolkonsky said:
But, if the devs are listening, put a priority on incorporating shell selection for artillery asap. Please. Makes it a hell of a lot easier to figure out where to site the batteries. Thanks.
I would actually find range more useful than type of shell. Or just allow me to set preference, ie:
1. Always fire canister when you can
2. Favor shells secondly
3. Only fire solid when in x distance(since long range does no damage and uses all supply)
4. Favor targeting units in area x
-
1
-
-
I was thinking about this today, as there are other similar issues. There should be somekind of bottleneck feature, an area where only limiied amount of men or units can be engaged at one time.Never mind the firing, but 7000 men charging across a bridge don't make a difference if only ten can walk abreast.
-
1 hour ago, Lazamataz said:
Ok, so, I'm a seasoned tac and strat wargamer.
But playing the Confederacy is nigh unto impossible. I'm at the easiest level; tried about 10 approaches; found all sorts of little tricks to totally win various battles...|
For example, for Gaines Mill, the key (and I have played this through about 10 times) is to sneak all the way back around the Union, not confronting their barricades, and take the farthest hill to the right, first. By that time, your second corps is on the map, you meet up, and punch all the way down the barricade line.
Easy Peasy. Lose very little, and score a big win.
But without fail, Malvern Hill has been impossible. I've played it about ten times, and the best I ever got was a draw. Once. With a nearly-shattered army.
On easiest level.
I'm almost thinking what I should do is just hang back, allow the time to pass, and take the defeat. At least I'd still have fresh units.
To the developer, the easy level should be easy. Not impossible.For Malvern Hill you can do a few things:
1. Creep in with artillery, if you have limited area you can do this from south of the map.
2. Flank the Union in the north with your second corps, or with your whole force. I find that they usually leave the two fords relatively unguarded and then you just engage them from the rear and roll their line.
3. Combination of these two.
4. Max army org and buy a bunch of oversized green brigades and mass charge. The way the charge system works now you can first charge the main fortification line with 2-3 2500 men birgades, then choose 4-6 other brigades and set them to charge the enemy units in the rear of enemy line. This way their whole line becomes entangled, their condition drops to zero, and morale plummets too.Then just use your more seasoned units to mop up the enemy.
Cold Harbor
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by Karri
Delay, delay, delay(fighting is harder than marching), and sacrifice all troops if necessary. Casualties will still be low compared to fighting the whole battle. All you need to do is hold the objective until timer runs out.