Andre Bolkonsky
-
Posts
1,129 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Andre Bolkonsky
-
-
Not that my opinion matters, but I really feel like this should be prioritized in one of the forthcoming patches. It's incredibly frustrating to try and give specific commands to individual units crammed together because they just marched in from off-board.
Selecting a group of units, and selecting their marching path to follow a road or to swing around a flank, needs to be greatly simplified.
-
1
-
-
You don't need sappers, there isn't enough time for a proper sapper unit to do their thing on the field in the confines of the game.
However, units DO need the ability to fortify their position over time. This is standard operating procedure, and the poster child for this is Culp's Hill at Gettysburg.
-
4
-
-
Just now, Andre Bolkonsky said:On 12/24/2016 at 11:39 AM, A. P. Hill said:
Admins
We really need the ability to delete our own posts. On multiple occasions, I and others have quoted something and there is an issue with a quoted post. It simply cannot be deleted and reformatted.
Great game, great forum, and this is an easy fix based on other implementations of this same forum software I've seen on other sites.
-
On 12/24/2016 at 11:39 AM, A. P. Hill said:
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:
I agree with you up to this point. In the actual militaries that we're trying to represent in this game, during real life, the only organizations that comprised of mixed arms were the physical armies. Regiments, Brigades, and Divisions did not mix arms within any of the afore mentioned units. If you had a regiment of cavalry, it was all cavalry. If you had a regiment of Artillery, it was all artillery, and etc. Even with Brigades and Divisions. That's not to say that those Divisions and Brigades did not have separate brigades of other arms, as they did. Any order of battle that you can find on the ACW ... you will not find any of these organizations sub army level composed of mixed arms.
That said, yes, I realize that there is a level of organization missing in game that I'd like to see as I mentioned above two posts ago. And in the very beginning of the ACW, it's true there were organizations called Legions, but these were local militia and once they were attached to the official provincial armies, they were split up and each branch was relocated with other arms of that same type.
And early on both armies had Brigades that had artillery and cavalry attached to infantry, but later around 1862 after experimenting with that organization both militaries determined it would be better to reorganize where artillery and cavalry were attached to Divisions and not Brigades.
Agreed. Best example is the disposition of artillery in the Army of Northern Virginia: Longstreet, usually the anvil, kept his artillery at the corps level; Jackson, the hammer and always on the move, kept his artillery at the division level where local commanders could bring their guns to bear more effectively. Both answers are right, it depends on your mission assignment how you want things laid out to your advantage.
-
Am I overlooking something.
I see the banners flash in the top left corner of the map; reinforcements have arrived, a general has been shot, enemy troops are spotted moving up . . . .
But unless I"m looking there specifically, I don't see them.
Is there an audible tone that sounds when this occurs I have disabled, or is that something forthcoming? If not, definitely needs to be on the 'To Do' list.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Koro said:
Not sure if you mean in game or not now. In game no, Irl? Pretty sure they died like flies.
When someone earlier said a Corps commander never died, all I can see in my mind is the tree at Shiloh where Albert Sidney Johnson died.
23 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:Haha, no, sorry for any misunderstanding. I was saying at a meta level, it feels like they are bullet magnets, doing it is just asking for the game to start handing wounds out, but you don't notice as much if a non-notable general was the one who was wounded.
Ah, no. I thought you meant they WERE bullet magnets.
And it wouldn't be the first time I restarted a battle because of a result I didn't like.
-
4 minutes ago, Koro said:
Nope.
Well that changes everything . . ..
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, clench said:
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.
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/
-
On 12/26/2016 at 10:16 AM, FurionMoneygrabber said:
You drive along the country-side and take note of good artillery positions and defensible locations.
Or where to put your machine gun nests and poured pill boxes after playing too much WWII. Which buildings have the best site lines? Is there a church tower nearby? Oh look, a heavy stone wall hidden by a dense hedge. That could come in handy. Some things never change.
-
Just now, Aetius said:
Yep, I've lost my General unit several times - it currently has no effect, other than losing his abilities on the battlefield. It usually happens when he and I are engaged in a battle of wills - my will to keep him close enough to the fight to do some good and his will to run away from any fight inside his command radius.
Sometimes he runs the wrong way and gets gunned down. I've also had him get overrun by skirmishers and cavalry.
Oh good, so it's not just my guy that behaves in strange and peculiar ways. Good to know!
-
Just now, Hitorishizuka said:
It's random, I'm just snarking that it seems like if you try to do things like that they seriously do always get wounded. I've never had a Corps commander get wounded, though, so that's at least a safe choice even if the XP gain isn't strictly the fastest.
Question, what happens when your 'pesonal' general dies? Does the game end?
-
4 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:
Yeah, tried that, they're bullet magnets for getting wounded, even when in charge of a Division. ;P
Suggestions? I try and keep him as close to the action as I can, but there's a lot going on and he's not always my biggest priority unless I need him to run down a broken brigade or there's a major hot spot on the line where I need him.
-
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.
-
God Bless Us, Everyone!
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:
Again, I'd like to see campaigns created for both theaters of the war. And all subsequent battles of that theater relegated to that campaign. True, I know there were great and wonderful battles fought in each theater, but as a player, I do not feel the need to have to fight battles my troops didn't fight in as the troops in real life didn't fight there either.
PLEASE, divide the campaign into theaters so one can play a realistic campaign if he so choses.
Wouldn't it be more logical to complete the entire game, get all the battles in place, THEN reconstruct the sequence of the campaigns and allow players strategic points where they can flip their command from one theater to the other?
-
2 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:
Regarding your first and quite possibly your second points, (and you may already know this, but just in case ...,) the unit identification bar at the bottom of your screen, if you click the top most bar, be it corps or division, it will not only highlight the units under the bar, but the corresponding troops on the field are auto-selected. This will allow you to click on a command and then select a rally point on the field and all troops belonging to that selection will then advance to that point.
With regard to your third point, Yes, I highly agree. Get the game working flawlessly first. Cease the commando operations of routed troops behind enemy lines, get the playability of the game more functional, etc. As for the cosmetic uniforms, not so much. By the second or third big battle in either theater, the governments had become savvy enough to weed out and order all militia style uniforms out of existence. Yes, this means, the Zouaves didn't have pretty pajamas, the sharpshooters lost their greenery, and all state associated uniforms became obsolete. It literally became a battle of blue vs gray. (However due to variances and qualities and quantities of materials, the South's gray often became butternut, or tan, or some average homespun.) By 1862 the South had manufacturing facilities working on standard style uniforms, including all state produced uniforms.
So I'm kind of against the "pretty" and "varying" uniforms after 1st Bull Run/1st Manassas.
Regarding your first point, yes, but not quite what I'm looking for. .
Regarding your second point, well said.
-
4 hours ago, Karri said:
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
Yes, this is specifically why we need to be able to select shells so we know where to site batteries to the most effective munition possible can be used from the furthest secure range.
-
21 hours ago, KaleRaven said:
Buildings and forest should give a penalty to firepower as a tradeoff for cover. The advantage of actual prepared fortifications is that they provide cover while still allowing troops to fire effectively. Whereas dense forests or urban areas should make it difficult for units to concentrate fire without sacrificing their cover.
Agreed/
21 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:Supposedly they actually already do, from other posts I've seen.
Who actually speaks for the devs and provides this information to us? Or is there a guy who does that?
-
1 hour ago, Stonewall47 said:
My problem is often trying to select a single unit and getting two. Most often, Ill want to pull my artillery back, when I try to select them, I get them and the infantry unit right next to them.
19 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:Agree with this, there should be a shift left click selection process when brigades stand on top of each other. Please. Or some kind of way to cycle through the group.
OK, well. At least it's not just me.
Seriously, what is the best path for providing organized feedback to the developers. I know they last thing they want is everyone with a good idea pestering them while they're trying to fix something else; but there has to be a way we can construct feedback for them in a logical fashion.
Suggestions?
-
5 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:
Anyone messed around with the 20lb Parrotts much? I brought them out for one or two battles and I haven't actually been that impressed for the most expensive cannon available.
They should excel at one thing: long range, counter-battery, siege guns. Put 'em on a hill, and pound fixed positions over time with their accuracy and reach. Most battles in this game don't have the time requirement necessary for them to do their magic.
-
1 hour ago, Hitorishizuka said:
That's not what he wants. He wants an easier ability somehow to individually route brigades through roads/clear terrain to get them to the front faster. I feel his pain.
Bingo.
I don't mind pathing them individually, sometimes that's better. It's the overlap of units which precludes me from locking in move orders for a specific unit without accidently selecting the brigade it's standing on top of.
Not a killer, but let's put that on a list with all thousand other other good suggestions we made here last week.
-
Just now, Koro said:
Haha, yes, I think so. All of the artillery did rather well in this map
I love nothing more than a strong defensive position, a lot of artillery, and plenty of ammo . . . . . .
-
Got a problem:
A blob of units march onto the field and I don't see the indicator go off telling me they're here (Fix that, please, dev; that indicator needs to be a bit more dramatic). But I digress. . . .
The units are sitting in a clump together near a road. I want to select each one of them individually and order them to march up the road, following its contours to the best of my ability.
I seem to have a bit of an issue selecting individual units inside the mass AND paint the arrow for them to follow without wiping out the move command for the unit right next to it that I just set.
What am I missing?
My thanks in advance.
BTW, why isn't there just a 'move en masse' button where you could select all of them and have them march up the road in column?
-
2
-
Sometimes he runs the wrong way and gets gunned down. I've also had him get overrun by skirmishers and cavalry.
Use of roads
in General Discussions
Posted
Select the individual unit you want to command, then draw a line along the path you want it to march. You can make it follow a road, hide in the trees, or demonstrate back and forth.
Individually, it works great. En masse, not so much. But, I'm patient. I'm sure they'll fix it in the order it needs to be fixed.