GS_Guderian
-
Posts
21 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by GS_Guderian
-
-
I add some ideas:
army org: Some levels could allow certain amounts of ranks. Right now you level all your majors to 2 star generals with ease (if they stay alive).
First it doesn't make sense to have 2 star generals serving und lower ranks - which is possible - second the army might use them elsewhere.
So in order to have more generals paid by Washington / Richmond you need to invest into army organization.
Right now you never lose an officer - exception: death. I feel you should have a limit of certain generals, according to your inner organization.
Recon: As mentioned elsewhere recon could also simply add better deployment possibilities.
No recon: You get the default deployment box.
Reasonable recon: You get a bigger deployment box or a second one.
Mr. Recon: You get a deluxe set of deployment boxes, maybe even 1-2 brigades more to start with, rather then those 1-2 joining the battle later. You just knew some hours earlier that they will be needed.
-
Each unit could have a max. range from a commander allowed to be effective.
Snipers might have a higher range than regular Infantry. Cavalry should probably have a very high range.
Just a tool for brigades and their skirmishers to not go wild. Also allowing some logic in deployment of brigades. Right now nobody cares if I mix them. I can put Brigade I of 1st Division far left and Brigade II of 1st Division far right and still attack with the remaining divisional forces in a huge blop in center. Mixing them within 2nd Division or even units of another corps.
Military hierachy and chain of command is not represented at all, except for the presence of corps leaders.
A modifier to the command value would be reasonable, I reckon.
-
Maybe adding division commanders - like one thread allready asks for - might help?
-
Also, at Bull Run I had one brigade at the stone bridge surrendering to the Yankees, marching north.
Later Stuart's Cavalry sourrounded the remnants of the Union assault and freed those poor men.
As soon, as they turned red again they had all their weapons back it seems. I could use them to harass the Union from behind.
-
1
-
-
I was totally fine with the dynamic map during my union campaign.
But for the South it totally sucked on my motivation. At Shilo my brave boys made it all the way to Pittsburgh Landing. I took a very high toll in losses and with a last hurray I made it onto the victory location. It was just a few (real time) seconds before the next battle phase.
Suddenly my two corps warped back, in one case even so far they needed a terribly long time to get back and put pressure on the Union.
I had them enveloped before. I was in possession of the barricades and artillery positions. And with one click...back to 0 or at least 0,5.
NOT appreciated. I don't want to save and reload at all during my rebel try. But this draw is really annoying and feels unjust. Especially since I can't afford to refill all my losses as I would like to now.
-
I say yes,
just look at how units even react to a wounded leader being replaced with someone less familiar.
The men around you are your family. It's not easy to integrate new family members.
I guess they would rather get smaller areas of responsibility for the small units instead of broader boarders with a merge.
Also gamewise, what happens to range and reload if 40% have farmer musquets and 60% Lee rifles.
-
1
-
-
My casulties up to Antietam, heavily using save games while learning the game and deployment system.
Edith says: No slaughtering of the AI after the finish button appeared.
-
Soldiers really tend to dislike fighting with anyone they don't know.
Usually adhoc units have zero to none military value after the first shots have been exchanged.
No trust in your neighbor valuing your life as high as yours - you won't stick around for long.
-
Guess you are right here.
Big is beautiful. First thing in my GC after a few games was reaching 2000. That way they have a good chance to work, even with skirmishers out.
-
I saw the game at a (close-combat series) clan mate and immediately bought it.
When I started my first gc I fell in love with the career paths.
BUT after playing Union to second bull run by now, I simply felt recon weak in comparison to any other trait.
Maybe I don't like recon to much because of the general knowledge of the civil-war. Maybe because save & reload makes things much easier vs. AI than any mp game would.
Maybe I played every major battle to often in board games.
But I wish recon would either add % of spotting radius or / and bigger deployment area and / or more starting units vs. less reinforcements.
In my close-combat campaign tournaments e.g. I simply gave bigger deployment areas for the side which spent more effort in recon.
-
4
-
-
Losing your tent because enemy forces rushed your camp surely ain't fun in anything else than mild summers
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Koro said:
Recon let's you know more about enemies during deployment and during the battles.
Thx,
so aside from future multiplayer it seems rather weak, no?
AI will charge at me anyhow. I won't be able to react to reconnaissance info during battle if the number of deployable brigades stay the same at the beginning. If I have to attack I still need to scout ahead.
Even logistics seems more usefull to me.
Why would I invest career points in anything else than troops & money?
-
Question:
Does recon do anymore than giving me hindsight of the enemy forces?
Like do my spotters spot further?
May I deploy more units at the initial deploy phase, due to better recon?
-
I could give my officers certain skills.
Although, only corps commanders, not division leaders nor Brigadiers.
-
Does the game actually differentiate between:
cover from bullets / fragments
and
cover from vision aka being concealed.
And on top: Do forrests work as a potential additive danger, considering being shelled by (explosive) artillery ammunition inside woods isn't always helpful. Shots that might normally miss, now cut down tree crowns and create all kinds of wooden debris.
-
@ Karri
If the campaign always let your corps troops meet each other, the weaker player would never grow an army.
Therefore I suggested it adjusted, as to you only meet enemy players corps units, if both happen to be at the same site.
In all battles with one corps unit from any side, the opponent player gets to play the garrison/stock troops.
-
The rather limiting campagin modus in CC4 /5 was the reason for me hosting a campaign with me designing each battle, depending on decisions by the different commanders.
-
I doubt that walking backwards in regimental style would work out, especially in any other than absolutely flat terrain - let alone woods, rocks or rural area.
But then again, we don't see friendly fire for playability reasons. We might allow regiments to slowly warp backwards.
-
Considering multiplayer experience from my own hosted tournaments for the game close-combat, I prefer a generally historic, but dynamic mp-campaign.
It could start with small tasks, as it is right now, allowing to rise in ranks. At the beginning there ain't much choice for commitement to battles. A certain rank could allow strategic decisions following the general task of Richmond/Washington.
The opposite player has a chance to hamper enemy career by denying him great victories with whatever 'garrison' units are on the board. (If they happen to meet there core units it's less bloody maybe.) Basically switching point of view from battle to battle.
If blue wins twice with his army, while forcing red core army to abort his actions in the first to tasks, he might get promoted, gaining more influence on strategic decisions. The rebel commander instead stays subject to orders a little longer.
That way it will still be possible to fight with what you buy and to live with consequences, but one side can't lose the campaign easily in the first clicks of an strategic map.
-
1
-
Shiloh freeze
in General Discussions
Posted
I had a freeze 13 secs to the end. Reload, again.
(Pittsburgh Landing VL in rebell hands)