RobWheat61

Screenshot: Springfield 1855; captured 2984. It's covered by the tool tip.

Did you expect anything less from the Stonewall Brigade? Sadly, Paxton died at Chancellorsville.

1. This makes sense in every aspect i can think of. Wouldn't you face an enemy unit which is nearby obviously in fire range, when they could potentially fire at your brigade in line formation or worse marching column? This said, hit the hold fire button and the unit should move on and ignore the enemy unit. If you prefer more realism, just let the unit fallback out of range and then give the move order. 2. Never happened to me. Either giving individual units or groups of units a target manually works all the time for me and they don't revert back to other targets. 3. Can you provide screenshots? Did you make a potential bug report in game (F11)? Do they turn left (facing) and move or do they just walk sideways? If they walk sideways they are too close to another brigade!

I agree with Wright29 and additionally you can get a lot of rifles from the government via reputation points, which is not necessary at all on Brigadier general difficulty. @Wright29 And don't forget Weapons Depot = Harpers Ferry Arsenal, about 13,000 small arms and 73 artillery pieces captured, but the paroled Union soldiers got all available food . But such a price in a minor battle would very likely mess up the game balance.

I agree with you. But I can already see all the "broken, insane, too hard, too many casualties, ah and lets not forget complains about scaling-Threads in the forums too, if the dev would decide to include the battle. But overall the battle would be a good example of Grants several attempts to vanquish the ANV by pure attrition.

Furthermore these new regiments would need to fill the same space as the actual brigade units, which would mean a much higher zoom level, which very likely is impossible. Or it would require new bigger (hand-drawn) 3D maps. Overall it would not be worth the effort and at this point so far into game developement, it's just a bad idea.

Add to this, that Hooker's Cavalry, if it would have been there, wouldn't have in brigade or division strength and Saber in hand charged confederate Infantry all over the heavily wooded area, because it would have been suicide.

I checked my 2nd day savegame from my CSA playthrough. All three supply wagons were on the map and fully loaded. I lost 11162 + 1700 Cav and the Union lost 48080 + 2221 Cavalry, but in fact the whole Union army was dead/wounded/captured or routed. Enjoyed the battle very much, but it required a lot of micromanagement to get an effective echelon attack underway with all three wings. On a sidenote, it felt a bit strange that I outnumbered the Union by 9000 men with my 73247 men, but it will probably be more balanced on Major General difficulty.

CSA Campaign Major General Version beta 0.72: engaged Union 29489 vs CSA 26298 casualties Union 18926 vs CSA 4429 Version 0.68: engaged Union 42289 vs CSA 31931 casualties Union 27435 vs. CSA 9333 Of course, these number are without cavalry and artillery and the battle ends always after the first day. PS: Would love to see the second day of Shiloh as CSA. Well maybe it will happen on Legendary.

That is why I put it in quotation marks, but it's the nearest thing to a road map, if a very basic one. You're not satisfied with it? I couldn't care less :).

There will be about 14 major battles + the minor battles. So I don't think, that the campaign will be too short, although I would like to see as many battles as possible major or minor in the game, naturally. Personally, I usually need much more time (than Koro's estimate) to complete the campaign in its current state. But I spend a lot of time in the Army Camp screen too ;). I haven't found the time to play the Historical Battles yet. Side battles: As far as I have seen, some battles are historical ones (Valley Campaign, South Mountain, Thoroghfare Gap, Perryville, Iuka ...) others are made up and some take place at historical battle locations (Newport News) but the engagement is fictitious. Here's your "road map"! Why Early Access? “Army field exercises and combat trials are required to test weaponry, battlefields, supplies and progressions systems.” Approximately how long will this game be in Early Access? “2-4 months maximum” How is the full version planned to differ from the Early Access version? “Early access edition Battle of Aquia Creek Battle of Philippi First Battle of Bull Run Battle of Shiloh Battle of Gaines' Mill Battle of Malvern Hill 2nd Battle of Bull Run Battle of Antietam + 10 minor battles Release version Battle of Fredericksburg Battle of Stones River Battle of Chancellorsville Battle of Gettysburg Battle of Chickamauga Battle of Cold Harbor Battle of Richmond Battle of Washington + 13 minor battles” What is the current state of the Early Access version? “Fully playable and stable. EA campaign ends at Antietam. Full release will feature the complete civil war.” Will the game be priced differently during and after Early Access? “Price might go up after release.” How are you planning on involving the Community in your development process? “Game-Labs actively works with players. Your opinion and feedback is extremely important for making the game better. Please don't stay silent and share your voice of support or criticism on the company or steam forums.”

Would be a nice change, if players would adhere to this too, instead of beating the AI by gaming the mechanics and AI weaknesses. haha, I can relate! The all-out attack on the town is pretty nasty :)! But you have always the option to withdraw from a battle, which would be prudent with overwhelming odds ;).

I would keep the career point categories and their attributes as they are for now. They fullfill all a certain function and are plausible in a historical context. I have only small issues with Logistics and Reconnaissance. It's just not necessary to put points into Logistics. Even with bigger armies (75000+) there is more than enough ammuntion in the battles, which becomes even less of an issue with the perks for officers and artillery units. Same goes for reconnaissance. it is nice to have but just not necessary to invest points there. I put only points into Reconaissance for immersion and out of curiosity how numbers and casualty rates develope during a battle.

Thanks for clarifying your point, didn't get that before, sorry. Lowering the number of captured weapons in the grand battles would probably be a good thing, due to the fact that you can destroy the AI army completely right now. But I wouldn't like to see an increase of weapons in the shop neither generally or by putting points into Economics.

Economy increases the number of weapons in the shop now? Didn't know that. Since when? I thought it only decreases the price for buying weapons and increases the price for selling weapons? The weapons argument is not a very good one. The Enfield and the Springfiled M1855 have almost similar values in the game and the Lorenz only differs significantly in its fire rate. Picking up longarms was a common practice in both armies to replace older weapon designs, for example the Springfield M1861 would have been a common sight in the ANV by 1863/1864 or Grant troops, which replaced a good number of their older weapons with captured Enfields after their victory at Vicksburg. It was probably not before somewhere in 1863 till the Union War department could equip all their troops with modern rifles.