Slaithium
-
Posts
74 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Slaithium
-
For example, Stone Rivers would provide a great pvp experience and create numerous out comes that could be over came in co-op or even pvp. Co-Op even for the same example would be even more thrilling, two general attempting to capture Nashville. How does that not sound fun? Also, can develop new strategies that would require both of you to work together. Again, another area of play to develop strategies. Things are always more fun with friends.
-
Own both. Played the original. I think the game has more potential given the growth of sphere to have a better pvp experience. Also, all the maps were centralized on Gettysburg, while here you have many. That is a key difference.
-
Played pvp forever and like the fast pace of it. It would be fun playing the battle of Gettysburg with your friend in Co-op or fight it against real people trying to accomplish the same objectives.
-
Had the game for a while and been playing since beta early buy in. I was hoping by this point news of either pvp or co-op for the game. I have a lot of friends that would pick up the game if it had a way we all good join together to play the game. Check the updates and wondering what the status of the game would be or what they are working on next. Thanks.
-
I use 1250 because I have found the small brigades fit into cover better and take less damage over-all. Also it conserves resources for later in the campaign, generally they are also vet 2 or 3 squads. I have also found, this may be how I use my skirms, to run around the rear picking off artillery groups so the extra men to allow them to stay in the field longer doing the most damage is optimal. Also if Calv try to get on them they can normally fight them off and have enough men left over to shoot them in back while they run away. Just to name a few circumstances. That might work for union, but if the South does that it is very draining so it has to be use resources more wisely. I use Skirms like that regualrly. Idk Jumbo brigades to well holding forward positions if they are well equipped while given and receiving a beating. I typically max equip when possible all my troops to maximum firing range. Also the same for cannons. I typically like to fight everything with a range advantage when possible.
-
My normal Corps are general made up of 2 500man Skirms w/scoped Whits, 2 Calv, 4 artillery and the rest 1250 inf brigades with 4 jumbos 1800 or more men as reserves. Also playing on hard mode, the one before legendary.
-
I came back to the game after some updates happened... Gettysburg after the updates does not work like it did. Use to it give some extra time if you were about to win on day 1 and now it is almost impossible. Course day 2 and 3 are a blood bath and are lucky if you dont lose your entire army in short order. So if anyone can give me a guide on how to win on day 1 on Gettysberg it would be great, if not then in the long term it will be difficult to have the forces needed to win Washington later down the road. So thanks in advance. What I have been doing or tried rather. Using 3 brigades and a artillery unit to grind down the attacks that come my way when you take the first and nearest objective. Usually kill all the skirms and brigades that come my way the entire battle with no reinforcements required, they lose roughly 8-14 units depending on what the AI does a particular attempt. Then the reinforces I get I just them to swing down below the strong point and take the the Southern objective set up two brigades and another artillery regiment to push off the surrounding units and cut off the incoming reinforcements, I usually end up killing them or they swing up north. The next batches that come in I sure-up my position and prepare the assault on Seminary Ridge. When Army II arrives after the initial engagement I sweep down and take the northern objective and over-run it while 4-5 brigades blitz down to occupy Gettysburg itself, with the 5 units to the North East rushing down to cut off the reinforcements that come from the bottom right corner. Here lays the issue, I have taken the point but time had simply ran out of time by about 7 or 8 second every-time with only one occasion one second was required. So this is very frustrating to know that I have won the battle and virtually almost annihilate their entire army to not win and go into day 2 and 3 to only be massively outnumbered and bleed my army to almost dust.
-
Things that must be improved on in my opinion: I) The new smaller battles and the Washington Campaign need some serious adjustments in numbers and how fortifications work. I-A) Fortifications need a massive re-think, because the absurdity, namely when you have 10-24 gun artillery pieces shooting ONE brigade behind a emplacement and does not move for 2.15 game minutes is beyond balance. I-B) Continuing with the emplacements, to charge one unit with five of your own brigades that equate to 10x of that number is a issue. And push 10,000 men with 2,000... sense makes none. II) It is pain-stakingly brutal and creates a auto-lose scenario once you reach Washington what it cost to win the other battles, which is a must to have enough manpower to go to Washington in the first place. So they can not be by-passed because 22k manpower each and 200k money each is hard to pass by for a final assault on the Union Capital. III) The battle of Washington itself is great in theory but if the south has punished them ( Like winning every battle, getting the "reduce" army size and equipment) they should not have that there. Because in my campaign alone they have already lost 750,000 (rounding up), which stands to reason they should not have access to that many men regardless of the theoretical population that is concluded in the game. What we have here is this, a) a debuff system that does not really matter because they will pump out what ever it wants, which feels like a cheat almost. b ) The AI is not really punished for losing and gets the last laugh at Washington because it still has 1863+ weapons and 2-3 stars if not all star vetted troops. c) To go to Washington with 5 Corps with 22k-30-k troops each summing up to about 135,000 men total just to get ground down is beyond frustrating to have 250 hours into a single game. IV) Lastly, there is a major lag issue in the patch compared to the rest of the campaign. Everything has been good and challenging to this point, which leads to a ultimate disappointment for the conclusion of the game.
-
Been busy and have not had time the last several days to be on the forum. But that said, yes calv lived much longer than infantry, but it not because they did not see action or were not targeted. They were mainly a recon, skirmish, or run down routing units. Those roles are typical regardless of the combat setting would sustain less causalities. Also as for frontal charges of any kind were a poor investment, this era in my view is essentially a pre-lude to world war I, this is more prevalent from 1864 on. Especially if one analyzes the Wilderness Campaign and the only time Grant has ever openly admitted regretting anything. Anywho what I find interesting is the fact that the north had abled bodied men still doing what they always done, what I mean for example, Havard had the first boat races in the middle of the war, and none of those boys served. Compared to the South they had to scrape the barrel, the North really fought the war with one arm behind there back. The war would of ended sooner given certain things mainly administration of the army and capable commanders willing to lose men, like Grant. Thats why Grant is held in high regard, he did not have the tactical adept like Lee or many of Grants counter-parts, but he was willing to work his soldiers and need be let them die. That was Grant's brilliance so to speak. But all that is just food for thought. But I am usually not on till mid-week. Dr. R -
Ok the only clause in the entire part of that article that needs to be addressed that would give Lincoln that kind of power to over-rule constitutional rights. " [congress]To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. " But the power lays in congress which is the law making body of government, and the point of what makes all of this controversial is the Lincoln's view " I see the South in rebellion of its native country, and will never recognize them as a sovereign state". I paraphrased, but that is the point. Lincoln holding that view and policy would be reaching beyond his executive powers or at minimal a clear contradiction. Also the, " Special Session on July 4, 1861 " was a speech he made to congress, no formal law or legislation to recall gave him special powers. Hell, Lincoln himself debated with himself that we know of from his writings that he was most-likely over-reaching, but felt it necessary. There lays another issue what you feel is necessary and what is actually necessary are two totally separate things. As far as Historiography is concerned, you have a minimum standard that must be achieved and then within that you can create further frame-works. Most do not and stick to the bare minimum, but as long as they are excepted and are explained why it was significant to be done this way it is general accepted. But as said, there are several historical methods that could be applied to whatever era of study. But at the same time, does not take away good history. Lastly, when doing Q&A different views and histories do not make them wrong if they are well organized and supported reasonably, moreover if it can persuade the audience that is listening or reading. So debate is built into Q&A, if you want to make it a thread where you give all the answers from your own studies and deductions then that fine and on you, but there are more than one supported answers to these questions. And in a public forum, it will invite opposing answers and ultimately view points on any subject in history. That why I wrote you should be-careful how you exert and write. I am simply pointing out things from other corners of the field of study, and if you do decide to go for you doctorate, you will be drilled repeatedly for this if you do not consider and fully understand all arguments surrounding a particular specialty of study in history. In my doctorate for example to what we are talking about, I had to argue for the position that North was going to win the war not matter what essentially, that is not my view but I had to argue that stance so I could understand why historians and people think that and I learned alot about many many many details that changed some of my thinking on doing that. Course, that was a side project that co-worked on to build up resume but still the point remains.
-
That why I was quick to say that the original post that was not entirely accurate, when I teach my classrooms I make a clear distinction between mythos, history, and facts. The reason for that facts tell you when and where and the basic essentials, the history of of people involved, notable things that happened (that are not biased), etc. Then the mythos which is not factual but gives flavor towards the passions on each side, the passions are what excite the imagination and gets people to dig into history.
-
Not constitutional rights it does not, that is why the view that Lincoln held is problematic he viewed the South as being still citizens of the United States just in rebellion. Also Article 1 section 8 deals with the powers of Congress not the executive. Since you keep bringing that up.
-
It was not a point to disprove but for you to turn what is being said into more consideration remarks other than full on trying to win points. You taling in a way and writting in a way to be precieved as superior, i was stating it as purely advisor and the history of the war is not clear cut in so many ways. But yes I do have a doctorate in Military History, my specialty is Prussian Military History 1314 to 1945. The sign of is my initial.
-
It is not within the presidential powers to detain people without due process, presidential powers are to enforce the law which was not a law at the time or even close that would allow the detainment of citizens without due process. This is very apparent in Maryland in 1860,61,62. What I mean is what I said, Lincoln can be litterally anything you want him to be, hence he is controversial and shrouded by mystery. Because a lot of his intentions are not very clear and a lot of it is Post-Hoc. I would not say he was transparent, but that that a discussion for another time. Militarily that can be argued it was necessarily but there are very reverently domestic arguments that it was very over reach, needs to look at both affects and the precedents that they set. Davis took and did what he could, and alot of historians say Jefferson under the circumstance did very very well for what he had to work with and assemble is such a short time.
-
Not really a Social Order but more of aristocracy in South is more precise. You can still find this practice in many parts of Kentucky, East Tennessee, and Arkansas territories. Also was a series of attempts not once. Not a disappointment to me, it was based off what I have read.
-
More than that, Constitutional Party, Republician, Democrat, Whig, Southern Democratic Party, just to name a few that is already more than 3 lol.
-
Ok, not entirely accurate. Start broad and then narrowing, we have histories fro both sides to call upon to give a more neutral history and collective works to show the view points, facts, and data. I.e., Life of Johnny Reb and The life of Billy Yank are two good works that show both sides in propper order, and the sources within those come from some of those you criticized. They may be biased but still have useful information that are not bias leaning. Also school text books for public and books, resources, and things you do in the halls of academia are two different things. So that should always be made clearly distinct. McPherson did a good job, but even in his book there are obvious Northern Leaning tendencies. Point being is this After the war and there has been histories one can find bias in works for both sides and they are plentiful on both sides at any point on the time line. The most neutral history I've read is the For the Common Defence and Origions of Modern Warefare, and maybe the Impending Crisis. Pertaining to the Civil War. I would not be so dogmatic in you approach when it comes to historiographers and the art of history, because they are written with to some degree and some more than others, bias. It is human nature. Dr. R
-
Short answer yes
-
Lee is a character with alot of depth but also a pragmatist which is sometimes over-looked. Lee was willing to allow African-Americans join the confederate army and after the war if they the South had won grant them citizenship if they were honorably discharged. Lee felt this position was best to his personal beliefs and what was best for the cause. Long-term Lee thought over-time recruit/draft/volunteer basis any Negro that served honorable in the army should gain citizenship. Lee got the idea from the Romanization from the Romans pre-cerca the 4th century when citizenship was granted to all by Diocletian. Which was kinda Lee's longterm out-look on this process do that till the support was gain to grant citizenship. For those who wanted to be slaves, revert to indenture servitude. But the above was rejected by Davis, and the Confederate Congress. But that is the short hand description that you should/may look into as a example of counter-view points or people with influence that wanted different or had a different idea for the slave population. VMI had a copy of the letter that Lee sent and also, Washington Congressional Library has a digital, and I think the Civil War Trust has attained the originals of some of these documents and going to archive them when they open there new Museum. But if you are going to or are working on your doctorate, I recommend looking at the primary sources concerning this issue (I mean actually read through them or even better get your hands on them). Jackson was another individual that prompted Lee for this aswell especially in 1863 in need of men, and Jackson view on Christianity makes him another person who had conflict with the establishment that was leaning anti-slavery views. Hope you find this encouraging after 10-years of research that another view can be researched.
-
A Abstract to this that is even more interesting about Lincoln is that he can be made to be a saint or satan himself. Everything to his personal life to his factious policies. That is more interesting. He is the only president that is controversial by shroud of mystery. For example of what I am talking about and what has be displayed somewhat, take his reaches of executive power also know as "constitutional war powers" granted to him by the constitution has had numerous backlash effects and many historians debate the fruits of this. Prior to this most presidents were reserved and were not over active in government minus maybe arguably Andrew Jackson. But back to the point, he set the stage for far reaching executive orders, first income tax, transition from gold based currency, detaining citizens without due process, suspending Habius Corpus, and countless others all are highly controversial today and even more so back then. Not to mention that he held several contradictory views, most importantly, he viewed the South as states in rebellion not another country and were still citizens which make the former even more profound. There is some thought provocation for you, Dr. R
-
The current victory system needs improvement.
Slaithium replied to Mr Larp's topic in General Discussions
Not that at all and it was addressed that way so in hope to show why I object to restarts and criticism. The subject is concern, problem is describing the concern, that is how English works. So your statement quoted above is not correct. But, I will repeat myself again, it is not the restart itself, it is what the restart causes, get it straight. I have explained why above. -
The current victory system needs improvement.
Slaithium replied to Mr Larp's topic in General Discussions
Clearly being fallacious or facetious, but just in case you are not. I would owe you nothing and you purchased a product at a calculated risk and if that product dissatisfies you, that is simply your loss. Since I did not force, cause, or solicit you into doing such the reason is faulty on principle. It would be the same logically, buying a new car, it losing its new car attributes, and holding the car company responsible because it changed in a way you do not approve. -
The current victory system needs improvement.
Slaithium replied to Mr Larp's topic in General Discussions
Still a restart either way you look at it, one is just called restart. Ok lets follow this to a logical inductive conclusion and my concern why this is a problem to me. I. There is people wanting the add for a PvP in the game in such a 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, or 4v4, etc. II. Restarts take away important lessons and not learning to over-come in game situations. (when you are losing and not/able to over-come a strategic disadvantage, for example) III. PvP is competitive to some degree IV. Losing reveals your mistakes at a principle level, as winning every battle can probably cause comfort-ism in play style and can lead to non-creativity. V. Comfort-ism, lack of involvement, and certain experiences can reduce the dynamic and diversity of multiplayer competitiveness and strategies. Thus: Probable that with numerous restarts, comfort-ism, lack of pressed experiences, would reduce the probability of a dynamic and competitive multi-player. This is based on people writing i the forums for PvP , what I have watch on streams and people restarting in minutes of a battle because it did not go well, and/or a multitude of experiences. Also, for those who would want to work on strategies, there is historical battles mode that can function as this as well. It is well established in Game Theory and The Study of Human Nature, that people who are not offered a strong challenge in game or in life for that matter creates communities that lack the inventive mind-frame or dynamic stunting growth and dynamic for a competitiveness and growth. Saw this as-well in UG-Gettysberg Multiplayer as players tried to force there learned computer strategies on players, and failed horribly. I care more for the possible future for multi-player than I do for AI combat, because it is easy to beat-up on a computer, not so much on a good RTS player. -
The current victory system needs improvement.
Slaithium replied to Mr Larp's topic in General Discussions
The salt is real and is fallacious, more over a ad hominem. -
The current victory system needs improvement.
Slaithium replied to Mr Larp's topic in General Discussions
And it is not stupidity, it is realism to the game, in real life they could not redo Antietam or Fredricksberg or any other battle in real life. Either the game is A) a simulation of the war, which in war you will typically lose a battle. Only a handful of commanders never lost a battle, and the king of that was Alexander the Great. B: A watered down try-hard and cheat your way to best standing in the game, restart is a permitted cheat, you screw up during a battle or campaign you simply restart over and over again till you achieve the best result possible. What a alien thought? To have to accept you own mistakes and learn from them like they had to during the war and try to over-come them. That is called over-coming something when things dont go the right way and forces the player to have to make better decisions if he/she is going to stay in the fight.
