General Hancock
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by General Hancock
-
-
3 hours ago, Jiruri said:
In the general discussion I didn't really see any posts about this, but did anybody on here ever play Civil War Generals and CWG2? Those were amazing Civil War games and after finishing both Union and Confederate campaigns up until Antietam in this game, it made me revisit CWG2. Playing through the entire Civil War with alternate battles depending on the course of previous battles was such an amazing concept. Also the ability to upgrade your weapons, the need for supply and how the landscape in the battle gave different bonuses/penalties were really neat to experience. It is nice that UGCW deploys these same concepts.
A think CWG2 had that I would love to see in this game (but probably won't, since it would be quite complex to make I reckon) is an editor so we can design our own battles. Give that function Steam Workshop support and we could all build mighty battles/campaigns for other's to explore and experience.
I would love and hope that they will do that here. To just have scripted battles doesn't really scratch the itch.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, James Cornelius said:
Well that's the question at hand. Initially when I started playing, and the first couple battles including Bull Run talked about "your division" I assumed that you only commanded a portion of the army directly, even if you had full control for some battles. That proved to not be the case, though it would be interesting if some early battles featured only your troops under your command, and the rest of the battle AI on both sides so that while you couldn't do everything to win the battle, it better simulated what a division or corps commander was supposed to do. Then, you would work your way up to army command.
I certainly think it would make it a much more interesting game and provide a deeper feel of being a commander in the civil war.
-
On 12/17/2016 at 7:23 PM, Tontis said:
There most definitely is a limit to how much they can develop and make the campaign truly dynamic. But I will say this time and again, it would be a vastly more enjoyable game with replay value if each decision matters in the long-run. That said, I agree with going through a campaign with a defined line-up wouldn't be the worst thing ever. But if this game wants to be something more than just a re-skin of previous similar games, it's a must.
You hit the nail on the head for me. If the game did this it would be perfect. I am not into knowing that the next battle is XXX so I will withdraw so I can have more troops, etc. I don't want to know what the next battle is. I just want the orders and the limited information/ intelligence that I have in order to do what I have to do. That would be exciting instead of knowing what will happen.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Destruct1 said:
While it sounds cool these ideas can backfire tremendously. Imagine that you need to commit 3 corps to 3 different battles up front and realize in the 3rd battle that you overcommited on the second battle and undercommited on the third. Now you need to replay all 3 battles.
A complaint I heard fairly often was that the assignment of troops can only be done well if you know the battle. If you know Antitiam as the Confederates you put 11 good brigades and all your cav to the top Corp, a few brigades to the south Corp and the main bulk in the middle Corp. If you never played the battle you might be tempted to split your army in 3 equal parts. This is disastrous because it traps valueable troops in the souther part of the battlefield. Similar in gaines mill: You put almost all troops into the "frontal attack" Corps and barely use the flanking opportunity. If you think flanking sound cool you spend valuable time waiting for the useless Corps.
Strategic campaign decision have the potential to be frustrating newbie traps.
I guess I can see why you would want to know how to better place your units in order to win but doesn't that obfuscate the reason for playing the game in some ways? Let's face it, I already know who wins.
-
2 hours ago, RobWheat61 said:
Why is it an issue of the game? The game doesn't force you to use officers in positions not adequate to their rank. It is solely the players who decide how to employ their officers in the game.
Because that's not how it works in real life. Please remember that this is beta and we are trying to provide feedback in order to improve the game.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, James Cornelius said:
As Kale pointed out in the above screenshot, the game calls you General-in-Chief. While there is no current rank as such in the military, there was in 1861. Indeed, there was from roughly 1789 until 1903, though for the first decade or so it was known as "Senior Officer of the Army". Then, it was either the "Commanding General", or "General-in-Chief". In 1903, the General Staff system was adopted in the US and the Commanding General became the Army Chief of Staff. Winfield Scott was the longest serving, before being replaced by McClellan in late 1861.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commanding_General_of_the_United_States_Army
and
James, didn't know that. Thank you for enlightening me. However, as others have questioned then why does it seem we only command a Corp or an Army?
-
1
-
-
Kale,There is no title in the military as general in chief. Where did you see that? All I have found I should on the game page that says that "you are the general".
AP, that's why I asked. If you are only the commander of an army then the game makes more sense to me as you are being given orders.
-
Koro, I agree based on the fact that you only control a segment, in this case an army, but not the entire Union army.
-
On 12/16/2016 at 4:36 PM, fallendown said:
I already gave up on the game being realistic at all. I just had the Union AI run out of ammo and charge whore me with like 2 X 2500 man brigades. Watched the union stack 7,000 men into a space barely big enough for 1,000 (Stone Bridge) and fire with the same efficiency as if they were on a parade field. It's pretty evident the Dev's have never been to any of these places and gotten a proper scale. For instance, in the screenshot below the actual area around the Stone Bridge is really only about 300 yards wide. I know this because I pass it every day on the way to work. That's enough room for 1200 men in line, not 7,000. The golden rule is that a regiment of 400 men in line will have a frontage of 100 yards.
Don't give up yet. I'm hopeful the next patch will balance the game and make it more realistic.
-
The devs have stated that they need to adjust the scaling and outcomes of battles. I am hopeful that these changes will improve the game.
-
The game does state that you are the general but are you the general of the Army or a general in the army? Based on not commanding the entire army, I would think we are only a general in the army.
thoughts?
-
I really would like to see the fortify button added in the PC version.
-
1
-
-
Currently the "scaling" or benefits of wining a battle and proceeding to the next battle are out of whack.
Good news the Devs are aware of the problem and said it will be fixed in next patch.
-
I will look to see how many units the next battle is asking me to have and go from there.
-
Are there any updates coming for the iOS version on iPad?
Did anyone ever play Civil War Generals 2?
in General Discussions
Posted
Just image for a moment having the best of both games.