Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Commander_Rahl

Ensign
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    39

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Commander_Rahl's Achievements

Landsmen

Landsmen (1/13)

22

Reputation

  1. Commander_Rahl
    Only bringing the issue up because I adore this game, and what the developers have created. Want to play my part in helping them to make it as strong a product as possible.
  2. Commander_Rahl
    Already completed one last night. Just wanted to bring extra awareness by also addressing on forum. Should really be checked out.
  3. Commander_Rahl
    This was played post the emergency patch. Yesterday evening, right before I started the thread.
  4. Commander_Rahl
    I have consistently been able to take all other fortifications in this game, when applying much less pressure to the fortifications at Fredricksburg. Literally had 18 full brigades of units attacking a single one star unit, with artillery and flanking support. That is just too much of a fortification bonus, and is completely inconsistent with other heavy fortification locations offered elsewhere in the game. Really should be lowered to more realistic levels. If battle needs to be balanced, it would be better to add more and better quality confederate troops.
  5. Commander_Rahl
    And this cover bonus is supposed to be applied from 360 degrees, so that the units in the fortifications can't be flanked, or attacked from the rear with bonuses? Is this fortification supposed to also affect melee charges and attacks? I've never seen any fortifications or cover in this game, that had any effect on Melee attacks and charges, but the one at Mary's heights are resistant to damage from all directions, and to melee and charge attacks. How is this in any way realistic, or consistent with the rest of the game? If the battle needs to be more balanced, then give the Confedrates more numbers and better units. Don't give them fortifications that don't follow the rules that are consistently applied elsewhere in the game.
  6. Commander_Rahl
    Agree in both points. Fredericksburg fortifications at Mary's heights were modified, and don't seem to be working correctly, or consistently with the game in other situations that deal with its cover and fortifications. Also agree about flawed patching for routed units. It would seem to make more sense if routed units path back to their commanding general.
  7. Commander_Rahl
    Yes, I believe something was modified in the last patch, that messed up how the cover bonuses are working for these fortifications, in this particular battle. I've never seen fortification bonuses that act like the ones in this battle.
  8. Commander_Rahl
    Flanking isn't being applied to units in the fortifications. Melee and charge also aren't being applied correctly. Whether or not there is an alternative way to get this battle completed, something was messed up in last patch. Definitely not working as intended. No unit should be able to withstand fire from a dozen infrantry brigades, and 4 artillery units, with multiple units flanking it. If this is meant to be a stone wall, then flanking and melee should work normally. Only fire from the front should get a full coverage bonus.
  9. Commander_Rahl
    Flanking isn't being applied to units in the fortifications. Melee and charge also aren't being applied correctly. Whether or not there is an alternative way to get this battle completed, something was messed up in last patch. Definitely not working as intended. No unit should be able to withstand fire from a dozen infrantry brigades, and 4 artillery units, with multiple units flanking it. If this is meant to be a stone wall, then flanking and melee should work normally. Only fire from the front should get a full coverage bonus.
  10. Commander_Rahl
    Full cover, or not. No one star should be able to withstand fire from 12 brigades, and 4 artilllery units. That just isnt realistic, or enjoyable. Especially considering that they aren't being effected by charge, or melee attacks.
  11. Commander_Rahl
    The recent changes to the fortification modifiers have made the Mary's heights portion of this battle absolutely unplayable as the Union. Cover/Fortifications modifier is way to high. Just watched a one star unit, of 1500 confederates, hold off almost 25000 Union troops, plus 4 brigades of artillery. While I agree that the battle needed to be made harder, the changes that were made have broken it. Please consider rebalancing and adjusting whatever was changed, to make it realistic, and consistant with the rest of the game.
  12. Commander_Rahl
    Really having a tough time with targeting. Often when I right click the unit I wish to attack, the movement order is placed instead. Is there a key command that I am missing to get units to target, and fire upon the closest enemy unit, or a specific enemy unit you wish to target? Getting really frustrated having to click several times before the correct orders are issued.
  13. Commander_Rahl
    My 2500 man brigade loses 100-200 men, and routs. AI unit in same situation, takes 2-3 rounds of firing, looses 600-700 before routing. I see this type of thing happen all the time. I understand that there are morale modifiers. It just seems the rules work differently for the AI units.
  14. Commander_Rahl
    Yes please! Undo button for camp would be very nice for those of us with fat fingers.
  15. Commander_Rahl
    This one might be worth a replay for sure. Lost my two star 12 Pd Howizter unit too, so I think a replay is a good call. Initiated my attack in the right too early, and the union reserves made me pay for it. I will have to try the skirmishers to the left.
×
×
  • Create New...