Fred Sanford
-
Posts
165 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Fred Sanford
-
-
38 minutes ago, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:
especially in light of his later life
That's why he was a convenient scapegoat for the lost-causers.
-
Even as a "major" battle, Pea Ridge was pretty small compared to the other major battles in the game. About 7-8 union brigade vs 10-12 CSA brigades (depending on how they're modelled in the game).
The minor battles would be really small on this game scale.
-
On 6/26/2017 at 3:56 PM, Fred Sanford said:
Considering the units created by the player in UG:CW are fictionalized, but resemble historical units, I'd like to expand on that concept- Call it Ultimate General Staff: National Army.
In UGS:NA, the player is the Chief of Staff/Head of the Army (or really a series of these fellows) for a particular nation. US, UK, France, Prussia/Germany, Russia, A-H, Italy mainly (or their precursor minor countries/colonies- in these cases a "War of Independence" or "War of Unification" would be a major early milestone/requirement). The game would last for say 100-150 years in annual turns during peacetime (say 1750-1900 eg). During peacetime turns, the player gets a budget that he can spend on training units in a standing army, setting up militias/reserves, purchasing weapons, training/promoting officers, all of the management stuff that's analogous to the camp screen now.
Since the player is Army CoS, and not the national ruler, he would have input into some foreign policy decisions (i.e. make recommendations), but for the most part that would be 'over his paygrade'. Every once in awhile though, war would break out between the player's country and one or more of the others, or even a civil war. Then the game would generate a series of battles the player would fight through to represent the course of the war in say monthly turns. There could be multiple wars in the course of a game.
If you are familiar with the naval game Rule the Waves, I'm thinking like this for land combat.
I posted this the last time "next game" suggestions were floated.
-
Another suggestion: develop the existing minor battles so that they may be fought on the opposite side, and mix them randomly into the campaign.
-
58 minutes ago, ross42899 said:
Officers level up way too fast during campaign. after sometime you have way too many Major Generals. It should be rebalanced a bit, so you will have less Major Generals.
Some time ago, I suggested the ability to "sell" back officers for additional rep. If you think about it, it's actually realistic- your character develops a *reputation* for developing and mentoring junior officers for higher command.
-
Yes to all three.
-
It isn't necessary to take Marye's Heights in order to win as the Union, if you take Telegraph Road and Prospect Hill. The CSA on Marye's Heights will stand pat if you move your entire corps to the map edge, tucked up by the river, on the edge that abuts the Telegraph Road map. Gather them there, and just wait for the timer to run down. When the Telegraph Road portion of the battle opens up, that entire corps will be available to move on Telegraph Road.
-
1
-
-
The scaling still seems weird to me. Playing a hard campaign as the Union, and going into Stones River the Intel reports says the CSA is 64-69k (see screenshot). Yet the deployment screen shows the CSA as just under 84k. What gives?
-
2
-
-
They should be allowed to refill supply wagons IMO. A range ring that shows their radius would be nice, too.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:
As I've said before, I don't name my units, I don't want them thinking I care for them while I send them into the grinder for hamburger.
e-life is cheap on A.P. Hill's computer.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, A. P. Hill said:
@Nick Thomadis and Developers
I have been on my current Confederate Campaign now since the latest release and upgrades.
Up to this time I have not been paying much attention to the AARs generated by the game, but I have been this series. I have found a few things to comment on:
Please make the AARs consistent. In the top half of the reports you have the information listed as Infantry, Cavalry, then Artillery. In the Losses half of the AAR you list the results as Infantry, Artillery, Cavalry, then Missing. Please make either of the two reports list the units in a consistent manner either way your choice but I ask that one report match the layout of the other. (Hope you understand what I mean.)
Also of great concern, I'm noticing an inconsistency of information on these reports. When listing Artillery, I'm assuming the number in parentheses are the number of men assigned to the number of guns. In many cases I get guns listed but no men. And in my most recent AAR I had men listed but no guns.
Could you please spend some time on this and correct these issues? Thanks.
It's not just the AAR screens- when you select a Corps in the Camp, you get a summary of the troops assigned, but it does NOT include artillery troops. However, the battle screen 'details' and recon level DOES count these troops. They should be consistently counted in all AAR/summary screens/troop data throughout the game.
Artillerymen are people, too!
-
2
-
-
Agree overall, but Medicine also recovers the wounded soldier's weapon. So it also provides 'two' benefits- veteran soldier + weapon.
-
An interesting internet challenge for the game: who can bring the largest army to a final battle? Any side, any difficulty. Theoretical maximum is 300,600. Maj Grigg has opened the bidding at 180,344.
-
2
-
-
Smoothbore muskets can be loaded with "buck and ball", which is a combined musket ball and buckshot load. This acts somewhat like a shotgun load and is very effective at short range. The buckshot would ruin the rifling on a rifled musket though, so wasn't an option for rifles.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:
Did you start new campaigns when that system was put into place? Do you try and field maximum size battalions as much as possible or do you play small?
Was that directed at me? I started on 1.0 but played thru the subsequent updates without restarting. I tend to keep most brigades at 2,000 with some (maybe 30-40%) at 2,500. My current CSA army was at 103k at Cold Harbor.
-
On 7/30/2017 at 0:55 AM, HansGruber said:
I did notice that if you continue to annihilate them especially at Antietam, they don't recover as much in terms of manpower.
Same here. I've outnumbered the Union in every major battle- sometimes 2:1 or higher.
-
Playing a BG CSA campaign, and I'm going into Cold Harbor with 103k. All 2 or 3 star. Intel says Union army has 44-49k. So it can be done.
-
Maybe there is something weird with the scaling- the intel report said the CSA army was like 121-126k but they brought nothing near that. Frankly, you should have been getting overrun with rebs. I'm also not a fan of they way they render Heth's division as regiments, not brigades (the first day initial CSA units). Too fragile.
Also you wasted 5 rep. You may have spent rep down to 75, but winning the battle gets you 30.
-
Is your rep at 100? I saw it was at the end of C-ville. It doesn't go higher, so you need to spend it or it goes to waste.
-
At the very end of your 2nd Winchester video, I saw you have ~50-52k across 4 corps and the reserve manpower, vs estimated 120k or so CSA. Ouch. This is about the reverse of history. Gburg is mainly a defensive battle for the Union, so you should still be ok, but you need to start killing lots of confederates or you're going to run out of troops for the 1864 battles, which are big & bloody (even the minors).
Are you on Col or BG difficulty?
-
Is there anything for cannons? I think that's where there's more legitimate variation between types realistically. I'd like to one day have Whitworths be worthwhile (i.e. long range and rapid fire).
-
I'm a 1st Vermont spam guy, personally. Dude knows it all.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:
What if Winfield Scott was just a little healthier in 1861 and able to take the field at First Bull Run? Considering McDowell's plan was actually quite sound but he lacked the ability to properly coordinate even a small (by later standards) army, would a stronger hand directing affairs have allowed for a Union victory? What, if anything would that have changed?
Diabeetus kills!
Seriously, I think a major reason the South held on as long as it did can be attributed to poor Union leadership early on as much as anything else.
-
I would like to see the Whitworths get buffed to reflect increased accuracy (say same as 10# ordnance - 33) and greatly increased rate of fire (say 40 or 50). They might be worth buying in that case.
20# Parrotts still need help also.
I would also like a control to decrease the number of troops/guns in a unit so that you can re-equip a unit when you don't have quite enough of the new weapons.
-
1
-
Cavalry is in a good spot right now
in General Discussions
Posted
Along with mounted infantry, it would be neat if there were horse artillery as well. Say 10lb and below (were there any Napoleon HA?) could be equipped with horses and move, limber and unlimber faster than conventional artillery.