Draluigi

Quick suggestion: replace Farmers and rebored farmers with flintlocks. No one knows what farmers are at the moment, and the game lacks the early flintlocks that saw widespread use at the beggining of the war. The change would be purely cosmetic obviously (though I don't like having low tier weapons with good melee stats just for the sake of balance, but thats another subject entirely)

Man drawing these regiments towards the forest that was pretty nice. I always fight them at the farm up north and at the river ford but this seems more efficient

Oh obviously this is highly unrealistic too I was just speaking about the optimal tactics in the game at the moment. Friendly fire is not very punishing and I think the best way to lower casualties in melee combat on the defensive is to make it as short as possible

Yes. Napoleons catch up when in canister range

Your reasons are wrong!

Lolz

Well I noticed the friendly fire but it's still way worth it to shoot in the melee. I think UG Gettysburg had a pretty good system. if we could have it back with a feature that would highlight whatever obstacle prevents your guns from firing, it would balance the game and make arty use more realistic

Right ok my bad. Anyway I wasn't speaking about efficiency. Two 500 man brigade will beat a 1000 man brigade, even without flanking bonuses, and that's ok that's logical. Having the same for arty is also acceptable, though imo a bit harder to argue. What is beyond my understanding is why 24 cannons kill less than 12, not the fact that 12 cannons should have more kills PER GUN than 24.

Is this morse code?

Who cares for the union? Ain't no challenge, plus it should basically end once you win at bull run. That's like playing the americans in hearts of iron there is just no point besides making the same war with less casualties. The romance is on the rebel side! All the what ifs and the challenges, taking history into your own hands, changing the world, fighting so that people can be slaves, that's where the fun is at!

Artillery at the moment : - is too resilient in melee. I think a good compromise, instead of insta-shatter would be insta-rout. - has that descreasing damage issue with increasing size that i'm obsessed with - fires on anything and everything through any kind of obstacle (trees, buildings, friendly troops) making it overpowered especially to defend against melee attacks. UG : Gettysburg had more realistically restricted fields of fire for artillery, but it was a bit hard at times to figure out why a battery wouldn't fire on a given target, not finding if it was an issue with topography or friendly troops in the way.

Pour la Louisiane!

I'm pretty sure infantry brigade always have a lower efficiency per man in the brigade as you increase brigade size. But you still increase their firepower with longer volleys as you increase their size. The issue with artillery battery is that the damage output actually DECREASES past a certain number of guns (which used to be 12 beyond any doubt), and it is very annoying because you have to guess the right number of guns, and you can actually decrease the lethality of your arty by adding more guns which makes no sense whatsoever. It is a major issue imo for army planning and very frustrating to find out all these guns you added actually lowered your kills, not to mention the fact that there is no way to decrease the size of a battery to reassign these guns. Decreasing return seems somewhat ok to me since a battery has support elements besides only guns, and adding guns can stretch these support elements to the point where adding new guns might not add lethality to the unit in a proportional manner. But having 24 cannons kill less people than 12 just makes no sense, no sense whatsoever.

Any news on that? I'm way too lazy to run battlefield tests. After what number of guns does battery lethality actually decrease?

Everytime I tried to win earlier than day 3 i'd still have to go through the next day. Are you sure this works?