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?

Buford lost 0 cavalry on that morning btw ^^

Well from what I understand the battle of washington is kind of like Lee's other northern campaigns : a dash north on a wrong-footed union to secure political rather than military gains, in this case the surrender of the Union by seizing its capital and demonstrating the superiority of the south. I think it's not too hard to imagine that union forces still outnumber the confederates just like they did when lee invaded north the two other times, but that total victory still comes for the south if you win the battle, after 4 years of ineffcient northern generalship, a gizillion death and the loss, even if temporary, of the capital.

That's why I spoke of cost effectiveness. A battery of 12 24-pdrs will outperform any other 12 gun battery. But 50 000 $ worth of napoleons or 10 inch rifles will yield you a slightly better result than 50 000$ of 24 pdrs i think.

24 Pounders are the best per unit, however I feel like the cost effectiveness of the napoleons and 10 pdr ordnance is worth it again. I just fought antietam and my 7 gun batteries of 10 pdrs and napoleons have around the same kill numbers as 4-gun batteries of 24 pdrs

Do not try any offensive action whatsoever until the third day. Stay in trees and forrests. ON the last day, do not charge, rely on shooting to dislodge the union positions. Cap the objective when the counter is near 0 and leave this hellhole ASAP.

Diminishing artillery return still seem to be present, at least for large batteries above 20. I don't understand why it's still there. If the returns start to diminish, then cap the max battery size to a lower number! It's annoying having to guess the optimal number of guns and having to run battlefield tests. More guns => More damage, please!

Yes only rookies come for free. IMO veterans are only worth it if all your brigade slots for the coming battle are occupied and you predict to have money left after all these brigades have been fully reinforced to their max. Better guns, more men, more artillery, more sharpshooters is always more worth it. And also thicker brigades with better weapons gain more experience because they kill more ennemies, and lose less experience through rookie reinforcement beause of their size. So while providing you with more troops early, it's also a more cost effective way of breeding veterans. It is absolutely possible to play Gettysburg with all of your infantry with 2 stars without ever having reinforced anyone with veterans.

Pretty sure you're reinforcing it with veterans. Make sure to toggle rookies and not veterans

You must be missing something. What you pay for in a brigade : - Guns - Commanding officer - Horses when you create a new cav brigade (10$ per horse). Reinforcing an existing cav brigade doesnt cost any extra horse money. - Veterans If you have 1500 M1861 and 1500 men in your pool, you can : - Reinforce a pre existing M1861 brigade with 1500 rookies or less for free - Create a new brigade equipped with m1861s, with 1500 rookies for free if you have an officer available. If not the brigade will cost the price of the new officer you choose to recruit. - Outfit a pre existing 1500-man brigade or less with m1861s for free As the CSA, if you want to use all your manpower pool in all battles, you will have to rely on a lot mississipis and smoothbores including rebored farmers until antietam, especially if you pick government manpower reinforcements instead of guns. if you dont you will fight with small armies that are more vulnerable to union forces and you will have more troubles building a strong and numerous core of veterans (a lot of two stars). BY Gettysburg though you should probably be way into the process of replacing at least the smoothbores with some kind of rifled weapon.

I second this. Would be vastly helpful