Draluigi

My bad I apologize

It's all in the title. Since the new update I can't seem to be able to select multiple units by clicking on each one while pressing left Ctrl. Instead I have to rely on drawing a square and deselecting those units i don't want through the unit card bar at the bottom, or just selecting those i want through said bar. Very annoying since Contrl+click is the most efficient way to select individual units in a disorganized mass. Anyone else with the same issue?

I play like this too. I pause all the time and make perfect lines. I can take a whole afternoon to complete fredericksburg or antietam as the csa if I try to minimize casualties. But I don't see how it impacts AI response, besides obviously making it less effective because your own troops are better coordinated with better fields of fire

+1. Please please please!

Lol I litterally got zero part of that joke? remark? reproach?! Sorry I'm just a french guy who finds the tune very catchy and the lyrics really beautiful.

This one has a banjo flowing through it all it's really great

Heh sorry to mess with the rules already but I saw this recently and thought it was awesome.

Maybe, but then skirms, since they don't have to run to go places, have a huge condition buff.

That's true. To be honest my main issue is that I like having a lot of artillery. I just buy as much of it as possible, even the 6 pounders. I have like 600 guns at gettysburg in major gen difficulty as the csa. Having them have "inverted performances" is actually very annoying now that I know it. I'd be ok i guess with just diminshing returns like the rest. I really don't see any reason for inverted performances. Also, artillery fire is way too "screen free". It seems to me arty shoots anything anywhere in range. Beyond walls, trees, terrain, units that are RIGHT front of its muzzles. That's pretty annoying too I guess , though I use it to quite good effect myself ^^

This is both a major and easy to fix (I think I actually have no idea lol...) problem. At the very least make big batteries have a diminishing return instead of a straight downgrade! Artillery concentration IMO should carry NO penalty. Its drawbacks would already be simulated by the need for a higher-ranked commanding officer. Their volleys should be tweeked to kill numbers that proportionally increase with the number of guns in a battery, unlike infantry and the rest. As said before grouping artillery together (maybe not at the battery level though) was very much a favored tactics at the time, and as I understand it the chief of artillery in one army, with the massive artillery reserve played a major role. This should receive some kind of a bonus, an incentive for such a tactic.

Rather than the speed buff, I think the stupidest (sorry devs don't mean to hurt no one) is that their condition goes down so little. They should get a marching and running speed, marching being as fast as marching line infantry, running being faster than running infantry, and condition going down as fast or almost as fast as running infantry. The soldier is right about nerfing their melee. Also, it seems to me that the game gives a big premium in melee to the number of formations involved, rather than number of men. I feel like two 500-man infantry brigade systematically beat a single 1000-man brigade, and that 900 line infantry with 100 skirms will beat 1000 line infantry. That is a problem. Detaching skirms should hurt a birgade's melee ability, not enhance it.

Well I heard it always scales up to your own numbers. But it is a smart scale so for side missions it knows you will only bring a third or so of your army. I actually dont really know i don't spend points in recon ^^. But I definately read that your entire army is taken into account

I would agree were it not for the fact that the enemy army scales up according to your whole force, not just what's deployed. I did shuffle my brigades but still have 3500 men I can't use for the battle, but that are accounted for in the calculation of enemy numbers.

Alright thanks. I guess I'll keep my extra brigades, but I won't be creating anymore. WIth all the casualties they took at fredericksburg, I can single out enough very weak brigades so that my two last unusable corps for stone river only have 3500 men between them. But still I find it a bit frustrating to be able to create so many brigades and use them for one battle, and then having the rest of battles capped to 50-75 brigades.

Hey everyone, So I was here in another thread cocking around being proud of having 5 corps in my CSA campaign. But after fredericksburg it doesn't seem like I can use them that much. Worse is that all the extra brigades that I don't use during a battle limited at 2 or 3 corps have the union numbers scale up. So my question is : after fredericksburg, are all battles limited to 3 corps? Will I ever be able to use more than 24*3 = 72 brigades, or should I disband everything above that.

Rgr. In any case I just like my five corps ^^. I'm at fredericksburg right now, I have a few 1500 + brigades that I use for small battles, and the rest are 500 - 800 for the most part. I didnt fill all the brigade slots for fredericksburg (that would mean having 24 brigades in each corps), but I have 3 corps that are full of brigades and like 12 brigades each for the last two corps

I found filling my brigade/corps slots for each battle is quite optimal. You may not get all of your forces at first because one or two corps are in reserve, but you get more numerous, smaller brigades. These can cover more ground, making flanking moves easier, and I even heard that they could rotate more swiftly. They also take less casualties from volleys. Also, I wouldn't bet on it, but i'm pretty sure AI numbers scale not only on your total army size, but also scale locally on whatever you have immediately available to meet them (that is, with your huge I Corps on the left, I think the AI numbers on that first wave will be bigger). Finally, having the maximum number of brigades allows you to train many officers. Without seeing any action, a major will take 2-3 battles to level up to lt-colonel. So even if your extra brigades do not fight they will provide you with a nice pool of cheap lt-colonels.

Especially for shotguns, since right now they're quite useless, but were at the time very much used in melee combat.That would probably need to be associated with a nerfing of cavalry short guns. I find that silver medium quality revolver, and the Lemat very powerful, they'd wreck whole brigades one after the other. Edit : they should have a reduced rate of fire during the volley itself, like demoralized brigades. That would make the melee look very cool

Never noticed that about brigade size thank you for the tip. I'm no tester so it's not like my text was going to make it in anyway ^^. But I thought there were already tooltips. I'm a big fan of paradox grand strategy games, and I think part of what makes them so good is the abundance of tooltips that allows for both complexibility and relative ease of understanding of the mechanics of the game. As you said nerfing melee cav that much would indeed make the balance awkward to apprehend for someone other than a civil war aficionado or a veteran player. The answer : tooltips, tooltips everywhere

Just teasing fellow poilu.

I think I will still keep one full brigade among my 3-5 corps to act as a "melee fireman", taking advantage of its mobility. Other than that I guess you're right, but the solution is just a tooltip fix away. Just say so when you hover your mouse over cavalry brigade creation. "Sabre armed cavalry will see limited use other than against light units in open terrains, while your long-armed horsemen can harass the enemy. Cavalry will generally be at a disadvantage against dense masses of infantry, especially attacking from the front."

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I personally think the balance should be historical. I mean close-ordered infantry is already the main component of the game right now, and shooting is the main component of infantry tactics, and I think that's what we want, since that's the way it was. I think melee cav should be confined to the only role I can realistically see for it, which is scattering skirmishers in open terrain, and maybe prolong the rout of a brigade. As far as I understand it large melee cav units were only used by the union in the beginning of the war, with poor results. Efficient cav was mainly armed with P61 enfield and shotguns for the south, or carbines for the north. I'm no expert on the civil war but that's what I could gather from the little reading I've done.

Thank you indeed good people

haha so 1842s have high melee stats due to buck and ball ? That's funny is that the case for all smoothbores?