[Happy Birthday, Nick!]

Happy birthday! 

[Chickamauga live stream.]

wait, how did you get to chickamauga? Is it in the public beta?

[The current victory system needs improvement.]

4 hours ago, Slaithium said:

I disagree, I think the current system is good. I only see two changes. 1) Remove the restart battle option, (excluding on beginner mode) so that way if you screw up you have to accept defeat like it was in the real war. 2) If you kill say 80% of the opposing army there should be a additional bonus reward for you or penalty against you opponent. Gives incentive to make good trades and push your advantage. That would give you what you may be looking for and would add a additional layer of effort and reward for the player. 

I think that would be better, but I still like the former system better because it would  not hand the player a "victory" for taking the objectives but destroying themselves in the process.

[The current victory system needs improvement.]

I think the game would be greatly improved if we revert back to a victory system similar to UG Gettysburg. The system used now is far more arbitrary and does not measure the magnitude of victory/defeat.

To illustrate my claim on the system being arbitrary, let's look at the "draw" conditions for the battle of antietam (CSA). To get a draw, the player must hold Sharpsburg and lose less then 55% of their army. A player that holds Sharpsburg and loses 54.99% of their army, and gets a draw. But if they lost 100 more men and inflicted 30k more casualties, they would actually lose the battle, according to the current victory system, despite the battle clearly going better than before. In UG Gettysburg, the victory system rewards the player for making such advantageous trade offs by measuring casualties inflicted and important places held, against casualties sustained and important places not held. Also in the current victory system, victory conditions are considered absolute, losing as many soldiers as you possibly can to fulfill those conditions is considered better than not fulfilling them and obliterating the enemy army.

The new system acting as if all victories/defeats can't be more decisive than another is also a significant step back. It makes no sense that defeating and destroying the enemy does not give you more reputation, money, or recruits than simply defeating them. If defeating an army gives you a higher reward from the victory system, then why not destroying it? In UG Gettysburg, you did not just get a bland "Victory" every time you improved your skill in the game.

I think this is a great game with even greater potential, and I will waste many hours playing it regardless. However, It would be fantastic if the developer found a way to achieve the advantages in the UG Gettysburg system to this game.

[Shouldn't shattered soldiers count as missing?]

1 hour ago, Fred Sanford said:

For that matter, along with sending them back to camp instead of permanently eliminating them, the shatter threshold should be raised (I've said that several times elsewhere as have others).  Also, I think after a rout or two, a unit should lose it's 'charge' ability.  Real soldiers just wouldn't keep throwing themselves into suicidal charges like that IRL.  Once a certain %age of the AI's brigades have shattered or lost their charge ability, they should withdraw from battle.

 

 

I completely agree, except maybe have a fraction of shattered troops desert for good, as it's pretty reasonable that some will be too demoralized to return to the army (especially if you take into account that desertion was common during the civil war when morale was low)

[Attrition rate of AI player]

57 minutes ago, Aetius said:

There are some effects. On the battle screen, the icons on the upper right indicate optional maluses that will be applied to the AI based on your victories in side battles and sometimes grand battles. They are temporary though.

I think this will not get changed anytime soon because it's tied up in lethality being too high. It's not difficult to inflict incredible casualties on the AI - casualties that historically would have brought an immediate end to the war (I'm looking at YOU Fredericksburg, 75k Union casualties). Attempting to factor this in more heavily would make later battles too easy, or conversely impossibly hard if you weren't doing well.

Good point. However, some enemy attrition based on casualties inflicted would be a very interesting and doable feature once the ai becomes more intelligent and casuality rates are reduced to more realistic levels. 

[Shouldn't shattered soldiers count as missing?]

I think the casualty count screen would improve if it showed all of the soldiers lost in battle, rather than just those captured or killed/wounded. Since shattered troops are lost permanently, I think shattered soldiers should be labeled "missing" and captured soldiers be labeled "captured" (to tell the difference between the two)

 

 

What do you think?