Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Gsam

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About Gsam

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

272 profile views
  1. Is there a place where alpha players can see what was changed every patch? I was looking around for notes and have not seen anything.
  2. I assume you mean after the battle? I was referring to in battle to free up troops to avoid guarding them.
  3. Any chance of getting an option to execute prisoners at the cost of Fame ?
  4. It was my front most land unit on bunker hill manning the defensive works between the two cannons at the front of the mountain. They got routed and kept retreating down the mountain toward the navy and where the British Troops are landing.
  5. Howdy Dev's, Nice game so far. Have played your games since UG: Gettysburg and spent far more hours than I care to spend on UG: Civil War. I was really excited for this title. I played it and I had a lot of fun last night. I do however have some concerns that I want to point out / discuss and see if they have perhaps been addressed or is it something thats in the works for the future. 1) Surrendering - The single most hated aspect to me in all of your games so far is the surrendering mechanic. Nothing pisses me off more than routing a unit, they surrender and then somehow some unit manages to creep behind my lines and rescue them and suddenly I have a strong unit in my rear area with full armament. IT's illogical and its not fun. For starters if a unit surrenders you would not leave them with arms. They would disarm them. How about changing the game so that when a unit surrenders, they are permanently out? Last night I had a mission to capture a merchantman and the merchantman struck its colors and surrendered. I sailed away to attack another ship and the previous merchantman just took off and sailed away. I can understand this a bit more since I did not send a prize crew over but still. Its an incredibly frustrating mechanic. 2) Time Compression - I would suggest a higher level of time compression in naval battles. There are periods of multiple minutes where I am doing nothing but sailing after a ship trying to run it down. Its incredibly boring and could get old real fast. 3) Shatter / Surrender levels - Playing bunker hill last night as the USA on normal difficulty. I have mixed opinions on this. I don't want to see the same thing happen in this game that happened in UG: Civil war when the rebels had to capture the fort on the very first mission. I know many people quit because the very first battle was beyond difficult and I hope this doesn't end up the same way. I played it 4x and the best I could do on normal difficulty was a draw and I was barely able to pull that out.. Many of the redcoat units would suffer north of 60-70% casualties and would not shatter / surrender. This needs to change. I get you are trying to show them being a more disciplined army and all that, but thats bordering on insanity. On the flip size I would argue that the rebels rout a bit too quickly Even in defensive works with supporting units the militia units still rout very easily. 4) Artillery Changes / Friendly Fire - Im not sure what to thing about this. I get the whole friendly fire thing and realism, but at the same time, the very mechanic makes the game incredibly more difficult. It seems like you are trying to change the mechanics away from the UG: Civil war style of loading cannons up behind infantry and wasting charging units with canister fire with little to no impact to allied troops. If thats the case, I can support that. Problem I am seeing from my limited play so far is that its incredibly difficult to position artillery so that it can shoot effectively. YOu need to leave gaps in your lines and the enemy has an advantage on bunker hill where the slope of the hill they are coming up protects them. 5) Fortifications - Love the changes that fortifications can be destroyed. I would however suggest that if fortifications can be destroyed that you consider making them strong in terms of defensive values. Add an inherent moral boost to fortifications. Increase the bonus to defense. IF they can be destroyed, make a compelling reason to destroy them. 6) Routing pathing - Last night on bunker hill I had two units stuck in a perpetual routing loop. For some unknown reason they kept retreating toward the enemy and the incessant gunfire from the british ships had the unit completely routed and never able to be controlled again. IS there a way to fix the routing AI so that troops rout toward friendly units and not into the enemy units? 7) Tonnage Limits - Have you considered removing the tonnage limits to certain battles? I HATE games with arbitrary restrictions on what I can and cannot do. By limiting the tonnage I can bring to certain battles I get that its a way that you can balance the encounters to ensure that we have a challenging battle ahead of us. I must however strongly disagree. Realism matters and if I happen to have a great start and build a strong fleet early, why am I limited on how much I can use in a battle? If you feel that its necessary, can you at least make options to have the ability to turn if off in the options so we can play the way we want? Thanks in advance! nice work so far!
  6. Thank you kindly! Do we use the same early access key or will we get some sort of key later for steam?
  7. Hi friends, I just purchased the commodore edition so I would have early access as well. I wanted to be sure that the early access version is also going to allow me to activate the game on steam. Can you please clarify? Thank you!
  8. I agree with some of what you said. I stop using my 3* brigades once they get to 3* and put them in my "reserve" corp because they are not cost effective to use. My most recent playthrough I have started using 12-14 gun brigades instead of 24. It does seem to be more effective. Once I saw the research on the fortifications, I have been using the forest instead. Like you said, the game does a poor job of teaching the players concepts and its only through trial and error that this stuff is discovered. I still stand by my point though that there needs to be alternative victory conditions. I am by no means a player thats ever going beat this game on legendary, but I certainly am not terrible at this. The battle referenced above should be a crushing blow to the union and instead they get the bonus for "Winning" the battle. Much of this goes back to the argument I have seen on here that the dev's want us to play the way they want it be played. Some players are pushing back and saying "this doesn't make sense." The historical framework is great, but give us some dynamic options to make the game more engaging and fun.
  9. As for the other questions: I am not suggesting the game be "campfest," but lets be honest, some of the biggest battles in the civil war were won and lost by stalling. Look at Gettysburg. Buford's cav stalled the CSA long enough to get the high ground. Then you would say the Union was "camping" on the ridges waiting. I dont want to turn this into a game where i can have one sniper unit and a supply wagon go across the map over a 2 week period and snipe the entire enemy army and get 60k kills. I do however want victory conditions to be looked at differently and to give us the option of how we play (timer or no timer). Saunders farm is another example of a battle later in the war where it is prolly going to damage your army more than its worth to do the mission. it starts out you have to defend but morphs into you taking a secondary objective where the Union is packed in tight in tree lines with heavy arty protecting them. I get it that not every battle is going to be a positive for the ledger, but when most of the battles from chickmauga onward are a bloodbath you need to have banked over a million dollars going into this stretch of the game to keep your army in good shape in preparation for washington and the immense amount of troops you need.
  10. Laurel Hill is the battle I had in mind when I was discussing the kill count versus victory points. In laurel hill you are allowed to bring 1 corp and in my battle i was facing about 82,000 federals when playing as the CSA. The way the battle is structured your forces come in piecemeal. You start with 6 brigades and it adds to them at 2 or 3 intervals The federals are hitting you with I am guessing about 62k men while 20k are guarding fixed defensive positions with artillery batteries numbering around 350-450 soldiers per. Once the memo comes up that you should "attack if practical" you have about ~3 hours left to crack the defensive nut. Meanwhile, they are still attacking you nonstop so you cant abandon the defensive positions. I have beat this battle once, but it was so costly that I would never do it again. The damage I inflicted upon my army literally zerging the defensive positions was so costly it ended up costing me over 300k above and beyond what the mission paid for the win. NOT WORTH IT. I normally skip this battle because what should be an epic victory (killing 40k, losing 6k) actually damages my reputation (WTH?) This is why I have been banging the drum for them to have 2 options for victory. One would be capturing victory points. The other would be damaging the army significantly (% killed victory)
  11. I bought a game on GOG before but installed it on my steam platform. Did I defeat the whole DRM free thing by installing it on steam? If you buy on GOG, where do you play the games? Actually, it was Green man gaming. I think those you have to install on steam because it doesn't have it owns platform.
  12. I absolutely agree with the OP. I stop playing this game every campaign when I hit chickmauga. Its just not fun anymore. This game needs to evolve and start looking at things intelligently. Yes I understand that we are trying to keep it "historical," but the focus on victory points is absurd. If i destroy 55% of the opposing army and they hold the victory point, who was really the winner if i only lost 15% of my army? Which army would you rather fight for, the one that lost 15,000 out of 100,000 or the one that lost 55,000 out of 100,000. Give the player the choice or the alternative victory options. Oh and please please please get rid of the timer or at least give players the option to turn it off. Would be nice to have some more strategic options that are not currently possible due to time constraints.
×
×
  • Create New...