Hussar91
-
Posts
36 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Hussar91
-
-
2 hours ago, LAVA said:
That doesn't work on Legendary, mate. I tried that the first time around and failed. Medicine is far more valuable as it not only returns veterans to your army it also saves their weapons.
I only play on legendary, and it works for me. So I wouldn't be so categorical Lava. Having no less than 20k recruits in the pool at any given time and lots of stockpiled rifles (not to mention my whole army using rifles with no smoothbores whatsoever) to afford raising 6k new infantry at any given moment since gettysburg tells a different story.
I do recognize however that I owe this partially to higher use of skirmishers and thus bigger micromanagement. But seeing my net positives, I could afford play without micro and take 10k to 15k more casualties every major battle and still have a leeway and come with a net positive. I only wouldn't be buying Springfields M1861's and M1863's most likely.
And why I'm saying this? Medicine plays only into one thing. Politics play into few things at the same time. Alone it gives two benefits, but coupled with economy and training it gives four. Medicine will always give only one benefit. A very direct one, true - but still only one. In short, the sooner you get politics maxed, the bigger your benefits will be.
PS. I'm literally drowning in recruits since Shiloh. Peaking at almost 60k after Fredricksburg. So I would say that I did pretty well without maxed out medicine for a long time till I got politics and economy up.
-
Hence why I'm getting politics up before medicine. More cash, more recruits - you ain't tempted to buy any with rep. It's better to get the money instead.
As for Gettysburg - well. I only gonna say that any smoothbores gonna be a huge liability for you Lava. You need the range, and at this battle unit of skirmishers might do a better job than 2k men with smoothbores. Honestly if you can't give rifles to infantry, just disband that unit and use that manpower elsewhere instead of buying men with rep points.
Also get your best troops into one corps which you'll place as the last one to arrive. That corps is going to be your fire brigade, it's units thrown around as reinforcements during the battle. Also get your snipers to the corp that's gonna be defending on the south from the ridges. There's fantastic terrain for them to be used defensively.
-
I'm not sure how one might need any recruits as union. I always had few k in reserves, and for a good while I had over 60k in reserves - just too many men to spent that there would not be enough guns to give them even if I was going to buy out all of them, including farmers and other smoothbores.
Personally I think it's better to get your divisions back to 3x 2k men at the most, and disband the weakest brigades. I would even consider disbanding all brigades that are still stuck on smoothbores and can't be provided with rifles, though honestly at this point you should have been capturing over 5k harpers ferry rifles per major battle at least. Meaning you should have a lot of rifles in the pool.
Anyhow always get politics and economy mastered as soon as. Other traits can be ignored pretty much at all, except for army organization - but here I was just always first looking into the major battle to see how many corps I'll be allowed to bring into the battle, with how many units - and on this I was basing my decisions should I divert a point or two into A.O. or keep at pumping up economy and politics. And i was more leaning towards politics (one point advantage per chapter?) first.
-
@pandakrautI only play Legendary since the first try. And perhaps there was a little more skirmishers taken but even if rate of return would be only 40% it would still be rewarding enough. And true, however playing for confederates I had never ever got any Sharps'es (I talk about rifles not carbines) nor spencers at all, despite capturing skirmishers too. Just never. Idk why.
Also u're right. I held back with my comment about Chancellorsville yesterday xD
@LAVASo, very impressive battle however I'm kinda surprised by that you're still using smoothbores in there. Well, true at Chancellorsville I had 1 brigade equipped with captured M&JG's but other than that the staple of my army were Harper's Ferry & 1855's all over, with lorenzes on my rookie troops and few Enfields for more experienced troops that didn't caught the 1855's shipment. I too had 4 corps at my disposal, however my total men count was 75k men as number of infantry brigades was lesser than yours (1st elite corp had only 2 inf brigades per division) - however 75% of them was 2 star or 3 star ones.Interestingly enough I have caused 62k losses to confederates there... But their starting pool was almost 99k troops to yours 62k (especially visible on the counterattack, where I was still dealing with organized resistance of infantry units defending in forests - while you didn't had to). So I'd would say that your tactic of total annihilation wherever possible have a merit since you had faced less troops overall than I had to. And I find this conclusion very interesting.
-
On 4/26/2018 at 6:59 PM, LAVA said:
Ah, thanks!
Guess prisoner taking will continue to be a high priority.
For me personally neither an army wipe or prisoner capture is a high priority honestly. I myself try to achieve objectives with the least casualties possible, just sometimes indulging in wipe of enemy units. In short I try to be cost effective. Thanks to that I got a nice stockpile of guns ready to field and not a bad stock of cash now for forming new brigades. Though I gotta admit that all captured fayeteville's I' hadstockpiled till I got economy up to level 10 - and sold in a bulk of above 8k - which set my finances straight after Gettysburg. I also generally take money rewards only as with eco-10 you can buy more guns for cheaper than they give u in rewards most of the time. Hence why I'm not trying to end every mission with an army wipe. For sure it makes it all interesting with all 3 star units enemy is fielding lol. But I'm not wanting it to be easy, hence why I wasn't fiddling with scaling either. I want my battles to be as grand as possible ^^'
On 4/26/2018 at 10:07 PM, pandakraut said:Didn't the weapon capture rate get changed at some point so that mass capturing wasn't overly profitable? Given the recruit capture cap, if you can safely reactivate surrendered units to farm more xp and kills off them it's probably the optimal choice either way.
@quicksabre Once a unit is recaptured they are in the same state that they were captured in. But as long as you wipe them out afterwords the benefit should be the same or better(if someone can prove that there is a return exchange of troops).
Maybe they did. But taking pow's is the only way to obtain some skirmisher weapons like whitworth's and alike (which is proving the point that pows do give a better percentage of weapons). As those do seem to never drop in battle loot (some do, if they're also available for cavalry to use - with notable exception for spencers [I'm talking about the conf mission where u were defending from union cav armed with those - all of them - but you got none, just some maynards and burnsides instead]).
And I got a screen to prove that:
Those 255 were taken at Chickamauga where my cavalry managed to rout and take prisoner around 300 skirmishers. And back to the point, at gettysburg I managed to capture few conf inf brigades that gave me over 3k fayeteville's too. The rest I have probably picked up from the field as I dealt a massive blow to confederacy - almost 60k casualties vs measly 11k on my side.
-
But units taken prisoner gave up all their weapons. Or at least a bigger % than normal from killed enemies. I had captured over 5k fayetevilles that way at Gettysburg. for example among many other things.
-
1
-
-
Oh yeah, I agree that if someone is playing the game without micromanaging (I need to try and challenge myself like that sometime) they could pose quite a problem to properly employ. I wasn't suggesting that you don't like them.
Just saying. But they're pretty darn good on the Union side, so much that it lead to creation of a doctrine that every infantry division gotta have one dedicated skirmisher unit with sharps rifles. They do better job than any skirmisher unit made out of line infantry no matter their weapons really. Plus spotting bonus. U can always place them in the rear to break charges or sally out to hit a unit that's near-breaking if someone can't micromanage them (on the flanks) - something which they do require a lot of times indeed. -
I'm quite surprised that you're forgoing Union's biggest advantage they have since early game. Which are skirmishers. The sharps rifles with 450 range and over 80% acc are absolutely devastating when properly employed, and the stuff only gets better with better guns. It's not confederation where your start with hunter muskets
I found a dedicated skirmisher battalion of 350 men (for those sharp rifle units, so they can take a hit and survive as they operate closer to the enemy than units equipped with scoped rifles) absolutely necessary for every division. 350 men does retain enough efficiency to make devastating volleys in proper terrain, and if they get a hit - they'll usually just get their eff increased as they go down to 300/250/200 size. I also have the scoped rifle units (200 men) of course, but I'm still buying out all sharp rifles into my inventory for the divisional skirmisher units every chapter. I mean literally. I buy them all out since first chapter/campaign and I never have enough of them. They're life savers, especially when u got to face confederate skirmishers en masse and in woods at that - like at Chickamauga!
Anyhow, it's great to see you're focusing on infantry more than artillery in this campaign. Union can totally get rid off any muskets from the army very early and you should take all advantage of that supply.
PS. I have tried similar thing with Whitworths at my Confederate campaign, having dedicated skirmisher units attached to every division. But that was only possible to achieve quite late (not sooner than fredriksburg, probably after gettysburg if i remember correctly) and still I found 450rng/80+%acc Sharps superior. Not to mention more affordable.
-
11 hours ago, LAntorcha said:
No, never. I only ever got the Forrest's Cav and Gibbon's Iron Brigade as Union. U get some of the generals but not all that's for sure. Albeit I've always played on Legendary however.
Anyhow, I don't know. Sure reward units would be great but it looks like you'd would get flooded with them judging from the list. It would kinda significantly lower the difficulty in my opinion.
-
2 minutes ago, LAVA said:
As I have said before, until they get the Zombie mode functioning correctly, they are not going to be making any announcements.
It's still few days till 1st of April Lava...
-
The greatest. The only.
-
2
-
-
An option to change face (tho I wouldn't go as far as to give female potrait in, UG:CW is def a game for those who want immersive and challenging gameplay so...) would be nice, since now "re-rolling" either the portrait or the first perks means we got to play the two introductory missions...
-
On 3/4/2018 at 7:58 PM, Private Keith said:
Is there a solution for the problem of artillery units misunderstanding orders to fire AT a target for an order to move TO that location?
It's pause button honestly. If you miss, you just 'space' it or select the target again till done. That way your arty won't start packing to stroll casually into enemy.
-
In my union campaign I had eventually turned out my first corp into an elite one, that's less numerous than the others but have all of my tri-star's in it and the most experienced 2-stars that are close to be turned up the notch to the tri-stars. It does have just 7 infantry brigades (plus 3 sharp rifle battalions, 2 sharpshooter companies, 2 cavalry battalions, 3 divisional 3inch batteries and heavy artillery battalion) among it's 18 corp brigades.
Units or the whole divisions may be moved temporarily to other corps for duration of a certain battle, but generally I keep these guys together and they last march onto the field. That way the reinforcements that are coming are really strong and fresh for a counterattack. This had worked for me extremely well during battle of Gettysburg where my elite divisions were the ones to be tossed around between the lines as reinforcements. After battle of Gettysburg and capturing 9k fayeteville's I have also standardized that corps on M1861's entirely as well (10 in economy hurrdurr meant like 370k $ extra), meaning even more impact thanks to their elite status and high statistics. I'm planning to bumping them up with additional 2 infantry brigades in the future, while my standard corps have 4 divisions, three brigades each by comparison.On my confederate campaign I have noticed that I don't really have elite infantry brigades. Sure, my cavalry, artillery and skirmishers are mostly tri-star - but my infantry is on mid-high 2 star level mostly. The "elitness" presents only in better rifles for my assault corp only (standarized on CS Richmonds after Gettysburg).
-
1
-
-
When you find Leroy Jenkins in game and make him your cavalry commander.
-
4
-
-
On 2/2/2018 at 1:24 PM, LAVA said:
Fought the Battle of Fredericksburg last night. I attempted to attack the center and then try to flank the Heights on the Confederate left flank. Unfortunately, the last 3 hours of the battle the left flank was not available to attack, so I dug in and took the Draw. It's a long video with not much to see, so will not publish it.
Image is from the video so not so great. Overall I lost 5,960 men and 7 guns to the Confederates 21,012 men, 44 guns and 314 missing. Unhappy with my 2nd Draw in a Grand Battle, but at least I inflicted lots of casualties.
I just returned to my own playthrough and gave Fredricksburg a go. Those are the results:
As seen, I have decided to go straight for Mayer's Hills and Telegraph Road. My elite Corp, under my character's command, have charged the fortifications on the border between the MH and TR, near the stream - and that's where bulk of my casualties had been taken. 4 two-star and 3-star brigades had gave confederates a bayonet on just one short stretch of the wall and since there confederates kinda folded up especially since I have pushed my cavalry, two rifle and 2 telescopic rifle units through which assisted in taking out entrenched artillery positions. On the meantime, rest of my army rested while positioning themselves for a future attack on telegraph road. The attack actually was going quite slow and with pretty small casualties in general, but was successful as my 2 cavalry battalions noticed a gap between confederate troops and charged through to take the telegraph station ending the battle prematurely.
In general I'm quite content with the results as I was able to replenish my troops with veterans and I had cash left to buy out all the guns I wanna stockpile plus let me afford raising another 4k of infantry with rifles not muskets. I have also managed to finish reforming divisions in my two primary corps to a standard format of 3 (or 2 elite) infantry brigades, divisional artillery battalion (12 3inches) plus a rifle battalion of 350 with Sharp rifles for each division.
Relatively small confederate losses are only concern for me but in general I'm still satisfied.
On 2/22/2018 at 9:37 AM, Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf said:That would be abusable, too. I mean, even on Legendary it is possible to make 10k POWs at 1st Bull Run.
Unless the system would be implemented differently, more akin to having an EXP bar in the camp which you "fill with pows" and once filled you get a certain rewards. It would had this advantage that "no pow would be lost" between battles, and rewards could be easily tweaked for each difficulty setting or even chapter. Besides rep points alone wouldn't broke the balance I think. But even if they were, rewards could be different - like generals for example.
-
21 hours ago, Sanny said:
They just don't make movies like this anymore, it's quite possibly the last Historical Epic ever made using thousands of actors and no CGI.
Yeah they don't. Now people wonder why I'm worried about a remake of the classic "Battle of Britain" for example...
On 2/23/2018 at 12:11 AM, Gael said:Thanks Hussar91.
I am really enjoying reading the different perspectives of everyone, especially you guys over in Europe (in your case Poland). We have our monuments, but I am one who sees the many monuments and fortifications in western and eastern Europe and elsewhere on the internet, and wish I could have seen and understood better the many things you and the others have studied and observed. Over here our school history books touch on the Romans and Greeks, and then all of a sudden they talk about the 1800's and our revolution, and those of us who are really intrigued have had to wander all over looking for good books and sources of information. East Asian history is somewhat like attempting to get info from the Moon. Thank you for your perspectives, and to Mukremin, and Andre, and all the many others.
--Gael
Hmm yeah. History teaching is a huge problem for every country I guess. Just fire up the news and listen in to the recent drama that's going on thanks to polish government now. U:
And I had a pleasure to travel quite a lot around europe in the past. If you were ever wanting to go Normandy - you need to ask yourself a question first: "Do I want to experience the anniversary or do some actual sightseeing and visit the museums?". I'm saying this since I was on 2004 and 2014 anniversaries - both were my "best holidays ever". But thanks to modern threats and all, half of normandy was closed off in 2014 and in general it just gets worse and worse. Whole regions were being closed off cuz of politicians, while back in 2004 I remember encounter on Omaha beach museum grounds with secret service. I was in cafeteria with my family, having a good time when they come in. They just asked the owner to stop selling/serving new things and politely asked everyone to finish their meals in an hour and leave because they have to secure the area for G.W.Bush as he was going to appear in few hours for the celebration. In 2014 normal people were not even allowed nearby the site for many hours prior, and local populace had a special passes issued for them. So yeah, it's just gets crazier by a year...
If you wanna experience the feel tho, go for the official anniversaries. It's still worth it, as the whole Normandy goes back to the 1944 and there is probably as many reenactors zipping around in jeeps (or halftrucks followed by shermans) as many as there's tourists.
-
On 2/20/2018 at 9:54 AM, Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf said:
You only ever receive 1000 recruits for your POWs, because in Early Access some CSA players abused this system to get huge numbers of recruits early game.
Wish they changed this to rep points. 1 per 1k would be fine - with that perhaps you "could afford to loose" a major battle mid/late campaign without ending the playthrough.
-
2 hours ago, Mukremin said:
Second Gettysburg movie? I always thought it was Gods & Generals.
G&G leads up to Gettysburg, neither it is named "Gettysburg" as 1993 movie classic and 2011 quasi-movie/documentary are. I watched both "Gettysburg's", and 2011 for me was... Lets say that it very politically correct and demonized one side.
-
8 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:
Most specifically renaming James Campbell Coulston as 'Commander Bolton'.
There was only one Pier Master, he was a hero in every sense of the word; failing to use his name to make it a universal story of all men is just plain wrong.
Other than that, I saw the movie in the theater. I had that sound in my head for days of the clock unwinding. Rather brilliant.
I would call it a minor inaccuracy as they failed with so many other things starting with soldier behavior, amount of equipment, through depiction of involvement of RN ships ending on aeronautical terms and combat. A 2007 movie "Atonement", though not about Dunkirk, have depicted it better. Even the brief opening shots from the classic Battle of Britain did. "Dunkirk" was a 'reenactors' home movie in comparison if you were to judge it by the scale. So few people, so little of equipment lost for the british in this movie.
I still enjoyed the movie but only for that they refrained from cgi a lot. Plus it was kind of artistic.
Anyhow, lets go back to the Civil War
Maybe I'll redirect us back there by asking have anyone seen the second "Gettysburg movie"? From 2011 I think?
-
Ps. To perhaps illustrate my point i’ll mention the widely applauded “Dunkirk”. It’s good and i like it. But it wasn’t accurate at all despite what so many have spoke about that movie. There was a bucketlist of stuff they got wrong and if to be absolutely critic they shown dunkirk totally wrong. But they haven’t used cgi at least.
-
To be honest its really hard to know that for example the reenactors guns weren’t exactly correct for someone who’s not a hardcore civil war reenactor (and lives in usa). So altough i understand your critical view i think you’re being too harsh. Besides you should look into his other videos on different films perhaps to understand his channels mission? Anyhow it’s okay if this doesn’t fall in your alley still. Also in comparison to other, 2011ish “Gettysburg” i’d would call the 1993 movie perfect
I’m from Europe, Poland to be exact. So sadly it’s doubtful that i’ll ever manage to visit any of the american monuments - would they be from civil war or from more modern times like ww2. Just saying this since i love history just as much as some of members here.
Anyhow, now I want to watch the movie again to spot the things you mentioned. I would naver have thought that they put female actors on the set. I guess that some of the things you can get to know only by being there when it happens.
And i have also seen the Gods & Generals. Gettysburg and G&G are in my mind probably the last objective movies about the period. Maybe not completely but at least they tried to show that that war wasn't as simple as just to free the slaves. The G&G’s opening with Lee refusing to march onto Virginia as federal was telling for example.
-
I think this belongs here:
I personally love the channel, but I'm curious what some of you might have to say. Especially you Gael since you've take part in it
-
1
-
-
I don't know about that. Maybe the stated passive of +20% ammo ain't exactly as high but in comparison to my first two previous campaigns (which I've stopped playing both at gettysburg finding my unit perk choices, and a lot of other stuff unsatisfying simply - so I've "restarded") I feel the difference? It's of course pretty empiric only, just a feeling in my opinion. But I noticed, especially on my skirmishers that they "last" that little bit longer without having to resupply as often as before. And no, I haven't yet invested in logistics beyond the starting 2 points I had there because I found the ammo count pretty satisfactory so far.
Even if the perk ain't +20%, since I'm taking bonus speed and stamina on my infantry anyway - I didn't regret the choice yet.
Union Legendary Campaign - Take 2 - Completed
in General Discussions
Posted
It wasn't me to jump the gun and say flat out that "it doesn't work on legendary". Because it does, but so does your approach so far.
I hope you understand as much.
And I'm looking forward to Gettysburg of yours - it was a really hard one for me.