Squatter

Thanks again Panda for taking the time to reply - much appreciated. I'm wondering whether the problems I'm having with the scaling on MG are actually more the fact I can't cope with the difficulty level and I should go back to MG! Anyway, thanks for all your work on this mod. I believe you have some involvement in the upcoming Revolutionary War UG game? If so (and hoping the Ukrainian devs are all ok), best of luck for the future.

Hey Panda - you taking the time to address this in detail is amazing, thanks a million. What you say all makes sense. For context, I've finished both vanilla campaigns on Major General, and am playing the mod on Major General. So my numbers are similar to yours for this battle, by the look of things. What really kills me on the field though is the quality of the opposition as much as quantity. I have a couple of 2*, many 1* and many 0* units. The enemy is almost all 2*/3*, artillery included. And it's artillery that's as much the problem as anything else. So whichever plan I take (I've tried the way you suggest - was always my go-to on this battle, or even a flank on the SW, or straight-out frontal seige, believe me I've tried them all!) his power is just too much: his artillery kills mine much quicker if I try counter battery duels, or his artillery destroys my assaulting infantry if I try going for the jugular. So I guess my question is: what affects the AI experience scaling, or will they always be 2*/3* units in this battle? The wider question is: when the AI outguns you in artillery, both in numbers, quality of guns, and experience, how do you assault a position?! Thanks again

Hello all returning after a couple of years off to what has to be one of the greatest strategy games ever made, and still scratching my head at how scaling works. I'm not complaining about the fact scaling is there, just that even after several hundred hours of play and several campaigns, I'm still completely in the dark as to how it works, and how to manage it successfully. So I am playing rebalance mod (why wouldn't you? Thanks to the designers, fantastic mod that really raises the game to another level) and I am playing Major General as CSA. My first run through I go for a relatively small and experienced force. Win every battle until Malvern Hill, where I realise I just don't have the mass - the number of troops/brigades - to win. So I restart. Second run through I go for larger, less experienced force. Win every battle until Malvern Hill, where despite fielding 35k inf, 182 guns across 60 brigades, I find myself up against 48k largely elite inf and 252 elite guns. (largely 2*/3* compared to my 1*s). Every which way I try the battle, it seems impossible. Thing is I have essentially no idea what factors are affecting the scaling? Are there golden rules about how large to grow your units to? My inf are typically around 1.2k, my guns 12 guns, my skirmishers 350. Are there golden rules about how many brigades to field? How many corps to have? How much training to invest in? Can anyone unpack the mysteries of scaling in this otherwise great game?! Thanks all PS why on earth has there not been a proper sequel to this incredible game?! (Age of Sail was a valiant effort but doesn't count!)

The amount of time chasing enemy ships and never finding them is pretty insane at the moment. There is no skill or satisfaction in watching your ships chase as 'smoke detected to the west' message for hours on end. Completely enjoyment breaking, sadly. What I don't quite get is that currently before a battle begins, we are told the composition of both fleets. Then we move to the battle screen, and both fleets start outside of visual range. So how are we meant to know which enemy vessels are involved if we haven't yet sighted them? Seems to me there should be an extra pre-battle phase. Phase 1: Battle icon appears on the map. Click on it to see which of your vessels are involved. No mention of enemy vessels yet. Decide whether to attempt to 'evade', or 'engage' (or 'delay' I guess). If engage chosen, then decide whether to 'keep fleet together' or 'split ships' with fastest ships forming a scout group. Forming a scout group will give better chance of contact with evading enemy ships below, but battle will begin with fleet split. Phase 2: Game decides whether visual contact is made, depending on the orders chosen by both sides above, and the relative speeds of vessels involved. If one side 'evades' and the other 'engages', a roll is made against a probability determined by relative speeds of fleets (and weather conditions etc). If successful then: Phase 3: Launch battle with vessels in spotting/radar distance of each other. Only now does ship recognition take place. And you never begin a battle without first having come within spotting range of an enemy vessel (or at least smoke plume). And most battles launched will either be because both sides want to fight, or in the case of pursuers having the speed advantage against evaders. Obviously chance to make contact/enemy identification could be modified by air assets/submarines/coast watchers where appropriate. Whether or not a system like the above, something is clearly needed to stop wasting so much time chasing shadows in the battle screen.

Great to see V0.1 of the campaign. Sure it will be great, but not really a playable game at the moment is it? I'm not griping, just observing. What strategic decisions does the player have at the moment? You can set the budget, you can build ships, aaaaannnndddd you can change their status from 'fleet in being' to 'sea control'. That's it? I can understand the devs have felt they needed to give some meat to the baying crowd of hungry dreadheads in this forum, but probably a little early to release this build seems to me. Again, I'm not angry or disappointed, I just hope the devs keep devving. A couple of other quick observations: - please get tool tips into the campaign UI asap - please streamline multi-selection (for example changing from 'fleet in being' to 'sea control' etc - please give estimated top speed of enemy vessels before combat begins (so you know if you have a realistic chance of running them down/escaping or not) Keep going devs! Take as much time as you need and this game is gonna be incredible

Returning to the game after many months. Great to see the beginnings of the campaign implemented - still have every hope this will be the best naval game ever created, with further development. Two simple though fundamental points regarding the in-battle player experience: Ship speed (both player at enemy vessels) - this information is not presented well. Friendly ship speed (and max speed) could be made much clearer. When I click/hover over a vessel I really want to see that info (yes I know I can click into the unit cards, but this is cumbersome). Hovering over an enemy vessel should display an estimated speed also. Main/secondary battery targeting - this should be MUCH more obvious. There should be a separate button for targeting main/secondary battery (not just hotkey), and a very clear display when vessels are selected to show which batteries are targeting which enemies. How fast your ships are going, and who they are shooting at are such fundamentals that they should be much more easily visible IMO. Hope that helps, glad to see the Nazis have gone!

Not a regular poster. Just keeping eye on development. But thought I'd say: mods, please ban this white supremacist fascist.

Those who argue against having some form of mini-map are arguing against historical immersion because a fleet admiral would have a map on the bridge with plots on it to make decisions during battle. The map could easily be made toggle off for those with an absurd opposition to this feature.

When I run the exe through the website in the OP I get the same alert for the same trojan. I do not know this website however - it appears to running the file past a number of other virus checkers, only one of which detects this trojan. Could this be a false alert?

I'm assuming something I don't have knowledge about here, but wouldn't the admiral of a fleet have some kind of map in the bridge where current dispositions would be marked? Either on a table or on a wall? In which case some kind of 'mini map' or 'tactical map' would be very much in keeping with 'realism'.

This

I agree with OP strongly - this game does and will need far better tutorials for new players, both in ship builder, and battle mechanics. A lack of this will kill its appeal to a wider audience outside of the hardcore dreadheads that dominate this forum currently. Feedback from players new to the game is every bit as important - perhaps more so in certain areas - than that from those hardcore enthusiasts that have been immersed in development from first Alpha.

Was 'the wiggle' a historic reality through the timescale of UAD? I don't particularly like the idea of having to micromanage wiggle all my vessels constantly in every battle to achieve parity with AI.

I think this thread is highlighting the fact that during ship design many of the variables which are going to affect your ship's performance are inscrutable and hidden away in the mountains of data on the right hand side of the screen. While the dedicated dreadheads are going to be prepared to dig around in these numbers to discover their meaning and impact, the vast majority of players are going to be left baffled and unsure what difference their various design decisions are making. I feel that the devs are going to need to spend some time looking at the shipbuilder UI and the way it communicates information to the player.

So could be days, could be weeks, could be months?

Any devs willing to comment on Steam release date?

I purchased a Captain's edition several months ago, which gives me access to EA on Steam but I find myself increasingly itching to play! Is there a date for the steam early access release - should I wait for this, or is it worth me paying for upgrade to Commodore to get playing now? Thanks

Of course what you write is true - and what you describe are in effect transport protection battles, rather than navally-opposed amphib landings, the lack of which I was trying to get at originally. I don't think we've got anything to worry about in terms of devs deciding to add land battles to this game anyway, never gonna happen.

Perhaps what you would please you RAMJB in this game (serious suggestion) is a game mode that restricts the player to a fixed camera just above the flagship to simulate the admiral's physical position. No deviating from this camera position. I would welcome this as an option for those that wished it.

Yes, I'm aware of Savo/Samar etc, and I think they back up what I'm getting at - that there were never any cases of amphib landings being interrupted with troops shot up in the water etc by enemy surface fleets. The naval engagements effectively were completely separate from what was happening on land. We both agree here that land battles are completely extraneous to this game.

You disagree that this is a game? Interesting position.

During the timespan of this game, I can't think of any serious naval engagements that occurred while an amphibious landing was underway nearby? There were attempts to intercept landing ships, but that's what transport protection missions are for. But battles where one fleet is fending off another while amphibious craft make an opposed landing? I can't think of one. Land and sea fighting wasn't quite as connected in Dreadnoughts timeframe as it was in Age of Sail, seems to me. Land battles wholly unnecessary here. Air power is obviously the thing that is missing (although that would make this a completely different, and much less enjoyable I suspect, game)

Thanks for your thoughts RAMJB. I'm curious as to which of the wish-list I've espoused you actually disagree with: -Fleet Formation. -Fleet Maneuver. -Better enemy AI. -Crew and crew morale. -independent main/secondary/torp targeting -manual torpedo fire mode -more refined individual ship/division targeting options, perhaps affected by radio/signalling tech

I second this - the game is in danger of being decided in the shipyard, and not at sea. Obviously in reality this was in large part the case, but nevertheless this is a game. To the above list I would add better targeting options: -independent main/secondary/torp targeting (sorry to repeat myself) -manual torpedo fire mode -more refined individual ship/division targeting options, perhaps affected by radio/signalling tech

#Steeltrap Thanks for the info - appreciate it! As you point out, it's dense stuff understanding what everything means in the ship designer, and user help/explanation would go a long way. I use the term 'dreadhead' with the greatest respect btw! I'm a history enthusiast, and enjoy games for their 'realism', but not to the extent that I even knew what a barbette was before playing this game, for example. So while I think it's important all those folks who know what they are talking about help make this game as realistic feeling as possible, I think every bit as great an emphasis needs placing on playability for strategy/sim game players of all types. Don't get me wrong, I'd hate this to veer towards WoW, but simple GUI tweaks, tooltips, etc - can make a big difference in drawing more casual players in without compromising the core realism of the game engine. The bigger the audience the game reaches, the more likely to have further DLC and sequels etc, which would be great. Personally I was disappointed UGCW didn't get a sequel with dynamic campaign, for example, cos that's the best tactical muskets-era engine I've ever played. But that's another story.