lotharr51
-
Posts
27 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by lotharr51
-
-
I'd like to see historical variants that give the confeds more force sooner and/or have union forces get delayed. This could also be randomized in some fashion in both cases and the option to randomize it all.
-
I think any of those three would be great, but I would also like a link to the general when a sub-unit is selected in that units top left info panel.
-
I would love to see a grand scenario at some point with 4v4 multiplayer and coop support.....maybe with shifting objectives as time and battle field conditions change....
-
Yeah, maybe sacrifice VPs for more time or something. I think there has to be pressure, but some more options here might be interesting.
-
@python - Bingo. Cavalry needs an overhaul. As I understand it, the devs have a specific vision for these units that is, honestly, pretty ahistorical. I'm not sure if this is something they are open to changing, but I would like to see cav and skirmishers (formation selection or detachment vs dedicated units) brought more in line with historic realities. I don't believe these changes would sacrifice game play, but it might clash with that vision. This is all my speculation, btw, I could be completely off and would welcome being corrected.
-
Does having my artillery firing at enemy artillery disrupt their aim reload speed etc?
Maybe this reduces moral and condition leading to reduced aim and increased load time etc.
-
I have to agree with David. Skirmishers and cavalry need to be overhauled. Just let the player pick formations (skirmish, line, column) and make cavalry able to dismount or get annihilated. There should also be harsh penalties for leaving supporting units.
-
I really like the way things are going....
The Good
- This speed seems just right for me.
- Union doesn't feel like a rabble of losers anymore.
- Group move is a minor but really great feature.
- AI seems better.
Feature requests
-
Would like a button for artillery to target by unit type and also prioritize by closest/strongest/weakest.
- Elevation overlay of some sort
- Visibility toggle to turn the mouse pointer into LOS
- Formations - skirmish/line/column
- Dismount cavalry and have them annihilated when running by thousands of guys with rifles when mounted.
- Hold button for generals.
- Cutoff and routed units will surrender if facing overwhelming odds.
- Improvised defense levels that increase over time if not disturbed.
- Capture guns that are overrun.
- About-face hotkey
Buggy
- Clicking on my formations several times would increase the LOS contrast, then lock into LOS for every other unit I click on
- Cursor positioning seems off when creating paths
- Some freezes on the first battle that only last a second
- Lost the ability to click on anything at one point
-
1
- This speed seems just right for me.
-
Whoops, all this should have gone in the pinned thread....
-
A few of your points that resonated with me:
- I'd like to see an about-face command, too.
- I'm curious about elevation as well. I'd like to better understand how it works. In my mind, attacking a steep/large hill should present a challenge.
- I also like the idea of being able to set a unit's formation vs having dedicated units.
- Lingering smoke - I like that a lot, but it should be a toggle.
while videttes are... cavalry... of some sort
-
As far as I'm concerned, if you are going to make a game about Gettysburg, then that game has to model the realities of that battle and balance it with game play. I want to feel good as the Confederates when I beat my friend because, given the realities of the battle (terrain and primacy of defense), the confederates literally have an uphill battle. I haven't looked at the Steam forum much either, but I've seen some really good posts here about enhancing this experience by incorporating more realism without sacrificing game-play. I don't want to be distracted by behaviors that would not have occurred such as the Rambo skirmishers and invincible artillery. Maneuver, elevation, field defenses, cover, interior lines and more played a huge role in how this battle unfolded. I want to have to grapple with those questions as I play since I am playing a game about Gettysburg.
-
Wow, love these changes! Items that stood out:
The Good
- This speed seems just right for me.
- Union doesn't feel like a rabble of losers anymore.
- Group move is a minor but really great feature.
- AI seems better.
The could use improvement
- Artillery still seems to make odd choices when targeting. Would still like a button to give priority unit targeting type and also closest/strongest/weakest.
- I need my generals to not run away when they reach a certain proximity to enemy troops unless that is a function of a bravery level or some such. Generals got themselves killed all the time because of this.
- Would like to see surrender - In my battle, Archer got himself really,really cutoff and I sandwiched him but just kept on retreating. Quarter was offered and given in many cases such as this.
More to follow, but this is shaping up to be freaking great!
-
I changed my vote. The condition indicator makes a lot of sense for this.
-
Yeah, the artillery needs some tweaks. I also think it would be cool if we could capture guns.
-
Good point about surrender. Artillery also needs to be eliminated (captured?) when it's overrun.
-
I think unit AI should be a toggle. Sometimes I want my guys to take care of themselves and other times I want to micro them a bit more.
-
I agree. Think this ties back into a point I made about how moral should be boosted for units that remain close to other supporting units. Skirmishers should be more autonomous than other types, but ultimately single formations should be much more brittle when far away from the army's center of gravity.
-
I think you should allow multiple saves. Put in an Iron Man type accomplishment for each side to note winning without save scrumming, maybe make this different for each of the AI's since winning against Determined can be dicey....
-
I think this should fit into the category of reinforcing the primacy of defense for this period of the Civil War. Interior lines, improvised field defenses, cover and elevation all support the defender. The Secesh had their work cut out from them from the start and focusing on these realities would make for a more realistic and enjoyable game, imho.
-
I noticed this also. Charging artillery is a waste of time....like you said, when 1000 men are on top of a gun crew, the crew takes a few loses...damn odd. In reality, the crew would abandon their guns or be wiped out.
I also get annoyed when my formation changes its facing in a less than ideal angle. I'm concerned this will turn into learning how to trick the AI into making bad facing choices for absurd enfilades.
I think there should be a feature where unit AI can be turned on and off for each formation.
-
@David,
Yeah, I think Gettysburg was a great example where maneuver would quickly turn into siege and trying to turn a flank at the operational or strategic level was so critically important. I believe the battles for the round tops and Ewell's failure to attack make that point pretty clear.
Maybe the primacy of defense will get another look if people keep pointing this out.
-
I found that the ability to create a strong defensive line doesn't really exist. Troops don't create improvised defenses, which they did fairly regularly by this point in the war. That coupled with a faster rate of fire for newer rifles meant that "firstest with the mostest" was a key doctrine of that period. Formations were chewed to pieces trying to take improvised defensive positions. Also, terrain and elevation matter much less than micro to flank.
I would also like to see a bigger boost to moral and the ability to prevent auto fall back when units are supported on their flanks and rear. This was a huge factor for formation integrity and one reason the less durable union forces were able to hold the line: they had more troops that backed each other up on good ground.
-
2
-
-
-
I also think there is room for improvement with elevation and LOS. A toggle for topographical elevation lines would be great. A mode to switch to line of sight and move the cursor around would also be welcome.
-
1
-
PC - Dynamic campaign in multiplayer?
in General Discussions
Posted
Super bummer. The only thing missing from this game is a multiplayer campaign with multiple player slots or a single instance, 3-4 day battle with mulitple player slots. I can't recommend this title or future ones until all my friends can play together. This is a great game otherwise.