Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Daniele Troilo

Ensign
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Daniele Troilo

  1. First of all, I must say that while i really enjoy playing this game and I'm really interested in the civil war I'm not aware of most of the units background. Neither I'm a civil war veteran or civil war games grognard. Still, I do understand the "negative" (historical?/unhistorical?) implications of how the videttes are working at the moment but I don't think they are actually giving the union players any kind of advantage on the confederate counterparts. Let's look at the battle (day one, of course)...while, in the overall, the union will be able to field a major force they actually start with a smaller force and have their reinforcements join slowly from far south of the map and just little by little, so actually they usually are never (as the confederates also have their reinforcements) outnumbering the rebs. Also, the brigades of the confederation are sensibly composed of way more men (wich, added to their superior melee capabilities... in overall they can rely on better morale, better charge/melee and if in a firing duel they have the numbers to sustain more casualities, and inflict more if needed). It's clear to see that the union player have to rely on mobility and firepower, if he can. Here comes the skirmishers and videttes. They're not stronger in numbers (on the countrary) and they have not any "aim/reload" buffs (at least for what I've seen). They are mobile. And that's the key. The confederates generals field mountains, the skirmishers have to climb and dance around them. All said and gone, I need to ask you that will surely know better than me (as see before, I really don't know much about the civil war troops)...those videttes...what were they? Regular troops or irregulars? Because this could change radically my ideas about them. If they are regulars, than I just like them as they are. I would not care about civil war tactics as I'm the general tis time, I'm the one moving the troops... and if I think that the sabres and revolvers of 300 cavalrymen charging by two sides can obliterate one unguarded arty...well that's it. On the other side, if they were volunteer...they would probably have significative differences in armament from one another, probably no ability to charge at all -lacking the skills of charging in formations, lacking even the sabres probably- and most of all, fearing to lose their own horses...so what do you think? Ceers
  2. I was just about to write this same post to ask the very same question. Tonight I had the best match I've ever had in any strategy game, I was defeated by a splendid, stubborn, and even more...cautious confederate player in the very first scenario of the game (first day, first engagement). It would have been just right to be able to thank him or her...
  3. Being the maps in-game somehow a mix of "proprer" terrain and a map representing the terrain (see: names of the ridges, buildigs) maybe we could have some sort of (activable?) grid telling altitude and showing contour lines...
  4. First of all, thanks. It was about time to see what really revolutionary minds and spirits of programmers could deliver to us, strategic players. Yet, this is something more than just a game with a good AI, as the gameplay itself is refreshing, meaningful and potentially illimitate. First thing i was awed about it's the movement-pattern. Brilliant. Simply the best, and most simple in a way, way of issuing movement commands I have ever see in a game. Elegant and effective as, combined with the LoS, it really gives tremendous possibilities to forge well organised flanking. Now I must stop, or I would continue drooling compliments for quite a while... Now, a couple of questions or hints, if you will: Morale. I love the idea of an ever-changing morale rapidly dropping or rising as the battle evolves and the micro-fight near the unit itself evolve. Said so, there could/should be a non returning point. The engagements might become shorter this way, but way more satisfying I think. What I mean to say, is that a regiment (or brigade? Well an inf unit...) starting with 1200 men, after the loss of more than 1\4 of its men should retreat. Not just fall back and regroup with a horrible morale malus. It should be: "bye-bye, see you next day with your morale malus!". In the first engagement I managed to encirle and rout a confederate regiment and I had to chase it with two of mine regiments (as they felt it would be politically correct to rout themselves from time to time, even if there was no apparent reason to do that..they were chasing down an enemy reg!) till the "end" of the map...yet the stubborn guys continued to come and go essentially, as I recognized too late, making me waste time for no real gain. Now, the most important part: In the same first engagement, right in the first minutes of battle, I outflanked the enemy advancing forces (I was the union) with the two videttes cav and with one skirmisher while the remaining forces fought a fighting retreat, basically "luring" the confederate inf. away from their guns. My cav. charged and routed the enemy guns and, even here, the artillerymen, while dragging their guns with them(?!) retreated and started fire again. I feel this should be changed somehow. I could comprehend a fair reluctance on your behalf in changing the morale system, which must have been quite difficoult to manage and create, as I can only imagine, being so accurate. But about 300 horsemen with sabres and revolvers charging by two sides while supported by a company of skirmishers, once entered in a close combat with the enemy artillerymen should just kill all of them. If anyone of the artillerymen shall be able to flee the slaughterhouse, it wouldn't be with the guns. The cannons would be still on the muddy bloody ground my troops now have. I Imagine that create a "composite" unit (guns+crew) could require too much of work for no major overall gameplay improvement but the attack (or even conquer? ...heh, am I pushing too much now?) of an enemy battery should be more rewarding, ending (if successful) with their complete destruction, not with their momentaneous retreat about 300 meters away. Thanks for the patience and for the eventual replies
  5. Indeed the third option seems to be the most equilibrate in terms of freedom of choice given to the players.
  6. Hi to all, I can imagine that almost (or all) of the posts for the beta testing have already been taken, yet, sice I'm really interested in this game I would like to ask you to consider me if you'll need any more beta testers. I'm not a "civi war addicted", nor I have any program-desygn proficiency yet, studyng History and warfare I'd love to have the chance to be of help (if needed).
×
×
  • Create New...