Tomakaze

I felt that I played the battles fairly well (all victories and a few draws), but by the time I reached Antietam, I was in a similar situation as you. By the end, I had inflicted similar casualties but shattered and only held sharpsburg. My problem was that I realized I physically did not have the ammunition to fend off Union. I am playing on hard difficulty, but the way the odds stack up, I would rather just admit defeat and preserve my army, or fight a scaled down version. In previous battles I absolutely annihilated the Union, but each new battle, they show up with greater numbers and better vetted brigades. It seems simply undoable, unless there is some secret formula for success. I think the game does not reward the CSA enough for a successful early campaign. It feels strangely similar to the realistic outcome tho with a early Confederate success followed by eventual defeat to a greater Union.

Reading over this entire thread was quite entertaining and informative. I think the arguments have boiled down to European vs. American for cavalry behavior. Europeans want the ability to use cavalry like Napoleonic times in massed charges. You only have to look at the casualties of WWI to realize just how little they understood the deadliness of the technological innovations that made cavalry obsolete in this role. This kind of thing should probably left as a possible modification for those who really feel the need for heavy cavalry later after its official release.

So I think by now I have completed several full battles for both sides. I play against dynamic or determined opponents, but I have always been able to win using better tactics and utilizing high ground and flanking maneuvers. This most recent patch has made playing the Confederacy, IMO, quite difficult. I started a new battle and right of the bat it seemed that the Union skirmishers inflict high casualties and the videttes are marauding cannon killers that keep the initial artillery totally absorbed. The first day has become tactically almost impossible for the Confederates to win from what used to be something I could at least make a push for Seminary Ridge and/or Oak Ridge. Now, the casualties to get there are so horrendous, I just can't do it. Is this just me, or has it become too tough, at least for the Confederates. Other observations: Resuming a battle after exiting wipes the dead bodies strewn across the battlefield.

One other thing about these particular screenshots; you need a native English speaker to proofread these. The first jpeg is riddled with grammatical errors. "Your fail" to "Your failure", "has open" to "has opened", "humiliated" to "humiliating". This is just a friendly heads up. I love the game btw.

I think you could take a page out of the paradox playbook. They have the "Ironman Mode" which locks certain options and auto saves constantly and is the only mode in which you can earn achievements. Everything else is option 3. Just as Claus argues that option 1 is artificial difficulty, I could argue it as a a two-way street and save games have become artificial depressants to game difficulty anyway. So how about all three options together? Just a thought.

Alright, nice to hear things are moving along. I have been checking on this game every few days and have replayed Sid Meier's Gettysburg because of it. I can't wait. p.s. throw me a beta key...... please?

At the end of February this game was greenlit, and in March, the first gameplay video came out. My hopes are high and I believe that the early access release is imminent. Maybe it would be a nice Easter surprise to find it this weekend available for purchase. I think I am just being impatient, but everything looks so good and it seems so close. Is there a tentative release date? Anyway, keep up the good work.

Most cavalry commanders stayed away from charging. Horses, particularly in the South, were typically supplied by the soldiers and they didn't want to have their horses killed. Look at Gen. Judson Kilpatrick who became known as "Kilcavalry". You don't earn a name like that with "gallant" cavalry charges that hearken to Napoleonic times such as your Eylau example. He charged the Confederates in the battle of Gettysburg on July 3 and suffered horrendous losses. It just didn't happen much. As far as uniforms go, I think it would be cool for the Iron Brigade to have the black hats, but I don't think it is an issue.

Looking through the posts, I have seen a lot on the AI as well as the effects of terrain and elevation in combat. I don't believe I have specifically come across how brigade quality comes into play. For example, the Iron Brigade was arguably one of the best brigades in the Union army and for that reason helped delay the Confederate army, whereas an inexperienced brigade would most likely have retreated much sooner. I remember the old Sid Meier's provided more morale. How is brigade quality translated in the game? Sorry if this has been discussed, just direct me to the info.

I haven't taken the time to read all the posts but: a) One of my favorite games of all time is Sid Meier's Gettysburg and thank god I can still play it on my main computer... which leads into I will buy this This almost reminds of of R.U.S.E. in style. I liked that game, but when many battles last for an hour or more it gets tiring. In my mind this is Sid Meier's and R.U.S.E. twisted, I could be way off the mark there, but I eagerly await this game. Thanks. Edit: One more thing, are you considering Steam Greenlight?