Harnis

what does "revamp of gameplay" mean?

should that decision not be up to the player? If I want to overextend my army and have a unit pushed too far ahead with too many casualties, surely that should be my choice to make, or if the brigade routs because their morale drops. The game does try to keep brigades in their approximate positions, but sometimes it does do annoying things like that.

I'd rather have modding support than another game already.

The AI has come a long way. My last test of that Confeds advance to attack cemetery against cunning union AI resulted in a solid victory and I took all the objectives, but.... It only resulted in around 2000 casualties for my confeds and around 4k for the union. Why? Because instead of sitting there on cemetery hill while they get encircled and demolished, once some union brigades started to rout and I was pushing hard, the entire union army fell back to where the reinforcements were coming in. So while I won a massive victory, if that battle had been in a campaign, the union AI had preserved almost it's entire army in the face of a huge defeat. Instead of taking the desperate approach of holding the line at all costs and shortening its lines, sending reserves in, etc, it instead chose to fall back and fight another day.

Cavalry charging a line of infantry in any historical period was only devastating if the infantry broke from the charge. Even in the medieval times of heavily armored knights, throwing your 4 legged animal at a wall of armor and spiky things is not going to end well unless those spiky things start running away first. This is only exaggerated once firearms become more prominent. Simply put, if infantry hold their ground and hold firm in the face of a cavalry charge, the cavalry have two choices, either break off and try again, or ride into a wall, which is suicidal for both sides. The issue is if the infantry can hold firm in the face of a wall of horses and yelling men charging at them. That's not an easy task. Of course, none of this matters for the ACW, since cavalry weren't really used that way anyways.

Yeah I've noticed this too, especially when you get to those 3rd day scenarios where you have Custer's units and Stuart's units on the field. It's brutal.

Yeah easy way to fix it would be to remove Buford as a general, and remove the horse units so you only have 2-3 dismounted cavalry as skirmishers

Just a note for Olee O'Hara: historically artillery would limber and run away if they wanted yo, Mich faster than infantry could keep up with. To be historically accurate artillery should actually move faster

with how overpowered Videttes are, the Confederate General's response was perfectly reasonable The issue in that case is not the AI, it's the Videttes.

it would be difficult to replicate the indecision of certain generals. Heth was under orders to avoid a large battle, so to simulate that in the game, you'd have to play the first battle against a "Cunning" Confederate AI or something. If you play as the Confederates and decide to push hard for the Cemetery on the first day, well, it's going to go differently than the real battle did. Obviously. One way around this would be to have AI personalities for individual Corp Generals. So maybe playing as Union, the overall Confederate AI personality would be "Determined", but then, for example, Longstreet on the second day would be Cunning or Defensive, simulating how he delayed for hours in making his attack.

Yeah they could either just make the artillery dudes run at the same speed as skirmishers, or swap out the sprites for a little horse and limber. It doesn't really seem like a huge limitation.... And as for casualties in artillery, fixing their mobility to historical levels would fix this. There would be no need to deal with captured guns and stuff. In the whole battle of Gettysburg I don't believe even a single gun was captured and turned against the enemy. So it's not a big deal. Capturing guns is simulated by if you catch arty in melee. Most of the time the guns would be disabled before being captured.

I understand there are limitations in a game, but what limitations are currently preventing a more realistic approach to artillery? And how would making artillery perform and behave realistically be somehow contrary to the gameplay goal?

Basically, it tries to orient them based on their current orientation. The issue is that sometimes their current orientation isn't too clear from the computers perspective

yeah.....first hand data is always going to be subjective. You can have one general say artillery was almost useless, and another general say it was the key to a battle. The only hard evidence to look at is the actual results and statistics. Artillery achieved X amount of kills per Y amount of shots fired. etc.

wow, a new patch already. Any ideas on what you guys have planned for the final release patch?