soccercw

There's a realistic comparison. No need to get all uppity about it and compare me to a political party that eventually was responsible for genocide, or do you not know what that word "nazi" means? I'm pointing out that you're adding elements that are already covered in the game. Don't you think the condition bar handles "ammo"? AS PER THE GAME RULES and how it was intended by the developers : "Your unit status is calculated dynamically. The summary of these parameters is visualized by their morale, condition (simulating fatigue and ammo replenishment), cover and reload bars in unit info panel. Unit status has an immense impact on a unit's performance and should always be considered when making decisions" Voilà! I don't see a need to separate and micromanage something already covered and factored into the game by those that created it. Do I think ammo and supply is important in strategy games like this? Yes. Do I think having direct sources for supply makes sense in a segmented time period battle game? I do not. I'm quite content with having to pull your men off the line once your condition is beat to crap to resupply. You do feel the need to have the devs develop an entire AI strategy that's based around supply, wagons, and defending the supply sources instead of spending all their time towards the battle AI...and that's fine; we can agree to disagree. To me it's just complicating something (albeit and important something) that's already being handled in the game. I won't resort to comparing you to a mass murdering and genocidal faction though

Entire brigades without ammo usually didn't happen, so I don't know what they'd do. You said "run for the hills" yet my idea of having them retreat off the map is a bad idea? What if you're against an edge of the map? Would they just sit there ammo less and get shot at? In segmented battles, simulating maybe an hour or two of fighting, I see no need to have entire brigades and maybe even entire divisions run out of ammo. You'd turn the game into having a goal of getting behind the enemy lines to block off their supply wagons while trying to somehow still have access to yours. This is ok on a huge scale but the battles are on segmented maps where it's understood there are still troops elsewhere on the battlefield that you can't see on your specific map. I'll stop arguing this one I guess as I'll never agree with those who want ammo added to complicate the game play (while there's already a condition bar that wears units down after long engagements and is replenished when they are pulled off the line). At this game scale it would be an embarrassment to simulate entire divisions running around the map with no ammunition because they cant get back to their "wagons" when each individual battle is only simulating a few hours at most of fighting, not multiple days. And again, my point from before, what happens when the scenario ends and you have units that have no ammunition. When the map restarts itself as a continuation of the last battle and the units are in the same relative position, will they magically have ammo again? VP will no longer be the goal, it will be to just go attack these wagons that have no business being in a game of this scale and style. Having the devs spend hours trying to put this in, tweak the AI to somehow understand the importance of defending their wagons over VP, and then adding it as just as "option" is a complete waste of time IMO. But we can all disagree

What will your units do when out of ammo? Surrender? Only be able to make unrealistic suicide charges? Can you retreat them from the map?

If you place them and hit hold they will stay in place

Let's not forget that SMG was in no way a "simulator" either. In SMG you could retreat your artillery to get them anywhere on the map in lightning speed. You'd put your regiments in column and double quick through the enemy to surround a regiment to "flag" them. If you know each scenario after a while you would just see both sides double quicking infantry and retreat advancing artillery to the VP's at the very beginning and just sitting there making the enemy move them off it. It had it's "arcade" feel too in some aspects. I know many people want to be able to change to column, line, etc, but part of me thinks this is in there to prevent gamey things like double quicking in column to unrealistically go in circles around people like you could in SMG

Servers definitely arent up. My friend and I tried a few years ago with a direct ip hook up but it wouldnt sync

Chewy was tops

Heyyyyy now

Reenacting sounds dumb

I agree it would make for crappy game play. It's a game, not something where you pick a "person" to be and have to act like that person. Games like Scourge of War (hits and courier format) or even Talonsoft's Battleground series will certainly let you do that. I don't think that's the intention here. Lee, contrary to what you say, was very well in control of his army that day. He had 2 corps converging from two different directions on the town. Granted the actions in the morning did not go as expected and Heth ended up with a bit more than he could handle, but that was only until Pender arrived and Lee inevitably smashed what was in front of him with a two pronged attack. Having orders carried out "half ass" is a determent to the Confederate commanders who eventually made the very best of a confusing situation and ultimately carried the day. As far as the Meade thing goes, someone is always in control of "the field" so not having control of the game makes no sense. Just because the army commander isn't there doesn't mean someone isn't in charge overall so the whole being one person thing would never work and be fun. Reynolds commanded the field on his arrival and Howard after him. Later that day Hancock showed up and took control of the army despite not having his corps present. It's why I like that corps commanders can still inspire other corps. They're still generals in the army. The corps/div commanders being killed thing isn't a terrible idea overall if you can make it work and be fluid. One of my favorite features of the Battleground series is that commanders can be killed and then people get promoted up the chain and a random Colonel appears with some crappy attributes that you have to deal with. Added a whole new element into the game aside from the fighting units

Lannes I don't know what else to tell you. You REALLY want Civil War cavalry to act like European cavalry, but it's not going to happen. This is not how they fought, this is not the genre, this will not be in the game. You pointed out on 3 separate occasions about some random charge in 1942 (The Americans also made a charge in the Philippines in '42). It has NOTHING to do with the Civil War or this game. With that same logic we should have World War 2 games with cavalry flying around the field and sabres drawn charging against MG .42s. I get that you love cavalry and big charges, but it just didn't happen except in rare occasions by 1863. Their role is minimized in the game because compared to the infantry brigades their role WAS minimized. If you use Buford as your eyes and feelers you'll enjoy it a bit more and stress out a bit less. He's your road blocks, a way to slow down an inevitable tank known as the AoNV. Use him to force the rebs into line and slow them up until you get your infantry up. Later use him to slow down the enemy while you prepare your defenses. They're also great as flank units.

They act like cavalry. Just maybe not your interpretation of what cavalry "should" act like

They weren't used like that because it made no tactical sense on the field during that time period. Was highly ineffective

Changing history is the fun part, yes, but not at the expense of historical reality. You'll be hard pressed to find an example of an entire brigade running out of ammunition mid battle. The way this game plays out in segmented portions it just makes no sense. If a unit runs out of ammo before the end of a scenario, does it magically get resupplied for the next one? Are we assuming there's some ceasefire between scenarios where both forces agree to not attack and that allows them to get more "ammo"? I still feel the condition bar is plenty enough to beat down units for extended engagements. Pulling them off the line helps replenish their condition and can be seen as "resupplying" as well. Putting in an entire element like ammo will just complicate things that need not be complicated. Supply is a great variable for campaign games and deep strategy turn by turn ones. Not real time battle simulations at the brigade level in my opinion

I personally love the winter time. It let's you explore the wooded areas of the battlefield that you can't in the summer. Once you've been there a few times you'll love less crowds and more spaces to explore! Remember that during the battle all the modern underbrush and close proximity of tees was completely different than today. Places like Culp's Hill and Little Round Top were harvested often for wood and the trees were much more spaced out and the foliage was significantly less. http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/images/CulpsHill3JulyConfedAssault.jpg

So once this is all set up and released can we do some old school 90's LAN party in Gettysburg for multiplayer? Haha

Some good suggestions....but remember, they don't charge with sabres like European cavalry because they aren't European cavalry. They weren't used in the field like they were in Europe 40+ years prior. Having them fight like dragoons firing from horseback simply didn't happen either in 1863. They were a much more effective fighting force dismounted when facing enemy infantry. Charges into the enemy infantry with sabres drawn at this point was obsolete. Such an attempt was made on July 3rd on the South end of the battlefield and it was a total disaster. The cavalry "role" should be a small dismounted fighting force that also serves as your eyes. I end up using Buford after the first scenario much like dismounted cavalry was used at the time, to force the enemy to come out of column to move you. While they may not be an effective toe to toe fighting force, they certainly fill out their role well in advance of my lines to slow the enemy down and let me see where they're coming from. The game is tailored to the battle of Gettysburg and isn't an overall Civil War generic game. Expect to see cavalry act and be used as they were at the actual battle.

Right, but the 20th Maine is one regiment in one very particular situation. This is a brigade level game. I'm not interested in watching entire brigades of over 1000 men aimless run around trying to melee each other because they "have no ammo".

Yep the square next to the message will be blue or red, army depending. Just click on it

Agreed it needs some slowing down, especially if it ever rolls out MP.

You rock Nick

REB it's certainly off for infantry brigades. Bug has been reported. I haven't noticed it affecting generals or artillery but that may be just me

Rogue, based on your previous posts and the things you like about the game, I'm surprised you did a magic 180. "Losses seem right you have to know how to flank to inflict heavy losses alot of people dont understand this idea" - Agree here, don't think this has been tinkered with except to nerf the Reb forces a bit. "Retreating seems right on I would run like hell too if my whole unit took off" - Still one of my favorite parts about the game. The condition + morale bars are what sets this from others. Just because you haven't taken massive casualties, manuevering and fighting still beats up a brigade physically. The fact that units will fall back a bit to regroup before suffering 90% casualties is perfect "My only problem would be figuring out elevation as well as others, maybe a colored line at the highest point on hills so I know where to position my arty and units best. The old Avalon Hill board games had colored hexes that showed the highest elevation on a particular area" - This is still valid. It's the major complaint I've gotten from my friend who I got to play and test the game out with me. It's very hard to find what good positioning is. The map is gorgeous but unlike some other games (mainly SMG), elevation is not as easy to point out or find. Maybe something as simple as holding a hot key will have a small box appear that shows you the elevation your mouse is currently pointing at. This way you can pause, hold the key, and scroll around an area to get a better idea of the land. To go from great suggestions to saying you wouldn't even suggest someone try the game is a bit over the edge. Yes, the game is going to change before it comes out. Darth wouldn't be doing his due dillegence if he didn't try highly suggested ideas. If they turn out to ruin the gameplay a bit then he can always go back to how a certain feature used to be. It's called development stay with it and keep suggesting and pointing out things that need to be fixed (or were changed and now are worse)

And no entire infantry brigades flat out ran out of ammo at Gettysburg. What would the unit do if it couldn't get more ammunition? Aimlessly wander about? An entire brigade? On this level having a finite ammo amount would be unnecessary imo

Well don't give up on it. Just voice your opinions and provide specifics. You'll find you may not be alone. Plenty of games make changes and go back to small things that worked better before