Zelekendel

I'm disappointed, but understand. UGG was a proof of concept for the studio, and it was a success. I got my money's worth, definitely. I do want to see Gettysburg playable against a real opponent some day, maybe it'll be when you make an overarching Civil War battles UG. Any future titles should be multiplayer (campaign) capable from the go to gain my purchase, however, unless the format is otherwise shaken dramatically or there is a dramatic improvement in the AI (which is very good, but as we know, after a certain amount of hours of playtime there's a point where it can't match a competent player)

Hey there, Has anyone created a visual chart showing the campaign tree - and if not, would it be possible for the devs to release one? Are all of the potential scenarios in the campaign already available as multiplayer battles? This is currently the only way to approximate a MP campaign, Sid Meier's Gettysburg style (casualties were not retained in that one either).

You guys should just keep reporting as accurately as you can, just leave any optimism out of it as that's what seems to be bugging some. But otherwise, I'm sure 95% understand software development is quirky and hard to schedule.

Indeed - relax, people - and don't give devs / modders grief if they miss their estimated release - otherwise you're reinforcing the perception that you should never say anything about the release date except "It's done when it's done", and that's a shame - the estimates are often useful, even if they end up being wrong, because we know it's going to take AT LEAST that long.

That's not really a problem, simply scale the game up to division level for example, and presto.

Tariusan, I agree on the no Total War front - still, it'd be cool to see a game where you're leading the ANV on its campaign from Richmond to Washington, or the Grande Armee across Europe, with a focus on the tactical but still stakes on the campaign level.

Actually, after a long search, I didn't really find many campaign / operative games with built in tactical / grand tactical fighting systems at all. Yes, of course there's Total War, but Total War has nothing to do with the realities of running an army on campaign. If there is a grand strategic campaign, I want it stripped down and focused purely on the military and possibly political / diplomatic sides of running things. Absolutely no building towns and barracks etc, rather deal with real issues of mustering troops and the logistics of it in an approachable, relatively easy to learn system.

What's most important for the AI is to be conscious of situations where it can get enfiladed. The acid test: form a line of Confederate troops facing Seminary Ridge (where the Union should be defending in scenario 1 eventually), from McPherson's Woods down. Make sure the Union does not sally forth against that line in ones or twos to be enfiladed from McPherson's Woods. If they do attack, make sure it's when they're actually on the offense, and not the defensive, and attack so that they focus on the ends of your line, not the center, and that they do so in requisite force. This is the basic offensive model that you should always endeavour to get working.

While I don't begrudge other people options that ehance their enjoyment, cheat toggles, unless they're very skillfully made so that they directly counteract the ai's shortcomings (without making them just plain better in a stand-up fight), would feel to me as giving up on the AI department. A better endeavour, in my mind, would be to develop slightly different versions of the scenarios in the campaign, maybe one at a time per patch if it's too challenging otherwise, where the fortunes of war bring about a worst case scenario of arrivals for the human player. Make the human reinforcements consistently appear later in their arrival window and AI units earlier. This might cause the AI to receive some late reinforcements it wouldn't have otherwise, and cause some of the player's reinforcements come so late they need to be rushed into action.

Well, tested the first scenario once more and once more, drove the Union off the lower right hand corner of the map after some some of their suicidal charges against my enfilading units (Dynamic.) Still not there with the AI. The main problems are the same as before, the AI throws its units piecemeal against superior lines and even into enfilade situations, and does not attack the weakest part of the line indirectly en masse. Also, its priorities are off in a defensive scenario to be attacking my forward positions like that in any case.

That's cool, could you name your top three favourite Napoleonic games? I'm interested in trying them out. I already tried Napoleon's Last Battle (Smg engine) but the gameplay was too hectic for me (charges and melees resolved in seconds etc.) Using the resources already made, expanding the game's scope to a campaign engine (a simple, historically minded and realistically minded one), nothing like Total War (no building towns or micromanaging recruitment etc) but putting you in charge of say the AoNV or AotP for example and forging your own campaign within the scope of an army general, not a "national overlord who micromanages everything".

Another solution I suggested earlier is simply to make the maps a bit larger, but have reserved brigades that will only fire in self-defense if an enemy gets close at the edges, a bit like in Sid Meier's Gettysburg.

I agree with the OP's sentiment, despite that I haven't played the new patch's multiplayer yet. The thing is that I also fully agree with No Pasaran, and for me this game is about playing the ACW in a computer medium, in a similar manner to tabletop gaming among gentleman gamers. But when you have an anonymous player pool and no code of conduct stuff like this happens. It was the same with map 1, withn the (murderous, as Escrow said) Union artillery assaulting the Rebels because they could simply afford it with little danger.

Well in a sense he Cunning did delay it by sending brigades to the slaughter, disincentivizing me from taking Seminary. In the end, it did hold it as I saw no real need to attack, as my troops racking up the kills instead, but Seminary was lost anyway after the battle ended (perhaps because of the difference in casualties?).

I tried, but couldn't muster the enthusiasm for another slaughter against the AI anymore...sorry, I'll wait a bit more on the AI department or the multiplayer full battle. What is the Cunning AI doing here, and why? It's supposed to be on the defensive, yet it constantly ran to this killing zone. The Iron Brigade eventually routed off the field and heavy casualties were sustained elsewhere, especially after Pettigrew joined in on the turkey shoot.

I share Wesley's perspective - you don't put in 120+ hours into a game you don't love. It's all about improving the game and the games to follow after it!

This gives me hope. Sounds like melee will now include firing as it should be and melee will be more decisive (hopefully meaning artillery crews no longer stand against brigades but can stand against videttes).

Heh, well you do belong near the top, always a good battle with you.

Hehehe, REB, feels like you couldn't post any shots until you were back up in the top 10 or even 5 Just busting your balls. But yes, you're right - ranking stuff like this turns it into a "competition" rather than having fun with a historical battle.

Really? This was from 4-6 volleys from two brigades, at canister range. I've tested some more and in general that's the idea, shooting artillery seems to produce very little results and assaulting is very hard if not impractical because of the condition loss on the brigades. It's #1 on the problem list for me. The multiplayer AI doesn't take advantage of it too much but the humans actually advancing the guns by themselves to canister range without infantry nearby and then being able to get away with it like this is aggravating to say the least.

2. It's now my #1 multiplayer pet peeve. Some players are learning that they can assault with their guns into canister range without caring about the infantry volleys or even the threat of charges (as it will most likely devastate the infantry's condition). For some reason, artillery crews seem almost immune to volleys.

In a multiplayer game that just ended. Stewart's Battery attacked two of my Brigades, Archer and Lane, backed up by some other artillery further off and occasionally the Iron Brigade (which broke and ran several times). The main point is, a lot of the time Stewart's battery was shooting canister into lane while worn-down Lane and Archer volleyed it (at very low condition % near the end). At the end, the kill statistics were 8 lost for Stewart's Battery, and it had racked up 270 kills. How can this be? I did win the battle of course, but the artillery seem like assault guns. I knew if I'd charge the guns it'd end badly (the other guns were supporting). Can you PLEASE fix the guns? It's gotten so aggravating that I'm considering a long break from the game until the matter is resolved.

Also, roads are of no significance to movement - they should be very important for troops arriving to the front - and massively important for arty, whether or not limbers are added (which of course they should - no reason why not, with the same mechanics as brigade columns).

And I'm saying this evade move should not happen when near a friendly brigade. It should only fall back along with the brigade(s). Additionally, when generals fall back when not in proximity of a friendly brigade, they retreat towards the nearest brigade and not to a random direction.

Digging in should be up to the player - it should wear the brigade's condition down accordingly.