Redmarkus4
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Redmarkus4
-
-
RECON
Recon could represent a combination of things, giving various advantages:
- Strategic intelligence - boosts the command radius of all Corps commanders.
- Local intelligence from spies and the local population (add this as a skill that players can select for each Corps commander). Adds 5% to unit speed.
- Signals, ballons and patrolling - boosts unit resilience to reductions in morale during battle; they know more about the situation and have more trust in their officers as a result.
-
5 hours ago, CaptainKanundrum said:
I think that this could be a great use of the Recon level. I don't know if it has been fixed in the last few patches, but Rceon was pretty useless.
The problem that I could imagine is that artillery might become overpowered as they don't have their own LOS in this game. So if you just have telegraph officers providing you reconnaissance (historically accurate) it might end up with artillery being able to shoot enemy units way too easily (unrealistic physics). I think this idea is definitely worth testing though.
Actually, the standard methodology for artillery in that period was to take bearings on likely targets while there was still good visibility, and then to fire blind into the smoke once the field was obscured. Many artillery casualties resulted from this kind of blind fire, according to my reading. The kind of 'over open sights' events seen during Pickett's charge, for example, were less common, though they did happen regularly, of course.
One implication of this is that friendly fire was a major problem, something that the game doesn't yet address. This reminds me of one of my only compaints about the game so far; the way that other units can volley fire at enemy units already in melee with friendly units. I think that the effect of such fire in those situations should be reduced by 75%, to represent firers taking careful aim at individual targets.
-
47 minutes ago, waldopbarnstormer said:
This was a time before smokeless gunpowder had been invented so the act of firing would give away your position.
Totally agree with this entire post. To add my bit, the Union in particluar made extensive use of signals posts to detect and report distant enemy movements (miles away) by telegraph, as well as balloons for the same purpose. The complete fog of war is rather extreme. It would be more realistic to have some rough idea of some of the enemy's dispositions (with detail and accuracy affected by the player's Recon level) and to be able to target both known and suspected enemy positions; particularly trench lines, walls and woods. 'Recon by fire' is the phrase, IIRC.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Don't Escrow Taxes said:
melee dragging please needs to be fixed in time for full release it is probably the most frustrating complaint I still have. Just about everything else has been fixed which is great. I am still running into the issue where a unit's movement orders are cancelled after a new phase of a battle begins.
Yes, the cancelling of orders keeps catching me out. I end up with reinforcements I had already ordered to move, sitting on the map edge after the new phase starts.
-
Delighted to see the regular patching and improvements, particularly the way in which the devs listen to their players. This game has already cost me weeks of real life!
-
I'm OK with the concept of scaling to maintain a challenge, but the spamming of 3-star enemy units annoys me too. It's same regardless of which side you choose to play. Perhaps the AI should only receive 2-star units by default, with 3-stars requiring the unit to gain experience the normal way?
-
16 hours ago, vren55 said:
For tips you might want to see my guide in the forum.
I've been reading it and have saved it as a browser bookmark! Very helpful - thanks.
-
On 13/01/2017 at 10:52 PM, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:
Also, after putting a division under AI control and then retaking control, the supply wagons remain AI controlled and keep doing their own thing - which included advancing unsupported towards enemy lines.
I've seen the AI supply wagons doing this - pretty easy to capture them. I would prefer to have supply managed as a virtual issue without the actual wagons on the map. A real army has a lot more than one wagon and so much should not hinge on a single unit of scouts capturing one stray wagon.
-
1 hour ago, Primemus said:
I am talking about Naval Action. As you are lining up to broadside a ship you can...using my set up via mouse1+2 take the view from the canon as in “the camera presents the view as you would see it from the canon as a cannoneer”. From that position you can see the firing lane...represented by two white lines however, you need to jump out from the view if you want to fire. It would be cooler if you could fire from this position. Canon pitch and Elevation would also be interesting for killing the top sails with chain shot. Also it would be more realistic. I do not know how much detail they have planed.
OOoOPPPPPPPPPs my ears are red this is the wrong forum.
LOL - I figured it must be
Done the same thing myself...
-
9 hours ago, vren55 said:
Agreed! As much as I have issues witht eh cover (which the devs are going to fix anyway), I love the game. The sheer flexibility I have to customize my stuff to my preference is really showing on my 3rd Union Campaign... I mean experimenting with cavalry was the most fun I've had in a while.
I haven't recruited any cavalry yet.
One thing I really would like to see changed is the first campaign turn. Instead of starting with a defaul force on a specific map, I would prefer to recruit my troops with an initial budget and then pick my first fight from the strategic map. This would ad a huge amount of variability and replayability to the game.
One day, it would be nice to have a dynamic strategic map, with battles appearing based on strategic movement decisions.
-
Now that I've played as far as Pittsburgh Landing, one AI issue has emerged. Once I pull back into a really strong position around the Landing, the AI keeps sending uncoordinated units to probe me every few seconds - a bit like a ping-pong match.
This needs some adjustment so that, at least, the AI uses artillery to support massed infantry assaults, as it seemed to be doing earlier in the campaign.
Thanks.
-
I enjoyed the UG Gettysburg experience, but this is even better - by a mile. The combination of pause or half speed, an AI that will stop attacking after suffering heavy losses and then try to defend, and the administrative interval between battles is an absolute winner.
If this is only the Beta, then I have to rate this as potentially the best Civil War game I've ever played (I own Scourge, everything by Tiller, CWG2 and pretty much everything else ever made). A few more tactical realism features, the ability to slow down to 1/4 speed, and improved controls for arranging your units on the field, and this will be pretty much the perfect game.
A couple of suggestions:
- Easier to see field of fire arcs. Perhaps an option to have shaded arcs, outlines or no arc?
- 'Ambush' orders along the lines of Combat Mission - you tell a unit to hold fire and then draw an arc on the map. The unit fires when the enemy enters the defined zone. If the firing unit was hidden (e.g. in woods of crops) it should have a low chance of being spotted by the AI until it fires.
- More orders options for artillery, particularly a counter-battery option. I'd like to prevent my artillery from enaging infantry beyond musket range unless I opt to do so, particularly infantry in cover.
- Artillery retire settings, once enemy infantry get too close - limber and pull back behind a friendly infantry unit.
- Objective names on the map - when I get a message, 'Enemy spotted on Henry Hill', it can be difficult to spot which hill that is...
- Instead of having supply wagons running all over the map, it might be more realistic to park them in a chosen location and use a unit command called 'send for resupply', or a trigger when supply falls below n% The unit would then lose 10% of its manpower for a period relative to its distance from the wagons, representing those men marching back to the wagon train to bring forward ammunition. In the case of artillery, I imagine the guns would stay put while troopers lug fresh boxes forwards.
-
1
-
3 hours ago, Primemus said:
Might I add …would it be possible to take a position on or at the canon firing line and fire? ATM you can take the position but not fire. Could be a bug? Also camera pan rotation LFt and Rt can we get key binding.
Also what is with canon pitch elevation? Unless you have double deck firing line chain shot damage to sails is limited or so it seems….
Are you posting about Ultimate General? I haven't come across any naval combat yet...
-
Loiving this new title so far. It takes me back to CWG2, one of the best designed games I've ever owned.
I'm happy to have the half speed control but I'd be even happier if I could edit how fast 'half speed' actually runs. I would like to play parts of the action at real-time speed during larger battles.
Also, I'd like to see some orders delay added for Move and Hold commands. This should vary based on the range from the commander. Facing, skirmishers, retreat, etc. should not have any delay, as those orders would be issued by the local unit commander.
-
Excellent feedback thank you. Now have no time to reply to everything, but wanted to say that most things you mention are facts we are looking to address.
Great to see devs who are open to constructive comments. I already love this game and I can see its potential. You have a fan here, for sure.
-
1
-
-
What I would like to see is a Total War-style capability wherein during pause mode I can specify a final location and orientation for each unit. I would like to see each of the planned locations highlighted on the map (not just the arrow, but the deployment as well) in pause mode so that I can ensure that I am creating a line with no gaps.
This would greatly reduce the clickfest effect, I believe.
-
The game should definitely have speed options. I think Sid Meier's Gettysburg had it.
!00% agree. Not just a 50% option, but a slider from 'true real time' up to maybe 2x faster than it is now.
If you add true real time plus orders delay, you will be on the verge of producing the best Civil war simulation I've seen, IMHO. I have all of them on my hard drive...
Done the same thing myself...
UGCW Feedack 0.76 and higher
in General Discussions
Posted
Yes, this is the only major annoyance I've faced so far. It's the same in any multi-day battle. As the CSA at Stones River for example, I managed to take the first Turnpike VP on Day 1, only to get teleported right back across the map overnight. I wouldn't mind it so much if my units were restored to full strength as a compromise, but with the losses I'd taken on Day 1, there was no way to win on Day 2.
To play the battles and win you often need to exploit your knowledge of what's coming next. This feels very gamey and needs to be fixed somehow.
Frankly, I'm sceptical about the wisdom of portraying multi-day battles at full scale. What might work better is to use a branching model (as used in several battle's early phases already) where you are confronted with, a most, Corps-level taskings. If you win, you move on to Scenario 2a, if you lose you go to scenarion 1b etc. Effectively, this would be similar to the campaign system, but at the level of a grand battle. You should even be allowed to make decisions on the grand battle (campaign-style) map, such as send Longstreet around the flank, or defend vs. attack in the centre...