Elvin
-
Posts
15 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Elvin
-
-
You'll need to add people as friends on Steam. I'd suggest asking people in PMs here on the boards, as putting SteamIDs out in public usually isn't a great idea from a security perspective. A few people have posted theirs in places around here though.
-
I spotted that happen when I had quit and reloaded, I thought that was the source but as I haven't sat through and played a whole campaign from beginning to end in one session I can't say for certain.
-
I assume all of the current named scenarios are presently unlockable, I just suspect the requirements will be fairly long and complicated. For instance, I'm on 39 unlocked.
My method for unlocking most of these has been:
1:The easiest way to unlock a bunch of new ones is literally to do nothing. Start a battle and just background the game. That is likely to be a result you hadn't played before, as usually you'd be able to push the AI back somewhat.
2. The second easiest is to withdraw from your troops off your starting VP(s), and then background the game. If you hold more than 1 VP, it probably means you'll have to come back to that mission and try losing all possible combinations of points. The first one that pops into my head for this Cofederates hold Seminary, Cemetry Hill and Culp's Hill, and are pushing south to attack Cemetry Ridge (I think). There are possible outcomes from most, if not all, possible pairings of losing points.
-
P.S. BTW, is there a chart or description of which scenarios are prerequisites for others, if we wish to "collect them all." Easy enough to follow a winning path or the historical path, but how to get to the others?
I'm after the same thing. Been trying to unlock them all, only managed to get 3/4 on most phases past the second. And I feel like I'm running out of possible combinations...
-
3D terrain please!
Sorry to say but that simply isn't going to happen. The game's been designed in 2D and it'll stay that way, especially as a full release isn't that far off. The amount of work to create all the 3D elements would likely be in the order of a couple of months solid work, if you include not only the graphics but having to re-program the AIs to deal with a completely different input map.
-
1
-
-
I encountered similar in a few games I played. The multiplayer is still in development, and has many bugs. I think it might be caused by you and your opponent becoming disconnected, and at the moment the game doesn't tell you this happens. The AI just takes over. The other option is that the two of you de-synched for a while, and what you saw was the game attempting to fix the difference in unit positions. I don't think people are cheating, at least not yet. I don't know if that is even possible for this kind of game, it depends how it was coded.
-
I agree with this view, the game just doesn't need all that much more added to it. I would be in favour of a more dynamic battle. I would also like to see a lot more of "what if" scenarios, mostly for the starting encounter and then be able to play on from there. Example: give the Confederates a unit of their cavalry to start with, and see what happens.
-
I'm in a similar situation, I can beat the AI on any difficulty, as both sides. The only real thing I find I need to worry about is cycling troops on and off the front line, so I can always keep pushing. The confederates have the numerical superiority on the first day, so as long as you keep about 1/4 of your troops in reserve it isn't a problem.
The reason the AI struggles here is that it does no unit cycling. The same units will sit on the front line until they rout, at which point they're effectively out of combat for several in-game hours. Whereas my cycled troops, once they get to ~20% condition, are replaced by a full condition and morale brigade, while the replaced unit can withdraw and rest. The other useful tactic is to keep a large brigade in reserve, and once your front lines have engaged for some time, charge the large brigade into their lines. This often causes mass routs, and even if it doesn't it means your troops can still shoot into the melee, while their troops are all tied up in melee, resulting in them receiving massive casualties.
What I've found myself doing is attempting to unlock all the scenarios, by either attacking and taking only one or two key points, or as defenders deliberately abandoning points. It leads to some much more interesting fights, often where Confederates have to attack Union forces that are 30% larger than itself.
-
In the outcome McPherson is absent for both sides, probably because it was not completely captured when the time was over.
Wait, in the 1st scenario McOherson isn't even a VP, it's only present in the second one, where there are only 3 VP (and McPherson gets called Oak Hill in game). The screenshot he showed was from the 1st map, where currently the VP held by each side gives an exactly equal value (according to numbers on screen) and so Union should have won by 500 points due to casualties. What's the difference between "draw" and "victory" in terms of points?
-
1
-
-
Hmm, my experience seems to differ - the meeting engagement scenario does seem balanced (playing both sides about near-evenly , a total of about a dozen times so far, winning them) - although, of course, the scoring is a bit broken (the Union can't technically get a victory, but definitely holding all VLs and causing more casualties counts as a victory in my book!).
What do you mean by can't get a victory? Surely all three points have equal values, so holding any two is a win condition (as long as you don't take 3k+ more casualties than the Confederates)?
-
The usual default way to move a unit is to left click on a unit, and then left click and drag from the banner to create the path. It took me a few minutes to work it out at first.
-
You really, really need to run the games more than once if you actually want to say the AI is getting worse. There is random number generation in this game, and as such a single result is fairly uninteresting, it's overall trends we care about. You can't just say the AI is now worse because a RNG happened to play against it this one time.
-
Hi, I'm new here, but I just got back from a week in Gettysburg last week and HAD to try this game out. It's fantastic, by the way!
If we're tossing out some suggestions here, though, one thing that would be cool, and I don't know if it's been suggested anywhere else, or if it's implemented in the game or anything, would be an after-action report that summed up how individual units did in the battle. I love me some statistics. Even though I put them through hell, it'd be cool to see just how much hell the Iron Brigade gave back.
That feature is due in the patch that should be being released today (or possibly tomorrow considering it's close to the end of business for the devs, I think)
-
1
-
-
I'm currently trying to unlock all the possible scenarios. However, I'm having trouble distinguishing which ones are locked compared to which ones I've done before, just from the title and description text availalbe in the campaign. Would it be possible to get some little icon that represents either having done this level previously, or vice versa saying you've never done it before? Would make unlocking everything much much easier
Can I extend the time?
in General Discussions
Posted
The time will extend considerably if there is either a contested VP, or there are units in melee. If you aren't fighting over a VP, what you can do is order a unit to charge. They don't even have to make it to melee range, just the act of pressing the charge button delays the end of the battle. If you can chain together two or three charges, you can buy yourself a lot of time. Not perfect, but it's the best we have right now.