Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Xenutheeviloverlord

Members2
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Xenutheeviloverlord's Achievements

Landsmen

Landsmen (1/13)

7

Reputation

  1. I'm just confused as to how I could possibly know that Snow is carrying contraband from miles away. Maybe having a mechanic where you can board a trader and see if they're carrying contraband?
  2. It's simple as that. Especially dealing with heavy damages that may require dry docking, you can't repair certain damages simply by using a repair kit. To deal with more realism in your game, which will require better decision making than, hit repair to repair to 100%, repair kits should be limited to keeping your ship alive long enough to reach a settlement and repair with all the shipbuilding tools they would have there.
  3. I don't want to offend the developers, their AI is far superior than most AAA titles (cough Rome 2 total war, cough) But we are not in an age where an AI can handle a complex game based on complex rules. Chess? sure... it's a complex game based on very simple rules. But this? Game-labs could build the best AI the world has ever seen and it still would probably still have trouble passing the no-click test (much less an actual game with a click-happy human being.) And they should have a full single-player campaign against an AI. But please consider finding a way to play against a human opponent in a multiplayer campaign. (essentially a sp campaign, but with a human opponent.)
  4. I was thinking if it was possible to have a little more "automated control" over your army... the ability to alter your brigade's behavior when you are not watching over them. Some battles can have up to 40,000-50,000 men. Which can involve up to 20 brigades on each sides plus their artillery. That's quite a bit of micromanagement. Especially on the larger maps. The current system is great for "small" battles of about 10,000-20,000 men, but when it gets bigger, you're kind of running all over the place. Things that the computer may be able to do automatically than wait for us to give the word... Reoccupying a previous position they were driven from after they broke and ran. Chasing after breaking enemies, or otherwise maintaining contact. I can't make a comprehensive list because some will be seriously controversial. But being able to give our brigades more defined instructions may seriously cut down on the "babysitting". One thing that really bugs me is when I input movement arrows and an enemy enters their path without me knowing. They do fire at the enemy, but then continue to march forward, reloading slower and ultimately getting outgunned by the faster reloading enemy (who have stopped and are standing still.) I wish there was a way of telling them what to do when stuff like that happens. They should stop and focus on winning the fire fight (important for Union soldiers) as opposed to continuing forward in a sort of lazy march/charge... a ma-rge... Or when the enemy breaks when I'm focused somewhere else, I want my brigades to maintain contact or even charge the fleeing enemy. Just "simple" stuff like that. I'd go into more details but it's kinda approaching that TL;DR threshold.. to
  5. How about another tool- Where you select a unit, right click on a plot of land on the map and a drop down box appears with selections such as: form up behind wall. form right of XXX brigade. form left of XXX brigade. find cover
  6. I'd have to agree with OP, using map limitations/borders to gain a positional or mobility advantage is not particularly kosher in my eyes... If the map wasn't limited, I too would send a few brigades around their flank to pincer them, effectively putting fire on both sides of the attack column, but since he is using the border to protect his flank, (since I can't send units off the map) it seems unreasonable to say that this is not a cheap move. That being said, I don't know what a proper solution would be, despite how important keeping serious "gamey" elements out of this gem should be.
  7. I think the movement path tool (where you select one unit and draw the movement route they would take, forming an arrow along their path) is excellent and very versatile. Which is why I wonder why the same isn't possible when drawing battle lines. You just drag the mouse cursor over the battlefield while having multiple units selected and they simply form up on the line you've drawn... because it's so clumsy to try and form battle lines manually, without UI or programmed assistance, it becomes a bit frustrating. Perhaps a sort of tool... You lasso or select a group of units, and then draw the line like you would draw the path for single units currently. So draw an S shaped line with your mouse and the units will form an s shaped firing line, you draw a C or a shallow crescent and the line infantry will fall into a C or shallow crescent firing line. Draw an O with your mouse and watch as your line infantry draws the noose around your surrounded foes!
  8. Perhaps a sort of formation tool... You lasso or select a group of units, and then draw the line like you would draw the path for single units currently. So draw an S shaped line with your mouse and the units will form an s shaped firing line, you draw a C or a shallow crescent and the line infantry will fall into a C or shallow crescent firing line. Draw an O with your mouse and watch as your line infantry draws the noose around your surrounded foes!
  9. I keep having a problem where I can't form battle lines properly, making them overlap and sometimes forcing them to have to rearrange while under enemy fire. It also doesn't help that different battalions are different sizes, making them line up shoulder to shoulder difficult. Is there any suggestions as to tackle this problem? I would suggest that grouping together units would make the unit act as one unit, so that they (battalions) would form proper battle lines without overlapping or cluster together.
  10. I've found that managing arty ammo use has been grating on me. It's very... remanicent of babysitting gameplay. This especially happens when I'm switching between explosive shells and canisters. Trying to bombard troops with shells while making sure their targets aren't about to charge, where I would then have to manually switch to canister. So I think that artillery should have a sort of check boxes format when regarding which munitions to hurl at the enemy. Solid Shells Canister So that if you want all three munitions to be used freely, you check all three. If you want just canister, checkmark the canister only. And if you want shells and canisters fired only, you would select those two and leave the solid shot unchecked. This way, you don't have to babysit the cannons perilously close to the front. This way, by allowing cannons to fire both canister and shells. They won't waste their energy shooting far targets with less effective solid, but be prepared to switch to canister if the enemy charge or get within range of canister. How about it?
  11. Perhaps accidents be simulated on dangerous terrain? Like losing an artillery piece as it tried to cross rocky terrain or gets swamped in a stream?
  12. You got most of the question right. My only question is whether the tablet and PC versions will differ due to their hardware differences or due to having to be a direct port, the PC version of UGG will also have to 'downgrade' so that the tablet can also run it.
  13. I don't agree with that idea. Encirclements happen in combat quite a bit. I mean, why, from a real life point of view, is Herr ridge suddenly unconquerable when the confederates capture either victory point? Does that mean that if I capture Herr ridge, the confederates can't capture Oak and Seminary Ridge as well? Can videttes actually capture VPs? That's never happened to me, and I have had videttes on Herr Ridge during one game. They didn't capture it. Out-maneuvering and outflanking shouldn't be artificially suppressed. Keeping situational awareness, scouting and a reserve if possible available solves these tactical issues. But they should consider fixing the skirmisher vidette issue. Supposedly those units are not represented accurately from a historical standpoint.
×
×
  • Create New...