Subutai

I am able to redeem Pandora now also.

Same issue here. In my case I have only one account, no alts.

WW1 and up are not good choices for the game imo. The scale of modern battle is just too immense to represent properly in UG. In WW1 battles we're often talking about hundreds of thousands of men strewn across many miles of front; we're talking about artillery capable of firing accurately many miles over the horizon. Artillery would almost certainly have to be represented as an off-map "spell" or cast ability of some sort. To accurately represent controlling a battle during this time period, the game would have to "zoom out" to the point where the game would devolve into topography maps and flag icons. It would be almost purely strategy without a tactical element. The only way it would work in UG would be to focus on brigade or division level engagements only.

omg I thought this thread was about the whaler... lol... I was thinking to myself "is that a gun deck of harpoons...?" It's official, I'm a lubber

1. Discrepancy between morale of Union units and Confederate units should be not so day-and-night 2. Artillery LOS indicators- although much, much better than before, still have occasional head-scratching moments where you can't figure out why some batteries aren't firing. Is it LOS? Is the enemy behind too much cover? Are the gunners fatigued? It would be nice to get some information; for example, if you were to hypothetically target an infantry unit that is out of the battery's LOS, a "Unit cannot be targeted; out of LOS" pop-up or something would be very much appreciated.

Are we trying to find potential trinco/connie rivals? I've said this before and I'll say it again, HMS Leander and HMS Newcastle were heavy 4th-rate frigates designed specifically in response to American Super-frigates. They would be natural choices.

Yes, same here.

To be fair though I have to praise basically everything else about the game. LoS mechanics are great, makes having eyes on high ground important, as well as gun placement... I also haven't played in awhile, and noticed artillery limber up and deploy, which is awesome, and are much less buggy in general than before. I noticed artillery in general is much more lethal than before, which also feels realistic, but I'm not an ACW expert. Cover is very effective, taking a rifled musket volley in the open always makes you cringe, which feels realistic. The main annoyance is that as the Federals it feels like you are using militia units at times.

I have been playing several campaigns over the past few days and I have to say there are some pretty glaring faults I take issue with. Skirmishers are essentially a useless feature. There is nothing a 400-man skirmisher detachment can do that a 400-man half-brigade couldn't do just as well, if not better. Their base morale is so low they require constant micro just to ensure they are still doing what you last ordered them to do. Their morale wavers upon simply making contact with the enemy. This is especially problematic if they are holding high ground, as their nervousness and tendency to slowly fall back while they are constantly on the verge of routing, means that they often retreat to the reverse slope of said hill without orders, allowing enemy infantry to simply walk up and take the position. You'd think skirmishers would be lethal holding high ground with cover. This is not the case in the slightest. After the first few volleys skirmishers are really more trouble than they're worth. While not as bad as the skirmishers specifically, Union morale in general is abysmal. I agree that the average Rebel probably had higher morale than his Federal counterpart but right now the disparity is simply extreme... Just last battle I was defending Round Top against an attack by a mere three Rebel brigades. I had a 1500-man brigade, 2 sharpshooters, and a battery on Round Top defending. Keep in mind Round Top is a very tall hill with very heavy cover. The Rebels attacked frontally without cover, artillery support, and from low ground. The first few volleys and my Sharpshooters were already routing. One of my sharpshooter units hadn't even taken a casualty yet; but they gave up their positions almost immediately. One of the Rebel brigades then fixed bayonets and charged uphill to rout the remaining defending brigade, which was accomplished as soon as the rebels made it to the top of the hill. Within a minute of this "attack" and Round Top was taken. This same task would be, at best, extremely difficult for the Union side. This game is amazing. The AI is extremely competent, hands down the best of any strategy game out there. The only thing comparable is DarthMod AI =P but the experience and immersion really suffers when you know you are fighting Confederate Ubermenschen.

TL;DR Navies of sovereign nations are powerful, their warships bully other warships, this is damaging to immersion? What?

I like this idea. Ruses were definitely an aspect of the sea life during this time. Ideally it would be restricted to ships of similar size and class. A snow could disguise herself as a brig, or even a corvette, with a false mizzen. Ships of the line though probably could not disguise themselves as anything, saving perhaps, other ships of the line. There should also be a range where the ruse is discovered no matter what. An East Indiaman is actually designed to look like a warship, that's the whole point. There is actually a very famous engagement in which East Indiamen successfully bluffed a French squadron into believing they were ships of the line, compelling them to withdraw; and another in which a French frigate struck her colors to a much weaker East Indiaman that had closed on her after a chase, again, believing the Indiaman to be a ship of the line.

I like where you're going but I think the boarding bonus should be restricted to mainly merchant vessels and/or neutral vessels. Very high reputation levels should have a chance to make merchantmen surrender without a fight, but the last thing a pirate wants to see is a warship from a national navy. A warship's "boarding bonus" is its contingent of marines, professional soldiers who would likely make short work of even the most notorious pirate crews in a boarding action. If anything the pirates would be afraid in that situation, then and now.

The whole point of adding a visual indicator is so you don't have to move your mouse and mess up your aim just to check and see if you have enough room to traverse. If it really adds too much clutter for some players then the simple solution is to make it an optional addition to the UI.

It was not common. Captain Broke paid for and had the sights installed out of his own pocket. He continually refined their design over the course of his career. He took his job very seriously.

To clarify OP wasn't talking about targeting aids or rangefinding sights or anything like that, just a visual indicator to show how far the guns can traverse.

I'm for a very minimalistic UI, I think that fits the flavor of the era, but I think markers showing max elevation/depression wouldn't be a bad idea. Or even at least an artificial horizon of some sort to show your heel angle, so you have some idea if your target is within that window or not. It's easy to get tunnel vision sometimes and not realize you don't have enough elevation/depression because of your heel until it's too late. In reality, since you're obviously heeling with the ship yourself, this wouldn't be so much of a problem. But in the game in order to get a clear idea of your heel angle you have to zoom out and actually look at your ship, which isn't always something you have the liberty of doing.

Yeah I think Trinco is fine as she is. Surprise is actually a corvette, or light frigate, so she should be swift and agile. Constitution is a super-heavy frigate, she should have the advantage in a muzzle-to-muzzle fight. You just have to adjust tactics accordingly. Also correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like Trinco is actually a bit faster than Surprise on certain points of sail. I broke 15 knots earlier today before the wind, Surprise usually manages about 11 or 12 knots on the same point of sail.

Yes remember this is the 1700s/1800s, chivalry and gentlemanly conduct are not dead yet!

Yeah that I could understand. That would make a lot more sense.

I would like some clarification on this. What got me thinking about this was someone mentioned wanting to have USS United States added to the game, and an admin implied this might be a possibility. What doesn't make any sense to me is that United States is the same class as Constitution -- a 44-gun frigate -- built to the very same specifications as designed by her shipwright. Meaning all else being equal, "under the hood", they are the same ship. They would differ only superficially. How is this not redundant? Especially considering we are supposed to have the freedom to customize our ships anyway. Which brings up my next question. Come release, am I to understand everyone will be sailing one of a handful of individual, specific vessels? I had assumed that all the current models represented entire future classes of vessels in-game -- ie. Trincomalee serves as the model for Leda-class frigates, Constitution serves as the model for 44-gun frigates (US), Surprise is the model for Unite-class corvettes, etc... So is this not the case? Because flavor-wise that just doesn't jive with me. When I purchase my first 5th-rate frigate, am I buying a Leda-class frigate (perhaps more correctly, Repeat Leda class) or "an" HMS Trincomalee? Doesn't it make more sense to set things up by class of ship? When getting a new command, should you get "an" HMS Trincomalee (even if you could rename it, this still does not really make sense), or should you get a generic Leda-class frigate, a blank slate, for you to customize as you see fit?

I'm not saying we should have that -- it just seems a bit redundant to have multiple ships of the exact same class, especially considering that in the future we will have the ability to name our ships -- in light of that it seems a bit pointless doesn't it? I could understand Congress or Constellation -- they are of a separate class -- what is the point of having redundant ships?

How would this be any different from simply having Constitution and changing her name? I don't get it. They're the same class and built to the same specifications.

We already have an American 44 -- Constitution -- which is essentially the same vessel in everything but name.

Holding the weather gage determines who has the initiative... It isn't going to compensate for a gross mismatch. It's kind of more like getting to play white in a game of chess. You get that initial advantage that your opponent must respond to, sure, but once it's on, it's on, and if your opponent clearly outclasses you, getting that first move isn't going to be all that much help.

Yeah in no way would I be interested in facing off against a frigate armed with rifled guns and exploding shells...