Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

RoverGrover

Ensign
  • Posts

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RoverGrover

  1. This would be a great addition to the smaller artillery pieces
  2. Hadn't played in a few patches because I've been too busy. But man, this latest patch is fantastic. AI seems great, and I really like the new system of having the AI have a pool of men that you can whittle down. Everything just feels more polished honestly. Maybe a bit more variety for the reports messages as we go on, but I'm loving their addition as well. The game deserves every copy it sells.
  3. Fair enough. At least it was just bad timing then. Glad to hear it, and I appreciate the feedback everyone
  4. Are you sure about that? I can try to go back and test it, but it sure felt like they were matching my comp. It wasn't like "oh these guys brought some cavalry" it was "so these guys have almost as much cavalry as infantry" and it just happened to be on the same exact battle that I brought tons of cav too. I mean, I'll definitely take your word for it since I honestly don't know and observational bias and whatnot. If you're right I'd definitely be happy for sure as that is very much preferable to me.
  5. Good evening all, Been pretty busy so I've not commented on anything for awhile (nor actually had a chance to play the latest patches, unfortunately) but I did want to bring up an issue I had the last time I played the game for any significant period of time. I haven't done a ton of research into scaling, and only have my play experience as a backing so feel free to correct me if I misunderstand how the system works (or if it has changed recently, or if this has been brought up before). As I understand it, the game scales the enemy size depending on the size of your own army. I'm more or less in favor of this as the game would obviously be too easy otherwise for the majority of players. (A slider would be nice to let me chose scaling percentage independent of other difficulty factors though). However, I also understand it that the system scales their army to meet yours proportionally. I first noticed it at Stones River when I had come into a significant amount of cavalry equipment so I fielded a large amount of cav... and the Union fielded hordes that would have made Genghis proud. I don't like this. One of the things I personally enjoy in strategy games is in my build. If the enemy is simply going to match my build every time then it takes a lot of the fun out of it on multiple fronts. For one, it's boring as neither side will ever have an advantage in any way (aside from the AI always outnumbering me) and for another it almost certainly ensures that I'll not try any kind of deviation from a "standard" army build as the AI can micro things like cavalry and skirmishers better than me in large numbers. Plus, why would I take a lot of skirms when the AI will just double up on them which is way more dangerous than taking a lot more standard infantry and just being outnumbered in base troops. Now, I don't say all that just to complain. I'd like to suggest that we give the AI values for unit types and have it randomly fill out an army composition based on that value rather than directly copying your build. Obviously it would need parameters because you don't want the AI accidentally fielding 20 units of arty and 2 of infantry, but I think it could be done.
  6. "It is a classical maxim that it is sweet and becoming to die for one's country; but whoever has seen the horrors of a battlefield feels that it is far sweeter to live for it." John S Mosby
  7. I agree this battle was ridiculously frustrating. First one I skipped totally. It wasn't that I couldn't win it. It's that I didn't want to... extremely annoying to fight an enemy you cannot see or shoot. Especially considering they were shooting my own skirms to pieces in the same field. How could they see me then? If I wanted mini-challenge maps instead of normal strategy I'd go play starcraft.
  8. Oh, he'll Hunt alright. From the Hill, over to the Pickett, down by the Banks...
  9. Agree. Micro is already harsh. The last thing we need is more individual units. In management screen is fine, on the battlefield please no. My computer would crush the game no matter how many units are displayed... my slow reaction time not so much.
  10. Y'all need to cool it or we're going to have to call in the Pope to arbitrate... and frankly I don't think you'll be getting off Scott free.
  11. Gentlemen, please remember that the road of puns is a Longstreet to travel.
  12. I would like to add that in my opinion it also depends on the purpose of using the defenses. I find that they work great as a delaying tool. While they might not always trade positively, they trade slowly, which can be very handy depending on circumstances. Additionally, you can often use a single fortification to hold up much greater numbers, albeit until they charge you. So if you're trying to roll their flank or something, you can then use a single unit in the fortifications to hold up their advance while you prepare to pounce. So again, situational. Which I suppose is the theme of this thread
  13. You asked for a historical example and I felt I provided one. If you look back, I actually agreed with your original post... commented on it twice, in fact. I was also nothing if not respectful. I have not treated anybody "like an idiot" on this board. It was you in fact who called my question stupid. Discussions work both ways. If you only want people to agree with everything you say rather than having their own viewpoint then I'm not really sure what to tell you.
  14. I've no desire to argue rather than discuss. I will respectfully agree to disagree and decline to contribute further to the discussion in light of personal attack.
  15. In that case, I would counter that I don't understand why you assume a horse at full gallop would have no advantage catching a horse stopped, facing the wrong direction. Can you give an example of a horse at rest outrunning a horse already at a gallop? Also, if you're looking for that level of detail then you will indeed be hard pressed to find such an account. But you'd be just as hard pressed to find accounts of dragoons preferring to fight on horseback rather than just dismounting.
  16. Would like to echo this, though I was luckier and my 24lbers appeared with the correct timing/placement to instantly start routing the nearby enemy forces at will.
  17. "A few guerrillas equipped themselves with carbines captured from the Union, but "they were unhandy things to carry" and unsuited for fighting on horseback, indeed in the thick of a February 1865 fight the carbines' long barrels made them too unwieldy to fire, and they were used instead as clubs." Wiki, citation: 43rd battalion Virginia cavalry "on the effectiveness of carbines" One would presume that if they were used as clubs that the enemy had managed to close the distance. I would also note that Mosby's men had great disdain for sabers and preferred dual pistols... a setup that had great results for them. But that is entirely another discussion.
  18. I agree with the concept, but if that is implemented then the ai needs to retreat after a set percent of casualties... while it isn't fair that the computer gets tons of troops despite taking crippling losses it also isn't fair that those losses are almost always the result of suicidal actions when already defeated. If you are forced to actually attempt to encircle and trap enough of the enemy to defeat them before they can retreat then you should be rewarded. If you are merely racking casualties against an ai that cannot cope properly once already in disarray... then I say let the ai cheat reinforcement amounts to make up for it.
  19. I also have done similarly with them. Seems like a single volley, or two maybe can completely cause all the casualties I take with them. Which is fine, I just wish they'd wheel quicker. Makes it frustrating to use them. That being said, even in larger battles I find they can really get some kills in there. Even if they aren't constantly attacking, you can really decimate them if you get the timing right. At Fredericksburg I was really able to use them to good effect. Not just the kills, but forcing units to fall back at very advantageous times. Helped a lot. Note that all 4 cav brigades shown are ranged. Not near the top of my list, but they were mid-high on it.
  20. And if the confederates take some early losses?
  21. I had always chalked up some of that to range but I'm not sure. On the other hand, I have noticed that if your unit shoulders to fire,they will still loose a volley even if the enemy unit has run out of range since then, provided that the enemy unit was inside the arc at the start of the shoulder/fire animation.
  22. Yeah, I tend to agree. I extol their virtues, but their micro is a giant pain. I have noticed that if you can manage to keep them skirmishing and let them retreat on their own they tend to wheel back much faster than manually move commanding them backwards for some reason. The obvious problem being that that isn't always feasible and additionally they sometimes don't fall back when left skirmishing or take too long figuring out they want to retreat. As it is, I'm extremely careful about when I attack with them. I've had a lot of battles where I've gotten a ton of kills with them... but I've had a few where I messed up the micro and they took forever wheeling back and got mauled for essentially no damage. Just shortening their turn animation would help a ton. Even if it were just kept the same but sped up.
  23. I would feel justified paying for a western campaign, and hope that they consider this.
  24. Does everybody really hate the forward fortifications? I found them really easy to hold and took very small amounts of casualties. My artillery wrecked them horribly and they never managed a unified attack at all. I think all my batteries had like 6k kills and my ts whitworths were same. I might have to try the woods next time just to change it up and see if I can improve performance.
  25. Dislike the very open map idea, but I do like this idea. Alternate battles and branching paths based on winning vs losing/drawing would be very fun while still keeping it more "on track".
×
×
  • Create New...