Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


Ultimate General Focus Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

78 Excellent

About JaM

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

913 profile views
  1. Regarding Rockets - British used Rockets during Napoleonic wars...they bombarded ports with them, firing rockets from small gunboats (it was a way too big fire hazard to fire them from normal ships)
  2. my only worry about UG:AR is the new "focus" system, where you only control units you have with your commander.. Because people like to play the game, not the game to play itself without player interference
  3. Dont buy cannons through the store.. buy them through the cannon mounting interface. Because in store, you might buy guns that cannot be fitted on your ship, while in cannon interface you only see cannons you can actually mount... and FYI, dont buy 7 rates... they are worthless and only useable as fireships.. focus on 6-rates or preferably 5-rates as soon as possible... Its better to have single 5-rate than 5 7-rates when you have to face enemy 5-rate... In game, there are certain ship type "barriers" you need to overcome.. 5-rate is the first barrier.. you cant effectively defea
  4. Right now, Dragoons seems to be quite weak in melee and charge. While they are not really a shock cavalry, they still should be semi-dangerous to skirmishers.. In my recent battle (Savanah), my 75 dragoons were routed when they charged 35 skirmishers... in melee they took 2-3 losses per single killed enemy up to the point they routed and ran away.. so i would say best thing about them is that player dont have ability to recruit them, as they would be quite a waste of money..
  5. At this point, Land Artillery makes land battles practically unplayable.. its causing way too high casualties to the point, its absolute suicide sending units forwards when there are few artillery units in the vicinity... Units take 25% casualties from first few shots, smaller units are shattered in one or two hits (detaching skirmishers is pointless, you just lose men faster) I just tried to play Corsica mission, and its quite a nonsense with enemy artillery on top of hills murdering anything that gets close, while being invisible... mass charge only results in massive casualties... even
  6. Dragoons, which were actually implemented are not really heavy cavalry in that time period.. British Dragoons during American war for Independence were Light Dragoons, light cavalry force not very effective in charges, and mostly used as mobile skirmishers.. But they should be quite effective at mopping up routing enemy due to their speed, and relative ease of sabering down retreating men.. Overall, i think what is currently missing in Land Combat is overall army morale.. game depends way too much on actual kill ratios instead of morale..It needs to be possible to break enemy fight
  7. Btw, isnt 18.century way too early for Gunnades? they were introduced in 1820, yet in game, they are available way too early in British campaign, making other guns practically pointless, as they cannot compete per weight or accuracy, while their deficiencies are not that important... If anything, these should be very late tech, and quite costly...
  8. Overall, Land combat feels way too much about killing other men.. 18.century combat was not that lethal in reality.. During entire war of American Independence not that many people perished in combat, especially compared to later Napoleonic wars.. even larger battles were practically a mere skirmishes in comparation to standard battles in Europe.. Yet, in this game, amount of casualties seems to be excessive.. units tend to lose 50% strength quite commonly.. Whats particularly is missing in current land battles is the higher effect on morale, than casualties.. Delivering musket salvo sho
  9. I just finished 4.6 mission with 3 light frigates/Corvettes, armed with carronades and gunades, sinking every single british ship that came on me (even two 5rates)... below waterline hull damage is way too easy to achieve...
  10. Current game design choice around bayonets is quite unhistorical. Sword Bayonet was in no way anyhow superior to Socket, triangular bayonet, which was the most effective melee weapons of 18/19century.. Sword Bayonet was instead an attempt to provide a bayonet to units equipped with shorter weapons like for example Baker Rifle, so these light units would have some sort of melee capability. Yet in combat, these sword bayonets were nowhere near as effective as standard socket bayonets on muskets. One of problems was that they were more suitable for cutting than thrusting, while long blade was qui
  11. i find sinking ships way too easy... It kinda makes no sense to deal so much structural damage to a ship, when all guns are placed above water and usually aiming on enemy deck/hull.. Usually, large majority of shots would just hit the hull above water, and therefore not deal that huge problem for a ship to stay afloat... yet in this game, once "armor" is gone, ships go down very quickly... Personally, i think close range gunnery using solid shot should be predominantly dealing damage to armor/crew/guns, but not as much to waterline... (those guns were not supposed to be aimed like that)
  12. While number of crew is semi-important stat, i think there is something more important missing currently - and its number of guns.... It was number of guns that "defined" strength of a ship, and in combat, its quite important to know what you are actually facing... In reality, captains would refer to enemy ships in terms of how many guns they had, yet in UG:AoS, its practically impossible to tell how many guns enemy ship actually has.. there is no easy identification system implemented... I think it would be much better, if number of men was swapped for number of guns for naval battles. Instea
  13. There is a simple rule for solid shot deflection - If Projectile diameter is larger than armor thickness, then shell will not bounce despite the angle, but instead will dug into armor.. so even if slope wont trigger the fuse, shell will dig into armor and explode (once fuse makes full contact with the armor) Same thing was the case for tank combat - Soviet 122mm APHE projectiles were supposedly on paper no able to penetrate 80mm face hardened armor sloped at 50 degrees (Panther front hull), yet in reality, these projectiles managed to do so even at quite extreme ranges... 80mm plat
  14. Skirmishers did not fire at longer range than ordinary infantry... Muskets had very similar ranges.. even ordinary musket could fire the same range as any specialized skirmisher weapon or rifle... One of big problems of that era was that commanding officers did not assess the situation and range of enemy properly and wasted their ammo at distances musket fire was ineffective... Similarly, soldiers in combat tend to shoot back at enemy who is firing at them, be it other Line infantry or some skirmishers hundreds of meters away... 18.century combat was not about musket barrages at 30m killi
  15. still fighting to the last man.... never happened.. i have no problem with combat ships fighting hard, but unarmed trader? Personally, i think crew shock should give a much higher incentive to surrender than anything else for trade ships..
  • Create New...