Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'campaign'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail
    • Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Sea Legends
    • General Discussions
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
  • SealClubbingClub's Topics
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Pyrates and rovers's History - ships, events, personae
  • Clan [GWC] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU
  • Congress of Vienna's Historical
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's Discord Server
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's The Rulebook
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's Tactics (methods)
  • Ship Auctions's Topics
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's How to...
  • closed's Topics
  • Catalunya's Comença la llibertat !!
  • Port Battle History's Topics

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • United States Continental Navy's Pearl Harbor Day

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 29 results

  1. At least where I am things have been pretty gloomy lately and this forum has been quite divided as well, so why not a simple topic? What school of thought will you follow in the campaign? Decisive battle? Trade indirection? Fleet in being (if AI allows Fleet In Being to be a viable tactic) Torpedos? (Like what Japan did with the Long Lance) or guns? Large long range ships where you can. Face the enemy ships on your terms, or shorter range smaller ships with less flexibility but you can build more? Ships with many turrets so it's harder to knock out all of your guns, or ships with fewer turrets with more guns per turret for better weight dispersion? Basically what types of ships will you design and what is the thought process behind your naval strategy?
  2. So I have a question/observation. I was recently doing a custom battle British vs. Japan. Just to warm up 1940's tech was gonna build the biggest battleship I could, But then I noticed that the biggest battleship The Brits could get are the Dreadnought IV and the N3/G3 hulls which top out at 62k displacement. That got me thinking does Britain actually have the smallest size battleship displacement in the game? All Displacements are max French 93k Germany 130k Japan 125k USA 109k Spain 69k Russia 69k Italy 65k Austro 90.5k China 87k British 62k Spain and Russia share the same hull but it begs the question of balance late game. Obviously not all of these nations designed ships with high displacements but the problem is that how are the devs going to balance these hulls out? Britain tops out at 62k but Germany for example has 4 battleship hulls that hit a max of 62k and up. Some hulls will inevitably be shared across nations like how I noticed in Spain and Russia with the modern battleship 69k hull but I thought I'd post this here for the community to brainstorm ideas for the devs or maybe share historical designs for nations they can find of specifically capital ships. One Idea I had was for if this game has an espionage system (I haven't seen anything confirmed yet) is that your spies could actually steal hull types that you could then build in your own faction. This would stop specific nations having a hull advantage. But ideally I'd hope us the community could find some examples the devs could look at and see if they want to eventually include into the game!
  3. The main website mentions something along the lines of AI having different personalities, I think this would be a great way to implement a sort of rival admirals system, perhaps you could have different traits for them, like lets say Japan gets Admiral Yamamoto, it could increase the likelyhood of them constructing battleships/edit their fleet composition to have more capital ships as well as certian bonuses that increase as the tonnage of the ship increases, like for example a 70k ton ship might get 2% off construction, while a 80k ton ship would get 3% off construction and so on until a maximum of 5% off. I would want to be able to pick these sorts of bonuses for the player character, and have them randomised for the enemy. Perhaps we could add a system where if you are particularly effective with light cruisers the enemy would start to shift their thinking to use more light ships. It would also be cool if when fired from admirality you have to create a new character and have a temporary debuff to all things while the new admirality gets set up, this could make events like when in the Russo-Japanese war Admiral Makarov died due to being decapitated by a struck mine. Your admiral could gain xp and certian events could radically change his thinking like lets say with how a Uboat pulled America into WW1, your admiral could get a negative trait of "Hates submarines" and this would decrease submarine construction time, and efficiancy, or if a friendly ship strikes one of your own countries mines could get a trait like "Cautious about mines" and it could decrease the amount of mines your country will lay. But these negative traits could also be overcome, for example lets say with the "hates submarines" trait, if one of your submarines damages an enemy capital ship, or if they sink enough convoys it could be decreased to "dislikes submarines" which provides a moderate debuff to submarine efficiency and construction, and then if after that they sink an enemy capital ship, or even more convoys, the "dislikes submarines" trait could be removed entirely. Personal ideas for traits "Bragger" Makes enemy less likely to go to war as they think your fleet is more intimidating than it is, but it also adds to enemy espionage. "Big ship builder" "Small Ship Builder" all of them have similar traits to what I described earlier "Hates submarines" "Loves submarines" as well as some things in between "Raider" Creates more convoy attack missions, build Cruisers faster/cheaper (excluding BC) "Decisive Battle" Creates more major fleet actions, and builds BB, and BC faster. "Knife fighter" Increased secondary battery effectiveness, belt armor effectiveness increased mildly when you get closer "Long Range" Increases long range attack effectiveness, decrease deck armor weight slightly I think it would be really REALLY cool to see some RPG elements included, as well as a rival admiral system, please do tell if you guys have ideas for admiral traits.
  4. I think politics plays an important role in the Navy. It should be able to influence decisions you make, from signing naval treaties, to budgetary management, and to foreign relations with other major powers. If anything else, what do you guys think of this?
  5. Both the High Seas fleet and Kriegsmariner had the exact same problem. They tried to pull a Japan where if they can't build a big fleet, they would build the biggest meanest ships to float on the seas, and when they were designed they were extremely advanced, but between Germany's unwillingness to put significant funds into the Navy and the lack of resources for ship construction they were often stuck on the back foot where, their ship that would have been ultramodern had it hit the seas when it was first scheduled to, it would be practically untouchable, but every single time the delays due to lack of funds and resources ment that their fancy new ship was now a generation behind every time despite the only way for them to win on the ocean was for them to go with the philosophy that resulted in the Yamatos. There wasn't really much the Navy could do about it either, and with this context in mind it makes it sound like it will be extremely un-fun to play Germany, or even possibly Japan as Japan almost fell into this dillemma many many times, and actually did during WW2.
  6. help section 1: It will be turn based with a "special event" card/decision every turn >Currently you can only trigger war with the answers you choose in special events that appear at the start of a campaign turn. 2: As of right now AI can only declare war on you, not other AI nations. >War at the moment can only happen between you and AI ai nations 3: You can have ships end up like Graf Zepplin where if you don't want to scrap what you have, and you don't have the resources to finish it, it will stay in a sort of limbo. >suspend: this option is very useful to control your expenses if you are low on funds. Website: 1: Yes the minor nations will be there and have an effect, they simply are not playable. Similar to a Total War game >The campaign is set in a global scale over a complete map that includes all countries of the time period (minor nations are not playable) 2: Rebellions will be a thing, as well as change of government types. >Significant political events can include rebellions and the change of a government from Monarchy to Democracy. 3: Battles are randomly generated but they can be small things like convoy raids, or large pitched battles >This system generates missions by evaluating several strategic factors, affected by fleet composition, ship operational range and naval techs. In those generated missions, which vary from small convoy raids to major fleet actions 4:Submarines are not designable. >Similarly, the ASW ability of your ships is auto-calculated according to the amount of destroyers, depth charge equipment, submarine mines, torpedo nets and several other technologies currently researched 5:No land battles/landings. >As chief admiral for your nation, you will not directly control events on land. 6:Yes you can take seize ships, as well as make treaties similar to the Washington Naval Treaty. >war reparations, exchange of provinces, ceding of ships or naval treaties that limit naval 7:Yes crew deaths will be a thing. >Shell and torpedo hits can kill crew and if losses are great, the ship’s overall effectiveness can deteriorate significantly. (I want to recreate the 2nd Pacific Squadron's voyage.) 8:It appears you can end up having rival admirals, or at least get to know the personality of your enemy. >The dynamic AI behaviour is going to be enriched with AI personalities, that make the AI more defensive or aggressive depending on nation fleet. I'm too tired to look for anything else. Enjoy the thread and also >All the existing, hundreds of hull variants accompanied by the new destroyers should be more than enough to cover the needs of the upcoming first campaign version C A M P A I G N H Y P E
  7. I have come up with a series of events for the campaign, which do have some historical background involving navies, especially in the build-up towards the First World War. Since the devs have said that most campaign-based interaction will be done through events (event cards?? idk??), i think some random probability events/missions and player controlled interaction would make the campaign richer, especially from early to mid game. This would also be useful as an in-game map tutorial and can provide Major nations with weaker navies to get some strategic advantages before directly going to war with AI Majors. But if handled unsuccessfully, they should lead to premature wars. You can also write your own suggestions under this thread. The events can be based on these factors; Money $ Prestige/Renown: Player's standing in the admiralty, you get fired if it gets too low. Political Power: Your country's ability to influence diplomacy with other nations Resources: Things such as coal, oil etc required to keep your ships going Ammunition Morale: Willingness of your fleet to flee or fight Experience: Gained by successful events/missions and by surviving tactical battles Gunboat Diplomacy: Costs political power, grants new ports and resources. On the campaign map, minor nations on strategic nodes of the map can be forced to cede porting rights, ports to major powers. Success of this event could be tied to the strength of the fleet you send to their port. If successful, you can base your shorter ranged ships on a strategic node to give them more flexibility, lay mines, place submarines etc. Depending on your political power, you can send a fleet and ask the minor nation to close their ports to your rival major nation to deny them the strategic node too. And if you have the required fleet strength and political power, you can turn that minor nation into a protectorate, giving you more resources such as oil, coal etc to extend the range of your fleets based there. Banana Wars: Costs political power, fleet morale but increases funding. The business interests of your country's companies are in danger in the random "x" minor nation. Admirality wants you to send a fleet to protect the business interests, and monopolise their economy. These missions costs political power, as was done with the Army screen on UG: Civil War, but thanks to economic gains, the investors would fund more of the admiralty's costs to extend your fleet. Evacuation: Costs resources and ammunition, grants prestige/unlocks tech based on the event. For example: Civil strife, in random "x" minor nation has reached dangerous levels. Our government decided to evacuate our citizens and researchers working in the nickel mines of the "X" region. If succesful, the evacuation would boost our research of nickel-plate armor by "y" percent. Success of this event should also be relevant to fleet strength. Mutiny/Rebellion: Costs prestige and ammunition, increases experience and political power. If the political power or the fleet strength of the Player's major nation drops too low, the campaign would have a random chance to generate a rebellion/mutiny in a region that is not the core base of the player. The admirality then has to dispatch an expeditionary force of marines to quell the rebellion as a mission. If that region's port already has ships, they can join the mutiny if their morale is too low, leading to tactical battles. Success of this event should also be relevant to fleet strength. Fleet Review: Costs resources and money, increases experience and morale and prestige Peacetime manouvres and the review of the fleet is what constitutes the pride and power of your nation on the waves. Your fleets have higher morale and learnt valuable experience from this show of naval strenght.
  8. Ma dudes, ever since the words "The upcoming campaign" were written on the last destroyer update, I've been counting the days since alpha 6 release. I'm so bored with quarantine, I honestly wouldn't mind a buggy as hell half finished campaign so long as we get a campaign at all soon. I literally bought HOI4 "Man The Guns" DLC with BI mod just to cope lmao. Plz send campaign soon before I eat my own computer. PLZ
  9. 1: It will be turn based with a "special event" card/decision every turn >Currently you can only trigger war with the answers you choose in special events that appear at the start of a campaign turn. 2: As of right now AI can only declare war on you, not other AI nations. >War at the moment can only happen between you and AI ai nations 3: You can have ships end up like Graf Zepplin where if you don't want to scrap what you have, and you don't have the resources to finish it, it will stay in a sort of limbo. >suspend: this option is very useful to control your expenses if you are low on funds. From what I have heard it is possible that aircraft carriers will be added however if they are they will be used in the same way submarines are where they are a map only thing and are not involved in direct combat.
  10. Just wondering will it be possible in the future to have ship prefabs for the campaign, naval academy and custom battles. By prefabs I mean ships you can save for later use, or ships already "built in" such as a prefab of Mikasa,Gangut, or St Louis. (would also be interesting to have the St louis C-20 Hull). I think it would also be interesting to re-create the battle of Tsushima for a naval academy mission/s, as the battle of Tshushima was the last major pre-dreadnought battle before the launch of Hms Dreadnought. Playing as the Russians and trying to win would certainly be interesting, provided the Camchatka gets lost somewhere and finds actual torpedo boats.
  11. Hey all been awhile! Hope everyone safe and enjoying a little more free time to beta test the game if your lucky. Now to the point I have seen this mentioned a bit before specifically with countries but I wanna focus on admirals and "XP" or experience they would earn after battles while touching on country traits towards the end. I haven't seen anything official through the devs yet but I just thought I'd put my two cents in with this idea. This could hopefully be added after initial release. As of right now there is a flag ship buff but I would like to expand upon this. Hopefully they could implement a system similar to Ultimate: Civil war but instead of army of corps perks we can make fleet perks. I do believe having an experience system would be beneficial in more than one way. For example and experience system would provide a way for players to maybe over come a technological or numerical advantage in the game. Say for example your guy is a "Night Fighter" who's squadron gets a bonus of 5% spotting and accuracy at night you WOULD have a edge, the rest would play into how you play the battle. There already is trainable crew as stated on the website that you will have to pay for as a monthly cost. But having an admiral or country trait as I will get to later could help add a degree of variation in how you spend your money. If admiral traits were implemented I feel strongly they should obviously be tied to a specific person in a specific region. They would then have the opportunity to join the battle if there ship was within range of lets say a major conflict between two ships. The admiral would obviously be located on the flagship of the fleet and would be used in conjunction to the current flagship buff. But this is a double edged sword say you put your admiral out in the front to inspire your men but then your brand new BB takes a torp and sinks, this would result in an moral debuff and an instant loss of all commander traits. This would result in an anxiety in human players being unresolved to commit your flagship completely into the fight because of fear of it That's not to say all traits would be good maybe we have a "Bull" who gets an 10% capital ships call in range for a battle but -10% call in range of screen vessels which would result in maybe your fleet not being as balanced as you like it. Skills List (Names Subject to change) Bull 10% capital ships call in range for a battle but -10% call in range of screen vessels Night fighter 5% accuracy and spotting during night engagements Arctic Warrior 5% accuracy and spotting during combat in arctic storm environments Tropical Warrior 5% spotting and accuracy during tropical storm environments Cool features to add -Maybe and event where your commander gets dismissed for a certain amount of time due to a scandal or maybe for life if he gets a heart attack. -Debuffs for losses i.e. trauma due to failure. -Historical Admirals making an appearance or maybe yourself if you feel you missed your calling in life. -Skills must be earned through actual combat or training. I.E. training a fleet in the arctic would provide a buff in that specific region when fighting there. The skills should be hard to obtain and unique. So someone cant have the arctic skill but also a tropical skill at the same time because they would cancel each other out What I would like to avoid is -Skills that add speed or other buffs that couldn't be applied to training because no matter how well trained your crew is the ship wont go any faster without paddles. -Commanders that wont die as stated above the double edged sword part is key they can not live forever. -Commanders not being able to be dismissed, If you get a bad or unwanted trait on your commander you should be able to dismiss them but you will have to start all over with a fresh commander and take a debuff which could be thought of later I.E. a green commander debuff. Now country traits. For country traits I believe its been talked about but I just wanted to put a list of what I would like to see. I think a country trait should be a trait specific only to them that is with them throughout the game without having to do anything special to initially obtain it. This is just a list of some that might or could hopefully be implemented. Again everyone kind of sees the benefit of a country trait and i'm pretty sure they will be in......hopefully. Japan 5% nation bonus to night battles spotting and accuracy 10% to torpedo accuracy 5% research to torpedo tech Germany -5% torpedo reload 5% research speed to Armour techs 5% research to torpedo tech Great Britain -5% cost reduction of capital ships 5% build speed of capital ships Legacy of the admiralty 10% chance to pick up new admiral traits United States -5% time of building new dockyards and ports -10% time of researching radar and sonar technology -5% time of building cruisers France Quad Turrets Tech This is an incomplete list let me know down below some I could add or your thought's of my thread. Ill try to update as long as this hopefully stays hot.
  12. One of the more famous examples of interservice rivalry is the Japanese Navy vs the Army during WW2. It led to all sorts of issues with streamlining production, and politics and arose because both sides wanted government resources. So I'm curious if there will be a form of competition between the Army Navy and possibly Air Force for things like steel, production facilities, and obviously money. Perhaps you could have things like admiral traits such as being connected to the top and get a bonus amount of funding or something like that IDK.
  13. While the campaign is still quite far off I can't help but think about how refits would work. What I'm very interested in, maybe because of the recent April fools update is a situation similar to the SMS Leitha. A Monitor having several refits decades after she was first built, ending up being used during and after the first world war by several powers, even if in a more limited capacity late in her career. She also had several different turret layouts, new engines, had new guns installed in older, but still functional turret mounts, etc. My question here is what the limits of a refit should look like. Should the amount being changed have some proportional cost to it? Like up gunning a battleship a few years into service, while cost intensive, being a few month process that'll bring new life into an otherwise soon to be outclassed ship? Or should it be more simple as in replacing older quality guns for newer ones? I can assume making modifications to the hull is out of the question, but what about superstructure, funnels, etc? Where exactly should the line be drawn and how much freedom should we have on a refit? Feel free to throw ideas around, but this isn't anything to pressure the devs, more just think over what the limits a refits may end up looking like.
  14. So If i remember correctly, the main map will be using a grid system. First thing that comes to mind is Atlantic fleet's main campaign. The issue i find with this is when designing cruisers like ones meant to out run and ship they can't outgun or outgun and ship that they cant outrun. if it's a turn based grid system that could be nulled. For example lets say a hostile raiding squadron comprised of fast cruisers are raiding convoys. Would it be beneficial to build battle cruisers who are supposed to respond quickly (but because its a grid system) or would it take the same time for a battleship to move to intercept because it has to move on a per turn basis. in real life the Renown and Dunkirk were sent to hunt down the Graf Spee because thats what they were designed to do (hunt down cruisers). So my question is how would this be represented on a grid system like the one planned?
  15. Hey devs, your doing a good job with this game so far! As i‘m close to finish the british campaign as it is right now and i‘m looking forward to the next part. That leads to the following (ugrent 😉) question: When can we expect the last parts of both campaigns? Could you give an estimated date please?
  16. When player start a new campaign, game will load ships templates to the AI memory, that player have used in the academy missions (maybe not every template... yes, I'm looking at you Accipiter!), or even from the previous campaigns. If the AI has both technology and resources, it can use these templates created by the player and use them against him!
  17. Phenomenal work with the campaign thus far, I've blown through both and desperately want more. I know Build 4 JUST released, but any idea of when we can expect more chapters to be released for the campaigns?
  18. Several of us are working on Wiki type info for Age of Sails. In this thread I will talk about the Campaigns. I will keep to general structure as the game is still in development and some of the details are likely to change. Currently there are 2 Campaigns - each roughly follows the life of a Hero from that country. The first Campaign is the British Campaign and focuses on the life of Horatio Nelson. The Campaign begins with a story line from his childhood. As the story progresses you are asked several questions. Each of these questions will have an impact on your play style. We will go into detail on this in a different thread. 2 of these questions will determine if you play Naval battles Easy, Medium, or Hard difficulty. The second question with do the same for land battles. The second Campaign is the American Campaign and it roughly follows the life of John Paul Jones. it also has several questions which will have an impact on your play style and set the difficulty level of your game. All of the Campaigns are organized into Chapters. Each Campaign with consist of 5 chapters. We currently have access to the first 3 chapters of each campaign. The chapters are as follows: Chapter 1 is the Introduction battle. This is always a naval battle. At the end of this battle you will see a screen that tells you the resources at your disposal as you begin Chapter 2. Chapters 2 thru 4 will consist of 4 phases each. Each Phase will consist of 1 Naval battle, 1 Land or Amphibious battle and 1 or more POI battles. At the beginning of each Battle you will have an opportunity to assign Career Points for your Hero, purchase technology upgrades, & make change to your ships and troops. A Point of Interest (POI) battle is marked on the map with a "?". Any ships assigned to this battle will not be returned until the end of the phase. It is a good idea to not assign any ships to a POI battle until the last battle of the Phase. During the last phase of each chapter there will be a final Battle. Which is marked with a special symbol. In the British Campaign there is also an "Easter Egg" battle added in. You will only get to play this battle if you were successful at capturing the 4th rate Ardent during the Fireworks battle. The current plan is to release to Steam as soon as the first 3 chapters of both campaigns are stable. I cannot talk about the 4th or 5th chapter since they have not been released yet. I can say that the British campaign is intended to go up to and include the American War of 1812. There has also been mention of additional chapters that may give you the chance to play a battle from history, such as Trafalgar. There have also been requests for additional Campaigns. This is likely to be in a future DLC.
  19. Phillipi - Victory Used previously effective tactics; I pushed Zook and company slightly NorthWest and then took a right turn in slightly East-NE direction heading toward the buildings on the outskirts of the village. A CSA brigade engaged and then charged Zook. I had Zook withdraw to avoid melee, and was able to enfilade fire on the CSA brigade with a skirmisher unit. Reinforcements come in during this initial engagement. By now Zook as withdrawn in a westerly direction to the Northern woods; I have a skirmisher unit continue to harass the CSA brigade from the flank and rear. This time the CSA commander decides to defend the village with two brigades. I quick march two of my reinforcements to begin an attack on the village. One artillery battery is deployed to fire on the CSA brigade harassing Zook; additionally one of the reinforcing brigades is sent to assist Zook. The remaining Union brigade is sent toward the wooded section west of the North Bridge. The CSA brigade in the woods begins to waver and withdraw.. unfortunately due North, which means I will need to watch the woods. I send the artillery battery to assist with the assault on the village; that attack is being conducted by two 2 star Union brigades, 1 skirmisher unit, and the other Union artillery battery. The CSA brigade continues to waver and withdraw in the woods; I pull the unit in the woods in the best condition and send it to help attack the North Bridge. By now I have managed to force the CSA units defending the village to withdraw. As soon as both CSA units are wavering, I send one of my arty to fire on the North bridge. The CSA unit in the woods has disappeared from sight; I pull my brigade from the woods and send it to help attack the North bridge. The CSA unit is out of the battle until after I have taken the VP, it tried a rear attack on one arty unit, but I was able deploy a skirmisher unit. One round of canister changed the CSA brigade's mind on further attacks. Defense of Philippi is standard micromanage your batteries and avoid melee; I also try to minimize losses to those units which will start in army after this battle. End game view is below: After action report:
  20. The advice on these boards is outstanding; I have employed most of the game tips given here to move forward with the Union MG campaign. Phillipi - I used what seems to be the standard strategy of forcing the northern most bridge and securing the objective in Phase I; the only deviation (in that I have not found anyone writing about it) is that instead of taking Zook and the two skirmisher units through the wooded areas, I quick marched them north to the Union reinforcement entry point and then a sharp right turn toward the open area slightly north west of the village. This allowed me to engage the CSA brigades, etc. in the open. It had the added advantage in that it drew the CSA units out of the village area about the time the Phase I Union reinforcements arrive for support. The CSA never hold the small village; the rest of Phase I is to simply rout the CSA defenders at the North bridge and then rush across. Phase II - normal tactics.. just hold Phillipi
  21. I have noticed, after playing through the campaign several times, that a lot of maps for one battle are re-used in another battle. Sometimes this makes perfect sense - namely if in real life the two battles happened at the same place (example - 1st Bull Run is almost entirely contained within 2nd Bull Run, and the southern part of Cold Harbor overlaps entirely with Gaines' Mill). But for several other battles the only reason would be that the developers did not want to waste effort making new maps when their old ones are perfectly reusable. I don't mind at all - it means that you can learn strategies in one scenario and apply them to another scenario, plus the simple fact of approaching an objective from a different direction leads to new tactical challenges. That said, I think it would be helpful if we had a List, in one place, of what battles (Grand and Minor) are fought on the same terrain. My post will include every battle that I can remember, but Please Feel Free to update and add any more battles that you think of (and attach the right names to some of the minor battles). ------ In order of Grand Battles: 1st Bull Run is roughly the eastern half of 2nd Bull Run (extending a bit east of the Stone Bridge), but there are at least two occurrences beyond that. The southwestern region of 2nd Bull Run, at the town of Groveton, is re-purposed as Newport News (Confederate minor Battle in 1st Bull Run campaign) - you defend from the south as Union attacks from North, NW, and East. The western edge of the map, crossing over the creek, overlaps with the Confederate minor battle of Weapons Factory (Harper's Ferry) in the Antietam Campaign. Shiloh gets re-used once confirmed. Its southeast portion, from the river to the southeastern 2 objectives (Camps), is also the second-to-last minor battle of the entire Union Campaign, Harrison's Creek, where as the Union you attack west and north from the river into Confederate Entrenchments. I *think*, but have not confirmed, that the northeastern area around Pittsburgh Landing (final objective) is also the first of 2 minor battles in the Union Chancellorsville campaign, where you attack Longstreet and try to destroy 3 heavy batteries in a fort along the river bank. Gaines' Mill, besides overlapping Cold Harbor, also has its western portion re-used (the lake by the dam) twice. It is the Union minor battle River Crossing (Shiloh Campaign), where the Union attacks from the west, across the first stream, to take 2 hills. A smidgen farther east is the Union minor battle of Secure River (Gaines' Mill Campaign), where the Union attacks eastward into woods supported by gunboats in the lake. [Cold Harbor has a bunch of its own overlaps; see further down this list]. Malvern Hill has its map show up in at least four minor battles. The northern portion, where the stream is crossed by 2 bridges and 2 fords, becomes the Confederate minor battle of Cross Keys (Gaines' Mill Campaign), where you defend the woods west of the stream against Union attacks from the east. The far southeast part of the battlefield (East Malvern Hill Objective) is used Twice. Once is the immediate next Confederate minor battle - Port Republic: you attack into the woods from the northwest, and then defend against Union reinforcements arriving from the northeast across the stream. That same area also becomes the Union minor battle of Crampton's Gap in the Antietam campaign, where you attack from the southeast uphill into the woods to take the little house at the corner where the field begins. Finally, the West Malvern Hill objective is the stage for the Union minor battle of Bayou Forche in the Chickamauga campaign - you can flank the position to the north by the upper bridge, or by the part of your force arriving from the southeast. A set of minor battles use exactly the same maps - the very first Union minor battle (Distress Call) and a Confederate minor battle in the 2nd Bull Run campaign (Manassas Depot) use the same map - the one with 2 supply depots in the western portion of a big field surrounded by woods, that you have to hold/attack. For a second set: the Confederate minor battle of Corinth (Fredericksburg campaign) is the area around the south-central objective marker of the Union minor battle of Jonesboro/Georgia Railroad (Richmond campaign). The town of Sharpsburg (from Antietam) is apparently also the town of Winchester, as it and the woods to its west and northwest is the focal point of 2 minor battles (1st Winchester, Confederate minor battle in Gaines' Mill campaign, and 2nd Winchester, Union minor battle in Gettysburg campaign). Additionally, the far northwest corner of the map overlaps with the Union minor battle of (Siege of) Suffolk from the Chancellorsville Campaign. Additionally additionally, the southeastern portion of the map, just east of Burnside's Bridge, is the Union minor battle of Kettle Run in the 2nd Bull Run campaign. I have not yet *confirmed* any Re-uses for Fredericksburg, but based on the pre-battle map screen, I think that the Union minor battle of [Logan's] Crossroads from the Shiloh Campaign is located east of Fredericksburg proper, on the unused side of the river and with barely any overlap. Stone's River shows up again a few times. The area around the final objective markers was seen once before by the Confederates as Stay Alert, a minor battle in the Shiloh Campaign, where you defend the area against Union attacks from the western half of the compass. The area around the middle objective markers (phase 2) becomes Hardin Pike, one of the last Confederate minor battles in the Washington campaign, except the Union now has Fortifications up the Wazoo. The southwestern portion of the map (the open area west of the initial objective markers) is used in another Confederate minor battle - Prairie Grove - in the Fredericksburg campaign, where you defend against Union attacks coming from the north. The heavy woods at Chancellorsville lend themselves well to a few minor battles. A rectangle formed from the Chancellor House (main objective) and going southeast becomes the Union minor battle of Iuka (Fredericksburg Campaign) where you attack from the south and enjoy overrunning outnumbered ill-equipped Rebels. Starting from the same corner and make the rectangle a lot larger, and you get Brock Road, a Union minor battle in the Cold Harbor campaign. The far south-western region of the map (not usually in play unless something *wild* happens on May 2nd) meanwhile is the Confederate minor battle of Saunder's Field that also happens in the Wilderness (Cold Harbor campaign). [While both of these battles *could* be made to overlap as they did in real life, here the game developers messed up. The Union minor battle should be where the Confederate one is, and the Confederate one should be about half-way up the left side of the map rather than at the corner.] Meanwhile, the northwest quadrant (over which the Confederates attack on Day 2) overlaps with the southern half of the Confederate minor battle of [Siege of] Jackson from the Chickamauga campaign, with the main east-west road from Chancellorsville being the southern border of the latter's map. Gettysburg's iconic map still manages to show up in a few other places. The western part of Day 3's map, from the very fringe of Cemetery Hill and Ridge down to in line with the Peach Orchard, and heading west, overlaps as the "eastern" [really northern, the map is rotated] half of the Confederates' minor battle of Laurel Hill from the Cold Harbor campaign. Meanwhile Culp's Hill is the same objective as the West Redoubt objective from Hall's Ferry Road (Vicksburg), a Confederate minor battle in the Washington campaign. Going south from there, sticking just east of the main objective markers (in what was IRL the Union behind-the-lines area), you then reach the 1st Franklin battlefield (Confederate minor battle from Chancellorsville Campaign). Chickamauga shows up in at least 2 other places. First, the area from the middle 2 objective markers and heading west into the wooded ridge, is the Union minor battle of South Mountain from the Antietam Campaign, where you attack from the east across the small stream to seize the heights. Second, the bridge crossing almost forgotten on Day 1 (since it uses Wilder's brigade, which is not your own), happened as another Confederate minor battle, Blackwater Heights, from the Chancellorsville campaign. Cold Harbor is a huge map that shares terrain with a record *7* (at least) other engagements (not counting Gaines' Mill and its sub-maps, overlapping from real life as previously mentioned). The far northeastern portion of the map (comes into play on Day 2 as the Confederate Left Flank objective) is right on top of Salem Church, the "minor battle" (in quotes because it is a mandatory one) that is a part of the Grand Battle of Chancellorsville. Proceeding southwest from there, the open area northwest of the next objective marker (Bethesda Church) is the map for the Confederate minor battle of Ambush Convoy from the Shiloh Campaign. From there, going due south and stretching to the eastern edge of the map gives us a bunch more minor battles where the stream comes in from the east. North to South, starting north/east of the stream first up is Rendezvous, Union minor battle from the Gaines' Mill campaign, where Confederates come at you from all compass points but it is fairly easy to fight them off. Then a bit southwest of there centering more on the stream itself is Thoroughfare Gap, Union minor battle from 2nd Bull Run, where you hold a wooded area northeast of the stream and the Confederates attack from the Southwest. Extending this map a bit south gives you the a Confederate minor battle Cedar Mountain (also from the 2nd Bull Run campaign), with exactly the same position [but not actually the same position in real life] so now you (Confederate) are the attacker. Then this map in turn overlaps as the northern part of a later Confederate minor battle (Chantilly, from the Antietam campaign), where you defend 2 wooded areas against Union assault from the south. Taking us to the south-central area of the Cold Harbor map, at the Old Cold Harbor objective (basically the 1st Day 1 Map), gives almost the exact boundaries of Seven Pines, a Union minor battle from the Gaines' Mill campaign. Fort Stevens' (the Union mandatory minor battle immediately after Cold Harbor) map is, of course, contained in the map for the Confederate Grand Battle of Washington. But so is the infamous Rio Hill, Confederate minor battle in the Chancellorsville campaign, in about the same place (northwest area of the big map), just sans fortifications. Meanwhile, the battle of Mansfield (Confederate minor battle in the Cold Harbor campaign) overlaps with the south-central region of the 1st map of the 1st day of the Union Grand Battle of Richmond.
  22. Really quick preface: I love this game. The way battles are displayed and handled is pretty much exactly what I've been dreaming about in games like this. Whoever came up with the detach skirmisher option for infantry brigades - thank you! I've long disliked the portrayal and frankly overemphasis of skirmisher units in games like Empire or Napoleon Total War. Here they play rather realistically, delaying and probing and such. Dedicated skirmisher units can be customized and utilized in a way that feels realistic and satisfying (and also cannot be spammed to take over battles). Finally this game really polished up the look and especially the controls of UG: Gettysburg, that latter part which I found to be the biggest area that needed improvement in that game. Oh and also not having to mess with cannon settings is much appreciated! That all being said, I've played a couple Confederate campaigns in the last couple weeks and have found a few things that I feel are worth bringing up here (hopefully to the developers!). Now I really appreciate a challenging campaign. I really, really do. Whether it be sports or war games, being able to plot and influence the grand strategy and tactical operations is my thing, and it's even better when I know there' s a legitimate chance to lose. That being said, I appreciate just as much a campaign that feels, how do I say this, fair? Now don't get me wrong, I fully understand what I am getting into playing on MG difficulty, I am not here to say there game is too hard because I don't want to swallow my pride. If my complaint was merely the opposing force size, I would play an appropriate difficulty level. My main issue is the lack of a truly dynamic and strategic campaign. I've read up everything here and on other forums about the scaling and what not and I get it, I get the reasoning and function. I also have noticed the little modifiers that appear from success in previous battles. That's very cool and appreciated. However, I think the enemy army size and composition is simply are out of control in some places, especially in minor battles. For one, you're limited in the number of brigades you can take, which fine, it's historical and simulates units holding another area or guarding supply lines or whatever. However I feel that the odds in these minor battles are often times so great that they're not even worth fighting. You may well have enough money and manpower to make up for losses or even build your army, even after a loss, but the needing to replace weapons and the hit to your reputation, even in minor draw battles is brutal. Now the limited supplies thing makes sense and is a good thing (especially as CSA), but the way scaling works as I understand it, means that the AI never feels pain of these battles. I've heard that if you have even one unit equipped with higher level weapons, then the enemy will have that too, in fact even in much greater (or universal?) quantities. I don't mind a challenge at all, but it seems to me that the whole bit about managing your army's logistics is rendered totally useless. It is impossible to get a leg up on the other army regardless of side (unless I've been misinformed). In fact, improving your army at all triggers the AI to do so twofold is what I've heard from other players, can't confirm myself. So really, minor battles all too often serve to only cripple your army (not all of course, which that variety in challenge and scale is also good and historical!). Even if you win, if there aren't enough weapons available to buy, your army will ultimately be downgraded because your losses are too high for you to replace with available weapons and the AI will feel next to nothing (and in fact gain an advantage over you). Now again, I understand the reasoning so that the player can't just steamroll the AI with good or even average management, but I feel like at the very least the AI's weapon scaling should be toned down or adjusted in some logical, fair way. Some sort of adjustment should be made imo so that army management means what it should - an actual component of strategy rather than a glorified upgrade script trigger. Another possible fix would be to tweak the reputation system. In these minor battles especially, while it may prove damaging to take an objective and you may lose up to half your army (and the AI is certainly more than happy to throw it's whole army into the grinder for those objectives, which is a bit of a problem in itself at times, especially since those losses don't hurt it, but do hurt the player) in a minor engagement that you're outnumbered in, it may be even more dangerous to settle for a draw or make a tactical withdrawal. The loss of those reputation points is so severe in those cases, that you may be better inclined to lose half your army trying to take a bloody objective point in a minor battle, rather than lose the reputation (and possibly the game!) and the benefits that go with it. Now I certainly don't want to advocate doing away with this system, because I think it does rather brilliantly (conceptually) reflect a proper historical element. I just feel that somehow in these battles there should be a way to assess a situation before you're committed to an all or nothing type battle in scenarios that really are not supposed to be that. These battles being about 3 hours on average, perhaps there could be a skirmish/disengage window? Like if you elect to withdraw in the first hour, the reputation penalties go down or are nullified? This would really give a smart tactical withdrawal meaning (and would be historical I feel), since it would allow you to make a reconnaissance in force to some extent, without being forced into a major, possibly suicidal, battle all for an objective point. This could also be implemented with regards to number of men engaged or number of casualties (or percent). That is to say, if x percent of your army is engaged or x percent has suffered casualties, then this scenario becomes a proper engagement and the reputation penalties are in full play. I'm sure there are other fixes here and perhaps I have mis- or overstated features of the game in this brief analysis here (if which, I do apologize, I just want to help build a slightly better game that I can sink 1000 hours into!). The campaign is oozing with potential and is already really fun! I just feel the way the enemy's army is constructed and the nature of other systems in the campaign accumulate to give it less variety in strategy and less satisfaction (dare I say frustration?) in the way you and the AI's army interact.
  23. Hi all, Finally had a chance to play through Chancellorsville in my union campaign. I like to play the historical battles first before I get there in the campaign to get a feel for the battle and experience it in an "unaltered" way. I play on brigadier general difficulty. Historically, I was able to vastly outperform Hooker (which of course is not terribly hard) by pushing hard (but retreating when I became outnumbered) in the first phase. In the second phase, I immediately had Howard's XI Corps run back to the rest of the army around Chancellor House - they might be exhausted getting there, but at least will be in one piece. I probed to the SW to the two objective points. In the third phase, with my army concentrated, I sat back and blew Jackson's attack to pieces and continued to send probing attacks to the SW. Since I was inflicting far more casualties than I was sustaining, I let each phase go until it forced me to finish: i.e. I did not click "finish" when the timer ran out and it said I could. As a result, by the time the final phase of the battle came where you could re-attempt the attack on the Orange Plank Roads, I still had nearly 50,000 troops and the Confederates were down to 9000. As you might imagine, the final phase was a bit anticlimactic. Final casualty rates were something like 11,000 for me and 40,000+ for the Confederates. Now, when I played the campaign battle it did not go as smoothly. For one, the numbers were a lot closer, and the scaling of the enemy brigade sizes with every one being a 3 star veteran definitely played a role. I ultimately had the same end result, but with casualty rates a lot closer: 22,000 for me, 33,000 for them. A victory is a victory, I guess... So then I get to the Battle of Salem's Church, in which I'm given command of Sedgewick's historical VI Corps and in order to achieve victory I must take Salem's Church and inflict 5% more casualties. Ok...except ultimately you end up outnumbered and trying to force the enemy from some pretty good ground. The best I have been able to get in this battle is a draw (inflict 10%casualties) by positioning the corps in the trees behind the little creek and waiting for Ewell's troops to come from the south. I get my kills this way, but as soon as I try to push towards the Church it starts to turn against me again. I can take the Church, but not without losing more men than the Confederates. Anyone have any tips?
  24. Would like to have these men and units in the game for recruitment or rewards for completing a battle. CSA: officers: James Kemper William T. "Bloody Bill" Anderson John Singleton Mosby "The Gray Ghost" Joseph Johnston Edmund Kirby Smith Edward Porter Alexander Barnard Bee Patrick Cleburne Benjamin Terry Wade Hampton William Quantrill Units: The Alabama Brigade Louisiana Tigers Orphan Brigade Shelby's Iron Brigade‎ Stonewall Brigade Texas Brigade Laurel Brigade Terry's Texas Rangers Hampton's Legion Quantrill's Raiders ____________________________________________________________ Union: Officers: Robert Anderson Nathaniel Banks George Custer Abner Doubleday Arthur Macarthur Daniel Sickles Benjamin Butler George Thomas John Pope Oliver Howard William Starke Rosecrans Adelbert Ames Daniel Butterfield Units: Irish Brigade Lightning Brigade Vermont Brigade‎ Philadelphia Brigade‎ Michigan Brigade‎ Excelsior Brigade‎ Gibraltar Brigade‎ The Lightning Mule Brigade U.S. Horse Artillery Brigade Spinola brigade Mississippi Marine Brigade ____________________________________________________________ Wants: Would like to see a Civil War Newsletter for every battle pop up for realism Need to show the Division Commander as a Corps General unit so that i can keep him alive or know what brigade he's with. Division Commander's should have combat bonuses as well. Brigade cap at 2600. Custom battles within the campaign as a what if scenario. Defensive custom battles for CSA and Offensive for Union. Would like to see naval battles. Detach brigades into five regiments if in a tight spot or able to deploy skirmishers (x3). Able to dispatch all five Corps if available. Unit detail. Able to nickname Divisions. Artillery and Sharpshooters need more damage.
  25. I like to know all the Battles and maybe their "value" without bonusses. Example: Date, type(Major/Minor),Carrer Points,Victory- Money/Recruits/Fame, Draw - Money/Recruits/Fame, Loss - Money/Recruits/Fame (Bonus from winning other battles) Its nice to know what is next and plan your career and troop composition. I am now at fredricksburg with 85k Men because i dont have weapons for more (10 politics and 10 medicine)
×
×
  • Create New...