Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered

[TheRomanRuler]

So I haven't checked this thread I checked in a while...

How in the hell did this become about Hitler!? 0_o

You should check internet more often, it is 50% Hitler and 50% Porn. 

[TheRomanRuler]

Militarily his orders to hold to the last man cost him hundreds of thousands of men and vast material resources during the war. His own generals opposed him and eventually tried to assassinate him.

 

Since this seems to lead nowhere, i just take 5 seconds to answer: In 1945, Germany reached it`s peak in size of her army, many allied divisions were at 50% strengh, and even Soviet Union could not mobilise any more men, just look at what happened after the war as result, starvation. Had Germans done what Hitler told them, AKA hold to the last man, they would have lasted longer than allies. This is horribly more complicated than just "holding", but that is a fact. Marshal Petain also opposed his politicians and made peace, Marshal Zhukov opposed his leaders and so did 900 other good leaders. Generals in WW2 were too conservative, they basically fought WW1.5. Opposing them is what good generals/leaders did. 

And Hitler did not personally lead divisions becouse he lacked experience in that, strategic warfare is completly different than tactical, just look at Lundendorff, tactical genius, but knew nothing about strategy which made Germany`s last offensive in WW1 fail, it could have achieved victory. 

When you say you are not stupid, you mean that you know what popular opinion is, not that you have done any research yourself, checked sources and stories. Here is 1 good thing for you to check: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/six-million-myth-7.jpg

New York Times 1921, saying 6 million jews are facing extermination in Russia. Do some more research and you find out "6 million jews" is common thing outside WW2 holocaust. 

And here is well documented door for Auswhitz gas chambers: http://www.historiography-project.com/images/doorb.gif

According to Jewish eye-witnesses, it was strong enough to hold against 2 000 Jews trying to break trough it. That can`t hold either gas or humans, modern football rioteers who are not in threat of being killed have broken solid concrete wall. 

 

Also one last thing, without revisionists, ancient people would still be naked and Napoleon evil devil, like he once was seen by historians, exactly like Hitler. I understand most people are not capable of thinking that far outside the box, but it is foolish to claim "this happened" if you have never done research, and have merely "heard it", perhaps from school, where some books still have same information as they did 100 years ago, even tough that information became obsolete 90 years ago. Well known fact by any proper teachers. 

[Fencible]

I've found the game to be well balanced in that I have been equally successful fighting on either side. So far I've fought the 'balanced' AI. Plenty more types to experiment with.

 

For Lannes - I think you do an injustice to the Prussians when you credit their victory in 1870 to their Krupp guns, only. They out-generalled the stodgy French commanders with fresh thinking and by taking advantage of the new-fangled railway train to move their troops about quickly. And while Napoleon was undoubtedly the most spectacular European general since Julius Caesar, both John Churchill (Marlborough), and Wellington went undefeated through their careers, which were admittedly less extensive than old Boney's.

[Lannes]

I've found the game to be well balanced in that I have been equally successful fighting on either side. So far I've fought the 'balanced' AI. Plenty more types to experiment with.

 

For Lannes - I think you do an injustice to the Prussians when you credit their victory in 1870 to their Krupp guns, only. They out-generalled the stodgy French commanders with fresh thinking and by taking advantage of the new-fangled railway train to move their troops about quickly. And while Napoleon was undoubtedly the most spectacular European general since Julius Caesar, both John Churchill (Marlborough), and Wellington went undefeated through their careers, which were admittedly less extensive than old Boney's.

Of course your are correct, the Prusso-German victory was due to more than just Krupp guns. I was being brief. Napoleon was spectacular, I agree. Marlborough and Wellington were not in his class, as was not Julius Caesar. (Napoleon's class includes Alexander the Great and Fredrick the Great.) I have studied Napoleon for a very long time indeed, both as a Napoleonic miniature wargamer and as a Modern History graduate. (I have other degrees, as well.) If I recall correctly, Wellington was in fact defeated at least once in the Peninsular War, but the defeat was not written as such, and once in Holland, before the war in Spain. He would have been defeated at Waterloo quite soundly had Blucher not arrived with a portion of his army amounting to 40,000 men and tying down Lobau's Corps and the Imperial Guard Corps, and threatening Napoleon's rear. In fact, Gneisenau, Blucher's Chief of Staff, was all for waiting to see how the battle was going before intervening. Blucher, however, had given his word to Wellington that he would come to his aid, and his word was sacrosanct. Being undefeated in battle is not necessarily the sign of a great commander. A lot of other elements are involved including luck. Whenever Napoleon considered a Colonel for General rank he would ask: 'Is he lucky?'

[GeorgeTheGreat]

I don't think the game should give the Federals and Confederates different stats. The thing that should matter is human intelligence in regards to tactics not stats. 

Riekopo I like a little salt and pepper in my potatoes the more flavors there are the more fresh and unique the gameplay. I don't want to just ram my units at each other I want unique and different challenges. I wish you could enjoy the diversity and uniqueness of it and encourage more variation not less

[MikeK]

Although the French army had the highest reputation coming off their victory over Austria, the finest armies in 1863 were to be found in North America. The British had excellent long-service units for relatively small colonial wars but struggled with a war of significant size and did not show well in the Crimean War at the level of military strategy, logistics or operational art and specialized in muddling through and improvisation on the cheap rather than planning. It was the navy that was important to Britain.

 

The US and CS armies in the east were both highly experienced, well-trained and effective - Prussia had yet to test its military system and blood its troops against a real power (Austria, then France). The US railroad system was the backbone of a highly effective logistic and strategic redeployment capability the south could emulate in only a limited degree. The American armies had been disbanded before 1870, of course.

 

I think the stereotypical approach to army characteristics is a good one for the game although, as with almost all stereotypes, there are many exceptions. 

[Husserl]

Good point MikeK!

[Edgy]

They had R.E. Lee, Europeans had Helmuth von Moltke. Moltke was one of greatest generals of all times, Lee was "only" great. And later Europe had Ludendorff, Erwin Rommel, Hitler (bad leader of nation, but he was good military leader), Erich von Manstein, Konstantin Rokosovsky and.  Georgy Zhukov (+ hundreds of others, i only listed best, it is impossible to list all great German commanders of WW2, just way too many of them). America had Geoge Patton.  And before we had Napoleon while you had George Washington. So Europe clearly wins.

+All officer schools which America did not have

 

Bismarck must also be mentioned, but he was more politician than soldier and not genius like others

 

I'm sorry but I have to take you to task here (and lets be clear, I am British) because you have listed Adolf Hitler as a good military leader....seriously? Obviously your view of history is a little skewed my friend. Apart from the obvious, you even miss the fact that from D-Day onwards the commander of all allied forces in Europe was an American (Eisenhower). Excuse me if I am wrong here but I'm sure George Washington was overall commander of the forces that won the War of Independence, beating these much vaunted European (in this case British) generals you seem fond of touting.

 

Some names in your list were responsible for over seeing some of the biggest disasters in military history.

 

Civil War commanders were men schooled in the Napoleonic style of warfare, at a time when rifled weapons had, in fact, made that type of warfare obsolete. Civil War soldiers (especially the men of the Army of the Potomac) were the ones who had to pay the price for this at places like Malvern Hill, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg. Times when the stubbornness of the man in command would refuse to accept that the days of the frontal assault were over. Considering the advances of weaponry over tactics, it is testament to the large majority of Civil War commanders that casualty lists were not a LOT higher than they were. Even at the start of World War One, many European commanders had still not learned the lessons that the American Civil War had taught.

 

Lee earned his place in history, not so much for his victories, but simply because he kept the Army of Northern Virginia fighting, against overwhelming odds, for so long. It is highly unlikely that any other commander of his time could have done the same. There is much more to a commander than winning battles.

[Edgy]

Since this seems to lead nowhere, i just take 5 seconds to answer: In 1945, Germany reached it`s peak in size of her army, many allied divisions were at 50% strengh, and even Soviet Union could not mobilise any more men, just look at what happened after the war as result, starvation. Had Germans done what Hitler told them, AKA hold to the last man, they would have lasted longer than allies. This is horribly more complicated than just "holding", but that is a fact. Marshal Petain also opposed his politicians and made peace, Marshal Zhukov opposed his leaders and so did 900 other good leaders. Generals in WW2 were too conservative, they basically fought WW1.5. Opposing them is what good generals/leaders did. 

And Hitler did not personally lead divisions becouse he lacked experience in that, strategic warfare is completly different than tactical, just look at Lundendorff, tactical genius, but knew nothing about strategy which made Germany`s last offensive in WW1 fail, it could have achieved victory. 

When you say you are not stupid, you mean that you know what popular opinion is, not that you have done any research yourself, checked sources and stories. Here is 1 good thing for you to check: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/six-million-myth-7.jpg

New York Times 1921, saying 6 million jews are facing extermination in Russia. Do some more research and you find out "6 million jews" is common thing outside WW2 holocaust. 

And here is well documented door for Auswhitz gas chambers: http://www.historiography-project.com/images/doorb.gif

According to Jewish eye-witnesses, it was strong enough to hold against 2 000 Jews trying to break trough it. That can`t hold either gas or humans, modern football rioteers who are not in threat of being killed have broken solid concrete wall. 

 

Also one last thing, without revisionists, ancient people would still be naked and Napoleon evil devil, like he once was seen by historians, exactly like Hitler. I understand most people are not capable of thinking that far outside the box, but it is foolish to claim "this happened" if you have never done research, and have merely "heard it", perhaps from school, where some books still have same information as they did 100 years ago, even tough that information became obsolete 90 years ago. Well known fact by any proper teachers. 

 

I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech, I really am, and in all honesty I didn't read anything after your 'Hitler was a great general' rubbish when obviously I should have done. Hitler was not a revisionist and neither are you, what you obviously are is a part of that insidious internet breed, Holocaust Deniers. Napoleon was never seen as an 'evil devil' by historians, he was portrayed as 'The Monster' by the Allies at the time, so get your facts right.....historical facts, not your interpretation of such.

 

Secondly, not only Jews gave eyewitness accounts, many Nazi's did too, as did many ordinary Germans, Britains, Americans, Poles, Russians etc etc. The Jpeg you've posted claiming to be ''well documented door for Auswhitz gas chambers'' is in actual fact a door in one of the cottages at the same camp that was used before the implementation of the four much larger facilities, & held as little as forty people at a time. But of course you would know that if you had done this thing called 'research' and checked your sources.

 

I 'heard' about war crimes that took place during World War Two from my grandparents, my grandmother was a land girl during the war, and she heard the stories originally from German PoW's working on farms in Britain, my grandfather was an air frame tech' in the R.A.F responsible for Spitfires and Hurricanes, his knowledge came from his best friend who was a 'guest' of the Japanese for two years. But I did not take their word for it, I went to see for myself and have visited Auschwitz & Birkenau, and Majdanek too. Later I did my own research, reading and listening to hundreds of eye witness accounts. These subjects led me to other childhood interests like 'confederates & Yankee's' and in later years I became a student of Bruce Catton, and visited all the eastern theatre battlefields of the American Civil War. I am also a student of the Victorian era....in short I am an historian of sorts. But one who checks his facts against sources, which you obviously only talk about.

 

I apologize to everyone else for derailing this thread, but I felt this mans ramblings needed a reply before he started to zieg heil his way through his own skewed version of history.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Topic of this thread:

Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered

[Husserl]

Topic of this thread:

Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered

[Edgy]

I've not seen any over powered Confederate units, but it 'seems' like I am seeing some seriously underpowered units on both sides. In all honesty I am struggling to fathom this game, & I've come to the conclusion that it's because of it's time ratio.

 

The speed at which time passes is confusing me quite a lot. Some reinforcements, for example, barely appear on the map before it's all over. I am invited to carefully place my artillery, but not really given the time to see if it's being effective. I see units rout in the blink of an eye, some units of the Confederate second corps barely show their faces before they're running like rabbits.

 

Lets be clear here too, I have fought this battle many many times, from Avlon Hill's Gettysburg, to table top, to PC versions. The passage of time (not the game speed) seems very very quick to me in UG....and I think it's this that's contributing towards units seeming to be over/under powered.

[David Fair]

Edgy,

 

Like you I've fought Gettysburg with Avlon Hill, table top, and PC versions.  

I'm having trouble connecting the dots on the logic of the way those game played apply to UGG.  

 

All of the games you mention are not broken up by Phases.  You play them through full days at a minimum.

 

My observation is that Gettysburg had action phases followed by inaction or lulls in the action as reinforcements arrived and troops were maneuvered.

Mapping the timing of an action phase into morning vs. afternoon finite Phases seems like more of the problem to me.

 

Perhaps were are saying the same thing - I'm not certain.  

Our point of convergence is that the flow of the game is broken up by the fixed Phase design.

 

I'm not sure how this applies to units being over/under powered - this seems like two different issues.

 

Perhaps I just don't understand what you are saying.

[GUANTANAMO]

Not really.

 

Your tactics are wrong. Instead of holding the ground from the start you need to set your Brigades up one behind the other. In at least two rows. A good distance away from the VP. As the Confederates advance you simply fallback one brigade behind the other. Then when the Rebels advance to the next brigade you do the same. By the time you do this 3 or 4 times the Rebels will be exhausted and you can tell your men to hold. They should have more Morale and Organization than the Confederates and then the Rebels will run in fear.

 

I can destroy the game as Union on Hardest difficulty. Its not that hard.

 

Its far harder to beat as the Rebels. Once the 5 different Corps arrive on the field. The Union have far better cannons and If you have not gained  Culps Hill its almost impossible to win as Rebs.

I'm 21 hours into the game and so far I've beaten it once with CONF on balanced. That was my initial playthrough (before the latest patch) and I didn't find it too hard at all. I was pretty aggressive throughout the campaign and had some pretty epic fights - it was a lot of fun. I then started to play with the UNION and restarted the campaign since then multiple times. I DO think it's a lot harder with UNION. The UNION units are a lot more fragile overall in terms of morale and propably condition, too imo. It's incredibly hard to maintain those stats. Especially the cavalry division is close to useless throughout the campaign. The condition is always 25% or lower, the morale even worse - although I park them in a safe position all the time with the general. There's close to no regeneration. I simply can't use them for anything. And overall it's extremely hard to be aggressive with UNION. It's like a constant "loosing" battle although I'm trying everything to keep my troops healthy and in bigger numbers. And as a sidenote... I managed to kill off quite a lot of artillery units with quick cavalry rushs as CONFS. And with "killed off" I actually mean killed off. I just set the movement path through some artillery units and they DIED... they were completely WIPED OFF the map - no retreat or stuff like that. I'm actually thinking now, this was propably kind of buggy, because I'm not able to pull it off again - at all. It's honestly pretty much the way around. I can't do shit with them. At best, they kill a couple o guys, and if I'm lucky they retreat and are back up just fine. Any thoughts on that?

[Edgy]

Edgy,

 

Like you I've fought Gettysburg with Avlon Hill, table top, and PC versions.  

I'm having trouble connecting the dots on the logic of the way those game played apply to UGG.  

 

All of the games you mention are not broken up by Phases.  You play them through full days at a minimum.

 

My observation is that Gettysburg had action phases followed by inaction or lulls in the action as reinforcements arrived and troops were maneuvered.

Mapping the timing of an action phase into morning vs. afternoon finite Phases seems like more of the problem to me.

 

Perhaps were are saying the same thing - I'm not certain.  

Our point of convergence is that the flow of the game is broken up by the fixed Phase design.

 

I'm not sure how this applies to units being over/under powered - this seems like two different issues.

 

Perhaps I just don't understand what you are saying.

 

What I am saying is that I know the ebb and flow of the battle of Gettysburg like the back of my hand. The afternoon of July 1st, in game, is a good as example as any of what I am talking about. I tried to use an echelon attack earlier today, starting from the Confederate right, all the way to the left at Culps Hill I sent my brigades in to assault the Union Brigades that I had pounded in the morning. By the time some of my second corps brigades reached the jump of point for the attack, the scenario was virtually over. Pender's Division as well as many brigades from the Second Corps barely get into action before the scenario ends, even if you rush them straight into an attack.

 

I believe that the timing, or if you like the pace, of UGG is wrong, that it is too fast. And by too fast I do not mean from a ''I cant manage this'' point of view I mean that some scenario's are nowhere near long enough &, it's because of these time constraints that some units seem weak while others are appearing to be over powered.

 

The first day of Gettysburg is, or should be, very very tough on the Union player in a war game. I'm not really seeing that in UGG. All he should reasonably be able to accomplish with the XI Corps is a holding action, the XI Corps were still suffering from the debacle at Chancellorsville ( if memory serves they had less than 9000 men) & were really in no condition to mount an offensive. The flow/timing, or whatever you want to call it, especially on the first day, seems to be skewed in order to give the Union more of a chance to be offensive.

 

So far I have been testing things as the Confederate player, putting the Union AI on cautious, because I believe this more faithfully represents the 'historical' mindset of Meade at Gettysburg. By doing this I know, more or less, what to expect from the Union AI, and am able to judge the game better as a result. On that first day I notice, time and again, two units in particular seem to stand out. First of all Pettigrew's Brigade almost always under achieves, breaking quite easily over and over. Obviously I was expecting the Iron Brigade to be a problem on the Union side but it's actually the Bucktail Brigade who pose the biggest problem, seeming to roam the battlefield oblivious to withering fire from Infantry and Artillery alike.

[MikeK]

I suppose a fair opinion on the matter requires games vs. known AI commanders of the top level rather than randomization of commanders - which is certainly more fog of war but 2/3 of the time will involve the AI not playing its best.

[Husserl]

The afternoon of July 1st, in game, is a good as example as any of what I am talking about. I tried to use an echelon attack earlier today, starting from the Confederate right, all the way to the left at Culps Hill I sent my brigades in to assault the Union Brigades that I had pounded in the morning. By the time some of my second corps brigades reached the jump of point for the attack, the scenario was virtually over. Pender's Division as well as many brigades from the Second Corps barely get into action before the scenario ends, even if you rush them straight into an attack.

 

We know the issue for the first day second phase (July 1st, afternoon) duration. The problem we meet here is that after the CS 2nd and 3rd Corps arrive on the field (Early, Rodes and Pender) to join Heth, the US is vastly outnumbered. If the battle has a long duration CS will easily reach Cemetery and sweep the US (remember that we do not use cheat bonuses to enforce the AI). Additionally, the harder the US defend, the worst will be their condition in the third phase on the evening and the battle will finish on day one. That is why we adjust the duration of the second phase trying to find the right balance for that part of the battle. 

[Edgy]

We know the issue for the first day second phase (July 1st, afternoon) duration. The problem we meet here is that after the CS 2nd and 3rd Corps arrive on the field (Early, Rodes and Pender) to join Heth, the US is vastly outnumbered. If the battle has a long duration CS will easily reach Cemetery and sweep the US (remember that we do not use cheat bonuses to enforce the AI). Additionally, the harder the US defend, the worst will be their condition in the third phase on the evening and the battle will finish on day one. That is why we adjust the duration of the second phase trying to find the right balance for that part of the battle. 

 

And yet, historically, the Army of the Potomac did survive the first of July at Gettysburg, over those three days this was, arguably, the Unions biggest achievement at Gettysburg. On the second and third days there were undoubted critical moments, supreme acts of valour on both sides, but all made possible by Union troops putting up such dogged resistance on the first of July.

 

There are, of course, certain circumstances that would have lead to the Union falling back from Gettysburg, it is highly unlikely that Meade would have fought there, for example, if they had not held the high ground on July the first. But they did hold it, and thus it should be possible in the game. If this is not possible, then there is something wrong with the balancing in the game that shortening the time obviously does not fix.....because I've noticed it.

 

Gettysburg was a three day battle. I believe that it is your 'victory' conditions that are wrong on the first day. Once Lee decided to fight there, only a disaster was going to force a retreat (as happened on the third of July) & in a similar vein the same is true for Meade. Once the fighting re-commenced on the afternoon of the first of July, the die was cast, Gettysburg had become the concentration point for both armies, making a retreat (especially for Lee without his Cavalry) in the face of the enemy an extremely risky undertaking indeed.

 

I do not believe that either side should be able to loose the entire battle on the first of July, unless in the event of a complete disaster. If, as you say, the Union cannot defend hard and survive to fight on the second of July, then something is wrong with the game. The fighting was not cut short at any time on that first day, the Army of Northern Virginia continued fighting until darkness forced a halt.

 

I keep returning to the first of July in testing because (as you say yourself) that is where the problems lie. Get that first day wrong, and obviously it throws day two and three out as well. In UGG it feels like the brigades are taking casualties too fast and too easily, thus the Confederates with more troops can seem to be 'overpowered'. I also believe that a mistake was made in making the southern troops better at charging, and northern troops better at small arms combat, because that simply was not the case. Confederate troops can now take positions simply by using 'charge' that otherwise they would struggle to over run, again making it seem like they are overpowered (southern AI uses this a lot). If either side had an advantage then it was in Artillery. Union Artillery was superior to Confederate for a number of reasons, their batteries would focus fire on one target at a time (especially when dueling southern batteries) Union batteries, as much as possible, kept to one type of cannon in their six gun batteries thus making supply much easier. Southern batteries were typically only four guns, and because the South were unable to manufacture cannon, these four guns were often a mismatch, making ammunition supply a nightmare.

 

Southern Artillery at Gettysburg performed very badly indeed, while Northern batteries, on a number of occasions, were very often the difference between winning and loosing due to their outstanding performance.

[David Fair]

Artificially shortening a Phase to get a desired result is, IMO, the definition of a "cheat" (along with Videttes & skirmishers).

 

The major issue I have with the game is that troops on the defensive are not effective enough.  

 

The distinction between the Union and CSA were not their fire effectiveness or their charging elan.  

The fundamental distinction was who is defending and how good is the terrain.

 

Note that Fredericksburg, Malvern Hill, Cold Harbor, Pickett's Charge, the defense of Culp's Hill all have one thing in common.  In each battle the troops on the defensive inflicted a 2.5 to 1 casualty ratio in favor of the defense.

 

Failing to make the defense more effective is what makes the AI appear to be too easy.

The AI is weak for the Union defense.

This lack of defensive advantage is also what makes the CSA AI/player appear too powerful.

Incorrect defensive attributes is also why the design team is struggling to balance the game Phases.

 

Like Edgy I've spent more than 40 days walking the fields of Gettysburg.  Seminary Ridge, Oak Ridge, Culp's Hill, and the Round Tops are much tougher defensive positions than UGG represents.

 

Now I'm with you Edgy, and agree:

Victory conditions are wrong on all days - too easy to get Epic Victories.

The Phases are too short - in some cases intentionally shortened by design.

The units are too lethal - the battle should last 3 days.

The units are not balanced enough - CSA too effective at charging.  Union too weak at charging.

Small arms fire is also not balanced enough.  Union too powerful.  CSA not powerful enough.

Artillery for both sides inflicts too many casualties on the infantry - gutting the key battlefield arm too early.

The artillery should not fire until it routs itself - the artillery was a key component of defense during the ACW.

 

At Gettysburg the critical advantages for the Union, in priority order, was defensive terrain, more infantry, and more artillery.

 

If you get these adjusted it will assist dramatically with the game balance.

[CSA Watkins]

....snip

 

Now I'm with you Edgy, and agree:

1.Victory conditions are wrong on all days - too easy to get Epic Victories.

2.The Phases are too short - in some cases intentionally shortened by design.

3.The units are too lethal - the battle should last 3 days.

4.The units are not balanced enough - CSA too effective at charging.  Union too weak at charging.

5.Small arms fire is also not balanced enough.  Union too powerful.  CSA not powerful enough.

6.Artillery for both sides inflicts too many casualties on the infantry - gutting the key battlefield arm too early.

7.The artillery should not fire until it routs itself - the artillery was a key component of defense during the ACW.

 

At Gettysburg the critical advantages for the Union, in priority order, was defensive terrain, more infantry, and more artillery.

 

If you get these adjusted it will assist dramatically with the game balance.

*******

@ David n Edgy: ^^^Nice Historical n Solid Analogies from the Battle/Game especially Phase/Day 1.

Those 7 suggestions/observations , would go a long way for overall game improvement's/realistic Gameplay/Balance imo.....

cheers...

[Husserl]

And yet, historically, the Army of the Potomac did survive the first of July at Gettysburg, over those three days this was, arguably, the Unions biggest achievement at Gettysburg. On the second and third days there were undoubted critical moments, supreme acts of valour on both sides, but all made possible by Union troops putting up such dogged resistance on the first of July.

 

 

Yes, but this was rather because of CS tactical mistakes (Heth's rush on the morning, Rodes' not coordinated first assault on Oak Ridge but mostly the Ewell's hesitation to attack Culp's on the evening). Taking in mind the correlations of the 2 sides, if CS do a good attack (as the player can do) then US have no chance.

[Husserl]

The Phases are too short - in some cases intentionally shortened by design.

 

Please note such cases (except 1st Day phase 2) to check them.

 

The units are not balanced enough - CSA too effective at charging.  Union too weak at charging.

Small arms fire is also not balanced enough.  Union too powerful.  CSA not powerful enough.

 

 

This is intended as we have to give some generic but distinguished and functional advantages to each side.

 

Artillery for both sides inflicts too many casualties on the infantry - gutting the key battlefield arm too early.

 

 

The vast majority of reports about artillery is that it is noneffective (many use the term useless). I note this just to give an example of the difficulties we meet to exploit feedback for balancing the game. 

 

 

Artificially shortening a Phase to get a desired result is, IMO, the definition of a "cheat" (along with Videttes & skirmishers).

 

 

Battle duration is a condition that is the same for both sides. It would be "the definition of cheat" if it was different and in favor of one side only.

 

 

The artillery should not fire until it routs itself - the artillery was a key component of defense during the ACW.

 

 

This will happen if the arty units are always in Auto. They can be set in short range cannister. In this way the player can have them fresh for use when he needs them, while they are alerted to fire if forgotten and the enemy comes dangerously close to them. Some would prefer to have a hold fire control but we try to keep controls as less as possible.

 

 

At Gettysburg the critical advantages for the Union, in priority order, was defensive terrain, more infantry, and more artillery.

 

 

All three of them more or less did not stand for the first day. For example XI Corps chose a very bad ground to defend. Also defensive terrain can work for both sides. Moreover, we need quality not quantity differences. 

[MikeK]

I wonder how effective people think artillery was be when they say it is ineffective?  Standing under bombardment certainly knocks down infantry after a while - 10-20% is a lot of damage. Cannister makes a big impression on formed infantry within its range and forces it to assault or withdraw. Ordering artillery not to fire at all would not work - the cannister order is a good idea as a control measure.  

 

One thing which I expect to work in game and I'm not sure it does is having artillery immediately in front of, behind or within the front line of the infantry - effectively in line with it. The infantry close up when enemy infantry is near, and neither obstructs the volleys of the other.  There is no artillery attachment mechanism in game other than creating a group, in which case I think the mechanics should be sorted to enable them to work in close mutual support on defense.  

[Edgy]

Yes, but this was rather because of CS tactical mistakes (Heth's rush on the morning, Rodes' not coordinated first assault on Oak Ridge but mostly the Ewell's hesitation to attack Culp's on the evening). Taking in mind the correlations of the 2 sides, if CS do a good attack (as the player can do) then US have no chance.

 

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. Heth's mistakes were corrected, as were Rodes, & Ewell's failure to attack Culps Hill affected the second days fighting, not the first. Union uncorrected mistakes on the first day led to the rout through the town, such as the XI Corps poor choice of defensive positions. Also, given that this battle has been re-created, many many times, as a viable war game, more or less proves you wrong.

 

You have already said ''This is intended as we have to give some generic but distinguished and functional advantages to each side'' in relation to the charge/fire variations between the sides, and obviously this is something that's now set in stone. Personally I think it is one of your products biggest flaws and a major factor in the issue's of July the First.

[David Fair]

Husserl - great post.

Edgy - great response.

 

In my mind some of the things "set in stone" are the cause of the game design flaws - and why you are struggling to balance the game.

 

You stated, "This is intended as we have to give some generic but distinguished and functional advantages to each side."

In other words - you've made up stuff that you think is interesting and are now trying to balance the game to replicate historical results by manipulating Phases to have the Union hold Cemetery Ridge on Day 1.

 

You stated, "The vast majority of reports about artillery is that it is noneffective (many use the term useless). I note this just to give an example of the difficulties we meet to exploit feedback for balancing the game."

In other words - your game design is potentially whatever the uninformed/uneducated masses want who are willing to spend $10 as early adopters.

From a marketing perspective I shudder at this design philosophy.

It is really interesting in the forum discussions when you present historical information most gamers say, "wow - I didn't know that!"

Rather than being hyper responsive to every comment you might try to guide the design by influencing the community and defending your design.  Up-level the discussion a bit.

Most gamers are not adverse to history - many simply don't know history.

 

UGG has a great AI - but leading the customers with the product vision could be improved.

 

Your definition of "cheat" is a game designer's.  

My definition of "cheat" is when something is manipulated to produce a predictable and intended result.

Shortening a Phase, fictional units, fictional unit characteristics are all examples - for us non-game designers.

 

You stated, "we try to keep controls as less as possible"

There are times when you need another control - and the absence of that control is detrimental to the game.

The UGG artillery implementation is one of the most contentious issues for the game.

I respectfully believe the design is flawed and needs rethinking that allows players to use artillery effectively.

Specifically we need a targeting mechanism to understand:

1. what can be targeted.

2. if we have a unit that is screening an artillery unit and preventing the artillery from firing.

Trying to do this with the single arrow is incomprehensible for players.

 

You stated, "we need quality not quantity differences"

This is not sound logic.  You need both quality and quantity to replicate Gettysburg - because both were present at Gettysburg.

 

1. Union XI Corps routed after it was flanked - Specifically at the moment that Gordon and Doles flanked Barlow and rolled up the Union XI Corps.

See: Gettysburg - "The First Day" by Harry W. Pfanz map on page 233 and Chapter 18 titled, "Gordon and Doles Sweep the Field"

 

2. Heth was not routed by Buford's cavalry - which happens in UGG because you made Buford's 2 brigades into 5 units.  

Thus, you've changed history favoring the quantity of units.  Additionally cavalry was simply not this effective vs. infantry so you've altered the quality as well.

 

3. It is not a foregone conclusion that, but for CSA tactical mistakes, the Union would have, "no chance" at Gettysburg. 

The Union also made many tactical mistakes - Union XI Corp deployment is a prime example resulting in 6,000 POW's.

Had the Union deployed on the Culp's Hill to Seminary Hill line on Day 1 it is unlikely that the CSA would have flanked or dislodged the Union troops easily.

The game is about playing through these "mistakes" to try to change history.  

 

If your design is based on your personal script for the battle of Gettysburg this is a critical philosophical issue.

It is not at all obvious that the CSA would have won the battle of Gettysburg had they not made "tactical" mistakes on Day 1.

It is not credible to say the Union had "no chance" at Gettysburg.