Never Surrender and Nerfed Confederates

[kondor999]

"Never Surrender"

 

Issues persist with how units never surrender. I've surrounded units Cannae-style and had them literally retreat right through a solid line of high-morale brigades, after which they promptly became combat-effective again after bouncing around like a ping-pong ball for a while. 

 

This is unsatisfying and needs fixing:

 

Here is the Cannae-like setup:

 

 

And here's what happened a few minutes later:

 

 

 

Every single completely-surrounded-and-routing Union brigade escaped, rallied and fought again.  They all routed right through strong, fresh high-morale Confederate brigades.  

 

 

"Nerfed Confederates"

 

Please don't keep nerfing the Confederates to "force" either a historical result (which was nearly entirely due to Confederate Command blunders - not the effectiveness of individual brigades) or to make the game more "balanced".

 

To achieve balance, alter the victory conditions but not the quality/firepower of the units.

 

Consider the fact that the Army of Northern VA had just whipped this same Army of the Potomac twice pretty handily. It's highly unrealistic to make the two Armies "even" in terms of man-for-man combat power. Of course, the Union army is larger and Stonewall Jackson is gone, but this has nothing to do with the combat power of individual units.

[67th Tigers]

I agree units shouldn't be allowed to retreat "through" well ordered enemy brigades.

 

If I may suggest a mechanic, that would be the constant loss of men related to the current "condition". If you throw men around the field with abandon large numbers will drop out of the ranks. Most will rejoin in a day or two, but they're gone for the time being. This would make constant pauses in movement to reorder even more critical.

 

When a unit routs it should also lose men, and trying to rout "through" the enemy would cause them to surrender.

 

If you study Pickett's charge for example, quite a lot of the Confederates got to the wall, and after a brief fight simply surrendered.

[Daergar]

Obviously not working as intended, the routing through units and the lack of completely shattered morale and or too quick recovery when near the enemy. *waves beta-flag frantically, with a smile*

[Hawke]

Aye, I'll add my voice to this as well, as this expertly modified screenshot will show, it's a bit of a problem. 

 

 

My troops (green) advanced from rose woods, and broke the Union line which was in the green circle. However Cross's regiment (red) routed through my men then reformed and harassed my artillery for the duration of the battle. This had the added irritation of drawing most of my reserve artillery's fire. Fire which was needed for the Union reinforcements. 

[kondor999]

Yes, that's another great example Hawke.  The game is improving exponentially and I really hope the devs happen across this discussion. As it is, I spend a fair bit of time just chasing around these random brigades that ended up deep behind my lines after routing.  It's even worse with the skirmishers, since they are slippery by nature to start with.  My Confederate artillery spends at least 1/2 its time firing behind the line of battle, instead of supporting my brigades.  

 

It's as if my artillery has been turned into some kind of anti-partisan unit, meant to suppress enemy brigades who earlier routed and are now just wandering around, shooting at random crap, attracted to VP locations like moths to a flame.  

 

Those "commando brigades apparently have infinite ammo and are completely calm in the face of operating miles behind enemy lines without food, water, ammo or support of any kind.

 

Just to be clear to any prospective purchaser, however, let me say this:  

 

BUY THIS GAME NOW. IT IS AWESOME. WE ARE JUST ROUNDING OFF THE SHARP EDGES.

[David Fair]

Hi Kondor999,

Don't blame inaccurate history - 5,000 Federal troops surrendered on Day 1 at Gettysburg. This result is pure "game".

History fans have been complaining about the lack of surrendering, routed units retreating through formed units, and other anomalies for months. Glad to see such a fine example and others joining the "can't we get troops to surrender party"!

[TheRomanRuler]

 

 

BUY THIS GAME NOW. IT IS AWESOME. WE ARE JUST ROUNDING OFF THE SHARP EDGES.

I have not played any beta RTS game, but i think it takes a lot of hard work... It might just be placebo effect tough, my battles very often end in that deadlock bug and few other bugs might make it seem like there are more bugs than there really is. 

But game really is awesome and DEFINETLY worth the price! Best price/quality ratio i have seen for a long while, of  course excluding f2p games. 

[Mr. Mercanto]

I agree units shouldn't be allowed to retreat "through" well ordered enemy brigades.

 

If I may suggest a mechanic, that would be the constant loss of men related to the current "condition". If you throw men around the field with abandon large numbers will drop out of the ranks. Most will rejoin in a day or two, but they're gone for the time being. This would make constant pauses in movement to reorder even more critical.

 

When a unit routs it should also lose men, and trying to rout "through" the enemy would cause them to surrender.

 

If you study Pickett's charge for example, quite a lot of the Confederates got to the wall, and after a brief fight simply surrendered.

So far as I know only two units reached the stonewall. Remnants of Armistead's division and a few men from the 2nd North Carolina. 

The most impressive Southern attacks of the battle I'd say were Ewell's near capture of Culp's Hill on the second day and Hill's near capture of Cemetary Ridge on the second day. 

I'm a better historian then I am RTS player so I think I'll leave my comments at that. Except to say that though I absolutely agree with everyone that routing forces should not be able to recover in enemy territory, I think that the Rebs are plenty strong enough despite some nerfing. 

[kondor999]

I agree that the Confederate combat power seems about right at the moment.  I just don't want the devs to downgrade individual units to ensure that the overall battle goes as it did historically.

 

When you read about this battle, it really strikes you just how many mistakes were made in terms of being alternately hesitant and then (when Lee finally got his way) disastrously over-confident at the Corps and Division level of command.  I seriously doubt anyone playing as the Confederate would replicate these mistakes.

 

The best way to see if a wargame is historically-accurate is to go ahead and replicate the original battleplan and see how it works out. If the outcome is reasonably close to the historical result, you know you've probably got verisimilitude.  If not, you go back and pick apart various aspects of your model, looking at (perhaps) smaller engagements to see what's not right.  Perhaps its the effect of terrain, or the combat algorithms, etc.  

 

Of the variables which get plugged into the combat system, the values of the various brigades are probably the best-known, and therefore the least likely to be wildly incorrect.  

 

Note that I feel like the devs have done a fantastic job so far with getting those values right so far.  I urge them not to mess with a good thing, just because some folks can't figure out how to play as the Union (referring to the "Confederates still vastly overpowered" nonsense on another thread).

 

 

So far as I know only two units reached the stonewall. Remnants of Armistead's division and a few men from the 2nd North Carolina. 

The most impressive Southern attacks of the battle I'd say were Ewell's near capture of Culp's Hill on the second day and Hill's near capture of Cemetary Ridge on the second day. 

I'm a better gamer then I am historian so I think I'll leave my comments at that. Except to say that though I absolutely agree with everyone that routing forces should not be able to recover in enemy territory, I think that the Rebs are plenty strong enough despite some nerfing. 

[Mr. Mercanto]

I agree that the Confederate combat power seems about right at the moment.  I just don't want the devs to downgrade individual units to ensure that the overall battle goes as it did historically.

 

When you read about this battle, it really strikes you just how many mistakes were made in terms of being alternately hesitant and then (when Lee finally got his way) disastrously over-confident at the Corps and Division level of command.  I seriously doubt anyone playing as the Confederate would replicate these mistakes.

 

The best way to see if a wargame is historically-accurate is to go ahead and replicate the original battleplan and see how it works out. If the outcome is reasonably close to the historical result, you know you've probably got verisimilitude.  If not, you go back and pick apart various aspects of your model, looking at (perhaps) smaller engagements to see what's not right.  Perhaps its the effect of terrain, or the combat algorithms, etc.  

 

Of the variables which get plugged into the combat system, the values of the various brigades are probably the best-known, and therefore the least likely to be wildly incorrect.

 

Note that I feel like the devs have done a fantastic job so far with getting those values right so far.  I urge them not to mess with a good thing, just because some folks can't figure out how to play as the Union (referring to the "Confederates still vastly overpowered" nonsense on another thread).

Yeah I have to own up to that threat. Though I still think they are a little bit over-powered, its certainly not game breaking like I felt at the time. I hadn't adjusted to the game's rules yet. 

Granted for what its worth since the Rebs are obliged to attack their being slightly overpowered makes sense. 

PS, I meant to say I'm a better historian then RTS gamer, rather then vice versa, in the previous quote lol. When it comes to game design I know a great deal less then most of the forum posters.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

So far as I know only two units reached the stonewall. Remnants of Armistead's division and a few men from the 2nd North Carolina. 

The most impressive Southern attacks of the battle I'd say were Ewell's near capture of Culp's Hill on the second day and Hill's near capture of Cemetary Ridge on the second day. 

I'm a better historian then I am RTS player so I think I'll leave my comments at that. Except to say that though I absolutely agree with everyone that routing forces should not be able to recover in enemy territory, I think that the Rebs are plenty strong enough despite some nerfing. 

 The 11th Mississippi was part of the Davis Brigade but was given the duty to guard the supply train on the first day. So they never arrived till the second day.

 

 July 3, 1863 during the Pickett/Pettigrew charge at Gettysburg, the 11th Mississippi had 386 men present in the ten companies and regimental staff. The 11th suffered a total of 336 casualties during this charge (87% of the men fell). The 11th Mississippi Regiment sustained the highest casualty percentage of any regiment at the battle of Gettysburg, North or South.

 

It is a widely believed idea within my Civil War re-enacting regiment the 11th Mississippi, That small elements of our regiment charged the stone wall and placed our flag on top the wall in a symbolic act of rebellion. Before being cut down.

 

 

The 11th was the last regiment to enter the fight at Gettysburg. It was also the last regiment to cross back over to Virgina in the retreat.

[RH Lee]

Outstanding game (more on that in my post elsewhere in the forums) but I have to agree that the "broken unit routing through my lines, then reforming and roaming around like a reincarnations of Mosby's raiders behind my lines" syndrome is a significant issue.  That said - I have full confidence that the devs will fix it en route to completing this as one of the best tactical combat games of all time.  I am sooo impressed!  My intoxicated imagination leaps forward (well, ok -> leaps backwards?) to Antietam, Sharpsburg, Shiloh, Bull Run I & II, et al.

 

Did I mention I really like this game & game system?

[N.C.rebel]

A lot of the Confederates during the mile charge stopped at the Emmittsburg road and would go no further very brave men. And in that pic you posted that's just Sickles behind enemy lines lmao he's crazy

[FlaGuitars]

I also feel like the confederates strenght feel correct now and hope they do not nerf them anymore.

[kondor999]

I hope the devs are reading this stuff! 

 

Just to check, I played the Union 3 times on the 1st scenario and on all occasions I wiped the floor with the Confederates, taking Herr's ridge on max difficulty.  How anyone can say that the Confederates are "vastly overpowered" is beyond me.  If anything, they break a little too easily (although I am able to handle this when playing as them).

 

More importantly, I hope they will fix the "retreating through formed brigades" issue.  No one ever gives up in this game right now, and every brigade eventually (much too quickly in most cases) recovers to re-enter the fight.  They've done a good job, however, of making those recovered brigades quite fragile. 

[David Fair]

kondor999, historically nick has read all of the posts and frequently responds if the contents are interesting enough.

I'm certain nick is aware of this from his responses in the "testers forum".

The problem with the game is the breadth of the distribution curve. Too many players are getting vastly different results.

Easy is too hard for many.

Hard is vastly too easy for others.

A player's guide would help tighten up the distribution curve.

Also a 4th difficulty level is another thought.

In my mind the problem is not with the CSA being overpowered. It is that it is too easy to beat the AI regardless of which side I take.

[TheRomanRuler]

kondor999, historically nick has read all of the posts and frequently responds if the contents are interesting enough.

I'm certain nick is aware of this from his responses in the "testers forum".

The problem with the game is the breadth of the distribution curve. Too many players are getting vastly different results.

Easy is too hard for many.

Hard is vastly too easy for others.

A player's guide would help tighten up the distribution curve.

Also a 4th difficulty level is another thought.

In my mind the problem is not with the CSA being overpowered. It is that it is too easy to beat the AI regardless of which side I take.

This can be solved by actions having bigger consugences, for example if you crush Confederates at first day, they might bring much more troops next day than originally supposed to.  And if you are too weak, they see it and send in reserves to kill you. 

Hard to make well i think, but in theory that works well. 

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Multi player would solve all the problems. Because same with SMG I could wipe the game on hardest difficulty on SMG but Human vs Human is a total different story. I can't wait to find out where I rank in the UGG universe!!!

[David Fair]

RomanRuler, Are you suggesting that if a player beats the AI on Day 1 & 2 the game would add a couple of phantom army corps on Day 3 or 4 to the game to balance things out?

Or perhaps accelerating when the army corps from the historically accurate OoB arrive to accelerate the battle?

Why not just fix the difficulty and maintain the historic OoB?

[TheRomanRuler]

RomanRuler, Are you suggesting that if a player beats the AI on Day 1 & 2 the game would add a couple of phantom army corps on Day 3 or 4 to the game to balance things out?

Or perhaps accelerating when the army corps from the historically accurate OoB arrive to accelerate the battle?

Why not just fix the difficulty and maintain the historic OoB?

This

 

But how are you going to fix difficulty? 

[David Fair]

I'm a tester not the designer or developer. My suggestions to fixing the difficulty include:

- Increasing the morale of the AI units a bit.

- Program the game so it stops attacking when it suffers "X" casualties and is still losing casualties at a 2:1 or higher rate.

- Put a governor on AI artillery so it doesn't destroy its own morale and condition. This makes it way too easy to destroy the AI's artillery.

- Get the artillery to stop auto targeting Videttes and skirmishers at long-range. This is a waste of AI resources.

- Stop Phases early if the AI does not have any formed units remaining. Destroying a routed mass trapped at the edge of the map until the time runs out is ridiculous. Reinforcing failure by accelerating troop arrival will simply increase the magnitude of the debacle. End the Phase and move on. This is the only way to give the AI a chance to reform.

- IA artillery that is not supported with infantry should auto-withdraw sooner.

- Give the artillery more realistic mobility to ensure that the AI can get it's guns out of harm's way.

- Make the AI less VP focused. If a VP is behind enemy lines by "X" distance the AI should not send a single division to a VP location.

- Eliminate VP locations altogether. VPs drive the AI to straight-ahead tactics.

- Program the AI with a "flank-awareness" and "terrain-awareness". When the AI is strategically outflanked it should withdraw it units. Right now the AI hangs onto VP locations leading to the AI getting surrounded too easily.

This list would be a good start.

[N.C.rebel]

I agree completely with that list David, I also completely agree with eliminating the VPs.

[leviath]

I don't think that eliminating VP's would be good because it makes us fight for places of the battlefield which were really crucial during the real battle so it gives an historical feeling and I like it. But I think that the value of VP's has to be considered by AI. Let's take an example, if a VP value is only 1500 but it is well defended, the AI will let it go, if the value is 6500, the AI will fight harder for it. This should avoid the AI losing 3000 men for a worthless VP while it has more important VPs to defend.

[David Fair]

Leviath, the strategic value of the ground is in the value it gives to the units holding the ground. If you eliminate the VP's you are still going to fight for the most valuable ground - just as the armies did at Gettysburg. I don't understand your logic that somehow the strategic value is increased by assigning points to it. Little Round Top is still Little Round Top.

It is called a "pathetic fallacy" when human attributes are applied to inanimate objects. The idea that Heth's Ridge is arbitrarily worth the lives of 3,000 men is ridiculous. This is simply a "quantified pathetic fallacy" because the hill is now equal to 3,000 lives to take it.

The objective of Gettysburg was for the armies to destroy each other. I don't think Lincoln or Davis cared one iota if Lee held Seminary Ridge or not. What they cared about is: did my forces win, how much did it cost in lives, and will it help to end the war.

The terrain VP is a complete red herring and has plagued military games for decades. I've been to Gettysburg many time and have never seen a sign floating over the hills stating their value. Nor were there signs on the battlefield in 1863. There is no logical historical basis for VPs. They are pure fiction and pure arbitrary game design decision with no historical basis. You can argue who was a better commander - it is difficult to argue which hill was more valuable. In my mind the most valuable hill at Gettysburg was the one where you inflicted the most enemy casualties.

[Reisman17]

I agree mostly with this thread (except the adding extra brigades part). Terrain VP is an interesting  topic. I agree that the original battlefield did not have these objectives over them (pretty obvious to me) however a hill was an important asset in any battle as it gave your troops some much needed advantages including better line of sight (when on top), easier to defend (attackers would have  to climb the hill that should slow them down and tire them out all the  while being under fire) or attack from (should give a short speed boost to charging down the hill and a slight boost to morale as you would have  significant momentum coming down some of these hills). Obviously the higher/steeper the hill the more advantagous the hill would become (e.g. VP point should be higher). This does not also include the ability to hide behind to either surprise an enemy coming over the hill or getting a respite from the battle (e.g. not being shot at by infantry or artillery to recover morale/reorganize). So there are lots of reasons to see hills as an important part of the battle and could be cruical to winning a battle. I have always been an avid wargamer and history buff for many years. The one thing that I dont  know if its in game but holding an important hill should give your army a small morale boost and if you loose it you should suffer a small morale loss. This would mean that you would need to be very careful about loosing multiple VP points at the same time that could easily demoralize your army and send them packing. This would add to the  game in my opinion.  

 

Reisman17