Paul_KT Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Not sure what AI changes you made but I now have a much harder time playing a Determined AI. He seems much better at knowing when to hold back and when to launch an all out attack of an weakened enemy. Also army cohesion is much better, I'm getting far fewer issues with commando raids. Great job guys, seems like a smaller patch but it's really made a difference to how I play the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Thomadis Posted July 13, 2014 Author Share Posted July 13, 2014 Good news about the AI! But we will need more feedback this week by everyone.Please read this post in our Steam forum: http://steamcommunity.com/app/306660/discussions/0/46476691398032377/#c46476691501912856A poll will be made for understanding AI challenge in all characters on Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.E.B.Blunt Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Game is still crashing. It seems that the crash occurs when Both Confederates and Union are fighting close to edge of map. If I engage the enemy while they are still entering the map; or if I push them to the edge, If they go into Melee it crashes did this twice and happened both times. I love how for the most part Units stay exactly where we left them on the previous battle. Still some issues when you are close to a VP and the battle ends. The next battle your units are really far from their previous location. Still have slight problem with Artillery charging like tanks. Usually the AI will do this, cause me as Human I can put a halt to the Arty before it gets out of control. Would like to be able to Hold Arty and Click targets in line of sight with-out my Artillery moving around. I would also like to have the option to tell my Artillery to Auto target Infantry or Artillery. It is frustrating when Enemy is pressing the attack and my cannons want to shoot other cannons instead of Infantry and then when I click a target for them they start to roam around instead of firing. Difficulty is still very easy. Not too worried about this, figure when Multi-player comes out we will have all the difficulty we can handle. Would love to have the option to take VP's off and just play to kill the enemy. Prefer if it was a Non-stop 3 day battle with no breaks. I have not had any problems with routing units going through my lines. I think that may be fixed, GOOD JOB!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmiller Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 I love the patch so far, and love the game. I'd love to see a few things though: 1) A persistent, non-sectioned 3 day scenario, perhaps only breaking for night. Call me a game-control freak, but I am not a fan of my units being moved after a scenario is over. I love the idea of placing a unit, keeping them where I want, and dealing with any of my mistakes. Moving them after a scenario seems to be the only thing really annoying me about this game. 2) Division commanders, bigger flags for Corps commanders, and the ability for them all to be wounded/killed 3) Button for units to refuse their lines, wrapping around a VP Thank you, love this game. Jay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagdriver Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Union skirmishers (day 1) still tries to go for the Confederates 3000 VP. Union skirmishers still try to "squeeze" through gaps in the lines to go for arty behind the lines. Had 1 union 114 man arty "charging" Pettigrew's bad conditioned 2100 men and routing them in melee....... (no the cannons didn't fire until Pettigrew's was running away) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 1)small dead soldiers in melee combat, please more dead. Cavalry also small kill enemy soldier in melee combat 2)please surrendered to soldiers 3)please capture enemy cannons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul_KT Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 I have a bit more AI feedback from the first battle. Played as the Union on Dynamic AI. I found two main issues. Firstly the AI wasn't co-ordinating it's attacks, rather it would send in brigades one at a time, which meant that each was overpowered by my skirmishers. The AI continued to do this throughout the battle, sending in attack piecemeal. Although when playing as the Confederates I found the opposite was true, the union would send coordinated attacks with multiple units, usually after they had repulsed one of my attacks and my line was unformed, very clever. The second problem I found was Davis' brigade decided to take Oak hill and met with early success, however I was soon able to mount an attack to retake it with 3 brigades. At that point the AI would have been better off moving Davis back to the confederate main line, but instead the brigade locked into taking Oak hill and launched several doomed to failure attacks until the end of the battle. It felt like the AI had seen an opening and launched an attack but kept going even when the opening had gone. It would be great if the AI would review plans after being repulsed and maybe decide to reform the line rather than attack what is now a strong position.Over all it feels like the Union AI has vastly improved in .83 (great!) but the confederate AI is now lagging behind (bad). I feel that Dynamic is the hardest difficulty and so both AIs should be expert and a real challenge (like borderline unbeatable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don't Escrow Taxes Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 I found two main issues. Paul, Please accept my compliments as a fellow New Yorker and General. Sounds like the AI successfully tied up three brigades at Oak Hill to its one (Davis) Speaking to the first situation you describe - yes - I have seen this as well. I think it similar to your Davis situation, in that it seems as if the AI is 'demonstrating' to keep your attention. Or perhaps I am giving the AI too much credit. The Union skirmisher units, if able to flank, can dispatch any brigade with relative ease... to your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beowulf Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Great work with the new patch. But there are still some issues with attacking instead of deselcting (although it happened only 2 times in my battles since patch). And units sometimes still retreat in wrong directions - for example - infantry brigade with low morale will retreat from a firefight after receiving a volley, and will retreat in the direction that is opposite to the enemy, i.e. the direction the enemy is facing, even if it's not the direction of the main friendly battleline/centre of mass. But this sometimes leads them straight into other enemy brigades, that were coming from the flank. And it's understandable, since they were routed and are running from the enemy, but retreating infantry should change direction (or chose one in the first place), so that they don't mix with enemy troops and try to cross their lines. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varangian Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I love the patch so far, and love the game. I'd love to see a few things though: 1) A persistent, non-sectioned 3 day scenario, perhaps only breaking for night. Call me a game-control freak, but I am not a fan of my units being moved after a scenario is over. I love the idea of placing a unit, keeping them where I want, and dealing with any of my mistakes. Moving them after a scenario seems to be the only thing really annoying me about this game. 2) Division commanders, bigger flags for Corps commanders, and the ability for them all to be wounded/killed 3) Button for units to refuse their lines, wrapping around a VP Thank you, love this game. Jay I second point 1, it doesn't stop the game being fun the way it works now but it does cause a certain amount of frustration as I'd like to see how my AM tactics worked out in the PM. For example playing as the Confederates I had better than historical success in days 1 and 2. Day 3 started with my guys holding Cemetery Hill, Culps Hill and Cemetery Ridge with the Union holding the Roundtops and other hills to the south. At the start I had a problem with the artillery as most of mine was deployed on Seminary Ridge so couldn't hit a thing. Moving them to better positions took a while but once I had them there I started doing some damage and had cover for my guys so I started an advance in the east. This was developing quite nicely until the Health and Safety people decided everyone was getting a bit tired and enforced a mandatory lunch break. Turned out my guys all decided to picnic on Seminary Ridge and the Union unsportingly grabbed the vacated ground. Not sure how scenarios get picked - the one I started off with on Day 3 obviously wasn't historical though it didn't look totally implausible - but the afternoon session was close to the historical one except for the Confederates holding Culps Hill. If not a continous play through then some more transition scenarios would certainly be useful to prevent these abrupt changes in positions. Ideally I think each day should play through continuously and at the close of the day the player should get various choices - as already happens - as to the starting position the next day, e.g. do they try and hold all the ground they currently have, or go to whatever fallback positions would be plausible in the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmiller Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I would love to see a little smarter administrative AI, especially in regards to battles ending. I recently finished a scenario in which I held all the VP's and the AI did not make a concentrated attempt to retake them. "Battle delayed" popped up in red and I didn't really think there was a relevant reason for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don't Escrow Taxes Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 On this continuation of positioning from phase to phase... I agree it is frustrating to vacate ground unintentionally when transitioning from one phase of battle to another. If this mechanic cannot be substantially changed then that is ok. A better explanation of what ground will be occupied or vacated should then be provided to the player before they agree to a continuation. In instances where there the next phase is automatic I have no idea what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Thomadis Posted July 17, 2014 Author Share Posted July 17, 2014 New patch is out! 17/7/2014 We provide an urgent hotfix patch 0.84 which includes some major targeting bug fixes that affected very negatively the AI, better Mac stability, more battle flow fixes and important polishes to the gameplay mechanics. Patch notes: http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/ultimate-general-released-5thpatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.E.B.Blunt Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 After finishing the game on Defensive AI personality. This is my run down. Of course the game is still too easy, AI personality seemed to want to HOLD position far to long than it should of. This exhausted them and actually made it easier for me to rout them, with very little skill on my part. Simply putting a Brigade on their flank They would stand their ground when they should of obviously fallback. Letting me shoot the crap out of them, untill they are running like banshees screaming in horror. Once I would take the ground from them and set up my defensive line. They would try and launch counter attacks but it was futile. With no Morale or Conditioning they were mostly sacrificing their men to the UG:G Gods. Still issues with Cannons not firing in their line of sight when I click a target for them. Instead they like to rush like a tank. Forcing me to tell them to Halt. Not sure if this was on the the issues you were trying to fix the description you gave for the Quick fix was kinda vague. Going to keep trying different AI personalities. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Thomadis Posted July 18, 2014 Author Share Posted July 18, 2014 Tomorrow new patch will come, with much better and active AI along with other improvements. Thank you all for the continuous feedback. Sorry that we cannot and me personally catch up in replies for everything you comment and give ideas about. We read everything though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CmdrMctoast Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Tomorrow new patch will come, with much better and active AI along with other improvements. Thank you all for the continuous feedback. Sorry that we cannot and me personally catch up in replies for everything you comment and give ideas about. We read everything though. No apology needed we all luv the game,, Now get back to work.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Thomadis Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 NEW update ready for you to play! 19/7/2014 We finalise the weekly 5th patch with various polishes to AI and gameplay, some bug fixes and the first version of 3D animated menu. Patch notes: http://www.ultimateg...5thpatch-hotfix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midknight Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Was playing today as Union, the Rebs seemed to do the Total War sit there and do nothing. Damned if I was gonna rush in from my defensive positions so we waited, then as Reb reinforcements arrived from the north we received a co-ordinated attack from multiple angles. It knew damn well it couldn't beat my defence until re-enforcements arrived - I was really impressed how the AI didn't just mindlessly run in until it had the advantage.Really liking the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidon Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I like the upgrade to Determined because the AI forced a draw my last game. This would be the first time I have not won as the Union. Good work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 The AI is good I played as Union and get thrashed by the Confederates in just 3 phases. Also I'm not a total noob I've won 1 game as Confederates and 1 as Union both on Cunning/Determined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarfman Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Hi, I have really enjoyed playing so far. Game labs have done great work. 2 questions. 1. Will we be able to create our own maps and campaigns? 2. Have you considered removing the VP's? Personnally I am not a fan. I think the aim of the battle should be to inflict as much damage on your opponent without suffering to many casualties. You should decide where to hold and where to fall back from. It should be the player that decides what his objectives should be for the upcoming phase. Maybe an option to turn them off would be a start. Probably easier to implement in multiplayer. Rgds Tarfman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technopiper Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 "I think the aim of the battle should be to inflict as much damage on your opponent without suffering to many casualties."Not necessarily. Sometimes the aim was to drive your opponent away from the battlefield so that you can claim a victory, without suffering to many casualties. All battles are fought for political purposes: to make good headline, win popular support. By 1863, there was a great outrage against the war in the north. Lee knew he needed a couple more victories near the Union's heart, and Lincoln would have to sue for peace. Here's an Army War College lecture on that very subject: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDuke Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 "I think the aim of the battle should be to inflict as much damage on your opponent without suffering to many casualties." Not necessarily. Sometimes the aim was to drive your opponent away from the battlefield so that you can claim a victory, without suffering to many casualties. All battles are fought for political purposes: to make good headline, win popular support. By 1863, there was a great outrage against the war in the north. Lee knew he needed a couple more victories near the Union's heart, and Lincoln would have to sue for peace. Here's an Army War College lecture on that very subject: Couldn't agree more . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lannes Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Technopiper, thanks for the video: excellent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Fair Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Technopiper, Did you watch the video you posted? The speaker repeatedly states Lee's goal was the destruction of the AoP as a psychological blow to end the war. Ending the war was the political goal of the campaign. Suggest you take a look at the presentation from minute 12 through 16 where the speaker states, "there are only two things you need to know to understand Lee during the ACW". Point 1 - Lee needed to destroy the AoP. Point 2 - Lee was on the clock and needed to destroy the AoP quickly. In fact the slides behind the speaker state: "Seeking destruction of the federal AoP as a psychological blow...& time is not on his side!" Lee needed to drive the Northern "will" for war to zero. Lincoln needed to drive the Southern "resources" for war to zero by destroying the ANV. Lee's goal was not, as you state above, "Sometimes the aim was to drive your opponent away from the battlefield so that you can claim a victory, without suffering too many casualties." This is a true statement in some wars at some points in time. But your point is not aligned with the political or military reality of the ACW and the Gettysburg Campaign in particular. Lee wanted and needed the "utter destruction and annihilation of the AoP" to quote the presenter. Lee's goal was political recognition of the South and he wanted to accomplish this during the Gettysburg Campaign by ending the war. Specifically referenced by the speaker were Lee's comments to his wife after Fredericksburg and to General Pender after Chancellorsville. You've turned the logic and central point of the presentation on its head by stating the goal was to drive your opponent away from the field. Was your comment was intended to reflect the Northern strategy - win by holding the field? If so, this argument also makes no sense. Lincoln was incensed that the ANV was not destroyed before it reached the Potomac River and could cross into Virginia. The Gettysburg Campaign was about the politics of ending the war - for both sides. Unfortunately, Meade missed the memo on the importance of destroying the ANV. Which is why Grant was promoted over Meade. Grant understood the political goal. Neither side accomplished its political goal during the Gettysburg Campaign. Lee because he failed to destroy the AoP. Meade because he failed to understand Lincoln's political goal. Victory points are a "pathetic fallacy" for the ACW. By attributing VPs to locations you turn the ACW on its head militarily, politically, and historically. For the North the ACW was about exhausting Southern resources. It was impossible to break the will of the South to fight. The ANV was down to less than 25,000 men when it surrendered at Appomattox. Militarily the ANV was between to vastly superior Union armies. The ANV did not have any logistical base to fall back on for support after the loss of Richmond. Despite this the ANV was retreating westward and attempting to fight on. Had Lee been able to march rapidly enough to get to his supplies before the federal cavalry the war would have continued until the ANV disappeared through attrition - roughly 20 days later based on the ANV desertion rate. For the South the ACW was about destroying the Northern will to fight. It was impossible for the South to destroy the resource base of the North. The closest the South came to disrupting the Northern resource base was with commerce raiding. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts