Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

UGCW Feedback v0.68 (UPDATE: 28/11/2016)


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Koro said:

It is intended. While it used to go 1:1 and prisoners were much easier to capture, you could come away from battles with thousands of extra men, throwing the campaign off balance.  So chance to have units surrender was tuned down and a cap was made.

It's much harder now to capture them though and I don't think it would break the game to raise it but that's why it's there anyway. 

Not sure how the campaign would be off balance given armory/shop and cash restrictions usually prevent you from fielding all of your manpower IME anyway (and ofc AI auto-scaling), but I'll take your word for it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 120.000 CSA trips I fielded at a Antietam beg to differ :). Don't forget you also get their weapons so the extra recruits you get are easily equipped. 

60 brigades and the union never had ant ground to move on despite the scaling. There is a limit before the battle "breaks" if you will. It isn't exact but it was there for sure :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, loving the game so far. Well done!

Just wondering if anyone else thinks it's a good idea for the supply wagons to have a button that enables or disables the release of supplies? Would make it far easier than having to make sure no units are within the resupply circle. Particularly in a fortified scenario, you would need to have your wagon outside and very vulnerable if you wanted to save your supplies for later in the fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alright, so i recently started my third confed campaign. I've looked at some of the users guides and tips for playing, one of the things i noticed is that after listening to some of these guides it gets somewhat easier, such as with troops, i've got max 1000 men in my units(and i have about 12 brigades with the same numbers(i do not mean i can only have 1000, but it's my set limit so i don't use all of my infantry)) and they are each equipped with Mississippi rifles, this allows for a large corps, while also allowing to be a real fighting force, be aware that it won't last long against if attacking units of 2500 or more, seeing as by that point it's mostly a numbers game and flanking game. I currently am at Gaines Mill, which is a bit difficult, i saved and will think of something to do later, but as for the battles before it, i have had little trouble, hell even shiloh was a pushover and the only thing that killed me was the fact that the pre made confed army was by itself and wouldn't open the field like with the Union campaign, if it weren't for that i'd have taken the hornets nest earlier. but with what i had i dislodged one of the brigades and ran out of time with the second. bull run was a little trickier, since i didn't have my cav detachments to cover my flanks and hit enemy arty, but i managed fine with the three brigades i had(by this point i had all of them with mississippis, and they each got 2000 kills). I didn't lose the bridge, but i did lose matthews hill due to the shear numbers of the forces assaulting the postition. when Jackson arrived the Union crossed the river and got slaughtered, and then when the final wave of reinforcements showed up it was practically over. the smaller battles i've won fairly easily, although this one in the gaines mill campaign i'm just glad it ended when it did, cause i don't know if my brigades could have held much longer, i had my favorite unit(the Iredell County Volunteers) down to 300ish men before the end.  I'll be at antietam soon, hopefully by tonight, but i think i've finally found the match for troop numbers and weapons.

 

Edit: i've noticed since i've stopped trying to max my troop count i've not spent as much on veterans to maintain skill ranks, which is a plus...although since the AI is starting to get more and more numbers, i'm running low on Mississippi rifles and might have to switch to the Palmetto or back to Springfields

2nd Edit: Just finished Gaines Mill, and i was doing pretty good if i say so myself, while i had the second corp basically become fodder, they did do pretty well and even routed some of the union brigades for a short while, however after the battle the entire corp went from 12 brigs to about 5( i lost the entire 1st Division of that corp as well) when the 1st Corp arrived(named 2nd Corp in the battle) they  started cleaning house, but once more i ran out of time to finish off the enemy, and i was so close to crushing their army, however i captured the zone in the back of the map(whatever hill it was) and the far most right point, i was using whatever troops i could scrounged from the all but destroyed 2nd Corps to fight the enemy and distract them. Now i'm working on Malvern Hill, although the way it's going i don't expect a victory, at the very least a draw. The 2nd Corp was the first wave and the 1st Corp(with the new 3rd Corps) just arrived and were getting set up. My cav is practically useless on this battle as i can't just charge 2150 horses at 10000 troops and hope for the best...although i did that tactic with most of the 2nd corp to dislodge the union from their defenses, unfortunately they retook them. hopefully the 1st Corp can beat them back although at the rate this is going and with very little in the way of flanking, i don't know if i'll be able to pull it off.

Edited by michaelsmithern
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, michaelsmithern said:

Now i'm working on Malvern Hill, although the way it's going i don't expect a victory, at the very least a draw. The 2nd Corp was the first wave and the 1st Corp(with the new 3rd Corps) just arrived and were getting set up. My cav is practically useless on this battle as i can't just charge 2150 horses at 10000 troops and hope for the best...although i did that tactic with most of the 2nd corp to dislodge the union from their defenses, unfortunately they retook them. hopefully the 1st Corp can beat them back although at the rate this is going and with very little in the way of flanking, i don't know if i'll be able to pull it off.

I had somewhat of the same issue as I run a little heavy on cavalry also. You can flank in from the left side to dislodge the entire flank while simultaneously frontal charging as the units are trying to turn to then shoot your horses and that can be enough to give you the momentum to push them off the main VP.

Later on once the battle progresses if you still have intact cavalry you can circle all the way south with some skirmishers along to annihilate the individual brigades down and then swing in to hit their artillery and supply chain in the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

small suggestion - when units are in melee, sometimes its impossible to see the casualty enemy is taking because own icon/flag obscures enemy icon/flag. I think it would be best if these flags were a bit farther from each other.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JaM said:

small suggestion - when units are in melee, sometimes its impossible to see the casualty enemy is taking because own icon/flag obscures enemy icon/flag. I think it would be best if these flags were a bit farther from each other.

i know what you mean, i think it might be interesting to have them setup in like a box like pattern, for those who played Starwars Empire at War it would look kinda like the box that contained all the fighter icons on the map in space battles

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, michaelsmithern said:

i know what you mean, i think it might be interesting to have them setup in like a box like pattern, for those who played Starwars Empire at War it would look kinda like the box that contained all the fighter icons on the map in space battles

I've played Empire at War and that's a great idea. It might be weird if the size of the melee encompasses large amounts of area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, CaptainKanundrum said:

I've played Empire at War and that's a great idea. It might be weird if the size of the melee encompasses large amounts of area.

you got a point, but it's short term solution for now. although Darth(Nick) could just leave it as is, and use the excuse that melee was very confusing and it was hard to lead troops out of it sometimes i.e. mass melee charges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/11/2016 at 8:15 PM, Col_Kelly said:

The campaign ended because the early acces doesnt go any further, new battles will be added over time. Would have been the same if you had won. Overall the point of the game is not to win every battle, sometimes its better to retreat and admit a reasonable defeat rather than trying to win at all costs. (Although I admit it's hard to retreat from what is now the last battle of the campaign)

They try to represent the historical ratio for each battle, at Antietam the confederates fought agaisnt an ennemy that was almost twice superior in numbers and that is reflected in the campaign. At Gaine's mill or Bull Run you would not have been dealt such bad odds. 

For the next patch, losing at Antietam will not end your campaign since the rep drop will be lower.

Make sure you keep your save so you can fight it again when the next battle comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with he pacth v68 the AI is playing worst.

before of this pach i play the historical battle of second bull run with the confederates and the federal AI play with a battle line,charges,a AI that was a challenge.

I returned to play the same historical battle with the same level of difficulty with the pacht v68 and the AI has had horrible behavior,more similar to the AI of the total war napoleon than the AI before.

the  AI Attack with loose units, no battle lines,,the units advanced interposing each other,While they were massacred by my tropos,t,he units of the AI hardly fired,the AI troops did not do charges.

It seemed that he was playing against the AI of a total war,a real disaster.

to the developer team,please,review the behavior of the AI with the federal side,In the historical battle of second of the bull run.

The AI played so badly that I left the game alone and when I returned I had won the battle without playing it.

This did not happen before the v68 patch that has been a disaster for AI.

We hope that they solve this problem of AI, even improving it even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one suggestion regarding fire accuracy - Infantry brigades are firing mass salvos, therefore they should have more like area fire, while skirmishers are typically firing at point targets, which means faster the targets are running, less accurate skirmishers should be. So while concentrated salvo from an infantry brigade against charging cavalry should  be devastating, skirmish fire against fast moving cavalry should be somewhat lower. This should give cavalry a bit greater chance when chasing skirmishers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Request - Save games need to be in a more obvious directory (Documents instead of AppData) and definitely NEED to have sensible names when viewed from the OS. I'm about to swap PCs for the holidays while back home and I only want to grab one or two save files to keep playing. It's not helpful when everything is just named "2n0xcsa4.5hl" and so on. (Also not going to be useful when trying to migrate back.)

Edited by Hitorishizuka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I. Grand Army feel-- Since the game primary focus is to relieve and re-write possible the outcome of the civil war. I would believe the option or rather have a separate tab to develop a grand army. I.e., like Lee did the the east. Example, Your created hero/general is already the commander and chief of the army, let him act like so after so much army organization. compared to just being a Corps Commander. Allow special bonus to be applied. To further the example using history  Lee at the top, (up to 1863) and after several developments during the war, Longstreet had a corps with his subordinate Major and Brig generals (not going to name all)-- Then Jackson had his corps and following major and Brig generals. Point being it would create a more strategic feel to the game with a Grand Army Structure. Also require generals of the appropriate rank to fill those positions and colonels etc, would add value to them aswell.

II. Rename Divisions is not a option yet, needs to be considered since all other forms can be. I.e., the individual brigades can be along with the Corps.

III. Allow division commanders to have bonuses and abilities different from but similar to those of corps commanders, since it is easy to conceive of Division Commanders ( since such a large body of men) would ultimately have a sway on that divisions performance. For example, of famous Division Commanders-- Pickett, A.P. Hill, D.H. Hill, and later in the war Chamberland to name a few.

IV. During the campaign include bonus/hypothetical/alternate history battles that would conceivably happened if one side or another dominated the war more than they did. Lends more to the feel of re-writing the war.

V. A major part of the war that is not included at all in the game, is the prospects of Britain and many other European Powers joining the war on either side, so including that in the form of politics/diplomacy/trade/recruits/ etc etc in many other factors seem relevant.

VI. Given the type and style presented it is obvious some details had to be dismissed during actual battles or even actions for the sake of game flow. During battles it would be ideal, to have icons, bar, or something that represents buffs or de-buffs that a unit is in-curing. To better visualize the status of the battle-field. Granted they may be few compared to some games, but the knowledge would allow more information tied to campaigns and battles as relevant. Of course, beyond morale, ammo, and reload. It can be theorized that this could be tied to recon and could increase it importance as a primary stat. 

Side note- Do not mean this as rude or impolite, but rather constructive criticisms  based on the current fully released content. This my take after several play throughs on current content, I believe it would be great also to give famous historical commanders there own vet trees, instead of the generic one.

Edited by Slaithium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A suggestion I'd like to throw out would be to divide theaters of operation for game play as well as campaign.

Give us the choice in the front of the campaign to fight in either the Eastern Theater, or the Western Theater.    It's very disorienting to finding my Army of Northern Virginia, out fighting battles it was not involved in.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this may be asking too much but i'd love to see some early-war West Virginia, Missouri, and New Mexico / Arizona stuff....   oh and also it would be great to add either Fort Donelson or Fort Henry as optional pre-battles in the Shiloh campaign... losing those forts were critical, and they were pretty bloody battles. 

Edited by Don't Escrow Taxes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Don't Escrow Taxes said:

this may be asking too much but i'd love to see some early-war West Virginia, Missouri, and New Mexico / Arizona stuff....   oh and also it would be great to add either Fort Donelson or Fort Henry as optional pre-battles in the Shiloh campaign... losing those forts were critical, and they were pretty bloody battles. 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree from Paducah KY down to west TN, to donelson, clarksville, nashville, bowling green, and not forget Braggs attempt to invade Kentucky and all of its battles aswell. Tennessee had the most battles fought second only to Virgina. So to exclude so much is kinda sad. I live within 30 miles of 7 civil war battlegrounds right here in Tennessee. I am just saying along with my original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am playing the CSA campaign on the normal difficulty, and I am up to 2nd Bull Run. I absolutely love the game!

 

I have a few UI suggestions:

-Allow the player to create a hotkey for a selected brigade or brigades.

-Clearer range indicators would be appreciated.

-Add some way to view where brigades in motion are moving to / will end up. The arrows help, but aren't always clear because of overlap.

 

Balance suggestions / questions:

-Brigades currently take extra damage when shot from behind and I don't think it makes sense. I would think that the weapons of the time would do similar damage and have similar accuracy shooting front to back or back to front. However, I think fire from the side (enfillade) should do as much damage as a rear flanking shot does now.

-I think head on cavalry charges against infantry might be too strong.

-Artillary feels very inconsistent and needs better visual feedback to explain what's happening. At Malvern Hill union artillary seemed incredibly strong at all ranges and even through cover, especially compared to mine (1-star 24 gun battery w/ napoleonic cannons). It also seems unintuitively good against fast moving cavalry (too effective) vs infantry (feels ok) vs artillary (maybe too ineffective).

-The effeciency stat is too confusing. From reading it begins to feel like the most important stat, but it's hard to tell because the player can't see how it affects a brigade's performance. Unless I can see how it changes a brigade's accuracy, reload, etc. it's tough to make a decision between brigade sizes and leadership vs effeciency.

 

Thanks for making such a great game though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...