Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Recommended Posts

More flexibility in objectives/victory conditions would be excellent. That ties into dynamic campaigns/battles/planning.

Ex: I just finished Antietam as CSA, campaign. 46000, 138 guns vs  86000, 283 guns USA. I won, barely. 56000 Union casualties to 27000 of my own. I held Stone's bridge, after an initial Federal breakthrough. The 2nd Corps on my left suffered 80% casualties, but Dunker Church did not fall. However, I had to send a full division of my center and a brigade of my right, another full 10000 men, to hold it. The sunken road was, at the end, held by a scant 2500 men -- the remnants of the center 1st Corps, plus another brigade from the right.

Had I been able to pull back from Dunker Church, consolidating my forces along a line north of Sharpsburg, I could have greatly reduced my losses, while still inflicting massive casualties on the Union. However, the game would have considered that a draw, rather than a victory. I would argue that 56000 Union casualties vs, say, 15-20k Confederate would be much more of a victory than what it took to hold Dunker Church.

This boils down to dynamic victory conditions -- possibly taking casualties sustained & inflicted in to account. If a dynamic campaign is in the cards, then this fits right in. If not, I think there may still be room to provide some leeway in victory conditions. For ex: holding Stone's Bridge & the Sunken Road splits the Union force in half, leaving whatever troops remain from the assault on Dunker Church the task of a frontal assault on a now-consolidated Confederate line. I wouldn't consider that a draw, not to mention the losses inflicted on the North.

A draw feels like a defeat due to the reputation loss, so I feel compelled to fight to the bitter end -- which, to be fair, is a crafty piece of game design that puts me in the shoes of a general subject to the whims of political masters. So I acknowledge this may well be WAD.

 

Other thoughts:

- All too often, units are needlessly flanked when I attempt to adjust their facing by, say, 5 degrees. If I don't do it PERFECTLY, they immediately turn 180 degrees, get a full volley in the 'rear,' and suffer heavy losses and a massive morale drop. Alternatively, they'll advance out of cover/out of the line, which means they still have to be 'flanked from the rear' just to move back to the proper position.

- Why does shock cavalry have a charge cool down? I often charge down exposed batteries, but my cavalry invariably gets slaughtered by whichever battery it didn't engage because it has to arbitrarily wait to charge it. Having their stamina run down is enough of a barrier to exploitation.

- If I win a battle, why are units that 'shatter' -- ie, fully break and run -- not reconstituted? Sure, they broke, but we won. Even if it's a shell of its former self, I could reinforce it. Instead, my order of battle suddenly has random holes I have to chase down and fill. It's doubly frustrating when it's one of my favored brigades.

- I notice that at times my regiments & brigades move on their own. I'd like to know more about how that works, as it lulls me into a false sense of thinking that I can semi-safely leave units to their own devices while managing a more active part of the line, only to find them standing out in the open being slaughtered, 10 yards from the cover of thick woods. Further, do individual brigades move on their own ONLY, or will divisions, or even corps, make adjustments as a group? Personally, I'd love to see division commanders take small levels of initiative in pressing situations.

- On the note of divisions & their commanders: I'd love to be able to click on a division and see its statistics like I can for a Corps. Further, I'd be interested to see a visual representation of division commanders on the battlefield, even if it's just choosing a unit to attach them to. I've certainly seen them get killed, so I know they are modeled at some level.

- Contour lines are desperately needed, enough so that I'll repeat it. I'm constantly at a loss as to where to place my batteries and scouts, as well as to where to expect enemy batteries to be located. It's simply far too difficulty to determine elevation when I cannot rotate the map (to my knowledge). Further, an increased zoom level would be brilliant. I very often want to get just a little closer to the action.

- More flexibility in Corps deployment. On several occasions, I've had battles with a limit of, say, 14 brigades, but only two 10 brigade Corps. So I either have to throw my order of battle into disarray, or go into battle with less troops. It'd be excellent if I could deploy both Corps, and choose the units I wanted, OR choose a primary Corps, and then have an option to choose what elements of the other I want to 'detach' in support of the primary.

-  Canister shot at extremely close range often seems relatively ineffective. 16 guns firing into a mass of 2000 men at 15-30 yards would probably cause more than 30-50 casualties. In terms of balance, it's their own damned fault for getting that close to front of the guns!

- Carbine cavalry doesn't feel very useful outside of passive reconnaissance. Chasing down broken units or charging an exposed battery goes far more poorly than I'd expect -- and I'm not expecting them to perform as well as Shock cavalry in that role. Further, they seem to utterly fail in a skirmish or harassing role, as they are 'flanked from the rear' the moment they disengage, and tend to rout on the spot. I'll fully admit that cavalry is not my strongest area, though. \

- The availability of weapons in the shop seems rather low. Prior to a rather bloody victory at Malvern Hill, I was running a massive surplus of men (circa 15000) due to the dearth of rifles other than Farmers. Granted, the south had difficulty procuring better weapons, so that may not be too pressing of a concern. Notably, skirmisher weaponry was very hard to come by, even the basic Hunter rifles.

- What happens if I remove myself from Corps command? What IS my greater role here? I see that I'm 'general in chief,' so I think it'd be rather interesting to see myself on the battlefield even if not leading a Corps. Also, why is it that all my other Corps commanders have 500 man units with fairly decent weaponry, while my own unit has 72 men and the most basic weapons? Further: I can rename Brigades and Corps. Why not divisions as well?

- It would be VERY handy if I could split units from the Army screen. IE, take a 20 gun battery and form a new 8 or 10 gun battery from it, or split a 2500 man brigade into smaller regiments. 

- What is corps unit recovery? I've not seen anything there the entire time I have played.

- I've had 78 Sharps rifles in my armoury for seemingly this entire campaign, but they aren't available to buy. Why must I have a minimum of 100 men for a unit of skirmishers? Obviously 78 isn't a lot of men, but I'd much prefer to have 78 accurate sharpshooters with Sharps rather than 100 inaccurate skirmishers with Hunters.

 

- Flag & colour bearers would be a very lovely addition to the atmosphere of the game, though I'm not sure how it would be implemented  

 

Okay, that's probably enough! Let me stress this: I'm having a fantastic time, and I'm very excited to see what the next 2 months hold, as well as the future of this game. Thanks!

Edited by Admiral666
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ultimate General: Civil War has been released on Steam Early Access. You can read useful information about the game in this blog post: http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/ugcw-release-early-acces

More flexibility in objectives/victory conditions would be excellent. That ties into dynamic campaigns/battles/planning. Ex: I just finished Antietam as CSA, campaign. 46000, 138 guns vs  86000,

I'd much prefer a dynamic campaign where everything has an effect. Previous battles should give have an affect on the enemy and his ability to fight. Battles should affect  supplies, manpower, etc. No

Posted Images

Addition feedback:

Please please please, give us a way to creat our own groups like in UG:G.  You know, CTRL-1 creates Group 1 out of the currently selected units and then Alt-1 selects that group.  This would make managing Artillery and skirmishers much easier.

Edited by Luckybluemoon
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LongstreetJohnson said:

This is not my point :) I love loosing a great game, as i am all for historical odds (to some degree), but if you are going to drag history into a game as an argument, dont forget that army frontage,combat width,supplies etc works very differently in real life.

 Example ingame the AI pushed 40 000 men over a small stonebridge to attack my 3000 men where in reality this would be an equal if not favor the defender no matter the numbers. So dragging lines to the real battle could be wrong from a games perspective.

Anyways as i said this is not my point you just sidelined me there for a bit. Check my post in general to see my point about scaling. :)

I feel like I answered the question you've been asking here and in your thread. Yes AI scales with your forces according to your own numbers and there is a reason to that : balance. In the first beta versions this game had barely any scaling which meant late campaign got 'boring' for a successful player since his army was getting far superior to the AI over time. 

Your point in your bridge example is a bit absolute. At Burnside bridge one Union brigade managed to draw back the 300 georgians skirmishers holding it as they got brave enough to charge. So no you're not able to beat 10 to 1 odds all the time simply because you're able to hold a small chokepoint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Col_Kelly said:

I feel like I answered the question you've been asking here and in your thread. Yes AI scales with your forces according to your own numbers and there is a reason to that : balance. In the first beta versions this game had barely any scaling which meant late campaign got 'boring' for a successful player since his army was getting far superior to the AI over time. 

Your point in your bridge example is a bit absolute. At Burnside bridge one Union brigade managed to draw back the 300 georgians skirmishers holding it as they got brave enough to charge. So no you're not able to beat 10 to 1 odds all the time simply because you're able to hold a small chokepoint.

I agree a bad and maybe absolute example, but it was not an attempt to retell how it was in reality. But rather to make a point that comparing a game to real life is not necissarily right in some situasions. 

Yes you and others have answered my question.

What i am after is a discussion wether scaling is the right mechanism to have. If you did read trough my tread you can see im making examples of ingame mechanisms that is rendered useless by the scaling. I also write that the size of your army truly doesnt matter just army composition and veterancy.

So again im not saying i am right and you are wrong, me myself think scaling outweighs an "easy" endgame in terms of negative effects on the game, you perhaps dont.

So that is what this feedback is for right? I think the scaling takes away the meaningfullness in what i believe is some of the core concepts of the campaign (building YOUR army).

And it actually render concrete choices useless, this last one here i know is a mistake, no one would deliberatly make a feature in a game that is pointless.

I havent seen anyone complain about the same thing but i still feel obligated to share it, so it might become an even better game in the end.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right to voice your concerns of course, just wanted to be sure I understood you. 

One way to counter the AI scaling (for now) is to avoid building super large brigades. If your limit is 2000 max then try to build lots of brigades with 1700/1800 rather than a few with 2000. This way the AI will adapt and bring smaller units to the fray, leaving you more options. Doing so it's possible to outnumber the AI in SOME battles

Although you're right to say your army size is not that important, it does matter in a way : the more units you have the more flexible your plan can become, you can stretch very thin lines in most places and then build a reserve for a decisive counter attack that can negate the AI's very large numbers. Even if the ratio stayed the same I'd still rather have 55000 as CSA at Antietam than 35000. That's how I convince myself to still build the largest possible army throughout the campaign

PS : You might already know this but your units will also be easier to command for officers and will have better stats if they're smaller

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Col_Kelly said:

 

Although you're right to say your army size is not that important, it does matter in a way : the more units you have the more flexible your plan can become, you can stretch very thin lines in most places and then build a reserve for a decisive counter attack that can negate the AI's very large numbers. Even if the ratio stayed the same I'd still rather have 55000 as CSA at Antietam than 35000. That's how I convince myself to still build the largest possible army throughout the campaign

 

This, you are completely right, this is the excact same thing i do. But from a flavor point not a tactical.

Where you are wrong here is that game allows the AI to have enough frontage to use all its numbers (units firing on top of each other, cannons firing behind units, units firing behind units with no elevation behind) so the tactical advantage/flexibility you are talking about is only viable if the combat width/frontage doesnt allow the numerical superior enemy to use its numbers.

Still i think the discussion should be diverted more towards "should the player be able to choose" then us discussing ways to work around/against scaling.

For now i will just wait and see if this is something the devs deem as worthy, and stop spamming the forum with more :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there Game Labs,

I'm loving the game so far.  I absolutely love the concept of owning your own corps/army, getting to upgrade it between battles, and then being deployed within the context of a larger campaign or battle.

As a total noob to the Ultimate General series (but not to this genre - I'm a Total War junkie), I feel that some enhancements to the campaign mode are needed so as to prevent "new player" frustration or confusion.

So here's what I did in my campaign:  Went with the Union.  Won the Battle of Phillippi series, the Distress Call, and the two other random battles leading up to Shiloh with no problem.  In between battles, I went for a "quality" enhancement program with my corps.  Tried to replace muskets with rifles wherever I could, tried to enhance my artillery park and cavalry weapons.  Went for some veteran replacements as $$ allowed.  With career points, I did an even spread and didn't really focus on one particular category.  Is the guide not fully updated?  I tried looking for a description of "Supplies" so I could figure out how much I needed, but couldn't.  So I just kind of winged it and kept bumping it up by ~3K per corps after each victory.  I also noticed that with each new battle it seemed like the Rebs' unit size grew rapidly from roughly 1K per brigade originally to where they swelled to 3K per brigade by Shiloh while I was stuck at 1.5K throughout. 

So then Shiloh hit and I went into it with 2 corps with 2 divisions apiece.  2/3rd of Day 1 was no problem, as my qualitatively better troops were able to easily hold their position.  But then, my mismanagement of my supply situation reared its head and I spent 1/3rd of it critically low.  And then, my failure to put one more point into Army Organization hampered me because the numerically superior Confederates chewed me up on Day 1 through simple attrition.  So Day 2 was basically impossible  because I was at less than 50% strength and with zero supplies.

So what?  I fear that it will be possible for newbies to this series to make strategically bad choices in their career/army management (like I did) such that they find themselves unable to literally take the next step to progress, and they will have to restart their whole campaign (if they saved at the wrong spots, as I did) in order to reattempt certain battles.  Furthermore, with the way the Confederates' unit size dramatically increased in 5 battles, it seemed like there was really only 1 Army/Career playstyle to adopt - that of going for broke in Army Organization to get more units, and to spend all your $$ on basic musket-equipped new units in order to be able to match the AI numerically. 

Proposals to remedy:

1)  Need more guidance in the Army/Career menu.  If the intent is really to go down a certain administrative playstyle (i.e. get as many men and guns on to the field as you can early), then some sort of Adviser function is needed so that you can get advice on where career points should be placed, if you are critically low in a category that is instrumental to victory.  And potentially put some sort of guidance in the campaign map so that when you click on a battle it has a suggestion statement (i.e. "In order to take part in this battle, it is recommended that the player have XXX soldiers and XXX artillery pieces").  And with supply, the adviser did tell me to buy more supplies, but it didn't intimate HOW MUCH to buy.

2) Scale the Battle Objectives Based on Player's Troop Strength:  If a player doesn't go all out on Army management, you could scale the objectives and enemy troop strength within each battle to something commensurate with that player's troop strength.  I was pretty disappointed when one of the early Army Organization levels gave me another corps to manage off the bat.  I wanted to be just another corps commander for awhile and work within the context of a larger Army operation, while improving my unit's quality.

I would love it - and it would greatly enhance Campaign replayability if you could play the entire campaign as just a Division, Corps, and Army commander each time through.  Even the division only perspective would be entertaining, if the random campaign missions were tailored to a division's level (i.e. take a mostly mounted infantry division and conduct raids through enemy territory, or stop such a raid, etc etc)/

3) Allow for an MMO-style "Gear Grind":  You can only play the custom, off-shoot battles once.  I think that on an easier campaign setting you could allow for replays of battles, so that way you could get an easy infusion of cash and career points so that you could rectify your mistakes.

Miscellaneous:

1) I think the Army Organization category should function more as an open ended tree.  I don't like how it forces you into certain organizational structures that I would rather control myself.  For instance, I personally would much rather have increased my Corps to 3 Divisions and increased unit size before moving on to a 2nd Corps.  

2) Rather minor but in certain areas of weapon overlap, for some reason you can't share Skirmisher and Cavalry rifles even though they seem to be that exact same rifle?  I had one instance where I had to sell the rifle and rebuy it at a loss so I could equip my Cavalry with that weapon.

Anyways, keep up the great work guys.  I really love this concept of a game and am looking forward to seeing what you all have in store next.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IA needs take some care with their supply wagons... now you can capture  one of them each battle almost routinely, not by using any cunning tactics but they being sent alone to strange places , and even behind your lines.... your own wagons tends to do sometimes the same if you do not care for them (I suspect they try to go were ammo is needed through detours throught no-mans land

Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to new update:  Love that I can zoom in more, but would love more still.  I want to be so close I could almost smell the powder.

Supply Wagons:  yes, I agree the are dumb as rocks.  They flee combat by running the no mans land between our armies, the are usually so far behind the enemies lines that I can capture them with Melee Cav most of the time, and they never seem to resupply the enemies brigades. 

Request:  please bring back manual grouping.  Even (and I'm dating myself here) Total Annihilation allowed basic grouping of 1-0.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reposting from the Steam thread:

A few comments, after several days playing now.
 
First, the AI scaling kills immersion. I understand why it is done from a gameplay mechanic, but perhaps give us the option to turn off the scaling. Even better, make the AI follow the same format as the player in purchasing resources (brigades, replacements, and weapons). The system is already there - just have the AI run the calculations between each battle the same way the player does. That gives the game a historical vibe that I feel is missing by the time I get to Shiloh and Gaines Mill, and that gets worse as time passes.
 
Second, troop movement to adjust position needs to be altered so that troops can move by the left or right flank. They will sometimes to this on their own, but the player can't order it, so if my troops need to shift slightly to meet an incoming attack, they end up turning ninety degrees and getting flanked, then trying to turn back before the attack hits. Worse, if I'm even slightly off, they'll turn completely around, exposing their rear to the enemy, before turning back, usually too late to meet the attack.
 
Third, allow us to divide our units a bit more. There was one engagement - I don't remember which - where playing as the Union, the Confederates are at regiment strength and kept flanking my brigades. Deploying skirmishers didn't do enough - if we could have an option to divide into regiment strength or even just split a brigade in half, it would help.
 
Fourth, allow for division and corps formations. That was something Scourge of War got right - when giving orders at a division level (or even brigade level, since regimental was their base) you had the option of a line, a double line, a line with reserves, and a column for movement. Some of these are automatic, but I'd like an option where we could set a division or corps up as a line with a brigade in reserve without having to manually move each brigade.
 
Fifth, make battles more dynamic. This may already be in the works (it is early access), but I noticed this particularly at Shiloh Day 2. I managed to hold Shiloh Church and the Hornet's Nest as the Union and was beginning a counterattack as Day 1 ended. Then I find that on Day 2 I have withdrawn to Pittsburgh's Landing and have to advance back to my original position, I have to retake the same ground I'd just taken the day before. Ideally, instead of making us follow the historical pattern of the battle, just open the battlefield up and let us sandbox it. Or at least give us that as an option.
 
Sixth, make campaigns more dynamic. One thing I liked about the old SIerra game Civil War Generals 2 was that the campaign was dynamic. They had multiple options after each battle for where to go next. Losses and experience followed brigades from battle to battle, for the AI as well as for the player. While playing through the historical battles are fun, that's why there is a historical battles section. When it comes to the campaign, the historian in me is asking, "What if?" With the current linear campaign, I don't feel that question is being answered.
 
Seventh, allow for custom scenario and custom campaign creation, or provide a tool for such. There are plenty of people asking for additional battles, and letting them create and post their own will help tremendously in meeting what will become a flood of requests. In addition, this will give people the option of adding fictional scenarios - the "what if" of history.
 
Barring that, add more battles. A long list has already been posted, but there are dozens of other fights that I'd be interested in seeing play out - the Battles of Bedford and Lynchburg, for example, as minor engagements. Petersburg is another I'd like to see, even if split into multiple scenarios - the Crater and Five Forks being the two main ones. There's a laundry list of others, too.
 
Otherwise, this is a great game. It is filling a niche that I don't think has really been filled since Civil War Generals 2 (which is so old my computer won't even play it). Thank you for all your hard work, and I hope that my comments are able to help improve the game even more!
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My basic thoughts from my first session last night (some Campaign and Anteitam):

 

1. Unit range markers / and just the overall UI does not contrast well with the background. I think the current range cones have a brown ish border and is not as intuitive as Gettysburg. The game does not need to have all kinds of out of control garish colors but I do think many of the gameplay elements need to be brightened up and made more visible. I also really miss how you could see ALL your units "current move" shown and not just on what was selected. Gettysburg just has a much tighter, crisper feel than Civil War does when it comes to the graphical feedback and user interface.

 

2. Casualty rates seem pretty high. Units getting depleted very fast, ala canister shots from Gettysburg but everywhere at many ranges.

 

3. I am honestly not a fan of the "Preset" defensive positions that you insert units to. I would like it better if they were part of the environment like everything else and just gave a large cover bonus.

 

4. Please bring MP in the form of more than 2 players. 2v2 would be great, 4v4 would be amazing. I could convince lots of people to buy the game if the MP is scaled up. 

 

5. Individual Unit control (rotation and positioning) seems a lot clunkier than in Gettysburg

 

 

 

Edited by noggmoritz
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Cendar posts, the ai needs to manage it's army in a similar manner that the player does, instead of scaling it to twice the size of the player. I want to feel like I'm having an effect on the enemy, currently I feel it's pointless to even try to fight sometimes because it has no affect on the enemy or the outcome.

 

Another thing I'd think would be cool is to be able to see the regiments within a brigade. For instance in Hays Beigade I could list all the regiments that were in that brigade or make a new list of regiments that I want to be in that brigade. This is just for role play purposes but I think it would be cool to click on a brigade in the army camp and be able to edit the regiments or see the regiments listed in the brigade.

Edited by Legioneod
Link to post
Share on other sites

Played a couple of battles as the Union and so far I love it.  The new campaign features are excellent and I love love love the ability to garrison defenses and towns.  The vision points makes for an interesting objective points system without the gamey feeling of objective points.

For negative feedback, I don't feel the reloading difference between repeating weapons like the sharps carbine and muzzle loading muskets.  I'm not sure if this is a bug or the damage is working correctly but the effect isn't being shown on the battlefield.

Also movement speed feels too fast at the moment, especially when charging, it's almost arcadey.  With the ability to speed up the game I would aim for too slow rather than too fast, that way you can always speed it up!

Finally, as others have said, I'd like to see Deaths changed to Casualties on the unit card, not only does it sound better, it's more thematic and represents people with minor wounds moving to the rear as well as soldiers who are unable or unwilling to fight, which makes the high casualty rate make more sense (it's not people killed, it's people no longer willing or able to fight).  It's ok to call enemy casualties 'kills' as armies tend to overestimate enemy casualties anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On my 2nd playthrough, count me down with the other guys clamoring for dynamic campaigns where the effect of your battles matter on the enemy force structure.  To appeal to as wide of a community as possible (and trust me, I want you guys to make bank on this, so you can keep churning out quality games)...you should appeal to casuals like me.  There are plenty of hardcores in here who want the highest possible AI difficulty.  But my enjoyment within the camp portion of campaign is knowing that I'm doing everything I can to build a superior force with which to crush my foe.  Right now, it feels like the camp portion is all about just trying to keep up with the joneses so I don't get my own rear end spanked in the next major battle.  I should be able to get a benefit or some sort of reward for early superior campaign gameplay.

Should absolutely have a toggle in the options to have AI army scaling or not (or some other campaign reward that will actually make a difference).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, so just joined the forums. but i wanted to make a suggestion. Is there any chance you can cannibalize two mauled units into a new unit from the camp? i know it is possible in battle, but i would also be nice if you could do it in camp. the standard weapon of the larger of the two units would become standard for the new unit. The officer with the higher rank becomes the new commanding officer (If the is only one, he becomes it). And would be a good way to keep Vet units, but also give a reason to make new green units to.

 

I do really like the army management aspect though. I think it is well done, And the campaign is a great add on that Gettysburg felt like it was missing. I am very impressed with game and look forward to see what other titles you make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So with 50 hours of gameplay under my belt, here are some additional suggestions.

1. Craters from artillery shells are permanent and stay on the battlefield until the end of the battle.  I enjoy this a lot because it really shoots up the land after a large battle like Antietam.  However, enemy dead do not do this like in UG:G.  Is there a reason why not?  Also, maybe make more than one type of crater, just for diversity.

2. Allow players to move officers around as easily as they do brigades in the camp screen.  Unless a player has a free officer, they cannot even switch officers of units.  If a player can strip a division of units until it has no more units, they should be able to do the same with officers as well.  More than once I ended up with a brigade commanded by a LG while its division was commanded by a Col. 

3. Increase the max supply amount.  Even maxed out at 25,000, I ran out of ammo only half way through most battles.

4. A suggestion for supply.  Moving a wagon around while moving brigades is a pain.  Not to mention, most armies had a supply base that wagons then ferried to and from during the battle.  So my suggestion is allow wagons to 'unlimber' so to speak so that they can now cover a wider area but lose the ability to move.  The balance comes in in that they cannot 're-limber' very quickly (as gathering all those supplies back into wagons takes a while).  This balance means a commander can decide how much he is going to risk his supply line by placing it close to the front, or keep it mobile but having to be directed around.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've definitely learned to use the "hold position" on my wagons more than once so they don't keep scurrying away from my units.  Clever idea with them being able to limber/unlimber and provide a greater radius.  It would solve two issues at once, and use a game mechanic that already exists with artillery.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all bloody brilliant game it's like an updated version of civil war generals 2 which I still play. It does have some slight issues though.

A fix for the supply issue may be you need to be able to turn it on or off. Instead off passive resupplying every unit as it trundles past. That would give you more control of the units you resupply.

I wish you had access to the full battles map eg Shiloh to let you have full control of the tactics map wide it would also bring the immersion even more into play with so much to do. 

It would be nice if you could play the campaign with just historical units with battle casualties changing the next battles morale/conditioning and organisation depending on the commanding general stats and whether your winning the war or losing.

ive a big problem with the ai just charging into melee with 4 or 5 brigades vs 1 brigade as soon as they spot you eg Big problem at Antietam as the confederates.

 

if I could get some feedback on this that would be great as it's got potential to be a great civil war game which have been few and far between.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After last nights update, the game picks majors instead of colonels for brigades again. It also picks captains for artillery again which also worked properly yesterday.

 

Something seems to be off with the scaling, I've reported Gampton's Gap before Antietam, the AI had 21.800 now. The 14.000 before was near impossible (also reported) but since the update last night, the number changed from 14.000 to 21.800. I looked at the map before going to bed last night so this update changed something in the scaling.

 

AI also seems to scale more at Antietam, though not much. I made exactly 102.000 again to test it out and the AI now has 69.000 there were in the current live patch, last time the AI had 65.000. I am not sure if the AI numbers can vary or they simply scale the same every time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Civil War buff, I've been waiting for a game like this for a long time. I've played it for several hours and the maps are quite spectacular. As for suggestions, I do have a few:

I wish the campaign was less linear and changes in response to the results of previous battles.

It would be interesting if there was more interaction between battles--maybe having to plan marching routes to meet the enemy

Have politicians demand the players complete certain objectives or force them to detach units for other theaters.

Maybe progress into a "General of the Armies" position where the player is responsible for managing the entire war on multiple fronts.

I would love all of the major battles of the war to be included in the final product.

That's all for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I signed on into Steam last night and got the update. I continue to play my game as normal, then I checked the achievements but shows as if I have not played. I am currently playing the CSA in the Battle of Shiloh. My question, is does this update requires a new start to take effect? Or changes applied to save games?

Thanks for the work, the game is addictive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...