Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, i64man said:

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.

I haven't noticed any changes being made to the economy stat in my current campaign, so my guess is that you need a fresh start for some of them to take effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got the game on Sunday and have 13 hours under my belt, all in a Union campaign on Brigadier General setting.

First up, i really like the way that the battles play out though perhaps at default speed units move a little rapidly. One thing I'd love to see is unit flags as a bit of eye candy and hear the occasional rebel yell.

The main issue I have with the campaign thus far is that there is no hint that you need to maximise the number and size of your units if you don't want to be hopelessly outnumbered. A 'bad win' in the first scenario, which I guess will happen to a lot of new players, pretty much requires a restart. A suggested/example order of battle would be very useful, especially for those who are not knowledgeable about the period.

Overall, 10/10 for an early-access game that I am enjoying enormously.

 

Update: I've just encountered and then read on the forum about AI scaling, and it's really not very good at all. Victories (not easy) all the way to Shiloh at BG difficulty, then kerbstomped by waves of Confederates... Shiloh day two had me with three brigades of 2000 foot and one battery of 24 guns against c. 24000 Confederates who, unsurprisingly, steamrollered me. No tactics, no AI smarts, just gave me a kicking that (as far as I can see) is totally unavoidable, no matter how one plays.

10/10 has just plummetted to 5/10. It makes the campaign not worth playing unless you know the 'secret number' of units and unit sizes that will result in an AI force size that is remotely reasonable. Hopefully this will be urgently addressed.

Edited by Catskinner
Shiloh....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First impressions slip further... second CSA campaign battle, Jeb Stuart's cavalry charge skirmishers of slightly fewer number, do not receive a volley yet lose the melee. The skirmishers then keep up with the retreating cavalry for half the map then, when charged again (and still no defensive volley) win in melee and destroy the cavalry. Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Officers did not have any weapons? It would be great, for example, enemy skirmishers surprise players command unit and shoots some down. Then player withdraw the unit, but it has time to reply to the fire. Also, attacking with commander unit to the ongoing battle could give massive morale boost to own troops. I meant close combat fighting.

If it is historically true, that they had no weapons, then it is like it is right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been a staunch player of CWG2, "way back when", and during the years that followed, when technology LEFT the best danged "turn-based" Civil War game EVER, for the buzzards; I can safely say, even after having purchased UG-CW, and only played The one campaign battle of Taking and holding the fort along the Potomac?  The AI, even though MUCH better then CWG2, is STILL no match against another "seasoned" human opponent.  Once he/she learns how to co-ordinate his men properly.  (uhh...that would be me...lol)

     I know this is "early access" and tweaks and fixes are still yet forthcoming, I am IN the hopes of: A) Please, please PLEASE, make this game MP!  (B- Make it where players MAY make their own scenarios/(even) campaigns,  How cool would that be, eh?

I bought this game AFTER the first big game fix, and, I'm a TOTAL NOOB to RTS,  so can't give any feedback as how she played prior, but, am not finding out how to "Undo" a change in Camp, after hitting the apply button.  Causing me grief when I find I don't have enough muskets/rifles/artillery/MONEY, and I end up scrapping it and reloading "Auto-Save".  And then dunno how to "save" the upgrades I have just made, so they'll be there for the next battle. 

 

Jez an FYI for those I've read loved CWG2, but can't play it anymore?....It can be played on 64 bit machines, which is easy.  Also can be played online (again).  Thaz a little more tricky, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Catskinner said:

Update: I've just encountered and then read on the forum about AI scaling, and it's really not very good at all. Victories (not easy) all the way to Shiloh at BG difficulty, then kerbstomped by waves of Confederates... Shiloh day two had me with three brigades of 2000 foot and one battery of 24 guns against c. 24000 Confederates who, unsurprisingly, steamrollered me. No tactics, no AI smarts, just gave me a kicking that (as far as I can see) is totally unavoidable, no matter how one plays.

10/10 has just plummetted to 5/10. It makes the campaign not worth playing unless you know the 'secret number' of units and unit sizes that will result in an AI force size that is remotely reasonable. Hopefully this will be urgently addressed.

Hi Catskinner.

Your issues here have little to do with AI scaling. There might be some secret numbers to exploit the game to get the ideal enemy army but this is not your problem here.

Your issue occurs simply because you don't have enough men at Shiloh - not sure exactly how many men you have but it sounds like very few. I had 37.000 men there in total and it was relatively easy, as you can see here on normal: 

 

I'm not trying to be hard on you but something must have happened in the previous battles, you lost a lot of men perhaps, that leaves with too small of a force at Shiloh.

If you choose to fight the battle, don't try to hold the outer positions, let the AI take them and fight further back where you can concentrate your forces more. The game isn't always "fair" in that way, it's war and sometimes the enemy will have more numbers than you. Quote from my "tips for new players" on the Steam forum:

" 2. Not every battle is meant to be won

This game simulates real war, where circumstances and man power are not always equal and "fair". This happened IRL and is the same way in the game. Here is your chance not to repeat the mistakes of history though. Don't we berate those generals who kept on pressing the attack when they were clearly suffering unsustainable casualties? Don't we wonder why they didn't just retreat when faced with overwhelming odds. Here is your chance to do better than them. You are of course free to stay and slug it out in each battle but you may lose your army in the process. Sometimes you will find that withdrawing from the field is the better option. All units have a withdraw button to take them off the field. Remove them all and you'll lose the battle but perhaps save your army. Often you can keep your army on the field though and go for a draw though if you look at the victory condtiions "

 

If you don't think you can fight the battle, you can withdraw from the fight altogether and save your army.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Koro,

Appreciate the time you have taken to reply - I'll dig out the save and find how many men I had; overall, I was in pretty good shape. All the whingeing below should be taken in the context of early access and is hopefully constructive :)

I guess the bit I disagree with is 'not every battle is meant to won', at least in part. Are we re-enacting or re-fighting these battles? If the game design is such that I have to plod through the actual steps of the battle, expecting (for the most part) the same outcome, I'll go and play something else. Also, why stitch it together in a campaign that can become unwinnable by choices made with no information given (in camp) despite having solid victories up to that point? It becomes all about the meta-game rather than winning battles, which I find disappointing.

It's possible that this could be mitigated up to a point by having more clarity around army composition and mission objectives. As it stands, the campaign and the battles are more about puzzle-solving, in terms of getting just the right force in just the right place, than fighting the battles how you want to and still having a chance. The way it is designed feels to me that there is a very narrow path to success - why put in all the camp functionality and variety (and commander stats) if you can't win the meta if you step off the path?

Currently, I think the game works really well for single historical battles but is failing in the campaign due to the reasons outlined above. The ideas are excellent but I don't feel that they have been well-executed at this point.

Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings Labs!

Here for another update. 

Sustains: The added graphic quality of the craters was nice.  thanks!  The AI seems to have improved, becoming dramatically more aggressive at point and using the terrain better.  having the officers sorted from highest to lowest is nice too.  I've also noticed less sounds of "REAL BAD!", so thanks for that too.

Improves: Individual unit AI still has some work.  Its so frustrating to see one of my routed units run through enemy lines to their rear not mine.  Ai does the same thing.  I charge, the enemy routes and falls back behind my own lines.  This seems to happen more after the last update. 

Supply wagons are still stupid.  Wander out in front of my own lines.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Catskinner said:

Hi Koro,

Appreciate the time you have taken to reply - I'll dig out the save and find how many men I had; overall, I was in pretty good shape. All the whingeing below should be taken in the context of early access and is hopefully constructive :)

I guess the bit I disagree with is 'not every battle is meant to won', at least in part. Are we re-enacting or re-fighting these battles? If the game design is such that I have to plod through the actual steps of the battle, expecting (for the most part) the same outcome, I'll go and play something else. Also, why stitch it together in a campaign that can become unwinnable by choices made with no information given (in camp) despite having solid victories up to that point? It becomes all about the meta-game rather than winning battles, which I find disappointing.

It's possible that this could be mitigated up to a point by having more clarity around army composition and mission objectives. As it stands, the campaign and the battles are more about puzzle-solving, in terms of getting just the right force in just the right place, than fighting the battles how you want to and still having a chance. The way it is designed feels to me that there is a very narrow path to success - why put in all the camp functionality and variety (and commander stats) if you can't win the meta if you step off the path?

Currently, I think the game works really well for single historical battles but is failing in the campaign due to the reasons outlined above. The ideas are excellent but I don't feel that they have been well-executed at this point.

Thanks again.

Hi again Cat.

While there sure is some choices that can lead to the campaign being unwinnable, and the army management could use some more pointers as how to prioritize, the big pointer I feel you are missing here is the the game tries to put you in a real generals shoe, for better or worse. Sometimes, either due to bad luck or losing too many men in earlier battles, you will find yourself outnumbered to the point of being unable to win a battle. What should a general do here? Many historic generals fought unwinnable battles because of stubbornness or misguided notions about honor.

The battle of Shiloh itself was a near loss for the Union and the game puts you in that position as well - it has to have a certain overwhelming feeling to it initially as the CSA forces are roaming in. If you were able to win easily and hold all the points, the game would become boring for anyone involved. If you've arrived at Shiloh being severely outnumbered, you have the option of retreating completely from the map and choosing not to fight this battle.

If you want, you can add me as friend on Steam and we can discuss this a bit more (Koro *t*r*y*) or find me in one of the posts on the steam forum and add me - I'm in most of them :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Ai scailing to my units it feels that every battle i fought before was unnecessary. The campain feels wrong. In my opinion its just a road with battles and the former outcome of battles do not matter. It feels like playing the historical battles but i cant choose which one next. They are not linkt to each other. It just feels wrong the more I progress throuh my campain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've now played the campaign through to Shiloh as Union and Confederate on BG difficulty. In my experience, the Confederate campaign, thus far, feels like playing on an easier setting than Union - I'm not saying it was too easy as the Rebs but, again in my experience, it was significantly easier than the Union. Has anyone experienced this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Catskinner said:

I've now played the campaign through to Shiloh as Union and Confederate on BG difficulty. In my experience, the Confederate campaign, thus far, feels like playing on an easier setting than Union - I'm not saying it was too easy as the Rebs but, again in my experience, it was significantly easier than the Union. Has anyone experienced this?

I have also noticed same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Union had a really hard time in the beginning of the war. The game reflects that, so your experiences aren't totally surprising. Later the game should shift as the South starts lacking manpower and become more outnumbered.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Union supposed to get reinforcements at Gaine's Mill? I saw no sight of them attacking as CSA. The player gets reinforcements and in the historical battle there are reinforcements too. The Union was outnumbered 29.000 to my 45.000 and it just felt too easy on normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome game! played as the union and had a great campaign. A few special units carried over from the intro battle to antietam and boy was that satisfying to see the war weary but hardened 9th Wisconsin participate in the surround and destruction of the army of northern Virginia at antietam after fighting long and hard for 2 years.

As for balance, i thought it was done very well. A few battles i found myself in a rough spot with new recruit brigades getting chewed up and annihilated by three star confeds , but that's war. i found if you focused on numbers in the infantry department and didn't obsess too much about the high quality equipment it made the campaign much easier. the number of brigades and men in the brigades is a huge metric towards winning, getting multiple firing lines on one enemy brigade is what makes the difference. Cavalry and skirmishers were huge, and buying a small amount of good weapons every time they popped up in the armoury and having Henry and scope rifle armed skirms at antietam was essential. frank and Wesson served the mounted rifles well also, give good equipment to most experienced brigades and cav/skirms and just pump out the conscript infantry. after replaying some battles and tinkering with army composition, i ended at antietam as the union with three corps, a total of 10 divisions, and about 70k men. i surrounded the entire confederate army and annihilated every SINGLE brigade between the sunken road and the church, the battle started with 72k vs 50k and ended with me as the union having 10k casualties and the confederates having 35k casualties. i hope when new battles are released my wiping out of their army will have some effect at least in the department of me not seeing the same brigades in later battles, having new units be called up to replace the stonewall brigade and texas brigade destroyed at antietam. just for immersion , because for gameplay having the enemy be able to scale to you every battle makes a lot of sense.

Some battles were harder than others like i struggled very hard with thoroughfare gap against Longstreet, could never win that one with his 38k star brigades entrenched in those big forests. but again that is good, not every battle should be equally difficult and some should be downright almost impossible. the first time i experienced that side battle where the rebels come from every direction unexpectedly and you only have 3 brigades on the field in the open i almost cried, lost a veteran brigade and almost lost the battle, i never captured thoroughfare gap.

Ai is basically awesome, the way enemy brigades would go into column and exploit flanks and gaps in my lines while all my brigades were tied up forcing me to maneuver and readjust at my expense was very very good. enemy cavalry ai needs work, often they will just stand in the open and eat volleys. in general ai awareness was great, at antietam i launched a wide cavalry flanking maneuver into sharpsburg and when it was spotted i could see the enemy divert brigades from the main battle at sunken road to cut off my flank, very immersive and possibly the best ai for a strategy game like this I've played, much better than total war FOR SURE.

That being said routing and fallback needs a lot of work; and often times I'd find my brigades marching out of cover into melee with no charge order after i give them a simple click attack to an enemy well within their range. i do utilize the hold mechanic but I'd like my units to rotate to face but not march aimlessly to their deaths in the open. routing everyone else has complained about, fallback is very confusing. idk where my units fallback to and if i click move often they will get a rear flank penalty and get routed immediately. this is frustrating but not game breaking whatsoever, mostly bothersome when routing enemy units and having them slip into a completely secured objective five seconds before the battle ends, forcing a draw or defeat onto you even though you've secured all possible realistic flanks the random enemy routed unit the routed through your lines now rallies and snags the long forgotten initial objective. those are my only complaints, everything else i will wait and see what comes with updates and in the final package. am praying for head to head campaign, 2v2s or even 4v4s, or at least competitive multiplayer in historical battles with the armies we've made in campaigns, i understand that is hard to implement and like the game anyway, major requests are multiplayer in any form and names of geographical features on maps, loved that in UGG

Overall loved the game and cant wait for more content to come out, am resisting a rebel play through until full release. absolutely gorgeous graphics and immersive sound, ai, and tactics just how i like my strategy games. customization in campaign was glorious, i cant wait to have my hardened union army with the lorenz-armed german division face off against Lee's army in Gettysburg, and conversely i cant wait to play as the confederates at gettysburg and fight it how it should have been fought,  and then carry on to sack Philadelphia/DC. Thanks Darth, you're the hero we need but dont deserve!

Edited by RadioRage
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RadioRage said:

Awesome game! played as the union and had a great campaign. A few special units carried over from the intro battle to antietam and boy was that satisfying to see the war weary but hardened 9th Wisconsin participate in the surround and destruction of the army of northern Virginia at antietam after fighting long and hard for 2 years.

As for balance, i thought it was done very well. A few battles i found myself in a rough spot with new recruit brigades getting chewed up and annihilated by three star confeds , but that's war. i found if you focused on numbers in the infantry department and didn't obsess too much about the high quality equipment it made the campaign much easier. the number of brigades and men in the brigades is a huge metric towards winning, getting multiple firing lines on one enemy brigade is what makes the difference. Cavalry and skirmishers were huge, and buying a small amount of good weapons every time they popped up in the armoury and having Henry and scope rifle armed skirms at antietam was essential. frank and Wesson served the mounted rifles well also, give good equipment to most experienced brigades and cav/skirms and just pump out the conscript infantry. after replaying some battles and tinkering with army composition, i ended at antietam as the union with three corps, a total of 10 divisions, and about 70k men. i surrounded the entire confederate army and annihilated every SINGLE brigade between the sunken road and the church, the battle started with 72k vs 50k and ended with me as the union having 10k casualties and the confederates having 35k casualties. i hope when new battles are released my wiping out of their army will have some effect at least in the department of me not seeing the same brigades in later battles, having new units be called up to replace the stonewall brigade and texas brigade destroyed at antietam. just for immersion , because for gameplay having the enemy be able to scale to you every battle makes a lot of sense.

Some battles were harder than others like i struggled very hard with thoroughfare gap against Longstreet, could never win that one with his 38k star brigades entrenched in those big forests. but again that is good, not every battle should be equally difficult and some should be downright almost impossible. the first time i experienced that side battle where the rebels come from every direction unexpectedly and you only have 3 brigades on the field in the open i almost cried, lost a veteran brigade and almost lost the battle, i never captured thoroughfare gap.

Ai is basically awesome, the way enemy brigades would go into column and exploit flanks and gaps in my lines while all my brigades were tied up forcing me to maneuver and readjust at my expense was very very good. enemy cavalry ai needs work, often they will just stand in the open and eat volleys. in general ai awareness was great, at antietam i launched a wide cavalry flanking maneuver into sharpsburg and when it was spotted i could see the enemy divert brigades from the main battle at sunken road to cut off my flank, very immersive and possibly the best ai for a strategy game like this I've played, much better than total war FOR SURE.

That being said routing and fallback needs a lot of work; and often times I'd find my brigades marching out of cover into melee with no charge order after i give them a simple click attack to an enemy well within their range. i do utilize the hold mechanic but I'd like my units to rotate to face but not march aimlessly to their deaths in the open. routing everyone else has complained about, fallback is very confusing. idk where my units fallback to and if i click move often they will get a rear flank penalty and get routed immediately. this is frustrating but not game breaking whatsoever, mostly bothersome when routing enemy units and having them slip into a completely secured objective five seconds before the battle ends, forcing a draw or defeat onto you even though you've secured all possible realistic flanks the random enemy routed unit the routed through your lines now rallies and snags the long forgotten initial objective. those are my only complaints, everything else i will wait and see what comes with updates and in the final package. am praying for head to head campaign, 2v2s or even 4v4s, or at least competitive multiplayer in historical battles with the armies we've made in campaigns, i understand that is hard to implement and like the game anyway, major requests are multiplayer in any form and names of geographical features on maps, loved that in UGG

Overall loved the game and cant wait for more content to come out, am resisting a rebel play through until full release. absolutely gorgeous graphics and immersive sound, ai, and tactics just how i like my strategy games. customization in campaign was glorious, i cant wait to have my hardened union army with the lorenz-armed german division face off against Lee's army in Gettysburg, and conversely i cant wait to play as the confederates at gettysburg and fight it how it should have been fought,  and then carry on to sack Philadelphia/DC. Thanks Darth, you're the hero we need but dont deserve!

Happy to see you enjoying being challenged, Radio. This is exactly what good feedback looks like. It's specific, has the good and the bad points well explained and propose solutions to problems. Thanks for the read.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Koro said:

Is the Union supposed to get reinforcements at Gaine's Mill? I saw no sight of them attacking as CSA. The player gets reinforcements and in the historical battle there are reinforcements too. The Union was outnumbered 29.000 to my 45.000 and it just felt too easy on normal.

At the actual battle, McClellan did not send reinforcements to Porter until the very last minute. And then it was a single brigade, not an entire corps.  The Confederates had breeched the Union line and the V Corps was in general rout/withdrawal and the brigade that was sent as reinforcement eventually provided a blunting point to the Confederates over running.  Porter was able to get his troops back in hand behind the new line that was established by these reinforcements 5 miles or so behind his line at the Boatswain Creek bluffs.

Here's a good bit of info! Enjoy.

Also according to the link's website, Porter only had 30,000 troops available, the Lee had 60,000 troops.

Edited by A. P. Hill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:

At the actual battle, McClellan did not send reinforcements to Porter until the very last minute. And then it was a single brigade, not an entire corps.  The Confederates had breeched the Union line and the V Corps was in general rout/withdrawal and the brigade that was sent as reinforcement eventually provided a blunting point to the Confederates over running.  Porter was able to get his troops back in hand behind the new line that was established by these reinforcements 5 miles or so behind his line at the Boatswain Creek bluffs.

Here's a good bit of info! Enjoy.

Also according to the link's website, Porter only had 30,000 troops available, the Lee had 60,000 troops.

Alright, so I was having the correct odds actually at normal it would seem :). Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Koro said:

The Union had a really hard time in the beginning of the war. The game reflects that, so your experiences aren't totally surprising. Later the game should shift as the South starts lacking manpower and become more outnumbered.

FWIW the Union had a hard time because of bad generals as well as a lot of Green troops. Half of that should be mitigable because someone else is behind the helm.

4 hours ago, Koro said:

Is the Union supposed to get reinforcements at Gaine's Mill? I saw no sight of them attacking as CSA. The player gets reinforcements and in the historical battle there are reinforcements too. The Union was outnumbered 29.000 to my 45.000 and it just felt too easy on normal.

They should get them. I haven't seen it from the CSA side but Union does get them...it just takes forever for them to show up. It's not impossible you simply just won before they were able to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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