Does it have formations\unit uniform variation\recognisable weapon models\map contour numbers\unit & weapon descriptions\ or better map?

[Destraex]

Curious if these bug bears have been fixed since UGG.

• Formations
• Unit uniform variation
• Recognisable weapon models
• Map contour numbers
• Unit & weapon descriptions
• Better map
• Unit flags (other than the default one)
• Lay down
• Fire and move or ignore enemy
• Messengers for orders

[JJPettigrew]

Bugs?  that  list seems more like a limitations/dislikes than bugs  

• Formations  -  the general look is better, big units deploy in two paalel columns when marching and to different blocks when in line, and they seems more organized than the previous Skirmishers are too in quite a recognisable formation.

• Unit uniform variation

               Nope , no IB hat nor LT distinction, and no coluorful zouave

• Recognisable weapon models

             in the campaign you can change weapons , a quite extense list of options with full effects. it lacks (or I did not find it yet) this info within battle, other than the range indicator and a tooltip (hard to come by) that indicates close combat/range caracteristic in a descriptive mode.

• Map contour numbers

           No contour lines. Very comented feature (lack of) , Personally I think immersion is better without them, but I understand many players like having full control and godlike knowing of the terrain.. 

• Unit & weapon descriptions

In battle- poor, tricky to find. In campaign management, superb. full caracteristics  , weapons, leader (direct and upper echelons)

•  Better map

         Depends of your taste...I am sure you can find lots of videos to compare. My first impresion was bad (too clear) and cover treatment is strange (you have to be looking for the cursor shape and associated tooltip, but once you give a few tries it becomes natural.

• Unit flags (other than the default one)

     Nope. definitively unit graphic detail is not the best of the game, I think we are all too accustomed to total war (and mods) detail...not to speak those of us who are on miniature painting. It could really use more diversity

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by JJPettigrew

[Destraex]

bugbear

ˈbʌɡbɛː/

noun

 

1. 1.

   a cause of obsessive fear, anxiety, or irritation.

   "the biggest villain is that adman's bugbear, saturated fat"

   synonyms:

   pet hate, hate, bane, irritant, irritation, dislike, anathema, aversion, vexation, thorn in one's flesh/side, bane of one's life; More

2. 2.

   archaic

   an imaginary being invoked to frighten children, typically a sort of hobgoblin supposed to devour them.

[JJPettigrew]

3 minutes ago, Destraex said:

typically a sort of hobgoblin supposed to devour them.

oh this ones! , I suppose you can find those (or their close parents) in TW:Warhammer 

Edited November 21, 2016 by JJPettigrew

[Destraex]

More the former definition.

[Destraex]

15 minutes ago, JJPettigrew said:

Bugs?  that  list seems more like a limitations/dislikes than bugs  

• Formations  -  the general look is better, big units deploy in two paalel columns when marching and to different blocks when in line, and they seems more organized than the previous Skirmishers are too in quite a recognisable formation.

• Unit uniform variation

               Nope , no IB hat nor LT distinction, and no coluorful zouave

• Recognisable weapon models

             in the campaign you can change weapons , a quite extense list of options with full effects. it lacks (or I did not find it yet) this info within battle, other than the range indicator and a tooltip (hard to come by) that indicates close combat/range caracteristic in a descriptive mode.

• Map contour numbers

           No contour lines. Very comented feature (lack of) , Personally I think immersion is better without them, but I understand many players like having full control and godlike knowing of the terrain.. 

• Unit & weapon descriptions

In battle- poor, tricky to find. In campaign management, superb. full caracteristics  , weapons, leader (direct and upper echelons)

•  Better map

         Depends of your taste...I am sure you can find lots of videos to compare. My first impresion was bad (too clear) and cover treatment is strange (you have to be looking for the cursor shape and associated tooltip, but once you give a few tries it becomes natural.

• Unit flags (other than the default one)

     Nope. definitively unit graphic detail is not the best of the game, I think we are all too accustomed to total war (and mods) detail...not to speak those of us who are on miniature painting. It could really use more diversity

 

Is their any possibility for mods to fix the lack of uniform variety? Or is the same model tied universally to each unit type in general?

I don't mind not having contours but the map has to show hills properly and units descending off them properly. As for the contour lines being god like... just think of yourself hovering over the battlefield giving orders in real time? Play scourge of war if you want to know what less god like realism is. Units will not move in that game unless the courier with the orders arrives and their is a mode that does not let you see further than your general can!

No formations is another big problem as you say they are defaulted for you.

Is all this simplification so that the AI and Ipad can keep up?

[JJPettigrew]

2 hours ago, Destraex said:

No formations is another big problem as you say they are defaulted for you.

  Again I think is a matter of taste... though I am quite accostumed to make those formations myself in other games I am seeing as a breath of fresh air that  is up to my subordinates to make those decisions... less micromanagement to represent a wider scope, and on some way more credible, as an example when skirmishers shot your column they tend to deploy , even if as a player sometimes I would like to acept extra losses to maintain momentum , but I see more appropiate the current behaviour...

BTW up to now the IA is making those decissions quite well, though I miss some kind of flank refusal.

Edited November 21, 2016 by JJPettigrew

[Destraex]

JJPettigrew your subordinates do not make those decisions. Nobody including yourself and your subordinates can change formation, whether they wanted to or not. 

I am mainly referencing line infantry... I generally see them in videos and such just forming according to their numbers. Two lines if their are too many men. Am I wrong about this? Do they actually spread out to plug a hole?

[JJPettigrew]

10 hours ago, Destraex said:

JJPettigrew your subordinates do not make those decisions. Nobody including yourself and your subordinates can change formation, whether they wanted to or not. 

I am mainly referencing line infantry... I generally see them in videos and such just forming according to their numbers. Two lines if their are too many men. Am I wrong about this? Do they actually spread out to plug a hole?

Troops -infantry- change formation (I like to think the asigned commanders give those orders -note you really have to put , and substitute, a commander -with own skill and level- in each unit) from march column to a sort of double line, and then on the charges  form a sort of column that shapes mostly  a blob if charge goes too far (seems quite appropiate to my eye indeed).

Units do not extend to single line (from the double line you see in big (1000+ aprox) units to plug gaps, but imho this would be better treated allowing dividing those units (now the game only allows merging and dividing those merged) than modifying formation system.

 

 

 

 

[A. P. Hill]

Just a note on the uniform variety thingie.

The only real battle where there was much variety in uniforms was pretty much just 1st Manassas/Bull Run. The opposing militaries immediately got the sense of the confusion and immediately started to rectify that issue.  In so doing, any unit that came into either the federal or the confederate militaries, were issued "standardized" government issued uniforms. More so in the South than the North, the Southern Governments dictated to the states manufacturing their own uniform issues, that the provisional standard would now have to be followed by all state manufacturing.  The North had a ready supply of manufacturers who were issued a federal mandate as to what their uniforms would be and these were followed.

Zouave uniforms, Militia uniforms, Berdan's uniforms all disappeared, any semblance of difference disappeared, Union armies became a mass of blue, Rebel armies became a variety of gray colors. (This was from the various materials that were used in manufacturing, and not so much for identification of units.) 

And maybe it's just my eyes, but unless I zoom microscopically deep into a battle, I can't tell if uniforms are different or not.  At the scale of these avatars on these battlefields, I fail to see how a variance in uniforms would be necessary.  It could be a time consuming effort, time that the development team could better spend on something different that may matter to game play.

Just my $0.02