Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

UGCW Feedback v0.70+


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

The absolute best Civil War game ever just got even better.  Futhermore, I've not played all the 2016 Strategy Games, but UGCW is the best of those I have.

Thank you.  Keep working to improve single player, and get it as great as possible before devoting precious resources to anything else.

This game can become as historic as Civ.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Few things, when you fast forward through luls in battles, the AI tends to freeze up and not do anything. This needs to be addressed.

Second, need to explore all the civil war battles in the Kentucky and Tennessee there are so many they were crucial to union or southern cause if either side won or lost them. Because we are in 1862 and basically at the end of it. 1863 should be a long campaign everywhere, the war is in full swing and battle happening everywhere all over the country.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Slaithium said:

Few things, when you fast forward through luls in battles, the AI tends to freeze up and not do anything. This needs to be addressed.

Second, need to explore all the civil war battles in the Kentucky and Tennessee there are so many they were crucial to union or southern cause if either side won or lost them. Because we are in 1862 and basically at the end of it. 1863 should be a long campaign everywhere, the war is in full swing and battle happening everywhere all over the country.

I think for the most part we are fighting in the bigger campaigns or at least the more well known. however i can't wait for Chickamauga, and other battles that are over on the western front

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I'd like to see campaigns created for both theaters of the war.  And all subsequent battles of that theater relegated to that campaign.   True, I know there were great and wonderful battles fought in each theater, but as a player, I do not feel the need to have to fight battles my troops didn't fight in as the troops in real life didn't fight there either.

PLEASE, divide the campaign into theaters so one can play a realistic campaign if he so choses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

Again, I'd like to see campaigns created for both theaters of the war.  And all subsequent battles of that theater relegated to that campaign.   True, I know there were great and wonderful battles fought in each theater, but as a player, I do not feel the need to have to fight battles my troops didn't fight in as the troops in real life didn't fight there either.

PLEASE, divide the campaign into theaters so one can play a realistic campaign if he so choses.

Wouldn't it be more logical to complete the entire game, get all the battles in place, THEN reconstruct the sequence of the campaigns and allow players strategic points where they can flip their command from one theater to the other? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just played through the Union campaign on Normal. Here are some thoughts:

 

I really like the new scaling system, however, some tweaks may need to be made. I won 2nd Bull Run with only two corps. Granted, I smashed the Confederates at Malvern Hill, but it still seemed a bit too easy. 

I think the side missions are perfect. Most of them feel like they could go either way if I make a mistake, enemy numbers seem good and the missions are pretty diverse.

I'd like to see more guns in the armory. Not different types, but just quantity. I would often run out of the Springfield 1842, (like before every major battle) which really shouldn't be that big of an issue.

I reported this, but the "Defend Pittsburgh Landing" phase saw me fast forward through it because the CSA never attacked me. They never even came close to my lines. For most of that phase, I could only see one brigade. 

Overall the AI seemed to be more passive. It could be that I've gotten better, but I'm sure the devs will be able to determine if it's something they did. 

I've read a couple places here about scaling back the casualties. While I like that idea in theory, I would think it would mean the every battle and skirmish will have to be redone to make sure there is adequate time.

Fredericksburg wasn't all that fun. Maybe it needs to broken up into three phases? The hill, Mayre's Heights and then the Post Road (I think that's what it's called). I took the Heights, the CSA moved north to flank me, so I just pinned them there and sent skirmishers to take the road. Again, the scaling kind of messed this one up for the AI. I outnumbered them by 20k. I think maybe making it a three part battle and losing one of the battle nerfs may help. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stonewall47 said:

Fredericksburg wasn't all that fun. Maybe it needs to broken up into three phases? The hill, Mayre's Heights and then the Post Road (I think that's what it's called). I took the Heights, the CSA moved north to flank me, so I just pinned them

Agree.^. I played the Historical Battle(Union) I sent in my report mentioning much of the same as above. Perhaps the AI needs to be kicked up a Notch, on BGen Level .....Aggressive / Determined when fortified. Batteries do a pretty good Job supporting/Positioning smartly.

But sometimes the AI gets side tracked n Lose's battle cohesion.

Prospect Hill Phase 1 needs help,,stopping right in the middle of a Great rip roaring Battle is a bit of a disappointment . Need to have an opportunity to finish this fight for the Objective,,,imo.. before or after Battle focus has shifted to another area..                                 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2016 at 3:27 PM, Koro said:

Maybe not then. Odd though. Maybe it doesn't always take so to speak.

 

FWIW finally had campaign adjustments kick in for Fredericksburg. Very odd.

I do think the Prospect Hill phase of the battle needs revisiting. If Maryes Heights timer extends into a second phase, it feels like it makes more sense to me to then switch back down south to also continue fighting that battle rather than just glossing over it with "our forces on that flank are holding". CSA doesn't even get their reinforcements from Jackson onto the field in that area, I was expecting to fight a lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stonewall47 said:

I'd like to see more guns in the armory. Not different types, but just quantity. I would often run out of the Springfield 1842, (like before every major battle) which really shouldn't be that big of an issue.

 

I'd like to expand on this.  I've done a few campaigns on both sides and I've begun to notice the chief arms supplier has become the enemy army.  Which is fine, I don't mind getting a plethora of 1855s each battle, but after the last patch I finished Fredricksburg on my Union and Confederate sides.

 

On the Union side, instead of picking up 1855s, I captured 1853 Enfields.  No complaints here, that was a very popular weapon for the south.

But on the South side, after completing the battle, I captured over 20K Tyler Texas Rifles....from the Union.  This didn't seem normal to me.

 

But then again, this could be a game balance issue.  Which makes sense.  You can't have the majority of the Union using superior 1861's by Fredericksburg against a CSA army barely able to field 1855s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Wouldn't it be more logical to complete the entire game, get all the battles in place,

Okay, I agree with this.  Build all the battles first.

As to your second point Sir.  I disagree.  I'm a purist.  I want to follow historically accurate game play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:

FWIW finally had campaign adjustments kick in for Fredericksburg. Very odd.

I do think the Prospect Hill phase of the battle needs revisiting. If Maryes Heights timer extends into a second phase, it feels like it makes more sense to me to then switch back down south to also continue fighting that battle rather than just glossing over it with "our forces on that flank are holding". CSA doesn't even get their reinforcements from Jackson onto the field in that area, I was expecting to fight a lot more.

Extending battle phases at the moment would only make sense, if the Union forces get sufficiently buffed, in any possible way you can think of. Historically the Confederates would have never advanced very far on the open ground in the direction of the river because it would have been suicidal due to the powerful union artillery on both sides of the river. These circumstances aren't present at all in the current campaign battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Stonewall47 said:

I'd like to see more guns in the armory. Not different types, but just quantity. I would often run out of the Springfield 1842, (like before every major battle) which really shouldn't be that big of an issue.

 

16 hours ago, Springfield said:

I'd like to expand on this.  I've done a few campaigns on both sides and I've begun to notice the chief arms supplier has become the enemy army.  Which is fine, I don't mind getting a plethora of 1855s each battle, but after the last patch I finished Fredricksburg on my Union and Confederate sides.

On the Union side, instead of picking up 1855s, I captured 1853 Enfields.  No complaints here, that was a very popular weapon for the south.

But on the South side, after completing the battle, I captured over 20K Tyler Texas Rifles....from the Union.  This didn't seem normal to me.

But then again, this could be a game balance issue.  Which makes sense.  You can't have the majority of the Union using superior 1861's by Fredericksburg against a CSA army barely able to field 1855s. 

I don't agree.I don't think that providing bigger quanities of weapons would add to the gameplay or the historical accuracy of the game, It would very likely just make it easier to play.

In my experience, in the Union campaign, you have usually plenty of money to buy everything you wish for and the game supplies enough weapons in the armory and government screen. In the Confederate campaign you capture so many weapons, you don't have to buy a lot of them. After 2nd Bull Run I had about 17000 Springfield M1842 left over in my armory after replacing them mostly with captured M1855. So all my men had good rifled muskets by then. Not very historical, given the fact, that at Battles like Shiloh or Murfreesboro a considerable number of confederate soldier went into battle without any handgun at all and instead picked them up later in the battle from dead soldiers.

On a sidenote: Historically the Union infantry at Fredericksburg had probably about 40 percent imported weapons, about 10 percent smoothbores. The rest were equipped with Springfield M1855 and a smaller number with M1861 (thank you Internet ;)).

@Springfield: I would report the capture of the Tyler Texas Rifles as a bug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RobWheat61 said:

 

I don't agree.I don't think that providing bigger quanities of weapons would add to the gameplay or the historical accuracy of the game, It would very likely just make it easier to play.

In my experience, in the Union campaign, you have usually plenty of money to buy everything you wish for and the game supplies enough weapons in the armory and government screen. In the Confederate campaign you capture so many weapons, you don't have to buy a lot of them. After 2nd Bull Run I had about 17000 Springfield M1842 left over in my armory after replacing them mostly with captured M1855. So all my men had good rifled muskets by then. Not very historical, given the fact, that at Battles like Shiloh or Murfreesboro a considerable number of confederate soldier went into battle without any handgun at all and instead picked them up later in the battle from dead soldiers.

On a sidenote: Historically the Union infantry at Fredericksburg had probably about 40 percent imported weapons, about 10 percent smoothbores. The rest were equipped with Springfield M1855 and a smaller number with M1861 (thank you Internet ;)).

@Springfield: I would report the capture of the Tyler Texas Rifles as a bug.

I'm not asking for the high end rifles to be kept in massive quantities, I couldn't create regiments because I lacked the standard rifle, which to me, is kind of dumb especially as the Union. As far as accuracy, I don't really care too much about that. It's a game predicated on the chance of an alternate history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stonewall47 said:

I'm not asking for the high end rifles to be kept in massive quantities, I couldn't create regiments because I lacked the standard rifle, which to me, is kind of dumb especially as the Union. As far as accuracy, I don't really care too much about that. It's a game predicated on the chance of an alternate history. 

That probably means you were reaching way above the 'historical' army size. I also ran into the same problems and I had a pretty sizable force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game is good do not get me wrong, but there so much that needs to be added to give the game more Authenticity.

I. Need to be able to rename divisions.

II. The idea of separate theaters I believe are mis-founded. Here is why, look at the game and how it is designed. It is designed for the player to fight battles and re-write history. The last part is the emphasis. I think the designers made it where your army is a traveling army in theory fighting the union growing or weakening in strength depending on your performance.  That is why there is not theaters of war and the game functions as it does. To say it in another way, you are the entire army of the south, the head guy, the main cheese, etc so go kill yankees or rebs. So think of it that way.

III. The things that should not be ignored are the capabilities of customizing your army at ever command level, either brigrade or Corps commander. In theory they should have there own bonuses and styles of leaderships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Stonewall47 said:

I think the scaling may need to be readdressed in the next patch. The disparity here I think is a bit too massive. I reported this as a bug as well. 

20161228172740_1.jpg

This is for the first engagement the night before the real attack. You won't be having 60.000 on the field against 10.000. There'll be some 100.000 the other next day of them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Koro said:

This is for the first engagement the night before the real attack. You won't be having 60.000 on the field against 10.000. There'll be some 100.000 the other next day of them

Problem is it's useless for assigning force numbers. Not sure if it's a bug or WAI, seen it on all the multiple day battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:

Problem is it's useless for assigning force numbers. Not sure if it's a bug or WAI, seen it on all the multiple day battles.

Yep, but he thinks those are the actual numbers of the battle so I just pointed that out.. 

Some way of showing the second day forces wouldn't be so bad. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Koro said:

Yep, but he thinks those are the actual numbers of the battle so I just pointed that out.. 

Some way of showing the second day forces wouldn't be so bad. 

You were right. The first day only had 10k. The problem is, they never attacked any part of my line. I fast forwarded through the whole phase and never once saw a blue regiment. They ended up with 70k on the field, left it with less than 30! :D  Also, after the second phase, my reinforcements were reset, even though I had staged a brilliant flanking maneuver... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Stonewall47 said:

You were right. The first day only had 10k. The problem is, they never attacked any part of my line. I fast forwarded through the whole phase and never once saw a blue regiment. They ended up with 70k on the field, left it with less than 30! :D  Also, after the second phase, my reinforcements were reset, even though I had staged a brilliant flanking maneuver... 

Assuming you're talking about Day 1, yes the Union is very slow because they're following their plan of slowplay it until their reinforcements hit the field, then attack en masse. If you want to fight before that you need to advance on them, which isn't really a great idea given the terrain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stonewall47 said:

Also, after the second phase, my reinforcements were reset, even though I had staged a brilliant flanking maneuver... 

Happened to me too. 

I chose to attack on second day and actually took both hills that are objectives on day 3...but when day 3 started my flanking force was reseted to start position on extreme right of map. Probably something that could be changed sometime in futture...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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