UGCW Feedback v0.70+

[Stonewall47]

10 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:

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.

That's fine in theory, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the game, maybe the devs should just scratch that first phase and move straight to the full attack.

[Hitorishizuka]

Just now, Stonewall47 said:

That's fine in theory, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the game, maybe the devs should just scratch that first phase and move straight to the full attack.

The battle is mirrored from the Union side, where you can and should be attacking before your reinforcements get there. The AI isn't good enough to know how to press an attack (and also as a player you are smarter than to take the forward positions the AI rushes to which are much more vulnerable) but if it ever improved it could learn. The battle's winnable for Union within the first phase of battle.

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

AI in this game is truly fantastic.  The only thing that is a little fuzzy right now for me is that the 'fall back' command has units sometimes falling back into creek beds with little or zero cover when really they should be falling back to areas of forested or behind a hill to block line of sight.  Also sometimes the AI likes to stay in the creek bed when it could advance or retreat a little bit to safer ground and still shoot.  Conversely, fall back will sometimes actually retreat TOWARD the enemy instead of back to your lines, I guess if the AI sees better cover nearby even if it means heading closer to the enemy.  This is weird for sure. 

Specifically at Malvern Hill I am running into instances where Union brigades will rout behind my lines after a massive charge, which then allows them to rear flank me or harass my artillery.  To be clear I am charging pretty much my entire line, so there is nothing left behind it but a couple of batteries - AI path finding might actually think this IS the safest way to rout.  I would prefer to see the brigade surrender.  HOWEVER this may be an intention item put in by the developers and if so please let us know, so we know to keep 1-2 brigades in reserve at all times to either avoid entirely or at least be able to handle brigades that rout 'through' the lines.  Again this really only happens to me at Malvern Hill as CSA. 

The other thing is Newport News as CSA since the patch, if you don't use the fortifications and instead plant your brigades in the 100% cover of the town last time I did that, the Union AI never bothered to attack me.  Which probably is smart, but maybe this should be nerfed for CSA.  

Retreat direction is mostly fixed.  enemy supply wagon meandering is also mostly fixed but sometimes still happens.  AI could use improvement on assessing weaknesses in your lines, but that could be a function of the random AI personality selected for that battle (cautious, aggressive, balanced, etc.) - not sure.  

Mill Creek battle as CSA, and other defensive battles as CSA - Union AI has a habit of committing its brigades piecemeal for charging instead of throwing multiple brigades at once to carry a position.  Also AI should try to position a brigade on your flank so if your brigade turns to meet a charging enemy it cannot do so without exposing itself to enfilade, which would force the player to command the brigade to fall back.  This would make the game much harder but would educate the user on tactics better. 

[Slaithium]

On 12/28/2016 at 4:54 PM, 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

I dont see how you get that many troops on max current difficulty. Tried many specs and different assignments. Best I have gotten is 2 corps and a partial thrid. What diff is that?

[Speedkermit]

I have some feedback.

Regarding melee. If my brigade defeats an enemy brigade that charges it, it then proceeds to leave cover and mill about in the open in front of it's positions. With the result that other enemy brigades shoot it to pieces.

It's quite annoying to be on the defence, an enemy brigade charges mine, and is repulsed. My brigade then leaves cover only to be shot to pieces and flanked as I try to get it back into it's original position. More often than not the brigade takes huge casualties and routs.

I would also like to see more control over artillery, for example I would like to option of holding fire until enemy units are in canister range,

Supply perhaps needs adjusting? At Antietam I always run out of ammo, even though I take the maximum amount of supplies possible.

Morale, Perhaps needs to be toned down, or recovers too easily? Annihilated units that have been routed over and over again and reduced to less than 30% of their original strength keep returning to the fight. This would never happen in real life.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Speedkermit

[waldopbarnstormer]

I have seen my units retreat through enemy lines after charging in to melee. I have reported it as a bug. I don't know if it is because when in melee against more than one enemy unit and you start to rout/waver then it checks to see where the enemy is, you are actually behind them because your charge took them through the enemy, so it determines that the best path out is away from your own line and further behind the enemy.

It happened to 3 brigades of my union army at Malvern hill, they charged in to a blob on my right flank where the fortified woods are and all fled out of the back. I did order the charges separately not all at the same time. One ended up captured but was subsequently freed by the other two.

[A. P. Hill]

4 hours ago, waldopbarnstormer said:

I have seen my units retreat through enemy lines after charging in to melee. I have reported it as a bug.....

You are not the only one my friend.  I think all of us have experienced this.  Not sure if it can be programed that If a unit is about to rout it should always make certain of the return to its origination point instead of the area of least resistance from the enemy.

[waldopbarnstormer]

I think it is related to how melee works at the moment, rather than fight in one spot the fighting units move back and forth so your attacking unit fights its way through the first line, carries on in to the second line, breaks and then finds the only retreat path available through fewest enemies is away from its own friendlies.

The path finding for broken units should be towards friendlies avoiding enemies where possible and if surrounded they should surrender.

[Stonewall47]

27 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:

You are not the only one my friend.  I think all of us have experienced this.  Not sure if it can be programed that If a unit is about to rout it should always make certain of the return to its origination point instead of the area of least resistance from the enemy.

So I have complained about the auto-charging before and realize what it is. If you tell a brigade to attack with a right click, it seems like sometimes they will follow their target if they fall back. This led to my most elite brigade charging into a union mass at Antietam. Following this moronic move, they then proceeded to rout into the enemy mass and be annihilated. Fun.

[Mr. Mercanto]

On 30/12/2016 at 11:58 AM, Stonewall47 said:

So I have complained about the auto-charging before and realize what it is. If you tell a brigade to attack with a right click, it seems like sometimes they will follow their target if they fall back. This led to my most elite brigade charging into a union mass at Antietam. Following this moronic move, they then proceeded to rout into the enemy mass and be annihilated. Fun.

Ahahaha, man that sucks! Did they at least do it gallantly? 

[Mr. Mercanto]

I really haven't encountered this bug much in UG:CW (as opposed to UG:G where it was a bit frequent). I'll keep my eye out for it happening. 

[A. P. Hill]

I've experienced the above, where when you assign a unit to attack an opponent, that when that opponent falls back the unit I assigned to attack it will follow it.  And then of course, after telling them to quit fucking around and get back in line, they become rear flanked when returning to their assigned spot in the line.  The rear flanked crap isn't all that great for their moral.

And while I'm on the subject of flanking, If I have a unit that is surrounded on all sides by units from my side, how is it when you order the unit to maneuver so as to lend it's weight of fire into an attacking opponent and it's now positioned obliquely in line that it gets flanked when clearly it's not capable of being such.

[Mr. Mercanto]

Sorry, I meant having units rout into enemy units. Having my brigades following enemy units when I didn't mean for them too is something I've had happen frequently

 

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

On 12/30/2016 at 5:27 AM, Speedkermit said:

I have some feedback.

Regarding melee. If my brigade defeats an enemy brigade that charges it, it then proceeds to leave cover and mill about in the open in front of it's positions. With the result that other enemy brigades shoot it to pieces.

It's quite annoying to be on the defence, an enemy brigade charges mine, and is repulsed. My brigade then leaves cover only to be shot to pieces and flanked as I try to get it back into it's original position. More often than not the brigade takes huge casualties and routs.

Agreed, this happens a lot.  Your brigade will in cover.  it gets charged.  after repulsing the charge, your brigade will move forward a little bit, taking it out of cover, and then it gets shot at.  I don't understand why a stationary brigade would advance after repulsing a melee charge.  Perhaps the solution to this is the HOLD command?  But then I feel like you would have to micro putting brigades on HOLD when they are about to be hit by a charge.  Or maybe that's what you're supposed to do regardless.  who knows. 

[A. P. Hill]

I especially hate when enemy brigades rout behind my lines and it takes 3 or 4 of my brigades to chase it down and wear their asses out trying to catch an enemy that never seems to become exhausted at the same rate as my men.

[Stonewall47]

3 hours ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

Ahahaha, man that sucks! Did they at least do it gallantly? 

They did it while the "Ultimate General" cursed them for their stupidity. 

 

3 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

I've experienced the above, where when you assign a unit to attack an opponent, that when that opponent falls back the unit I assigned to attack it will follow it.  And then of course, after telling them to quit fucking around and get back in line, they become rear flanked when returning to their assigned spot in the line.  The rear flanked crap isn't all that great for their moral.

And while I'm on the subject of flanking, If I have a unit that is surrounded on all sides by units from my side, how is it when you order the unit to maneuver so as to lend it's weight of fire into an attacking opponent and it's now positioned obliquely in line that it gets flanked when clearly it's not capable of being such.

 

34 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:

I especially hate when enemy brigades rout behind my lines and it takes 3 or 4 of my brigades to chase it down and wear their asses out trying to catch an enemy that never seems to become exhausted at the same rate as my men.

I think some clarity may help. I've seen the hold command make my units behave oddly (not fire, or turn to face enemies, ect). I would like to know exactly what that command is meant to be. I don't think it quite works like Total War's, which is what I'd like. 

I just finished a Confederate campaign. I feel like that it was weighted better than the Union. Antietam and Fredericksburg both saw me inflict heavy casualties on the Union, but both battles felt touchy at times. The Union advance across Burnside Bride nearly broke my line, which would've turned the tide decisively against me. Also, a heavy attack on my left at Fredericksburg nearly shattered my defenses there.

Overall, the Confederacy has a harder time. I was constantly trying to scrape together money or conserve troops because I knew I was barely breaking even in the long run. I would like to see something to help balance it out a LITTLE. It's hard to maintain experienced brigades because of a lack of resources, but I honestly don't have a solution. Maybe they get a discount on veterans? Maybe the Union gets a small boost in equipment costs? Just musing.

[Hitorishizuka]

1 hour ago, Stonewall47 said:

I think some clarity may help. I've seen the hold command make my units behave oddly (not fire, or turn to face enemies, ect). I would like to know exactly what that command is meant to be. I don't think it quite works like Total War's, which is what I'd like. 

I use it for skirmishers who would otherwise fall back in the face of fire when I really did just want them to sit there and duke it out.

[KaleRaven]

I believe the hold command is intended that the unit will not move at all, but will fire at enemies in range. In general, this does seem to work.

[Aetius]

9 hours ago, KaleRaven said:

I believe the hold command is intended that the unit will not move at all, but will fire at enemies in range. In general, this does seem to work.

In my experience, this is indeed what it does and it seems to work. The main problem with it is that it doesn't allow the unit to turn, and thus makes them very vulnerable to flank attacks - they will just sit there and take it until they break. I believe, however, that if the unit is engaged in melee the Hold will be broken.

[KaleRaven]

39 minutes ago, Aetius said:

In my experience, this is indeed what it does and it seems to work. The main problem with it is that it doesn't allow the unit to turn, and thus makes them very vulnerable to flank attacks - they will just sit there and take it until they break. I believe, however, that if the unit is engaged in melee the Hold will be broken.

Not allowing units to turn is a necessary part of its functioning to maintain a continuous line. Otherwise say the enemy charges a neighboring brigade. If the brigade wheels to attack it, it will expose its flank to the enemy it was facing.

[Stonewall47]

5 hours ago, Aetius said:

In my experience, this is indeed what it does and it seems to work. The main problem with it is that it doesn't allow the unit to turn, and thus makes them very vulnerable to flank attacks - they will just sit there and take it until they break. I believe, however, that if the unit is engaged in melee the Hold will be broken.

 

4 hours ago, KaleRaven said:

Not allowing units to turn is a necessary part of its functioning to maintain a continuous line. Otherwise say the enemy charges a neighboring brigade. If the brigade wheels to attack it, it will expose its flank to the enemy it was facing.

So, if I tell 4 brigades to hold, they won't wheel? What about when told to attack an enemy brigade? Does that eliminate the hold order? May have to put more testing into it. I notice this more often in large battles, so it may just be a case of the mirco being too much to keep track of. 

[Hitorishizuka]

Correct, they won't wheel, so if they can't get even an angled shot from their current facing they do nothing. If you then tell them to attack that will eliminate the hold order.

[Mr. Mercanto]

21 hours ago, Stonewall47 said:

They did it while the "Ultimate General" cursed them for their stupidity.

AHAHAHAHA!! YES!!!

[Andre Bolkonsky]

On 12/24/2016 at 11:39 AM, A. P. Hill said:

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Just now, Andre Bolkonsky said:

On 12/24/2016 at 11:39 AM, A. P. Hill said:

 

Admins

We really need the ability to delete our own posts. On multiple occasions, I and others have quoted something and there is an issue with a quoted post. It simply cannot be deleted and reformatted. 

Great game, great forum, and this is an easy fix based on other implementations of this same forum software I've seen on other sites.