Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

UGCW Feedack v0.74


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

I'll tell you what I think about the complaints coming out on the last two battles, (Stones River / Murfreesboro & Chancellorsville.)

I think the dev team was under a bit of pressure from the community for some new content, and because of that pressure, they rushed something out the door to sedate a hungry clamoring crowd.   In that rush, certain "IF/AND/OR" statements were not properly programmed as they are in the earlier battles like Shiloh.  Where if you push hard enough and are victorious enough, that the program opts to give you the victory or the defeat depending on your play.

I see These last two battles as possibly incomplete works due to the pressure by the community.

I think everyone should step back a pace or two and give the devs some room to actually put together a finished product before releasing it too soon.

Developers, take your time, your community will be here when you release a properly finished product ... Get it right the first time out the door.  Please.

 

While I'm very eager to see next patch with new battles...I must agree with this post. And we should all keep in mind that this game is work in progress :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

I'll tell you what I think about the complaints coming out on the last two battles, (Stones River / Murfreesboro & Chancellorsville.)

I think the dev team was under a bit of pressure from the community for some new content, and because of that pressure, they rushed something out the door to sedate a hungry clamoring crowd.   In that rush, certain "IF/AND/OR" statements were not properly programmed as they are in the earlier battles like Shiloh.  Where if you push hard enough and are victorious enough, that the program opts to give you the victory or the defeat depending on your play.

I see These last two battles as possibly incomplete works due to the pressure by the community.

I think everyone should step back a pace or two and give the devs some room to actually put together a finished product before releasing it too soon.

Developers, take your time, your community will be here when you release a properly finished product ... Get it right the first time out the door.  Please.

Well said. I absolutely agree the devs should take their time, a complete product is definitely worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

I think everyone should step back a pace or two and give the devs some room to actually put together a finished product before releasing it too soon.

Developers, take your time, your community will be here when you release a properly finished product ... Get it right the first time out the door.  Please.

Agreed 100%. Devs, I know the community can be pushy. Hell, I've made a few pushy comments myself. But we would all rather see the game be more dynamic and in better shape, even if its a month later, rather than something shallow and buggy. 

Keep up the good work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the CSA campaign following the battle of 2nd bull run the two minor battles both give a reward for winning the other battle. For example the reward for winning chantilly is a smaller enemy at Harper's ferry, but the reward for winning Harper's ferry is a smaller enemy at chantilly. It is impossible to get the win benefit for both battles.

The battle of chantilly is dated 01 Sept and Harper's ferry is 12 Sept so if played chronologically how can the result of Harper's ferry affect a battle already fought.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something needs to be done about on-demand routing, and the fact that routing doesn't use Condition. The fall-back / routing direction issues are partially fixed, but remain bizarre at times. Once they get fixed, it's going to be trivial to abuse the rout button for fast travel with no Condition usage. One possible way to fix this would be for the unit to become uncontrollable once routed, so that they rout the full distance. However, I think it would be better for routing units to use Condition instead - this prevents bizarre events like watching artillerymen pushing their cannons sprint away from your 50% Condition skirmishers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aetius said:

Something needs to be done about on-demand routing, and the fact that routing doesn't use Condition. The fall-back / routing direction issues are partially fixed, but remain bizarre at times. Once they get fixed, it's going to be trivial to abuse the rout button for fast travel with no Condition usage.

 I had not noticed this - good catch 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2017 at 0:00 AM, Nox165 said:

is it possible to win chancellorsville on day one as confederates? I totally smashed, the union forces and held all the objectives. but still had to go to phase 2 :{

It's... POSSIBLE, but frankly in Chancelloresville, the best way to win it is to space it out. Day 1, arrive and bleed the Union a bit, Day 2 execute the flanking maneuver to kill as many as Porter's corp as possible as well as continue to bleed the Union on their defensive positions by having like 3 brigades shoot up those fences before the forest. Day 3 you rinse and repeat, (keeping some big bridages in reserve) and then surround the union around the farm to create a salient (basically surround them on three sides) gradually slowly tightening the noose until you seize Chancelloresville by bleeding the local Union forces in area. (do not try to charge, it doesn't work :P)

I tried this... and won... but I have to say that I'm somewhat unsatisfied because the position of Chancelloresville was ridiculously well fortified. I killed more Union troops despite being outnumbered, but lost half my entire army in the process... and Gettysburg is next. Honestly I'm not sure if I should have just gone for a draw and save my forces... 

2017-01-29.png

Edited by vren55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I replayed the Confederate Campaign and I liked the changes to the dynamic campaign that basically allowed me to field a larger army at Antietam and take less losses because of it... I also took... an acceptable number of losses at Fredericksburg.

My main issue though is that cover hasn't been fixed yet. I have placed brigades behind the enemy's cover (like on Nashville Pike east), shooting them in the back, and yet for some reason... my brigades rout instead of the other. It causes me massive losses during Stones River, impacting Chancelloresville... I still won Stones River, but the "somehow cover counts even when you're shooting them at the rear" is really annoying

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vren55 said:

It's... POSSIBLE, but frankly in Chancelloresville, the best way to win it is to space it out. Day 1, arrive and bleed the Union a bit, Day 2 execute the flanking maneuver to kill as many as Porter's corp as possible as well as continue to bleed the Union on their defensive positions by having like 3 brigades shoot up those fences before the forest. Day 3 you rinse and repeat, (keeping some big bridages in reserve) and then surround the union around the farm to create a salient (basically surround them on three sides) gradually slowly tightening the noose until you seize Chancelloresville by bleeding the local Union forces in area. (do not try to charge, it doesn't work :P)

I tried this... and won... but I have to say that I'm somewhat unsatisfied because the position of Chancelloresville was ridiculously well fortified. I killed more Union troops despite being outnumbered, but lost half my entire army in the process... and Gettysburg is next. Honestly I'm not sure if I should have just gone for a draw and save my forces... 

2017-01-29.png

These are the decisions you have to make as a general. We blame the historical generals for making these types of mistakes.. In the game you are free to replicate them, or not, as you see fit, but the decision to keep bleeding men trying to achieve victory is always yours. 

The fortifications will recieve major overhaul next patch 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Koro said:

These are the decisions you have to make as a general. We blame the historical generals for making these types of mistakes.. In the game you are free to replicate them, or not, as you see fit, but the decision to keep bleeding men trying to achieve victory is always yours. 

The fortifications will recieve major overhaul next patch 

Agreed. Though I'm annoyed because historically the Confederates won... with far less casualties. Granted the Union had less casualties as well, but the scaling seems a bit... off for some of the battles, especially when you compare them to historical counterparts. I don't think Antietam is a problem mainly b/c casualties were reduced due to an insane amount of union mistakes, but Chancelloresville casualties seemed a bit excessive. 

Edited by vren55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, vren55 said:

Agreed. Though I'm annoyed because historically the Confederates won... with far less casualties. Granted the Union had less casualties as well, but the scaling seems a bit... off for some of the battles, especially when you compare them to historical counterparts. I don't think Antietam is a problem mainly b/c casualties were reduced due to an insane amount of union mistakes, but Chancelloresville casualties seemed a bit excessive. 

The battles play differently for all of us and casualties vary wildly. That's part of the charm I think :). I lost 16 out of 63.000 in my video with col_kelly here 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Koro said:

The battles play differently for all of us and casualties vary wildly. That's part of the charm I think :). I lost 16 out of 63.000 in my video with col_kelly here 

oh wow. He has really good micro and yeah I think I took too many risks with my initial pushes. I should have gone slower and conslidated a longer line instead of pushing divisions up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, vren55 said:

oh wow. He has really good micro and yeah I think I took too many risks with my initial pushes. I should have gone slower and conslidated a longer line instead of pushing divisions up. 

I'm playing :P. Col_kelly is just talking, hehe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard that the army that loses the battle is the first one to leave the field. In a battle of armies of similar strength, if the enemy is willing to bleed then you must be also, or retire from the field. Superior tactics can only go so far. In UG:CW the battles always seem to be a fight to the last man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JohnReynolds said:

I have heard that the army that loses the battle is the first one to leave the field. In a battle of armies of similar strength, if the enemy is willing to bleed then you must be also, or retire from the field. Superior tactics can only go so far. In UG:CW the battles always seem to be a fight to the last man.

It's actually quite difficult to kill every last man given the time constraints, and the alternative would be a passive AI that doesn't attack...which would be very boring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, GeneralPITA said:

It's actually quite difficult to kill every last man given the time constraints, and the alternative would be a passive AI that doesn't attack...which would be very boring. 

I would argue in some cases that it's more heavily based on unclear victory conditions rather than time constraints. Time constraints become a bigger problem on the minor battles more than the majors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen the ai withdraw troops from the battle line when outnumbered and the success of attacking is futile. At this point you can press the attack to get kills/xp or to capture weapons or you can leave them alone. It's the players choice to press the attack and suffer the extra casualties.

In my current confederate campaign at Gaines' mill once I had captured Boatswain swamp and the rear hill vp I stopped at just let my artillery finish the job to save my troops.

Edited by waldopbarnstormer
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone else noticed the last unit in the last division not arriving to major battles in which you are auto deployed?  I just finished Fredericksburg as CSA and I had 25 or less brigades in each theater, and the last unit in the 4th division never deployed to the battle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Springfield said:

Has anyone else noticed the last unit in the last division not arriving to major battles in which you are auto deployed?  I just finished Fredericksburg as CSA and I had 25 or less brigades in each theater, and the last unit in the 4th division never deployed to the battle.

I put in a bug report on this not long ago.  The "brigade" limits count your HQ and supply wagons, but the display doesn't show that.  I think they should adjust the deployment limits slightly so that they correspond to the AO limits.  i.e., at max AO, a corps can contain 24 brigades (4 divs x 6 bde/div).  If HQ and supply are counted, then they should tweak all of the 25 brigade deployments to 26 brigades (as well as adjusting some other limits earlier in the game- 1st Bull Run comes to mind).  Or just don't count the HQ and supply wagon and everything is fine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Springfield said:

Has anyone else noticed the last unit in the last division not arriving to major battles in which you are auto deployed?  I just finished Fredericksburg as CSA and I had 25 or less brigades in each theater, and the last unit in the 4th division never deployed to the battle.

Weird... I got all brigades deployed pretty much. You sure you didn't exceed brigade cap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fred Sanford said:

 The "brigade" limits count your HQ and supply wagons, but the display doesn't show that.  I think they should adjust the deployment limits slightly so that they correspond to the AO limits.  i.e., at max AO, a corps can contain 24 brigades (4 divs x 6 bde/div).  If HQ and supply are counted, then they should tweak all of the 25 brigade deployments to 26 brigades (as well as adjusting some other limits earlier in the game- 1st Bull Run comes to mind).  Or just don't count the HQ and supply wagon and everything is fine.

That makes sense.  So if a battle limit is 25, it's effectively 23 once you deduct your general and supply wagon.  Good to know, and I will adjust my Corps accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

That makes sense.  So if a battle limit is 25, it's effectively 23 once you deduct your general and supply wagon.  Good to know, and I will adjust my Corps accordingly.

It's related to the bug I saw on Stones River, but in general, it's more likely that it only checks whether the general and supply wagon are considered brigades after they have been added into the UI, and not before. For the 25 brigade corps limits, the general and the supply wagon spawns normally, since you can at most have 24 brigades at AO 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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