UGCW Feedack v0.74

[Mr. Mercanto]

On 30/01/2017 at 0:10 PM, vren55 said:

 

 

On 30/01/2017 at 0:02 PM, 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... 

Historically, Hooker's positions beyond the XI Corps were extremely well fortified, something which the Rebels learned on Day 3 the hard way. Had Lee been able to continue his attack on a fifth day of fighting, it likely would have been a disaster for the Confederates. 

Gotta bring the historical context because you all out-general me ;P

[Andre Bolkonsky]

On 1/27/2017 at 8:42 PM, 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. 

[Slobodan]

4 hours ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

 

Historically, Hooker's positions beyond the XI Corps were extremely well fortified, something which the Rebels learned on Day 3 the hard way. Had Lee been able to continue his attack on a fifth day of fighting, it likely would have been a disaster for the Confederates. 

Gotta bring the historical context because you all out-general me ;P

I was also frustrated, playing as Confederates, how much casualties I had.

I played battle several times (normal difficulty, similar numbers, about 57k vs 110k) and always would have 20-25k casualties to Union 50-60k (too much, especially with Gettysburg as next battle).

Finally, I got to acceptable result (I think) 12k casualties to 40k Union casualties (and at Salem Church 600 to 11k Union?!) with basically historical strategy: moderate push on 1st day (not attacking Chancellorsville), destroying XI Corps and mauling reinforcements sent to them on 2nd, and all-out attack on 3rd day. Most of my casualties were on 3rd day, but since you must attack very well fortified Union position this is to be expected.

[vren55]

On 1/27/2017 at 9:42 PM, 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.

 

Fair enough. We don't want another NO Man's SKy. And so far I think the devs have done an excellent job.

[Nox165]

fburg is basiclly no mans sky to me. love all the other battles though.

[dsfgsdfgsdfgdsfgsdf3q4]

Do we have an ETA on Gettysburg? I can't wait to play it.

[Nox165]

4 hours ago, Acika011 said:

Do we have an ETA on Gettysburg? I can't wait to play it.

3 weeks at the most I am guessing.

[Hitorishizuka]

Welp, recorded my first video. No talking, didn't feel like it.

Min-size CSA campaign on normal, just picked a random battle to showcase. Interestingly it played much different than the last time I was here. Does anyone recall whether Chantilly was just changed in the past patch or two to be 1:2 odds from 1:1? Or is this actually showing how AI auto-scaling screws you if you don't take your biggest brigades since it scales to your theoretical, not what you actually brought? My last CSA campaign I had only 1:1 odds on Chantilly and it was an utter breeze, I had to actually think about this one for a bit.

The last time I did Chantilly I was able to take Skirmishers and get very good work done with them due to how the terrain is spaced. This time I flat out couldn't afford to because the enemy brigades are so large and numerous that I needed another couple infantry brigades to just hold the line instead. (Also I couldn't take as much artillery either.)

@Acika011 since you asked for a video

 

[Koro]

12 hours ago, Nox165 said:

3 weeks at the most I am guessing.

Pure guesswork :). 

[Nox165]

7 hours ago, Koro said:

Pure guesswork :). 

Pretty much, I know its a decent sign when a certain someone is teasing screenshots on steam :P.

[vren55]

14 hours ago, Nox165 said:

Pretty much, I know its a decent sign when a certain someone is teasing screenshots on steam :P.

 

21 hours ago, Koro said:

Pure guesswork :). 

I can't wait. I have a maxed out politics and maxed out medicine general (with training army organization, and economy to supplement) and just managed a pretty satisfying victory at Chancelloresville with my 105K 4 corps Union Army and took only 22k losses compared to the Confederates who took 48K out of 55k.  I have 4, 3 star veteran brigades, lots of regulars, tons of artillery (89 pieces total) and an entire division of cavalry.

*My general (Arthur Currie... waht I'm Canadian) to the confederates under Lee and strikes Kung Fu Pose*

BRING IT!!!

Edited February 4, 2017 by vren55

[Aetius]

Just had a hard freeze on Malvern Hill as Confederates, which is a first for me. Tried to F11 it, waited about 10 minutes, nothing.

[Col_Kelly]

21 minutes ago, Aetius said:

Just had a hard freeze on Malvern Hill as Confederates, which is a first for me. Tried to F11 it, waited about 10 minutes, nothing.

When you have a freeze or crash thebest way to report it is to leave the game, restart it and press f11 then. Devs can still access the log they need from there. 

[Redmarkus4]

On 13/01/2017 at 10:52 PM, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:

Also, after putting a division under AI control and then retaking control, the supply wagons remain AI controlled and keep doing their own thing - which included advancing unsupported towards enemy lines.

I've seen the AI supply wagons doing this - pretty easy to capture them. I would prefer to have supply managed as a virtual issue without the actual wagons on the map. A real army has a lot more than one wagon and so much should not hinge on a single unit of scouts capturing one stray wagon.

[DaveWoodchuck]

I love the game  I've looked around the forums a bit to see if someone else brought this up, and I am sure someone will immediately point out what I've missed, but my feedback is mostly geared towards the casualty numbers.  Specifically, it seems odd to me that every casualty seems to be regarded as killed or furloughed home - no one seems to return unless the medicine skill is up, and even then it is a fairly low number.  Another odd thing is the ability to recruit a theoretically unlimited number of veterans to flesh out you brigades.  Therein lies an opportunity.

 

Now, this may not be feasible, but I would rather see a base number of casualties return (nothing extravagant, definitely not more than 10-15 percent to reflect furloughs, expired enlistments, desertion, and camp fever in a more abstracted way), with medicine modifying that number further.  The ability to bring in veteran troops would be severely limited or even nonexistent, so only recruit-level troops would be available to add to any brigade.  The trainer ability would instead affect either the amount of XP drop for adding recruits to units or slightly raise the stats of recruits.

 

Other potential changes would be to add entire units as a reward reputation points.  I think that would be more accurate in terms of showing transfers.  As in "transfer in 1500 man 2-star infantry brigade, palmetto muskets" or whatever.  Transferred units were rarely doled out piecemeal, 20 men here and 50 men there, etc.

 

I don't think this type of adjustment should take priority over other development, though.  It would just be nice to see from my perspective as a way to change the campaign dynamic a bit.

[Pandemonium]

7 hours ago, DaveWoodchuck said:

I love the game  I've looked around the forums a bit to see if someone else brought this up, and I am sure someone will immediately point out what I've missed, but my feedback is mostly geared towards the casualty numbers.  Specifically, it seems odd to me that every casualty seems to be regarded as killed or furloughed home - no one seems to return unless the medicine skill is up, and even then it is a fairly low number.  Another odd thing is the ability to recruit a theoretically unlimited number of veterans to flesh out you brigades.  Therein lies an opportunity.

 

Now, this may not be feasible, but I would rather see a base number of casualties return (nothing extravagant, definitely not more than 10-15 percent to reflect furloughs, expired enlistments, desertion, and camp fever in a more abstracted way), with medicine modifying that number further.  The ability to bring in veteran troops would be severely limited or even nonexistent, so only recruit-level troops would be available to add to any brigade.  The trainer ability would instead affect either the amount of XP drop for adding recruits to units or slightly raise the stats of recruits.

 

Other potential changes would be to add entire units as a reward reputation points.  I think that would be more accurate in terms of showing transfers.  As in "transfer in 1500 man 2-star infantry brigade, palmetto muskets" or whatever.  Transferred units were rarely doled out piecemeal, 20 men here and 50 men there, etc.

 

I don't think this type of adjustment should take priority over other development, though.  It would just be nice to see from my perspective as a way to change the campaign dynamic a bit.

1. Yes, most of what you discuss here is discussed in other forum posts. However, your point is well taken from a realism perspective. Medicine allows up to 20% of your unit to return, which is a fairly decent number of returns so quickly after a battle. Often, wounds sustained in combat were not easily treated and often took months to heal before a Soldier was combat ready again.  Mini-balls shattered bones and legs, and the triangular bayonets (now outlawed) ripped horrific wounds.

2 -3. Limiting veteran troops has been bantered about, with the conclusion being that because they are so expensive, most of the time it is such a limited number anyway.  The point is well taken though, that they should be hard to come by. Mostly units were transferred in or out depending on the strategic or operational need at the time, and rarely by reputations however. Increased training stats would overcome the shock of having new troops added to veteran units, but that is fairly realistic.

4. The game should allow higher recruit stats for training rather than lowering veteran prices.

[MikeK]

UI issue - it would be great if the toolip on the HUD army bar included not just some status info but also the full name, or even part of the name, so as to know which is which without having to deselect everything and then click around the HUD to find the desired unit.

[MikeK]

This game is badly in need of loading screen tips that that give info critical to help players avoid early blunders and to avoid pointless frustration.

Paying the cash bounties to recruit veterans is very expensive. Rookies only cost $1 plus the price of any extra weapon purchases.

Developing just a few brigades as elite troops is manageable and an effective use of veteran recruits.

Taking a full supply wagon keeps troops in the fight.

Use the HUD army bar at the start of battle to pick and change the units you want to deploy from your corps.

Battle objectives are historically based, but check victory conditions for what is actually needed to win =>

Officers in hotter combat are more likely to be wounded or die. Division commanders are less likely to be hit as they can best command from behind the front line.

Corps commander ride independently on the battlefield. They can be  targeted and shot. That includes you, but you alone are lucky and in excellent health  - you may be wounded and disappear from the field, but always return for the next battle.

And others I don't recall or have time for just now.

  

[Nox165]

I really wish Division commanders  had some kind of graphic/presents on the battlefield.

[MikeK]

1 hour ago, Nox165 said:

I really wish Division commanders  had some kind of graphic/presents on the battlefield.

Then that position would be calculated for commander casualties.  Which raises the question of how it is handled now.  Is the Div commander with the 1st  brigade, or does he ride around among them. If they are spread out around the battlefield, does that make him less effective, and more at risk of mishap or enemy action?   In reality, you want your brigades to be within effective control range if possible unless detached. One more item, then.

[jimcarrel]

More than likely commander deaths are controlled by an algorithm similar to a roll of the dice using the units amount of hits during fighting. I mean it can't be too complicated, there are already enough calculations going on. 

[wpruitt3]

Please make Stones River have brigades and not regiments. There's too much going on with so many regiments. Everything else is great. Love this game.

[Pandemonium]

3 hours ago, MikeK said:

Then that position would be calculated for commander casualties.  Which raises the question of how it is handled now.  Is the Div commander with the 1st  brigade, or does he ride around among them. If they are spread out around the battlefield, does that make him less effective, and more at risk of mishap or enemy action?   In reality, you want your brigades to be within effective control range if possible unless detached. One more item, then.

If Div CDRs are represented, that's a lot of commanders to deal with on the field, the micromanagement of dealing with them would be immense. Usually, CDRs position themselves wherever the main effort of the fight is going to occur.

I really believe Corps CDR areas of influence should be expanded. It really only covers a division or less worth of troops.

[Hitorishizuka]

5 hours ago, MikeK said:

Then that position would be calculated for commander casualties.  Which raises the question of how it is handled now.  Is the Div commander with the 1st  brigade, or does he ride around among them. If they are spread out around the battlefield, does that make him less effective, and more at risk of mishap or enemy action?   In reality, you want your brigades to be within effective control range if possible unless detached. One more item, then.

I am reasonably but not 100% certain the Division commander hangs out with the 1st Brigade and is obviously in direct control if you combine division (and this tends to get them killed).

[MikeK]

4 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:

I am reasonably but not 100% certain the Division commander hangs out with the 1st Brigade and is obviously in direct control if you combine division (and this tends to get them killed).

Since the game organizes divisions with infantry first, that suggests some musical chairs with brigades of infantry can get him to abide with a desired infantry unit.