Nick Thomadis Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 >>>The new patch is out!<<< We will appreciate your feedback and hope you like all the new features/battles/improvements. The Game Labs TeamHOTFIXES 0.74 HOTFIX 1 0.74 HOTFIX 2 1
Slobodan Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 Can't wait to get back home and try it. I was about to ask when this patch is to be released, started to suffer withdrawal symptoms after finishing my last campaign battle couple of days ago On more serious note: How big is a difference with new Fredriksburg battle phase? Does it make sense to re-do it?
Hitorishizuka Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) Quote Balances Fixed very low damage of 20Pdr Parrots. Heeeeeey, great to see. Awesome, I'll need to start buying Parrots on my new save now and put them back to use on my old save. Edited January 13, 2017 by Hitorishizuka 1
Captiva Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) I live in Tennessee (twenty-five minute drive from Stones River battlefield) You have done an excellent job rendering the map for Stones River! I'm really looking forward to playing the battle. On my wish list for future battle additions is the Battle of Franklin, TN. The Army of Tennessee, under Hood, was finally defeated - on it's own soil - at Nashville a few days after this battle. But they took a terrific beating at Franklin. Hoods attack of the Union forces at the Battle of Franklin is often called 'Picketts Charge of the West'. Thanks for the new content! Edited January 13, 2017 by Captiva
Nicator Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 Hello! Just tried the 0.74 and it was quite a dissapointment. The terrain cover bonuses are virtually gone, so now it doesn't matter what terrain I occupy, as I'm not able to mount a strong defensive position. This pretty much removes an entire important aspect of the game using terrain was. It also leads to huge imbalance as now the attacking side, usually having more troops, can easily overpower the outnumbered defender. Please, restore the old bonuses at least partially... I also noticed that during the second day of Shiloh the enemy (CSA) replenished his casualties nearly up to the brigade size of 3k. Instead of counterattacking, I found myself under attack, so another huge imbalance... 2
Andre Bolkonsky Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 Nothing better than a three day weekend, and a fresh patch of content to play. Thanks Guy! 1
Slobodan Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 Just played Stone river in my CSA campaign...what a tough battle! Won it in first attempt but with heavy casualties. Love this game ! Great work guys.
James Cornelius Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 Couple potential bugs I just noticed. Played 2nd Manassas as Confederates since I noticed I somehow didn't have the steam achievement. The dates given for the battle are December 29 and 39, not August. 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.
resq350 Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 Two things that I would like to see is an option to control over flow from the supply wagons - it would be nice to direct the supplies to a particular unit in need rather than it being drained by whoever is nearby before it gets to them if you disperse a unit that has achieved a level of veteran status - their veteran status be credited to your pool of recruits in the campaign mode. I would like to build up veteran units to use as shock troops without paying premium prices. Great game btw - best since Civil War Generals 2 - 1
Wright29 Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 When you say Campaign AI opponent scaling is better balanced. Do you mean that it's more favored to the human player or to the AI compared to how it was previously?
Hitorishizuka Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 4 hours ago, Nicator said: I also noticed that during the second day of Shiloh the enemy (CSA) replenished his casualties nearly up to the brigade size of 3k. Instead of counterattacking, I found myself under attack, so another huge imbalance... That sounds new. I wonder if that portion of the code got broken because the AI would not replenish at all between days, only get access to fresh brigades as scripted. Technically you are able to refill your troops as before on the camp screen if you had money/men left to do so but obviously this is biased heavily against most players given the AI has no budget.
Nox165 Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 Noticed a few things that have not fixed yet...... 1) historical battle of Shiloh, general's do not have names. They have corps 1 for both there name/army postion. 2) Historical battle of Antietam, burnside is in the wrong location. He is where mansfield ( in the north) should be.
Luckybluemoon Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 Immediate Feedback: Just played Antietam with new update. 1. AI is better. Units surrendered at proper times rather than letting themselves be shot to hell while surrounded by 5 brigades. No encounters with Brigades falling back behind enemy lines. 2. Changes with cover...I'm mixed on this one. For one, Cover did provide a unrealistic bonus. It just can't work that a 2000 man brigade can volley into a 2500 man brigade that happens to be standing in the woods and only hit 2 or 3 of them. However, that said, I do think it has been toned down too much. I can barely tell any difference between a brigade in the open under fire and a brigade in cover under fire. Maybe 75% of what you did would be my recommendation. 3. On cover... Constructed fortifications have been very underwhelming so far for the entire game. To have one brigade in a fortification facing another out in the open, and have the kills be only 1-2...Brigades just standing in the woods get more cover that a brigade in a fortification. I mean, If I have a brigade standing in woods and firing, that brigade gets a 100% cover bonus right? But if I put them in a fortification in those same woods, they lose the woods cover bonus and only gain a 50% cover bonus. So prepared fortifications are actually worse than just standing in cover. Fortifications help a lot when they are out in the open, like in Fredericksburg, but when in a wooded area or just on the edge of woods, like in 2nd Manassas, they are worse than if I just place my brigades a little further back in the woods and stand in formation. More to come later. And as always, thanks for listening. 2
Hitorishizuka Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Luckybluemoon said: 3. On cover... Constructed fortifications have been very underwhelming so far for the entire game. To have one brigade in a fortification facing another out in the open, and have the kills be only 1-2...Brigades just standing in the woods get more cover that a brigade in a fortification. I mean, If I have a brigade standing in woods and firing, that brigade gets a 100% cover bonus right? But if I put them in a fortification in those same woods, they lose the woods cover bonus and only gain a 50% cover bonus. So prepared fortifications are actually worse than just standing in cover. Fortifications help a lot when they are out in the open, like in Fredericksburg, but when in a wooded area or just on the edge of woods, like in 2nd Manassas, they are worse than if I just place my brigades a little further back in the woods and stand in formation. Yep. Just did Parker's Crossroads on Union, those fortifications were very obvious shmuck bait. Instead just pull back to the SW, the AI gets stupid and just stands in the open on the VP. Then you can come back in later from the woods on all sides and cut them to pieces. 1
Nox165 Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) BUG! battle of fredericksburg historical, 1) Their are two confederate lee units(the same unit twice) in the Calvary division at the second stage of battle. Also where is jeb stuart? he seems to be missing from the right flank. 2) reserve corps cant be selected using the ui in phase 3 4) final phase, is a nice change I still wish to be able to use the full army but its not a bad change makes its it so jacksons left wing matters more. Edited January 14, 2017 by Nox165 Adding more to bug list.
Wright29 Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 6 hours ago, resq350 said: if you disperse a unit that has achieved a level of veteran status - their veteran status be credited to your pool of recruits in the campaign mode. I would like to build up veteran units to use as shock troops without paying premium prices. Great game btw - best since Civil War Generals 2 - Pretty sure they already have this. Or at least they HAD it. Haven't experimented with it post-patch yet. You can hover over the recruits number to see the quality of troops. If you have zero there and disperse a unit of 3-star guys, the recruiting pool will all have the same stats. People were sort of abusing it where they would take three-star infantry brigades, dispand them and use them to create multiple three-star artillery and cavalry brigades. I wouldn't want to do that b/c I would lose the unit history and I'm sentimental. 1
Hitorishizuka Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 Hah. Seems a little backwards given how easy it is to level up cavalry and artillery brigades, honestly.
Mr. Mercanto Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 I found Stones River to be rather insanely difficult. It seemed like the Confederates were universally armed with three star brigades, and playing on Colonel difficulty I barely scraped by. Don't know how I'm going to fight Chancellorsville lol 1
Mr. Mercanto Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 4 hours ago, Luckybluemoon said: Immediate Feedback: Just played Antietam with new update. 1. AI is better. Units surrendered at proper times rather than letting themselves be shot to hell while surrounded by 5 brigades. No encounters with Brigades falling back behind enemy lines. 2. Changes with cover...I'm mixed on this one. For one, Cover did provide a unrealistic bonus. It just can't work that a 2000 man brigade can volley into a 2500 man brigade that happens to be standing in the woods and only hit 2 or 3 of them. However, that said, I do think it has been toned down too much. I can barely tell any difference between a brigade in the open under fire and a brigade in cover under fire. Maybe 75% of what you did would be my recommendation. 3. On cover... Constructed fortifications have been very underwhelming so far for the entire game. To have one brigade in a fortification facing another out in the open, and have the kills be only 1-2...Brigades just standing in the woods get more cover that a brigade in a fortification. I mean, If I have a brigade standing in woods and firing, that brigade gets a 100% cover bonus right? But if I put them in a fortification in those same woods, they lose the woods cover bonus and only gain a 50% cover bonus. So prepared fortifications are actually worse than just standing in cover. Fortifications help a lot when they are out in the open, like in Fredericksburg, but when in a wooded area or just on the edge of woods, like in 2nd Manassas, they are worse than if I just place my brigades a little further back in the woods and stand in formation. More to come later. And as always, thanks for listening. I wholeheartedly agree with all of this. Fortifications need to be stronger, and while I'm glad that natural cover has been nerfed. its been to nerfed. This is with the exception of Fredricksburg, wherein the fortifications are far to strong. At Stones river, the only advantage the Federals seem have on the first day are the woods, which are almost useless now. On the second day, the Federals are forced to use the fortifications which are practically a death sentence for the brigade posted there. While the brigade enjoys nominal cover, it is nowhere near sufficient to contend with the three or four opposing brigades it will inevitably has to fight. I've actually found that, except where I am forced to, I avoid using fortifications. The cover is to weak, and it leaves the brigade exposed to enemy fire, withering it away. I would love to see this problem ameliorated. 1
Wandering1 Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 Was there supposed to be no supply wagons on the second day of Stones River? Ended up soaking far more casualties than I would have liked on the second day because I ran out of ammo. Stones River practically has all 3* brigades. Which, without the forest cover bonus being particularly high, you see 15000 rank 3s charging your line that you can't defend because you don't nearly have as many troops in the same area. Beat it on normal with around 30k casualties to the enemy's 55k. Very hard because you have no practical way of overcoming the numbers disadvantage due to cover not being godly anymore.
Sandermatt Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Wright29 said: Pretty sure they already have this. Or at least they HAD it. Haven't experimented with it post-patch yet. You can hover over the recruits number to see the quality of troops. If you have zero there and disperse a unit of 3-star guys, the recruiting pool will all have the same stats. People were sort of abusing it where they would take three-star infantry brigades, dispand them and use them to create multiple three-star artillery and cavalry brigades. I wouldn't want to do that b/c I would lose the unit history and I'm sentimental. Is there a way of transferring veterans, if you still have many recruits in the pool, without outfitting them in between? Edited January 14, 2017 by Sandermatt
Col_Kelly Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 2 hours ago, Wandering1 said: Was there supposed to be no supply wagons on the second day of Stones River? Ended up soaking far more casualties than I would have liked on the second day because I ran out of ammo. Stones River practically has all 3* brigades. Which, without the forest cover bonus being particularly high, you see 15000 rank 3s charging your line that you can't defend because you don't nearly have as many troops in the same area. Beat it on normal with around 30k casualties to the enemy's 55k. Very hard because you have no practical way of overcoming the numbers disadvantage due to cover not being godly anymore. AI is now very good at capturing supplies, especially skirms and cav, are you sure it wasnt what happened there ?
Captiva Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 Have the developers added another level of zoom in with this patch? I played Stones Rives and it seemed to me that I could zoom in a little closer than before.
A. P. Hill Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 Just played Shiloh as CSA on the new build in my campaign, I got the first attack, the second attack, the third, and the hornets nest, and as soon as I took the H.N. the battle ended in a draw?! I didn't get the whole map, nor the chance to roll up the right flank and end the game proper.
RobWheat61 Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 8 hours ago, Wandering1 said: Was there supposed to be no supply wagons on the second day of Stones River? Ended up soaking far more casualties than I would have liked on the second day because I ran out of ammo. Stones River practically has all 3* brigades. Which, without the forest cover bonus being particularly high, you see 15000 rank 3s charging your line that you can't defend because you don't nearly have as many troops in the same area. Beat it on normal with around 30k casualties to the enemy's 55k. Very hard because you have no practical way of overcoming the numbers disadvantage due to cover not being godly anymore. I checked my 2nd day savegame from my CSA playthrough. All three supply wagons were on the map and fully loaded. I lost 11162 + 1700 Cav and the Union lost 48080 + 2221 Cavalry, but in fact the whole Union army was dead/wounded/captured or routed. Enjoyed the battle very much, but it required a lot of micromanagement to get an effective echelon attack underway with all three wings. On a sidenote, it felt a bit strange that I outnumbered the Union by 9000 men with my 73247 men, but it will probably be more balanced on Major General difficulty.
Recommended Posts