My big ask

[ian]

I'm sure that (a) you're hopefully already on this, and (b) it's too late to re-architect if you're not, but...

...please look to manage the difficulty curve without too much dynamic readjustment. In Civil War the more I succeeded in earlier battles, the larger and tougher the enemy army became.

There's nothing wrong - obviously - with enemy reinforcements, but it's a massive turnoff (for me) if the harder and more successfully I fight the worse my situation gets.

[deathtozergs]

agree

[Adventurous350]

Agree

[silkySapper]

I concur. It was so off-putting in UGCW that you could completely destroy the enemy armies over and over again only for them to come back bigger and with better weapons while you can barely afford to replace your losses. Then the final battle to win the war it's just a massive army you're facing from an enemy who's supposedly on the brink of collapse.

I hope that it's not the case in this game where the game will just pop another random British army on a coastal town and use the excuse that the British have a big navy.

That, and completely destroying an enemy army on the first day of a battle and then having to take the same objectives the next day against the same enemy units that have now been reconstituted (albeit slightly smaller).

Looking forward to this game.

[pmackles]

yep UGCW stopped being fun because of this

[javelin46]

I also agree That was a major problem

[Aluminum Elite Master]

UG:CW was a fairly different game, though. That game was more of just set-piece battles with no real campaign to it, while this appears to have more of a TW-style campaign going on.

What I mean is: in UG:CW, there was no auto-resolve. There was no way to auto-resolve an easy win. So the game *had* to scale up difficulty, otherwise after wiping everyone out in every battle (major and minor) up to Second Bull Run, you would have had battles you couldn't skip that would have just been a push-over number of troops left.

I totally get complaints about the *balancing* of UG:CW's scaling. It was not well done, and became a farce if you played as CSA (wow oh wow did Chickamauga have lots of enemies even after I slaughtered the CPU all campaign long to that point).

But UG:CW basically had to have some amount of scaling, otherwise why would you even want to play battles that had no troops on them? As it was, on some difficulties, the USA side faced few troops... if you wiped everyone out every time prior to Gettysburg, it was a pretty easy battle with not a lot of tension.

Meanwhile. I'm not sure this game would need such scaling... if it has auto-resolve, it should be okay without having to have that scaling of difficulty.

[Luckso]

Originally posted by ian:

I'm sure that (a) you're hopefully already on this, and (b) it's too late to re-architect if you're not, but...

...please look to manage the difficulty curve without too much dynamic readjustment. In Civil War the more I succeeded in earlier battles, the larger and tougher the enemy army became.

There's nothing wrong - obviously - with enemy reinforcements, but it's a massive turnoff (for me) if the harder and more successfully I fight the worse my situation gets.

i would like to know this too.... the other game felt like a scam because of this... the better you play, the harder it gets because some misterious metaplay. I wonder if this mistake is repeated in this one... anyone knows for sure? i will not buy this kind of gameplay a second time...

[TyrannicalTeabag]

Its different in this version, Scaling is not a part of the game and you can adjust how hard you want the campaign both in battles and on the overworld map. If you kill a lot of the British troops they will have less troops and damaged regiments they next time you meet them

Hated the other games because they added scaling, it felt like they had a bad AI and needed to make the AI cheat to compensate for it

[Luckso]

Originally posted by TyrannicalTeabag:

Its different in this version, Scaling is not a part of the game and you can adjust how hard you want the campaign both in battles and on the overworld map. If you kill a lot of the British troops they will have less troops and damaged regiments they next time you meet them

Hated the other games because they added scaling, it felt like they had a bad AI and needed to make the AI cheat to compensate for it

they stated this somewhere?

[Wildhog]

i played it on easy and had liek 4 invasions in a row

[h.p.pistolcraft]

out of curiosity how many troops were in the 4 invasions?

[L A V A]

I'm not sure of this, but I think they have possibly tuned down the difficulty level with the last patch.

[PistolPete@Illinois]

Hope they fix it, this could be a great game but the way it is now, not so much.

[PistolPete@Illinois]

Originally posted by L A V A:

I'm not sure of this, but I think they have possibly tuned down the difficulty level with the last patch.

Which side because it cant be British because the desertion rate kills you before you get to fight.

[albrightwillie0]

Invasions on easy seem to be 4500 while normal is 6590