Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The 5-15% reduction is a separate mechanic from the MP pool. Both were implemented for the same reason (to make minor battles worthwile by affecting the AI troop numbers). The percentage effects the maximum scaling of the AI troops in case it has enough manpower to deploy the max troops set by the scaling mechanic. The percentile bonuses were the devs first attempt to make tha campaign more dynamic in nature.
I know it can be a bit disencouraging to see the 40k reinforcements but it keeps the AI army at a level it can function and present some challenge to the player. Just don´t stare at the manpower pool alone and start paying notice to the exp and weaponry. Impact on those is usually much greater than the impact on MP.
Dude, Have you faced over 100k armies in Antietam or F-burg? Those are the real numbers the Ai got before the MP pool. Having played the game before 0.9 the numbers have gone down really radically.
I do agree the minor battles should have a greater impact on the AI MP pool. If they´d give reinforcements only in the beginning of a campaign the difference would be more noticable and minor battles more enjoyable. The constant trickle of reinforcements instead of a flood every once in a while makes the changes more difficult to notice.
There has to be some perk to smashing another army. For example, You smash an enemy army. Kill ~20k people, lost about 10k of your own. You recover 6k weapons between 30,000 dead... wut???? What happened to the other weapons?
Why are so few cannons recovered. You can literally kill 4-5 cannon crews and recover 7 cannons.
I would like to know if there is an intended purpose to doing the smaller battles aside from advancing generals rank? is it working as intended?
On a side note:
In Ultimate Gen Gettysburg you gave us options, to attack or defend, to rest + withdraw or push on. Would be cool to see some of those choices happen.
Please give us the option to continue the battle or withdraw when time is up. It makes no sense at all. No general is gonna say "oh darn, times up" when the enemy is breaking and is on the run but you just cant cap the final VP fast enough. Is someone really going to withdraw if you have them beat? I ***HATE*** being rushed in RTS games. Its forcing the person to play the game the way YOU want it to be played and not the way *I* want to.
In comparison to my pre 0.90 campaigns ( 1 as Union , 2 as CSA ) i am finding the battles much easier.
The minor battles are well worth fighting just for the rewards and the experience gained, but their real value lies in you getting the opportunity to hone your tactics. The real reward comes if you can minimise your own casualties, and never mind the enemies.
The game is balanced because the game is designed to present each battle as a real challenge.
If your casualty rate is too high then you are doing something wrong.
I have analysed all my battles to date and the rewards always cover my losses ( except Blackwater bridge - not worth fighting), and usually with a good profit ( i am $120K in the black as i go into Antietam, with 25K troops against the CSA's 24K.
I have also found it is better to keep your forces only just large enough to match the enemy, and build up slowly over time instead of rushing to get huge armies onto the field.
I haven't tried it but if you only fight the major battles i suspect you will not be able to win the game because you will run out of manpower and have a relatively inexperienced army vs the AI.
By the way 5 points in recon is a waste - better use those points to heal your units to maintain your experience level, or to make more money.
I find 2 points is all i need - i'm not bothered about the composition of the enemies forces.
If you are only interested in smashing the enemy and being rewarded by facing smaller and smaller armies which will give you no challenge then this isn't the game for you.
The question would be how many of the enemy are you killing or capturing each battle? That makes a huge difference. Winning matters but if you want to get ahead on the manpower pool killing matters more.
Prior to the pool Cold Harbor with the Union was a mother. Last time I got there the CSA was so depleted whole stretches of the line were held either not at all or by units reduced to the brink of shattering from being so small to begin with and taking a pasting on the first few phases.
For the Union I started to notice the difference a bit at Stones River and a lot after that. Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg were comparative walkovers. Gettysburg wasn't even a challenge and I ended up on the offensive at the end of each phase.
You can make a dent and the minor battles do contribute to an overall drain of men that eventually catches up to them. You won't change much where they stand for a major battle on the pool but it helps drain men from them in future allotments.
Small battles also apparently scale to the total size of your army so the battles become increasingly hard so even a victory is often a net loss for the player, even without the constant random post-battle enemy buff events.
It's not a problem that enemy is kept at a size that remains even somewhat challenging to the player, the problem is that curret event system actually rewards skipping side mission. A loss or even a draw is side missions is always worse than skipping it which makes absolutely no sense from game design point of view.
Enemy should get the biggest buffs right after a large battle and the following small battles should never result in net gain for the enemy no matter how bad they go. Skipping should be equal or worse than losing in terms of reputation.
Although this game is not a true historical simulation, realistic effects are throughout. Gun crews anticipating capture/defeat historically disabled their guns (usually by spiking) so that if the guns were captured, they couldn't be used without a lot of expensive repair. "Captured" and
"recovered" weapons in the game represent usable weapons IMO.
Also, when an artillery unit shatters, it doesn't mean every single man is killed or every gun is destroyed or captured - there are still some men left who run away (look at the unit list after the end of the battle), and they probably drag off the remaining guns with them.
I can't answer the recovered rifle question, though - maybe it's just a play balance thing?
Back in the early days of this game, this was more true. I remember at the battle of Cross Keys, I captured something like 10k Texas Tylers, that the Union had equipped. They had to nerf the recovery rate because if you would kill 100k enemy and recover 60k rifles it could really affect the balance.
The trick was to carefully manage how you put your few career points (Army org most important first), and to use the reputation points to get weapons.
After I succeeded, @Pandakraut tried on BG mode as the CSA - he did so well that about 2/3 of the way through it was boring and he stopped (he's an expert at the game).
It was an interesting experiment.