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
I think you should have access to the paper map at all times and that would be how you would issue orders.
The twenty meter radius isn't the distance you can see but the distance that the camera can move from the commander, hence limiting your vision to only what is happening within your sight.
In Scourge of War Gettysburg it made the game so much more difficult because you would have to make decisions based on only what your reports told you. For instance, sending a courier to Longstreet asking for a report of the situation in his front. An hour later the courier arrives with information that is 30 minutes old. He says something along the lines that the enemy to his front appears to be in division strength. You send a courier to him to attack. He receives that courier 30 mins later and in the meantime that division to his front has been reinforced by two corps and he is beaten back with heavy losses.
That's the realism that I love. Having to use cavalry to scout out a position and using reports that are possibly hours old to make decisions on whether to attack here. or there. or to retreat. It truly shows the complexity and scale of a Civil War battle.
In this game, you have a real time view of the entire battlefield.
Imagine if even the worst commander during the CW had the ability to see the field in a birds eye view in real time, they would be unstoppable.
McClellan still would’ve sucked lol
Very much YES. The devs were talking about adding a feature where you can create your own commander. Maybe they could make it possible to have a career type thing where you create your commander and start from a brigade commander and throughout the campaign you can be promoted to division, corps and even army commander.
That would be my dream feature. A Civil War RPG lol
McClellan still would’ve sucked lol [/quote]
You know. Lee was asked after the war who he thought was the most capable commander of the AotP and he said it was McClellan. Maybe he said that just to stiff the other ones like Meade and Grant?
You know. Lee was asked after the war who he thought was the most capable commander of the AotP and he said it was McClellan. Maybe he said that just to stiff the other ones like Meade and Grant? [/quote]
Yea it’s easy to be humble and praise a man you beat over and over. Admitting that grant was a solid general would shake Lee’s excuse that the war was lost solely due to the north’s overwhelming advantages. Lee was to great of a tactician to not realize that if McClellan pressed the center at Sharpsburg then the war was likely over. I doubt he actually had an ounce of respect for McClellan imho.
Dude if they put a rpg style campaign in this game my wife is going to leave me cause I’ll never stop playing lol
Yea it’s easy to be humble and praise a man you beat over and over. Admitting that grant was a solid general would shake Lee’s excuse that the war was lost solely due to the north’s overwhelming advantages. Lee was to great of a tactician to not realize that if McClellan pressed the center at Sharpsburg then the war was likely over. I doubt he actually had an ounce of respect for McClellan imho. [/quote]
I watched a Civil War lecture by the NPS a couple weeks ago and they gave the argument that McClellan didn't outnumber Lee as heavily as has always been assumed. They claim that he only had about 70,000 men and most of those were very green. Something like a third of his army hadn't even been drilled in firing their muskets. Supposedly, after Lee had defeated Pope at 2nd Manassas, it caused, understandably a crisis in DC, especially when Lee crossed the Potomac and entered Maryland. Basically, only a few units from the AotP that had fought on the Peninsula Campaign had arrived and most of the units that had fought at 2nd manassas were too disorganized to be reformed to be used against Lee's invasion. So, they stripped the surrounding areas in Maryland and Pennsylvania of troops that were still in training and placed them in McClellan's army to face Lee. And, according to the guy giving the lecture, that is why McClellan kept the 5th corps in reserves the entire day because he was unsure of the ill trained men that Washington had placed in his command.
Don't know whether I believe that or not. it sort of makes sense but then again, if they were ill trained, they sure put up a hell of a fight. Lee nearly lost it all that day, his aggressiveness almost went against him.
I don't have a wife but I do have a job that would fire my ass when I show up tired as hell after playing this game all night.
I'll be honest, I'll pay the game price all over again for an RPG DLC feature, I'd pay it in a heartbeat
Yeah this is part of the problem with the game. It is not just that the AI is too weak, but the player is too powerful. For example, the player can send divisions out on wide flanks and have them operate based on total knowledge of the battle. Even though an order from the army commander would take time to reach them, you can have your flanking divisions controlled by their divisional commander, who can operate based on immediate knowledge of developments from the across the battlefield.
So even with the order delays your army can make all sorts of fancy co-ordinated manouvers that the AI can't handle.
I know it sounds like I'm complaining a lot about this game and in some ways I am, but it's not out of malice but out of respect and excitement on how much potential this game has. This is already a great game even with the bugs and general wonkyness of it, in a years time I can't imagine how great this will be as long as the developers stay motivated to keep adding to it.
This was my first thought.
To reply to this general discussion - McClellan was a great general for many things. He took the rabble outside of DC after 1st Bull Run and turned it into an army. He had a decent strategic sense. He was quite good at managing logistics. The troops liked him, he seemed to genuinely care about their well being. He raised morale.
He sucked at the warfighting part. He spent entirely too much time worrying about what the enemy was going to do to him. Instead of just moving up and gradually developing a siege of Yorktown, he held the entire army back, spent WEEKS getting the siege organized, and moved up to start the siege as the rebels withdrew - they'd already slowed the Yanks down for a month, mission accomplished! He seemed to uncritically believe wildly inflated intelligence estimates of the other side and minimized his own assets. He was unwilling (or unable) to grab a battle by the throat and force a favorable conclusion, if he felt like something went against him, he he wanted to withdraw, reorganize, and start over. He wanted to execute a perfect battle plan every time.
And on top of that, he was basically impossible as a subordinate. Some of the messages he sent from the Peninsula to the bosses were so wildly insubordinate that on at least one occasion an intermediary toned down the language before delivering it, and they were still fairly ridiculous. He had a pretty low opinion of Lincoln and wasn't shy about demonstrating it.
Any one of those flaws on its own - well, no general is perfect, but taken together he was pretty awful. If McClellan treated the army like a bespoke antique violin, Grant operated it like a sledgehammer, BUT he understood the fundamental truth that dancing with the rebels was not going to end the war, you needed to tackle and pin them. Casualties now can shorten the war and avoid casualties dragging on years down the line.
e: after Seven Pines is another good example - nearly at the gates of Richmond, he stopped for what was it, almost four weeks? All in all McClellan gave the rebels a ton of time they badly needed to slap together an army that might be able to defend the city.
Prior to the CW the entire US army consisted of less than 10,000 men, I've heard some figures of 5,000. So 10,000 men spread all across the country in dozens of units. Think about the difference in logistics between that and a single army of 100,000. I think McClellan was caught in that time period around the first year or so of the war where everyone was learning how to supply and upkeep such a massive force.
McClellan famously told Lincoln after Antietam that he couldn't pursue Lee due to a lack of fresh horses and a lot of people seem to think that was an excuse. Thing is, if you don't have horses to pull your supply wagons then you won't have an army for very long. Also, McClellan was faced with the same predicament that Meade was faced with after Gettysburg, pursuing Lee after suffering extreme casualties not just in troops but in the higher ranks. Lee might have been beaten at Antietam and Gettysburg but he was still a dangerous foe. You can wound a tiger and it'll run off and leave you alone, but if you corner it, it'll still put up a hell of a fight.
Makes me wonder if the reason Lee said that McClellan was the most capable officer he faced was because he himself was in the same situation as McClellan, having to learn how to use such a large force and keep it supplied. Other than the last year of the war, that had to be the most difficult time for him as well as McClellan.