[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/vst/ - Video Games/Strategy

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Spoiler?[]
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File[]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 32 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Happy 18th Birthday, 4chan!

Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!


[Advertise on 4chan]


This any good? Does the AI cheat too much? Is the campaign mode interesting?
>>
>>792931
Its ok, not the best not the worst, dont go doomstacks or they will fry your ass.
Thats the best i can get from it, im not a real expert on those wargames.
>>
>>792931
Not OP but I just got this the other day myself. Haven't tried it yet. I'll be interested in what you guys have to say about it.
>>
>>792958
What exactly happens when you use doomstacks?
>>
>>792987
They route even faster, you wouldn think a formation of 200 men can route against 25 horse charging. Well, it does. Also the enemy usually do a lot of stacks and it will easy surround you and destroy you with cricling.
>>
>>792931
Start on the easier difficulty just to get used to this game because it is a little different. Use canons like tanks and only use canons with good close range damage. Accuracy is better than Reloading on infantry upgrades because your weaponry will eventually have a better rof. Watch your flanks and also always take the time to flank attack the enemy. Maintain at least 3 corps of troops and dont worry about getting 3 star veterancy. I have lots more tips but thats a lot to start with. I like the game a lot and play it often.
>>
>>792931
better than empire/napoleon in terms of tactical battles. gunpowder units work well and can fire in all sorts of formations. AI actually works well and game requires you to think carefully on position and how to advance and how to defend. Not just winning via objective either but winning and keeping your army alive is important too. Best part of the game is here.


as a full campaign it can get a bit dull and some missions are frustrating. It is maybe stretched too far out for its own good since the year 1862 alone takes up almost a dozen battles, not to mention side ones so the game can feel like it doesn't progress much.

overall a solid 7/10 and makes me hopeful for future real time tactics games beyond TW that actually do battles well.
>>
i'll say what i've said about this game in every thread for it. i love the foundation for it, i love the gameplay, i love the mechanics and the campaign structure
but its one major fuck up is mission scripting. especially true of the multi-day grand battles

>game asks you to distribute your brigades to certain flanks before the battle
>it doesn't tell you where the main enemy thrust is (hint: it's not always the center)
>it doesn't tell you if it's all going to be one map or broken up into different map sections so you don't know if your brigades can reinforce each other
>meaning you can put your weakest most exhausted brigades to fight off the enemy's main thrust and be doomed to lose

>game doesn't reveal all the objectives at the start so you might be doing great driving the enemy out of one position only to have another enemy position across the map revealed as the next objective while you're completely out of position to mount an assault against it without significant reorganizing
>this could be fine if the objectives weren't timed

>game doesn't tell you how many days the battle will last and which day is the final day
>this leads to scenarios where you throw your troops desperately against an objective, suffer enormous casualties, only for the game to reveal the battle continues on to day 2 where you get significant reinforcements to take the objective
>casualties matter because they carry over throughout the campaign

these problems are mostly absent from the minor battles and i enjoyed those a ton. i'm looking forward to his next game about the american revolution
>>
Thanks for the tips fellas. I am not american, but the civil war is very interesting. It has a lot of characters, and I like how it started as something that appeared to be small and inconsequential and in the end everyone was hardened. Any good series or movies?
>>
>>792989
Hey it's totally realistic and the AI is very good better than Total War
>>
Fun but seeing the enemy army you destroyed in the last battle come back to life is annoying.
>>
>>793201
I agree with this for the most part. Though the real generals had to do a lot of guesswork about where to deploy their forces and winnable battles were often lost because they guessed wrong, so the devs might see this as more of an intentional design choice than a problem. The objective system also drives home how retarded the overall Confederate strategy was, since it forces you to reenact their highly aggressive tactics even when it's obvious you'd do a lot better with a more defensive approach, or
at least a willingness to quit while you're ahead after a successful offensive push before Union reinforcements show up and make further offensive maneuvers prohibitively costly. The real Confederates usually kept pushing towards their objectives even after it was obviously doing more harm to them than the enemy, and the game really shows you how misguided this was.
>>
>>793782
Confederates couldn't be defensive or try attritional warfare, their hope apart from European intervention was decisive victories to break the Union's will to fight.
The Union had a ridiculous advantage in manpower, industry, capital.
>>
>>793810
They fought both ways and Lee was very good on the defensive. Forrest best general.
And no. There are not any good shows or movies although the one from the 90s is ok. About gettysburg.
>>
>>793201
>>792931
This game really is a hidden gem. It my campaign consumed my every thoughts at work for about a week when I was playing it. If you play on the highest difficulty, there are so many considerations in terms of your manpower and weapons throughout the grind of the campaign. At least for the confederacy, which is the only side I play.
>>
>>792931
Is it good? Depends on whether or not you'll have fun breaking the battles, they're better than Empire/Napoleon for what it's worth.

Does the AI cheat too much? Tactically no, the AI is actually cometent. But that leads into the biggest problem.

Is the campaign mode interesting? Well it's the only mode, so you're basically asking whether the game is interesting. I'd certainly say it's interesting, but the campaign isn't too good - it wants this weird middle ground between Total War's freedom with army composition and Fire Emblem predetermined battles/opposing army composition and it really takes me out of the immersion.
>>
>>794056
The first and largest problem is the game actively punishes you for doing well. Unless if you find ways to break the game so well that you eliminate and/or capture most of the opposing army in a battle (which is possible, but it requires heavy foreknowledge of the terrain, battle scripting and extensive preplanning) the opposing AI will always get more reinforcements and equipment than you will take out - it's rare that you're able to do something that will meaningfully dent the AI numbers in the next battle and so the main challenge is just drifting as close as possible to the reputation floor without being in danger of getting fired.

That directly leads to the next big problem; your actions will not change the campaign, only the battles. You can regularly inflict casualty rates that can rival WW1 levels on the enemy with minimal losses (10:1 is entirely possible on some maps) and the battles will go on as they were preplanned. No matter how many die, Europe will not intervene, Dixie will not lose hope, the Union won't have the peace democrats win or have to evacuate D.C., etc. You can kill Lee or Grant in one battle and they will reappear in the next battle unaffected where it would kill one of your generals. Unless if you get fired, you're in this until '65 - no real winning at Sharpsburg, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, etc. - Kessen 1 got winning in battles changing the the flow of the campaign right in 2000, UG:CW can't get it right two decades later.

That's also the final big problem with the campaign - you're not managing different fronts or changing the outcome of campaigns, you're just assembling a single army. Saving Albert Sidney Johnston by winning Shiloh doesn't prevent the Union from advancing down Tennessee, it means he can show up commanding one of Lee's corps in Virginia immediately afterwards, and vice-versa. There's no real prioritization of theaters or campaigns or resources, it's just optimizing a single army against an endless horde.
>>
>>793782
heh yeah true, i did play the confederacy. are you saying it's different for the union campaign?
>Though the real generals had to do a lot of guesswork about where to deploy their forces
this would be alright but sometimes the major battles aren't all in one map where i could just reinforce a weaker flank but all the brigades fight on separate maps which represent different sections of the battlefield so reinforcing is not an option
>>
>>792931
It's a 1/2 playthrough game and the less you know about the Grand Amerimutt mud fight the better you are for it.
Cause the game doesn't really take into account the fact that hind sight is 20/20 and the AI never adapts to your positioning only your force size and victory streak.

So if you are a big brain boi and know more about the Amerilard Food Fight than this one song with two versions you will fuck the game. The more you know and act on that knowledge the more you fuck it. Cause sure Bull Run isn't gonna win you the war and a miracle at Shilo might fuck you in the end. But if you use your big brain and at the first day of Gettysburg you charge forwards with a division made up of nothing but shock troops with riffled muskets with a cavalry contingent that is conveniently really close to the enemy supply train you might have just won the game and the only thing the game can do at this point is throw twice the numbers of blueberries at you so when you get to Washington there are just 3 guys with 1 musket to stop you.
>>
Also the game has another flaw.
The fact that the game just let's you be Donut Steel Color Changed Sherman and Lee.
You don't actually get to do something cool like play in the western territories and using scraps and injuns form a decent force to act as a stop to the California reinforcements.
Or maybe play in Louisiana with the peak of the campaign being retaking New Orleans.
All you are really doing is just headcannoing of Gods and Generals.
>>
>>793201
Agree with this 100%. The gameplay core of the game is great, it feels far more realistic and satisfying than Total War, but the mission scripting will fuck you over and frustrate you.
>>
>>793201
American Revolution looks very jizzworthy indeed
>>
I got turned off on the idea, that if you play a battle very well, it turns into the A.I gaining more and more troops. At first I thought it was okay and neat I expect the Union to get more troops but soon they have start fielding an insane number and thats right after barely winning against a large army making your victory seem meaningless. Which I suppose from a CSA pov is true ,as winning field battles means noting. but when your the union bearing down on the south it becomes kinda silly when they do it too.
>>
>>793727
>Hey it's totally realistic and the AI is very good better than Total War
Okay Darth focus on your next shitty game, all right?
>>
>>794737
I didnt have this experience playing this game.
>>
>>792931
I give it a 7-8 out of 10. Very good first campaign, but poor replay value. No real agency with the campaigns, and you can't afford to lose any battles (for example, you need to win those early battles like Shiloh as the CSA, which they historically lost) while you can win some battles that really could have decided the war, yet nothing happens (like the CSA winning Sharpsburg or Gettysburg, or the Union winning 1st Manassas or Fredericksburg). AI are cheating bastards, especially at the harder difficulties. I recommend playing as CSA because you get less of a feeling of the AI bullshitting men out of nowhere and staying in the war after catastrophic defeats. At least the rebels can blame their lower manpower and industry against the endless Yankee horde. Union campaign feels silly, just crushing entire rebel armies yet they manage to pull a rabbit out of a hat each time and keep fighting.

The game does have moderate educational value, actually, which few other games can boast. You really get a feel for the historic civil war battlefields and what the commanders of each side were going for.

TL;DR: Get it if it's on sale. You'll get a few dozen hours of real fun out of it, but it's not good for more than two campaigns.
>>
>>792931
Great game if you life autistic wargames. Getting accustomed to how to move your units around actually takes some effort. It's not as simple as in Total War.

The battles are pretty amazing, and the management side is actually much better than I expected it to be. I thought it would be a chore with bloated UI but it's pretty simple once you get the hang of it.

>Does the AI cheat too much?
Sadly yes and it's the main problem with the game.
You will ALWAYS fight outnumbered. ALWAYS.
It doesn't matter how many battles you win, the enemy will always pull 60k more soldiers out of their ass. The campaign is great but it's scripted, even if you win every single battle the war will follow the historical path, which kinda requires the enemy to have infinite manpower.

Expect to be outnumbered not just something like 1.5 - 1 or even 2 - 1, but more like 4 - 1 or even 6 - 1 on a regular basis.
The AI army is scaled based on your own army, so actually adding more men is kinda useless after some point because it just means the AI will get even more men.

A lot of battles then devolve into
>survive massive AI onslaught
>slowly retreat without losing too many men
>receive scripted reinforcement
>do your best to recover lost ground
>>
even if you'd prefer a more sandboxy game, play it just because it gives you great overhead views all the civil war's major battles in a way that looking at the battle maps/troop movements doesnt really do justice for. this game helped me wrap my head around what made each battle unique. the difficulties are about as challenging as they ought to be, though there is a pretty good mod community to change things too. i highly recommend.
>>
>>793782
>it's obvious you'd do a lot better with a more defensive approach,
None of the Confederate generals had the resources to keep an army in the field in a defensive stance for very long. Confederate rations by 1862 were abysmal. The whole reason Lee marched into the north twice was because he didn't have a choice, if he had stayed in the south the army simply would have melted away due to lack of supplies.

The south had far fewer combat and draft animal for cannons and wagons, and about 1/25 of the food to feed them with.

The Union could have practiced, for that matter, much safer strategies to choke richmond out of the war but the constant howling of the press for peace forced them always to reach beyond their grasp for a sooner conclusion.
>>
File: CivilWar.jpg (265 KB, 800x449)
265 KB
265 KB JPG
Tell me your favorite story/tidbit about the civil war.
>>
File: Anne frank confederate.jpg (1008 KB, 2048x1366)
1008 KB
1008 KB JPG
>>794806
I loved the part when Anne Frank was rescued from the camps and deflowered by the Big Confederate Cock.
>>
>>792958
What? No it's the exact opposite, you should make your infantry brigades as large as possible, pump it right up to 2000-2500 specifically because they'll have greater morale shock resistance and for general concentration of power. Completed the CSA campaign on the hardest difficulty with this as part of my method.
>>
File: mfw.gif (998 KB, 320x294)
998 KB
998 KB GIF
>Civil War
>>
>>794809
Stop ban-evading Jeff
>>
>>794806
Union and Confederate troops would trade with each other.
At the battle of Fredericksburg, at Mary's Heights, there was a 19 year old Confederate Sergeant that broke cover and ran out to give water to wounded Union troops that had been left on the field. Union sharpshooters refused to fire on him.
>>
>>793768
This. Especially if you're playing as the Union. It's just so... jarring and immersion breaking. The last chapter of the Confederate campaign is also really weird. Like, suddenly the South pulls a couple hundred thousand troops out of its ass and marches on Washington DC in 1865? I get that they wanted to allow the player to actually win the war as the South if playing their campaign, but this was the weirdest and least believable way to accomplish that. A dynamic campaign that actually took ahistorical battle outcomes into consideration would have benefited this game immensely.
>>
>>795084
>A dynamic campaign that actually took ahistorical battle outcomes into consideration would have benefited this game immensely.

>you win the first 5 battles as the Union, killing more than 100k Confederates
>the war ends in 1863 because the Confederacy is simply unable to continue the war
It's either making the confederacy completely unrealistic or making the campaign way too short.
Irl the Union had absolutely everything in their favour, the only reason the confederacy lasted so long was due to terrible blunders made by the Union leadership (eg.: Fredericksburg).
>>
>>792931
The cartoony graphics and scaling ruin it for me. I'd rather play NTW even if the AI is worse.
>>
>>792931
I liked it. I like the Rebalance even better, though it is a bit complicated.
>>
>>795084
Truth be told, though, wouldn't the realistic outcome from the Confederacy whipping ass be that the coward and dastard McClellan wins the election and sues for peace?
>>
>>793201
for me it was enemy scaling to your forces and enemy units that surrender not dropping any weapons(plus getting weapons from your allies killed)
>>
File: gun eu 01.jpg (976 KB, 2480x1724)
976 KB
976 KB JPG
>>795389
you could add options for European nations to intervene on behalf of confederacy
desu Napoleonic themed game would be much better
or even semi fictional non Europe/Asia gunpowder one
civil war or war of independence don't have that potential for interesting war
>>
>>797113
>T. Seething Europoor
Quiet down, Muhammad.
>>
>>797119
what is seething about it, Jamal?
I know that you celebrate civil war as it given your ancestor freedom but seriously its 2 dimensional conflict at best
>>
>>797111
Only capture about 500 troops. Kill the rest. When you have the enemy wrapped into a corner of the map march your captured units into their bunch so they switch sides again and then blow them to bits with your cannon. Cannon units seem to be hardest to level up so this helps and you get more weapons captured by killing them. Also, CSA needs to kill all enemy artillery in every battle to get captured guns and keep about 10+ maxxed out cannon units per corps. The USA troops will always rush in and try to overwhelm CSA lines at some point in a battle and canister shot will create a bloodbath.
>>
File: screen687.jpg (1.48 MB, 1920x1080)
1.48 MB
1.48 MB JPG
just play a real civil war game like AC:DN with the HDN mod.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCybsKyywkU
>>
>>797122
Yes that's most wars, dipshit.
>>
>>799594
they seriously should ship your kin back to africa





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.