To the ACW modders - All in all this mod really is a lot of fun. Anyway, 3.5 should add some Mexican units for the time. The other thing, the CS keeps selling Jackson Miss. to the Netherlands. And AI minor nations are always asking for Maryland, as if I'd consider giving away Washington D.C. I don't think so.
Are ships and spies ever going to be added in?
Last edited by nokmirt; August 05, 2012 at 09:58 AM.
I prefer starting some time prior to the outbreak of open hostilities, that allows for more variety in how one approaches the campaign - if we start with the 1st Manassas/Bull Run, that doesn't just mean starting the campaign with a battle (that'll eventually get tedious, as it did in RTR:FoE), but also with a very specific situation everywhere else.
That might be appealing for a slightly interactive recreation of history, but personally, I'd rather have a campaign with more replay value because the situation isn't set in stone.
I've compared this mod favourably with FKoC before, and that's one of the main reasons for that - in addition to getting period combat and atmosphere right, both offer a fairly short campaign with a lot of action, and a lot of options, so different approaches can be (successfully) tried in different play-throughs.
One thing I would love changed is " Winter " I mean . I like the snow effect but snow does not cover the ground all winter. Maybe in Minn but not in Pa. Or maybe just shorten winter a bit. Also battles look so much better without the snow. What do you think
One thing that I would like to see tweaked a little would be the cavalry. Don't get me wrong, they are sweet and the added mount/dismount are awesome.But I feel that the 150-something groups are a little overpowered. They can collapse your entire line with one charge, which is strategic, but they are like meatgrinders when they hit your infantry groups. If the units in the cav groups could be reduced so that it could be a little more fair and turn battles into more of positioning and strategy than a giant charge/melee...
In my last battle taking Richmond, which was huge, my cavalry had a huge advantage over infantry hitting them in the flank. I knocked off three regular Confederate infantry regiments doing this. However, this kind of thing happened very infrequently during the Civil War. Finally the Confederates charged their cavalry into mine and one huge cavalry battle ensued, behind their infantry lines. This reminded me of J.E.B. Stuart's attempt to break into the rear of the Union lines in the battle of The East Cavalry Field to exploit the defenses holding off Pickett's charge. Gregg and Custer stopped the Confederate cavalry cold, on that day. Although, unlike Gregg and Custer, the rebs did not stop me.
I wish I had the full version of fraps so I could have taken some decent screenshots. What an intense battle it was. I thought I was going to lose for a bit there. Finally my reinforcements finally got to the field, and they were the deciding factor.
Somethings I have noticed though. The regiment of foot unit titles need to go by the wayside. Units should be called by number and state, instead of the 24th regiment of foot, it should be the 24th Wisconsin, as an example, for units. For the most part armies were organized from state militia units. Also, there should be ranks for the commanders. From Brigade/Division on up to Corps and then Army Commanders. McClellan should be an army commander. Custer should be a brigade commander. Winfield Scott Hancock should be able to be corps commander at his top rank, or higher if needs be, or if he deserves a higher rank. Generals should be promoted based on performance in battle, or in many cases as needed, after the death or incompetence of another commander. On other screens, the names of generals do not match the names of the Civil War general's name, this should be fixed as well. That gets a tad confusing.
Another thing that should be added,is if you using, say McClellan for instance, and he loses a battle there should be a chance he is fired by Lincoln and replaced. An event saying this or not would be very interesting. Of course, if the same thing happened to Robert E. Lee, he, on the same token, would certainly not be fired. You can't replace that man. Other Confederate generals, should be able to be fired though.
Last edited by nokmirt; August 08, 2012 at 10:07 AM.
The problem with cavalry in the civil war is that there was not a whole lot of cavalry available initially, aside from the few regiments of regulars, and even those lost most of their officers when they went south early on. While infantry could be sort of cobbled together and there was a militia tradition and experience to build upon "proper" cavalry trained in shock tactics took years to be raised from scratch. For this reason early on the Union not only did not create additional units but they actually turned dow the offer of volunteer cavalry; Scott and the War Department believed it would be all over by the time they could train them properly. Eventually late in the war you see some "napoleonic" stuff such as multiple cavalry brigades charging boot to boot and overrunning confederate infantry during the 3rd Winchester.
With the battle hanging in the balance, nearly 6,000 troopers advanced up the Martinsburg Pike from Stephenson’s Depot, arrayed in five brigades astride the Pike and in the fields on either side of the road, and then they charged. The tremendous force first hit Confederate forces north of the fort. Three small infantry regiments, commanded by Colonel George S. Patton, ancestor of the World War II general, were struck at full tilt, and the Confederate forces formed a hollow square in a vain attempt to hold off the cavalrymen. Confederate Brigadier General Thomas Devin described the attack:
By 1864 training was no longer an issue...It was a terrible scene. Right on, over and through the rebel lines dashed the wild troopers, slashing right and left.The charge shattered Patton’s regiments and the remnants fell back toward Fort Collier...
While the rifled musket gave infantry more teeth it was probably not yet a full show stopper. French line cavalry was still able to operate succesfully against austrian infantry in 1859, despite the latter being issued Lorenz rifles (which would be pretty common on civil war battlefields). Things probably really went downward with the breechloaders so you wind up with results like Von Bredow's Death Ride at Mars-La-Tour in 1870, successful but with nearly 50% losses (though they were charging artillery so they were not just under infantry fire).The overpowered cavalry is the one thing that irks me, because the AI can just all out charge your lines and win the battle even though your men fired like two volleys into them before they hit, the cav keeps on trucking. Like you said, cavalry charges into infantry did not happen a lot in the civil war, because if they did, 1+ volley and the soldiers bayonets would do heavy damage.
It should be noted however that insofar stopping cavalry is concerned in principle all it did take was bayonets, steady infantry and covered flanks. 18th-19th century cavalry did not actually smash into the infantry putting up a wall of bayonet, if the infantry did not waver (this was the tricky part) the cavalry would break the charge and eventually try again; firepower enabled the infantry to kill the cavalrymen but in principle even robust pointy stick would have made them get away. Even in the flintlock days cavalry was best employed to attack flanks and rear,while charging squares and lines head on dicey (even if sometimes succesful), using its superior mobility to manouver and hit weak spots. If that happened it was a massacre but in the civil war terrain, fortifications, training issues etc would have made that even more difficult to achieve than it was in the past. Scouting, screening etc were more useful roles given the circumstances and forces available and in a sense were the wave of the future as far as cavalry was concerned.
Last edited by marcello; August 08, 2012 at 04:34 PM.
What I am waiting for is TGW mod 5.0. They are adding tanks and many other cool things. An incredible amount of work going on in that.
I will update on things I notice with ACW, as I play. Have fun
So Marcello, are you for or against weakening the cav charge and or melee with infantry?
I just started a new campaign as the US and within the first couple turns the Rebs already traded 2 territories to the Dutch ><
Funny thing is in my CSA campaign the yanks never traded any territories.
Last edited by marcello; August 10, 2012 at 09:43 AM.
but, as a matter of encouragement, I can say that battle will probably get some adjusting too. especially in cavalry section... but we shall see, we are spread rather thin these days, with summer and all of that going on...
Are the CSA and the Union the only playable factions ??????
Perhaps someone can help me out, and do forgive me if I've missed a previous answer to my question, or a place where I could have found the answer without just asking. I'm running ETW on a fairly low end laptop, but I can handle ETW on the low level settings well - no real frame rate issues. I can even get DMOC to work, no problem, as well, on the low settings. But I'm struggling a little right now to find settings that will let me run 20 unit battles on ACW. As a huge Civil War buff, I bought the Warpath map only for the ACW setting.
If someone could be so kind as to give me a suggestion on graphical settings that might get me to run, I'd be most appreciative. I can run the battles but at times it can get slow, especially if I'm anything but completely zoomed out. The mod is fantastic boys, and I wanted to thank you on creating such an amazing mod, I just want to find a way to get it up and running in a manor where I don't have to sim every single major battle.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)