Taka-Haradin puolipeikko
Filthy Kalinite
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2015
- Messages
- 19,109
Last edited by a moderator:
First time I see Age of Sail, and well it looks fantastic. Really looking forward to it. Wish I discovered it when it was out instead, now I have to suffer and wait
There's actually ships in some scenarios.First time I see Age of Sail, and well it looks fantastic. Really looking forward to it. Wish I discovered it when it was out instead, now I have to suffer and wait
You could get Ultimate General Civil War which is a fantastic game by itself, just without ships.
the funny thing is that Ultimate Admiral: Age Of Sail and Dreadnaughts seem to be entirely different games on entirely different engines. I cannot cannot believe they are working on 2 completely different games simulataneously (the name means nothing because I see nothing in common between the 2) so it must be 2 completely separate teams. They also have This Land Is My Land in Early Access so I think that is yet another team.
Ultimate Admiral is running on an improved engine of Ultimate General so this is the only one with a proven formula, I think it will be good, probably easily surpassing Age Of Sail II.
Naval Action will have run dry by now because the loyal players seem indignated and it was plain and simple a shit game. I hope they don't have the Naval Action sail mechanics in UA because that would mean the sail ships would accelerate faster than WW2 destroyers.
I can't stand the sight of how two lines of infantry just shoot and shoot and shoot at each otheruntil one loses enough men to be routed, especially given how british never employed "shoot until routed" crap, which was the unique characteristic of american Civil War and horrified european military observers. Because everyone in Europe used charge after volleys, which reduced casualties drastically. And sure redcoats understood the importance of charge.
Not necessarily even lack of training, but the psychology of WHO you were fighting against: In the civil war, people were fighting against those they already knew, people who used to be their countrymen: They didn't WANT to run up in their faces and start stabbing them. It was just psychologically easier to sling shots in their general direction, not even really very aimed, and hope they go away. The psychological barriers to directly engaging in lethal hand to hand combat were even higher than usual. The paradox of this is that it actually resulted in bloodier battles. If you charge your enemies and they break, they will simply rout from the field and that will mostly be the end of it. If you shoot at your enemies from a distance and their morale fails, they will, instead of running, simply cower in their trenches and sling potshots back. If your unit's morale isn't doing any better, what you get is two broken units that are just cowering and slinging potshots at each other, neither willing to actually run or attack to put an end to it.Shelby Foote once said that there were as few bayonet kills in American Civil War as there were in WW1 or WW2. Reaons? Probably lack of training - soldiers did not like kill in hand to hand combat. Shooting someone from a distance is much easier psychologically and may also be safer (they did use cover and did not stand in line most of the time)
So exactly as it was modelled in the game. Found very little use with artillery, personally – I usually didn't even mind the enemy shelling me, since the casualties gained this way were so minor as to be irrelevant, and the only time I actually feared artillery was when it was positioned straight in front of a charge – it was devastating on close distances, but useless otherwise. Later in the game, I resigned on artillery entirely, and instead built each division to be full of infantry + one detachment of melee cavalry, so as to massacre routing enemies.There are also many notions that modern artillery was crucial but in fact Lee said the cannon he most preferred was 12 pounder Napoleonic, when it was fired with cannister. This makes sense because this was the only time ammunition was used effectively - the rest of the time they were just shooting holes in the landscape.
That, and overall cost/reward of it. Consider how expensive artillery is and how much supply it eats through (can easy deplete a supply wagon all on its own). Even if the range is very long, far longer than that of a musket, if several minutes of constant shelling only costs me a couple dozen troops in a 2k stack, then who cares? It really only makes holes in the landscape and I can afford to ignore it entirely, up until the time enemy leaves it open and I send the cavalry in to massacre it (after all, one can get a lot of $$$ for selling captured cannons). The only time artillery is actualy useful in my experience is in close range, but that presents another issue – first, your troops mustn't stand in front of the artillery, meaning you will be having a gap in fronline plugged only by the artillery alone. The artillery's rate of fire means that unless you already battered the enemy regiment beforehand, it won't break and will just charge onwards, massacring the artillery unit, which is simply too costly to allow. Of course, there are setups in which you could circumvent this issue and give artillery clear line of fire without making it vulnerable, but they cannot be used if you're on the offensive (you could theoretically move the artillery to the enemy while on the offensive, but it's just too slow to keep up with the blitzing infantry and takes forever to set up, not to mention enemy infantry decimating it with just a couple volleys if taken too close), and on defensive, they're highly dependent on terrain. I thus found artillery in general to be highly situational, whereas infantry was powerful, perfectly universal, and relatively cheap in comparison.I think what thesecret1 means is that any infantry regiment has always more overall combat power than an artillery unity, which afaik is correct.
Good cannons very quite expensive from what I remember.Artillery is expensive?!