Wanted to ask the csa how they have liked the last few days getting the union side

You might want to consider a review of the maps and the units you put against each other. Hookers push being the most glaring example of a advantage to one side. The CSA defends the point in a open field with mostly 1845 smooth bores a moral disadvantage with no cover. The USA attacks with Sharps and other superior weapons to the CSA. The USA stops at the last fence for cover. They have moral advantage weapon advantage cover advantage. The CSA can just sit and watch each other get picked of because they would be lucky to hit the enemy at that distance without the fence there. It is clearly a map waiting for the USA victory. At the least give the CSA unites with weapon to give them a chance for victory. I am sure a review of the maps can be done and reconfigured to make things fair for both sides.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with the weaponry, the Confederates had to make due with what they had, meaning that they had to use older guns compared to the north. Also the Confederates were fighting a force that was double their number and the federals did not even field their whole force. The confederates had to use what terrain they had to even out the fighting.

I am so tired of everyone bringing up the Historical accuracy. Yes, we know the confeds lost the war, however the Nazis also lost and there are plenty of games out there that are balanced enough so that they can win. Something's should be as historically accurate as possible(Maps, uniform detail, weapon detail...) but something's cant be because this is a Game. Why are so many people forgetting that this is a GAME!!! I don't think anyone is playing this game and expecting to loss because there on the confeds. The game has to be balanced for both teams to have a even chance at winning and then let skill do the rest. We all know the damn history! GAMES are meant to be competitive, that's there attraction. I am very passionate about the Civil War, I have more than 5 ancestors that fought it, however I also realize that this is a game and if I want historical accuracy I should go reenact. I'm just so tired of people using historical accuracy to defend the position on a GAME! Historically the Civil War was not fought behind a keyboard!

On another note. Trusty Jam suggested we be unbiased and natural in our discussions. Well I feel as though the community im apart of (Second Core) has made one of the only attempts at doing so willingly. All weekend we deicide to play as union, and we are all in CSA company's but we played union. We did so for many reasons some you've heard already in this thread others you have not. We made the choice to step over to the other side and see what it was like to play as union. We learned the maps from the union side, we learned that the union are allowed to make mistakes and not feel as though they will loss for that mistake. We also learned that the union blues stick out more in the corn field than the the Confed grays. My point is that we have made every attempt to stay snatural and unbiased in our opinions of the game than many others. I would love to see the same from the Union company's. Play as confed, take the opportunity to see why we are bringing this up in the forums before you bash us, have facts and keep a positive attitude when discussing such things. In the end we should all be on one side and that's the success of this Game, WE SHOULD WANT WAR OF RIGHTS TO WIN!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fubar

I am so tired of everyone bringing up the Historical accuracy. Yes, we know the confeds lost the war, however the Nazis also lost and there are plenty of games out there that are balanced enough so that they can win. Something's should be as historically accurate as possible(Maps, uniform detail, weapon detail...) but something's cant be because this is a Game. Why are so many people forgetting that this is a GAME!!! I don't think anyone is playing this game and expecting to loss because there on the confeds. The game has to be balanced for both teams to have a even chance at winning and then let skill do the rest. We all know the damn history! GAMES are meant to be competitive, that's there attraction. I am very passionate about the Civil War, I have more than 5 ancestors that fought it, however I also realize that this is a game and if I want historical accuracy I should go reenact. I'm just so tired of people using historical accuracy to defend the position on a GAME! Historically the Civil War was not fought behind a keyboard!

On another note. Trusty Jam suggested we be unbiased and natural in our discussions. Well I feel as though the community im apart of (Second Core) has made one of the only attempts at doing so willingly. All weekend we deicide to play as union, and we are all in CSA company's but we played union. We did so for many reasons some you've heard already in this thread others you have not. We made the choice to step over to the other side and see what it was like to play as union. We learned the maps from the union side, we learned that the union are allowed to make mistakes and not feel as though they will loss for that mistake. We also learned that the union blues stick out more in the corn field than the the Confed grays. My point is that we have made every attempt to stay snatural and unbiased in our opinions of the game than many others. I would love to see the same from the Union company's. Play as confed, take the opportunity to see why we are bringing this up in the forums before you bash us, have facts and keep a positive attitude when discussing such things. In the end we should all be on one side and that's the success of this Game, WE SHOULD WANT WAR OF RIGHTS TO WIN!!!

---

I believe historical simulators which want to reflect both realism and a chance to win for either side typically choose battles that were a tie, or a very closely fought victory. Antietam of course being tactically inconclusive in favor for the CSA but a strategic win for the Union; so somewhat of a tie. If anything went any different that day it could have easily become a real clear cut victory for either side. It's these coin toss moments that are best emulated in games like this because it allows the developers to get away with balancing both sides regardless of the overarching historical outcome. So that the tactical and personal acumen of the players will determine the outcome in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDewitt

So that the tactical and personal acumen of the players will determine the outcome in the game.

---

And therein lies the complaint and our recent Test.
NO amount of skill has allowed the Rebs to win, lately, no matter who is playing them.

Again, we know that Balance is a priority for a different day because Mechanics are the purview of Alpha but ...
When it is this unbalanced you lose Testers.
1st TX was a major force a mere 3 months ago and now I am lucky to run into more than 3 at any Event.
We used to skirm them regularly because they could field a unit larger than ours when the Union wouldn't attend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Cooley

And therein lies the complaint and our recent Test.
NO amount of skill has allowed the Rebs to win, lately, no matter who is playing them.

Again, we know that Balance is a priority for a different day because Mechanics are the purview of Alpha but ...
When it is this unbalanced you lose Testers.
1st TX was a major force a mere 3 months ago and now I am lucky to run into more than 3 at any Event.
We used to skirm them regularly because they could field a unit larger than ours when the Union wouldn't attend.

---

The majority of 1st TX stopped being active testers before the implementation of the formation buff system a few weeks ago.

In regards to your remark about losing testers - so be it - alpha testing isn't for everyone (especially not the months if not years of testing we're asking people to endure). You can't rush balance (unless you want us to give everyone identical weapons, have no capture areas, have mirrored maps and identical amounts of morale). Sure you can throw a whole lot of changes in there but if you do that you have no way of knowing what works and what doesn't. The only way forward is to slowly make adjustments based on the latest balance reports. This, while important to get somewhat right, is not something that is having a huge priority for us in the alpha phase however as new game systems being implemented (some in the next update for instance) will continue to change the balance thus making too many man hours spent on it now a waste of development time.

- Trusty

https://i.imgur.com/FJymsp3.jpg?1

Well, I dont consider this a game. Its actually a simulator and things should be historically accurate and in that, I find far more fun than than having arcady-like elements . The things that should change are the varying degrees of a win or loss like having more than one point for instance. As we all know, its either win or lose. A marginal loss ( while still a loss ) isnt nearly the bitter pill to swallow as a total defeat and perhaps could be salvaged in the follow-up skirmish ( perhaps one day ). The weaponry is a MAJOR element of problems now, hence the 1842. Despite some people saying it isnt a problem , just use better tactics. Well the tactics I have heard at defending Hookers Push is a total recipe for failure as of now. But using incremental use of points could give those tactics more credence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Numitor

https://i.imgur.com/FJymsp3.jpg?1

---

Order in the Court!!!



Ill have a Cheeseburger!!!

I have been in some winning battles with the CSA side. Like stated in a different topic I believe the 1842 lacking to much in accuracy and lacking the distance it can be effective and that makes a big difference in curtain battles.
Must say the CSA side is not always playing it smart. All sitting together in a line not caring about their flanks lot of times being one dimensional.