AGEOD Forums

mayonaise

the turns take considerably less time the more you get familiar with the game and the further along you get in the campaign. i had the same problem at first, but now my turns take 10-15 minutes in the early stages ('61) and significantly less from then on.

mayonaise

maybe i'm crazy but thats not the strategy i used at all i built only regular troops concentrating one army in the east, one in louisville and one along the mississippi. i go defensive in the east after taking winchester and manassas, and just build up my forces in the west. i got lucky in that i wa...

mayonaise

i built a fort in game

besides having the guns and supply oyu have to have certain level of control in the region. its been awhile, but if i remember right it is 50%.

don't you also need an engineer?

mayonaise

i would interpret it as a precipitous action, where neither side intended for there to be a conflict but overzealous subordinates or misinterpreted orders caused a conflict to happen. with two armies within striking distane of eachother things can definitely get out of control, no matter their "stan...

mayonaise

the southern army was just as disorganized in victory as the union was in defeat after bull run. they had zero chance to mount an offensive.

mayonaise

you are lucky the army starved for you in the east. my campaign is evolving very similarly- i heavily emphasized the west and ocean operations, but now i'm finding myself overwhelmed in the east. i've just lost manassas and have half my army holed up in washington with the other half besieged in har...

mayonaise

i created a whole army with 2 corp and have been raiding up and down the costs capturing forts and cities. unfortunately i spent so much resources on doing this that i'm currently getting it handed to me in pennsylvania. ive got superior numbers knocking on washingtons door

leure:

mayonaise

wow i wish i had known this. twice i had a CTD with my save getting wiped out in mid 1862, VERY disheartening.

thanks for the info!

mayonaise

ah, i haven't gotten that far yet

mayonaise

I tried to open up the .png files in the graphics/units/ folder to add the generals names to their pictures. I used adobe photoshop and saved them in their original .png file format after adding the text. I now get errors when trying to load the game. Is there something I'm missing or am I better of...

mayonaise

i should have been more clear. i was refering to the ones that are randomly generated when a state is invaded. of course the player should still be able to create them, and the historical ones should be auto-generated. it just seems much easier that cities have inherit defense values than counters r...

mayonaise

⋅ Leadership I would suggest rethinking the way leadership is done entirely. As it is now, it seems that leaders- somewhat arbitrarily- show up with preexisting high ranks, leaving little option as to what to do with them. Historically, leaders and promotions were very much a matter of t...

mayonaise

I personally don't beleive corps should be available to either side anytime in 1861. It was a war of divisions through all of 61 and much of 62. To counteract how much this stifles things, though, the players should be able to create more armies, as was also often the practice. A bunch of little arm...

mayonaise

Another minor request: I'd love it if at some point the generals name could be displayed on their counter (maybe just last name) as well as their picture.

mayonaise

I know if you nitpick the statistics it seems skewed, but if you ignore that and look at it in just a general gameplay sense, i think it all works out pretty realistically-- and bottom line i think that is the most important thing. For example, I often got frustrated with massive casualties that wou...

mayonaise

remove the requirement for division HQ's altogether. personally i think it adds 1000 times over to the micromanagement and makes creating armies extremely tedious. in the full campaign you have to wait until nearly 1862 before you can create, train, and ship division HQ's from washington to the west...

mayonaise

you have "minesota" in Iowa.. minnesota was a state, not a region in iowa, that actually supplied quite a few troops to the union.

i don't know if you did this intentionally or not

Search found 17 matches

Question for the developers