/v/ - Video Games

No one?

Please respond.

>>15787226

>>15787246

What is Ultimate General?

>>15787318

I ask this question myself?

>>15787394

>>15787318

It's a Total War-ish game made by Darth mod team.

>>15787427

When was it released?

>>15787432

2017.

See video for clearer concept, it has no RISK map though.

Hope more people know of it.

>>15787295

>Trying to discuss actual good games instead of AAA garbage or japanese otakushit trash

>On fucking /v/

>After 2015

WEW

>>15787500

I want to try, anon.

There are hopes yet.

>>15787226

>it's not so hard

You're a better man then me. Seriously, after the AI patch and he started using skirmisher sections or whatever they're called it's at least 10:1 every battle. And they're usually better equipped.

>>15787614

Dude, don't fucking play on Legendary, at least until you know every notches and crannies in the game.

I won Gaines mille at CSA at 1:2 losses, but this is still too big loss.

Bump. This thread must not die.

Napoleon when?

>>15788625

Likely next year.

It's confirmed.

>>15788646

I'll buy that one, not interested in civil war.

Unity engine trash.

>>15790379

One of the only good games made with the Unity Engine to be honest

>>15790379

Plenty od good games made by with Unity

You're the kind of retard that complains about CGI in movies.

>>15790379

I still recommend this because it's a very good game and you can blast the union to hell.

Legendary Confederacy campaign is ball to wall crushing when you get less and less recruits and weapons later on.

>>15789430

This one is actually beautiful you fucking cuck.

Bump, for god's sake, bump.

>>15791484

Its's going to die in 3 days anon

This is nu/v/

>>15791488

Not if I'm here.

Will be posting screens this evening.

>>15792778

That anon here, still haven't started the battle.

Last night some tism got me and I spend the whole night re-installing Morrowind and New Vegas.

Maybe too much strategy games is making me wanting to finish some RPG instead.

>>15787246

Looks great,Rule the Waves 2 and this should keep my ship tism busy for a while.

Any ETA?

>>15796679

They say they will have early access soon.

>>15796683

Thanks for a spoonfeeding anon,I'll stop being lazy retard now

Last minute bump.

Wow, this thread is still alive.

Anyway, I'm stuck in Malvern Hill, goddamn I hate hill assault.

So is this game playable? Whenever I see people talk about it they mention that the AI gets ridiculous bonuses, to the point that you can wipe out their entire army in one battle, but in the next one all their troops will be back, but with more experience. The idea that no matter how well I fight, it won't affect the next battle at all really rubs me the wrong way. The only other thing I know about it is that it's made by an autismo that quit Total War modding because he felt snubbed.

>>15814718

It's true that enemy will come back in about the same number even if you kill more of them, but they will come more as inexperienced rookies than veterans. Also, if you actually do force the enemy to surrender, they will permanently lose that brigade in total enemy composition.

So in short, yes, it matters, but not to the point where it makes the enemy not challenging enough to fight.

>playable

Nigger, it's the best Total War-ish game.

>>15814746

Pandakraut (very good modder) explains it:

It matters for multiple reasons:

1. Limits the size of the AI armies in future battles, although as you pointed out there is a minimum.

2. Gains experience for your officers and troops.

3. Gain weapons for your army.

However, none of the aforementioned reasons matter if you suffer high casualties doing it. Above what is required for you to achieve victory in a battle, only inflict more casualties if you can do it with minimal losses.

Capturing units takes more away from the AI's manpower pool than shattering their units. However, in the vanilla game you don't get weapons for the captured units. You would need to be playing with one of the mods to get weapons from captured units.

If you are continually wiping out the Ai's forces, then yes the quality of their troops degrade, but their quality will continue to increase as the campaign progesses. Basically, it limits the increase in quality.

The game scales to the size and type of your brigades. If you bring more infantry, than their infantry brigades will be bigger, if you bring more cavaly, than their cavalry brigades will be bigger and if you bring more artillery, than their artillery brigades will be bigger.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/502520/discussions/0/2590022385666814125/

tl;dr: Try to kill as much as you can while limits your losses

>>15796679

Rule the Waves 2 was delayed btw.

Bump.

>confederate campaign

>win every mission and side objetie there is

>union keeps sending more of their men to the meat grinder but keep getting obliterated

>time to dick Washington DC

>spend every last dollar to get as many men as possible, even if I've got to give them shitguns

>battle starts

>carefully outmaneuver and outdick the enemy

>"fuck now I have to defend?"

>pull through with just a few hardened veteran units that are half dead anyway

>win

>total losses for the uninon multiple times as big as the IRL combined losses of both sides

>get congradulated and elected president of the confederacy

This was a fun game. It had everything a game should - fun and varied battles, between mission management, great ending, everything

Wish there was a proper sequel

>>15819688

Yep.

Expect slowdown in big battles though.

Is it just me or is artillery fucking useless? I tried experimenting with it, but it was ridiculously inaccurate at distance, getting too close was pointless as it's get obliterated or have allied units blocking firing lines, not to mention how expensive it was. I ended up just using shitloads of infantry and a few melee cavalry to massacre skirmishers with and to catch up to shattered units and get them to surrender. Did any of you anons get artillery to actually be useful?

>>15819736

Yep of course, it depends on what kind of cannons you have.

For close range, you want 12pdr Napoleon.

For medium range, you want 10pdr Ordanance.

24pdr Howilzer works on all range and pays their price in gold, buy as much as you can.

Also, artillery efficiency tops at 12. There's no point in having more cannons than that number in a brigade.

>>15819746

I could swear I've used ones that specifically said they were for long distance, but even so they were pretty inaccurate, and when they did hit, they killed only a few troops (I think 10 to 20, whereas a salvo from my veteran unit easily killed hundreds). Even the enemy artillery failed to really feel dangerous – it was mostly an annoyance, not something I'd actually need to pay attention to (save for frontal charges, of course). They rarely hit my units and when they did they also killed only a few troops.

>>15819771

Well, I do not favor the long ranged (except 10pdr which sort acts like a fast firing medium range cannons that can decimate infantries well over time) cannons, I favor howiztlers mostly.

My tactics would be focus on canister shot, so either the cannons are always behind the enemy, sometimes, I even move the cannons right forward ahead so they can mow down infantries before I advance my infantries.

>>15821546

Bump for more gameplay tips.

One thing that annoyed me was that the game never told you how many corps would be the minimum requirement until the actual mission that needed it. So I got into situations when I had two big corps tough as nails that could handle whatever was thrown at them, but the game went "Nope, you need a third one to flank the enemy." So I made a third corps full of rookies that just barely held the line while the second corps rapedthe enemy head-on with no flanking required. Were I told in advance that I should save up for a third corps instead of reinforcing the first two, I wouldn't be in such a situation

>>15823380

Aye, this is a true weakness, but thankfully that's where save and load come in.

Alright, I just beat Shiloh as the Confederates. It's pretty good, but there are some flaws. The way the large battles are broken into separate parts with different map boundaries and time limits seems to make it better to ignore your objectives as long as possible and instead inflict as many casualties on the enemy as possible. At Shiloh during the part you're supposed to take the Hornet's Nest there were no Union troops defending it, they were all still southwest while I had two brigades of infantry march up the road to the east unhindered and took it immediately. During the next phase I wasn't able to completely cut them off, and a lot of them managed to retreat to the stronger defensive positions. I took and lost the objective twice when the timer was about to run down, so I ordered a massive bayonet charge and forced the Union troops off the point. Unfortunately, I chose to end the battle before it was "secured" and the result was that it wanted me to fight the battle again the next day, but with the battle lines reset. I reloaded, and this time instead of rushing to take the Hornet's Nest, I purposely avoided it and instead focused on wiping out the Union troops that had nowhere to retreat to. This made the next part of the battle trivial. I've heard complaints about other battles which the game assumes play out as they did historically, and reset troop positions or tell you to retreat even if you're winning.

Other than that, artillery seems really weak. Enemy artillery is only dangerous if you're charging it directly over open terrain, and my own hardly gets any kills unless I throw it at the enemy point blank. A lack of any sort of range indication for the use of different shot types is a huge oversight. Oh, and the skirmishing behaviour for cavalry is too strong a lot of the time, with my units just running halfway across the battlefield because an enemy got close. They also seem to do a somewhat poor job of running down routing enemy brigades. The enemy troops end up rallying somewhat and turning around the melee even when they should be getting torn apart.