Re: Difficulty levels
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:31 pm
Well don't quote me on this, but i think google were responsible for the civil war. They seem to have done well out of it!
Arg...You guys are killing me.....Well I'm not positive.. But I'm making an educated guess based on the lack of electrical devices during those days. Let me know what you find out after you Google it!Are you sure about that, I'm going to have to Google that to verify!In the civil war, Generals did not have little moving map icons to guide them.
davinci
They did, and they were wireless !Arg...You guys are killing me.....
The next thing I'll hear is that they didn't have a mouse or a keyboard , and I know for a fact that the confederates had a monitor .
davinci
Use the custom difficulty levels. So you can modify what you want mixing options. And as it has been said the ? symbol/button is a set of useful help/info screensHello,
is there any information about the various difficulty levels available somewhere? I couldn't find much in the manual. moreover, I like the idea of HITS, but I am not that high level of a player yet. I noticed for example in the Grognard level, the map was blank -- which does not make sense to me bc any grognard would make as much use of a map as possible. thanks!
Very good A.S.Actually, the Federals had a monitor; the confederates had a mirramac.
Actually, the Confederates had the C.S.S. Virginia which was built upon lower hull of the U.S.S. Merrimack that had been burned to the waterline by the retreating Lincolnites.Actually, the Federals had a monitor; the confederates had a mirramac.
To simulate this (in HITS & Couriers MP at least), use a printed map, set bare map in the game & rely on what your fellow players tell you about what they see. It's VERY different from having all the info accurately on map, with live stream of updates.Well as it turns out I did find more information in the manual about the levels. Well, thing is re grognard,
in order for the map feature to be realistic, it should show troop and units on the map as they are reported including hostiles.
In real battle situations, reports come in from friendly and recon re what was observed, and then the commander fills in his map according to the stream of recon reports, and courier messages from subordinates, ie, Sir 8th Brigade Georgia is reporting a regiment strength unit southeast of Pikes Junction moving south". he also fills in his map with his own troops, bc of course he knows where they are mostly, but not always, b. So given this, what is the best realistic setting for maps? thanks! Why does Grognard have map as empty, when in real situations commander always has some information available to him on the map?