Page 12 of 23
Re: Chickamauga
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:18 am
by RebBugler
I want to thank everyone who contributed to the making of Chickamauga....I was greatly entertain today playing CH-11. I love the map....the scripting was right on....
Anyways....I (Mr. Bragg) scored 11196 points.....with 6575 casualties while inflicting 11811 casualties. I LOST BIGTIME DIDN'T I!!!! Generally in a 4.5 hour game battle...I would expect some 500000 casualties...I was surprised to see the results which is more to my liking and realistic...Did something change?
Also....I'm not a big fan of the white flags after artillery capture. Is there a way to change that?
Once again...thank you.
the reb
Much Appreciated!
You definitely Generaled well by the look of those casualty numbers, I'm guessing some missed or lost objectives cost you a victory. Don't know about any changes to casualty attrition rates, probably due to the number of enemy troops TC'd, then gradually released when engaged.
Forget changing the surrender status, too many entries. I explained early on why capturing guns is out, you lose both the gun crew and gun in followup carryover scenarios. Another advantage of having artillery divisions is they get their own ammo wagon.
Re: Chickamauga
Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2017 9:49 am
by Jolly
The 2nd Three Bridges scenario is a gem. Just when you think you have it all sorted, something unexpected pops up! I nearly made it!
I nearly made some more new graphics too!
The attachment bridge2.jpg is no longer available
David(jolly)
Re: Chickamauga
Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 9:40 am
by Jolly
Actually, I did make some more - hi-res stuff, not for the faint hearted computer!
The attachment MoreChick.jpg is no longer available
But who knows.
Re: Chickamauga
Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 6:56 pm
by Saddletank
That looks incredible. Its hard to accept this is SoW:GB.
Re: Chickamauga
Posted: Thu May 04, 2017 7:54 am
by Davinci
Jolly - your last picture really does look great!
Have you ever thought about adding some under-growth and or broken limbs to the trees?
Adding anything extra to the trees doesn't change the tree size or cause any FPS loss that I have ever encountered.
Also - the same tree with different under-growth breaks up the forest area a bit.
The wooded area as pictured looks a little bit too clean.
davinci
Re: Chickamauga
Posted: Thu May 04, 2017 1:58 pm
by Saddletank
I agree. I like the WL trees that have some long grasses at their base instead of the shadow graphic.
Re: Chickamauga
Posted: Fri May 05, 2017 5:45 am
by Jolly
Thanks for the suggestions and input. They are certainly along the lines that I'm working on.
It's been great to come back to GB after working on Waterloo, especially this wonderful map.
Waterloo was a great learning curve for me regarding getting good balance in the terrain with all it encompases. I'm trying to do something similar here, with help of all the extremely talented people involved in pushing things to a new level. Been a long time!
David(jolly)
Re: Chickamauga
Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 7:38 am
by Jolly
Starting to get some nice things working in here ...
Getting 'the look'
The attachment thelook.jpg is no longer available
David(jolly)
Re: Chickamauga
Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 10:59 am
by Martin James
Your doing some great work here, David.
Many thanks.
Martin (J)
Re: Chickamauga
Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 11:54 am
by JC Edwards
Yankee Cavalry? What's that?