>>2395621
the campaign's pacing is much better now, but I don't like how anemic melee has become.

>>2395932
Can you explain? I was looking to maybe buy the game later, but if the melee is ass, I don't know if I should. How was it better before?

>>2396705
the way things were before is: muskets are for sustained chipping away at morale and numbers, while bayonets and sabers are for quick and highly lethal engagements. Some of the recent updates brought the two extremes a little closer together, though I should stress that the divide is still there and you might find it quite satisfactory if you aren't accustomed to How Things Used to Be. I should also mention that since I made the previous post, I played a campaign as Britain and was quite satisfied with my Highlanders' performance in melee.

>>2396705
You can improve the melee weapons and melee stats with items and doctrines. There's the demo you could try and see if you like it. When I played the recent update the melee in the begining of the game was a bit lackluster. But as the campaign progressed and I upgraded my units and equipment it seemed to get better. I would also say that the developer takes in player feedback to improve the game.

When will it get historical campaigns?

It's enjoyable and worth a couple of play throughs. It can start feeling a but repetitive by the end of a campaign and the AI can be dumb. Unit customisation makes it.
>>2396710
I just did a HRE run and it seemed okay to me, though I weight a flank with Bridages of fast moving hard hitting grenadiers that just stomp on everything, so I didn't notice general melee was weaker, maybe musketry was worse but I only use that to fix enemy units in place.