did any of you guys know they were working on this? Gettysburg was very enjoyable. It will be nice to be able to fight out the entire war...
http://store.steampowered.com/app/502520/?snr=1_7_7_comingsoon_150_2 (http://store.steampowered.com/app/502520/?snr=1_7_7_comingsoon_150_2)
Also give me hope that maybe the series will be expanded beyond the ACW...
Wow that kinda came out of nowhere.
Sounds good but since they name the actual battles included I wonder if just stringed along campaigns versus battles happening more dynamically. Either way watching.
I'd pay good money if they moved to Napoleonic warfare with their engine.
I knew that they were working on another ACW title, but I've been out of the loop lately. Did they suggest/state what their next project would be?
Sounds great! Thanks for the heads-up. That's a must buy for me.
Cool. Added to my wishlist.
I had no idea. This is good news. O0
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on November 13, 2016, 02:07:36 PM
Sounds good but since they name the actual battles included I wonder if just stringed along campaigns versus battles happening more dynamically. Either way watching.
QuoteFull campaign: Fight in the American Civil War campaign and participate in 50+ battles from small engagements to massive battles that can last several days over hundreds of square miles of terrain. Campaign fully depends on player actions and battle results. Historical battles can also be played separately.
Since Gettysburg itself is included, I'd be very surprised if the other battles didn't have dynamic progression or if Gettysburg no longer did. The overall campaign itself, however, sounds dynamically generated (to some extent, like a larger version of the Gettysburg game.)
Quote from: JasonPratt on November 13, 2016, 03:58:12 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on November 13, 2016, 02:07:36 PM
Sounds good but since they name the actual battles included I wonder if just stringed along campaigns versus battles happening more dynamically. Either way watching.
QuoteFull campaign: Fight in the American Civil War campaign and participate in 50+ battles from small engagements to massive battles that can last several days over hundreds of square miles of terrain. Campaign fully depends on player actions and battle results. Historical battles can also be played separately.
Since Gettysburg itself is included, I'd be very surprised if the other battles didn't have dynamic progression or if Gettysburg no longer did. The overall campaign itself, however, sounds dynamically generated (to some extent, like a larger version of the Gettysburg game.)
What I was meaning by dynamic is battles happening in non historical places based on the overall campaign versus locked into historical. Either way will likely buy.
id read on the forum something was coming but nothing of this magnitude - i bought the original to support the dev, ACW isnt really my thing but i can see the potential for other theatres
If the other battles are as good as Gettysburg, and if the campaign progression is as good as the Gettysburg progression, that figures to be one awesome game. Can't wait to check it out.
My Civil War related wargaming software is very, very deficient (Age of Rifles was the last one I can think of having that is relevant) so this looks to be pretty dang good. Thanks for the heads-up!
Holy Shit
I love Gettysburg, and thought he was just working on an Antietam version. Glad I was wrong.
Count me in 8)
This game will have square buttons.
Cool...didn't know about this.
Going to get this....looks nice. :clap:
early access prices will be $29.99
I don't believe I will be able to pass this up and will buy it ASAP when it goes up for sale.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi76.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj26%2Fpzpjs%2FGrogheads%2Fshut%2520up_zps5zqmqeh7.jpg&hash=aa6ea999f0a62e1b438e8ed86155dd79632d841c) (http://s76.photobucket.com/user/pzpjs/media/Grogheads/shut%20up_zps5zqmqeh7.jpg.html)
Really enjoyed Gettysburg so this is an automatic purchase for me.
I like the way troops and commanders gain experience throughout the war, making the game somewhat more than just a collection of battles.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on November 14, 2016, 01:44:42 PM
early access prices will be $29.99
They also mentioned the release is now in Valve hands....so likely means any day now if just waiting for release window.....maybe tomorrow? Tuesdays are always popular release days:)
This is the one thing that likely will make me buy on release....an easier way to control the hectic battlefield of large engagements.
Innovative command system: You decide which level of control you want. Command every unit individually or just give them a main goal with one button click and watch if they can take that hill. Army divisions commanders can make decisions on their own and help you control the largest army. Draw a defensive line and allocated brigades will defend it like lions. Or design a deep flanking maneuver by just drawing an arrow and send the whole army to the enemy flank or the rear. Your generals will try to fulfill your orders, although "no plan survives contact with the enemy".
I'd be curious to see how the game handles battles such as Antietam and Chancellorsville because if it just plops the historical units that were present on those battlefields and overlooks some of the extraneous command issues and surprise attacks then it's not going to be very accurate or if Burnside is always delayed and A.P. Hill always shows at the same time, then the replayability is going to suck. Hopefully they can beef up the AI a bit too; after a handful of plays, it becomes easy to tear apart the AI in GB even on the toughest settings. All that negativity aside, it'll be a day-one purchase for me as well.
Every time I look at my Steam library I go to Ultimate General: Gettysburg, but I never play it. I bought it in April and still haven't put one minute into it. :(
There needs to be more hours in the day.
Still, thanks for the heads-up on this...added to my wishlist.
Light-bulb finally went off as I realized this wasn't a thread about Ultimate General: Gettysburg.
Full campaign! Wow. Definitely wishlisted.
Oh my god.
I loved Gettysburg. I was expecting a new battle, but nothing of this size. This is amazing. Day one buy for me.
I still haven't launched first one although had it for ages. Will still buy first day though, just don't tell her indoors!
Think will be released today....showing under new releases although you can't buy yet.
So much for being released today.....moved back to November 2016 and not under newly released.
Sigh....
Two more weeks.
Quote from: DoctorQuest on November 15, 2016, 07:07:40 PM
Sigh....
Two more weeks.
Did they announce a specific date or are you just saying that worse case is last day in November?
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on November 15, 2016, 07:09:53 PM
Quote from: DoctorQuest on November 15, 2016, 07:07:40 PM
Sigh....
Two more weeks.
Did they announce a specific date or are you just saying that worse case is last day in November?
Sorry. It's a joke. "Two Weeks" is the universal answer when asking when a game will be released and no one really knows.
Two weeks™
ye olde development joke :))
;D
Really was hoping this had multiplayer, o well.
NOW AVAILABLE
£22.99 for Brits
$29.99 (http://store.steampowered.com/app/502520/) for us Yanks.
Quote from: Greybriar on November 16, 2016, 10:33:37 AM
$29.99 (http://store.steampowered.com/app/502520/) for us Yanks.
$3.99, plus a carton of cigarettes and 6-pack of Bud for us Rebs.
Advertised at the moment as SP only.
Surprising as they obviously have strong MP code.
Been trying to find a discussion board to address this as it would greatly delimit its playtime for me (not that I could pass it by).
That's weird, Gettysburg had it.
Quote from: PanzerFaust on November 16, 2016, 12:45:44 PM
That's weird, Gettysburg had it.
Being in Early Access, maybe MP hasn't been filled out yet in the new one.
I thought a (planned?) feature list mentioned having Co-op MP, at the least.
http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/17403-will-there-be-a-multiplayer-aspect-to-the-game/
On 14-11-2016 at 9:55 PM, admin said:
We are laser focused on the delivering the best single player experience. Currently there are no plans to add it.
PS But having said that we also did not plan to add multiplayer to Ultimate General Gettysburg initially and that position have changed over time.
Thanks for that.
Very disappointing, but, hey, like the man said, things can change...
Double the price of the original title but no multiplayer? Ill pass...........
Funny. There are loads of people in this board who never cared for multiplayer. Is it because the AI is lacking after some time? Multiplayer in Ultimate General was a blast?
Mmmm ... this is really good. Much bigger battles and very high production values.
Is it the same gameplay as gettysburg?
I like where they are going with the RPG elements and the campaign where your troops and officers gain experience and skill.
I've only played the one stand-alone battle, but so far I'm really enjoying it. I wish you could rotate the map, but it works as it is. And I'm not sure whether supply is working yet as the units continue to fire even when they apparently don't have any supply.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi76.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj26%2Fpzpjs%2FGrogheads%2F20161116115755_1_zpsi0gusnt5.jpg&hash=ff75708034f2c5c03eefe2d9ec2746d3b667c3af) (http://s76.photobucket.com/user/pzpjs/media/Grogheads/20161116115755_1_zpsi0gusnt5.jpg.html)
The above is from the First Bull Run scenario. I thought I had it all wrapped up as the Union at this point, until the Confederate reinforcements arrived. It was touch and go right up until the end.
Played the Gettysburg game maybe 10 times and it's not tough to beat but it's enjoyable as an arcade game; there's no realism in it at all- not when you can zip and zoom direction arrows for a unit and it instantly start on its quest to go where you tell it no matter where it is and marching all over the battlefield without even raising the heart-rate of the troops. There's no "command radius" or C&C either. But maybe they've added some of that stuff in this new release.
Unit fatigue and command radius are both features of the new game.
Quote from: IronX on November 16, 2016, 07:09:05 PM
Unit fatigue and command radius are both features of the new game.
That's good stuff- it's definitely on my "likely to buy" list after I hear some feedback (this is still essentially a beta though, correct?). Again, I'm still very curious to see how it handles Antietam and Chancellorsville.
It's in Early Access for another month or two so there's likely to be some minor changes and bug crushing (there are definitely a few of those) made along the way. Whether it'll be any more of a challenge to play than Gettysburg is hard to say. Admittedly, I was surprised I won the First Bull Run scenario as the Union on my first go. It'll be interesting to see how some of the others play out.
Good to see released.....will eventually pick up, but have a couple of other games I want to get first.
This is a surprise! I hope the campaign is worthwhile.
Quote from: GJK on November 16, 2016, 07:06:13 PM
Played the Gettysburg game maybe 10 times and it's not tough to beat but it's enjoyable as an arcade game; there's no realism in it at all- not when you can zip and zoom direction arrows for a unit and it instantly start on its quest to go where you tell it no matter where it is and marching all over the battlefield without even raising the heart-rate of the troops. There's no "command radius" or C&C either. But maybe they've added some of that stuff in this new release.
There's command and supply radius, though command radius is more for bonuses and rally, and doesn't have any impact on order delay that I can see. There's definitely a fatigue factor now to marching and a major fatigue impact for melee. All in all this felt more realistic that Gettysburg did in the battle I played, though it's no CWBS. It's pretty nice for what it is though - high production values and the maps are pretty. Nice smoke effects, though no persistence on the battlefield, and of course time runs a lot faster than real time.
It's enjoyable, and something I can see myself playing when I want a light, quick game. In terms of realistic black powder warfare with a 3D battlefield, I think Seven Years War is more realistic, and looks almost as good. But I like this enough that I'd enjoy seeing some Napoleonics or Age of Reason stuff done with the engine. Still Early Access, too, so there may be a number of improvements yet.
Quote from: jomni on November 16, 2016, 05:16:39 PM
Funny. There are loads of people in this board who never cared for multiplayer. Is it because the AI is lacking after some time? Multiplayer in Ultimate General was a blast?
You may be sure that I, for one, care not one portion of a fig for multiplayer, but this game was a total must-have no-brainer for me. I played UGG down to the nub. Eventually the one-battle-ness of it got to me, but it took quite a while. The idea of UGG with a bunch of battles and a campaign mode? I woke up in a puddle.
As for the AI, it could be exploited and had trouble mounting a unified assault, but every game has trouble mounting a unified AI assault, and as game AI goes, it wasn't bad at all. They're saying they've done a lot of work on it for this game.
First battle in the campaign (as the Rebs) and I am doing a fort assault, which obviously does not appear in the Gettysburg game. I'm starting over because my stuff was getting worn out by the AI in my 1st try! This time I'm going to tighten my lines a bunch and only hit one side of the fort with all my everything, and see what happens.
So my initial quicky-quick impression is very good. I'm excited about this game - but I just would be. I loved UGG too much to be trusted.
I tried it briefly yesterday (half a hour roughly) but I'm extremely impressed.
I tried the Confederates campaign, in the first mission you have to conquer a fort on the Potomac, and then defend it from the Union counter-attack (they have Ironclads!).
There is a really neat "RPG" system in which you can customize your commander's background and have him have different skills, and there is an army management feature between each battle - I haven't tried it yet, but that's where logistics and army organization and training come into play.
That said I'll likely wait for the game to come out of EA before commiting more time to it. It should just take a couple of months, and I dislike playing games before they are finished. But I'm sure I'll love this one so I bought it before the price rises.
Is it certain that the price of the full-release will be higher?
Quote from: PanzerFaust on November 17, 2016, 04:02:13 AM
I tried it briefly yesterday (half a hour roughly) but I'm extremely impressed.
I tried the Confederates campaign, in the first mission you have to conquer a fort on the Potomac, and then defend it from the Union counter-attack (they have Ironclads!).
There is a really neat "RPG" system in which you can customize your commander's background and have him have different skills, and there is an army management feature between each battle - I haven't tried it yet, but that's where logistics and army organization and training come into play.
That said I'll likely wait for the game to come out of EA before commiting more time to it. It should just take a couple of months, and I dislike playing games before they are finished. But I'm sure I'll love this one so I bought it before the price rises.
Did the same here. It looks like a very polished game, and the campaign appears to have some nice RPG-like elements. The limitations of the Gettysburg engine are there -- mainly the tendency of the units to blob a bit during combat -- but the campaign overlay looks very interesting.
I also plan to set it aside until it goes final, but I'm sure I'll dig into once it's released. Worthwhile purchase.
Quote from: PanzerFaust on November 17, 2016, 04:02:13 AM
I tried the Confederates campaign, in the first mission you have to conquer a fort on the Potomac, and then defend it from the Union counter-attack (they have Ironclads!).
I just tried this mission and it was an utter failure for me. Due to my poor performance at such an early stage of the war, I was dismissed and sent packing. The shame. :hide:
I'll be a little contrarian here, and say that while I was impressed with the historical battle I tried, I was not thrilled with the campaign. Coming from the "square buttons" camp, the campaign feels completely ahistorical and very gamey - too much an echo of the Total War games. Armored trains? Ironclads in the Potomac at the beginning of the war? No thanks.
What I definitely am impressed by though is the control scheme. Being able to draw a line on the screen and have a division form up on it, in a reasonable formation, is killer. I might quibble with some of the aspects of the game that make it "light" in my opinion, but I certainly would like to see other games learn from their control scheme.
Quote from: DARTIS;208684375412332031Battle of Philippi in the game is a speculative version. Arguably, the exact historical facts would be very boring to re-create, especially in the first engagements of campaign.
The same applies for the first battle for the Confederates, Battle of Aquia Creek. It is a speculative battle, based on historical data but not an exact re-creation.
The rest historical battles are purely based on real data.
Found this quote on the Steam forum.
Quote from: IronX on November 17, 2016, 04:46:29 PM
Quote from: PanzerFaust on November 17, 2016, 04:02:13 AM
I tried the Confederates campaign, in the first mission you have to conquer a fort on the Potomac, and then defend it from the Union counter-attack (they have Ironclads!).
I just tried this mission and it was an utter failure for me. Due to my poor performance at such an early stage of the war, I was dismissed and sent packing. The shame. :hide:
I had to try it about 4 times, and only eventually won by trying something I would probably never have done in reality.
Own this title and have fought 20 or so of the campaign battles. Very enjoyable but a little too canned for my tastes.
I would love to see a Napoleonic version with more control over the campaign map and therefore a less canned battle for the player.
They released a patch today actually which makes the battles a little less canned by linking them:
http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/patch-07-with-battle-of-fredericksburg
I read that the enemies' OB is beefed up if you have more forces..and they are scaled.
If this is true, then this is a show stopper. Essentially, the better you do, the tougher your opponent becomes. This is not a good thing.
I also read that the only strategy is to keep your force level low, and upgrade the Hades out of them. This is the only real chance you have in the campaign.
Currently playing this. Love the campaign options and OOB building.
Playing Confederates and I feel that the game is more of a puzzle. Replay the battle until you find the right method of winning. Enemy overwhelm you in numbers. Kinda agree with the thoughts posted in previous posts. It may soon get annoying and not fun.
Quote from: jomni on July 02, 2017, 09:13:22 PM
Currently playing this. Love the campaign options and OOB building.
Playing Confederates and I feel that the game is more of a puzzle. Replay the battle until you find the right method of winning. Enemy overwhelm you in numbers. Kinda agree with the thoughts posted in previous posts. It may soon get annoying and not fun.
I am at the annoying and not fun stage. No matter what I try, I am getting crushed. Steel Divisions is so much better of an RTS.
In the end, it is much less than Gettysburg was which I thought a well-tweaked homage to Sid's game.
Quote from: Cyrano on July 03, 2017, 05:37:03 PM
In the end, it is much less than Gettysburg was which I thought a well-tweaked homage to Sid's game.
I just bought it is the Steam sale... My first impressions are that you are right; it lacks Gettysburg's depth, but offers more battles. I got hammered on the first Phillipi scenario, so the jury's out until I've played a few more battles to form a better conclusion.
Ok the game is turning into something that is not fun.
Quote from: jomni on July 07, 2017, 09:42:43 PM
Ok the game is turning into something that is not fun.
How so? Are the rumors true that if you do too good in the early campaign the game gets obscenely harder to the point of frustration?
Well in the next battle, I need to field 30 brigades (2 corps) and I only have 1 corps (15 brigades) and no more money left. My guys have nice rifles but I guess it's not actually good as I did spend a lot replenishing them after each battle. I should have kept a lot of brigades with starter rifles, save some money and only equip a few with good rifles. I think I'm screwed and need a restart.
That's a shame. A wargame should not be the type where if you don't solve the puzzle properly you don't get to play anymore.
Leaving aside the gamey campaign, I think it's worth noting that UGCW has now brought the excellent game engine of UG: Gettysburg to 11 more major Civil War battles: 1st & 2nd Manassas, Shiloh, Gaines Mill, Malvern Hill, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville,Stones River, Chickamauga and Cold Harbor. The game is still getting regular work, the latest patch having been a hotfix yesterday. Devs say they are coming to the end of the Early Access period and full release is coming soon.
Starting to think this has been the best time for really good non-hexagonal wargaming in my life: UGCW, Steel Division Normandy, HOI 4 and Cold Waters are all real classics IMO, all in the last year.
Quote from: glen55 on July 08, 2017, 01:02:22 PM
Leaving aside the gamey campaign, I think it's worth noting that UGCW has now brought the excellent game engine of UG: Gettysburg to 11 more major Civil War battles: 1st & 2nd Manassas, Shiloh, Gaines Mill, Malvern Hill, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville,Stones River, Chickamauga and Cold Harbor. The game is still getting regular work, the latest patch having been a hotfix yesterday. Devs say they are coming to the end of the Early Access period and full release is coming soon.
Starting to think this has been the best time for really good non-hexagonal wargaming in my life: UGCW, Steel Division Normandy, HOI 4 and Cold Waters are all real classics IMO, all in the last year.
So, you can play the individual battles one at a time without going through the campaign? Can you pick and choose them in any order or do they require you to play them in chronologic order, unlocking one at a time?
Quote from: Rayfer on July 08, 2017, 01:27:03 PM
Quote from: glen55 on July 08, 2017, 01:02:22 PM
Leaving aside the gamey campaign, I think it's worth noting that UGCW has now brought the excellent game engine of UG: Gettysburg to 11 more major Civil War battles: 1st & 2nd Manassas, Shiloh, Gaines Mill, Malvern Hill, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville,Stones River, Chickamauga and Cold Harbor. The game is still getting regular work, the latest patch having been a hotfix yesterday. Devs say they are coming to the end of the Early Access period and full release is coming soon.
Starting to think this has been the best time for really good non-hexagonal wargaming in my life: UGCW, Steel Division Normandy, HOI 4 and Cold Waters are all real classics IMO, all in the last year.
So, you can play the individual battles one at a time without going through the campaign? Can you pick and choose them in any order or do they require you to play them in chronologic order, unlocking one at a time?
Whenever you like.
Well you're right about single battles. But I really want to relive Siera's Civil War Generals and this has been so close but fell short due to the frustration factor in the campaign.
Quote from: jomni on July 08, 2017, 07:20:22 PM
Well you're right about single battles. But I really want to relive Siera's Civil War Generals and this has been so close but fell short due to the frustration factor in the campaign.
Agree, it would be really nice if each front had its battles linked in a persistent historical campaign instead of the current gamey puzzlebox campaign. But I love the battle engine. It ain't Sword of War, but you can knock off an entire large battle in a sitting and then want to play it again to get it right.
The campaign has finally started to frustrate me as well.
Playing as the Union I am outnumbered in almost every battle, all because it is painfully apparent that quantity over quality is the way to go. You start to realise about halfway through that all that money you spent on veteran troops, and new weapons, should have been spent on new divisions and corps.
Another problem I had was with the Shiloh scenario. The computer tells you to defend the hornets nest and shiloh church, which is fine. But then you have to defend Pittsburgh landing and half the Confederate army bypasses you and is already at Pittsburgh Landing 2 minutes into the start of that stage of the battle. So you lose. The second time I played Shiloh, I withdrew from Shiloh church and the Hornets nest and defended Pittsburgh Landing. It was a hard fight, and I had to battle hard for the VP marker. The Confederates captured it, but I knocked them back. The problem was that the VP marker would not revert back to me for 7 minutes (no Confederates were even close to the VP marker at this point) and I wound up losing the battle.
Another bitch is when troops rout they sometimes rout into the rear of the enemy quite often. Sometime they will just go into the woods behind enemy lines regroup and then attack from the rear. Not the most realistic thing I have ever seen.
All in all though I think the game is terriffic. The historical battles are very well done, and shed light on a lot of battles that we do not get to game on the PC very often (Cold Harbor, Chancelorville,etc.)
Quote from: bboyer66 on July 14, 2017, 07:56:57 AM
All in all though I think the game is terriffic. The historical battles are very well done, and shed light on a lot of battles that we do not get to game on the PC very often (Cold Harbor, Chancelorville,etc.)
I think this is the key aspect of this game. Gettysburg is the Battle of the Bulge of the US Civil War. Its really good to see a good game engine take on battles that were almost as important, and in some ways more important.
Frankly, I don't play the campaign and really like the individual battles. I see a lot of complaining about the campaign progression on Steam, never really paid much attention to it.
Do you think they will revamp the way the campaign works in light of the feedback? IIRC, they were pretty good with the Gettysburg game, but don't really know how responsive they've been this time around.
Quote from: RyanE on July 14, 2017, 10:13:16 AM
Quote from: bboyer66 on July 14, 2017, 07:56:57 AM
All in all though I think the game is terriffic. The historical battles are very well done, and shed light on a lot of battles that we do not get to game on the PC very often (Cold Harbor, Chancelorville,etc.)
I think this is the key aspect of this game. Gettysburg is the Battle of the Bulge of the US Civil War. Its really good to see a good game engine take on battles that were almost as important, and in some ways more important.
Frankly, I don't play the campaign and really like the individual battles. I see a lot of complaining about the campaign progression on Steam, never really paid much attention to it.
Same here: Cold Harbor and Gaines Mill: very cool and interesting. Campaign: don't know, haven't tried it yet.
Quote from: MengJiao on July 16, 2017, 10:00:37 PM
Same here: Cold Harbor and Gaines Mill: very cool and interesting. Campaign: don't know, haven't tried it yet.
They've done a lot of work on the campaign, and have really fixed some of the biggest problems of enemy scaling and added in carry over casualties for the AI.
However, the campaign still has a problem of diminishing returns. You can play the smaller interconnecting battles, which are supposed to give you advantages in the grand battles in the campaign, but what you end up facing is the problem that you'll endure such horrific losses in some of those that whatever gains you get from winning are soaked up and then some by your losses.
The higher than historic casualty rates and costs of replenishment make holding together an army through a campaign, even for the Union, almost untenable as the time wears on. A few patches ago, it simply became unplayable since the AI always scaled up regardless of your successes, and you'd hit a hard brick wall pretty early on.
They're working on this, and have listened to community feedback on a lot of the issues. However, it's a stated purpose from the devs that they want the campaign to be HARD. This hasn't really translated to them making the difficulty based on strategy, but based on a kind of puzzle "Find how to win without 80% casualties" mentality. We'll see how it pans out now that the full release has been achieved.
Hi all!
Just passing through... :)
I'm presently playing this game and specifically the Union Campaign. I'm getting ready for the battle of Gettysburg, ATM.
A few thoughts:
1. At the beginning of the campaign you will have troops from other units help you out in the battles. Use them for any assaults and heavy lifting so as to win the battle and spare your own Corps catastrophic damage.
2. Use your Career Points to prepare your forces for a long war. I went pretty heavily with Politics at the beginning to assure a good flow of cash. Then I started looking at stuff which effected battle results such as reduced cost of weapons.
3. After a battle, especially at the beginning of the war, be prepared to use lots of recruits to fill out your ranks. When you buy new troops, if you buy recruits you will see the regiments training bar lower. I think you should almost always take at least some recruits into your regiments after battle and then top them off with veterans. With recruits, given you have the weapon in your Armory, it costs you nothing (except men) to fill out your regiments this way.
4. Weapons need to be allocated carefully. The Springfield M1842 is a pretty standard weapon for the first year or two. I use the Palmetto and the Lorenz for at least a couple veteran regiments. Any weapon that is not manufactured by the North, I sell.
5. The place I put my money on initially is artillery. Since probably over half of the Campaign puts you on the defensive, artillery is what is going to be the real killer... especially since the Rebs will attempt to charge you whenever they have the opportunity. Going into Gettysburg I have 3 Corps with 5 regiments of which at least 1 is artillery. As your artillery gets experience keep increasing them to about 24, gun by gun from weapons in your armory so they only cost you men.
6. Tactically the game is all about flanking, no matter what the brief may tell you. Look at the map before battle and determine where you want to fight and how you can flank your opponent in good terrain. Once you figure that out, put your artillery at a point where it can support your main line against charges and fire into the flanks when you push them.
All the RPG elements of the game, really set this game apart. But it is still a Civil War game, a war where intrinsically the defense has the advantage. As the Union battles are at least 50 to 70% defensive, whether you win or not and the amount of casualties you incur, will depend on the ground you choose to fight on. Even in the battles where you must attack, the direct approach is almost always the worst way to go.
Am looking forward to ending the Union Campaign and am not sure if I will do the Confederate one next (probably) or repeat the Union on Hard. But IMO, it is a very good game and the Campaign is a really challenge as developers meant it to be as you must not only win today, but set the ground work to win tomorrow.
Cheers,
LAVA
Hello LAVA and thanks for the info. O0 Come back by again sometime when you can stay longer.
Hurra Lava is back ! O0
:hug:
Quote from: LAVA on August 28, 2017, 09:16:30 AM
Just passing through... :)
you better not fucking be!
<:-)
took you long enough to get here
:hug:
Quote from: LAVA on August 28, 2017, 09:16:30 AM
4. Weapons need to be allocated carefully. The Springfield M1842 is a pretty standard weapon for the first year or two. I use the Palmetto and the Lorenz for at least a couple veteran regiments. Any weapon that is not manufactured by the North, I sell.
5. The place I put my money on initially is artillery. Since probably over half of the Campaign puts you on the defensive, artillery is what is going to be the real killer... especially since the Rebs will attempt to charge you whenever they have the opportunity. Going into Gettysburg I have 3 Corps with 5 regiments of which at least 1 is artillery. As your artillery gets experience keep increasing them to about 24, gun by gun from weapons in your armory so they only cost you men.
This is probably my and most player's problem. We try to get the best weapons for all our troops and end up suffering.
That sounds a lot like managing the brigades in Forge of Freedom -- which is a compliment.
Quote from: jomni on August 28, 2017, 05:30:00 PM
This is probably my and most player's problem. We try to get the best weapons for all our troops and end up suffering.
Historically speaking, I believe the Union was very stingy about giving out good weapons to their troops.
Just finished the Gettysburg battle (lost 20,000 men to 45,000 rebs). I started with over 60,000 men and with the exception of one regiment, have everybody back up to 1,500 man regiments. I give the Springfield 1864 to my least elite units (one star or less) and that usually combined with recruits costs me nothing but men. My more experienced units are getting the Springfield 1865 and the few 3 star units I have are getting the Springfield 1861. As I was transitioning to the Springfield 1865, it would dump a bunch of 1864's into my Armory and I then used them with recruits to top up my army.
Remember, the Civil War, as one of the first modern wars was butchery in battle. To do the whole campaign you definitely need to take a long range strategy to complete it.
As for some of you all diehards here... ;)
Been awhile since I have been playing wargames per se. Spent 4 years in a clan playing Mech Warrior Online and World of Warships. But I'm slowly tiring of grinding games and am always on the lookout for a good wargame. Recently tried Hearts of Iron 4 which was okay but to be quite honest I sure would like to see Matrix release The Operational Art of War IV.
How about some Guns of August?
:DD
Quote from: Gusington on August 29, 2017, 09:48:04 AM
How about some Guns of August?
Or Trench as it was called when I first got a chance to do some testing with Frank on the game. It was fun.
Used to do a bunch of testing back then... and some TOAW scenarios as well.
I've always loved wargames...
Don't I know it!
I think what would bug me the most right now is having my position totally scappered in between parts of a multi-part battle. I realize they didn't want to go through all the design options of a 24 node battle path or whatever, but why not just reload the map at dawn with the units in position but rested and ready for action with some level of reinforcement meanwhile dictated by the scenario shift (and new off-map units coming in as expected)? That doesn't seem like it would be hard to program. ???
Just finished Chickamauga and played it 5 times. Lost twice and 3 draws. I think I had the right way to win the battle, but missed the victory.
On to the last main battle, Cold Harbor.
I think I made some mistakes with my army which cost me later down the line. In the last couple battles you need to be able to have Corps consisting of 5 Divisions of 5 Regiments. I also had over 40,000 men in reserve, so, I need to rethink how I played the campaign.
I'll give some reflections when I have finished the Campaign, but it is grueling and I will be happy to have it finished.
Just completed Confederate Campaign through Malvern Hill as I learn the basics of the game. I was not crazy about UG Gettysburg, but Civil War is a much improved game in terms of the mechanics of battle management. The army management piece, which can be a bit of a challenge at first, is actually an interesting process of weighing value vs damage/accuracy/range. With reference to some earlier comments, I learned that spending money on the troops (veteran replacements), only upgrading weapons if you are equipped with the slingshot of rifles/artillery, and earning leader promotions/skills so you increase the number of troops in a unit as well as the number of units, is the best strategy towards victory. One benefit of same is earning of experienced leaders. I was awarded Nathan Bedford Forrest with a brigade of cavalry. Upgraded the weapon to a Sharps and that unit is seriously dangerous to flanked artillery batteries and supply wagons.
Overall, while not SOW, I like the game for both the campaign as well as the historical battles. And they have a large number of battles that include some not often included in these games like Malvern Hill, Aquia Creek, Stone's River to name just a few. Well worth the spend IMHO.
Okay... so I went back to Chickamauga because it just didn't sit right with me that I could only draw that battle, especially because in the last two game I was really close to winning.
In this last game, it finally dawned on me what was necessary to win and I won it decisively.
I got to tell you that the guy who programmed that battle deserves my highest praise. Napoleon himself would have smiled.
For those who think that winning in this game is all about solving puzzles I will simply say, you need to read more history.
This is probably the definitive Civil War strategy game I have ever played. Can't recommend it enough.
Quote from: LAVA on September 02, 2017, 08:38:01 AM
For those who think that winning in this game is all about solving puzzles I will simply say, you need to read more history.
As someone with a masters degree in the subject, ten years as a civil war reenactor almost twenty as a teacher and twice published in the journal Historian, I think I've read more than enough to stand by my previous puzzle statement. ;)
I kid, I kid. Not about my background, but yeah, the game absolutely isn't just a "Do it this way or die" program. One thing that I've found true, as someone who has read a thing or two on the subject, is that if you're familiar with the actual battles and how they went, you can do FAR better than if you were approaching them unawares. That is a testament to the developers study of the actual engagements. The game still does not really represent a truly accurate picture of this era's warfare, but it's far better than most products available right now.
I'm still not anywhere nearly as supportive of it as you are at this point, and I will say that I have to complete a campaign on the Confederate side on the latest patch, however, it's really a very worthy game. I may grouse but I enjoy the heck out of it.
^The game that really represents a truly accurate picture of the Civil War era's warfare is still The Bluecoats: North vs South (http://store.steampowered.com/app/347030/The_Bluecoats_North_vs_South/)
I am about to finish the Union Campaign. Only the battle of Richmond remains... In doing so I have logged over 100 hours of gameplay.
I can understand how folks may want total realism in a game, but then again, there is only one conclusion. What matters more to me is the gameplay and whether or not I enjoy it.
I have had a blast playing the Union Campaign. And as I have played, I have learned more and more how the game works and I think that there is a lot under the hood that folks don't appreciate.
For example, when playing, most battles have a time limit to meet objectives. Once that time limit has expired you are given the opportunity to finish. And that is what I have done for the majority of the campaign. Yet, I now realize that if you have a strong position you should play the game to the bitter end and rout the enemy from the field. By doing so you have more casualties, but you also gain far more money and weapons.
Although I am not sure this applies to normal difficulty, when playing on hard this is an absolute must as the casualties inflicted eventually take their toll on the amount of men your foe can bring to the battlefield.
And the game itself, has a ton of content. Not only do you have 2 campaigns with 50+ battles, you also have a dozen or so historical battles which you can play from either side and also custom battles where you are placed in a historic situation such as Pickett's Charge and get an opportunity to try to get a better outcome.
I realize this game isn't for everybody, but that can be said about any game really. The inclusion of all the different RPG elements in the Campaign and the massive amount of content is what sets this Civil War game apart from the rest for me.
So it is on to Richmond and then the start of the Confederate campaign!
Quote from: bbmike on September 05, 2017, 05:37:40 AM
^The game that really represents a truly accurate picture of the Civil War era's warfare is still The Bluecoats: North vs South (http://store.steampowered.com/app/347030/The_Bluecoats_North_vs_South/)
I strongly disagree. That would be this one...
:2funny:
Yea...
Looks like I should have never stopped by in the first place.
Have fun fellas.
I played a lot of the Gettysburg game and found it a pretty good approximation of the battle. Plus it was easy to understand, easy to play, and ran well. It is easily my favorite civil war battlefield game. I have UGCW, but haven't played it enough to make a proclamation.
Quote from: RyanE on September 06, 2017, 01:39:27 PM
I have UGCW, but haven't played it enough to make a proclamation.
Don't let that stop you! :P
Quote from: LAVA on September 06, 2017, 01:17:44 PM
Yea...
Looks like I should have never stopped by in the first place.
Have fun fellas.
They're joking sarcastically with each other about crappy Civil War games (albeit fun ones sometimes) in the past, not mocking you thereby, nor mocking UG:CW. They're having fun competing on trivia knowledge basically.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on September 05, 2017, 01:12:12 PM
Quote from: bbmike on September 05, 2017, 05:37:40 AM
^The game that really represents a truly accurate picture of the Civil War era's warfare is still The Bluecoats: North vs South (http://store.steampowered.com/app/347030/The_Bluecoats_North_vs_South/)
I strongly disagree. That would be this one...
Feh. For true gritty accuracy, you need to go back to text-based random number generation BASIC games that you typed in yourself. Such as the
Civil War game found in the classic 101 BASIC Computer Games. (I typed that into our shop's KayProII, which was a portable computer with I think 16 whole kilobytes of memory, and took it to school to show one of my high-school history teachers once. :coolsmiley: )
Good luck going farther back than a game originally written for mainframes in 1968. O0
Quote from: JasonPratt on September 06, 2017, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: LAVA on September 06, 2017, 01:17:44 PM
Yea...
Looks like I should have never stopped by in the first place.
Have fun fellas.
They're joking sarcastically with each other about crappy Civil War games (albeit fun ones sometimes) in the past, not mocking you thereby, nor mocking UG:CW. They're having fun competing on trivia knowledge basically.
Indeed. You should never take us too seriously around here. We enjoy having your input.
You guys are making it really hard to resist this one!
Quote from: Tuna on September 07, 2017, 04:32:10 PM
You guys are making it really hard to resist this one!
If you're at all interested in the subject, you shouldn't resist. I have some serious gaming ADD, but I've invested around 150 hours in this one, so there's absolute value for what you get.
Deal of the day on Steam : -33%
http://store.steampowered.com/app/502520/Ultimate_General_Civil_War/
Woo Whoo!, thanks!
With all the games on my To Play list, I really shouldn't buy Ultimate General: Civil War. But I probably will, even though I may never get around to playing it. :pullhair:
Thanks for the heads-up, Pete. O0
Great. Was just going to get Space Tyrant. Now I have to decide between the two. NOT getting both. Nope, not gonna do it.
DO IT
Of course bought last week:)
Good man.
Quote from: Gusington on September 16, 2017, 02:46:07 PM
DO IT
Putting my hands over my ears and singing Lalalalala so I don't hear you! :)
I am already inside your head.
'....there's someone in my head, and its not me'
Pink Floyd - dark Side of the Moon.
Boy this game is hard!
I bought it today, then started a new game of Polaris Sector and haven't been able to stop ::)
I'm not that interested in the campaigns. How many historical battles are there to fight? Thanks.
Edit - Steam shows about a dozen historical battles plus another 50 or so smaller encounters, but the way I read it those are part of the campaign.
I think there are about 20-30 historical battles in skirmish mode. You can take historical setups or choose your own.
OK, thanks Ryan.
Something I noticed in some videos is that it looks like arty can fire right through woods and hit men on the other side when both are at about the same elevation. Is elevation not taken into account in the game? I'm not expecting a grognard hardcore simulation here but elevation certainly played a role in many battles.
Elevation is taken into account as well as obstacles such as forrests.
OK, thanks boyer. Picked it up on sale this morning. Looking forward to playing.
Quote from: Tuna on September 16, 2017, 06:16:15 PM
Boy this game is hard!
After a training run at low difficulty, hit the Brigadier General difficulty button and the confederate campaign. Beat off the Yank assaults at Fredericksburg last night (a LOT of Yank assaults, this AI just doesn't know when to quit..kinda like Burnside eh?). To Tuna's point, it can be a challenging game. The AI in this game is up there with the best I have ever played against. IMHO, following are a couple suggestions towards success:
1. In campaign mode, army management is critical. In short, one must gain some experience by playing campaign at low difficulty. Once you gain functional understanding of the army management piece, what initially seems to be a pain in the ass, actually becomes an interesting and challenging part of the game. (Do I arm a unit with low cost, slow reload rate Springfield rifles vs very costly rapid fire with better accuracy Sharps carbines.
2. The AI is very good, but it is AI. Battle strategy should include rapid flanking, particularly with fast moving cavalry and skirmishers. Those units can be used in that way to force the AI to deal with them and, for example, delay/reduce number of troops dedicated to a frontal assault. Be warned the AI can be pulled by that, but it can also rapidly destroy high value cavalry units very quickly.
My 2 cents. I am enjoying the campaign, looking forward to attempting confederate at Major General/Legendary difficulty level. From what I've seen, that is an experience.
Quote from: Hancock on September 19, 2017, 02:13:49 AM
Quote from: Tuna on September 16, 2017, 06:16:15 PM
Boy this game is hard!
The AI in this game is up there with the best I have ever played against.
But it also cheats
Quote from: jomni on September 19, 2017, 02:54:53 AM
Quote from: Hancock on September 19, 2017, 02:13:49 AM
Quote from: Tuna on September 16, 2017, 06:16:15 PM
Boy this game is hard!
The AI in this game is up there with the best I have ever played against.
But it also cheats
That's part of what makes it challenging. I would rather an AI that cheats a bit and challenges the hell out of me than the usual robotic opponents. By the way, I should have added the following caution to my earlier post: The AI also effectively uses cavalry/skirms to flank and attack rear units such as supply and artillery. You must maintain a strong set of skirms combined with a melee cavalry unit or two to defend against that...can be disastrous as well as highly annoying if you don't... >:(
Quote from: jomni on September 19, 2017, 02:54:53 AM
Quote from: Hancock on September 19, 2017, 02:13:49 AM
Quote from: Tuna on September 16, 2017, 06:16:15 PM
Boy this game is hard!
The AI in this game is up there with the best I have ever played against.
But it also cheats
I have been thinking about this one. Some cheats I can live with and some I cannot. How does it cheat? Does it only cheat at certain difficulty levels?
It feels like they have unlimited resources compared to yours. They have more men.
I guess it's fine as it is how it's done in Pike and Shot / Sengoku Jidai. As long as they play by the same rules.
Quote from: MC on September 19, 2017, 06:43:14 PM
Quote from: jomni on September 19, 2017, 02:54:53 AM
Quote from: Hancock on September 19, 2017, 02:13:49 AM
Quote from: Tuna on September 16, 2017, 06:16:15 PM
Boy this game is hard!
The AI in this game is up there with the best I have ever played against.
But it also cheats
I have been thinking about this one. Some cheats I can live with and some I cannot. How does it cheat? Does it only cheat at certain difficulty levels?
"Cheating" in this game, from my experience, is the opponent has more troops, seems to slightly advance equipment improvements and may have initial bumps from other factors. For example, while I struggle build and maintain brigade numbers at 2000 - 2500, the AI seems to always have 500 or so per brigade additional, sometimes more. This advantage increases when you attempt the higher difficulty levels Major General/Legendary. However, the game designers also built in historical factors. In this case, I am playing confederate campaign. The Yanks always had man power and equipment advantages, so not sure how much the "cheating" includes the reality of what the South faced in terms of resources. On the other hand, during the first year or so of the campaign, the Southern troops have on average higher morale and stamina than the Yanks. Have not played the Yanks yet, so will be interesting to compare. One advantage the human has is the opponent is AI. AI will automatically react to certain situations which the human would ignore. You can use that to advantage, but this AI seems to take corrective action more quickly than others.
Bottom line, it makes for a challenging opponent, which is fine by me. I managed to win Stone's River last night, but lost 40% of my forces doing so. Back to recruitment.