Ultimate General: Civil War

[LAVA]

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.

[Gusington]

How about some Guns of August?

[mirth]

 :DD

[bayonetbrant]

Guns of Aw, Gus!

FTFY
original spelling was garbled

[LAVA]

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...

[Gusington]

Don't I know it!

[JasonPratt]

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.  ???

[LAVA]

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.

[Hancock]

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.

[LAVA]

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.

[SirAndrewD]

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.

[bbmike]

^The game that really represents a truly accurate picture of the Civil War era's warfare is still The Bluecoats: North vs South

[LAVA]

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!

[SirAndrewD]

^The game that really represents a truly accurate picture of the Civil War era's warfare is still The Bluecoats: North vs South

I strongly disagree.  That would be this one...

[Gusington]