Ultimate General: Civil War

[IronX]

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:

[panzerde]

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.

[Tosh]

Battle 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.

[glen55]

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.

[Destraex]

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

[DennisS]

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.

[jomni]

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.

[DennisS]

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.

[Cyrano]

In the end, it is much less than Gettysburg was which I thought a well-tweaked homage to Sid's game.

[Boggit]

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.

[jomni]

Ok the game is turning into something that is not fun.

[W8taminute]

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?

[jomni]

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.

[W8taminute]

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. 

[glen55]

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.