Ultimate General gameplay footage..

[panzerde]

^ Ninja'd!

[undercovergeek]

got to be quicker than that!

or maybe Mufasa the Lion King?

[Staggerwing]

Yeah, that one's kinda dead. I think the baboon with the ball-sack charm hanging from his walking stick can commune with him though.

[JasonPratt]

JEJ just did a cameo vocal as God (aka The Big P.I. In the Sky) for the (possibly) final Tex Murphy game. So he could be available.

Whether he'd want to do vocals for the Confederacy is another matter.  ::)

Tommy Lee Jones would be a better pick.

[JasonPratt]

Meanwhile on the second mission of whatever Confederacy plot-trail I've unlocked: the Union retreated south toward the town itself and specifically to the Seminary and the Cemetery. My goals were to knock them out of there, except I never found the cemetery (I think?? -- there was a VP area on the ridge south of the Seminary, was that it?) and the Seminary was worth NO VICTORY POINTS so seriously what the hell?! I know I took most of the VPs available on the map, also driving them out of Gettysburg itself -- I even snuck a division around the map edge and snagged a hill to the southeast worth 4000 points. (Which I then was able to reinforce at the last minute with three or four divisions coming onto the map from north-northeast.) We didn't have an extended fight this time.

Still a draw. Casualties were about even, around 2500 each.

One thing the game designer needs to get straight with himself is reinforcements. The mission briefing text says A, the troop list with expected reinforcements says B, and what actually happens is C. Two of those need to synch with one another even if they're wrong.  ???

Still I was very proud of a lone division (Breckinridge? Can't recall this morning...) which I marched southwest to scout out what would be the final VP area (worth only 1500 points, not a cemetery.) The Union men got there first and I never did get enough force pushed down there to distantly threaten them, but B's division parked in the woods nearby and DAMNED WELL STOOD THERE for a few hours against repeated assaults from the Iron Brigade and other divisions. It was glorious. They were a short division, too, to start with, only about 1200 men. Morale and conditioning stayed high. I eventually managed to work down another division, twice as large, for support, and they didn't quite do as well -- they really were support for B's division! Things might have gone badly down there at last if the fight hadn't ended, since the Yanks were being all pushed to the south center of the map resulting in a higher number of divisions at hand to keep rotating in and out against that woody ridge. (The far south end of MacPhearson's Ridge if I recall correctly.)

Next up, durned if I know.  :P

[Queeg]

Played the first battle over the weekend.  Achieved a major victory as the Confederates (on Balanced difficulty) without really knowing what I was doing. 

My impressions were better than I expected.

On the good side, it's easy to jump in and play.  And it's a lot of fun.  I like the graphics and sounds.  It really has the feel of those battle maps that were a staple of Civil War picture books - the ones with dozens of little soldiers.

My only big complaint is just that everything happens too fast.  And I don't mean unit speed, really.  It's more that units tend to break or charge or just pivot for no particular reason after just a volley or two.  It's march, fire, reposition, fire, charge/break.  I'm not sure "speed" is the problem so much as unit morale and cohesion - units just need to be more "sticky."  I'd be happy if they would just make the units have a bit more stand-and-fight to them.  [EDIT:  On reflection, I did see units stand and slug it out for considerable periods if they were in wooded or other protected locations.  So perhaps there are terrain or other variables at play that aren't immediately apparent.  Overall, though, the pace is quicker than it ought to be due to how quickly units typically break, charge or reposition.]

I'd also like to see more post-battle stats - who had what losses and inflicted what casualties; who fought well and who didn't; unit morale, cohesion, etc.  As it stands now, you just get a splash screen saying you won or lost and showing comparative casualties - then you're dumped right into the next battle.  I didn't start the next battle, so I can't tell if losses carry forward - but it would be hard to tell in any event since individual unit stats are lacking.

I'm pleasantly surprised overall.

[FlickJax]

Just folded and bought, just need the time to play now!!!

[Queeg]

Refought the first battle on the same settings and ended up with a minor defeat.  I actually killed more of the bad guys than I did the first time, but lost on objectives.

More observations:

I had more stand-up fights this time around, though I'm not sure why.  My lines were better formed this time and my leader was nearby.  Perhaps there's a bonus for having mutually supporting lines? 

My biggest complaint remains that I don't feel like I really have much control over my units.  The movement system is outstanding - it's very easy to position your units - but there's very little control beyond that.  I'd like more options for positioning - oblique, etc.

Finally, I've noticed in both games that the AI will often send single unsupported units on forays deep into the rear, usually aimed at a victory objective.  While that does add some challenge, especially when you have fewer units and can't spare any to chase the rogue unit - it's very unrealistic.  No Civil War commander would march an unsupported unit deep behind the enemy lines.  That sort of thing just didn't happen like the game depicts. 

Having fun overall. 

[Trooperc7]

Well Grant`s Vicksburg campaign was deep inside enemy territory.... How about Sherman`s march to the sea? There were many cavalry raids deep inside enemy territory.. Grierson`s raid comes to mind pretty quickly.......Are we thinking about the same Civil War?

[bobarossa]

I think he is referring to individual brigades not armies.  Cavalry is a whole different matter due to their speed and training.  They are intended to operate independently as scouts. 

[panzerde]

Not to mention the difference between tactical and operational/strategic.

Have there been any improvements so far in how charges are being handled? I'm interested in this and it certainly is pretty, but I'm hoping for something a little more robust than where it seems to be so far. Not that I'm expecting it to be Scourge of War...

[-budd-]

no change yet, incoming patch according to the game forum. Hope they adjust the moral system some, its all over the place, too quick to drop. That bugs me more than the game speed at the moment, a supported unit on the high ground with a leader close and artillery should be a little harder to dislodge when the numbers are close to even, other wise the high ground don't mean much, did i mention it was 80%+ cover also. Having played for a couple hours, yes the speed needs to be adjusted but not as much as i first thought looking at it. It's in pretty good shape for an early access, its quick playing and i'm having fun with it, whether that lasts on the replayability front don't know yet. My favorite moment was switching to canister and blasting some rebs charging my line...... that did some damage.

[Queeg]

Well Grant`s Vicksburg campaign was deep inside enemy territory.... How about Sherman`s march to the sea? There were many cavalry raids deep inside enemy territory.. Grierson`s raid comes to mind pretty quickly.......Are we thinking about the same Civil War?

I know the one I'm thinking about. 

Read up on General Sickles at Gettysburg.  That's what I'm talking about. 

[GibbyG]

Sickles didn't go behind enemy lines either.  Just in front of the Union line by about a mile.

[Queeg]

Right.  And got his III Corps largely destroyed. 

In the game, brigades (or skirmishers) too often do lone-wolf marches to the extreme rear of the enemy.  That sort of thing just didn't happen in the way the game depicts.