Ultimate General: Civil War

[Higher Animal]

Maybe so, but from a political point of view, it's just boring. During Napoleonic era you have France, Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Spain fucking shit up in a 20 year span but in ACW it's just Blue Americans vs Grey Americans.

It was a world war. Britain, Mexico, Russia, France, American Indian tribes, Copperheads, southern unionists, Northern Democrats, Brazil, Cuba, all involved.

 

[mbv123]

Yes, Napoleonic Wars definitely was a World War

 

[Higher Animal]

Yes, Napoleonic Wars definitely was a World War

American Civil War more important more interesting say what?

 

[Varvarg]

So how deep is the gameplay? Many numbers to look at? Noticing it's in early access, so not everything in obviously

 

[Hoggypare]

So how deep is the gameplay? Many numbers to look at? Noticing it's in early access, so not everything in obviously

It is certainly deeper than the predecessor. All brigades have their own stats (and up to 3 tiers of perks) that affect their effectiveness (things like morale, stamina, reloading, accuracy and melee). In addition to that, they are affected by their equipment, which especially in case of artillery and cavalry has huge impact on what roles can the brigades fit in. There is now an ability to detach skirmishers from infantry brigades allowing you for more tactical opportunities.

However the gameplay has some problems. In general I like it so far and it feels like an improvement over the last game, but there are some things and exploits that certainly make it more arcady at the moment.
For example, no friendly fire means that having smoothbore guns just behind your brigade (or another brigade) let you completely slaughter advancing AI. Forests offer so high cover (with no disadvantage to unit cohesion), that placing your forces outside of them is pure madness. Your units sometimes position themselves awkwardly, exposing flanks or rear to enemy for no reason, because units automatically pick their targets (one single brigade, with little respect for the battle line). Designated skirmisher behaviour is "shoot and run-the-fuck-away-from-the map" which means you need to babysit them even more than guns in the previous game for them to be remotely effective. Also the morale for units seem way too high, and the brigades regain it way too quickly, which leads to back-and-forth battles with crippling casualties for both sides, less emphasis on tactics and swift movements and more on "can you place your guys in the woods, while keeping enemy in the open".

Still, they seem to be constantly working on improving things - it certainly won't be a simulation, but an enjoyable game - probably

 

[Burning Bridges]

Gettysburg was underwhelming shit but I must say this one looks much better so far. I believe they actually listen to their players.

You can see that this is made by people who like to play games and know what makes them fun. The campaign starts with a small battle, the capture and defense of a fictional Potomac Fort. And now the game goes through a pretty impressive list of battles, starting from the very beginning with 1st Manassas. From what I see the list of battles rivals games like Panzer General, I think there is enough to do. I just dont know what replayability is there.

In between battles there is a screen where you can form divisions, even select different rifles from a pool of captured equipment etc. This looks right down my alley.

Game was not overly hard so far, but I heard some horror stories on Steam about it being impossible. A single routed unit can have catastrophic consequences, so maybe the campaign can be lost in a flash.

Anyway, game gets 2 thumbs up from me so far.

 

[Sranchammer]

Send them Yankees straight to Hell

 

[oscar]

Gettysburg was underwhelming shit but I must say this one looks much better so far. I believe they actually listen to their players.

You can see that this is made by people who like to play games and know what makes them fun. The campaign starts with a small battle, the capture and defense of a fictional Potomac Fort. And now the game goes through a pretty impressive list of battles, starting from the very beginning with 1st Manassas. From what I see the list of battles rivals games like Panzer General, I think there is enough to do. I just dont know what replayability is there.

In between battles there is a screen where you can form divisions, even select different rifles from a pool of captured equipment etc. This looks right down my alley.

Game was not overly hard so far, but I heard some horror stories on Steam about it being impossible. A single routed unit can have catastrophic consequences, so maybe the campaign can be lost in a flash.

Anyway, game gets 2 thumbs up from me so far.

Haven't played in a while but I did notice some huge difficulty spikes going from battles I won by the skin of my teeth to ones I knew I didn't have a hope in hell of winning. Agree with Hoggy's criticisms but the game is looking very very promising and nothing that can't be fixed with some minor fiddling.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I read that they changed a lot in v0.90, so that losses of the AI carry over too. Seems a lot of criticism was directed at the game when it was just dumbly going from scenario to scenario, while the player can lose an entire brigade within 1 minute.

Haven't played in a while but I did notice some huge difficulty spikes going from battles I won by the skin of my teeth to ones I knew I didn't have a hope in hell of winning.

Isn't this a weakness of the campaign structure? We always demand such carryover campaigns but one reason the developers are so reluctant is that it's much more work to balance them. If the AI outnumbers you 3:1, the logical option would be that you can simply retreat before a battle. There is a lot of stuff where they still need to work, when the game introduces timers and automatic win conditions and "You won" pops up in the midst of a battle.

Agree with Hoggy's criticisms but the game is looking very very promising and nothing that can't be fixed with some minor fiddling.

For me the main point is that the game is actually fun.

 

[markec]

Gettysburg was underwhelming shit but I must say this one looks much better so far. I believe they actually listen to their players.

You can see that this is made by people who like to play games and know what makes them fun. The campaign starts with a small battle, the capture and defense of a fictional Potomac Fort. And now the game goes through a pretty impressive list of battles, starting from the very beginning with 1st Manassas. From what I see the list of battles rivals games like Panzer General, I think there is enough to do. I just dont know what replayability is there.

In between battles there is a screen where you can form divisions, even select different rifles from a pool of captured equipment etc. This looks right down my alley.

Game was not overly hard so far, but I heard some horror stories on Steam about it being impossible. A single routed unit can have catastrophic consequences, so maybe the campaign can be lost in a flash.

Anyway, game gets 2 thumbs up from me so far.

It looks like they are taking inspiration from Civil War Generals 2 with things like upgrading equipment from a pool of captured supplies and carry over casualties.

For those who havent played CWG2, its a turn based strategy in vein of General series which had really extensive campaigns with lots of "what if" scenarios. Which ties with a cool thing that defeat didnt mean loss of a game but a scenario reflecting your loss.

So loosing at Gettysburg as Unions you could find yourself defending Washington.

If you havent played it I highly recommend it.

 

[Sranchammer]

For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it’s still not yet two o’clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it’s all in the balance, it hasn’t happened yet, it hasn’t even begun yet, it not only hasn’t begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armistead and Wilcox look grave yet it’s going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn’t need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose than all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago.

William Faulkner

 

[Burning Bridges]

Just had a fantastic 1st Manassas battle (normal difficulty). I would not say this game is extremly hard, but there is a certain element of impending disaster. That means you cannot afford to fuck up once, unless you build up a huge reserve.

Muskets seems have a really big influence on the result, so I would pay great attention. My relatively modern Missouri rifle inflicted over 3:1 casualties, whereas the Springfield and Palmetto "only" 2:1

The battle began well, then nearly failed when the counterattack from the North came, and it ended in a bloodbath for the Union 16000 : 7000 losses

I decided to play on when the objectives where met and at the end the yankee army was literally running north. Unfortunately I was unable to capture a lot of prisoners. I should have probably taken more advantage of this, but I ont know how to do this tbh without cavalry.

A bit of advice: even when the enemies routs, never rush after him with you entire army, I almost lost it when a new threat appeared from the south (there is a saying "when you are in the back of the enemy, he is also in yours", and in this game, when a large unit routs it can sometime comes back in your rear which was a bit nasty.

Love this game.

Now I have 10,000 new men to distribute, and tips? Should I go with veterans already or max out the numbers?

 

[Luka-boy]

For those who havent played CWG2, its a turn based strategy in vein of General series which had really extensive campaigns with lots of "what if" scenarios. Which ties with a cool thing that defeat didnt mean loss of a game but a scenario reflecting your loss.

So loosing at Gettysburg as Unions you could find yourself defending Washington.

This is the CWG2 Grand Campaign flowchart. Note that most of those aren't individual battles, but campaigns with multiple battles each. And many battles had alternative versions depending on your previous performance.

I replayed it last Christmas and it's still as enjoyable as I remember. It bursts with atmosphere everywhere with its music, art (most of it by Mort Künstler), videos taken from reenactments and simple interface that still let you see all the numbers if you wanted. And gotta love wargames where battles end at a set turn but you can manually declare victory when most of the enemy army is routing so you can skip most of the chase, which in some battles can become 30+ turns of running after fleeing units that no longer have any loot value trying to encircle them.

 

[Burning Bridges]

So far it was possible to win all battles on the normal difficulty. I think people who find it too hard have fallen into one of the many traps (for example Army Organization too low).

This seems to be the problem, the game is absolutely winnable but tuned for people who realize in their first playthrough what you have to do. For example your brigades can be 1500, 2000 or 2500 sized, and this can be decisive.

You also need to know in advance how much supply you need .. how it works even.

Shiloh. It began with a very fun dawn attack on the resting bluecoats.

I didn't like too much how they split up the battlefield into phases and locked most of the map, then switching in the middle of the battle.

I had also held back an entire division because I expected I could send those reinforcements later on but nada. That seems to be another problem - you dont know how many units you can send to the battle. The display before the battle is more than confusing (it said 20 brigades allowed, I had only 12, but it did not say that they all have to be in one Corps)

After the center broke through and crushed the hornets nest (above) the battle transposed into a constant race, and since you cannot make your men run the whole time I just couldn't advance as fast as Union retreated. Sounds stupid but the battle is set up like that, I see no way how you can arrive at the final objective without your men being completely finished at the end.

There was another problem that single brigades of the union routed and then broke through my lines and stayed way back. I could not afford to attack them for the remainder of the battle. In fact they engaged in a long range duel with my artillery which was amusing. I guess it's kind of realistic that certain units would be cut off and under some circumstances attack from the rear. Although there were ~5,000 men in my rear at the end, they did not influence the battle and basically just tied down my artillery.

Towards the end there was this large amount of blue units compressed on the map border, and ready to attack. In the end it was just about looking at the clock and this is the part that I dont like too much.

Anyway, did it and Shiloh was a success. There are still mamy things that one would wish to be improved.

 

[Sranchammer]

I'd buy it if was turn-based

 

[Burning Bridges]

I press Pause any time and give orders. It's a bit too fast to play in full real time anyways.

The closest comparison for me is Close Combat. Different scale and time period, but the planning in between battles, real time etc and that rewarding feeling when you destroy a unit, feels very much the same.
Same balance between historic accuracy and freedom too, you play the same engagements every time but you can do a lot with respect to your units.

Sound is extremely well done, once you got the attack going and you hear all those musket shots and your cannon joining in, it's totally thrilling.

I got it for 18$, there is still a sale until the 6th. Absolutely worth the money.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Has somebody found out how range is implemented? Where is this explained? I just read that "effective range" does not mean you open fire earlier than the enemy. So it has apparently more something to do with accuracy and damage, but you dont get a safe zone of fire, which is different to what I thought.

Considering that my last battles were a bit confusing, right now I dont understand the rifles any more. The enemy received massive numbers of new rilles, and in 1st Winchester this reflected in pretty high losses for me. Or so I thought. Then I switched my best brigades to rifles for the Mile Creek battle. And suddenly they were doing worse than units with muskets. The better rifles get worse melee values they have, so muskets may have a place in front line units afterall.

The farmer musket with its melee value of 95 must be the absolute king of melee. Maybe my experiences were complicated by the fact that I never used Farmer muskets in one of my units, I captured so many Springfield 42 (10,000 or so over the campaign so far) that I never needed them.

 

[Burning Bridges]

And also, it seems to be the the rule that brigade size should always be maxed out, otherwise you dont really have a chance. I once tried to promote lower officers and use smaller brigades of 1500 and 2000, and nearly lost the battle.

Have a look at efficiency, and how it is affected by officer rank. I made a lot of mistakes here. For example a brigade size 2500 should be commanded by a brigadier general, a Colonel might not do well, and Lt Colonel will lose a large amount of efficiency.

 

[Burning Bridges]

A few more problems I noticed. In the picture above you see a real destruction battle I inflicted on "those people" at Port Repubic.

I played on for almost an hour because I was after the loot. In the end the last units surrendered, in the right map corner.

The first thing is that the map borders dont make for very realistic battles. I usually capture whole brigades when they get trapped in a corner. Yes, that what you see in the right is the rest of the Union army In the top left endless blue columns of prisoner, another 2 brigades that I had trapped in the opposite corner, before they surrendered en masse.

3800 prisoners which were exchanged for only 1000 recruits (the game puts a stop here which makes sense, as this starts to unbalance the game)

The second is the loot itself.

Considering that I completely annihiliated a 12,000 army this is more than underhelming. In fact, it totally sucks as I expected a couple thousand rifles that I could really use (even if I have enough money, there are just not many rifles available).

I think the game does not calculate the loot correctly, as the 3,800 prisoners at least should have dropped more.#

Anyway, just thought I give you a heads up that playing on for hours to get a decisive victory may not pay off that much. At least I got a round of promotions and lots of XP

 

[Hoggypare]

Has somebody found out how range is implemented? Where is this explained? I just read that "effective range" does not mean you open fire earlier than the enemy. So it has apparently more something to do with accuracy and damage, but you dont get a safe zone of fire, which is different to what I thought.

Considering that my last battles were a bit confusing, right now I dont understand the rifles any more. The enemy received massive numbers of new rilles, and in 1st Winchester this reflected in pretty high losses for me. Or so I thought. Then I switched my best brigades to rifles for the Mile Creek battle. And suddenly they were doing worse than units with muskets. The better rifles get worse melee values they have, so muskets may have a place in front line units afterall.

The farmer musket with its melee value of 95 must be the absolute king of melee. Maybe my experiences were complicated by the fact that I never used Farmer muskets in one of my units, I captured so many Springfield 42 (10,000 or so over the campaign so far) that I never needed them.

Range for the line infantry isn't affected, however it applies for all the other units, skirmishers, dragoons and detached skirmishers (!) as well. For line infantry it just affects the accuracy at higher ranges, which is an important thing in itself frankly.

As for melee, the lower values for high-end muskets are in general worth it, because of how much you gain in terms of firepower. Bear in mind that your experienced troops will generally do ok in melee anyway. For rookies however it is better to equip them with low-end rifles.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Hoggypare But what is the accuracy stat for? For example the Lorenz has accuracy 75, and the muskets only 12.5
I also found that some units did not do too well in melee with the better rifles. The Enfield 1853 for example, I try to keep them out of the battle and use them more as marksmen. Whereas the "older" Mississipi, the Lorenz or MJ&G II are doing just fine in melee.
I guess what you say is correct though, that would mean fire rate is the most important skill.

Makes sense though that the trend was rate of fire, whereas the older rifles had some really badass bayonets. I just saw a video that on the Lorenz it was more like a sword and like 1 meter long
http://www.gunsandammo.com/tv/classic-test-54-caliber-lorenz-rifle

 

[Hoggypare]

Hoggypare But what is the accuracy stat for? For example the Lorenz has accuracy 75, and the muskets only 12.5
I also found that some units did not do too well in melee with the better rifles. The Enfield 1853 for example, I try to keep them out of the battle and use them more as marksmen. Whereas the "older" Mississipi, the Lorenz or MJ&G II are doing just fine in melee.
I guess what you say is correct though, that would mean fire rate is the most important skill.

As far as I understand, the accuracy gets modified negatively by range (by some percentage I assume). So shooting with line infantry at max range with springfield 1842 gives bigger malus to accuracy than springfield 1855, because max line infantry range is well within 1855's rifles range. Also it means you can use detached skirmishers as effective sharpshooters with long range rifles.

Melee in general is quite dodgy in UG. It is more important to have more brigades in melee, than having more troops, because the game calculates numerical advantage by number of units, not troops. so 2 1000 brigades will fight back one 3000 brigade and will do that quite easily. Actually there is a trick to detach skirmishers always, so you move them in in melee to have unit advantage.
All that said, you will never get such k/d ratio with bayonets as with guns. Treat melee as a way to push enemy back, not to inflict casualties really.

Also melee values are pretty gamey, I remember there was a discussion about this on forum, where some person calculated bayonet lenghts, weight and lenght of the rifle, etc. showing that there is no realistic reason for new rifles to have lower values. I guess the devs just want older muskets to still have some place in the game.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I believe they modelled it around the Southern advantages/disadvantages. Theoretically the should be mostly armed with older Farmer, Springfield 42 and Palmetto muskets. And all this adds up to a shorter range with extremely powerful charge, especially with Farmers.

Do you think they have a height advantage implemented? In my last battle I had one brigade up on a hill and it had a long shootout with a Union brigade. In the end they both lost around 600 men, so I did not see the advantage of height.

 

[Alienman]

How long is the main campaign?

 

[Burning Bridges]

17 major battles and 46 smaller

I dont know if you see them all in one campaign (dont think so), but it's LONG. I played this non stop for some days and still made it only to the beginning of Peninsula campaign.