Aetius

They told me to try another payment method.

I attempted to purchase again. This time I called my bank and checked. There were no small charges on my card either from Friday or from today. Xsolla's help says that i should try another payment method, which is useless. So, I guess I'm not able to purchase the game.

It's been 24 hours and there's no small charge on my card.

Going through the purchase process, I entered my information and then was redirected to another site (Xsolla?). This site said that a small amount had been charged to my card, and that I was supposed to confirm the amount by looking at my online bank statement or via a text message from my bank (??!!!). I don't know what bank you're using, but few banks are fast enough to do realtime updates to your account. This leaves me in limbo, as I have no way to see what the small amount charged was. It may be 24 hours before that information appears in my account. I guess I wait, and hope that my session doesn't time out? I suspect you're going to have a lot of confused people if you continue using this method to verify credit cards.

I'd like to be a tester.

I recommend pandakraut's UI and AI mod with replaceSizeDegradationCurves turned off. That gives you all the fixes that make the game much more enjoyable to play without changing the overall game balance either tactically or strategically.

I'd argue that these days it's pretty much the only thing that works on Legendary Potomac Fort, though the fort unit coming out was fortuitous (and something I've never seen before either).

I was surprised by this change in my latest Legendary playthrough and got hammered, but I went back and replayed it successfully. The key for me was to deploy all the infantry I had in the initial deployment phase, and use one of those brigades plus skirmishers to beat off the cavalry in the rear while holding the treeline elsewhere. I do think they went too far with this fix, as the reinforcements essentially arrive too late to accomplish anything, but it's definitely winnable even on Legendary.

I doubt it will be fixed unless it's in sequel or follow-on product. There are deep, fundamental issues with how the game handles - or rather, doesn't handle - day transitions. The problem is present in every multi-day battle, it's just that Chancellorsville is particularly bad. Stones River is another one that's just a heartbreaker, especially as the Confederates.

Yeah, the draw is doable for the Confederates, it's just a major pain in the ass because the game keeps teleporting your units around and scrambling your organization. Also, keep in mind that one of your Corps is going to have to fight Salem Church afterwards with no break.

The battle reward numbers are fixed, though they can be increased by putting points into Politics. The reputation purchases are also fixed. Getting troops from captures/exchanges varies up to 1000, depending on how many troops you capture, but it's not 1-to-1 - you only need to capture about 600 men to get 1,000 back (I forget the exact numbers).

In my opinion, Grant was borderline incompetent and reckless. At Fort Donelson, he left his post to confer with the Navy commander and didn't assign anyone as his second-in-command, which nearly let the Confederates escape - they had actually opened the Nashville road, but Pillow inexplicably retreated back to the fort instead of continuing with the escape plan. At Shiloh, he didn't have any pickets or scouts out, which is why the Confederate attack came as a surprise. It's also very likely that if Sherman had been killed at Shiloh - he was wounded twice and had three horses shot out from under him - the Union position would have collapsed and the battle would have been a decisive Confederate victory. In fact, when what actually happened at Shiloh was found out (Grant's battle report bore only a passing resemblance to reality) there were calls to for Grant to be dismissed for incompetence. Lincoln refused them, I believe because he mistook stubborn determination for skill. Grant's operations tended to follow a pattern - poor reconnaissance, repeated failed frontal attacks on fortified positions, followed by what he should have done in the first place. Grant also had a bad habit of leaving his supply lines exposed, which burned him more than once in the West. Against lesser opponents in the West he was slow to move and slow to appreciate the strategic situation, and in the East against Lee he was repeatedly beaten by an inferior force. Essentially, he won because he had all the advantages and managed not to blunder too badly - which is hardly a recommendation as a general. He did have some redeeming qualities. He was quick to accept black troops and utilized them effectively. He had some ability in logistics, so despite his carelessness with his supply routes his troops were well fed, well clothed, and well supplied (unlike virtually all the Confederates, even granting their logistical disadvantages). He was good at picking subordinates, and even when he disliked them (like McClernand) he was able to get results from them.

I'd go with about a 4/10 on the battlefields. For example, the area west of Burnside's Bridge at Antietam is actually a series of rolling hills that run north to south, not the flat terrain depicted on the map - it's ideal defensive terrain. At Burnside's Bridge itself it is far too easy to force a crossing. The small hill and weak fortifications depicted on the map are actually a cliff with insanely good fields of fire - which is why the Confederate sharpshooters were able to hold the old quarry for so long with so few men (the equivalent in-game would be a 250-man skirmisher unit holding that position until they run out of ammo). North of the Sunken Road there are also low hills, such that visibility is about 100 meters. In general, the terrain is a lot rougher than depicted on the game maps, and sightlines are a lot more restricted - which is why they are built the way they are in game, because otherwise it would be incredibly frustrating to play. Cold Harbor is another example that's pretty inaccurate. The actual fighting near Mechanicsville in 1864 took place over two weeks, with more casualties from the trench fighting than from the failed Union assaults on the Confederate lines. In fact, the game doesn't really simulate the trench fighting at all, other than fortifications that need to be assaulted - which is understandable as it would be super boring to watch two lines of fortifications shoot at each other for days of game time with no movement or effect other than casualties. Some of the battles themselves are entirely fictional as well, such as Newport News and of course Washington - and Richmond isn't anything like the historical battle, which was attritional trench warfare that lasted almost a year and eventually forced the Confederates to withdraw. The crucial role of cavalry as a screening and reconnaissance force is almost negligible, primarily due to the good sight lines on most of the maps. Smoke isn't modeled, which would further reduce sight lines and spotting. Entrenchment is only modeled with fixed fortifications, when late in the war it was SOP for both sides to immediately dig in wherever they stopped. You've already mentioned losses, which are about 2-3x historical values. Cavalry moves far too slowly - they should move about 3x faster than the infantry and skirmishers in clear terrain and on roads. The importance of roads for troop movement is vastly understated. As you noted, both sides are far too determined, which leads to melee combat occurring much more often and lasting far longer than it historically did. Skirmishers are represented, but aren't used the way they were historically, as pickets and screening elements - again because of sight lines, and the game can't really represent dispersed troops very well. All of your orders as commander are instant. Don't get me wrong - you know I love UGCW and I think it really captures something of the feel of Civil War combat, but historically accurate it is not.

George McClellan. He had a clear understanding of the defects of the Union forces early in the war, and successfully resisted the intense pressure for offensive action from Lincoln and Congress that doomed McDowell and Pope. He kept the Union army from completely collapsing twice. He understood that it was the Confederates who needed a quick, decisive victory, and repeatedly kept them from succeeding. Without him, it's very likely that the Union would have lost the war in 1862.

The idea is around because that's the way it used to work before the patch that reworked the scaling and added the intelligence report. It was intensely frustrating, because every time you upgraded one unit the AI would upgrade virtually everything. The current system is better, although it results in some bizarre AI weapon choices - in my last Union playthrough, I captured thousands of Harpers Ferrys, and then started capturing Tyler Texas rifles in huge numbers as the AI weapon quality supposedly went up.