DaveWoodchuck

I can speak to the moat, at least. I'm fairly confident that there is a stream in that area in real life, and there was back then. Whether it was enough to be a barrier is something I don't know, since it doesn't figure too prominently in any of my recollection of the battle.

I love the game I've looked around the forums a bit to see if someone else brought this up, and I am sure someone will immediately point out what I've missed, but my feedback is mostly geared towards the casualty numbers. Specifically, it seems odd to me that every casualty seems to be regarded as killed or furloughed home - no one seems to return unless the medicine skill is up, and even then it is a fairly low number. Another odd thing is the ability to recruit a theoretically unlimited number of veterans to flesh out you brigades. Therein lies an opportunity. Now, this may not be feasible, but I would rather see a base number of casualties return (nothing extravagant, definitely not more than 10-15 percent to reflect furloughs, expired enlistments, desertion, and camp fever in a more abstracted way), with medicine modifying that number further. The ability to bring in veteran troops would be severely limited or even nonexistent, so only recruit-level troops would be available to add to any brigade. The trainer ability would instead affect either the amount of XP drop for adding recruits to units or slightly raise the stats of recruits. Other potential changes would be to add entire units as a reward reputation points. I think that would be more accurate in terms of showing transfers. As in "transfer in 1500 man 2-star infantry brigade, palmetto muskets" or whatever. Transferred units were rarely doled out piecemeal, 20 men here and 50 men there, etc. I don't think this type of adjustment should take priority over other development, though. It would just be nice to see from my perspective as a way to change the campaign dynamic a bit.

Malvern Hill, I've beaten it twice on regular, never lost it as CSA. The key is to see beyond the frontal assault and look at the locations in the briefing. I usually send a brigade down the swampy side. This demonstration force keeps at least one US brigade opposing them. The key is to be in sight but out of range. If they come for you, they are crossing the river, and you are in good cover. On the far right, I usually send skirmishers and cavalry. Once again, they draw off a few brigades to face them. Two small demonstrations, and they split their forces. Up the middle, mass batteries and take a lot of supply. Bombard their positions and wait for the second wave. The second wave artilley should form to bombard the US right, and any cavalry or skirmishers should join the demonstration force on the right, drawing even more US troops to counter them. Skirmishers and cavalry are useless in a frontal assault anyways. Form a solid line across their front with reserves behind and a strong assault force on the US right, across from that low wall that sticks out- that is exposed and vulnerable. Then you advance to musketry range. You break through at the low wall on your left and you split their forces. You can roll up the line and flank them. When they readjust to compensate, the cavalry massed in the demonstration force swings forward and overruns batteries/secures the rear victory points. Bloody, yes. Painful, yes. Impossible? Nope.

Same problem, but could not get any response from keyboard commands, either. Emailing files for consultation.

I have had the opportunity to complete three play-throughs, and I must admit that I am deeply impressed. I like the pacing and how well things seem to fit together. All three of my attempts were with the Union Army; the first against a Balanced, which I defeated rather handily, the second against a cunning, which I imagine is far better in defensive situations than offensive ones (I defeated it by day 3 after some wonderful back-an-forth battles) and the third time against a determined, who isolated my forces on Seminary Ridge, contained my best units there, and then drove me off of Cemetery Hill. I was defeated decisively by the end of day 1, and I had a blast. I feel that the AI is capable and incredibly fun. I am still having a few issues with artillery placement, though. Perhaps when the elevation markers are implemented things will work out better for me. Anyways, I just wanted to say that I loved it so far, and I like the direction this is going.

My personal preference is for the second option, but I feel that the third option will be more marketable. Plus, and this is a big one, multiple saves can protect the player from a dreadful and unpredictable corrupted file error of some sort erasing all their progress in one fell swoop. I think the one save per playthrough fits the theme of the game better, and it opens up the possibility for each player to have a truly unique experience every time they play. The point of creating a rich series of alternate scenarios was to give the player a sense of what might have been; when properly designed, it should be enjoyable despite any setbacks on the battlefield. Giving multiple saves can "cheapen" the experience the developer is trying to convey, but I suppose that is a decision best left to the minds who are designing it. I appreciate being asked like this, though. After my experiences with DarthMod and the like, I am willing to trust that the right decision will be made.

Well, if you scaled the units up to depict every single man in them, you would also have to adjust the scale of the terrain and the granularity with which it is represented as well in order to make up for that. Then your overhead views from any practically usable distance would likely appear to be a series of tiny dots forming undulating lines, I imagine that would look too abstract to appeal to many (despite being the opposite of an abstraction in this particular case), plus having even more little men on the map would make it taxing for the player to recognize and process information. That would make for a sharp learning curve, changing the game from looking like it is "fun/challenging to play and difficult to master" to "oh-dear-there-are-too-many-people-let-me-clutch-my-fainting-pearls" for those less familiar with the project. As for modability, I have no clue, but Mister Nick here got his reputation through modding games and successfully communicating his vision to thousands of people who love the improvements he made. If someone mods it, I doubt he will track you down and attack you. Heck, he would probably track you down to bounce future ideas off you if the effort was good enough.

Monk, I understand the sword of Damocles feeling; my steam account got pirated once, but it worked out in the end for me. I didn't have my financials saved with them for security reasons, so I didn't lose money. I had left the account alone for a while in college, and when I came back to sign in, I was locked out. I contacted Steam, who verified my identity from their purchase records and some other stuff, and they restored my account to me. In the meantime, the fella who stole my account had purchased a ton of DLC for a couple of my games using his bank account-- since it was bought through my account, I was told that they were mine. All in all, for a couple days of annoyance, I ended up ahead because of a crook. As long as you keep your financial information locked away and not saved on the system, the worst you will generally experience is an inconvenience.

Hello, fellow David. The cartridge box comment was merely off the cuff-- I agree that comparing infantry ammo resupply and artillery resupply is like comparing apples to something that is not even vaguely like an apple. I agree that artillery ammunition is important to model, and I guess that means that their rate of becoming fatigued and the recovery of that fatigue (assuming ammo and fatigue are abstractly linked together) would be best modeled differently from infantry of cavalry fatigue-- something that might just be a different equation plugged in for that unit type. As long as the player knows that artillery fatigues significantly faster when firing and recovers very slowly (except when withdrawn and rotated, as you mentioned), I guess that would be tenable, fairly realistic, and save players from getting bogged down in the thick of thin things (in terms of intended focus for gameplay). Also, I never really examined the role of psychological impact of artillery on infantry for that period-- in my college courses, all I really dealt with was WWI shell-shock and how it affected and influenced the resulting culture and artistic movements in the inter-war period (yep, I possess a rather useless arts degree), and would love to see any articles on how the study of the phenomenon developed over time. Anything you would recommend? My comprehension of battlefield events and thought is largely limited to dry historical texts or the narratives of McPherson or Foote, which leaves me with a large body of facts, but less of the "meat" needed for interpretation.

I feel that the main point of the ammunition debate is really a matter of the scope of the game, by which I mean what the precise role of the player is supposed to be. Commanding multiple brigades and divisions puts one on the scale of a Corps or Army commander, and one must ask oneself if the commanders at that level concerned themselves with the contents of their individual soldiers' cartridge boxes. If implementing ammunition introduces micromanagement for the player and obstacles for the AI, I propose that the ammunition system will detract from the overall aim of authenticity. If ammunition is represented, let it be as an abstraction of fatigue and morale-- units that have withdrawn from combat and are low on ammunition would, under normal circumstances, obtain ammunition, and this would be the responsibility of the regimental or brigade commanders. That puts it below the level of the player's intended focus. A possible fix to make people happy is to model the accessibility of the baggage train to units when they recover fatigue and model the supply of the army overall for each day as a multiplier for regaining fatigue. For example, a unit close to fighting would regain fatigue AND supplies more slowly than one further away from the fighting due to the need for diligence and the inherent danger of moving around wagons loaded with munitions around the fighting. Since both rates of recovery would be affect in roughly the same manner at roughly the same time, I think they can be modeled together. This also means that an army which spent both the first and second days fighting all out and drawing down its "supply/fatigue reserve" or whatever it is called will, of necessity, recover more slowly on the third day, reflecting both scarcer rations and the buildup of fatigue humans experience under stress in general. As for units running out of ammunition, that can be modeled by the fatigue they experience simply as a part of being in battle. Yes, Chamberlain made a final charge with his men stretched to the limit and his munitions expended, but the rebels he charged were also on the breaking point and low on supplies. I think in this game that a unit holding the high ground after repulsing repeated attacks could be wavering, but not as badly as the repulsed unit. So, if the unit on the high ground charged, the units below would be far more likely to break and run. Yes, it is risky-- Chamberlain took a risk, and it made him brilliant because it worked. To pull off the same feat in this game should risky as well, but that is not represented best by moving supply wagons or some other such mechanic.

I think I would prefer option 1, and option four doesn't strike me as objectionable.