Butch

Fifes and drums anyone?

Fantastic insight. Thank you!

The only thing that kind of ruins the immersion for me is the lack of promotions for brigadier commanders. I love that divisional and corps commanders get more XP now but I'm already at Antietam and have yet to see a single colonel leading a brigade get promoted to a 1 star general. Is this intended?

Sound. The drums and fifes and rebel yells from those two games are some of my greatest early gaming memories from when I was a kid. While the sound in UG:CW is by no means bad, it's just not a strong point in the game and I can completely understand why. Having said that, I really hope Nick and the devs invest more into it because good sound really helps turn a good game into a great game.

We're getting closer and closer to the end of the war; so excited for the final release!

This happens to me ALL the time and it's super annoying. It'll get ironed out don't worry.

Good post Koro. I think this is probably the most feasible solution to implement 'dynamic' battles without having to write too much code.

I completely agree with fallendown. I understand that there's a fine line between immersion/realism and gameplay but this game is actually marketed as a 'simulator'. Positioning artillery is way too easy right now.

I agree, it's highly unlikely that we'll see something like this in this game as it would take a lot of resources and time. This is just a personal wish list sort of thread and something I hope he and the devs consider for future games.

This is very, very interesting. Especially if you're playing as the Confederates and money is harder to come by.

What you've just described is exactly the kind of strategy and tough decision making that I really want to see in this game. Many officers will have upsides and downsides to them and appointing them to leadership positions that complement their traits becomes part of the strategy. The ability to personally choose from a pool of traits would allow you to 'groom' an officer. Let's say you choose the 'Aggressive' trait for a brigadier general leading a brigade; the effect is + 5 Melee. You're thinking to yourself I want this general to lead the vanguard division of this corps and I want his entire division to excel in hand to hand combat. You promote him to divisional commander and select the 'Attack Oriented' trait which gives another +5 melee and + 10 stamina. The traits stack and they affect every single brigade under his command so all of a sudden his entire division is insanely strong in melee and takes longer to tire. This sort of RPG element to building your army makes the current system a lot funner and more interesting. With a system like this you can specialize your corps and divisions depending on who is leading and this in turn affects how to you use them in battle or when/where you deploy them. The numbers I've suggested would obviously have to be balanced but you get the idea.

I'm so addicted to this game right now. The army management, the battles, the career point system; the game has so much potential. One thing I really wish we had was an RPG element to the officer progression in the game. At the moment, officers rank up and provide better command which helps maximize the efficiency of their units and subordinates. While this is nice, I feel like it could be a lot deeper and more meaningful. As it stands, the only officers that really give special abilities to their units are the ones commanding a corps. A brigadier general (1 star) leading a corps can choose one perk, a major general (2 stars) can choose two perks and a lieutenant general (3 stars) has access to three perks. These perks apply to the entire corps. But what about divisional commanders? What about the officers leading the individual brigades? They don't really provide any meaningful bonuses other than higher command and I feel like the game should give you more things to consider when deciding which officer to place in the different areas of the chain of command. My proposed solution is an officer trait system. Each time you fight a battle, your officers gain access to different traits depending on how well or poorly their unit performs. If an officer's unit has a high kill death ratio (KDR) you get to choose a positive trait for them from a pool of options. On the flip side if their unit gets decimated and they lose more men than they kill (low KDR) you're forced to choose a negative trait. This system allows you to groom officers and select the best man for the job depending on where you put him in the chain of command. Officers leading a division or corps would have access to different traits than officers leading a brigade. Officers gain one trait each time they rise in the chain of command; so an officer leading a brigade can only have one trait until you promote them to a divisional commander. Once they become a divisional commander you select another trait and so on. Demoting a general would cost money and or reputation to simulate the red tape associated with the move. It would also be a way to prevent you from gaming the trait system and only placing the best generals in charge; historically speaking a lot of sub par generals were in command purely because they were senior and it was their 'right' to lead and not because they were the better generals. Below is a list of some ideas I have for different traits and what they do to the unit that the officer is leading. Positive Traits available to officers leading a brigade: Forager: This officer knows exactly where to look when supplies are in need. Effect: + 10 % ammo. Master of drill: This officer has developed a reputation for drilling his men to perfection. Effect: +25 % experience gained. Inspirational: This officer leads from the front and leads by example. Effect: + 5 morale. Aggressive: This commander relishes the opportunity to plunge his men into ruthless melee preferring to give his enemies the bayonet. Effect: + 5 Melee Dashing Cavalryman: This officer excels at leading mounted troops into battle. Effect: + 10 efficiency to cavalry. (Only available to officers leading a cavalry brigade) Eye For Ground: This officer has a keen eye for good ground and positioning of guns. Effect: + 10 efficiency to artillery. (Only available to officers leading artillery) Frontiersman: Leading irregular troops comes very naturally to this officer. Effect: + 10 efficiency to skirimishers. (Only available to officers leading skirmishers) Negative Traits available to officers leading a brigade: Reckless: This officer shows little regard for the well being of his men. Effect: - 10 morale and + 5 % speed. Poor Subordinates: This officer consistently surrounds himself with incompetent subordinates that can't seem to follow orders. Effect: - 15 command. Arrogant: Condescending, pompous and sitting firmly on his high horse, this officer is despised by his men. Effect: - 5 efficiency and - 5 morale Cowardly: While he expects his men to show courage under fire, this officer is often the first to run when things go south. Effect: - 10 morale and + 5 % cover. Unorganized: This officer has the bad habit of allowing his men to move in a disorderly manner. Effect: - 5 % speed. 25 % slower rotation speed and 25% slower deployment into line formation. Once a general is promoted to a divisional commander, a second trait become available to them from a unique pool of traits specific to divisional commanders. They retain the trait they gained while leading a brigade and both traits will now affect every brigade in the division they command. Who you choose to lead your divisions suddenly becomes a very important decision. A good divisional commander can help negate the effects of poor traits that any of his subordinates may have. Divisional commander traits are selected from a pool in the same way as brigade commander traits are. They can also be positive or negative and are gained depending on the combined performance of their brigades (KDR). Positive Traits available to officers leading a division: Patient: This commander has demonstrated his ability to time his maneuvers and orders masterfully and it has served him and his subordinates well. Effect: + 5 command, + 5 efficiency, + 5 morale (This trait cannot be gained if the officer already has the 'reckless' trait) Efficient Delegator: Leading a larger formation has taught this commander the importance of delegating; his division operates like clockwork. Effect: + 10 % speed (this trait cannot be selected if the officer already has the 'poor subordinates' trait) Defense Oriented: This commander emphasizes the importance of digging entrenchments in this age of war and his entire command benefits from this philosophy. Effect: + 10 % cover + 5 Firearms Attack Oriented: This commander is a firm believer in the notion that the best form of defense is attack. Effect: + 10 Stamina, + 5 Melee Scouting Expert: This commander consistently makes good use of vedettes and pickets giving him a tactical edge when maneuvering. Effect: +200 spotting, + 150 stealth, +5 % speed. (This trait could be very useful for a support oriented division made up of skirmishers and cavalry. The extra spotting range is nice but the added stealth allows you to sneak up and snipe artillery batteries way before the enemy can react. It would pair very well with "Dashing Cavalryman" or "Frontiersman") Negative Traits available to officers leading a division: Poor Delegator: This commander's reluctance to delegate leaves his subordinates with very little flexibility and the division suffers as a result. Effect: - 10 % speed. Quickly Angered: This commander is easily angered and argues with his subordinates very often. Effect: - 5 command, - 5 efficiency, - 5 morale Overly Ambitious: This commander's hunger for promotions, fame and glory has come at the cost of many lives. Effect: - 10 morale Last but not least, we have the traits for the generals leading a corps. Only divisional commanders can be promoted to corps commanders. Unlike brigade and division traits which you can personally choose, the traits that your corps commanders gain are completely random. Historically speaking, some generals who were excellent divisional commanders displayed very poor leadership when it came to leading a corps. To simulate this, once you promote a divisional commander to a corps commander, they are given a trait randomly - you never know if a good divisional general will actually be a good corps commander! You cannot select the traits for your corps commanders. A member on this forum named Lincolns Mullet posted a very interesting video with ideas on how to implement a dynamic campaign into the game. He proposed a system where your corps could arrive early or late into battle depending on various factors. Some of the traits that I'm suggesting here will play into that system and make battles more unpredictable. Once a general is promoted to a corps commander, he will have a total of 3 traits which will affect every single brigade in the entire corps. This makes corps commanders extremely important and powerful. Positive Traits for Corps Commanders: Reliable: Always on time and always has your back. Effect: Increased likelihood of divisions from this corps arriving early into a battle when the corps is designated as a reinforcement. Master Logistician: This general's works tirelessly to ensure his corps is always well connected to supply lines. Effect: + 30 % ammo. (If this general also has the 'Forager' trait his entire corps would benefit from a bonus of 40 % ammo because the traits stack) Tactically Astute: This general has a firm understanding of military strategy making him a valuable asset to this army. Effect: + 20 command to all officers under the general's command. Negative Traits for Corps Commanders: Overly Cautious: This general prefers to play things safe and rarely takes the initiative. Effect: Increased likelihood of one or more of this corps' divisions not showing up entirely to a battle when this corps is designated as a reinforcement. (This simulates the commander not committing his entire force and preferring to have a large reserve) Vague: This general rarely gives clear orders which often leads to confusion on and off the battlefield. Effect: Increased likelihood of divisions from this corps arriving later than expected to a battle when this corps is designated as a reinforcement. - 5 % speed to all units in the corps (simulating a poor understanding of orders and confusion among his subordinates). Poor Strategist: This commander has failed to demonstrate the tactical knowledge necessary to lead an army corps. Effect: - 20 Command to all officers under this general's command. With a trait system in place for officers, choosing where you employ each officer becomes extremely important and very, very interesting. You become attached and love your good officers and start giving them higher commands while you weed out the poor ones. The fact that traits stack allows you to specialize your divisions and corps which adds more strategy to the game. Feel free to add any ideas or suggestions of your own.

Outstanding ideas man I can tell you put a lot of time and thought into making this video. I loved every single proposal particularly the random deployment zones in each battle and the unpredictability of when your reinforcements arrive. This was the essence of UG Gettysburg in the sense that reinforcements could come early or late and it changed the way you played the battle every single time. I loved the idea of having different 'variables' affecting when a corps arrived into battle; I'm gonna make a new thread with some ideas for an officer trait system that could actually go hand in hand with this proposal. I really hope some of this stuff makes it into the final version!

The rank of each officer determines the amount of 'command' that they possess. Each brigade, depending on its size, requires a certain amount of command to operate at its maximum efficiency. Efficiency determines how well the brigade performs in terms of shooting and melee. The larger the brigade, the more command it requires. Each brigade in a division is also influenced by the command score of the general leading it's division. The game doesn't explain the numbers very well and at the moment there really isn't a way to know exactly how much command you need per brigade. As a general rule, you want your highest ranked officers leading your corps and divisions. Brigades can manage with lieutenant colonels or colonels but ideally you want a brigadier general leading them to ensure maximum efficiency. To answer your question, the jump in rank makes the biggest difference at the corps level. A brigadier general leading your corps will only have access to one perk. A major general will have access to two perks and a lieutenant general will have access to three perks which will affect every unit in his corps. So as you can see it's extremely important to have your highest ranked generals leading your corps. Division leaders don't provide perks but they do influence the command level of all the units in their division so it's useful to have a higher ranked officer leading a division to help maximize efficiency in all it's brigades. The other benefit of having a high ranking officer leading a division is that if the commander of a brigade becomes wounded or killed in action, the command penalty suffered during the battle by his unit is less severe as the unit still derives some command from the divisional commander. Artillery units and skirmishers are typically much smaller than infantry brigades and can usually get away with lower ranked officers leading them without a penalty to efficiency.

Wow. Just wow. The music at the end of that last battle at Antietem was nothing short of epic. The Federals deployed some 85 thousand men against my 48 thousand. The amount of death on the field was just borderline illegal. They lost 65 thousand LMAO! Lincoln signed that peace treaty nice and quick and my campaign ended with a Grand Victory. Very, very satisfying end to the campaign. Here are some thoughts and reflections based on this first run through. 1. The rifles you equip your brigades are often the difference between victory and defeat. The Mississippi and Lorenz rifles outclass the Springfields by a mile. The extra accuracy makes every volley lethal. General Hood's brigade in that last battle had about 5000 kills defending the Sunken Road. 2. I feel like the Discipline upgrade is a lot better than the Stamina one when it comes to upgrading infantry brigades. Stamina is good if you intend to make your second upgrade the Assault Course which increases melee. I'd love to see more options for upgrades. 3. Artillery is a huge ammo sink. Holding fire is very important when you know the battle is going to be long. Opening fire when the enemy is in shell or cannister range is preferable if you know ammo is going to be tight. 4. I wish the campaign had some form of way of weakening the enemy war effort. Maybe some sort of attrition mechanic where the more successful you are in each battle, the less efficient and large the enemy army is in future battles. Winning major battles doesn't feel special because it doesn't really affect the campaign or the enemy in the future. 5. I'd love to see a victory mechanic. Maybe victory points? I know the game is still far from finished but going forward I really hope that Darth finds some sort of way to keep the campaign interesting. The campaign progression and flow is the weakest thing about this game. 6. The career points system is very cool. I feel like Logistics and medicine are very weak choices to invest points in and maybe they could use a buff. 7. Capturing supply wagons and prisoners gives you extra manpower, rifles and supplies. At the end of a battle it shows you what you captured and what was rescued. I'm not very sure what rescued means but I'm assuming it's weapons you picked up from your fallen soldiers? The interface needs to do a better job of explaining what and how you 'rescue' weapons. 8. The supply wagon ammo bar needs to show a number. I can't tell if there's a difference between a supply wagon that has 25000 supply as opposed to 12000. Overall the game is looking very good and I can only see it getting better!

Your general unit has a health bar. If it the health bar goes down to zero the unit will disappear from the battle so be careful! I've had a general disappear on me more than once and didn't realize until much later that he was being shot and disappearing.

For the most part it has been pretty solid for me. The only issues I've seen are with enemy supply wagons and sometimes cavalry running up to the front of my lines and getting captured or shot to pieces.

Ofcourse we cannot assume that this is going to be the state of the final game. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with voicing concerns about the current build so that the devs know what we think!

I played Ultimate General: Gettysburg for hundreds of hours and loved that game to bits. I'm really impressed so far with what I'm seeing from Civil War and the game looks very, very promising. One of the main reasons UG: Gettysburg was such a memorable and extremely fun game to play was its dynamic battle system. You felt like a real general when you were given multiple options at each critical point during the battle. Did you want to withdraw to Cemetery Hill as the Union at the end of the first day or did you want to hold ground at Mcpherson's Ridge? The decisions mattered and they allowed the battle to play out differently each time you played. While I can see how it would be far too difficult and time consuming to add a similar system to each and every battle in UG: Civil War (due to the scope of the game) I would love to see some sort of mechanic that reinforces the feeling that every small decision you make is changing the current battle and campaign you are fighting. The campaign is very scripted and linear. At the moment this is my biggest issue with the game. When you fight a battle, whether you win or lose, you will always proceed in the same way. Your victories don't feel like real victories in the sense that their effects are not noticeable on the enemy. I can nearly destroy the enemy army in every single battle but they will keep showing up with an army that is just as strong as mine. I feel like this makes the whole Army Camp redundant because it doesn't matter how well or poorly you do. It doesn't really affect the outcome of the campaign. You will still fight the same battles in the same order against an AI army that is scaled to be the same size as yours. I love playing the historical battles in an authentic timeline but unfortunately this takes away from the immersion. I feel like there needs to be more of a balance between the linear historical campaign we have now and a more dynamic campaign that changes depending on the first major battles. The dynamic "anything can happen" system of the first game is the true identity and soul of this game; I would hate to see the devs moving away from this model as it made UG: Gettysburg very exciting and unpredictable. A series of major victories early on should end the campaign early. If the Union had destroyed the Confederate army at the First Bullrun their path to Richmond would've been wide open and the war would've ended. This is the kind of thing I would love to see. Not only does it add infinite replayability, it makes each battle feel important and every decision you make in a campaign matters. I would love to see a campaign where each victory or defeat gives you multiple options on how you want to proceed with your army depending on its condition - very similar to UG: Gettysburg. To conclude, I absolutely love the gameplay but the campaign feels very lacking and takes away from the army management which is one of the best parts of the game. I'd love to see a campaign mechanic where you can plan invasions and grand maneuvers depending on your army status. The historical battles could be mixed with fictional randomized battles depending on the outcomes of your decisions. All in all this game is amazing and I really look forward to seeing how it evolves and improves from now until release!

You raise some very interesting points Longstreet. One of the funnest things about this game is the feeling of taking your army through the whole war and see it progress and rank up with every battle. However if the AI will always autoscale to have more men than you then as you said it really makes no difference how well you do in every battle and that does indeed kill the immersion. At the moment the campaign is very scripted and it almost doesn't matter if you win or lose any battles. This is why the AI presumably autoscales with your army; so that it always has a fair fighting chance as the campaign goes on. In order for Nick to do away with autoscaling we would have to have a dynamic campaign where destroying the enemy army in the field at a critical major battle ends the campaign with a victory for your side.