Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

michaelsmithern

Members
  • Content count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Good

About michaelsmithern

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman
  • Birthday 03/28/1997

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    michaelsmithern

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Statesville, N.C. United States
  • Interests
    Civil war type games, many RTS(real time strategy) games, I play War thunder, but it's just a phase. Mount and blade is pretty fun too although it's dying

Recent Profile Visitors

338 profile views
  1. Union Strategy at the Battle of Richmond

    I've always found that the Union Campaign is far easier the farther down the line you go. Usually, it's an instinct that you know you can't lose to the Confederates in most battles, either from playing the battles to the point where your mistakes of yesteryear are reforged into tactical maneuvers that completely destroy units. or just simple Russian style mass charges. At around Malvern hill is where I call the campaign won in my favor for the Colonel difficulty. I called it winnable after Fredericksburg for BG. and while my MG campaign is hard fought and most definitely more of a challenge then I expected I believe I'm at the point where the Confederates simply take more casualties than me and cannot stand on it feet. I'm at the battle of Gettysburg, so this should be an easy win for me, especially if I can use Buford's Division of practically all skirmishers to whittle down units on Day 1. By the time on both campaigns for Col. and BG I've had 5 corps(Col. was full 2500 man brigades and what not. while the BG had around 1800-2000 in each brigade) and really only needed to throw more men at the problems I had. if you know where the enemy is coming in from as well during the first phases you can set up a division to shoot at them and 4 of the 5 brigades that show up usually surrender( you may need to charge here and there, but it is quite easy to beat the reinforcements that come in from few areas). While I don't think I'll take the same approach, merely because I don't' believe I'll have the manpower to do so, I don't see being overly difficult to win. Now the problem in my Confederate campaigns(all difficulties) is that I run into manpower problems. I always have some money and guns, but not enough troops(go figure) and it definitely starts to show just before Antietam for me or right after since I take huge losses, while there is some respite in Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, provided I can pull it off quickly, Gettysburg I try and cause as much damage as possible since I know I'm gonna be on the offensive in some battles that will cost me lots of men(and probably the game should I lose). when all is said and done and I hit Washington. that's when the real fun begins because I roll in with 100k(no manpower remaining, little to no money or guns) have to take what is it 5 forts(plus Washington) then defend them from anywhere to 150-200k Union troops. Let me tell you stress levels were quite high the day I spent reloading saves everytime I lost. can't wait for the next one, Short answer: UUUURRRRRRAAAA!!!
  2. UG- Civil War 3..??

    All I'm saying is I hope to get picked for the beta for the next game, simply waiting for the release or even minor footage was hard on me when I heard about a sequel to UGG. And to JaM, i like your thinking on how a Nap wars should be released followed by American Revolution, it makes sense, and hey you could even add the war of 1812 in there if you wanted
  3. for all my campaigns i've never seen Horseshoe ridge at chickamauga.
  4. I figured but you know it’s just one of my nitpicks that id like to know. It’s not really that important
  5. I know it’s gonna be a stretch but I would like to see a more dynamic game, almost like the first one, but with the mechanics from the civil war, with army management and what not, while it would require essentially making the battles really long with multiple routes and even multiple ways of going into them. Now im gonna simplify my list by making different tabs of what I’d like - regiments or the ability to split off regiments - a more in depth army management( I know more micro but hey I like that stuff) - a more dynamic campaign - battles that are able to have more dynamic actions - the ability to choose between volunteers/regulars/ etc( this would be good for Nap wars as you could have highlanders or polish legions or whatever - a way of knowing which brigade the division general is with or just an option to have him on the screen - more skills as a commander I really enjoyed the current ones they had plenty to offer and it was hard to choose for some of them which ones I needed to prioritize i did and didn’t like the points system for getting things from the government because if you lost a battle and didn’t have enough points you’d be shit out of luck and be replaced, doesn’t matter if you have one every battle - keep cavalry the same please, in UGG they were almost useless but in CW they are very good and I like it that way they play a vital role and many smaller details that can be overlooked as they are just a personal preference. if anybody has an addition or what they want to contest I’d love to hear it, disagreements can lead communities forward if they have meaning almost forgot for a sequel I’d like to see a revolutionary war game, it’d be just nice however I think an overdone Napoleonic wars game might expand the fan base to those who enjoy the time period and it’ll explore another part of the world instead of covering US history
  6. Strategies for The Battle of Antietam

    My strategy is simple.... I call it Git Gud. No, but for real, what i do is i take Nicomedia Hill with arty and two brigades of infantry, and hold it as long as possible. with the recent updates it's concerning whether this is a good move or not considering it always leads to the Union Flanking all the way to the left side of the map and me having to constantly move forces up to fight them off. In the Sunken road i usually station all my arty adn 4 brigades on the right over by the bridge to decimate any union troops that come across, especially early on, since they just spawn on your side of the bridge and can be easily canistered and shot up without the time to react. Finally with the Burnsides bridge, it's 50/50 for me, sometimes my third corps can hold the bridge others they can't for the most part i don't focus on it too much, i just try and hold the enemy back for as long as possible.
  7. General Duplicates

    As did I. I named one of the brigades the Iron Brigade(W), and the Other Iron Brigade(E) and was having a good ole time with my two Gibbons,then one got shot and killed in last seconds of Fredericksburg.
  8. DLC addons?

    I'm not fine with DLC, Expansion is a better term I'd be willing to support, I only say this, as we can see from DLC Kings like Total War, Paradox, and many other games coming out nowadays, you get a whole bunch of crap or content that should have been in the game, to begin with, Hell paradox is making you pay 15-20 dollars(USD) just so you can use Religious Cults in CK2 or the Mandate of Heaven for China, and these are things that should have been in the game, to begin with. An Expansion, however, is once a game is complete, they add on to it, by setting different campaigns of sorts, for instance, you could consider the Warpath Campaign an expansion to Empire Total War, as it's all about dealing with the indigenous tribes in North America or fighting the European powers. If I were the Devs the way I'd go about DLC's/Expansions is make a full fleshed out game to add on to this one. but considering It's called Ultimate General: Civil War and the whole game is based around just that, it would be hard to make expansions, as they cover many of the major battles on both fronts. I could see Free DLC in the Form of Micro-organization of your Divisions/Brigades and what not for players that would actually like to do that sort of thing, maybe somewhat if scenario's(as if the game isn't already just that) Basically, they'd be better expanding towards another game, with what they have learned from this project, while this will be years down the line, I cannot see DLC, Expansions being worth much time to the player.
  9. Help with Chancellorsville

    Thanks for the Advice I'll see what I can pull off. although I don't have the 24 brigades in the corps, so i suppose I'll make do without and push my hardest.
  10. Help with Chancellorsville

    Hi, i've beaten Chancellorsville before, but i've heard that you can do it on Day 1 or Phase 1. I've had trouble recently, i don't know how maybe the new patch or something but I keep losing and need some help taking Chancellors farm. I need some suggestions as my army has no three star brigades this time around, i've got oodles amounts of two star brigades. i've got 45000 infantry, about 2000 cavalry, and 5 full batteries of cannons
  11. why are enemy troops so beefed up

    I think a good way to work around AI Scaling would be to have Dynamic Campaigns, let me explain, when you beat a major battle you move on to the Next campaign, for instance Maryland Campaign has antietam and the two smaller battles for each side, then you move to the Winter Campaign, with the two smaller battles and Fredericksburg. during these campaigns, you could set it so that the losses at the small battles carries over to the Major battle, that way you get to kill the Union/Confederate Armies, so they aren't full strength at the Major battle and it solves one of the many problems of the AI being able to shart out 3/2 star brigades like there nothing. I thought about this mainly when i did the frederickburg battle, as you have the portion where you fight in the Town at the pontoon bridges, well they dynamically keep the casualties when moving to the next day, why not make it so for the rest of the Winter Campaign, and overall SIngleplayer Campaign. I see a lot of problems with it though, as some battes would be far too easy for people and others have Units that don't actually appear during the Major Battles, i.e. during the Chancellorsville Campaign you need to fight the Union Skirmish/Cavalry army(which is a pain in the ass by the way, but still fun) and they don't make much of an appearance at Chancellorsville. on top of that the coding would take a while to make before being able to implement it. As the Game currently stands i don't mind the AI scaling as much as i did when the game first released as it was bogus that the Union/Confeds would field ass amounts of units, and the smaller battles didn't even make a difference, when they updated the game to make these minor battles important, it made me 10x happier as now there was a reason for fighting them, besides the money/recruit income you'd get.
  12. Recent changes make Fredricksburg battle completely broken

    I don't know Fredericksburg is fairly easy for me, i'm still having trouble with Chancellorsville, but i'm getting better at it each time. As for Freddysburg well i always send my most veteran units around the north flank of Maryes Heights and encircle the Confeds, and then i have the more green troops assault the stone wall just to keep the confederates occupied while i do encircle them. on top of this if you win the first and second portions of the battles for the town and the hill off to the way far right flank of the confederates, it will allow reinforcements in the second stage of the Assault on Marye's height(if they are close enough) but even then i didn't need them i had already taken both points before they had hit the field
  13. stone river..... why not briagade names?

    it was just an example really, but from what i take out of civil war military structure, you'd have about 5 regiments in one brigade(or at least 2) the regiments in the battle of stones river are usually around 800 men strong(some stronger some weaker) with the occasional double regiment, EX: 4th/5th(whatever state) 800 x2 is 1600, so that's around the smallest brigade, while if we took 800 x 4-5 you get 3600-4000 man brigades, so that's where i figured the number, i don't actually know much about the battle of stones river, nor am i claiming there were 4k man brigades running around historically, I simply just put some numbers together from what i saw in the game and figured well i can understand to break it into smaller groups instead of having less of these brigades running around....also it provides more of a challenge for the confederate and union player as you can just outflank every unit on the field. Edit: i noticed i put the term "actual" with brigade, i must apologize since this may have been what made my statement say that 4k man brigades ran around everywhere. so once again sorry for any misunderstandings
  14. stone river..... why not briagade names?

    I suppose so that the union/confeds have more units on the field at one given time to repel you. if they were comprised of the actual brigades you'd see 4000 man brigades walking around, which would be easily outflanked and wouldn't be any kind of challenge other than the fact that you will be in prolonged shooting with the brigades.
  15. Will there be smaller battles?

    That would be neat, but i don't see it happening, while i enjoy watching the small civil war reenactments at my local harvest festival but i don't think 10 union vs 13 confederates would be all that interesting to play
×