Finally beat the game on MG. Here are my stats and some thoughts on the game as whole

[barrydylan]

It only took me 280+ hours and many false starts, but I've finally captured Richmond and saved the Union. I thought I would make this post to share my experience/philosophy as a Union player (I play both sides but I decided to beat it for the first time on the right side of history). 

Here are my opinions, take them for what they are worth:

1) Once you learn the basic mechanics, don't play it on any difficulty lower than MG. The finished game is pretty well-balanced and I don't think the computer relies too heavily on the number advantage since they fixed the scaling system. The AI in this game will never be intelligent as a human player, but there are plenty of difficult situations that you must think hard to win which make it both challenging and fun. If you struggle on MG don't be afraid to save mid battle before you make tactical decisions. If you mess up, go back to your save. That's what I did throughout this campaign and I'm not embarrassed to admit it. 

2) a. Everyone has their own opinion on what is the best Army composition/campaign management system. Take the time to figure out what works best for your style of tactics in battle. That being said, the ...general.... consensus seems to be that one should focus on creating infantry heavy armies backed by a combination of 24lb Howitzers and 10lb Rifles.  Personally I don't bother with any other type of cannon besides those and the 6lb smoothbores. I also like having one  elite mounted infantry brigade in each corps. They're great for flanking and chasing routing units or (in desperate circumstances) filling gaps in your battle line. You can run a sniper brigade if you want, those units can rack massive casualties, but the downside is the AI matches whatever type gun you have and has 5x the number of those type brigades. 

b. When it comes to using campaign points I establish certain baselines (4 recon, 2-3 logistics, 6 organization) and then focus on maxing out the other stats in the following order: Politics, Medicine, Econ/Training. I think a lot of the play testers who primarily play on BG underestimate the value of veterans. You don't want to break the bank buying tons of vets but I think they are worth it in the late game. Especially during the period between Chancellorsville and Cold Harbor, you don't get many troops as rewards for those battles and if you've maxed out your medicine buying vets starts to make more sense than recruiting rookies. However, refer to point 2a, everyone has their opinion and find out what works best for you. 

c. This may be a left over habit from when the game was in alpha and the scaling was broken, but I don't go past Army Org 6 and I don't use more than three corps. I run one elite corps, a second veteran corps, and a third corps of reserves, which also includes my only brigades of melee cav for sniping victory points or mopping up routing troops in the latter part of major battles.

3. Battle Strat: As Grant figured out during the Wilderness campaign, the key to winning battles is flanking, flanking, and flanking some more. If the battle map constrains you so as to inhibit flanking (i.e. Mule Shoe) pick a point and concentrate all of your firepower into to breaking the line at that singular location. Then... you guessed it... roll the enemy by flanking them through their broken battle line. Another piece of advice is to know your civil war history. If you're playing this game, you're obviously a nerd. You should know that Lee split his forces to rout Hooker at Chancellorsville, so brace your forces for Jackson's attack on your right flank! 

4. As Sherman said,  "war is hell," and this game sure is fun as hell. Tell your friends to play it. 

Below are my final stats and army comp going into Richmond

 

5.PS, congrats if you read to the bottom: There is one last point I want to direct at all the Lost Cause revisionists who occasionally spew your bullshit on this forum. The war was fought by the South to preserve the institution of race-based slavery, and the subsequent racial hierarchy that placed the poorest, most ignorant white above any black. The aim to preserve slavery is written in the various articles of secession of the majority of Confederate states, and clearly stated in the letters, journals, and official correspondence of everyone involved in the Confederacy. Yes, the North, and Lincoln, would've tolerated the continued existence of slavery to preserve the United States at the beginning of the war. But after the Emancipation Proclamation the war very much became about ending slavery versus preserving it. If you believe anything else then you are willfully ignorant. That doesn't mean it isn't fun to play as the CSA, but you don't need some perverted ideology to justify doing so. 

Edited July 31, 2017 by barrydylan

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

Time for ASJ's review reviews! The part of the show where ASJ does a review of a gaming review!

 

Me reading this:

>Oh, cool, someone beat it on Major General, I should congratulate them!

>Good advice, I should think about starting a new campaign, I haven't played as a bluecoat in a while...

>Wow, he's got some good stats!

>Good army composition

>Looks like we're at the end...

>Oh wait! He added a note! It's probably some special advice

>Uh, or political views, I guess that's okay. I'm sure he'll be respectful

>*Wondering what the heck this has to do with winning on Major General difficulty*

>Or you can, uh, not be respectful about it I guess, I mean, that's cool too...

>blahblahblah, he says the war is about slavery, insults everyone that disagrees with him and calls them ignorant. 

>Whoa! Never seen this before! Oh wait a sec, I've seen this in the comments on every single thing having to do with the Confederacy.

>Seriously, do these people just copy/paste this exact same speech and spread it over everything Southern on the internet? I'm beginning to get the feeling...

>You know what, I think I'm going to rethink my entire worldview based on what some dude said at the end of a gaming review on Ultimate General. Oh wait, that's right, I'm not.

>*Continued contemplation on what this actually has to do with winning on MG*

>"Perverted"? Well I have to admit, that's a new one on me. Chalk one up for originality. 

>Oh! We're at the end. That was.... interesting...

 

OVERALL SCORE:

The portion of the review where he actually talked about the game: 10/10

The portion where he shoved unrelated and unoriginal political views into it for pretty much no reason at all: Eh... 4/10. 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Albert Sidney Johnston

[A. P. Hill]

43 minutes ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

Time for ASJ's review reviews! The part of the show where ASJ does a review of a gaming review!

...

OVERALL SCORE:

...

The portion where he shoved unrelated and unoriginal political views into it for pretty much no reason at all: Eh... 4/10. 

Meh, more like -15/10.

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

21 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:

Meh, more like -15/10.

My scoring system: 

-Had the decency to say "congrats if you read to the bottom". Probably the most polite thing he said the whole time. +1 point

-Threw in some colorful language including the S-word. Clearly swearing helped solidify his position somehow, because that's obviously how swearing works, especially when trying to arrive to a logical conclusion based on intellectual reasoning. +1 point

-Says, and I quote, "everyone involved in the Confederacy" wanted to preserve slavery. That's a very audacious generalization. However ridiculous, I think he deserves some credit for the sheer absurdity of his hasty generalization fallacy. +1 point

-Had an original insult (perverted): +1 point

Sorry, Hill, he got four points fair and square ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Albert Sidney Johnston

[barrydylan]

Ok, so its fair to criticize the ad hominems and generalization. I only swore once though so its not like I littered it with profanity like a 14-year-old. I may have been ~4 beers deep when I initially posted this so now I regret adding point 5. I'm glad you liked the part of the review that stayed relevant to the game. 

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

6 minutes ago, barrydylan said:

Ok, so its fair to criticize the ad hominems and generalization. I only swore once though so its not like I littered it with profanity like a 14-year-old. I may have been ~4 beers deep when I initially posted this so now I regret adding point 5. I'm glad you liked the part of the review that stayed relevant to the game. 

Alright, alright, fair enough. Sorry I went a little overboard there. 

But yeah,  pretty good advice for the Union campaign. Maybe I'll be a bluecoat on my next go 'round...

Edited August 1, 2017 by Albert Sidney Johnston

[HansGruber]

2 hours ago, barrydylan said:

3. Battle Strat: As Grant figured out during the Wilderness campaign, the key to winning battles is flanking, flanking, and flanking some more. If the battle map constrains you so as to inhibit flanking (i.e. Mule Shoe) pick a point and concentrate all of your firepower into to breaking the line at that singular location. Then... you guessed it... roll the enemy by flanking them through their broken battle line. Another piece of advice is to know your civil war history. If you're playing this game, you're obviously a nerd. You should know that Lee split his forces to rout Hooker at Chancellorsville, so brace your forces for Jackson's attack on your right flank! 

I think this is the most important part. In general, a player should only attack in as many directions as the number of corps he has. Against fortifications, it's all about presenting the narrowest possible combat width to the enemy while maximizing the firepower against a single area, which is mostly done on corners or edges of their defenses.

I do have a question. Is spending career points on Recon really necessary for a player who knows how the missions play out? Even then, a player can just load a save instead. Taking that out, making use of skirmishers and cavalry for spotting enemy positions can do the job as well. Wouldn't the player be better off rushing for Army Org 6 or maybe a mix of Politics and Army Org?

[Hitorishizuka]

59 minutes ago, HansGruber said:

I think this is the most important part. In general, a player should only attack in as many directions as the number of corps he has. Against fortifications, it's all about presenting the narrowest possible combat width to the enemy while maximizing the firepower against a single area, which is mostly done on corners or edges of their defenses.

I do have a question. Is spending career points on Recon really necessary for a player who knows how the missions play out? Even then, a player can just load a save instead. Taking that out, making use of skirmishers and cavalry for spotting enemy positions can do the job as well. Wouldn't the player be better off rushing for Army Org 6 or maybe a mix of Politics and Army Org?

Unless you have a good memory, played the battle recently, or refer to written up notes, I actually found Recon 4 useful for knowing precisely when the enemy reinforcements hit the field. Also knowing when you've effectively broken the enemy while sitting back on defense by checking their #s (I generally look for rough numbers parity after they start at 2:1) and can transition to offense safely.

[HansGruber]

30 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:

Unless you have a good memory, played the battle recently, or refer to written up notes, I actually found Recon 4 useful for knowing precisely when the enemy reinforcements hit the field. Also knowing when you've effectively broken the enemy while sitting back on defense by checking their #s (I generally look for rough numbers parity after they start at 2:1) and can transition to offense safely.

You only need  skirmishers (detached from inf brigade, ranged cav or skirmisher brigade) for that. You don't need to check their actual numbers to mount a good attack. It's more a matter of finding out where they are and which direction they are going. Those can be done well by skirmishers as they have the mobility to patrol the sides or poke the front. 

[Hitorishizuka]

1 minute ago, HansGruber said:

You only need  skirmishers (detached from inf brigade, ranged cav or skirmisher brigade) for that. You don't need to check their actual numbers to mount a good attack. It's more a matter of finding out where they are and which direction they are going. Those can be done well by skirmishers as they have the mobility to patrol the sides or poke the front. 

Skirmishers don't tell you when a fresh division enters the battle from the opposite side of the map. Knowing exact numbers is important for knowing when you only have local superiority vs map superiority. When you have the latter,  you can then switch to doing wave attacks that sweep the enemy along and maintain a cordon that will reliably kill the entire army.

[HansGruber]

4 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:

Skirmishers don't tell you when a fresh division enters the battle from the opposite side of the map. Knowing exact numbers is important for knowing when you only have local superiority vs map superiority. When you have the latter,  you can then switch to doing wave attacks that sweep the enemy along and maintain a cordon that will reliably kill the entire army.

Actually they can, especially the skirmisher cavalry which can cover a lot of distance very fast. Recon matters most on the first few playthroughs but becomes the lazy way out later on. It needs a rework. It should just increase line of sight, spotting and stealth for units. Slight increase for infantry and artillery brigades and moderate increase for skirmishers and cavalry.

[Hitorishizuka]

1 minute ago, HansGruber said:

Actually they can, especially the skirmisher cavalry which can cover a lot of distance very fast. Recon matters most on the first few playthroughs but becomes the lazy way out later on. It needs a rework. It should just increase line of sight, spotting and stealth for units. Slight increase for infantry and artillery brigades and moderate increase for skirmishers and cavalry.

If you can recon all the way to the enemy's side of the map without getting your units shot to pieces, the battle probably wasn't very challenging anyway so this is kinda moot.

[HansGruber]

1 minute ago, Hitorishizuka said:

If you can recon all the way to the enemy's side of the map without getting your units shot to pieces, the battle probably wasn't very challenging anyway so this is kinda moot.

If you are that lazy to micromanage and safely poke their lines (there is a fallback command after all) then yeah you should stick to Recon. 

Let's say you play CSA on Antietam, the Union is attacking from the north and you want to know when to go for a counterattack. You just have to probe the sides with cav provided with infantry support to know how much more reinforcements they are entering the map. Another way is when you rout several brigades who have their backs turned at you, sending skirmishers to run after them (holding fire) and then falling back at the first sign of trouble is good enough to probe them.

[Hitorishizuka]

Just now, HansGruber said:

If you are that lazy to micromanage and safely poke their lines (there is a fallback command after all) then yeah you should stick to Recon. 

Let's say you play CSA on Antietam, the Union is attacking from the north and you want to know when to go for a counterattack. You just have to probe the sides with cav provided with infantry support to know how much more reinforcements they are entering the map. Another way is when you rout several brigades who have their backs turned at you, sending skirmishers to run after them (holding fire) and then falling back at the first sign of trouble is good enough to probe them.

Antietam isn't really that hard of a battle, since you have more or less free access to their entire backline whenever you want to take it because of the way the terrain is shaped and the map size.

It's a waste of time or skirmishers to have them sitting around your lines just to frontal probe, given the way the AIs lines tend to be constructed there's not generally a lot of room to see anything. What you really want to know is when the AI is still demonstrating as if it is willing to fight but no longer has numerical superiority. You can't learn that from only when a couple units break because you need to see their entire army.

[The Soldier]

Knowing what exact numbers are facing you is valuable.  Take that from the first person to beat Richmond and Washington on Legendary difficulty with no recon whatsoever (thank you @Col_Kelly) and even after playing both half a dozen times each (all of which were horrendously more difficult than what you have now) and knowing every reinforcement and troop placement to the inch, I was beyond delighted to get a save with Recon 4 on it.  Why?  Because there was a solid number backing up my estimates, but furthermore the movement of the bar could tell me the exact moment the enemy got reinforcements, and using that information I can react to it, or if I know where they're coming from, counter it.

[HansGruber]

1 minute ago, Hitorishizuka said:

Antietam isn't really that hard of a battle, since you have more or less free access to their entire backline whenever you want to take it because of the way the terrain is shaped and the map size.

It's a waste of time or skirmishers to have them sitting around your lines just to frontal probe, given the way the AIs lines tend to be constructed there's not generally a lot of room to see anything. What you really want to know is when the AI is still demonstrating as if it is willing to fight but no longer has numerical superiority. You can't learn that from only when a couple units break because you need to see their entire army.

Why would you always want to know the actual numbers? Are you sending your army in waves?

[Hitorishizuka]

1 minute ago, HansGruber said:

Why would you always want to know the actual numbers? Are you sending your army in waves?

I already said, please actually read my posts. Yes, when I have numerical parity, I start looking for either a wave attack or to wheel en echelon and sweep the entire field. Knowing their #s tells me when it's safe to have everyone abandon the fortifications and get into position to instead start doing things like cutting off enemy retreat paths or otherwise preemptively blocking parts of the map.

[HansGruber]

16 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:

I already said, please actually read my posts. Yes, when I have numerical parity, I start looking for either a wave attack or to wheel en echelon and sweep the entire field. Knowing their #s tells me when it's safe to have everyone abandon the fortifications and get into position to instead start doing things like cutting off enemy retreat paths or otherwise preemptively blocking parts of the map.

Well then I guess it's not my fault you have less initiative or instinct to perform maneuvers on your own. Unit movements are well done in this game and a simple fall back (F) command helps stabilize your lines before you overextend. Numbers don't mean much in an oblique attack so I have no interest in knowing numbers. I only want to know which way their line is facing.

[Hitorishizuka]

1 minute ago, HansGruber said:

Well then I guess it's not my fault you have less initiative or instinct to perform maneuvers on your own. Unit movements are well done in this game and a simple fall back (F) command helps stabilize your lines before you overextend. Numbers don't mean much in an oblique attack so I have no interest in knowing numbers. I only want to know which way their line is facing.

Fallback costing condition and casualties when you were probably caught out of position making too aggressive an attack.

Sure, okay, you're a perfect player with flawless intel at all times on every map and you clearly know everything you need to know. Why are you even asking questions about whether you should take Recon points? Are you just trying to show off how smart you are?

[CSX4451]

: O

[HansGruber]

23 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:

Fallback costing condition and casualties when you were probably caught out of position making too aggressive an attack.

Sure, okay, you're a perfect player with flawless intel at all times on every map and you clearly know everything you need to know. Why are you even asking questions about whether you should take Recon points? Are you just trying to show off how smart you are?

Says the guy that Antietam is not a hard battle. You are an unbelievably stupid hypocrite.

Also, since you are too stupid to understand my question here:

Why not take Politics to max as fast as possible (after Army Org 6) to get maximum rewards from it? Each mission that passes by means one less mission to get that extra bonus from politics. The same goes for Medicine which conserves more troops and equipment (accumulated) the earlier you take it? Then same goes for Training which conserves money. If you know the game then there is not much reason to take Recon before them and by the time you have extra to spend, the game is almost over anyway. 

[Hitorishizuka]

31 minutes ago, HansGruber said:

Says the guy that Antietam is not a hard battle. You are an unbelievably stupid hypocrite.

Also, since you are too stupid to understand my question here:

Why not take Politics to max as fast as possible (after Army Org 6) to get maximum rewards from it? Each mission that passes by means one less mission to get that extra bonus from politics. The same goes for Medicine which conserves more troops and equipment (accumulated) the earlier you take it? Then same goes for Training which conserves money. If you know the game then there is not much reason to take Recon before them and by the time you have extra to spend, the game is almost over anyway. 

Antietam's a joke as CSA. If you don't think it's a joke, you are probably a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger and why you don't understand the immediate value of Recon. It's pretty much a given that you aren't getting the full benefit of better play that Recon would have given you compared to another few percent on the early low cash and manpower rewards anyway.

[veji1]

Antietam is a joke as CSA ? This is the type of stupid comment from boring optimizers that just makes reading forums a chore sometimes. Like any other battle if you are skilled and want to win at all cost and are ready to use any possible string the game gives you, all battles are jokes, hell the game is just a joke of a puzzle. On the other hand Antietam is one of the most fun battles to play in this game as the CSA if you sort of stick to a conservative/realistic game play. To each his own.

[Hitorishizuka]

7 hours ago, veji1 said:

Antietam is a joke as CSA ? This is the type of stupid comment from boring optimizers that just makes reading forums a chore sometimes. Like any other battle if you are skilled and want to win at all cost and are ready to use any possible string the game gives you, all battles are jokes, hell the game is just a joke of a puzzle. On the other hand Antietam is one of the most fun battles to play in this game as the CSA if you sort of stick to a conservative/realistic game play. To each his own.

You're in a topic about optimization of point expenditures and other tactics...and you wander in to complain about "boring optimizers".

You do you, I guess.

[The Soldier]

Never thought I'd see these forums sink so low with a certain 1st state gone.