JonnyH13

I have noticed that many treatises on war, politics, philosophy, etc do not take into account the new possibilities and ideas provided by technological advancement. Theoretically speaking, given the ever increasing processing power of computers (and eventually the human mind if technology advances far enough), that eventually a didactic method would be more efficient in both short term and long term than a dialectic method? Given the increasing processing power, a sufficiently powerful intelligence can test all possible variables and learn the truth (that is knowledge) more efficiently than 2 equal intelligence in dialectic intercourse. True 2 equal intelligence can do much more than 1 but you must keep in mind that that only works when both intelligence trust each other implicitly and are always truthful to each other and at that level of technology, trust is much less efficient than less moral methods. Dialectic is useless when at least one party is deceives and in a highly competitive environment, deception is extremely beneficial when done correctly both for short term and long term gain. I can go farther and clarify more on why I have this opinion but I want to see what others have to say first. I am not encouraging people to lie, cheat and practice deception, I am just pointing out an family-unfriendly aesop. I have a rather dim view on the logical part of the world.

This is probably going to ignite a fire. Please be civil when discussing this. When it comes games, we all know that they are inherently unbalanced, sometimes to an excessive degree, and that makes the game far more difficult than it was intended. At the same time we need to acknowledge that the players themselves need to learn how to learn new tactics and execute working strategies. This presents a problem: where should be draw the line where we determine which must change. Should the game conform to the players, or the players learn how to play the game? Before you post, keep in mind the following: Humans resist change. We cannot shape our true (natural) reality and must play by its rules. Some systems are inherently or even intended to be unbalanced. What is skill? What are exploits? What is the line between both? Humans wish to change the world to their liking. Games have limits. Should we push those limits, both in gameplay and in development? What is balance? Fairness? An illusion? A way to escape reality? Min-Max, skill or exploit? Should we play games to have fun? Or should we play games to improve ourselves? What is the point of playing games? A distraction? Or a learning experience?

It is one of the many problems I have with this game. Often times I can play this in reverse ie not destroy the enemy army but still win the battle since I simply held a piece of ground with a unit of cavalry while ignoring all logical consequences. It would be best in my opinion that if 75% or more of the enemy army is destroyed while your losses are less than say 25% or so you should win the battle regardless of objectives. Maybe a Kill/Loss ratio would also work. No one in their right mind would call any battle where one side is utterly crushed a draw.

Shock cavalry (and all shock units in general) can still dominate in a melee fight even against modern soldiers (no soldier can survive being run over by a formation of horsemen). Key word is "melee". The main problem involving shock units is getting into melee range without being utterly destroyed by enemy fire. Back then it was much harder for cavalry to be shot down before impacting the enemy lines (that is what Pikes were for) but as weapons increased in accuracy, range, and rate of fire, men and horses became rather large targets, easy pickings for the increasingly unskilled soldier (better weapons means the skill requirements to achieve a certain feat gets lower, after all it is much easier to hit a target at 200 meters with a modern scoped rifle than it was to hit it with an unrifled musket). That meant that shock units could no longer get into melee range without taking horrendous losses and therefore were disbanded. That does not mean that shock units simply do not fight well, after all I am quite sure a trained swordsman can win against a equivalently trained modern day soldier in a melee fight (no shooting of course). It is just the situations in which a shock unit is ideal in grows fewer and fewer. UGCW, with the game set to brigade scale and volley fire only, it is quite easy for the shock cavalry to close in and crush the enemy infantry (of course in dealing with bayonets (the equivalent of the pike), it is often disastrous to attack the enemy infantry head on, not to mention the fire you will take if they are able to get off a volley. Flank attacks work so much better.). Like all things, shock cavalry has its uses in the right situations. It is up to the you to make that situation happen. Of course in regards to this topic shock cavalry is quite vulnerable in the trees as they cannot traverse the forest faster than the man on foot. In fact, without a path/road, all units mover very slowly in a forest (another thing that is lacking in this game: the importance of roads). Forests are full of obstacles, some bigger than others. The advantage goes to the being that can move through these obstacles with speed and efficiency. Compare the horse and man, the man wins in the forest. If one is not careful with the horse, they can trip and fall and quite possibly not get up again.

When I meant slow I meant relative to the post war models that used metal cartridges rather than the good old lever.

I am quite sure that there was a carbine version of the Lemat design and the other weapons are revolving carbines instead of pistols (except the maynard but the maynard sheet paper firing system was inferior to the percussion cap). I would prefer pistols though since I regard revolving rifles and carbines to be inferior (or at least much riskier to use) than pistols (think chamber firing and what happens when your hand is holding the barrel. Say goodbye to your hand and arm). As a side note: contrary to what many think of revolvers of the Civil War their reload time was really slow. Look up how to reload a colt navy 1858. It takes forever!

A good hint for you. It is possible to advance game phases without capturing a position or having a timer expire by moving troops to certain parts of the map, most likely the enemy rear of that map phase. You can completely bypass the hornets nest at Shiloh with this method. I do not think this method is a bug as it is logical that if you get bypass the hornets nest and hit the map edge of that phase, you should be able to continue your attack on Pittsburg landing. This may also apply to other maps as well though I have not tested. Another tip though this is arguably a bug is that you can send troops between connecting phases. When the phase on one part of the map ends and you have troops at the map edge (the flag must be over the map border for this to work and the map borders must line up), the troops will transfer over. I have done this at Shiloh and it is quite nice to have an extra 2 or 3 brigades helping Bragg out and flanking the hornets nest. Invest in sharpshooters. They do wonders when appropriately experienced.

The cannon bug pops up whenever the cannons are ordered to halt while limbered. It occasionally happens and to fix it simply move the cannon around a bit. In regards to the poor AI tactics it depends on which AI type you chose. Also looking at the tactical situation, the confederates will have a hard time attacking at all and the scenario map is too small for flanking attacks. Of course the confederates will have a hard time attacking because according to history they did have a hard time. If only the union positioned their forces more efficiently and brought up Steinwehr's division they may have actually repulsed both Ewell and Hill's attack. The confederates really have to blitz in the beginning because once the union become entrenched, the confederates will have little chance of taking the hill or ridges. Like in the pictures, it will be a massacre. Also, for any future games, can you make a battle scenario that spans the entire battle from start to finish? I really find the lack of a continuous game to be a major downside. The constant interruptions and re-positioning take away some replayability from the game as your plans can easily be disrupted if certain troops are moved around from their positions

I am not sure if this has been posted here but there is a problem with the scenario "What if Buford had not held McPherson's Ridge". There currently is no pre-battle briefing for both singleplayer and multiplayer modes and the scenario cannot be unpaused in multiplayer. There is also the problem regarding a lack of Union melee damage unless it is intentional, which does not make sense. There also seems to be a few bugs regarding unit collision during multiplayer on hills, especially the area south of round top and round top itself. Cannister is very overpowered at the moment and confederate brigades still have the ability to regain morale at an insane rate even while fighting. My suggestion is that at a certain morale level, say 5% or 10%, brigades refuse to advance or automatically fall back regardless of orders similar to how generals fall back automatically when near enemies and refuse to respond to orders. Also it would help to increase the morale requirement for charging to 25% or 30% morale as it is unrealistic for zero condition brigades to charge regardless of sides unless they have higher morale than base morale(ie inspired by general). Cannister should kill an average of 30-50 men per gun per volley on clear terrain as the current average of 400 casualties for 4 guns is very unrealistic unless you want to add double cannister as a shot option which that casualty range would be fine(ish). Also I recommend that Pickett's charge lives up to its description of being a huge scenario with the area and brigades of the singleplayer scenario "Pickett charges the Union Center" used. Also, I know I already asked this on the steam community, on Chance to Change History is possible for Slocum's XII Corp and Johnson's division to come as I believe the size of the map is not fully used and it would encourage the confederates to attack earlier. Also as a side note I believe the multiplayer map "Round Tops attacked from the south" or something should have the map extended to peach orchard as sometimes routing confederate brigades prematurely run off the map unable to be used regardless of state.

Contrary to some of the posts above I typically use skirmishers one the front lines as a screen to protect my regular infantry as they advance into gun or melee range. They are particularly useful for soaking up the opening volleys and canister allowing the infantry behind to charge with minimal casualties. The confed skirmishers excel here as they can absorb 2-3 full volleys or a few canister shots before routing. The Union Skirmishers are too flimsy to last long in any given engagement and route very easily though the above can still apply though not as effectively. Typically skirmishers are decimated almost every time they are in play (at least that's what I notice, though it could be just me using the above strategy too eagerly).

Before reading this is not meant to be a complaint, just a question on how to have a chance to win. Unless it is just me it seems like it is very hard if not impossible for the union to win this map against a competent confederate general given that they are outnumbered and have poor quality troops (besides the Iron Brigade. Speaking of quality I wonder how the first day would have went if 2nd corp came instead of the 11th). It is obvious that holding Oak Hill is futile and holding Oak Ridge also extends the line where it can easily be outflanked and crushed and weaken the line as a whole. The same thing can be said to Seminary Ridge to a lesser extent but if that and everything north of it falls the Union lose (13000 Vp to 9000 Vp). It seems to be implied that the Union must destroy the confederates as they come in piecemeal but that task is difficult because of how hard it is to puch the confederates off Herr's ridge, the unpredictable reinforcements, the fact that Johnson's division(I think) may outflank and surround the Union army as they attack, and Early's division coming in to take Culp's Hill late game via attack between Benner's Hill and Wolf's Hill which is heavily forested. If there are enough Union forces to prevent Early from taking Culp's Hill then the other locations such as Seminary ridge would fall. I have played as the confederates several times and all I had to do was wait for all of my reinforcements(besides Early) and then make a massive push mid-game to force the union general to weaken defenses around Cemetery and Culp's Hill which made them prone to an outflanking attack by Early. There is also the possibility of an effective attack from the southern portion of Seminary Ridge using Pender's Division. There are so many possibilities for the confederates and so little troops the Union has to defend so many positions with. Any advice? Please point out anything I missed if I did miss anything.

Condition drops for all units when they fire continuously for some time. It may not seem like it at first but after a few volleys you should see the condition go down a bit.