Artyom15

I should've pushed ahead just a little bit faster. I managed to kill 17,000 out of the 25,000 Rebels I faced on the first day, so aggressive charging and artillery fire netted me another 3,000 despite half my army being out of ammo. I'm just frustrated that I had a regiment so close to a point I needed to take to win, but drew anyways! Makes me miss battle delay from Gettysburg.

Yeah, I completely get that. The AI makes a lot of dumb decisions and for how good it is? It really isn't as good as a person. My 10th Infantry Regiment managed to accumulate like 1,500 or 1,700 kills to like 40 deaths just from the AI being stupid at Shiloh. I'm still pretty sure that I put all the people who tortured small animals as kids into one unit...

I'd argue more for delayed scaling if that is even possible. If I spend all my cash giving my Infantry M1855's, let me curbstomp the AI for a few battles. Maybe scale at or after the next Grand Battle. Then again I dunno, just seems kinda pointless to upgrade my weapons if the AI gets the same thing instantly.

First I want to say - thanks for fixing the scaling so that it isn't 100% bullshit anymore. Facing down 50,000 Confederate troops with 20,000 Union boys wasn't really the most enjoyable experiences in my time playing this. But I just drew at Shiloh despite having one of my regiments like a hundred yards away from whatever point is the furthest south and to the right of the field. I really needed that rep from a victory, and I completely obliterated the Rebel army (7,000 casualties from a 27,000 strong Union army for me, compared to 20,000 casualties from a 25,000 strong Rebel army.)

That's a thing? I'll have to try it next time I boot up UG. Thank you!

Napoleon is pretty interesting, but the Civil War on a larger scale is something I'd just kill for. The one thing I love about UG is that despite not modeling all the troops in a unit? It stills says a large number, instead of cutting it down to a few hundred.

Can any hint of the setting be given? I'd be so happy if its another Civil War game!

I chose my second favourite option on the list - the multi-person team multiplayer, because the option I would kill for isn't on there that I saw. Being able to change unit facing without having to move a unit. If my troops are on the edge of 70% cover, I don't want to have to fiddle a lot with moving them around to get them to change their facing so they can defend the flank. Half the time they move into poor cover and if I needed a quick facing change and didn't have the time to fiddle with pulling them back into the woods and waiting for them to turn around? It just causes unnecessary casualties. Attack orders do that sometimes, sure, but they also move often when one is issued and don't face the full direction I want. Maybe it's a niche need I have it for, but facing controls would be perfect. Though 2v2 battles would be 100% awesome as well. Maybe small MP campaigns?

Oh, oh man. Darth replied to my post. I don't know what to say! In seriousness though I'm glad to hear that another one is in the works. Hopefully the wait won't be too long!

My friends and I love Ultimate General. It is hilarious to play while on voice chat, and I have gotten hours of fun out of singleplayer in Gettysburg alone. Someone in a recent thread mentioned that the next one will be Ultimate General: Antietam, but it seems to me that the forum/company is now putting most of their effort into Naval Action. Is there another UG in the works, and is it Antietam? I haven't seen anything about it beyond that one post, but I'm also pretty blind so... yeah.