JJPettigrew

In fact up to my knowledge unit experience was a real problem along the war , specially in the north with its no replacemnt politic. Revisiting the rate at which skills are reduced due to incorporate new recruits would help to avoid extreme experience reduction due to (moderate) losses, and allowing merging units on camp (representing veteran brigades being rebuilded from veteran regiments remnants)

and rapid reload spends (at least it should by logic...) spend ammo at a faster pace , so marksman ftw

Fully agree, fact is that big battles feels much better to me in his historical play-it-alone format.

As I play more UG:CW I am much liking the compromise reached, as you said for those battles requiring regiments "brigades" are made with regimental numbers and brigade leader represented on the field (i.e. depot capture battle with the south prior 2nd Manassas) but in big battles having brigade formations and only corps commanders on the map makes the game enjoyable and clean.

Oh I knew that the photo did not match the name... I choosed Pettigrew as nick by his loose bonds with spain ....then searching for a image found this (pender) one....who happens to have an astonishing phisical similarity with myself so as to be an ancestor.....I could not resist

[APPLAUSE] back to 10 in usability Time to retake for the new patch , changes looks promising

The miniature soldier battle feeling, joined by the movement and management, fell in love with painting arrows to move on UG_gett, now the added posibility of "drawing" a line for multiple formations at same times definitively is 10 points on this feature ( perhaps 9.8 until a shortcut to pause/unpause is created) . Being able to complete a big battle in quite a detail and short time is a fresh gust of wind.

In short : I think not. Formed masses of men standing shooting one another are not up to that age firepower (even before machinegun are taken on account) even in first 1914 stages or forgotten theaters. Maybe an austro-prussian, french-prussian or Crimean war could fit.

The facts are : you need a number of CORPS to be allowed to progress,, and withouth the proper number of brigades you can have a difficult time in some others.. being able to field 2500 men in a brigade is good, but filling those brigades with the limited number of recruits available you can be surprised in the next battle withouth sufficient number of brigades. .... of course this can be avoided with careful planning due our capacity to "see the future" and knowing the requeriments of future battles

truly even a commander can rescue troops (did it myself) .. but that is because commanders retinue are troops that can be shooted at too, yours probably vanquished as the enemy unit shot them down. Have not seem yet artillery being tactically captured (that is, usable by your side in the middle of a battle instead of guns being available at camp) but this is indeed ok, even if defender do not disable the guns , horses would be missed, and few infantrymen would be able to man the guns properly.

Lorenz is perhaps the most balanced weapon relative to costs, but only is seem available in numbers for a short time (from my own experience with the campaign). I made myself extensive use of farmers (captured) even as federal...due to money shortage as I did not follow the wise advice of not trying to maintain veteran brigades at top numbers... and the recruit troops mede good use of them until I was able to substitute them

Spanish independence war (peninsular war for englishmen) is indeed one elegant way to make a campaign game on napoleonics maintaining troop numbers manageable.... but I think traslating this system properly to napoleonics is not as straightforward as it seems (as much as I would love seeing that being done). ACW has its own idiosincrasy.

In fact the normalization makes great to have a historical feeling....this is XIX century, you do not stop a full brigade to allow his first lines to make low effectivity shots from long range to the enemy, thats skirmishers' job (so is right skirmishers range do depend on weapon)

my fault... firewall at the office prevents me from opening steam forums, shame and guilt on me

nothing about division commanders there ....out of the videos at least Take in account some users have a hard time following spoken english, and then others have bad conection/read FAQs in locations were seeing a video can be out of place.

That (superb) game were definitelly REGIMENTAL sized, it showed every regiment, even really tiny ones, and as you remember scenarios were limited in size. This (great) game is not same scale, greater level of abstraction on units leading to better playability of bigger scenarios, so a regimental flag may not be "correct" in this units Said that choosing a second flag (and different uniforms btw) would be quite a wellcome addition to add flavour to the game

Sounds as something on the line of old Sid Meiers bonus morale for having flanks and rear covered by friendly troops at short distance transformed to a malus if it is not fullfilled...sound appropiate indeed

Does any you have any example of a representative size native units other than in trans-missisipi theater (that is far of the action currently represented in the game) ? (No pun, real curiosity , I allways thought indians being active only in frontier fort war by both sides)

Not really, you assign a leader to every unit and division, and at least the unit one does affect the unit in battle - as you can test if you try fight with a unit which leader has fallen , not really sure of the divisional commander in battle (I suspect a modification in unit leader ratings) divisional commaders represented as current "corps" ones would be surely overkill, too micromanagement. this probably would be a heavy fault if the game engine were to be adapted napoleonic wars , but -to my allegedly limited knowing- chain of commad in CW was far more dinamyc, divisions being (specially south ones) more an administative organization than a "element of maneuver"

great list of advices guernica for the campaign against the IA I would avoid using napoleons... too tempting placing them near the enemy and attrition them, so I mix the 10 ordinance with howitzers ,good damagge from sheltered areas and low rate of fire, so less ammo expended.... against a player they would be too defenseless against cavalry tactics described by Guernica

I agree with that 2000 being the balance point , unit are quite resilient at that point, and the detached skirmishers (about 300) are a force to take account for.. Last but not least its a pretty round number that allows quite easy to weigh the unit state: at a glance youo know if it is untouched, deployed their skirmishers, or heavily battered.

maybe it even exists... the lack of even a draft manual (that I have been able to find at the least!) is kind of disgusting... I would like to see tham having a severe malus to its order penalizing melee and impeding fire. BTE the draw a line efature is really a great feature, that will realy shine if/when we are able to play with live opponents...against the AI pausing and micromanaging positions to better benefit from terrain is tempting as more effective

from my point of view the campaign is not designed as an strategic/operational game we leading the war , but a tour of duty of our force through the war, testing our tactical skill. To that end I like IA being able to keep pace not making dull the rest of the war after some early succeses (unavoidable against any IA that does not cheat) .

If you like huge units try "join division" to merge two big ones (do not really know if there is an actual limit on maximun).... but I find them only useful for very puntual task (i.e. assaulting a bridge) and maybe when one of their leaders is killed (I am assuming the leader of the second unit taking command...but no definitive information). Game mechanics (more precisely game perceived mechanics until a manual confirms so) make medium units more useful.... - you cover more front with 2x1500 units than 1x 3000 - you can find flanks easier with more units, yours will be more protected. - a unit (probable exception artillery firing canister) shots -seems to shot- to ONE other unit so if you charge with two units one of them has more possibilities of the charge arriving to its target - In general if something bothers a unit you save half your power if the strenght was divided in two.

in the site http://www.ultimategeneral.com/ultimate-general-civil-war/ they promise these additions in a couple of months... Battle of Fredericksburg Battle of Stones River Battle of Chancellorsville Battle of Gettysburg Battle of Chickamauga Battle of Cold Harbor Battle of Richmond Battle of Washington + 13 small battles, unique for each side, summing up to 26 different engagements