JJPettigrew

HAve no access to game now, but I recall that in the unit "block" of the organization table appearing the icon of rank when it does not have an attached officer - I take that as minimal recomended. You also can check "command" stat on the unit to see if if remains partly red shadowed

Mostly agree with you (though I would add the "pass of lines" maneuver as an example of units allowable overlapping) as for the game by my (limited) experience on it it does enforce this strictly BUT is not UG:Gett, units try by themselves to avoid being "stacked"... there is still occasions that seems quite odd (i.e. charging cavalry unit from the same direction you just charged with your own infantry

Or you will face the fury of our particular Cato here present MULTIPLAYER DELENDA EST PD BTW I agree him in that at least independent battles must be able to be played versus player .... and advice developers to do so if only for gain selling number discouraging piracy copies

thank you sir, will try as soon as posible

You nailed it AO allows you more men per unit, more units per division and more divisions per corps (if you put cursor on the "+" to upgrade Army org it tells you wich upgrades will be obtained with the next level... )...btw I doubt the usefullnes of having more than 2000 men in a unit but it is allways good been able to do it

Supply system seems having problems... supply units not showing in some battles, and lately (last 3-4 battles) my supply wagon is with 50 men only and I can not take it to normal 120 composition. and imho we should be able to have mre than one if we pay for more supplies.... I (and surely most of you) am currently depending on capturing enemy wagons (a toooo easy task btw with their dumb routes) to keep my troops supplied.

Historical battle armies seems historicaly accurate as you said . Campaign does seem plausible to me, as you said the CSA has been showing equipment quite advanced (my first 1855 rifles were captured ones) and numbers are somewhat inflated -to keep with line I suppose. but it does seem out of bounds.... just played 2nd manassas and Jackson army looked weaker than in the historical battle version (indeed 2 and 3 star veteran most of then)

Have not found yet a direct way of exchanging post two generals "in command".... but If you "buy" a third one you can then make it in three easy steps (as clicking the image of the general in the unit window opens a window to allow him being changerd for one of your reserve and even from the academy).

Maybe I am misundersatnding you... as I think this is indeed implemented.... try barracks tab in post battle screen, you can recruit from the academy quite a buch of different leaders.... and using renowm (upper right button with a capitol on it) you can add even famous high rank commanders to your forces .

It is indeed strange , ok for captured units , but shattered ones should retain a cadre , an empty unit with no weapons and 0/10 men plus its commanding officer if not lost.... on the other hand most men being gone as stragglers never to be seem again seems appropiate.

IA needs take some care with their supply wagons... now you can capture one of them each battle almost routinely, not by using any cunning tactics but they being sent alone to strange places , and even behind your lines.... your own wagons tends to do sometimes the same if you do not care for them (I suspect they try to go were ammo is needed through detours throught no-mans land

haven´t managed to capture any of them, your own generals dos not suffer any ill effect by being shoot down (though sobordinates at division/brigade level does) so I suspect its same rule for opponent. On a somewhat related topic...you can use your general retinue as a cavalry unit to capture supply trains (at least to recapture)

can you really take ut supplies once buyed? did not try that one sadly the weapon options was not available to me .... as said already refitted my army using the last drop

Troops -infantry- change formation (I like to think the asigned commanders give those orders -note you really have to put , and substitute, a commander -with own skill and level- in each unit) from march column to a sort of double line, and then on the charges form a sort of column that shapes mostly a blob if charge goes too far (seems quite appropiate to my eye indeed). Units do not extend to single line (from the double line you see in big (1000+ aprox) units to plug gaps, but imho this would be better treated allowing dividing those units (now the game only allows merging and dividing those merged) than modifying formation system.

Ended my first campaign there for that same reason... sadly saved just as I spent all my money refitting my troops (F11 it as a bug for smoe advertise to be done)

Agree on the campaign sucession of battles , but really like the simulation feeling of the historical battles as they are , the flux between stages of the same battle is much superior in UG:CW than it was on UG:Gett as is frozen part of the battles to start from same exact posiution As an example Shilloh and Antietam battle progresions (played as separate battles not in a campaign) is simply indredible.

Again I think is a matter of taste... though I am quite accostumed to make those formations myself in other games I am seeing as a breath of fresh air that is up to my subordinates to make those decisions... less micromanagement to represent a wider scope, and on some way more credible, as an example when skirmishers shot your column they tend to deploy , even if as a player sometimes I would like to acept extra losses to maintain momentum , but I see more appropiate the current behaviour... BTW up to now the IA is making those decissions quite well, though I miss some kind of flank refusal.

oh this ones! , I suppose you can find those (or their close parents) in TW:Warhammer

Bugs? that list seems more like a limitations/dislikes than bugs Formations - the general look is better, big units deploy in two paalel columns when marching and to different blocks when in line, and they seems more organized than the previous Skirmishers are too in quite a recognisable formation. Unit uniform variation Nope , no IB hat nor LT distinction, and no coluorful zouave Recognisable weapon models in the campaign you can change weapons , a quite extense list of options with full effects. it lacks (or I did not find it yet) this info within battle, other than the range indicator and a tooltip (hard to come by) that indicates close combat/range caracteristic in a descriptive mode. Map contour numbers No contour lines. Very comented feature (lack of) , Personally I think immersion is better without them, but I understand many players like having full control and godlike knowing of the terrain.. Unit & weapon descriptions In battle- poor, tricky to find. In campaign management, superb. full caracteristics , weapons, leader (direct and upper echelons) Better map Depends of your taste...I am sure you can find lots of videos to compare. My first impresion was bad (too clear) and cover treatment is strange (you have to be looking for the cursor shape and associated tooltip, but once you give a few tries it becomes natural. Unit flags (other than the default one) Nope. definitively unit graphic detail is not the best of the game, I think we are all too accustomed to total war (and mods) detail...not to speak those of us who are on miniature painting. It could really use more diversity

Next campaign represents peninsula campaign, so they are not same troops. Even if they are the same units you can consider them being reinforced with veteran troops from another theater (same that we can do recruiting veteran replacements). Even if you rout them (congrats) you do not caught them prisoner, so stragglers have plenty of time to come back and regroup.

As you say, it is imposible to control.... And I have tried frantically to pull them back ...... but in perspective I prefer it to be as it is, Anyway if fallback is allowed it should automatically rout.

What size is the minimal unit? Units in batle are mostly regimental in size -by strenght and name - , but at the campaign force composition screens they are called "brigades"

A tricky one.. first time was a dissmal failure to me at medium (brig) level... It all depends on casualties suffered in the first part (taking the fort), so you must ttake the fort with minimal posible losses... so put one of the starting regiments (and his skirmishers) threatening US reinforcements path and RUN for the fort with the rest. If you did it well should have 4 decent regiments to defend, asign best two to westside defenses, a third on reserve duty behind then and let the fourth out of the fort threatening US flank. Use artillery and reinforcements as said by alado- one of them to worn out the US regiment you feel is going to attack (usually the strongest of those at first line), and reinforcements to work its flanks

not with my gaming PC now so cannot provide screenshot and telling from memory is hard to remenber the exact picture of the icon but all orders icons (the ones you use to double kick, charge...) have an associated tooltip..... Detach skirmishers : Select an infantry unit , one of the order icons will tell detach skirmishers. Push it and a new skirmishers unit appears next to the parent unit (strenght being a % of current parent strenght) Reattach skirmishers : Select an skirmisher unit previously detached from his parent , you should note a order icons (the picture is the same of detach with a ban bar over it) . Push it and the skirmisher unit will return back to the parent unit and merge with it (until now havent found a distance limit) Merge unit. ... have two infantry units of the same division near by if you select any of them you should note an icon whose tooltoip says something as "join division unit" . push it and it will march to the other unit and merge with it, making a new unit with the combined strenght of both. (do not know if iit only works up to a total strenght, but with first campaign scenario for union you can test it works , quite useful to assault the bridge) until now only tested with two units. Separate: The "superunit" merged with the previous option has an order icon that allows you to separate both original units Edited: BTW feeling strange explaining this to a "Ultimate General Focus Tester "

I allways thought the opposite, miniatures rulesets at brigade level allways make ridiculous brigade formations (i.e. Fire6 fury) thats the reason I prefer regimental scale (as in "Regimental Fire & fury" or Johny reb) ...but to represent big battles Im quite liking the compromise reached in this game , instead lots of units and huge maps