Andre Bolkonsky
-
Posts
1,129 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Andre Bolkonsky
-
-
3 hours ago, Mr. Mercanto said:
No seriously, its a great film historiographically. When you have Bynum and Blight as advisers, you really can't go wrong.
At the risk of repeating myself.
The five most deceptive words in the English language are 'based on a true story'.
Completely unwatchable, pandering to a desired storyline, Hollywood history wrapped in a period-correct wrapper to cover up its flaws.
I have no more to add; except if you think this is a truly great movie, my opinion of you has suffered irreperable harm.
-
16 hours ago, Mr. Mercanto said:
If you want a Civil War movie, "The Free State of Jones" is probably, from an Academic standpoint, one of the best Civil War films ever made. -
I've seen this thing on Steam for awards for this and that rewarding perfect attendance with an orange slice. But I haven't seen any nominations for Ultimate General: Civil War. So I thought I'd take the initiative.
Anyone who knows me knows I have a wish list of things I'd like to change about this game. However, I have an even longer list of things I truly enjoy about this ground breaking game.
First, the fluidity of movement is unlike anything I've ever seen. Miniatures will always be my preferred gaming style, but UG:CW is miniatures come to live.
Second, the visual appeal is mesmerizing. The beautiful maps that degrade with combat over time? Captivating.
Third, I've watched the evolution of the AI from Shiloh onward, rather amazing how well the AI replicates the manoeuvres of a battlefield of the War of the Rebellion.
Ergo. I am proud to announce that the 'Andre' for 2017 is awarded to @Nick Thomadis and @sternerfor best game of the year. This prestigious award is worth nothing, and this post is barely worth reading, but that being said, hell of a great game.
I am looking to more of the same in 2018!
Merry Christmas, and God Bless Us; Everyone
-
11
-
-
" I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union. "
Signed,
Abraham Lincoln
1863
-
5
-
-
16 hours ago, Koro said:
This truly. If one day they work out how melee should work, anything Rome related would be amazing
They have shown a talent for linear tactics; I strongly suggest they continue playing to their strength.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:
What happened after the two weeks?
I showed up on this forum and began bugging the hell out of everyone with a barrage of questions.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Keenonthedaywalker said:
10/10! Okay, so not everyone will agree with me here, but this game is truly magical! I just love the fact that you can buy better weapons and supplies and the fact that those report messages come out good or bad depending on how the battle went! Also I think they should make a American Revolution one and maybe if they would ever try it, like a medieval one maybe.
Review on Steam, please
-
Wow, that sounds remarkably similar to how I felt after playing the game for two weeks.
Welcome to the forum.
-
1 minute ago, Captain Orso said:
I know.
I thought I was clear in my previous posts. I want to combine a brigade, which has lost its leader, with a brigade which has a leader, so that the leader of the brigade with a leader is leading all the men of both brigades.
I know that currently the combined-brigade is put under the command of the divisional commander. I'm arguing for being able to put the combined brigade under the command of the highest ranking leader of the two combined brigades, especially if there is only one leader between the two brigades. IF the combined-brigade and no leader at all, then it would make sense for the division commander to take command. But before that, there is a brigade commander who can do the job.
Your argument has merit. While It is a virtual certainty the game at this point will not be revised in any meaningful way, I can tell you a full examination of the OOB command structure is on the list of requested enhancements for future projects.
-
1 minute ago, Captain Orso said:
I know how to do the combining. My biggest issue is that I would like to create more than 1 combined brigade within one division.
You cannot. The divisional commander will assume command of the divisional brigade. You can only have one of them per division, and there is a size limitation to the unit.
Understand also there will be a degredation in command for your other brigades within the division, and the divisional brigade has a morale penalty on top of everything else.
-
11 hours ago, Captain Orso said:
In July '61 the Federal Army was still trying to catch up to requirements in every way. So brigades were very often lead by full colonels and divisions by brigadiers. I could go on and on about how efforts to sort out good from bad leaders was taking place, and cases where good leaders were being sorted out, while bad leaders were advanced through political and personal agendas. But that's not the subject I'm focusing on.
The game assumes that when a brigade leader is killed or wounded, that basically nobody takes command, or that whichever inherent leader who takes command is always completely incompetent to fulfill the role. This is historically not the case. The quality of many leaders shined through in exactly such cases. But I'm not requesting to spontaneously generate a good leader coming to light per random chance either.
I'm also not asking to create "super brigades". I am asking to merge the command of a brigade missing a leader into a brigade with a leader while staying within the allowed size of brigades per the rules. I don't want to cheat nor circumvent reason nor logic nor reality.
The easiest path to creating a divisional brigade is to isolate the two brigades, and give the merge order to the brigade you want to be dominant for reasons of command or weaponry. The desired consort brigade must be relatively close to the command brigade. It is difficult to do this while they are both in line while under fire, one of them tends to break and run before the merger is complete; but it can be done.
-
5 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:
It's really not bad so long as you realize the fortifications are traps and the town cover is incredibly good. Then just play skirmisher games and run your reinforcements up and it's fine. The train can't really do anything to you if you're sitting in 100% building cover.
I do everytying I can to maintain and keep my two core infantry and two core artillery at close to full health. When I get to camp, every man of those units has an intrinsic value when I break them up and rebuild my army.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, quicksabre said:
Do they usually attack? I tried this once (can't remember which patch) and they just hung out on the victory point and I had to cross back when my reinforcements showed up (or rather, I just restarted the campaign).
I can only remember one game where they entrenched in the town and made me come and get them, but that was way back when the AI was basically unbeatable for a variety of reasons. The last campaign I started they came across in mass and were shredded by line infantry and artillery whose arc of fire was approximately the far side of th ebridge.
-
1
-
-
Phillipi has always, always been difficult.
It is much easier to pull beyond the river, break the Rebels when they try to cross the bridges, then re-take the town and begin reducing the train.
-
26 minutes ago, william1993 said:
When did people start knocking over public libraries and burning books? Where do they do that at?
I'm happy to have this chat offline. Just pm me. My apologies for detracting from the purpose of the thread.
-
21 minutes ago, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:
I think you are correct. Of course, in this day it's a disgrace that men like Buford (and others like Meade, Reynolds, etc) are not still celebrated. The public is more interested in the latest Kardashian...
No; they are more interested in re-writing history, tearing down the memorials of the past, and creating a present based on an illusion of something that has never existed in order to build a future that scares the hell out of me.
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:
I don't know how I forgot the greatest general of his age...
Brevet Lieutenant General Winfield Scott. Had Scott been more fit in 1861, or if the war had broken out just five years earlier, I think you would have seen it brought to an end more swiftly. Scott's contributions to American military theory were immeasurable, and he was the literal and figurative mentor of many of the top officers on either side, especially Lee.
I have a painting of General Scott in my living room, painted by Paul Penrose called "The General is older than the Capitol" which was what Lincoln was reputed to have said before meeting him for the first time. The painting depicts General Scott, circa 1861, in his study with portraits on the wall of him in his brigadier's uniform of 1814, and as a major general in Mexico in 1846. It's not a style of painting I would usually hang (I prefer darker oils, whereas this is a very bright and vibrant water color) but the subject matter attracted me to it. I can't find an image online of it or I would attach it.
At first glance, I thought you were going with Winfield Scott HANCOCK. Hancock, the Superb. Another excellent choice.
He is a man who lived up to his namesake's glorious reputation.
In my head to this day, Winfield Scott voice sounds exactly like Sydney Greenstreet eating creamed bemuda onions with Custer in 'They Died with their Boots On'
-
1
-
-
With all apologies to Fredrick Lander, my heart belongs to but one general in the Civil War: Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson
A man who feared nothing but God.
We all know his story. His genius. His resolve. His sheer audacity. I won't bore you with it here.
I pray to the Lord when my time comes, I echo his last words and say: 'let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees'.
-
3
-
-
There is more than one way to skin a cat . . . .
Well Done.
-
2 hours ago, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:
Thanks for reading!
I moved this over to the list.
-
12 minutes ago, LAVA said:
Each era has it's own challenges.
Napoleonic wise, armies were drawn to large open areas where cavalry could operate effectively. That is, of course, not to say that terrain was not important, because armies always sought the high ground. Think most folks are aware, for example, of the British deployment at Waterloo on the Mount-Saint-Jean escarpment.
So terrain wise, a Napoleonic game will play far differently, than a Civil War game. And there are tons of other differences as well.
As a miniatures player long ago, I found the to-and-fro dynamic found in the Civil War far more entertaining than the set piece bludgeoning of Napoleonic warfare.
So making a Napoleonic game which is not only true to history but actually fun to play is going to be a real challenge.
The Reverse Slope of the Hill, terrain which Arthur Wellsley had in his back pocket for decades.
Miniatures rock, still my most favorite of all gaming modes. But finding players in this day and age is a bit of a challege, I'm afraid.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, JaM said:
True, yet regarding scale, even small actions during Napoeonic times like for example Napoleon campaign in Italy, was a lot larger in scale than entire American Revolutionary war.. deployed forces were typically just brigade size at most, sometimes even smaller, while casualties in those battles were quite small.. I would say you would have a problem to find single significant Napoleonic battle that would be of the same small scale, as the biggest American Revolutionary battle was..
so in that case, single unit would have to be battalion size, because usually entire force was just a mere brigade.. Imagine playing ACW battles where you have just 1-2 infantry brigades for most of battles..
Bloodiest battle of American Revolution was probably Bunker hill (411 British vs 1054 US dead) followed by battle of Camden (1050 US dead vs 314 British).
In total, US lost 7174 men and 8241 was wounded during entire 8 years long American Revolution. (The Toll of Independence by Howard Peckham (The University of Chicago Press, 1974)) British losses were not published but would be quite similar.
As you say, the Americans lost roughly 7,000 men to death in combat; and around 17,000 to disease, most of whom had been captured by the British. I have always found that stat rather curious, but unsurprising given the conditions.
-
11 hours ago, Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf said:
Well, they just asked us on their FB site if we want UG: Napoleon or UG: American Revolution. I have this feeling the base of the next game is already laid.
Smart man
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, Friedrich said:
Honestly I would prefer if they had just created more dynamic battles, like Gettysburg had, from the outset rather than giving us a mess of battles which while well crafted are essentially railroaded. That said if the entire game isn't going to be redesigned I think better conveying how things should play out, similar to your suggestion, is the least they could do.
Well, for those who might not know this, allow me to provide a bit of background . . .
The first iteration of this game was Gettysburg. Only Gettysburg. But it proved that their tactical map system would stand out in a crowded field. I saw it on Steam, it interested me, but I never purchased it until after UG:CW came out.
Second up was Civil War. Civil War took everything Gettysburg had to offer, and expanded it into a campaign. I followed a discussion about it on another forum, I watched from afar, and the moment I began playing I was hooked. The game is not perfect, I have an entire laundry list of little things I want fixed. But this game is the closest thing I've ever seen to tabletop miniatures and I have nothing but respect for Sterner and Dartis for putting this thing together.
As I understand it, this game is basically done. It will be updated, maybe a few minor battles will appear, but all in all I think it is done. I know a few intrepid individuals who are waiting for the 'final' version before beginning work on their mods, and that time is soon.
Why? Something is cooking. They won't tell us what, but the aroma in the kitchen is intriguing. All those suggestions and enhancements they have been busy collecting about this game will show up in that one. And, if the next game is as big a jump forward as Gettysburg to Civil War, please let me know when I can pre-order because I will be first in line.
For those who want to wait, @Mr. Mercanto has already begun a petition drive for the 'UG:CW II in 2027' campaign. That game will be friggin' awesome! Get with him on where to sign up.
-
1
-
The Civil War: Everything You Wanted to Know but Were too Afraid to Ask!
in General Discussions
Posted
If we're going to TV miniseries, 'The Blue and the Gray' was shot in Northwest Arkansas in my youth. You can see me in several scenes. In one scene where some actors are talking, you can see me simoultaneously drinking at a party from one camera angle, dancing with a girl from another camera angle, and making out with the same girl in the hayloft from another camera angle.
I learned a lot about film making that day, and if you look good on camera and actually bother to act the director will push you up the ladder of on-air screen time.
Good times.