Speedkermit

The advantage of UG:C is that its very compact in terms of there only being two factions, and basically fought over relatively small area. My fear for a napoleonic version of this game is that the Napoleonic wars would be a much bigger undertaking with multiple nations and fought over multiple regions. Unless the team focus on a specific campaigns. The Peninsular campaign in particular comes to mind. more than anything I'd love to use this game engine to take charge of Wellingtons army and re-fight Salamanca, Vittoria etc.

This was very similar to how I handled this battle. But what a bloodbath it was. I (Confederates) lost over 20,000 men, but I literally wiped out the entire Union army. I wasn't happy with how it went, and I noticed a fair few bugs with this battle.

I liked HOI2 and HOI3, and bought both of them long after they had been released. However I didn't know of their reputation for releasing broken buggy games. Anyway, lets get back to talking about how good Ultimate General is.

Paradox have an excellent reputation for finishing what they begin - two or three years after release. Perhaps I shouldn't pay them for two or three years either?

My steam review for Ultimate General Civil War Get this game!Get it now!Early access and already loads of content.Loads more content on the way.Brilliant tactical wargame, with a challenging AI opponents and dozens of battles already included. Change the course of history and give the arrogant yankees a spanking, or play as the Union and put Johnny Reb back in his place.If you like "total war" but feel that the TW series has become too "dumbed down" then try this game out. My steam review for Hearts of Iron 4 The AI for this game is dead on arrival, be warned! Also don't expect to be fighting the second world war, as all plausibility goes out of the window when you see Australia invade Germany in 1940 with 60 divisions, or the axis powers pour millions of men into the Sahara desert and the jungles of the Congo. Watch in horror as The Mexican army rampages through Japan, and the Greeks capture a completely undefended Berlin. There are some good ideas in there, but it's all ruined by the utterly appalling AI. Do not pay forty pounds to be an alpha-tester for Paradox. Do not touch this abortion with a barge pole. This isn't a game, it's a scam. Literally the worst piece of software I have ever seen. Do not buy! Do not buy! Do not buy!

Your'e talking about Hearts of Iron 4 is my guess. In which case I agree. The worst piece of software I have ever purchased. An abortion of a game.

So I won at Antietam on the second attempt. Odd AI behaviour, it didn't attack at all during the first and second phases of the battle. However it did launch a huge attack from the southeast (Burnsides bridge) during the final phase, in conjunction with an attack on the rest of the line. I have never seen the AI do this before. Do you guys think it's a bug or just the AI trying something different. It nearly worked after all.

Their rate of fire will be much slower.

This was an interesting article. The fascinating thing about the ACW for me was the sheer intensity with which it was fought. Never before had there been a war where there were so many battles so frequently.

It depends on several factors, how many brigades in the corp, and how long the battle lasts. For most side-battles you often don't need to re-supply any units at all. For a really big battle like Antietam you need to take the maximum amount possible, and even then it might not be enough.

I'll take a look at this. I did watch your other Antietam video - well played sir. You might want to look into getting a quieter mouse. The clicking noises are louder than your voice

I have some feedback. Regarding melee. If my brigade defeats an enemy brigade that charges it, it then proceeds to leave cover and mill about in the open in front of it's positions. With the result that other enemy brigades shoot it to pieces. It's quite annoying to be on the defence, an enemy brigade charges mine, and is repulsed. My brigade then leaves cover only to be shot to pieces and flanked as I try to get it back into it's original position. More often than not the brigade takes huge casualties and routs. I would also like to see more control over artillery, for example I would like to option of holding fire until enemy units are in canister range, Supply perhaps needs adjusting? At Antietam I always run out of ammo, even though I take the maximum amount of supplies possible. Morale, Perhaps needs to be toned down, or recovers too easily? Annihilated units that have been routed over and over again and reduced to less than 30% of their original strength keep returning to the fight. This would never happen in real life.

As confederates, I find that I have no choice but to use re-bored farmers. They're ok as long as the brigades equipped with them are at full strength.

Anteitam! Wow what a fight. Well I lost, but I think it's possible to win if I do a few things differently. Until the final wave I was doing very well. The Union were losing three casualties to every one of mine, then the final wave attacked the sunken road, and while I was attending to another part of the battlefield they pushed my men out of the defences. By the time I noticed what had happened I lacked the combat power to counter-attack. But I learned some valuable lessons for the next attempt. Mount a stout defence of Nicodemus Hill, here you can really make the Union bleed. The key is massed artillery just behind your infantry line. Every battery you can scrape together. Instruct your artillery to hold fire until the enemy is in canister range. Long range shooting isn't worth the cost in ammo, and ammo is going to be critical in the later phases. You really need to look after your artillery as I believe well handled artillery is critical to obtaining a victory. Again massed artillery just behind the infantry at the sunken road is essential to beating off the massive attacks during the second and third phases, every single battery you can spare, also position every spare infantry brigade you can manage to support the sunken road. I lost the battle here because I didn't do this.

My way of dealing with Malvern Hill was relatively straightforward. I withdrew all my units and conceded the field to the Union. I figured the cost involved in trying to win this one wasn't worth the reward. The rest of the campaign has been ok so far up to Anteitam, which I will fight tonight. I have about 54,000 men against 117,000 yankees. It's going to be very very tough.

Imagine this game engine being used for battles like Borodino, Austerlitz, or Salamanca. It would be awesome!

As well as the army building option. I really love the look and visual style of the game.

Actually a large number of steam posters called you out as a sad, entitled, brat who's just had a baby tantrum. Doing it again here is even more pathetic.

I tend to use my 1st and 2nd corps alternately in the minor battles, so as to give some experience to all my brigades. It's also a little immersion thing I just like to do, and give the men in my 1st corp some respite

Perhaps you have heard of Battlefield 1, or Verdun? I believe there's now a WW1 mod for Hearts of Iron 4 (lol) if you can cope with the horribly broken AI.

I don't think such dynamism is possible in this game, as there are just too many "what ifs" involved in such a large conflict. UG:G alone featured up to 30 different scenarios for a single battle.

Bored farmers...

I think they already have a masterpiece here.