civsully1

Well AB, I loved this game. So my first PC wargame was Gary Grisby's Carrier Force 1983 for the Apple 2E! But here's one from 2008 that reminds me the most of this game and it is War Plan Pacific. It's a fun game without the complicated stuff that require a advanced degree to play! Super easy to open and play right away. The battle lines are fun to watch when the two forces find each other. A wargamer's version of Hide and Seek. Here's the link below to check out! Apologies to the Civil War purists here that it isn't directly related to Ultimate General. But what's one to do awaiting the next patch and final version of UGCW???? And if that isn't a good enough excuse then just blame AB...he started it!! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/KE_Studios/WPP/images/screen_6.jpg

Ahhh squinting at the terrain effects modifer tables.....direct and indirect fire tables......I missed AH so much awhile back I went on ebay and bought the entire collection of the General on CDs!!! Still a lot of fun reading them cover to cover. I wonder if anyone still plays the board games. I've got half a closet filled with old games! Guess that makes me a closer gamer........

Thanks for posting the link Aetius! I really find it helpful to see a visual reference to an issue. Kudos!

1) I concur with this statement. It seems whatever side you play you suffer your casualties, carry them over into the next battle and have to refit. But for the AI it doesn't seem to be the case. It appears to get full/near historical forces without regard to the losses suffered in the previous battle/s. Of course you get some small benefit like minus quality of firearms or a small deduction of starting forces for the AI. But when one is lucky enough (in my case) or skilled enough (for most) to cause massive enemy casualties it just doesn't seem to be reflective for the next battle. 2) Boy did I find that out after Antietam! Killed 59000 union but lost 27000. And since then I'm at a huge disadvantage in the following battles where I am fielding just 2 Corps of 1800 man brigades. Now facing Stones River and I had to reluctantly spend reputation for just 3500 men to fill my 3rd corps with 3 new 1000 man brigades. Gadzooks! I just didn't understand how to grow my army fast enough from when I first started. I focused on getting better weapons early when I should have been forming more units. Lesson learned here for sure. And not a game issue. Still just an unfinished game and so addictive! WoW.

Appreciate your comment Wright! Thx

Touche AB....Touche!!!!

Yes thanks CJLP! This is a gem of a list!!!

Was thinking about General Leadership as modeled in the game. What made think of this is when I was "awarded" General Lee after a battle. Of course I accepted this fine offer and put him in charge of a corps. But it just didn't seem in step with the level of leadership and the point of the campaign where he entered into. Nor of course in actual history. Maybe a consideration is to have starting out for both sides a "General of the Army" based upon the historical timeline of the war. Each General of the Army would offer certain levels of performance over the course of the war. Impact would be for the Union that the leadership would at first be more negative while the CSA would be more positive in terms of effectiveness say in battle. This would obviously change as the war goes on as it did in reality. I'm guessing the smart folks here as play testers/experts/gifted players probably have already thought about or suggested this to the developers. But as it came up to me, I thought I'd just throw it out into the forum and see if it floats or sinks. Thanks!

Link?

Hey great Aetius! Look forward to watching your battles. Thanks for the link!

Nice list Jamieva and some I've never read! Thanks!

Never a truer statement spoken Koro! My costly victory in fighting at Antietam is showing it's affect at Fredericksburg. Very unlikely I will hold onto to earn a draw. As not enough units in depth along the expanding line to Telegraph Hill. Combined with not enough artillery to field in each phase of the battle. So unique for each player especially given their skill level of play. I continue to be amazed how the game is continually changing and improving as patches are released. And everyone is entitled to say how they like or dislike a game. But I find more challenge in this game than others I've played over the years. One thing is certain that many of Youtube videos from 3 or 4 months ago are certainly way out of date. Still good for basic game play but the patches make this version now look like a totally new game in many ways. Would enjoy seeing one of the better players due a new series using the most current patch.

Amen!

Yeah for the CSA on BG when I first started playing over a couple of months ago I tried building up to 2000 brigades with the best weapons I could buy. This approach set me back as I've found early on. I used reputation to get better guns too. All this has hindered me fielding 3 full corps for the larger battles. Have learned a lot of lessons the hard way! But rather than start over I'll just keep playing and making mistakes to get a better handle on all the nuances of this game. Appreciate your comments Wright29....Thanks!

Timely question and interesting too. I've been wondering at the current patch level if one was to begin a new campaign say at BG level, what would be the ideal brigade growth plan starting out? Would it be different from the original introduction of the early access version? Any thoughts on differences between CSA and Union?

My contribution here is, The Story of the Civil War, by John Codman Ropes, first published in 1894. He was a highly respected military historian of the time. This work is in 3 volumes. He fell gravely ill at the time he was starting on the 3rd volume and asked his long time friend and fellow member of the Massachusetts Historical Society, retired Army Colonel William Roscoe Livermore (whose pic you see to the left) to finish it for him. This three volume set stands out from most works on the Civil War in several ways. It was the first work to include topographical maps. At the time, it was practically impossible to place each map in its specific chapter. So they were mounted on the inside back cover. Later in the third volume Livermore had smaller, fit to page maps within the text. But still retained the larger maps at the back. Another unique aspect was the large amount of historical documents that are referenced throughout. Of great interest are references to the actual correspondences from leaders to generals, generals to generals, that shaped policy and tactics. You won't believe what you will read here!!!!! Finally the book was written as to be not only a history of the war but a critique as well. And as a teaching tool for cadets too. A good part of the first volume really gets into the; why's the North and South got into the war. Yes I know easy...it was about slavery. But it's other things too and that was more interesting to me. Then FINALLY the war starts. And the books covers the campaigns throughout. This isn't for the casual reader but more for those deeply interested in military history. The things you'll discover about decisions, the "why he didn't attack" and other "whys" while reading this will surprise you. The correspondences alone are fascinating!! There's so much here...it's worth the read for the avid civil war person. Oh and why Livermore's pic for me? One of the founding fathers of war gaming in the United States!!! First to introduce table top war games as a way to teach tactics. AND, I got to live in the house he lived in 1878 when he was assigned to Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Enjoy the books!

Thanks Wright for your explanation!

At a decision point to upgrade overall Corps Attributes to the third level....would like opinions as to selecting... Defender, Attacker, or Leader

The good ole days! Impressive FS....very impressive!!

Thanks Soldier for the redirect to the link!

"Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray! So I guess this makes you the "Bill Murray" of UGCW AP!!!!

Have you guys looked at the Weapons Charts done by Tokiedian? If so do you see correlation with the charts and your own observations in your own artillery usage? Soldier, when you do your retests I look forward to your assessment on battery size. And I've begun to wonder if the battery size in terms of effectiveness/damage depends on the cannon type??? In the early part of my playing this game I thought "more was better" and maxing out my batteries. Then I read that probably isn't the case and that a 6-10 gun battery is almost as good. Anyhow look forward to reading more about your results! Thx

So where does this leave the Napoleon in this discussion? And concerning the Ordnance, according to Tokiedian's Weapons Guide, (IF I read it right) that the Ordnance is one of the lowest ones in causing damage. But very strong in accuracy and fire rate. It seems we have a cannon (Ordnance) that has volume and accuracy but doesn't do comparable damage??? So my question to you Sykes is, "Why the Ordnance over the Napoleon?" I haven't had much experience with the Ordnance. Maybe I should be??

Hey Aetius just curious....how many guns did you have in each battery?

Now THAT was a clever and witty question to be sure!!!!! Well done Wright29!!!