Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

jerryw619

Ensign
  • Posts

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

jerryw619's Achievements

Landsmen

Landsmen (1/13)

2

Reputation

  1. To the Game Developers of “Ultimate General: Civil War” Before you release a “market-ready” version of “Ultimate General: Civil War” I would like to make some pertinent observations. Since I have spent over 800 hours playing the early releases, I offer two justifications for my suggestions: 1) I obviously LIKE the game, mostly, and 2) I have sufficient Experience with it, perhaps, to make some Useful suggestions. 1) As the game has evolved, you have somewhat IMPROVED the play-balance for the Campaign Game, but there are still significant problems. Your major improvement has been to REDUCE enemy troop strength to reflect the Player’s success in previous battles. This is BOTH Realistic and Satisfying to the Player, but a genuine imbalance REMAINS. Having WON every battle except for “Cold Harbor” (which was a “Draw” about which I have more to say later) I found myself facing OVER 70,000 Confederates in the “Richmond Battle” with FEWER than 55,000 troops of my own, DESPITE an “Intelligence Service” estimate of 51k-56k Total Enemy Forces (At earlier points in the game, the Intelligence Service estimate had frequently exceeded 100k). My “career” ended, after barely “losing” the Battle of Richmond; I wound up with the Governorship of New York and a REALLY BITTER taste in my mouth. The HISTORICAL absurdity of the Confederate Forces in April, 1865 Outnumbering the Union Forces is exceeded only by my chagrin at the patent UNFAIRNESS of it. Especially considering how Badly I had previously battered those Rebs. 2) With respect to the aforementioned battle of “Cold Harbor,” I achieved only a “Draw,” despite having Eliminated Every Enemy unit on the map at the end of the battle. I failed to attain “Victory” only because I Failed to Occupy “New Cold Harbor,” which NEVER APPEARED on the map! (Similarly, the feature “Horseshoe Ridge” figured in victory conditions for Chickamaugua, but DID NOT APPEAR on the map.) This MAY reflect a problem with the transition between “phases” of the battles in question. Whatever the cause, the result is a Genuine Bummer. 3) Even in the most recent version I have played (0.96), enemy units I have forced to “surrender” have, if “recaptured” by enemy cavalry, resumed status as FULL STRENGTH combatants! As both History and Common Sense indicate, the FIRST thing to befall a “captured” unit is its Disarming by the capturing force. Even if subsequently “liberated” by friendly forces, such a unit COULD NOT function as an Effective Combat Unit. Please, JUST FIX THIS. 4) With the existing unit structure, even at the Highest “Organization Level,” it is NOT POSSIBLE for a Corps to contain more than 24 Brigades (4 Divisions per Corps, 6 Brigades per Division). Yet some battle set-up screens show possible strengths of 25 Brigades per Corp. Please Fix This, too. 5) In the case of multi-day battles, the placement of forces on days subsequent to the opening day are FREQUENTLY illogical and highly Unfavorable to the Player. I understand there may be “historical” justification for SOME relocation of SOME forces, but what often happens both disadvantages the Player AND eliminates a significant part of his Legitimate Discretion as Commander. Parting shots: The Historical versions of battles are, overall, relatively well balanced: choosing the “Major General” level of difficulty should provide sufficient challenge even for highly proficient Players. As with virtually ALL games of this genre, Battle Casualties in proportion to Total Troops Engaged are MUCH TOO HIGH to sustain any claim of Historical Credibility. The BLOODIEST battle of the American Civil War, Gettysburg, saw about one-third casualties on the Confederate side, and less than a third for the Union. The overwhelming majority of battles never even approached these levels. There was greater attrition of forces due to disease, desertion, and exhaustion than to wounds in battle. Complete Tactical AND Strategic Withdrawal in order to avoid troop losses should be an OPTION for Commanders in ALL battles. When disbanding severely depleted units and returning their soldiers to the force pool, it should be possible to retain the survivors’ “veteran status,” i.e., positive attributes accrued in combat. Perhaps troops from “disbanded” units could be placed into a separate “veteran pool” from which soldiers could be drawn WITHOUT having to “pay” additional “recruitment costs” for THOSE veterans. It seems to me that coverage of the post-Gettysburg war is entirely too sparse, perhaps reflecting an understandable albeit regrettable Haste to get this product to market. The Vicksburg Campaign deserves more attention, in my opinion, than the little “Bayou Fourche” affair which seems to me to have been included to Substitute for a more complete elaboration of the Western Theater in 1863. In the West, at least the Atlanta Campaign and the “Battle of Nashville” in 1864 deserve serious treatment. In the East, the “Battle of the Wilderness” (May 5-7, 1864) and the “Battle of Spotsylvania Court House” (May 8-21, 1864) deserve treatment separate from “Cold Harbor.” Phil Sheridan’s Shenandoah Campaign in 1864 is another worthy subject. The entire final year of the war in the East appears to be crammed into the “Battle of Richmond” phase of the Union Campaign Game, which seems to me a particularly infelicitous abridgement. Moreover, it is frankly SILLY to require the Confederates to Capture Washington, D.C. in order to win. The Much Likelier “winning” outcome for the South would be sufficient battlefield success to cause Lincoln to lose the 1864 Presidential Election to McClellan, who would likely have “made peace” with the Confederacy, which “peace,” at minimum, would have permitted the continuance of Slavery if not actual Secession. Having made the previous criticisms, I must say, Overall, GOOD JOB, People!
×
×
  • Create New...