Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About dutmistrz

  • Rank
  1. dutmistrz

    2nd Battle of Bull Run

    I agree, just let know how many brigades you bring in the battle and how many men they have in average. 2nd Bull Run (played on BG difficulty), I suppose on MG it's much harder, was quite easy. Just know that 1st attacks are always north along Sudley Ford, I kept my best shooters there (Stonewall Brigade - always naming my most experienced brigade as CSA ) along with a couple of other rifle (not musket!) brigades held the ground. 2nd day was just a mop-up, flanking manuever from the right flank units did the job. By throwing bodies into bayonets I presume that charges are being troublesome, remeber to use the M42, Palmetto or Farmer for the melee and always try to keep a reserve brigade (I use 1 brigade for 3-4 brigades as a backup) or arty near (best both) to prevail the charges without breaking the line (AI seldomly coordinates the charges properly, although got better at that after recent patches). Always try to keep the line , use skirmirshers and terrain and it will turn out great Unless you brought 25 500-1000 men infantry brigades to the battle, there is little for that. I think it may be a corps composition issue indeed, the more I'm looking forward to Gmoney7447 reply
  2. Remeber a game "Age of Rifles"? It was a turn based strategy game from the early 90's - it was awesome. I think the engine suitable for ranged weapons from SIlesian Wars to pre-IWW is achieveable, as was shown in the mentioned game. Various campaigns, scenarios, a real ultimate general game that can cover from Kolin to Boer War. But I understand that for $ and development reasons it will be done most likely bit by bit So my choice would be Napoleonic wars, huzzah!
  3. dutmistrz

    Loving it, and suggestions

    If you make a DLC, you have my money. For army management, it's many things that can be upgraded. For instance when you want to replace a leader you need to have a spare one, and make these crazy rotations (maybe I'm missing sth, but I didn't find a simple button to unassign the leader from a formation). Also swapping entire divisions isn't possible, I would like to make my 1st Division 3rd and there is no way without the necessity to transfer it to another corps. Same goes for bgd's - If I want to move the 4th brigade to 1st slot within a division, I need to juggle them with another brigade But it's details, the game is astonishing nonetheless. Going through MG difficulty as Union and I'm literally stressed out during every battle, just finished Antietam... 20k casualties vs 37k CSA. Iuka in sight and then... Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg! Jk, CSA won't shout this - as grim as it seems, the battle has some neat possibilities for a Union victory, at a relatively low cost, too.
  4. dutmistrz

    Historical general traits?

    TBH I rarely go with other than the ammo boost and infantry. I could do it like you said on Brigadier General mode, on Major General (playing Union right now) I just look for utmost benefits whenever I can get them. And this ammo/infantry mix seems proving essential. On Malvern Hill such a horde of Confederates is at you that every little thing that can keep your infantry at position seems good. I tended to keep one Corps Commander with XP trait, but it was on Brigadier General. It's a good question, I'm curious what other, more experienced players will say. Longstreet "My War Horse" (as Lee liked to call him) was a professional soldier (major in 8th Infantry), specializing in defensive.
  5. dutmistrz

    Who's Your Favorite General?

    I would go for Jackson if it wasn't for his Seven Days Battles performance, which was very poor, always late. Although there is something about him that is so astonishing and unique, that he is one of the obvious choices, though he wasn't loved by his soldiers, being distant, cold, the only factor for him being admired was that he knew how to make a soldier out of a man and with a providential skill of finding victory event at the eve of defeat. Despite the noble request from the post-master I will go for Lee nonetheless, amazing person, yet nobody is said to have revealed his heart truly. His anticipation and taking long odds decisions were more suited for a gambler than general, although he made the best of it until one day in July... It's heartwarming to see a good man as a general, without the gruesome disciplinarian actions of Bragg or the crazy blodlust Hood or even the stiffness and stubborness of Grant he was kind to all never calling on Union's soldiers otherwise than "these people" (not enemy); one that understood the nature of war and wasn't cold and overlooking suffering as Jackson (Lee's words after Fredericksburg are one of his finest and marked with a sense of truly realizing what a hell war was). Most of the leaders tended to be more generals than humans, but Lee was the other way around, his human nature made him a less effective general than Grant but it was astonishing when he noticed a complaint from a Union captive who said he had his hat stolen, Lee said: "Give the man his hat back", and so happened. Also his post-war days, being away from war memories or parades, as well as rejecting an offer from an insurance company to include his name in the company's one for a huge deal of cash, Lee turned it down because (despite living far from pre-war Virginia plantator aristocracy standards) he said that he can't receive money for the services he did not provide. A gold nugget among the generals, but a gem among men. If I would have to omit Lee, I would go for cool headed and pragmatic Longstreet, who lacked the sense of Jackson, but war far more reliable and a true professional, while Old Blue Light tended to give in to his eccentirc nature giving him much glory, but also a tendency for blunder. And for the Union, only Sigel. Hardly speaking English, prior to the battle of Pea Ridge he rode up to Curtis and asked if he doesn't have soemthing to eat before briefing him about the men he brought with him and overallsituation. Just kidding, but for Union it's harder. Probably Sherman, a man who got war to a new, modern level, unfortunately for Georgia though. But he was a tough nut, Shiloh katharsis made him a true leader of men, intelligent, driven, innovative, but also ruthless, far from the shaky man who was set off balance after the outbreak of war and 1st Manassas whipping. One of the first modern generals.
  6. dutmistrz

    What happened?????

    Jackson at Shiloh, whoa! Nah, I know you got him at Bull Run, still historically amusing, Old Blue Light in the West... Afaik at Shiloh if you do not capture Pittsburgh Landing on 1st day, 2nd day commences, don't know the Order of Battle there, as never happened to me (apart from union campaign ofc), but historically 2nd day at Shiloh was a steady CSA retreat, so maybe a part of forces left already... dunno.
  7. dutmistrz

    Major general tactics

    In general the 3*** and 2** brigades are elite forces, which do not have to be necessarily full strength 2500 monsters, I'm doing them 1700 - 2000 max (even less earlier in the game) and put in reserve or for flanking purposes, while the battle flesh are * or no * at all brigades (hey, they have to be shoot up abit to gain these stars anyway :)). Even 2500 Framer rifles is not a bad idea if no other arms are in storage, because they have nice melee value, so will more likely break up these stupid charges of AI (a bit awkward, as seriously Civil War saw relatively little hand-to-hand combat, I would love if the charges were less often, because of them the game became too easy on normal mode) and still they will take probably near 1-1 ratio kills/deaths if not used with huge terrain/weapon disadvantage . Also, maintaining the experience is worth filling up the units partially with rookies (to the exp level that won't drop down their traits) and adding some tough crackers just for the sake of having 100-300 more rifles there - doesn't work if you have a 600 remaining men from 2500 brigade, just go with rookies and start over. Also no.2, as I became more familiar with the game I tend to use deeper lines - like for 3 brigades in line 1 in reserve just behind, so that if one brigade has concentrated fire upon it and gets chewed, I simply withdraw it before it drops significantly in numbers and replace with a fresh one, that's efficient in avoiding huge losses of exp resulting in filling up shoot up brigades with rookies and also provides exp for the unit that steps up for the job.
  8. Hello there Generals! I have a thought about a campaign which could include 3 battles from the not so well known Trans-Mississippi Theatre: - Minor: Battle of Valverde - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Valverde - drunk Sibley vs. choleric Canby, who would win? Col. Green I presume - Minor: Battle of Glorietta Pass - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Glorieta_Pass (exceptional because of usage of miners descending on ropes to harass the supplies of the CSA, one of the goals could be destroying/routing the supplies, not capturing them as always) - Major : Battle of Pea Ridge (Elkhorn Tavern) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pea_Ridge - Gettysburg of the Trans-Mississippi Theatre, a balanced battle as it was. Any comments, thoughts? Think it might spice up the early campaign and show some love to the forgotten Trans-Mississippi Theatre of the war, only Red River Campaign Mansfield is included, presumably in the Cold Harbor campaign. Still thinking about potential battles from 1864-65, but too much of trench fighting people despise, as I read the ones from Wshington Campaign for instance are often simply omitted.
  9. dutmistrz

    Chickamauga: WHAT A JOKE

    CSA did same to me at Shiloh, slipped two brigades down my left flank and got to Pittsburgh Landing. Not a game ender though... but it pissed me off and thaught a lesson - always have some troops at VP's, even two skirmirshers would buy me some time to get any serious troops there and lick'em. But why Chickamauga is a game-ender that I do neither know nor understand, can understand Cold Harbor, but Western Theatre?
  10. Mother of battles... Also that was an era where Jacksonian: "Giv'em the bayonet!" counted more than continuous volleys, a tactical joy to behold. Also the colourfulness of participants, their number would do a great deal. Just to keep the corps management from UG:CW , as with some little additional touches would be near-perfect.
  11. dutmistrz

    UGCW Feedback v1.0+

    That would be ok, although I'm curious about one more thing, is there a way to group the units on spot during battle? Ex I want to create an ad hoc diviosn made out of different based brigades? This would easen things a bit; as we know no soldier thinks about his command tree under fire
  12. dutmistrz

    UGCW Feedback v1.0+

    Hello, want to say hello as I just joined this forum and send my congrats for the best strategy game I've played since Panzer General series and it's all variations. Although I have some observations derived from both playing the game and intensively researching the overall topic of Civil War. 1. It would be nice to include weather conditions, as they had a vast influence on troops performance. 2. CSA side didn't use medals, I know it's nice to award the player with a medal, but it's historically inappropriate, the highest honour one could receive (apart from promotion of course) is mentioning in an army order. It's not a big thing, rly. 3. Uniforms - I know it would make the game less transparent, but unified colours of uniforms (especially for CSA,which had no unified cloth apart from some rare,short-lived exceptions) is also something worth looking at - Black Hats, Zouaves etc. etc. - there were various types of clothing used by these units, worth taking into consideration imho. 4. More battles It would be great not to stop developing more side battles. 5. Divisional/brigade leaders traits - it would be super neat to introduce an additional system of gaining traits by div/brigade commanders, as it was a thing during the Civil War, not only Corps Commanders had exceptional abilities. 6. Capturing cannons - come on, ordnance captured and turned around was a battle changer. 7. Recovering ammo during battle from fallen soldiers, when stamping upon fallen enemy soldiers, the advancing troops would have an option to collect the ammo, it would slow down the move and increase damage if fired upon, but it would add some realism to the game (would be autonomous from captured guns after battle, no impact at all). 8. Supply Wagon - one per corps is a bit low number, maybe divisional wagons would be more on spot. 9. Landscape influence - the cannon holes on the ground are great, but when firing upon a forrest or buildings the cannon fire should reduce them as well as their cover value (well, really also gunfire caused damage in the landscape). 10. Formations - simple change of the troop alignment when moving, always the pattern is the same - one line of infantry, skirmishers up front, cav and arty behind, a variation of formations is something the game lacks and it's one of it's major flaws (correct me if I'm wrong and there is a way to make double-three lines of troops). If anything more comes to my mind, I will post it. Correct me if I'm missing something.