soccercw

They held them up more by slowing them down rather than standing and fighting. Buford knew he just had to buy time and that his cav would be nothing more than a speed bump against Heth's division. So instead they harassed them forcing them on line again and again all down the Chambersburg Pike rather than stay and slug it out.

Played as the Union on the opening engagement in multiplayer (with reinforcements). Paul got stuck just east of the seminary and was stuck in column. Would not move no matter what I did, or change formation. A bit later Von Gilsa came on and also got stuck just south of Paul. Both in column, neither could do anything for the whole battle as they just seemed to be marching in place. Attempted to submit bug but it kept saying "processing"

Would be a great option. A simple check box list that allows you to select multiple AI personalities it can randomly choose from. Allows the more advanced player to not waste his time with the beginner level AI while still not knowing what to expect early on

Snapped this beauty Thursday evening at sunset. Looking out from Little Round Top

On my way there as we speak through Sunday!

.

Zzzzzz...my points on SMG and Talonsoft were that games like this don't always turn out the same way history did if you actually read my post. I was replying to your idiotic suggestion that games like this always end up "reenacting battles" and not changing history. Trying to have an intelligent conversation with you is like talking to a brick wall. I'll cease my replies going forward. Good luck trying to get the devs to completely change the concept of their game to your liking and surrender the whole "Gettysburg" concept! Never give up your dream! I mean, why would anyone expect a game about Gettysburg to be about Gettysburg?

Again. The game is called Ultimate General Gettysburg. Not Total War Civil War. I'm in the correct game and forum for what I want. Maybe you were looking for another title and genre? I expected this to be a Gettysburg game where you can re-write the history of the Battle of Gettysburg using the units and weaponry that was there. And this may blow your mind...but...after playing years of games like SMG and Talonsoft's Battleground series, the North doesn't always "win" the battle in these "reenacting" games From all the screen shots, intros, and things I read, that's what this game is supposed to be and is going to be. It seems you may have misread something somewhere

As much strategy as SMG had there was equally as much gaming that went on. The goal in MP was to surround and capture as many enemy regiments as possible. How to accomplish that? Putting your troops in column and double quicking through your enemy until you encircle it. In SMG units could only fire at one enemy (and you could see who they were firing at). So you'd throw out a small regiment to attract the fire then send your other regiments in column at the double quick to run around the enemy in a circle (or sometimes right between their lines). The other "fun" thing was to retreat your artillery to move it across the map at lightning speed. It wasn't really a cheat but it was gamey and terribly unrealistic. Also there were only so many variants so once you played long enough you knew each scenario, what troops the enemy had and where, and what VPs you needed to double quick to right away. Trying to fight a historical tactic Civil War battle in MP was impossible, unless you wanted to lose of course This game already has a lot more "realism" in many aspects, or rather less gamey tactics that can be achieved and most of it is based on not being able to change your formation manually. I'm going to guess that is on purpose to prevent MP turning into a "flagging fest". Still a lot of work to do here with UGG but we're all on board to help make it better and better!

Lannes people objected when you asked for "European style cavalry charges" and referred to some random charge in 1942 which you think should somehow impact a Gettysburg historically based game. No one wanted to have cavalry eliminated from the game. Everyone knows cavalry was at and was used at Gettysburg but not in the way you were asking for. You wanted to "run down the fleeing enemy with 'heavy' cavalry". Our point was that there were very few grand cavalry charges on infantry, and certainly none that took place at Gettysburg. Cavalry would often clash with cavalry but usually on flanks of battlefields (such as East Cavalry field at Gettysburg) or generally secluded from infantry action (Brandy Station). Cavalry did make a small charge attempt from the Union left on July 3rd with disastrous consequences proving a lot of the ground in the area was not suitable for cavalry attacks anyway. In the end it comes down to what kind of game you want. If you're asking for a Total War style Civil War game that you can look at all the battles in the war and draw from that and create your own units, well that's different than what this game is going to provide. You wont find mortars here, gunboats, grand cavalry charges, or Henry repeating rifles. Did these things exist? Yes. Were they at Gettysburg with the same ground and order of battle this game is representing? No

Awwwww snap

The only two regiments in the Army of the Potomac with Spencer rifles were the 5th and 6th Michigan (which they used effectively on the East Cavalry field). Many different ordnance records of Buford's units show that his men were armed with a mix of Sharps, Maynard, Burnsides, and other carbines.

David your suggestion of seeing what target can be hit while selecting an artillery unit is the clear accompanying change for this

Sorry if this has already been brought up... I think a simple addition would be the ability to key+click to target the enemy instead of the movement click. This is especially essential in artillery. I hate having them target a unit then move off their spot to try and hit that unit once it's outside the LOS. Perhaps a cntl+click (or any hot key) that allows the unit to target a unit but not move (and then acquires another target in its current range) would be a simple fix for it.

Agreed here. Hurts you a ton especially when defending and you have units placed in hold. You try and quickly move your general and all the units come off their spots

My reenacting unit (8th NJ) will be doing Park Service demonstrations at Spangler's Spring Aug 2nd and 3rd. Stop on over and say hi if any of you live close.

Of course this comes out just as I get to work today so I can't play it until tonight. Going to be a long day! Great work listening to forums and bug reports Nick

I think one way to handle this, and increase the importance of Corps commanders, is to have a penalty for being too far from the corps commander. Maybe a secondary radius can be created where troops outside that range suffer a constant ticking down condition penalty or something like that. This will also keep corps more together in the field

.

The easy answer for this (and I hope its coming) is a random battle generator like many CW games in the past have had. A random spot on the map with random VPs and random forces from each side. You choose how large of a fight you want and you get something fun to play every time. It's crucial to have this for MP as well. It was the best feature in SMG and in all the games in that series actually (Antietam, Waterloo). The key here will be to create actual randomness. In SMG they were "random" battles but they were preconstructed and once you played long enough you knew who was what, when, and where in every one of those scenarios

I think the ratings are very fair in a 3 star system though

I think the 11th corps as a whole fought with distinction. With the lay of the ground and their exposed position I doubt any Union corps would've held that ground North of town. They put up a hell of a scrap again the night of July 2nd

I think they're intended to represent the quality of the brigade and not the commander

If this game is created and it has that option, why would I be opposed to it? I'm just pointing out that I think, at this stage in the game, it's something not even worth looking at until we get a nice flowing AI for the games. I'm also pointing out that it's going to require and entire reworking of the AI and how it thinks to add that element in the game. An AI that will have to act completely different when it's not in the game. Since there's already ammo "factored" into the condition bar I just think it's a waste of time and energy that could be used elsewhere. The poll question above states "Ammo must be limited and can be depleted during each battle, no matter the cost for AI and gameplay". I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice AI and gameplay for something that's already considered a factor in the game as is. And of course my reply was over the top and sarcastic, that's just my personality Your assumption that I'm a "my way or the highway" kind of guy should be completely discounted due to the fact that I'm here in the forum trying to help improve the game with others opinions. Everyone else has their opinions and they are just as important as mine. Doesn't mean I'm not going to give you mine or strongly defend them. They are, after all, my opinions and I try and back them up with fact or at least reasoning. In the end I think it would be illogical to want ammo factored in "no matter the cost for AI and gameplay" as stated in the above poll and question. This is, after all, a war game. To sacrifice the flow and development of the battle engine for something that's already been covered just doesn't float my personal boat.

Which oddly enough worked against them at Gburg when Jenkin's brigade showed up with only 10 rounds of Enfield ammo near the Rummel farm. Spot on with your above statement though. Sheridan certainly changed the Union cavalry and it's use in 64/65 and turned the tables