fallendown

The easiest way in your example would be to simply halve the damage of the attacking unit or apply the defensive modifier afforded by the building as an equivalent attacking penalty. The logic behind this is that while the CSA Brigade is receiving a defensive bonus from the building they should also be suffering the same bonus as a penalty if they were to fire on the Union Brigade because a portion of their troops aren't able to bring their weapons to bear...As for flanking fire, I believe it's drastically over-represented in this game. For instance, the effectiveness of flanking fire degrades with distance because of the smaller target represented. Infantry firearms while having ranges of 600m didn't matter, the typical infantryman on both sides could barely be asked to hit a man sized target at more than 100 - 150m. This is not only an effect of training but also once you've fired 3 or 4 volleys you can no longer even see what you're firing at because of the smoke from massed black powder musketry, making accurate fire even at 50m impossible unless there was a breeze. In fact, towards the end of the war, the trend was to fight in skirmish order, with the main battle line simply reinforcing the skirmish line...

Anyone know anything about a Linux version for this game?

I already gave up on the game being realistic at all. I just had the Union AI run out of ammo and charge whore me with like 2 X 2500 man brigades. Watched the union stack 7,000 men into a space barely big enough for 1,000 (Stone Bridge) and fire with the same efficiency as if they were on a parade field. It's pretty evident the Dev's have never been to any of these places and gotten a proper scale. For instance, in the screenshot below the actual area around the Stone Bridge is really only about 300 yards wide. I know this because I pass it every day on the way to work. That's enough room for 1200 men in line, not 7,000. The golden rule is that a regiment of 400 men in line will have a frontage of 100 yards.

The best bet for the union would be to avoid Marye's heights all together and move down the railroad to attack Jackson. Of course then again Jackson's defense's during the actual battle were formidable. As a Fredericksburg native I can tell you that from Marye's Heights south to Prospect Hill is one long line of trenches. In fact our annual rennactment just ended yesterday with cannon firing in celebration. I could hear this 4 miles from town. There are really two options the union could take. The first is to move south and east of Fredericksburg along the RF&P Railroad and attack up Hazel Run and Deep Run against Pickett's and Hood's thinly spread brigades and split the Confederate center. The second is to actually move north and west and attack Anderson's Divion on his section of Marye's Heights.

Today marks the 154th anniversary of the Battle of Fredericksburg, an entirely lopsided battle that cost the Union over 12,000 men while the Confederates lost only 4,200. This battle, along with the nearby Battles of Chancellorsville, Salem Church, Wilderness, Brandy Station, and Spotsylvania Courthouse, all hold a special significance to me because I was born and raised here. I was born in Fredericksburg in a hospital that bears the name of George Washington's mother. My daughter will begin her freshman year of university at a school that also bears the same woman's name. Our city is steeped in history. It was the boyhood home of George Washington at Ferry Farm, where he allegedly chopped down a cherry tree, and threw a coin across the Rappahannock River. It was the home at various times to people like John Paul Jones, the famous naval captain. It was the home of Hugh Mercer, patriot and physician, who was killed at Princeton in 1777. It was the home of both George Washington's mother and father, Mary and Augustine, as well as his sister and brother-in-law, Elizabeth "Betty" Washington and Colonel Fielding Lewis. It was once the home of James Madison, the 5th president of the United States. Fredericksburg had much history before the Union decided to bombard it on December 12th of 1862. The bombardment infuriated Lee, as did the Union takeover of Chatham Manor, where he met his wife. I won't go into much detail about the battle, but I'd like to hear your thoughts about the battle. What were parts that inspired you about the battle? Was it the Union Charges against the sunken road? Barksdale's gallant defense of the town on the 12th? My most inspiring moment would have to be Major John Pelham's artillery attack on the federal line on the far right flank of the confederate line on the 13th. Pelham, at 24 years of age, commanded J.E.B Stuart's horse artillery. Pelham, without permission, moved two rifled gun's along with a squadron of cavalry far in advance of the Confederate lines. Due to his constant repositioning of his gun section, he held up the entire left flank of the Union Army for hours, forcing the union to divert artillery and men to attack his position. Finally with one gun down, mounting casualties, and repeated pleas from Stuart to withdraw, he finally returned to his own lines. Lee would call him "the gallant Pelham". At Nicodemus Hill at Antietam just 4 months before Fredericksburg, Stonewall Jackson would say "It is really extraordinary to find such nerve and genius in a mere boy. With a Pelham on each flank I believe I could whip the world." On March 17th, prior to the Chancellorsville campaign, he would accompany J.E.B Stuart to witness Fitzhugh Lee's cavalry defending Kelly's Ford from federal cavalry, and while standing in his stirrups guiding Lee's cavalrymen through an opening in a fence he was struck in the head by a small shell fragment, fell and never regained consciousness. He died the following morning in Culpeper. J.E.B Stuart would make the following announcement: "The major-general commanding approaches with reluctance the painful duty of announcing to the division its irreparable loss in the death of Major John Pelham, commanding the Horse Artillery. He fell mortally wounded in the battle of Kellysville, March 17th, with the battle-cry on his lips, and the light of victory beaming from his eye... His eye had glanced on every battlefield of this army from the First Manassas to the moment of his death, and he was, with a single exception, a brilliant actor in them all. The memory of "the gallant Pelham," his many manly virtues, his noble nature and purity of character, are enshrined as a sacred legacy in the hearts of all who knew him. His record has been bright and spotless, his career brilliant and successful." — J.E.B. Stuart, General Orders #9, March 20, 1863, Official Records

Even though it was turn based, Age of Rifles had a decent routing system where a unit would route in the direction of a friendly supply point which was usually at the edge of the map, an area under friendly control. if it's morale hadn't recovered it would route off the map. By default I think at the very least brigades should route in the direction of their division commanders....then past them until their moral recovers.

This has been a recurring problem that the Developers have had since UGG. It's not just the routed units though, it's also the skirmishers who'll act the same way sometimes...

Despite everyone's continuing unrealistic belief in the melee ability of Civil War Cavalry, I can assure you, mounted cavalry charges in this game are highly unrealistic. Civil War cavalry when confronted by infantry nearly always dismounted and fought on foot, whether in the defense or offense. The 8th Pennsylvania Cavalry was decimated by Jackson's troops at Chancellorsville as it tried to conduct a mounted charge down a road, with the commanding officer alone receiving 14 bullet wounds. There may have been effective cavalry charges against small bodies of troops like companies, battalions, or under-strength regiments, but we are playing at the brigade level in this game, and there was never a successful mounted charge by cavalry against a brigade of infantry. Even during the final days of the war with Sheridan's cavalry they would ride ahead, dismount, and block Lee's path. No Civil War cavalry commander would ever waste the lives of his horses and men in a futile charge against infantry.

Yep, European cavalry has always totally outclassed U.S. Cavalry in the melee category. The Native Americans, especially the Sioux, outclassed them in melee, both mounted and dismounted as well. Cavalry in the United States, whether Confederate or Union, was nothing more than glorified mounted infantry. In fact, I passed through Brandy Station yesterday on the way to our farm. That's the site of the largest cavalry battle ever fought on the North American continent.

The effect that Cavalry had in that era? Civil War Cavalry never made an effective charge against infantry brigades. American cavalry was never the equal of European cavalry in terms of melee, that was never the purpose of the American Cavalry. The US Cavalry were dragoons and nothing more. With the exception of Brandy Station, Hanover and a few smaller skirmishes, they rarely even fought other cavalry while mounted. If the DEVS have allowed Civil War cavalry to be anything more than the dragoons that they were then they've taken away from the realism of the era.

What's worse is just like UGG I'll end up never playing this game after 2 months because the DEV's don't seem interested in fixing the important problems. As it is I quit this battle because I was so fed up with the stupidity.

That was a garrison, so it wasn't really a maneuvering unit like a field army. Just like when Vicksburg surrendered, the garrison, which was not a field army, surrendered.

Secondly, in the pic below you'll see what I've been saying in many other posts. Skirmishers are not the Green Berets of the Civil War era. They don't operate behind enemy lines.

The routing problem that was never fixed in UGG is still present in this game. It is absolutely maddening. ENEMY TROOPS ROUT TOWARDS THEIR OWN TROOPS!!!!! How hard of a concept is this to understand? In the following pic's, an enemy brigade has once again routed behind my lines.. So I have to detach a brigade from my attack to keep attacking this brigade. What's worse is when they rout they're not getting exhausted, I have to constantly force my troops to sprint to keep up with them. Not only that, but the friendly units of mine freak out because they have an enemy unit behind them.

It's very seldom that brigades themselves were ever "captured" as a matter of fact I can't think of a single one that ever did. Regiments sometimes surrendered, however, unless a brigade was completely surrounded they were usually able to escape or fight their way out.. As for this game, it's usually through melee combat, but even then it can be wonky. I had a brigade of 1400 get attacked at 1st Bull Run and it surrendered, that's totally unrealistic. They weren't flanked or anything and they could have easily routed.

Skirmishers were never meant to be used the way they are in this game. During the Civil War they screened their line of battle, by engaging enemy skirmishers. When confronted with a line of battle they retreated to the safety of their own battle line. Sometimes they would be placed in buildings or at river crossings to defend those points, but they were always close to their own regiments. Cavalry skirmishers on the other hand operated differently. In fact Cavalry as a whole acted differently. In reality Civil War Cavalry very rarely charged infantry unless like the 8th Pennsylvania at Chancellorsville, it was an act of desperation. When confronted with infantry cavalry typically dismounted and fought as infantry.

Part of being an effective commander is proper emplacement of all your forces, including artillery. Guns operating without infantry protection were easy prey to infantry attack. This has been proven countless times throughout history. If the enemy commander doesn't place infantry to protect his guns then that's his fault. At Gettysburg, Armistead's brigade actually pushed back the Union troops and they captured some artillery, but they couldn't turn the guns before the Union counter-attacked. So the enemy charging through infantry and taking guns is far more realistic than canister firing completely through friendly infantry to attack enemy infantry.

Secondly the AI of the artillery can easily be set to make sure no friendly units impeded it's line of fire. It's makes the Artillery pretty over powered to allow it to just blast away with impunity. Also how long would it take you to figure out that the reason your artillery isn't firing is because your unit is blocking it's line of fire? Think about it. You're attacking an infantry position that has an artillery unit directly behind it. That artillery can fire it's canister rounds directly through the defending infantry and hit your attacking infantry without causing any damage to the defending infantry in front of it, and get this, your attacking infantry can't attack the guns because they're behind the infantry......do you get what I'm saying. The simplest thing to do is have the artillery cease fire, or shift fire to a different target when friendly troops are in it's line of sight, or do what TW does and just risk taking friendly fire casualties....

I've been calling into question LoS in this game anyways. Civil War Artillery could only fire at what it could see, as in true line of sight. However, I've routinely been able to sit my artillery on the reverse slope of a ridge and hit an enemy on the opposite slope as if there were no elevation between us.

I said that because I didn't want anyone offended by posting that video. It is a shame that I have to do that, but such is the nation we live in. I think Virginian and famed Cavalry Commander General John Mosby put it best when he said:

I for one would prefer to see artillery and infantry not firing at enemy troops in close proximity to friendly troops. Let's be realistic here, Civil War Artillery was a direct fire weapon. Firing it at enemy troops with friendly troops in close proximity is inherently dangerous. At Chancellorsville for instance, Union artillery couldn't fire when it could have made a difference because friendly troops hadn't cleared their field of fire. In this game, both artillery and infantry can fire into a mixed mass of infantry and somehow not hit friendly troops at all. I've seen Artillery emplaced behind an infantry brigade fire canister through their own infantry and hit the enemy infantry without causing so much as one friendly casualty. Commanders in this game should be forced, as in real life, to emplace their artillery where it will do the most damage to the enemy and the least damage to friendly troops. Likewise, as in real life, artillery and infantry shouldn't take actions that would also cause friendly casualties.

The tactical battles on TW are so small. I mean whats the max scale of those maps? Maybe 5 sq miles? I feel so confined when I play Napolean TW or Empire TW. You have very few options for maneuver warfare. I have to admit though I was extremely mad when TW went full retard with Warhammer, so many of us were expecting a Civil War TW game.

I think most of us here probably purchased UG: Gettysburg in early access as well.

This is pretty cool, but wasn't this how the campaign in CWG2 worked? I had envisioned something much more dynamic. As in the TW series, I'd have the historical battles completely separate from the campaign. You can create a generic height map of say the eastern US and import it into Unity3D fairly easily. Populate that map with foliage, roads, towns, rivers, etc and you have a nice scalable campaign map. You can also create grid files and cut those into multiple map pieces of higher resolution and detail and load them dynamically depending on the location. This would be used for the actual battles which wouldn't be conducted on the campaign map, but on the smaller maps drawn from grids. This whole idea would allow you to play the campaign free of historical battles and allows you to conduct the campaign the way you see fit, not unlike TW. This is actually the game concept I've been working on, but I got busy doing other things.

What you are describing is exactly how the game flowed in 1997's Civil War Generals 2. This game takes so much from that earlier game. For instance, the armory, weapon selection, and officer promotion in this game were all found in that earlier game, with the weapon store being a direct rip off of CWG2. I prefer a more fluid campaign where I decide what happens. Not a campaign of set piece historical battles with 2 hypothetical ending campaign battles. I played that before in Civil War's General 2 and it got very mundane, and very repetitive, very quickly....