Mr. Mercanto
-
Posts
684 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Mr. Mercanto
-
-
I guess I'm a mediocre tactician :P. Held until the 3rd, then counterattacked what little was left.
-
1
-
-
Damn! I thought I had to capture it then.
Realistically, Hooker never intended to attack in the battle so I shouldn't have to take it all...but I know changes are made for gameplay reasons. -
Do you have to capture the Orange Plank Road and the Turnpike, or can you just defend? I found the defence easy but I took a drubbing trying to organise a counter attack on the 2nd day
-
5 hours ago, Col_Kelly said:
the key to this is to go for their center in the woods, a bit north of prospect hill, they only have two brigades there to stop you. From there you can split their army in two and grind your way through prospect hill.
At Maryes Heights the best way to get at em imo is to flank south with two divisions and overrun them.
PS : Found a few lectures of Allen Guelzo, the guy you quoted on youtube and he is quite a fascinating man, thanks for the discovery.
Ah! Was this before or after the last patch? I don't recall that hill (the Telegraph Road) being available for attack until after Mayre's Heights in the original version we got. Or am I missing something?
Wonderful to hear!
Guezlo is an extraordinary scholar, and his lectures are highly profitable, especially those on President Lincoln! If you'd like some more recommendations, just let me know :).
-
On 29/12/2016 at 11:00 PM, James Cornelius said:
Having played it now, I agree that Fredericksburg is quite beatable as the Union - both in the historical battle and campaign. I expected it to be much trickier; I found the Confederate Antietam to be harder.
I found Fredricksburg much harder then Antietam. Even when I flanked the rebs they barely took any damage. I mean I still won, but it was a mess.
-
4 hours ago, Luckybluemoon said:
Immediate Feedback: Just played Antietam with new update.
1. AI is better. Units surrendered at proper times rather than letting themselves be shot to hell while surrounded by 5 brigades. No encounters with Brigades falling back behind enemy lines.
2. Changes with cover...I'm mixed on this one. For one, Cover did provide a unrealistic bonus. It just can't work that a 2000 man brigade can volley into a 2500 man brigade that happens to be standing in the woods and only hit 2 or 3 of them. However, that said, I do think it has been toned down too much. I can barely tell any difference between a brigade in the open under fire and a brigade in cover under fire. Maybe 75% of what you did would be my recommendation.
3. On cover... Constructed fortifications have been very underwhelming so far for the entire game. To have one brigade in a fortification facing another out in the open, and have the kills be only 1-2...Brigades just standing in the woods get more cover that a brigade in a fortification. I mean, If I have a brigade standing in woods and firing, that brigade gets a 100% cover bonus right? But if I put them in a fortification in those same woods, they lose the woods cover bonus and only gain a 50% cover bonus. So prepared fortifications are actually worse than just standing in cover. Fortifications help a lot when they are out in the open, like in Fredericksburg, but when in a wooded area or just on the edge of woods, like in 2nd Manassas, they are worse than if I just place my brigades a little further back in the woods and stand in formation.
More to come later. And as always, thanks for listening.
I wholeheartedly agree with all of this. Fortifications need to be stronger, and while I'm glad that natural cover has been nerfed. its been to nerfed. This is with the exception of Fredricksburg, wherein the fortifications are far to strong.
At Stones river, the only advantage the Federals seem have on the first day are the woods, which are almost useless now. On the second day, the Federals are forced to use the fortifications which are practically a death sentence for the brigade posted there. While the brigade enjoys nominal cover, it is nowhere near sufficient to contend with the three or four opposing brigades it will inevitably has to fight.
I've actually found that, except where I am forced to, I avoid using fortifications. The cover is to weak, and it leaves the brigade exposed to enemy fire, withering it away. I would love to see this problem ameliorated.-
1
-
-
I found Stones River to be rather insanely difficult. It seemed like the Confederates were universally armed with three star brigades, and playing on Colonel difficulty I barely scraped by.
Don't know how I'm going to fight Chancellorsville lol-
1
-
-
The Spencer was actually a far better combat rifle then the Henry
. The Henry's tubular system was very exposed and prone to jaming and malfunction. The firearms parts wore out easily, and while the rifle held twice as many rounds as the Spencer, it was more difficult to load. The Spencer's internal butt stock magazine allowed for easier reloading, and a magazine that was ensconced from environmental damage.
Just wanted to spread some Spencer love since the Henry is getting so much attention
.
-
1
-
-
This is probably the nerdiest request possible, but could someone fix the portraits in "camp"? A good deal of the general's portraits look nothing like them, and the a fair number of the rifles are presented with an incorrect portrait (such as the P1853 Enfield).
Because the devs clearly don't have enough to do, you know? -
7 hours ago, Koro said:
Why is it the battles were so different given they took place on almost the same ground? I mean, the Wilderness is famous for it's lack of visibility and confining nature, limiting the fighting to a narrow front. Chancellorsville has huge movement of troops.
Different factors really. For what its worth, The Wilderness did have lots of movement, it was just hard to co-ordinate. Key portions of the Chancellorsville battle were fought in clearings. Also, at Chancellorsville, the command was fractured, which led to a Federal withdrawal (long story lol).
At Chancellorsville, Lee wanted to launch a series of vital knockout blows at federal weak points while the Federals were seperated. He then wanted to convert this to an all out attack. At the Wilderness, he wished to attack them in thick of the forest in order to use the environment to mitigate his lower numbers. -
17 hours ago, GeneralPITA said:
The Battle of the Wilderness is more of a slugfest in the trees, not much tactical value to be had. Everettsville is a CSA side mission in a dense forest and it was a grind, not very enjoyable. I wouldn't want to play a grand battle in such conditions. Artillery movement penalties are severe, not to mention how overpowered cavalry are in cover. I didn't know this had been removed until just now, but I'm glad it was.
Agreed, while the Wilderness did have some tactical movements, it was very much a "soldier's battle." Would kind of suck for this game.
-
15 hours ago, Koro said:
Interesting. I guess then it makes sense why Hooker could be surprised like that given the sense forests Lee was in.
Partly, but despite the thick woods, Jackson's foot cavalry was actually were actually spotted by Federal pickets, and Sickles Corps actually engaged their rear guard at and around Catherine's Furnace. As I recall (and my memory is fuzzy) Sickles believed this was the whole corps, and so, Hooker believed Lee had attacked Sicles, been repusled as planned, and was retreating. Had Sickles been a more able commander, he would have known the danger was far from past. There were many other reasons why Hooker was surprised, and when they initial attack met with such great success. Hooker ordered Howard to entrench, he did not. Hooker ordered the 1st Corps to sidle the army and secure Howard's flank, this order did not reach Reynolds for over a day. Hooker expected Howard to shake out pickets, these pickets were only a few dozen yards ahead of the corps, Howards cavalry detachment did not detach pickets more then a a dozen or so yards either. Finally, Hooker was determined to believe the Rebels were on the retreat, despite their order of march indicating an attack.
That being said, Hooker had initially intended to fight a defensive battle. Despite masterful maneouvering, he was denied it by some of the worst luck and worst Corps commander performance of the war (don't get my started on Uncle John Sedgewick in Fredricksburg lol). -
On 10/01/2017 at 3:56 PM, Wright29 said:
Maybe to avoid repetition? Wilderness would be a lot like Chancellorsville and Spotsylvania will be pretty similar to Cold Harbor. Also having three straight tough battles for the Union would probably lead to some players getting frustrated.
Yeah the planned battles are pretty rough for the Union as it is... With the obvious exception of Gettysburg, almost all the battles are near Union wins or outright Confederate victories...
Yes, A.P. Hill, WAAAHH!!
-
On 10/01/2017 at 4:35 PM, Koro said:
They are close right? I am testing Chancellorsville right now and the orange plank road and orange turnpike or something like that are there which I am sure where the two roads that the fighting centered around at the wilderness.
I don't see the wilderness working well but I would love to see Spotsylvania.
The Wilderness and Chancellorsville were actually fought in effectively the same location. In fact, Longstreet was shot by his own men in very nearly the same place Jackson was one year less a day prior!
While the events of the fighting were somewhat similar (ie the Confederates essaying an initially successful assault that was eventually halted), the battles are certainly distinct.-
2
-
-
22 hours ago, Koro said:
Thank you though it is perhaps giving me a little too much credit. The team ate the ones doing all the work.
ARE. Leaving it in there since it's just too funny. Silly phone.
It is said that the ravenous hunger of Game Labs can never be sated.
May God help us all....-
2
-
-
I've never captured any M1861s or Richmond M1862s! I thought they weren't in the game yet or something...
Where my muskets at!? -
Let's let them finish the base game as promised, first
-
Have you played Gettysburg 2005?
Its ok. -
I'd like a button which orders them to keep the enemy in their range, and withdraw as they advance.
-
Agreed. Or at least, if they only fell back when the enemy advanced, and maintained the enemy in range.
-
2 minutes ago, Hitorishizuka said:
I wouldn't mind seeing contour lines come back but it's only super important if artillery get nerfed back to being much stricter on LOS. As it stands now it's not excessively important--cover is usually more important.
Yeah but those contour lines make me feel all professional and stuff....
-
On 03/01/2017 at 9:44 AM, TM21 said:
ow, I guess I misinterpreted your comment. I focused on the "3 star" part, not on the "general" part... So I thought I should use a colonel as Corps commander.
Lol.
Ah! You're mixing up your insignia's! In the United States Army, a Lieutenant-General had three stars, in the Confederate Army, a Colonel had three stars. Hitorishizuka meant a Lt. General, using the Union parlance "3 star general," and, being used to the Confederate forces I presume, you took that to mean Colonel.
-
1
-
-
As the title suggests, I am wondering if there is a published soundtrack for Ultimate General: Civil War? I absolutely love the music of the game. While there's not enough music to fill a full album, I would love to have what music is here on my iPod!
Is there anyway to make that happen?
-
So I've noticed that in discussions about the game, most people seem to discuss playing as the Confederacy. As a Union re-enactor and as someone who plays as Union forces about 95% of the time, I find myself reminded of Civil War re-enacting where the Confederates usually outnumber us Fake Federals, sometimes by a margin of 2:1.
So I'm curious, are there more Confederate players here, or am so used to being outnumbered by Confederates that I just see it everywhere I go? ;P
So the question is, who do you usually play as? Union, or Confederate? This doesn't mean all the time (we all go the dark side sometimes), but I mean usually (I know this is rather vague, think more then 60% of the time, or just which side you feel more familiar using).
For bonus points, it might be fun to state why we fight for a certain side in the comments!
(let's not get political though, there's already a seven page thread debating the issues around the war, no harm in keeping this thread light)
Thanks for participating!-
3
-
Guezlo is an extraordinary scholar, and his lectures are highly profitable, especially those on President Lincoln! If you'd like some more recommendations, just let me know :).
. The Henry's tubular system was very exposed and prone to jaming and malfunction. The firearms parts wore out easily, and while the rifle held twice as many rounds as the Spencer, it was more difficult to load. The Spencer's internal butt stock magazine allowed for easier reloading, and a magazine that was ensconced from environmental damage. 
.
Wilderness and Spotsylvania
in General Discussions
Posted
I get what you mean, but there a quite a ton of major Civil War battles :P. I'm not sure that would be reasonable lol.
I think it would be more fair if there were more clear Union victories included here. As I said before, its all either near victories (Antietam, Gettybsurg) or clear defeats. We do get Malvern Hill, but our fortifications are painfully underpowered :P.
Where's Franklin, Nashville, Missionary Ridge, Saylor's Creek, 3rd Petersburg? Et cetera.
My Union blue is showing ;P