Mr. Mercanto

That's unfortunate. It doesn't seem impossible since the controls for the game are so simple and effective; but then again. I'm not a developer.

Mr. Flair, Good question, I should have clarified that. I was only referring to the single player content. I do not enjoy multiplayer and have not played it. I feel I lack the wherewith all to prescribe any solutions for it, I imagine though, that the historical imbalances I have listed are problematic for multiplayer as well.

While I don't agree with the manner in which Myes! chose to express his opinion, the content of his statements have my hearty agreement. The game was really quite perfect a few months ago (right before V 1.5 I believe). Since then, the balancing has been a bit catastrophic. The Rebels appear to have been armed with some kind of bullet reflecting armour, and the Federal artillery has become the Earthly Manifestation of the Wrath of God. Federal artillery has been able to obliterate over 140 men in a single round of canister (which as Mr. Flair will attest is completely impossible), and I have watched Federal infantry on high ground, with 70% cover and superior numbers, decimated by completely exposed Confederates. Honestly, putting in US infantry feels like murder. What this results in is battles where I genuinely don't know if the Iron Brigade Culp's Hill can defeat Perry's Brigade on the ground, and where Federal artillery has comically over rated kills of over 1000 in a single battle. As a Union only player, I can still win, but seeing my men wiped out by impossible Confederate volleys, only to have those Rebels repeatedly checked by absurd artillery, has taken all of the fun out of a once great game. I really had hoped that the game would return to its former caliber, and that the mistakes of these patches would be ameliorated, Sadly, I was wrong, and at this point the Brother vs Brother Civil War mod is looking like a more accurate depiction of the war between the States then UGG. At this point, maybe it would be best to let players customize the damage output and inputs ourselves, so that those of us who want a more balanced and realistic experience can do so (although I would certainly prefer a return to UGG's older, sublime state).

An amazing post as always, and one that goes with my hearty and absolute agreement.

This update has overpowered the CSA to the point of unplayability. I've watched Federal troops with 75% cover be demolished by Confederate Infantry that is not even within firing range. I genuinely feel guilty for using Federal infantry t this point, because no matter where I place them or what I do, any brigade that is fired upon is guaranteed to be ravaged. I can still win, but only because Union artillery is hugely overpowered. This is also a problem as in actual Civil War battles, the rifle was more dangerous then the cannon. Honestly, this game was so perfect in September (I think that was around update 14.5), ever since then, the game has been undergoing changes which I find utterly baffling, artillery has become incredibly unfair, and the Confederates seemed to have been armed with Kevlar and machine guns. I miss the old version.

Good to hear! Will this also address the recent buff to Confederate shooting? Ever since the last patch I've been finding it impossible for the Union to win a shooting match with the Rebs, even under optimal conditions.

As always, right on point David! Just to add to these comments, the Confederate government also arrested scores of political dissenters and suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus (yet only the Union government is criticized for these actions). Furtherstill, many of the states, Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia most egregiously, suppressed anti-secession portions of the population in order to force secession on Pro-Union citizens. These citizens were often also opposed to the slave power aristocracy. Having been forced into secession by this oligarchy, they were thenm as you pointed out, forced by the bayonet to fight for it. But yeah, other then that.....

Last time I checked that Confederate flag tried to destroy the United States of America.......

Yeah up until this recent patch I actually thought it was really well balanced. After this last patch though it almost seems criminal to put Union infantry at the front. Its like the Federals have lined their coats with magnets lol . I hope they rebalance it.

As an experiment, I jsut played a bit of the first day as the Union against Confederate determined. Cutler occupied Oak Ridge, on high ground with 78% cover. Davis attacked, between McPherson's Ridge and Oak Ridge with no cover at all. Davis inflicted 38 casualties with his volley, Cutler delivered 36. Meanwhile, Calef's artillery battery delivered a ludicrous 300 casualties, while Davis was barely in range. I hate to say it, but on my end I think this patch may have broken the game :/

Hey Pvt. Waitkens I always play against the AVN at the Determined difficulty level. I'll try to get some screen caps but my pc skills are terrible at best lol . I usually place my brigades at the military crest of Oak Ridge and Seminary Ridge, with the artillery directly behind or astride them. The artillery has been intensely powerful (to powerful in face) but the infantry has been taking extreme damage. Like I said before, I've watched the Iron Brigade or Cutler's brigade take twice as much damage in a volley, while on high ground and behind cover, then there opposing, exposed opponents. Before thee patch, the units which inflicted the most damage were my brigades (usually Iron brigade). And on average my brigades suffered about 50% less casualties then inflicted. Now, using the same tactics, my infantry tends to suffer more casualties then inflicted, and the artillery inflicts the lion's share of the casualties on the enemy. The only thing that hasn't changed is overall casualties, which are still 2:1 in my favour, though now due more to artillery then infantry. I will try to get some screen caps if I can.

I think this is what's been happening to me. Ever since the latest patch my Union infantry has been useless, and my artillery overpowered. If this game is to be an accurate reflection of the war then the artillery needs to be nerfed and the Union infantry needs to be as effective as the Confederate. Basically like the previous version, which i think was much better.

I feel like the damage modifiers are really unbalanced in this update. I've watched the Iron Brigade, on high ground, with cover (Oak Ridge) lose volley after volley against Davis's Brigade, which is totally exposed on low ground. Its gotten to the point where the only way I can win is using canister fire, as my brigades cannot fight the Confederates under any conditions, I never had this problem before, but I after the 1.55 update I really feel like the game is almost unplayable. No matter what the conditions, no matter what the brigade strength, in a shoot out battle the Union always loses now. Am I the only one this is happening to?

That would be neat! There is actually already a thread dedicated to ideas for where/when the next Ultimate General game should take place (my vote is Antietam )

Mr. Flair nailing it as usual I see . I just wanted to add that, while only a small percentage of slave owners were planter class (20+ slaves) and exceptionally few had more then (100+), this number is not representative of slave-ownership in the Antebellum South. In the Upper South, ownership of 1 or more slaves ranged from between 20%-30%. In the Lower South, this number was often 30%-40%. Most white Southerners did not own slaves, but many, much more then 5%, owned some slaves.

I can't say I agree with this. Lee in both his meetings with Davis's War Cabinet and even his private letters elucidated a strategy which predicated upon winning signal Confederate victories to destroy the Federal army and support for the war before the North could mobilize its full military capacity. In 1862 and 1863 Lee strongly urged Davis to allow him to invade the North in order to secure such a signal victory, indicating that doing so would at the very least force the Federals to remove troops from Southern departments of war and give the Peace Democrats control of the House (and perhaps even Presidency). This is why Lee requested that a peace envoy (Alexander Stephens) should be sent with his army into Pennsylvania. These operational objectives may not be occupational, but they are highly offensive. Essentially, offensive operational tactics and strategy for defensive military objectives. What you seem to be describing is what Joseph E Johnston, and to a limited extent, Jefferson Davis, adovocated for. Operational defensive tactics with limited offensive tactics for defensive strategies, to a achieve defensive objectives. Offensive-Defensive.

You know its funny because I find the Rebs usually manage to molest my arty...but that's probably because I put it so close to the front.... ...my artillerists hate me.... lol

I feel I should mention that in a recent "Rock, Paper, Shotgun" article, Nick confirmed that the next game would be Ultimate General: Antietam. Which is awesome by the way.

I always thoroughly enjoy your highly considered and incisive opinions. but on this point I must disagree. I'd say Sherman and Grant were two military geniuses created by the war. Sherman's Hard War doctrine was the only truly original strategy to emerge from the war, and Grant's ability to concentrate entire army groups and military departments on symbiotic objectives, combined with his ability to out-improvise and pursue his opponent to destruction would have, in the words of John Keegan, made him an exceptional general in any war. With regards to Petersburg and Vicksburg, we'll have to disagree my friend . Vicksburg was incredibly military achievement. Grant moved his entire army astride the enemy's fortified position and deployed it on exterior lines within the enemy's rear, then interposed it between two major armies after winning critical victories at Jackson, Champion's Hill, and the Big Black River. This masterful abandonment of Jominian principle set's Grant and his campaign apart. The brilliance was not the siege itself but the actuation of the campaign by which siege was achieved. As for Petersburg, the breakthrough was achieved by the ingenious movement of two different departments collaborated by Grant and Sherman. Grant, through the extension of his lines and by forcing Lee into siege by outmaneuvering him on the James, and Sherman, through a brilliant shift in base, are able to force starve Lee's army to a point where offensive operations are possible. In doing so they are able to break Lee's entrenchments in such a way as that could only be envied in 1915. After the Third Battle of Petersburg, which, like Five Forks. was conducted with considerable skill by Grant and his officers, Grant conducted the finest military pursuit of any army in that war. Yes it ended in surrender, but I feel the statement is misleading. This was because Lee was beaten into submission. Between the Fall of Petersburg and and Appomattox, Lee lost 30 000 men to Grant's constant harassment in the span of little more then a week. This is a stunning achievement. Lee surrendered because, had he not, Grant would have destoryed his army that day on the field, trapped as it was in a valley flanked by the Army of the Potomac and the Army of the James on three sides. This was achieved through Grant's military genius. He defeated Lee at Five Forks and pursued him with extreme vigor until Appomattox. It is perhaps the only time in the war (with the possible exception of Nashville) in which an army was successfully pursued to its military destruction. Surrender was only allowed because Grant was, in character generous and had no great thirst for the effusion of blood. Also, just my opinion, but I've always though that it should be five armies, rather then three, that were captured/destroyed in the field. It seems to me that Thomas aught to receive credit for the destruction of the Army of Tennessee at Nashville, and then Sherman should receive credit for the capture of The Army of the South in North Carolina after the victory at Bentonville (and the subsequent surrender a few weeks later). Just that I'd add that because usually the three armies cited as destroyed/captured are Buckner's Army in Ft Donelson, the Army of Vicksburg, and the Army of Northern Virginia. I was curious as to your opinion on that pet opinion of mine lol,

Called it.

Thanks for jumping in on the cavalry David. I've always been a bit confused on that aspect of the battle. I guess I'm more of an infantry person when it comes to Civil War history lol

This update sounds awesome! Can't wait!

Antietam

I'm going to take a quick stab at answering some of your questions. I have a bit of a fever atm so take it for what its worth lol . Ok, so first off, night attack. The only night attack I'm familiar with at Gettysburg would be the attack on Culp's Hill on the Second Day (which began at dusk). The Rebel attack on Cemetery Ridge (Day 2) occurred in conjunction with Longstreet's attack on the Federal left. That attack was in the mid afternoon I believe. That attack, in my opinion, came the closest to giving the Rebels a real victory at Gettysburg, had Wilcox been supported and had the 1st Minnesota demonstrated an almost unheard of gallantry, the Federal line would have broken and would have been vulnerable to deeper penetration. After the war Wilcox wrote of being able to see the rear of the Federal lines that day. The Rebel attack at the end of the day actually went quite well all things considered. The purpose of the attack was to strike the Federal Line en echelon, so to speak, drawing Federal reinforcements to one point so as to attack the other. Culp's Hill was the prime target as it was critical to Federal supplies. The Rebels actually managed to take a substantial portion of the Southern half of the hill, around Spangler's Spring, because the vast majority of the Federals had been shifted to the Union centre and left to replace the holes left by Dan Sickles broken III Corps at the Peach Orchard and Devils Den, and the retreating XI Corps on Cemetery Hill, which was briefly taken by Early's Division (also in the face of convergent artillery fire from Steven's Knoll, so named for the battery placed there). As such, the Rebels seized many of the trenches dug by the Federals on Culp's Hill without firing more then a few shots. With only one brigade, it was only the exceptional skill of Union Brigadier-General Greene and the coming of night that prevented Johnson's Division from capturing the hill. The Federals retook the trenches and the hill at a high cost to both sides the following morning, before Pickett's Charge. The attack on Culp's Hill worked better then one might think. It was launched to late however. Lee did have scouts track the Federal position on the third day and indeed had accurate measurements of the Federal strength there. When he estimated that there were 5 000 union soldiers at the centre he was in fact correct. Why then, did he launch the charge? We have to see this from Lee's view. He had a contempt for the Federal Army of the Potomac. This contempt had previously manifested at Malvern Hill (fought one year to the day before Gettysburg) where Lee heedlessly assaulted McClellan's powerful position on Malvern Hill at the close of the Seven Days Campaign in Virginia and was repulsed with extreme losses. Lee believed the Federals escaped disaster, James McPherson also argues that Lee mistook the weakness of McClellan, whose lack of courage cost the Union victory in the campaign, for weakness of the entire army. This was seemingly confirmed at Second Mannassas, where, after the incomplete Confederate victory at Chantilly, the Union again escaped. Lee expressed frustration in both occasions. He felt this same frustration after the First Battle of Fredericksburg where Lee was unable to pursue the defeated Federal army due to the Federal artillery on Stafford's Heights. At Chancellorsville, the Rebels seemed to place the Army of the Potomac, or atleast the majority of it, on the knife's edge with the collapse of the XI Corps and the capture of Hazel Grove. However, Sedgewick's wing of the army was able to win the Second Battle of Fredericksburg the day after Jackson's charge and Lee was forced to withdraw much of Jackson's men (now under Stuart) in order to stop Sedgewick from rolling up Lee's flank. This allowed Hooker to withdraw the Army of the Potomac. Thus, Lee felt the Federal army was completely incapable of fighting his army. To complete this delusion, Lee had recently learned that McClellan had come into possession of his General Orders No. 9 during the failed Maryland campaign. McPherson suggests that for this reason, Lee may have felt that his defeat at Antietam was therefore due to ill fortune and poor security, rather then military exigencies. Another try would do it. Lee, therefore, marched in Pennsylvania with several objectives, but chief amongst them was the destruction of the Army of the Potomac. He expressed both the Davis and in private correspondence that this might cause foreign intervention, the withdrawal of Federal forces from the broad South (including Vicksburg), a Democratic election in the 1864 elections, and perhaps even immediate recognition. Lee was there to find his enemy ("Those People" as he would say) and kill them. Lee felt that, after a 4 extremely successful campaigns and only one failed campaign (due to luck he believed), his army was simply invincible and the only obstacle in his way was the inability to finish the enemy. If he could bring the Federals to battle, he would destroy them, wherever the fight was. He expressed these sentiments to Major-General Trimble at the outset of the campaign. When he attacked on the 3rd, he did so because he truly believed that the Federals were not capable of maintaining their lines in the face of the Federals. Malvern Hill, Antietam, the previous day of fighting, 2nd Fredericksburg, appear to have been forgotten to him. Lee believed that a concentration of Rebel artillery on the Union centre (history's first box barrage) combined with an all out infantry assault and a cavalry strike at the rear to cut off retreating Federals would not only win the battle but also place the Potomac Army in a route, allowing it to be destroyed in detail. "The enemy is there" he had said to Longstreet, indicating Cemetery Ridge, "and I am going to strike him, or he will strike me." Bear in mind there were other factors, Lee overestimated the efficacy of the Rebel artillery (he learned 10 days latter that 1/3rd of their shells were bursting 200 yards past their targets due to poor fuses). Lee also believed that the divisions of Pender and Heth (now under Trimble and Pettigrew) were capable of mounting another charge, even though they had not adequately rested from the previous two days of fighting. This reduced the fresh Rebel soldiers in the attack from 13000 to only about 6500 or so. That being Pickett's Division. Gettysburg was Lee's Hubris. He believed that by simply striking the Federals, he would gain victory. I've mainly focused on Pickett's charge and Lee here, however the breakdown of the Rebel command structure also bears responsibility. Stuart should have screened the Rebel army, Longstreet should have attacked on the morning of the 2nd, the 2nd day's attacks should have been co-ordinated, et cetera. I won't be getting into that though because I've already used to much of your time and mine lol. What it comes down to is this, Lee did survey the ground from a distance, he did receive continuous objection from Longstreet imploring him to detach and join battle elsewhere, Lee did have scouts. Lee made these mistakes because he believed that the crowning victory of the war was in his grasp. He underestimated the Federal army and their commander. He paid for it dearly. All of that being said, my favourite anecdote about the battle comes from Pickett. Years after the war, intrigued journalists and scholars were debating over Longstreet's memoirs, which placed blame for the defeat on Lee (and has been a major influence on the interpretation of the battle). One such writer had the idea to ask George Pickett, now a insurance salesman. The story goes that when asked whether Longstreet or Lee was responsible for the defeat at Gettysburg, Pickett paused, thought the question over, and at last responded "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." I hope that helps a little. If not then I hope that the anecdote made you laugh.