Mr. Mercanto

November 29, 2015

One of the aspects of the ACW that makes it unique in the annals of military history is that both sides were trained and armed almost identically. Captured guns and ammunition could be almost immediately provisioned to units with appropriate caliber requirements.

Over the course of the four-year conflict these similarities resulted in staggering similarity in battlefield-related casualties.

UGG Gettysburg disregards these historical similarities in favor of artificial contrivances to make the two sides different. Then attempts to balance the fictional imbalances with superior Union artillery vs. CSA charging capabilities.

History is full of examples of differences in armament that gave each side unique characteristics...but the ACW is uniquely not one of these conflicts.

Why build a game of the ACW and not capture this fundamental truth of the war?

The game would be much better if a 12 pounder Napoleon was a 12 pounder Napoleon, canister was canister, and an Enfield was an Enfield.

Game balance should be achieved by CSA leadership advantages, unit elan, and VP allocation rather than nerfing armament or ammunition characteristics.

Note that during the war the Aberdeen Proving Ground analyzed CSA powder because Union generals and their troops concluded that in action the Rebels had a "power advantage" due to superior black powder. The evidence from these tests demonstrated that Union and CSA powder were precisely the same. But Union generals who did not want to admit that they were being out-generaled insisted that the CSA had a firepower advantage based on the inferiority of Northern ammunition.

Over the course of the war the Union claim of superior Southern powder was scientifically and irrefutably proven to be false. Lincoln realized the only way to snuff out the myth of CSA armament superiority was by decapitating the leadership of his army until he could find generals who could and would fight based on the reality of parity in armaments and superiority of numbers on the Union side.

The artillery ammunition of both sides was universally crappy. REALLY CRAPPY. About 50% of the artillery ammunition fired actually detonated. The Boremann fuse was the pinnacle of timed detonation devices for both sides and performed equally miserably for the Blue and Gray.

At Gettysburg there were about 60,000 rounds of artillery ammunition fired. Which demonstrates conclusively that each round on average killed less than 1 man (60,000 rounds fired vs. 50,000 casualties).

The statistics get much worse if you consider that in addition to artillery ammunition about 5 million rounds of small arms ammunition also inflicted some of the casualties.

If the analysis of the military professionals at the U.S. Artillery School at Fort Sill can be trusted then about 6% of the casualties during the ACW were inflicted by artillery.

If we use the baseline of 6% of the 50,000 Gettysburg casualties then somewhere in the ballpark of 3,000 casualties at Gettysburg were inflicted by artillery.

The math suggests that 1 round in every 20 inflicted a single casualty at Gettysburg. While it was mathematically possible to inflict as many as 16 casualties per round with other than canister the actual occurrence of this phenomenon was so rare that instances of such a devastating round were noted by Corps Commanders (Longstreet at Gettysburg noted a single round that inflicted 14 casualties). If you factor in these rounds that inflicted more than a single casualty (primarily canister; but also the occasional shell) then the average round per casualty inflicted jumps to about 1 round in every 33 inflicted a single casualty at range beyond about 400 yards.

There is a good reason that E.P. Alexander, Gibbon and other artillery experts state that the effects of artillery were, "more moral than physical."

Effectively the only round that could inflict multiple casualties reliably was canister. The metrics that Halleck, Hunt, and battery commanders such as Tidball align on is that an artillery battery of six guns firing canister at less than 400 yards roughly equaled the firepower of a 200 man regiment (roughly 1/5 the firepower of an UGG brigade).

There are many reasons for the poor artillery performance during the war including non-standard manufacturing of munitions and fuses, ammunition alternatives, gun calibers and design limitations, and primarily the fact that black powder is a low-explosive propellant which is too impotent to inflict massive numbers of casualties.

Bottom line - the ACW was primarily an infantry conflict.

At the end of the battle of Gettysburg the artillery of both sides was the only combat arm still capable of continuing the contest. The artillery arm of both armies had suffered about 10% casualties. All of the batteries that entered the fray on July 1 were available on July 5 though some had been more severely punished than others. When they armies moved from Gettysburg virtually all of the guns from both armies (modulo one gun with a burst barrel abandoned by the CSA on the field) were present for duty. The fact that the artillery arms of both sides were intact was a key factor contributing to the war of attrition and parity of casualties.

In UGG the reality of the relationship between the combat arms in the ACW has been lost in the never-ending quest for the Ultimately Unachievable Game-balance (UUG).

See above the statement from Myes! that the CSA is overpowered vs. GrandGeneralRevShand's comment that the CSA is now "utter crap."

The only way to resolve these balance complaints is to give players the ability to edit VP values as well as the weapon characteristics and charging balance algorithms and then let players adjust to their preferences/abilities.

Perhaps a Pro-South, Pro-North, and a balanced option (historically most accurate) would be a wonderful addition that might attract players like myself to return to this game.

I've grown weary of the game design attempts to please everyone all of the time. You can't.

But you can provide a few options that would embrace more of the community.

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

November 28, 2015

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.

October 24, 2015

Hello all,

Due to popular request, there is going to be another hotfix that will address last needed things, mainly charge/melee balances that affect CSA effectiveness too much and make them less challenging. A new beta procedure will start soon so please provide below a shortlist of changes you would like to see in the next patch (gameplay related) in order to implement for the next hotfix.

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.

October 17, 2015

I appreciate your answer and the fact that you aren't skulking behind nameless masses regarding your 'white pride.'

An honest response was all I was asking for.

However, you've still not made the any connection between the Confederate Battle Flag and the media. Can you shed some light on the connection?

Note that:

The Confederate States of America was hardly an un-oppressive government or a symbol of non-oppression.

It's foundation was based on slavery and the oppression of one-third of the Southern population.

See for example Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Speech" which states this proposition directly and precisely.

The compulsory draft for all males was implemented by the CSA - oppression of the white male population that led to more than 100,000 white Southerners abandoning the ranks, the cause of the South, and their flag during the course of the war.

See Sam Watkins in his chapter on "Corinth" for example regarding the 20 negro exemption from the compulsory draft that brought the first wave of desertion from the armies of the Confederacy.

Southerners stated "I'll fight for the South" but not for the right of the rich to keep their slaves.

Rich man's war - poor man's fight.

Robert E. Lee requested permission to shoot any deserters - which was too big of a step in the direction of oppression even for the South. When Lee posted sharpshooters behind his battle lines they also refused to shoot deserters.

In the end the South's white population was under one of the most oppressive governments in history.

First in its founding by subjecting its black population.

Then oppressing the white population as popular support for the war waned after Antietam.

So the argument that the CSA battle flag represents a government that was somehow benign, unobtrusive, and not oppressive is silly.

I'm not sure you can honestly characterize the fact of slavery in America and its legacy of Jim Crow as "a few blacks who may have there feelings hurt." But here we reach the chasm between our perspectives.

This discussion has not been about "tunnel vision" but as Lincoln said regarding the oppression of America's black population, "there is the rub." And so racial tension continues to simmer in America.

I remain ignorantly yours,

Mr. Fair

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.....

October 17, 2015

The last I heard this is still the United States of America ! Able to show, say, or believe anything you d-mb well please !!!!!!

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

October 6, 2015

I have been playing several campaigns over the past few days and I have to say there are some pretty glaring faults I take issue with.

Skirmishers are essentially a useless feature. There is nothing a 400-man skirmisher detachment can do that a 400-man half-brigade couldn't do just as well, if not better. Their base morale is so low they require constant micro just to ensure they are still doing what you last ordered them to do. Their morale wavers upon simply making contact with the enemy. This is especially problematic if they are holding high ground, as their nervousness and tendency to slowly fall back while they are constantly on the verge of routing, means that they often retreat to the reverse slope of said hill without orders, allowing enemy infantry to simply walk up and take the position. You'd think skirmishers would be lethal holding high ground with cover. This is not the case in the slightest. After the first few volleys skirmishers are really more trouble than they're worth.

While not as bad as the skirmishers specifically, Union morale in general is abysmal. I agree that the average Rebel probably had higher morale than his Federal counterpart but right now the disparity is simply extreme... Just last battle I was defending Round Top against an attack by a mere three Rebel brigades. I had a 1500-man brigade, 2 sharpshooters, and a battery on Round Top defending. Keep in mind Round Top is a very tall hill with very heavy cover. The Rebels attacked frontally without cover, artillery support, and from low ground. The first few volleys and my Sharpshooters were already routing. One of my sharpshooter units hadn't even taken a casualty yet; but they gave up their positions almost immediately. One of the Rebel brigades then fixed bayonets and charged uphill to rout the remaining defending brigade, which was accomplished as soon as the rebels made it to the top of the hill. Within a minute of this "attack" and Round Top was taken. This same task would be, at best, extremely difficult for the Union side.

This game is amazing. The AI is extremely competent, hands down the best of any strategy game out there. The only thing comparable is DarthMod AI =P but the experience and immersion really suffers when you know you are fighting Confederate Ubermenschen.

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.

October 6, 2015

Well Mr. Mercanto, I agree with your Feedback/Assessment with the above post.

The Artillery being to powerful with Shot at Range /// With Cutler in cover, + an added Advantage stationed on Higher Ground.

-Cover is a double edged sword.

-Now with the effectiveness of cover, and how I understand it n should mirror a fire fight just like IRL...

This will effect the Soldiers 'Line Of Sight', with incoming, and outgoing Musket Fire.

Cutler is in heavy cover 78%, This will limit his LOS to Davis.

-Thereby his effective fire(Cutler) is limited with not being able to have a direct fire into/at Davis.

-The enemy 'Davis' also has decreased LOS to Cutler(Lower n in the open, an added disadvantage),

giving a diminished effective fire at/into Cutler.

- Now With Cutler having the Higher Ground, in good 'cover his Brigade will have an advantage in Kills/Hits.

-As Distance increases from Hill,(Higher Ground) LOS will increase for Cutler.

Whereas Davis will have a Decrease in his hit/kill rate in rounds fired...imo

-With No Screen Shot to give a more accurate relative assessment, (i.e Strength/Placement-Distance to Combatants.)

Throwing guesstimate numbers in the air, I would say in that situation Cutler should of had

the advantage in kills... ~(2 - 1)...Cutler 36 Kills // Davis ~15-18 kills......

.................

But with a game...n trying to mirror what happen's in a Real Life Battles can be a challenge, n next to impossible in certain situations....

I will add this is a Great Game....regardless...

....................

I agree with your assessment entirely. My only issue was that Cutler shouldn't have taken more casualties then Davis.

Sorry about the lack of screenshots, if I can figure out how to make them on this pc, I will post some.

October 5, 2015

Mercanto.,, So if I understand you correctly the AI(ANV) is over Powered?

Let me know the Map//Setting, you used for your Fight.....

I want to play this out with both sides n take ScrnShots of the Battle, with reports.

The brigade on the higher Ground with cover usually are the winners in a Gun fight weather AI or Player,,from what I seen/played

given the Brigade rating */**/***...... n Numbers involved.

If I give up the higher ground(AoP) it is usually I am also getting Hammered with Artillery, while in a Gun Fight...But than again that's me

n there are a lot of different circumstances with this(Settings/Maps)

I always play Determined against the AI,,so the AI's(ANV) Offensive/Defensive strength is tough,,,

which I like..sometimes I can win, Usually it's a Draw/Defeat on bigger maps where the AI is Defending with good Arty support...

But what I like could be skewed....towards being unbalanced with damage modifiers as you alluded to....

Did A Battle with both sides Arriving At Gettysburg

ANV // AoP // Determined

Now with different settings the game allots different strengths / weakness for the Player/AI I believe.....

So this is why I play with Determined Only.

-But this is my take only...Also my views on Arty is a few Posts above...

AoP- http://imgur.com/a/gp0g5

ANV- http://imgur.com/a/ZSpaD

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 :/

October 5, 2015

Mercanto.,, So if I understand you correctly the AI(ANV) is over Powered?

Let me know the Map//Setting, you used for your Fight.....

I want to play this out with both sides n take ScrnShots of the Battle, with reports.

The brigade on the higher Ground with cover usually are the winners in a Gun fight weather AI or Player,,from what I seen/played

given the Brigade rating */**/***...... n Numbers involved.

If I give up the higher ground(AoP) it is usually I am also getting Hammered with Artillery, while in a Gun Fight...But than again that's me

n there are a lot of different circumstances with this(Settings/Maps)

I always play Determined against the AI,,so the AI's(ANV) Offensive/Defensive strength is tough,,,

which I like..sometimes I can win, Usually it's a Draw/Defeat on bigger maps where the AI is Defending with good Arty support...

But what I like could be skewed....towards being unbalanced with damage modifiers as you alluded to....

Did A Battle with both sides Arriving At Gettysburg

ANV // AoP // Determined

Now with different settings the game allots different strengths / weakness for the Player/AI I believe.....

So this is why I play with Determined Only.

-But this is my take only...Also my views on Arty is a few Posts above...

AoP- http://imgur.com/a/gp0g5

ANV- http://imgur.com/a/ZSpaD

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.

October 4, 2015

One of the fundamental problems with artillery in UGG is if you make artillery too effective then the CSA infantry needs to be beefed up to unrealistically to compensate for the preponderance of Federal artillery batteries.

The net effect is the Union infantry is too wimpy vs. the CSA infantry.

Overly powerful artillery destroys the game balance and the relationships that existed during the ACW.

The goal of the game is to make it possible for either side to win in the various scenarios. Some scenarios may be more or less difficult to win; but it should not be impossible to win or why play?

Thoughts regarding artillery:

On the battlefield there were two classes of artillery. The first was artillery that was supported by infantry or dismounted cavalry. The second was artillery without support.

The former class was difficult to dislodge and had a significant impact on the moral of enemy ordered to attack a line of combined arms on the defensive.

The latter class was a target that could be overrun with minimal casualties. Artillery batteries simply could not stand alone and unsupported.

Even a line of guns could be taken unless the attackers moral was close to being shattered at the time they encountered an unsupported line of artillery. See: Missionary Ridge at Chattanooga for example.

Gettysburg is also a prime example. Seven individual batteries deployed as isolated batteries were overrun with minimal casualties to the attackers. Tactically these guns were taken by men in skirmish order; the standard method for dealing with an unsupported battery. Skirmish order kept attacking targets minimized for artillery rapidly destroyed the mobility of a battery.

While UGG can't deploy skirmishers it should be able to abstract this key distinction with modified based on the operational radius of the battery.

Here are some practical observations...

Bigelow, Smith, and 5 other batteries operating in isolation were overrun.

Longstreet's charge on July 2 was stopped by a line of guns deployed effectively as a 'Grand Battery' of multiple batteries brought together in a line and holding a final position until infantry support could arrive.

Longstreet's charge on July 3 (aka Pickett's Charge) was broken by a combined arms line.

From an implementation standpoint it is almost like the artillery should have a support radius similar to the Corps commanders at 'canister range'. When friendly infantry/cavalry are close the batteries are more effective and lethal against the enemy. When batteries are not supported, meaning no friendly units are within the battery's operational radius, the guns are much more vulnerable to enemy fire and inflict fewer casualties. Mutually supporting batteries (batteries within each other's operational radius) might gain some benefit, but less than a line properly supported with infantry/cavalry.

I haven't tested for a while now, so perhaps my comment are out of step with the current state of the game.

Hopefully this comment is useful.

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.

October 4, 2015

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?

September 6, 2015

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 )

June 6, 2015

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

May 30, 2015

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.

May 23, 2015

42ndMS,

Yep, Guilty.

I was having fun pulling your leg on the Clauswitz topic based on the sentence structure rather than your intent.

No malice intended.

I'm not really certain the ACW produced any generals of genius.

As a topic for books I'm quite certain it has produced few authors of genius.

Military genius is a metric based on results.

The ACW was a war of attrition and battlefield results were frighteningly predictable.

There was only one general during the war that successfully eliminated 3 armies - all by surrender.

But I don't consider the sieges of Vicksburg or Petersburg much to crow about in the annals of military brilliance.

If it wasn't the best war we've had we'd celebrate it less. ;-)

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,

May 4, 2015

Called it.

February 18, 2015

This update sounds awesome! Can't wait!

February 15, 2015

Antietam

December 31, 2014

I've had this problem too, it happened on the July 2nd morning attack on Cemetery Hill. I was CSA and went to attack Stannard who was in a dangerous position, both Wright and Posey couldn't attack, charge or anything and for my trouble they got ruined. It also happened once where I couldn't attack Wright in the Little Round Top scenario. Restarting the battle solves it, but then you lose all your gains.

I've found if you just reload your autosave you can fix the issue without losing your battle progress.

December 31, 2014

I've found that if you exit to menu and reload the autosave the magical Rebels lose their invisibility.

December 31, 2014

The Ghosts of Daniel's Brigade struck me at Oak Ridge on the morning of the second day.

December 26, 2014

Yes in the next patch we will have:

Artillery Limbering, Night battles, Some Battle UI enhancements + various other, most importantly AI & gameplay stuff.

Awesome! The last patch blew me away! I can't believe how well the Johnnies use cover now when they attack me! Its made holding my ground pretty tough! I can't wait to see how much the game changes with the next patch!

December 26, 2014

Very cool! Will any of these features be coming to the PC versions?

December 25, 2014

Looking forward to the patch!

I'm not sure if this is the right place to repost but I ran into a serious bug and wanted to make sure it was in the right place.

So I thought a Christmas round of UGG was in order and was engaged in an excellent fight for Oak Ridge when suddenly Perrin moved his brigade forward. Naturally I turned my guns to Perrin only to find my troops would not fire. Even right beside Perrin's brigade they would not target Perrin, the same was true of my artillery. Perrin, meanwhile, could target. Finally in confusion and desperation I moved my skirmishers forward as an experiment to see if I could charge. My men would not charge Perrin but instead the men behind him. I assumed at least this would cause my men to hit his brigade. Alas, my men ran straight through the Rebels while Perrin's men continued to fire unabated.

Needless to say, I broke my rule of no restarts.

Has anyone else encountered these Magical Confederates or their Union Counterparts?

Happy Holidays!

December 25, 2014

So I thought a Christmas round of UGG was in order and was engaged in an excellent fight for Oak Ridge when suddenly Perrin moved his brigade forward. Naturally I turned my guns to Perrin only to find my troops would not fire. Even right beside Perrin's brigade they would not target Perrin, the same was true of my artillery. Perrin, meanwhile, could target. Finally in confusion and desperation I moved my skirmishers forward as an experiment to see if I could charge. My men would not charge Perrin but instead the men behind him. I assumed at least this would cause my men to hit his brigade. Alas, my men ran straight through the Rebels while Perrin's men continued to fire unabated.

Needless to say, I broke my rule of no restarts.

Has anyone else encountered these Magical Confederates or their Union Counterparts?

Happy Holidays!

PS. I will be reposting this under the Update forum.

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Downloads

Events

Posts posted by Mr. Mercanto