[Invisible Soldiers]

Ever since the new patch, I've found that enemy and friendly soldiers often turn invisible. This is especially the case for those that enter as reinforcements. I've already Reported the Bug but I wanted to know if anyone else has encountered this. 

[Gamestop Reviews Ultimate General Gettysburg]

GameSpot =/= Gamestop.

 

Also, I think that "late summer" isnt a good release date, I dont recall Game-Labs/Darth giving this estimate.

Lol, yes typo. My bad. 

[Gamestop Reviews Ultimate General Gettysburg]

Gamestop has posted its Early Access Review of Ultimate General: Gettysburg. The review grants high praise to UGG. Noting the excellent AI and intensity of battle.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ultimate-general-gettysburg-early-access-review/1100-6421384/

Another congratulations to Game-Labs! 

['Cosmetic' Suggestions]

Well the game engine is not that heavy for a modern rig. I think almost everyone could br able to enjoy full scale battles without framerate losses.

Very much agree with you. I use a mid-tier PC and if the game was more graphically demanding then there would be no way for me to play it. I'm happy to trade TW graphics for a game that is actually on the scale of a real battle (and all the other amazing things about UGG).

['Cosmetic' Suggestions]

This game already looks pretty good graphically and well done Darth but I've noticed that the explosions from artillery look different in the early release picture than they do now. It would be great if the explosions looked like the picture, its makes the battle feel so much more intense and immersive. I would like to see as well, variations in uniforms( which i believe was already mentioned, would add great realism to the battle. Also if any of you guys have ever watched Ken Burns: The Civil War, the music in that documentary is amazing and would make great music for the main menu. 

I don't know if they could get Ashokan Farewell but the dev team may be able to snag some public domain Civil War Era music (which comprises the rest of the Burn's series). 

Either way, I think you're right on the music, in that the game could use some. The ambient sounds of battle are an effective soundtrack but music could make it even more intense. 

['Cosmetic' Suggestions]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but there is a little, innocuous cosmetic element in UGG that bothers me a bit. When the Rebels charge, they sound like they are giving a "Rebel Yell." Awesome, just like they're supposed to. When the Federals charge however, they also give the same foxhound yip. Now, as perhaps one of the few proud pro-Unionists that seem to be on this forum (lol) it bothers me a bit to not hear the emphatic "Hoorah!" that the boys in blue would cry on the charge. Though the Union Hoorah may not have been as famous as the Rebel Yell, it was in effect their response to the yell and the simulation just doesn't feel right without it. 

So can we give the Loyal Unionists a Hoorah rather then a Rebel Yell? 

[Victory points]

The history of the battle of Gettysburg, and the ACW, should be acknowledged and respected as well.

IMO history should be part and parcel of the game design.

It is fine to deviate in a game from history as long as these deviations are not presented as historically accurate.

Stuart's arrival is not an example of a historical situation at Gettysburg.

It's fine to make cavalry a fictional power in UGG.

Many think this improves the game.

Respectfully I disagree.

Stuart did not arrive on the right flank of the Union army at Gettysburg.

If he had arrived on the right flank he would not take on formed infantry units from the AoP.

Cavalry lacked the firepower and were too valuable in a military campaign to attack the right flank of the Union army.

Stuart arrived at the East Cavalry Field 3 miles east of Gettysburg.

He was positioned to exploit the anticipated Union rout from Gettysburg.

When Stuart was in position he fired 2 signal guns which attracted the Union cavalry.

At about 11 am Union cavalry fought Stuart to a standstill on East Cavalry Field.

About 40 minutes later Stuart's cavalry withdrew.

The cavalry forces were evenly matched.

Both sides suffered less than 10% casualties.

Longstreet's attack on the Union center failed about 3 hours later.

Stuart was never in a position on the Union right flank.

His time of arrival on the field of battle at Gettysburg is pure fiction.

I can't find fault with your history, and I don't say that often lol.

Though I suppose the idea in UGG is to create a what-if scenario . What if Lee had attempted to use Stuart in a flanking attack rather then placed him at the ready to cut off the Union rout. Granted this would have been a poor idea under the circumstances, as cavalry riding into massed rifled infantry fire and artillery fire would be a recipe for disaster. 

[New player, many problems]

Husserl,

You are responding to a new customer's feedback - this is Jlnxed's first post.

As an experienced tester and a software development executive here is my reaction to your response to your new customer:

I completely disagree with your statement that, "there is no factor that favors small units".

Multiple small skirmishers units have a fictional rate of fire and speed advantage against a large division.

Additionally they can operate on the flanks of the large division.

The flank and rear algorithm determines the condition and morale of a unit.

Thus there are multiple factors that favor small units.

This is especially the case with skirmishers and videttes.

Note - Multiple Union units were designed and introduced into the game specifically to slow down the CSA advantage in Phase 1.

This decision by the UGG design team was not based on historical formations or tactical reality at Gettysburg.

There is a deep and extensive wealth of content disputing the implementation precisely because of Jlnxed's observations.

Jlnxed observations are spot on:

1) tactically in UGG many small units (particularly if they are skirmishers due to their speed and rate of fire) are better than large formed divisions.

2) Jlnxed description of the charging mechanism is accurate. This is a problem.

3) new players need a setting they can play. Cautious means that the Union will not play aggressively giving players time to learn the game mechanics. The Union AI is programmed to destroy the CSA batteries entering on the edge of the map and skewing the game against new players.

4) write a tutorial. You are getting unstructured and divergent feedback because people don't understand how to play the game and the interrelationships of the variables in the game.

5) listen to your player community. This is not a "tactics" or "history" problem. This is an "implementation and design" decision that should be openly and honestly discussed.

Additionally...

Your history lesson is inaccurate.

It is likely Jlnxed knows this.

Many in your community will know this.

Buford lost a total of just over 100 men from Devin's & Gamble's Brigades at Gettysburg. Calef's Battery suffered minimal casualties.

Specifically:

Devin lost 2 KIA, 3 wounded, 23 missing/POW.

Gamble lost 13 KIA, 58 wounded, 28 missing/POW.

Calef lost 12 men wounded, 13 horses, and no guns lost.

For supporting facts see:

http://www.gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/HQ/HQ-Cav-1-1.php

http://www.gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/HQ/HQ-Cav-1-2.php

http://www.gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/US/2USartA.php

Buford's casualty figures confirm that his cavalry did not "hold at all costs".

But history is not what is happening in Phase 1.

This is why your new customer is legitimately complaining.

Buford can hold against large aggressive CSA divisions.

Videttes and 1st Division I Corps can attack and exploit the CSA rear areas and destroy the CSA artillery.

The game manual is incomplete and not particularly helpful to new players.

These are legitimate concerns.

IMO the designers nerfed Phase 1, specifically:

Union organization structure and capabilities include cavalry and skirmishers deployed as fictional units.

The designer's decision to support tablets impacted the design team's ability to include cavalry mounting/dismounting, skirmishers that deploy from formed divisions, anachronistically slow artillery, and other historical limitations due to design and target market decisions.

All of this is fine - but it should be openly and honestly disclosed.

The game is not a battlefield simulator despite claims to the contrary.

The game is an excellent brigade-level game that is challenging and tremendous fun.

But UGG is not historically accurate and the defense of the design should not be based on historical arguments.

UGG is a really fine game; but, it has some key limitations.

Dealing openly about these limitations to your new customers should be of paramount concern.

Additional Historical Notes:

Historically I Corps held at all costs.

Cavalry charges at this stage of the ACW were suicidal.

Buford's contribution was delay - not blood.

Buford's men fought from the prone position to conceal their positions and strength.

His cavalry forces were withdrawn from the infantry combat.

Heth was under orders not to bring on a general engagement. Heth behaved accordingly probing the Union position because he couldn't surmise the makeup of Buford's forces. Note for example, Buford did not unfurl his cavalry standards which would have conclusively identified his force as cavalry.

Buford spread his guns and men and ordered them to lay down and keep firing. The smokescreen produced obscured the Union cavalry position until elements of I Corps arrived on McPherson's Ridge. Buford's tactics consumed all of his ammunition and he was ordered back to Maryland on July 2 to refit and resupply.

Had Heth realized Buford's ruse he could easily has swept the Union cavalry off of the ridge quickly because the CSA had more than a 3 to 1 advantage in men and a 6 to 1 advantage in guns. I won't even start on the advantages of the rifled musket over the cavalry carbine.

Historically Buford was deployed in 2 cavalry divisions with videttes posted on the right and left flank. By comparison in UGG you have broken two Union divisions into multiple skirmisher fragments each operating independently. As a result they can flank the CSA divisions crashing the morale. Additionally UGG presents the videttes as formed "units". This is complete fantasy as videttes by definition are 3 to 6 men deployed every couple of hundred yards for reconnaissance.

Just have to add one point that you may have forgotten to add. As you no doubt are already aware, Buford's men were armed with 7 shot Spencer Repeating Carbines. Though Heth may have still been able to sweep over him via overwhelming numbers, the carbines vastly increased rate of fire would have made this difficult.

I never heard of Buford not unfurling is Cavalry Colours and ordering his men to keep up intense fire to produce a smokescreen. That's really interesting. I wonder if he also did this to add to the deception that he had under his command a far larger force? 

I realize that this does little to add to the actual conversation. I just couldn't help myself lol.

[Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered]

Based on my extensive reading on the battle, had Lee or his subordinates acted more decisively, they would have won this battle decisively.  The fact that they came close at all - despite a plethora of large mistakes - is mute testimony to this assessment.

 

For instance, in the game, if Ewell's corps has a chance to secure a strategic hill with zero opposition, you would instantly seize this gift, correct? 

 

Well, that's exactly what Ewell didn't do IRL.  Had he done so, the entire Union defense plan would have been untenable.  All the confederates really needed was a hill with a flat top, overlooking the union position.  This is exactly why they fought so hard for Little Round Top.  Had the confederates been able to park a Napoleonic-style "grand battery" up there, the union troops could not have remained in their entrenched positions for long, and any assault against them would go in with massive artillery support.

 

As it was, Lee never did secure the key high ground, and Hancock made brilliant use of interior lines to shuttle troops to threatened sectors.  Pickett's Charge was Lee's final throw of the dice, and it failed for the same reasons that all the other assaults had - lack of proper artillery support, insufficient numbers for the task, and the sheer folly of frontally assaulting unsuppressed (note this also refers to the poor artillery support) entrenched defenders in an era filled with massively greater firepower than Napoleon's tactical system ever had to cope with.

 

Getting back to the point now - after knowing these facts, do you still find the Army of Northern Virginia "overpowered"?  Because they had never lost a battle up to that point and weren't even that badly damaged by this "defeat" at Gettysburg, although the South's chances of winning were all but extinguished on July 3rd, 1863.  In contrast, all the Union had to do was "not lose" in order to win.  Time was on their side in a massive way.  But this isn't a strategic wargame. It's about a single battle, and in that battle, the Army of Northern Virginia was probably the finest field army on the planet as of July 1st. 

 

To be accurate, the game *must* reflect this.  And your tactics as the Union player must deal with it.  Don't blame the game just because your opponent doesn't make the same mistakes as Lee, Heth and Ewell did.  Or if you are unable to assemble a defensible position and use interior lines to keep it firm, as Hancock did.

 

To the devs, please consider these points before Nerfing the Confederates any more than has already (unfortunately) been done.

Well the problem here is you pre-suppose that I agree with those facts and had not already heard such things before. I must take issue with the condescension of your response. You seem to assume I know nothing of the Civil War. Perhaps I can disabuse you of that notion. Lets start with the statement, "[The Army of Northern Virignia] never lost a battle up to that point."

That Army of Northern Virginia was defeated at White Oaks Swamp, Malvern Hill, Antietam, Beaver Dam Creek, South Mountain, and The Second Battle of Fredricksburg (an often overlooked battle that occurred a day before Chancellorsville)  just to name a few, before Gettysburg. It strikes me that you might buy into Lee's invincibility a little to much. He was an exceptional general, but far from perfect. The defeat at Antietam cost the Army the entire Maryland campaign and any chance of British recognition of the Confederacy. That's quite a heavy loss. 

Also, I would argue that if Ewell had seized Culp's Hill on Day One, the Federals would have abandoned Gettysburg to the Rebels as Hancock would imediatley recognize the untenable position of his and Howard's Corps. They would have then concentrated at the prepared position at Pipe Creek, where Meade originally wanted to defend. Lee would have pursued them, but without cavalry he would have been unable to adequately track their movements in time to strike a blow. Once Lee could pursue, his blood would be up and he would face the Federal army, now completely concentrated behind the superior defenses of Pipe Creek. Lee would have been even more over-confident, and even more aggressive. What likely would have followed would have been even bloodier defeat for the Rebellion. Gettysburg would have been the South Mountain to Pipe Creek. The result of the campaign would likely have been even worse for Lee.

Also. I doubt that a "Grand Battery" on Little Round Top would have sufficed. As you may or may not know, 1/3rd of the Rebel shells burned about 200 meters to late. This was because the shells made in South Carolina had been improperly manufactured. Lee learned this about ten days after the battle. This is why Lee's proto-Box Barrage preceding Longstreet's assault on the Third Day was so ineffective. 

FYI, if there was a chance for Rebel victory at Gettysburg, perhaps it was when Mahone nearly broke into the rear of the Federals on Cemetery Ridge on the Second Day. Had he been supported before the 1st Minnesota plugged the breach, perhaps things may have been different. Regardless, Lee's army was too damaged and exhausted at that point to exploit any such victory. This can be seen in the behavior of the brigades outside of Pickett's during the charge on the Third Day. The Rebels didn't have a third fight in them. 

I also would not call the Army of Northern Virginia the finest field army in the world at the time, The Army of the Tennessee and the Army of the Cumberland were better equipped and could match them in Esprit de Corps. Furthermore, unlike the Grand Army of the Potomac and the Army of the Tennessee, the Army of Northern Virginia never captured or destroyed an enemy army. 

As to the Union having the advantage in this battle. Yes they did. Due in large part to the magnificent success of Buford and the I, XI, and II Corps on the First Day, who held the Southern Ridges against the odds. I'd say though that in the grand scheme of things the Rebels generally had the defensive advantage, but that discussion is a large digression. 

As for the game reflecting this, I was frustrated because I felt that the Rebel's ability to carry the offensive was overpowered. Malvern Hill, Glendale, Beaver Dam Creek, etc proved that one Reb could not in face lick ten Yankees, as your argument almost implies. I felt that the game did not compensate for the high ground for example. Having played the game more extensively, I feel I was wrong about this. Though the Rebs are a bit to strong, since they are compelled to attack I think it is fair. 

I may not be as experienced or skilled a gamer as you are, but please don't lecture me on the Civil War unless you really, really, really know your stuff lol. 

[Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered]

So I haven't checked this thread I checked in a while...


How in the hell did this become about Hitler!? 0_o

[Never Surrender and Nerfed Confederates]

I agree that the Confederate combat power seems about right at the moment.  I just don't want the devs to downgrade individual units to ensure that the overall battle goes as it did historically.

 

When you read about this battle, it really strikes you just how many mistakes were made in terms of being alternately hesitant and then (when Lee finally got his way) disastrously over-confident at the Corps and Division level of command.  I seriously doubt anyone playing as the Confederate would replicate these mistakes.

 

The best way to see if a wargame is historically-accurate is to go ahead and replicate the original battleplan and see how it works out. If the outcome is reasonably close to the historical result, you know you've probably got verisimilitude.  If not, you go back and pick apart various aspects of your model, looking at (perhaps) smaller engagements to see what's not right.  Perhaps its the effect of terrain, or the combat algorithms, etc.  

 

Of the variables which get plugged into the combat system, the values of the various brigades are probably the best-known, and therefore the least likely to be wildly incorrect.

 

Note that I feel like the devs have done a fantastic job so far with getting those values right so far.  I urge them not to mess with a good thing, just because some folks can't figure out how to play as the Union (referring to the "Confederates still vastly overpowered" nonsense on another thread).

Yeah I have to own up to that threat. Though I still think they are a little bit over-powered, its certainly not game breaking like I felt at the time. I hadn't adjusted to the game's rules yet. 

Granted for what its worth since the Rebs are obliged to attack their being slightly overpowered makes sense. 

PS, I meant to say I'm a better historian then RTS gamer, rather then vice versa, in the previous quote lol. When it comes to game design I know a great deal less then most of the forum posters.

[Never Surrender and Nerfed Confederates]

I agree units shouldn't be allowed to retreat "through" well ordered enemy brigades.

 

If I may suggest a mechanic, that would be the constant loss of men related to the current "condition". If you throw men around the field with abandon large numbers will drop out of the ranks. Most will rejoin in a day or two, but they're gone for the time being. This would make constant pauses in movement to reorder even more critical.

 

When a unit routs it should also lose men, and trying to rout "through" the enemy would cause them to surrender.

 

If you study Pickett's charge for example, quite a lot of the Confederates got to the wall, and after a brief fight simply surrendered.

So far as I know only two units reached the stonewall. Remnants of Armistead's division and a few men from the 2nd North Carolina. 

The most impressive Southern attacks of the battle I'd say were Ewell's near capture of Culp's Hill on the second day and Hill's near capture of Cemetary Ridge on the second day. 

I'm a better historian then I am RTS player so I think I'll leave my comments at that. Except to say that though I absolutely agree with everyone that routing forces should not be able to recover in enemy territory, I think that the Rebs are plenty strong enough despite some nerfing. 

[Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered]

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

Fair enough but Ames's brigade fought with distinction at Gettysburg. 

[Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered]

Hi everybody! The Ai is under constant revision by Nick. As noted we do not use cheat bonuses for the Ai. If we did it would be a piece of cake to make the player's opponent always with better stats no matter what side the Ai is. However, we've chosen the hard way to make a real Ai. An additional headache for Nick is that, as far as the game will be improved in EA and new features/improvements are added, a new re-balance must be implemented and this sometime takes a while. With your valuable feed back Nick will make his magic with the Ai and the opponents balance.

 

About the units, there are already some superior and elite brigades (see the golden stars at the bottom of their commander's portrait) based on historical facts. Soon we'll start a thread to ask suggestions about renaming some more brigades to the historical names they used like Louisiana Tigers, etc.      

Are you sure you got all of the skill levels for the Brigades right. Ames was a pretty damn good commander at the regimental, brigade, and division level, yet you guys only give him one star . 

[Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered]

It sounds like you got seduced by a "magic hill" (a reference to the Telamon episode of Time Commanders:

).

 

High ground in (real) combat is good only for extending the range of artillery. Infantry should probably be positioned at the base of the hill, with the supports and artillery up it.

Have to disagree with you on that. High ground is very useful for infantry, so long as they are on the military crest rather then the topographical crest. It provides inertia for counter charges, makes charging for the enemy extremely difficult, and allows for a greater range of fire. The enemy is constantly exposed to fire while those on the hill are not. Certainly being on a hill doesn't guarantee success, but the positive effect experienced by infantry fighting on higher ground is well documented. 

[A simple fix for Skirmisher/Vidette complaints]

I agree with Johnny Jingles, the videttes and mounted rifles don't seem over powered to me. They seem just right actually.

[JJ's Suggestions & Game Improvements Thread. (UPDATED 27/06/2014)]

I think all four of these could be great. 

Personally, I'd like to see a fully customizable battle mode, rather then just the option to replay battle scenarios. Being able to create your own battles would allow the player to experiment with different tactics and add an even greater depth of replayability. Make it possible to do so co-operatively and that would be amazing. 

[Awesome Start]

Hi. Yes sir, I was born and raised in the south so if I didn’t put the confederate flag as my avatar then I am afraid General Lee would strike me down with a lightning bolt.

 

lol!

I'm an unabashed Union supporter and I also think that this game is fantastic! North and South seem to get along on this one lol

[Needing your opinion about saves]

I voted for option 3. I don't intend to go back and correct mistakes but my philosophy is that more options are always better. 

[Defensive Tactics Advice]

The only way to stop your line from being flanked is through maneuver. When ever you see the enemy Brigade moving on Column formation you know that their destination is a good deals away from their current location.

 

If you can, do not follow with the brigade w/ that which is on your farthest flank instead bring a brigade or two you have in reserve sitting in back of your line. As the enemy brigade marches in column is the best time to attack. As soon as your men open up fire usually the enemy will stop marching and form a line to defend against you. Instead I like to tell my brigade to charge when they get close as fast as possible and smash into the enemy as they are still in column. If you hit them while in Battle line and they are in Column they will rout.

 

 

Yes, standing on the high ground does give your men an advantage. It takes more energy on part of the enemy to launch an attack up hill and push you off than the energy you will spend telling your Brigade to hold the hill. While on the hill it is easy to get over-confident and not pay attention when 2 or 3 brigades hit your 1 brigade guarding the hill. If your Brigade is being attacked on their flank and you can not bring up any reserves to counter, you should fall back. Its better to lose the good ground than have your Brigade drained of Morale and Organization all because you wanted to hold a hill. Your brigade will be worthless if it has 0 Morale and Organization. Better to fall back and keep your Brigade a viable fighting unit.

 

 

 

When attacking I follow the same rules as I do when defending. I form 2, 3, and even 4 lines of Brigades one behind the other. Instead of falling back. I will leap frog my Brigade and inch my Battle line closer and closer to the enemy. When I am close enough to charge I like to do so with a FAT Brigade rather than a smaller one. Armistead or Law or Barksdale to name a few that are good at charging. I will keep one or two of these FAT brigades in reserve and will not use them and let them rest while I press the attack with my leap frog tactics. Then, when I am close enough I will advance my FAT brigade you do not want to tire them by running them instead I will walk them until they can see the white of the enemy eyes. Then I will charge.

 

When the enemy begins to fall back or retreat I will tell my charging unit to HOLD. Then I will begin to leap frog my Brigades again and repeat the process. Even if you have taken the VP and have won the battle. You still want to press the attack. Kill as many as you can. Because unless this is the final battle you will have to face those Brigades again and better to kill as much as you can and drain their morale and organization and the next battle they will be much weaker.

 

Also a good tactic is when ever reinforcements arrive. Unless your battle line is crumbling you NEVER want to deploy a brigade where another brigade exists. Instead either Extend your battle line and try and Flank. Or hold that Brigade in reserve behind your lines.

 

Hope this helps.

All of this helps me a great deal! Thank you very much for the lesson in tactics.

You know the leap frog technique you describe kind of reminds me of a divisional advance technique that Rosecrans was experimenting with before the disastrous defeat at Chickamauga. It never panned out due to his replacement by Thomas, who despite being a better general overall, did not like to experiment with new formations. 

Oh, and I noticed from one of your comments that you're a re-enactor. I'm an 1812 re-enactor in Canada. Its always fun to talk to a fellow historic re-creator!

I do have one other question, is there anyway to encourage the recuperation of morale and condition, or can that only be achieved by pulling the brigade out of the line and allowing them to rest? 

Thanks again for all the help!

['Cosmetic' Suggestions]

I'd like to see minor changes like US Sharpshooters in green but I definitely agree that the most important thing is good gameplay, which this game already has in spades!

[Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered]

Yeah I still take issue with how the Union soldiers are portrayed. They were excellent fighters. 

['Cosmetic' Suggestions]

Speaking of uniform accuracy, it would be stellar if the US Sharpshooters wore the historically correct green variant uniform rather then blue. 

[Confederates Still Hugely Overpowered]

Yeah, upon reflection I was overreacting due to frustration. Though I still maintain that the Union soldiers in the game are unfairly presented. The Grand Army of the Potomac gets a bad reputation due to the ineptitude of its commanders before Meade, but the army itself and the soldiers it was composed of were of the best in the war. No other army in the Union inflicted and withstood casualties in the proportions that the Potomac Army did. Also, as I said before I quite like Adelbert Ames he definetly should have at least 2 stars lol. 

Granted, the same can be said of the Army of Northern Virginia in relation to its Confederate counter parts, and the brigades mentioned by Johnny Jingles certainly demonstrate that. I just think that the Union infantry are being a bit unfairly represented. 

[Defensive Tactics Advice]

I might be able to give you some pointers.  I have been winning all my defensive battles as the Union, but I'm not doing anything that I didn't learn in a Total War game.

 

So here's what's important.  

 

• You want the high ground when you are defending.  
• You want to make sure that your artillery are in a useful spot and doing damage.  
• Since it's a VP game, you know that the attacker will try to hit you near the VP areas; often, he attacks right at them.  So you want your best quality troops near those spots.  
• If you are playing as the Union, your morale needs constant watching.  You need to keep your generals near the troops at the front line of the main attack.  Your generals are skittish and will move if they think they are threatened, so keep an eye on them.  They are pretty important to the morale.
• Since it's a map based game, choose areas where you can use an edge of the map as a natural flank protector.  (You may object to using this tactic, it's possible to win without it so don't worry.)
• Keep a back line at critical areas (you will know where these are by the number of troops you are facing off against) so that when your front line troops tire or break, there is someone to replace them immediately.
• Allow broken troops time to rest and then when you bring them back, make them back line first.
• It's best to keep reserves for emergencies but I don't think these need to be high quality troops.  I've used them mostly to delay an attack that would give a decisive advantage while I get my better troops into a good position.
• If you are playing as the Union, do not charge with your rifles if you can avoid it.  Your troops are not good at it.  But they will have an advantage if the fire fight lasts, because they use better quality weapons.  So it's in your interest to prolong the engagement rather than try to end things quickly with a charge.
• The exception to this is in attacking artillery.  Use cavalry if you have them.  I've found it hard to actually get a charge out of cavalry on artillery, but they do overrun the cannon positions and that works.  Light troops can charge but you have to sneak them up using something to distract the artillery because a good barrage will break your men.  But it is important to even the odds in artillery or even get an advantage if you want to have a decisive victory or better.  I've had an epic and a heroic I think it was called and I'm betting it was taking out the artillery that made it happen.

Now other than this, I can say that I've found you don't have to micromanage your lines.  You'll see them shifting around, but if they aren't breaking and leaving a gap, you don't need to fuss with them most of the time.  Let them alone so that they continue firing.

 

These strategies seem to me to be the main part of holding on during the early stage of the game and providing yourself with an advantage as the Confederates tire.  If you can hold the line on Seminary Ridge, say, until your reinforcements arrive, you will be able to bring some to the flanks and begin to roll up the Confederates lines.  This is a tried and true Medieval Total War strategy and it works in this game as well.

 

With this basic strategy, I've won with all the AI's I've tried, but I've yet to use the top left AI.. I forget what it's called suddenly, but that's the most "attacky" AI.  I'm about to try it and see if this strategy will work as well against it.  

 

But I have to admit, when I tried using the Rebs, my efforts were much less fruitful.. I'm not a very good attacker.

Thank you very much for the advice! I think I have definitely been failing to keep my generals at critical points and I have on occasion used the bayonet on as the Union though I try to avoid it.  I tend to get antsy when I see my brigades shifting so your explanation that they are just rectifying their position is very welcome news lol. 

Does the high ground make a difference in this game though. I know it acts as a superior artillery platform but does it have any effective on infantry? I haven't been able to tell.