Mr. Mercanto

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.

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!

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!

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

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

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.

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.

Thanks you! Laid out like that I can definitely see how that would work. I still have some questions though. How do I stop my line from being flanked though? Would I just rely upon interior lines to move brigades if the enemy shifts his attack and rely upon skirmishers and flanking artillery to hold the enemy back until my line infantry arrives? Or do I draw my lines at angles and give up the majority of ground until the enemy is to tired to defend it. Also, you mentioned the greater difficulty in attacking, I agree with that prognosis, I've just been obsessing over the defensive lately. I don't suppose I could bother you for some sagely advice for taking the offensive?

It may just be because I'm pretty inexperienced in RTS games, but I just can't seem to defend to my satisfaction. I can do so against the less aggressive AI but the more aggressive AI just masses their troops and walks over me. Sometimes its as if I just don't have enough soldiers to cover all of my weak points. I was wondering if anyone could give me some defensive pointers? Its pretty clear that most of the Early Access players are more experienced tacticians then I am so any and all advice would be appreciated .

I think that's a good compromise. If the option is there for other people, more power to them. Personally, I'd want to keep ammo off but I can understand why others would want it.

I'm a Union man myself . How about you? Billy Yank or Johnny Reb?

Co-op would be a fantastic addition.

Here here! Great game so far!

I think ammo should stay out of it. Speaking as someone new to RTS, its difficult enough just to manage the battle lol. Furthermore, bringing in ammo would act a great deal of micro-management. Given that part of the appeal of UGG is the lack of micro-management I think that adding ammo would be counter-intuitive.

Oh and clearer indicators for terrain would be great.

A note on the cavalry. Its also worth noting that American Civil War cavalry was not as effective a fighting force as European Cavalry and was rarely used to cut off a retreating enemy. Cavalry was used to harass the enemy and scout enemy movements. I think for the most part the game nails it on the application of cavalry. As someone else already said, the use of cavalry to cut off the enemy was a Napoleonic thing. That being said cavalry often fought dismounted, it would be pretty cool if we got that feature.

@R.E.B. Blunt. Fair enough. I guess I was looking at the defensive action as a simulator rather then game (ie in the actual Civil War the Rebel charge would not have worked). I've had more luck since adopting my strategy to the game, so again, thanks for the advice, albeit bluntly delivered. Though I still think the Union Brigades are under powered. I mean, contrary to popular belief, the Grand Army of the Potomac had more then one effective brigade. I was actually a bit insulted that Adelbert Ames was given a one star rating . Though I definitely agree that the Union artillery is excellent. Tl;dr I concede to R.E.B. Blunt and JohnnyJingles, though I do hold that offensive tactics were harder to actuate in the actual conflict and defensive tactics were more effective.

The Rebels are still hugely overpowered in the game. I've had whole divisions overrun on high ground with cover and artillery support. Its almost as if all the Rebels have to do to win is charge. The only thing that seems to stop them is canister. I think giving the Rebels a charging bonus is drastically unfair. It makes defending as the Union impossible.

I should add that I really love the base game. I just think this mode would make it easier for people new to RTS like me get used to the mechanics. I've only played a few RTS games and honestly I can only beat the AI at the moment on the easier difficulty settings lol. A Play Battle mode would be fun and helpful for newbies like myself.

Just wondering if there would be a "Play Battle" mode similar to that of NTW added in the final game. Right now the Custom Battle mode only lets you replay scenarios that you have already fought in the campaign which feels a bit paltry. Having a mode where you can customize the armies of both sides and pick your map is a great way to experiment with tactics and learn the ins and outs of the game. Its also a great way to play when you don't want the burden of the whole campaign on your shoulders. I know multiplayer is on the way so I'm hoping that this will include customizable AI opponents and offline functionality. Here's hoping.