Lannes

Thanks, 1st.TN.Reg.Watkins, I've done what you suggested but no change. I have many greyed out battles in Custom Battles, so I wonder if I have the Full game. Wouldn't 'Pickett's Charge' be one thing that would definitely be part of any Gettysburg game? Where are the developers? Where is Nick Thomadis? I would like to know what I've paid for. Additionally, there is no way to finish a game without having to fight the whole battle. Why can't we choose to stop a battle at any point and then go on to the next one? Please use this feedback thread for your generic opinions or for any useful report. Yes, hello! Is anybody there?

Pickett's Charge and many other scenarios are greyed out in Custom Battle, is this because I have a version of the game that needs to be updated? Or do I need to delete the Early Access version of the game and buy the game anew at $14?

Still no answer to my question. ?

I'm not getting an answer to my problems. Perhaps they have been answered elsewhere, that would be good to know.

Is there a way to get rid of the blue movement arrows once you're done with that brigade? Still have had no answer to the problem of spinning and swapping positions when you group brigades and position them.

I still have problems with placing two brigades as a group in that there is a lot spinning going on, and then the brigades go off each swapping places with the other brigade. Any solutions?

I have a similar problem which I've posted under cosmetic changes. Once I place a unit and they start their march, I cannot place any other unit until they arrive because I have no way of knowing how to line the next unit up with them. (In Rome II, I can press the space bar and see where the unit will end up, in order to line up the next unit with it.)

When I place a brigade or division, the units/formations move to the allocated place, but I cannot place anything alongside them or near them because I have no way of seeing where they will end up until they get there. In Rome II, for example, I can press the space bar and the units can be seen at their end-point, so that I can then line up my next lot of units alongside them. (I hope that's clear.)

Thanks David Fair, I was asking elsewhere about this very thing, the cavalry's weapons and their effectiveness, coupled with Buford's skill in delaying Heth and coming out of it with very few casualties.

WesleyBarras Jeb Stuart may have been late in arriving but that was not entirely his fault. From the history, I gather that he was encumbered with captured supply waggons and also Robert E. Lee changed his line of march in response to knowledge about the Union Army's whereabouts.

Does anyone know more about those 208 captured from the 6th Cavalry? I found that info. on a site, but when I checked the various different sites about all the diverse 6th Cavalries, I did not find any that mentioned captured fellows. Also, perhaps soccercw would know, why did not Buford's Division have more impact on Heth's Division? Were their weapons inferior to infantry weaponry? Didn't cavalry have breech-loaders and repeating rifles?

ATTENTION developers! We need more groups! 5 is not enough!

Buford's cavalry Division was made up of three Brigades, viz., Gamble's 1,534 troopers; Devin's 1,259 troopers; Merritt's 1,948 troopers. One-in-four were horse-holders, therefore, their dismounted strengths were Gamble's 1,150; Devin's 944; Merritt's 1,461. The game should show them able to mount and fight on horseback with carbine and sabre, as well as dismount and fight as skirmishers. Developers should fix cavalry behaviour which at the moment is broken. What I'm puzzled about historically is how come so few casualties if they played an important role in holding up a Confederate Division while Reynold's infantry came on line? The casualties were: Gamble 13 killed 58 wounded 28 missing (6%); Devin 3 killed 6 wounded 21 missing 1 captured (2%); Merritt 13 killed 55 wounded 15 missing 208 captured (all from 6th Cavalry) (15%). Totals: 29 killed 119 wounded 64 missing 209 captured (9%). (Those 208 captured from the 6th Cavalry bloat the percentages.)

I wish people would not make this distinction between a wargame and an RTS game. Whether table games with miniature figures, computer games in RTS or historical simulations they are ALL wargames. Gettysburg appears to be an historical simulation wargame with the possibility to change history with the forces, equipment and organization available on the day, as well as the human general vs computer generated generalship. I would like it if there were two Gettysburgs. One for those who like the historical event, and a second one for those who like a broader wargame, including further possibilities relating to forces, equipment and organization. Jeb Stuart and his cavalry would be a possibility in the second option. But the cavalry would have to be improved. It would have to be able to fight mounted with carbine and sabre, and be able to dismount and fight dismounted in a skirmish line by Brigade, with horse-holders. Currently, its behaviour is chaotic--and indeed it is unhistorical to have it being used only as light infantry in three brigades and mounted vedettes with peculiar behaviour. Buford's Division had three Brigades totalling 4,741 mounted men: Gamble's 1,534; Devin's 1,259; Merritt's 1,948. Dismounted 1 in 4 would be horse-holders, so Gamble's 1,150; Devin's 944; Merritt's 1,461.

The penny dropped about vedettes and dismounted cavalry! The developers have depicted Buford's Division as dismounted cavalry without an option to mount. I can see why the vedettes have been made to behave as they do. Although, in their current un-cavalry-like state, the vedettes are over-powered. I get the point that this is not an 'RTS game'. Still, I would like it to be more so. There is no reason why, in future games of the ACW, proper cavalry could be made available and then used or misused according to the player's preference. A light-hearted note about playing 25mm Napoleonic wargames. In a game, about 30 years ago, one of my French cuirassier Divisions destroyed three British squares in their charge. Ever after, I tried to duplicate the feat to little avail, with few successes, often resulting in the annihilation of my horsemen. Even during the Napoleonic Wars, cavalry had to be used judiciously.

@ All players & developers: Regardless of one's preferences vis-a-vis cavalry use, don't you think that the way cavalry moves in this game is rather odd? It appears to me that they move forward and back willy-nilly, without a plan, never in any formation, more like American Indians. They cannot dismount and form a line, nor can they form a line mounted. They are like a tennis ball which you hit once then it does its own thing bouncing about as it hits an obstacle. They are of very little use as tactical units in the game, and of no use strategically.

Thanks blood-phoenix. I get it that the ACW was not usually about cavalry charges. My point is that this is a wargame. As to the rudeness of that previous correspondent, I understand that some people have difficulty in sustaining a discussion and a dialogue, given that their ability to reason is easily overwhelmed by emotion. (They would not make good senior officers.) It is not important that I am sticking to my preferences; it is important to maintain equanimity and courtesy in this forum.

SMG and Talonsoft? Outdated in 2005! Are we going backwards or forwards? You may not have noticed, but we're in 2014! My argument stands. Additionally, who ever heard of infantry charging like cavalry, but cavalry only skirmishing like light infantry! Useless! No, let's have a wargame and get over all these limitations quickly. Let's have Gettysburg being merely a generic name for an ACW wargame which ranges more broadly--or let's quickly move on to a larger more comprehensive wargame.

If you want a repetion of history a game that is strictly historical, you will end up with the actual event itself: victory for the North, debacle for the South. That's not a wargame; that's a historical acting out of what happened. A wargame includes having all the elements I would like, e.g. use of all weapons available in that period, use of the three arms of infantry, cavalry and artillery as preferred, use of generals as preferred, picturing of the various units with their varied uniforms, etc. What you propose is reenactment. That's no fun. At the moment the game is correctly priced and if it continues in this format no further increase in price is possible, because its scope is too narrow. I want Darth Vader to spread his wings and fly, like he can, and give a me a game that challeges Total War games--not that challenges some other ACW game of 10 years ago.

Thanks 1st.TN.Reg.Watkins for the info on cavalry and its use in the ACW. So, what are those other fellows talking about? Cavalry was used as cavalry and not only as mounted infantry. Why can't we have it in the wargame?

Technopiper, thanks for the video: excellent!

The first shipping quote I got was for A$2,000. Obviously, they didn't want to do it. I'll have to reasearch it next time I'm in Aus. My army is totally French and French Coalition units: 1,841 figures. 1 Emperor 1 Viceroy 6 Marshals 38 Generals 24 Ad’Cs. IMPERIAL GUARD CORPS Guard Cavalry: 8 Regts. 100 figs. (French, Polish, Dutch & de Berg) Guard Infantry: 10 Bns. 200 figs. (French, Italians, Dutch) IV CORPS 1 Division: 9 Bns. 196 figs. (French) 2 Division: 8 Bns. 186 figs. (French & Spanish) Cavalry Bde. 2 Regts. 30 figs. (French) V CORPS 3 Division: 8 Bns. 192 figs. (French & Swiss) 4 Division: 8 Bns. 180 figs. (Istrians, Croatians, Dalmatians & Italians) Cavalry Bde. 2 Regts. 30 figs. (French) VI CORPS 5 Division: 11 Bns. 244 figs. (French, Saxons & Bavarians) Cavalry Bde. 2 Regts. 30 figs. (French) CAVALRY CORPS Line Cavalry: 12 Regts. 180 figs. (French, Italians, Dutch, Saxons & Bavarians) TOTALS: 26 Regts. 370 figs. 54 Bns. 1,198 figs. 1 Genie Bn. 12 figs. 4 Horse Artillery Companies 64 figs. (12 guns) 6 Foot Artillery Companies 96 figs. (18 guns) Regimental Guns 30 figs. (6 guns) Artillery caisson 1 fig. 1,841 figures in Total.

But first, the game has to be finished and out there. Then, the modders have to get to it. (Perhaps, Darth Vader will be one of the modders.) That'll take some time, unfortunately. Since my disillusionment with Rome II, I have had a reaction to all computer games, even my old favourites, the Darth Vader modded Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2. Perhaps, I need a good 25mm miniatures game, but there are none in the area of Italy in which I live, and my 1,500 Napoleonic figures are in Australia, anyway. (Does anyone know a cheap way to ship them?)

Nice to know that 'many of the things (I have) complained about have been rewritten.' I guess, I have covered all the 'important stuff' I would like to see in the game in my posts. Thanks.

Of course your are correct, the Prusso-German victory was due to more than just Krupp guns. I was being brief. Napoleon was spectacular, I agree. Marlborough and Wellington were not in his class, as was not Julius Caesar. (Napoleon's class includes Alexander the Great and Fredrick the Great.) I have studied Napoleon for a very long time indeed, both as a Napoleonic miniature wargamer and as a Modern History graduate. (I have other degrees, as well.) If I recall correctly, Wellington was in fact defeated at least once in the Peninsular War, but the defeat was not written as such, and once in Holland, before the war in Spain. He would have been defeated at Waterloo quite soundly had Blucher not arrived with a portion of his army amounting to 40,000 men and tying down Lobau's Corps and the Imperial Guard Corps, and threatening Napoleon's rear. In fact, Gneisenau, Blucher's Chief of Staff, was all for waiting to see how the battle was going before intervening. Blucher, however, had given his word to Wellington that he would come to his aid, and his word was sacrosanct. Being undefeated in battle is not necessarily the sign of a great commander. A lot of other elements are involved including luck. Whenever Napoleon considered a Colonel for General rank he would ask: 'Is he lucky?'