Redmarkus4

Yes, this is the only major annoyance I've faced so far. It's the same in any multi-day battle. As the CSA at Stones River for example, I managed to take the first Turnpike VP on Day 1, only to get teleported right back across the map overnight. I wouldn't mind it so much if my units were restored to full strength as a compromise, but with the losses I'd taken on Day 1, there was no way to win on Day 2. To play the battles and win you often need to exploit your knowledge of what's coming next. This feels very gamey and needs to be fixed somehow. Frankly, I'm sceptical about the wisdom of portraying multi-day battles at full scale. What might work better is to use a branching model (as used in several battle's early phases already) where you are confronted with, a most, Corps-level taskings. If you win, you move on to Scenario 2a, if you lose you go to scenarion 1b etc. Effectively, this would be similar to the campaign system, but at the level of a grand battle. You should even be allowed to make decisions on the grand battle (campaign-style) map, such as send Longstreet around the flank, or defend vs. attack in the centre...

RECON Recon could represent a combination of things, giving various advantages: Strategic intelligence - boosts the command radius of all Corps commanders. Local intelligence from spies and the local population (add this as a skill that players can select for each Corps commander). Adds 5% to unit speed. Signals, ballons and patrolling - boosts unit resilience to reductions in morale during battle; they know more about the situation and have more trust in their officers as a result.

Actually, the standard methodology for artillery in that period was to take bearings on likely targets while there was still good visibility, and then to fire blind into the smoke once the field was obscured. Many artillery casualties resulted from this kind of blind fire, according to my reading. The kind of 'over open sights' events seen during Pickett's charge, for example, were less common, though they did happen regularly, of course. One implication of this is that friendly fire was a major problem, something that the game doesn't yet address. This reminds me of one of my only compaints about the game so far; the way that other units can volley fire at enemy units already in melee with friendly units. I think that the effect of such fire in those situations should be reduced by 75%, to represent firers taking careful aim at individual targets.

Totally agree with this entire post. To add my bit, the Union in particluar made extensive use of signals posts to detect and report distant enemy movements (miles away) by telegraph, as well as balloons for the same purpose. The complete fog of war is rather extreme. It would be more realistic to have some rough idea of some of the enemy's dispositions (with detail and accuracy affected by the player's Recon level) and to be able to target both known and suspected enemy positions; particularly trench lines, walls and woods. 'Recon by fire' is the phrase, IIRC.

Yes, the cancelling of orders keeps catching me out. I end up with reinforcements I had already ordered to move, sitting on the map edge after the new phase starts.

Delighted to see the regular patching and improvements, particularly the way in which the devs listen to their players. This game has already cost me weeks of real life!

I'm OK with the concept of scaling to maintain a challenge, but the spamming of 3-star enemy units annoys me too. It's same regardless of which side you choose to play. Perhaps the AI should only receive 2-star units by default, with 3-stars requiring the unit to gain experience the normal way?

I've been reading it and have saved it as a browser bookmark! Very helpful - thanks.

I've seen the AI supply wagons doing this - pretty easy to capture them. I would prefer to have supply managed as a virtual issue without the actual wagons on the map. A real army has a lot more than one wagon and so much should not hinge on a single unit of scouts capturing one stray wagon.

LOL - I figured it must be Done the same thing myself...

I haven't recruited any cavalry yet. One thing I really would like to see changed is the first campaign turn. Instead of starting with a defaul force on a specific map, I would prefer to recruit my troops with an initial budget and then pick my first fight from the strategic map. This would ad a huge amount of variability and replayability to the game. One day, it would be nice to have a dynamic strategic map, with battles appearing based on strategic movement decisions.

Now that I've played as far as Pittsburgh Landing, one AI issue has emerged. Once I pull back into a really strong position around the Landing, the AI keeps sending uncoordinated units to probe me every few seconds - a bit like a ping-pong match. This needs some adjustment so that, at least, the AI uses artillery to support massed infantry assaults, as it seemed to be doing earlier in the campaign. Thanks.

I enjoyed the UG Gettysburg experience, but this is even better - by a mile. The combination of pause or half speed, an AI that will stop attacking after suffering heavy losses and then try to defend, and the administrative interval between battles is an absolute winner. If this is only the Beta, then I have to rate this as potentially the best Civil War game I've ever played (I own Scourge, everything by Tiller, CWG2 and pretty much everything else ever made). A few more tactical realism features, the ability to slow down to 1/4 speed, and improved controls for arranging your units on the field, and this will be pretty much the perfect game. A couple of suggestions: Easier to see field of fire arcs. Perhaps an option to have shaded arcs, outlines or no arc? 'Ambush' orders along the lines of Combat Mission - you tell a unit to hold fire and then draw an arc on the map. The unit fires when the enemy enters the defined zone. If the firing unit was hidden (e.g. in woods of crops) it should have a low chance of being spotted by the AI until it fires. More orders options for artillery, particularly a counter-battery option. I'd like to prevent my artillery from enaging infantry beyond musket range unless I opt to do so, particularly infantry in cover. Artillery retire settings, once enemy infantry get too close - limber and pull back behind a friendly infantry unit. Objective names on the map - when I get a message, 'Enemy spotted on Henry Hill', it can be difficult to spot which hill that is... Instead of having supply wagons running all over the map, it might be more realistic to park them in a chosen location and use a unit command called 'send for resupply', or a trigger when supply falls below n% The unit would then lose 10% of its manpower for a period relative to its distance from the wagons, representing those men marching back to the wagon train to bring forward ammunition. In the case of artillery, I imagine the guns would stay put while troopers lug fresh boxes forwards.

Are you posting about Ultimate General? I haven't come across any naval combat yet...

Loiving this new title so far. It takes me back to CWG2, one of the best designed games I've ever owned. I'm happy to have the half speed control but I'd be even happier if I could edit how fast 'half speed' actually runs. I would like to play parts of the action at real-time speed during larger battles. Also, I'd like to see some orders delay added for Move and Hold commands. This should vary based on the range from the commander. Facing, skirmishers, retreat, etc. should not have any delay, as those orders would be issued by the local unit commander.

Great to see devs who are open to constructive comments. I already love this game and I can see its potential. You have a fan here, for sure.

What I would like to see is a Total War-style capability wherein during pause mode I can specify a final location and orientation for each unit. I would like to see each of the planned locations highlighted on the map (not just the arrow, but the deployment as well) in pause mode so that I can ensure that I am creating a line with no gaps. This would greatly reduce the clickfest effect, I believe.

!00% agree. Not just a 50% option, but a slider from 'true real time' up to maybe 2x faster than it is now. If you add true real time plus orders delay, you will be on the verge of producing the best Civil war simulation I've seen, IMHO. I have all of them on my hard drive...