CSA Watkins

^Now that would be one hell of a game....Sauron,,,yes with the capture/destruction...of an Army than marched on Wash./Richmond....

nvm,, dig-in = Fortifying/Buildings breastworks/Barricades in ACW/i.e. Culps hill evening 1st day.../ Little Round Top(20th Maine),, nothing to do with digging. Confused it with the later war term, with actually Digging.....

Well that's a bit different. Even If Jeb rolled in on Wednesday the 1st., the Federals would of known where he was at all times n put in a counter to meet any threat he posed.., As an example......When Longstreet wanted to move around the right behind Big Round Top on the second Day, 2 things impeded that, besides Lee's refusal. He had no cavalry to screen his movement. Even if he did have the Cavalry, on Big Round Top there were Federal Signal units with a view for miles around. Longstreet's every movement/position would of been reported. As you mentioned....Jeb's Cavalry tried to get behind Meade on 3rd. but met the Federal's cavalry with disastrous results, so i would imagine any other cavalry movement on any other day would of met with the same results as the 2 Cavalry battles on the 3rd . I believe iirc, Meade had the VI Corps in Reserves in the vicinity/behind Little Round Top also.. But an interesting idea never the less.......

The outcome to that Hypothetical scenario.... would be a complete slaughter of horses n Men. Think about it, horses running into massive rifle n cannon fire. Men in line of battle, n the Batteries would be loaded with Canisters, aiming for the horses to kill them. Men would be tumbling to the ground getting crushed under their mounts, Poor animals. The introduction of the Rifled Muskets put an end to that... If that happened after the battle it would be Horse Steaks all around for both sides. Perhaps read up on the Cavalry Charges in the East Field, South Cavalry Field, just SW of the round tops, n the slaughter there. A total snafu....

@ Hawke AFAIK..n...IMO....This is experienced with most developers with new Games, going forward with adding new features/updating. Problems can n do arise. The new Build 1.01(Beta) seems to be working just fine now Most People that get a new game, will do some research into it before considering buying, They soon realize, Game-Labs/Devs are quite active on the forums, and are quick to let ppl know whats what, with problems + always looking for feedback/Suggestions. People quickly pick up on the dedication this team has with their game(s) that are in development/Release's/Updating. People like n appreciate this. So when these hiccups happen all/most are quite satisfied to go with the flow(Roll back)/giving support/understanding that ongoing development of a game is No easy Walk in the Park. This in itself speaks volumes for the Developers credibility going forward.

Using the Alt. Rendering might of fixed it for you. People were still having Freezes during MP games/SP when in Alt Rendering. Even when exiting game(Which I was having the most problems with, forcing me to using the Task Manager to stop game), Plus I believe there was a couple things that just didn't seem to work as planned in the game, that needed to be revisited/fixed/adjusted, AFAIK. The game Has to work as intended. One must think outside the box when catering/selling a product to the masses. Half fixes will hurt a Product in Reliability/Accountability. Especially to the Developer's Credibility(the quality of being trusted and believed in). A roll back use necessary. There was no alternative. The Developers tried for ~1 Day to fix it on the fly. IMHO the right choice was made, by a long shot...... By rolling it back to v1.0, Two things were achieved. 1- A stable game was again on the market temporarily, working as intended to this point. 2-Now the team isn't being run off there feet, pulling their hair out to obtain a fix(s). This will give them the time to give it a good going over. Being able to put out another Beta, to gather feedback on stability/working mechanics etc.

******** I agree Blunts List is great, those 11 suggestions are very informative/helpful. That would be a Great Idea! A Strategic n Tactical Thread/Topic.... This would give ppl a place to discuss/learn about the game...throw ideas around. It would also be a great place to point new Players too. It can be a bit trying when starting/Learning a new game. There is a lot to learn, It's quite a chore managing your Corps when a full Battle is Raging. There lots of fun to be had here,(SP Historical Battles/Custom Battles/MP Friends Challenge/UGG Tournament is now underway). Plus its a learning experience with Military history/ACW... This is a mature community IMO, with ppl wiling to help others as seen with the different posts in this Forum/Steam's. This benefits us all, helping new players. Easing new players into the game.

I would like to see: The Seven Days Battles...... The Seven Days Battles were a series of six major battles over the seven days from June 25 to July 1, 1862, near Richmond, Virginia during the American Civil War. Confederate General Robert E. Lee drove the invading Union Army of the Potomac, commanded by Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan, away from Richmond and into a retreat down the Virginia Peninsula. The series of battles is sometimes known erroneously as the Seven Days Campaign, but it was actually the culmination of the Peninsula Campaign, not a separate campaign in its own right. The Seven Days began on Wednesday, June 25, 1862, with a Union attack in the minor Battle of Oak Grove. McClellan quickly lost the initiative as Lee began a series of attacks at Beaver Dam Creek(Mechanicsville) on June 26, Gaines's Mill on June 27. The minor actions at Garnett's and Golding's Farm on June 27 and 28, and the attack on the Union rear guard at Savage's Station on June 29. McClellan's Army of the Potomac continued its retreat toward the safety of Harrison's Landing on the James River. Lee's final opportunity to intercept the Union Army was at the Battle of Glendale on June 30......... *** The armies that fought in the Seven Days Battles comprised almost 200,000 men, which offered the potential for the largest battles of the war. However, the inexperience or caution of the generals involved usually prevented the appropriate concentration of forces and mass necessary for decisive tactical victories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_Battles **** Seven Days Union order of battle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_Union_order_of_battle Seven Days Confederate order of battle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_Confederate_order_of_battle

*** NO u do not have to pay again. You have already paid the piper before with the early access, so the full/final version is included with that purchase... You need to (Delete Local Content) through Steam first(Early Access). Only than go to ur steam folder (Steam-SteamApps-Common) n delete the UG:G folder. Re-Download Game......This will give you a spanking new clean install of the Full release 'SP- Version:1.0 rev 6363'../ 'MP Version:0.28 rev 6363'.... I have the full version n some of my Custom Battles are also Grayed out. Don't know what the problem is there... Specifically 'Dawn July 2' Just the first battle is Grayed out/ 'Morning July 2' ... All are Grayed out I have played through the 3 day battle for both sides...

Yes Congratulations on the release of v1.0, This is a nice game, I thoroughly enjoy it. It bodes well with my hobby/interest in the ACW/Military History. Hopefully more ACW battles are in the plans by you, and ur team. Cheers.....

Totally agree with ur whole post D Fair. These 4 lines I have Highlighted in Bold says exactly how I feel. ****** Besides the Cavalry my biggest beef are those 'Videttes' The way they were used in Game, instead of there real role in the Civil War('Scouts/Mounted Pickets/Eyes for the Army'). The Videttes when in Game especially MP are used as Battery Busters. (When the Armies Approach Gettysburg) This causes an unfair advantage for the Union Player, and is totally out of the realm of historical accuracy. I am forced to keep My batteries as close to the main body as possible, which in turn defeats the purpose of how Batteries were used in certain situations. If not, I have to dispatch a Line of skirmishers (Heth's) to protect them if kept together. It is hard to protect if I want to seperate my Batteries to fire from different positions on the map. With 1 unit of Skirmishers in the first part of the map/Game. Also pulling Back troops to Protecting the 4 batteries that arrive later on from the SW 'alone' without any protection, from the wondering Videttes, and so on n so forth... ******* http://civilwartalk.com/threads/videttes-and-skirmishers.96805/ Skirmishers were more of a defensive tactic. You throw out a line of troops ahead of your main body to disrupt the enemy and defend against their actions. A vidette was a mounted scout, usually alone or in a small group, and their duty was to find the enemy and report on their actions and not necessarily to take them under fire. ** A vedette is a cavalry equivalent of an infantry picket. Pickets would have been out about 500 yards from the main body and, with cavalry, individual vedettes out maybe another 500 yards from the pickets. ** Videttes/vedettes would also be mounted when cavalry units are picketing a gap. The pickets would bed down by a fire at night, have a reserve in the rear, while the videttes rode back and forth between the separate groups of pickets. In this case, pickets is an appropriate term to describe both the dismounted and mounted groups/individuals if they are on watch.

Yea agree^^ The Videttes when playing MP are a pain in the butt(The Armies Approach Gettysburg) and other maps.. They charge arty, even when getting blasted with Canisters, n still destroy Batteries. Totally Unrealistic...They are a glaring problem, and should be removed a.s.a.p. imo. The Union Vedettes make it very difficult to win as ANV. You need to dispatch a Brigade/Skirmishers to protect. Than later on unprotected Batteries are slowly wheeled fwd from the west to get Harassed n Destroyed by Vedettes. The ANV is under strength as it is, n having to dispatch Brigades to Protect is a disaster. Also in SP this thing with the Cavalry running around on Maps at Gettysburg is a Head Shaker. If there is anything that smash/ends immersion quickly is the arrival of the unrealistic Cavalry at Gettysburg. Unrealistic n Confusing as to Why they are even Present in the Game/On the Field! 1. Get rid of the Videttes asap! They were used as mostly Scouts...iirc... 2. Have Cavalry depicted as they should Historically be. I would have them removed all together, Unless they were used as Dismounted Infantry/ Batteries If indeed they were used. The realistic on Day 1 morning Buford had (2?) Dismounted Infantry units. Did Buford bring any batteries to Gettysburg Morning 7/1/63?

****** David Fair you hit the nail on the head there, I couldn't agree more! Nice research/Great post. The logistics math you laid out is an eye opener, the difficulties up against a Corp Commander/Cmnd.General. Holding a critical Position after a Hard fought Battle. "Resupply/Rotate" Quote: Was it preferable to resupply by rotation - yes. Was it impossible to resupply troops on the firing line - no. Was it common to abandon key positions to resupply - no. The developers have done a fine job with aspects of this game - but it is really frustrating watching new features being added (Tilt-Shift) when the fundamentals of the game have such glaring logic and play continuity flaws.

With Arty: If a arty unit gets get below ~40% effective by taking massive casualties, or being over run/caught between units etc, 0 morale/condition. I believe that Battery(s) should be destroyed as it is battle ineffective. Call it whatever surrendered/battle ineffective/ammo depleted etc. Afaik IRL rarely did a Battery ever run out of ammo unknowling, that would list up there as being incompetent. A battery would in some cased be ordered to expend their remaining ammo only with the immediate order to limber up n exit to the rear to resupply/redeploy. A batteries CO/Crew was well aware what ammo it had, and what type was left to use. There is a mention in the Book 'Killer Angels' iirc, there was a battery in Ewells Corp(can't remember who's thou) that was basically 'wasting' Arty ammo, contesting a barn near Culps Hill, Lee said tell him to save the arty ammo(As he was told it was getting low) for the Battle that was to follow. This would make it easier to understand that it was rendered useless/destroyed. This could be explained in the Game manual/start up guide. In a real situation where a battery(s) were going to be over run they were limbered up n moved if possible or they were spiked/smashed/disabled. Seeing it being rolled to the back of the map is not realistic + a waste of resources for the computer to keep track of. In another Game I play if a soldier is not outright killed(torso/head shot) they can be wounded where he is considered Battle ineffective and are listed as KIA with 1 loss to your reinforcements. This could have the same bearing with Artillery Battery(s). With brigades if the take a loss of >60% they should rout to the rear as They would be listed as a ineffective fighting unit(0 morale/condition). It should take longer to regenerate/reorganize/resupply etc, I believe thats how it works now?

Documentation? The official Patch/update Stickied threads is a great place for feedback/Update log(s). (News and Announcements) Reorganize maybe, I believe it would help a lot with answering questions. I see most of the topics are represented in one way or another, but most are in the General Discussion section, with different headings(8 pinned Threads). Community Driven/Effort sure... IMO 2-3 more Dedicated Sub-Forums would be helpful(there are 4 Sub-Forums now). Maybe add a new sub-forum(s){Tactics/-Ideas n Suggestions/-Game play Help/-Game Guide(s)/-Game play Rants-}, or something along those lines. This would cut down a lot of the threads started just to state a fact/ask a question/seek an answer/complain etc. in the general Discussion Forum. Basically in the wrong areas. A Forum Mod could move a new threads if need be to the correct specified pinned Thread(section) where their suggestion/Question/Comment best fits, and it would get the attention it needs. Are there any community Moderators here, or are all G-L staff?

The Tilt-Shift does bring a more realistic look to the fight, but I agree with guys above, it should be toned down. The blurred effect should be removed. I like seeing the whole battle/screen with no blurry sides. The darker shading that the Tilt-Shift brings, is a bit to dark. I like the sharpness/lighting of the whole battle field, as it is. I will leave T-S it off for now. Thx for your time,hard work with theses Update(s).

Ok where would you put Operational Planning? I believe once the armies met at Gettysburg the Strategic Plans(Both Armies) was put on hold till the outcome could be assessed. This is why Lee's, and the South's Eastern invasion Strategy Collapsed once a retreat was ordered on the 4 day. Lee Failed to Put pressure on, and threaten Washington and/or Philadelphia with a decisive win in the North. The thinking was this would probably force Lincoln to the table to 'negotiate Independence n cessation of hostilities'. Once the first shots were fired, the Battle was in the Operational Tactical Phase. Strategy imo is the big Picture, whereas The Battle Of Gettysburg was in the Tactical Planning or Operational Level which would advance their overall Strategy with a win, or a disastrous result if a Loss occurred. This is why I agreed with David Fair that this Game is a Tactical Game. imo.... """ Quote> The intermediate level, which converts strategy into tactics is the operational level that deals with formations of units. In common vernacular, "tactical" decisions are those made to achieve greatest immediate value and "strategic" decisions are those made to achieve the greatest overall value irrespective of immediate return...

I don't mean to go off topic here.... @ David Fair. I agree this is a purely a Tactical Game, from the moment the Army of Northern Virginia arrived at Gettysburg, to the time of Lee's retreat on the 4th. With Lee's, ANV withdrawal from Pennsylvania that part of the Souths Strategy Collapsed. I am confused here,Perhaps you could elaborate/clarify on what exactly you meant with the post above, on what exactly the difference is Between 'Strategy n Tactics'. I see the 2 words use interchangeably,to mean the same thing. Perhaps I have it all backwards, But from what I read they are 2 completely different operations within a Military context. I believe this is an important point, because this is a Military gaming forum in Generality. ****** Military tactics can be described as the science and art of organizing a military force, and the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle. Changes in philosophy and technology over time have been reflected in changes to military tactics. In current military thought, tactics are the lowest of three planning levels. The highest tier of planning is the strategy, which is about how force is translated into political objectives or, more specifically, how the means and ends of war are bridged together. An intermediate level, which converts strategy into tactics is the operational level that deals with formations of units. In common vernacular, "tactical" decisions are those made to achieve greatest immediate value and "strategic" decisions are those made to achieve the greatest overall value irrespective of immediate return..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tactics ********** MILITARY STRATEGY AND TACTICS Military strategy and tactics are essential to the conduct of warfare. Broadly stated, strategy is the planning, coordination, and general direction of military operations to meet overall political and military objectives. Tactics implement strategy by short-term decisions on the movement of troops and employment of weapons on the field of battle. The great military theorist Carl von Clausewitz put it another way: "Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war." Strategy and tactics, however, have been viewed differently in almost every era of history. The change in the meaning of these terms over time has been basically one of scope as the nature of war and society has changed and as technology has changed. Strategy, for example, literally means "the art of the general" (from the Greek strategos) and originally signified the purely military planning of a campaign. http://www.molossia.org/milacademy/strategy.html ****** Essentially, strategy is the thinking aspect of planning a change, organizing something, or planning a war. Strategy lays out the goals that need to be accomplished and the ideas for achieving those goals. Strategy can be complex multi-layered plans for accomplishing objectives and may give consideration to tactics. Tactics are the meat and bread of the strategy. They are the “doing” aspect that follows the planning. Tactics refer specifically to action. In the strategy phase of a plan, the thinkers decide how to achieve their goals. In other words they think about how people will act, i.e., tactics. They decide on what tactics will be employed to fulfill the strategy. http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-strategy-and-a-tactic.htm *******

OP puts forward a good point. *** ***** Zelekendel has a good Idea^^. ***** David Fair also put forth a nice analogy of this problem. ***** Good suggestions by all. ***** I would also agree with increasing the size of the maps in MP/Game. This way a person isn't restricted to certain areas getting lost under the maps Frame/Edge. We have to scan back n forth/Up n Down now, managing our battles. The BIG frame edges are a distraction imo. Units disappearing under it,seeing partial units being exposed. Have that wide frame reduced to 1/3-1/4 of its present size. No unit would have the ability to disappear under/appear marching to battle from under the Frame. With increased map size,Units/Batteries/Divisions approaching the Battle field, would be kept hidden till in the proximity of where they now appear coming from under the frame of the map edge(then slowly appear as they do now). As it is now Batteries are hidden in the map with just seeing the smoke when they fire, because they are out of the LoS. The map would than be big enough that a person wouldn't be sending units on a big flank,essentially losing the use of the unit(long slow march)to only return to approximately the same position just to flank enemy. This would give the opposing player lots of time to monitor the enemy's movement n counter. Enlarging the Map also has its drawbacks(there were other battles taking place)and hopefully wouldn't necessarily take in those areas. * Maybe like Zelekendal suggested(have reserved brigades that will only fire in self-defense if an enemy gets close at the edges or other battle areas).* There has to be solution to this problem without compromising the Realism/Historical aspects of the Battle. A good example in MP is Benner's Hill, with 1 draw back the western side of the map from Culp's Farm North n Down past Culp's Hill. I have had units disappear or partially hidden under the map on the western side. This map is large enough that the Northern/Southern n basically the Eastern sections are out of the immediate Battle areas. If the CSA wants to swing south behind Culp's Hill from the east, they can as the area allows them to do so. It can be seen by the opponent n a counter can be put in place to meet the threat. Also same in the North section of Map to get behind/flank the CSA with the AoP from Eastern areas. The draw back here again is the map's edge on the western side going North trying to flank, where units can n do get lost/partial hidden in the areas of Culp's Farm/Hill( north n South). The eastern side is Good in the area of the southern VP,(Krichler/Heck Farm areas). The way it is now can be/is frustrating to a point.

I cannot launch the Game it stays in black screen(Single n Multiplayer). I have reinstalled twice now, I did a reformat of my OS last night. All other games launch fine. Check all obvious places(firewall etc), to see what is wrong, I have ran into a wall..... Worked fine yesterday, installed the updated version(0.92) 2 hrs ago now this . I seen in the bug fixes that there was a fix for Black screen launches, but never had that problem except today. Edit: fixed, thx for the great support..........

Sorry didn't need to go off topic Lancier but,,,,, This post I just translated >>>First time in Tenerife rested in early 2000-ERS, and almost every year arrive in the Canary Islands. Since the beginning of the trip with the tour operator, but soon realized that the services travel agents ,,, bla bla bla,,,,<<<< It has nothing to do with the game....Some fool registering on an english forum, n posting idiotic crap,,Derailing thread topic...with a foregin language n nonsense.... ****************************** Back on topic,,, Lancier go here: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/746-online-short-guide/ That Page ^^ If you haven't already gone thru it.....I think this will answer a lot of your questions,,,,,, Not sure if it is updated with the latest changes yet (Lasso etc) Have any more questions just ask,,, Cheers

Just had 2 games 1 CS - 1 Union: Map: Armies Approch Gettysburg. When CS army would take a VP that VP didn't change to Red. All 3 VP stayed Blue even when CS was the only Bergade(s) there. Also had Birgade(s) stuck in a couple maps in Marching animation. But u are aware of that Bug. Was going to report Via Bug report ingame but decided against it. I was reluctent to click,for fear of crashing/Lockup my MP Game, giving my opponent the win....

Retreat Ric.......

Multiplayer Officers Rank Insignia's With the current Rank there's stars. To make it a little more realistic I would like to see the Union Infantry Shoulder Board/Straps Rank Insignia's above the Users Name. There was differences Between The 2 Armies but sticking with Union Infantry insignia would be Kewl. Ranks and insignia of the Confederate States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_the_Confederate_States *** Rank was displayed on shoulder straps(field duties): no insignia for a second lieutenant, one gold bar for a first lieutenant, two gold bars for a captain, a gold oak leaf for a major, a silver oak leaf for a lieutenant colonel, a silver eagle for a colonel and one, two or three silver stars for a general, depending on his seniority.[2] The color of the shoulder strap fields[4] - with trims in gold braid - were as follows: Dark blue: general officers Dark blue: general staff Sky blue: infantry... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_of_the_Union_Army

Hmm tried to add you but there's 55 Gray Ghost,,, which 1 ? There's 1 GrayGhost thats plays UG:G n has RichardMcCor as a friend so I would assume its that 1?