Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

michaelsmithern

Members
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About michaelsmithern

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman
  • Birthday 03/28/1997

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    michaelsmithern

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Juffair, Bahrain
  • Interests
    RTS Strategy games focused around victorian era.

Recent Profile Visitors

693 profile views
  1. Is there plans to put the content on steam for prepurchase? i have been unable to buy the game as the payment system goes through the whole process but just fails to pay for it.
  2. I wouldn't say it's "NECESSARY" to add Spain and France. While i do agree they should be a fundamental addition to the game in some forms, such as America receiving aid via the two european powers, and possible regiments to help. Now since the game from what i can see spans from Pre-Revolution to Napoleonic Wars, I again think France should be an integral part of that. On the subject i'd rather a Napoleonic Game for a focus on more France and Spain vs Coaltion forces. This game I want more time focus on Britain and America.
  3. Enjoyed the British Campaign teaser. I'll leave it to the Developers to post the video themselves, don't wanna steal their thunder after all. But you can find it on youtube.
  4. I wonder when we can expect to begin purchasing the pre order packages. I've been happy with the last entries into the series, I see no reason why I wouldn't jump at the idea to get the newest entry early.
  5. Will there be Unit Card Representation to the units on the field. Edit: I rewatched the video turns out I was wrong, the marines has a distinct look to them. Which is neat. My Question now shifts, how fair will the different looking units go? Highlanders with kilts perhaps? it'll be interesting to
  6. I've always found that the Union Campaign is far easier the farther down the line you go. Usually, it's an instinct that you know you can't lose to the Confederates in most battles, either from playing the battles to the point where your mistakes of yesteryear are reforged into tactical maneuvers that completely destroy units. or just simple Russian style mass charges. At around Malvern hill is where I call the campaign won in my favor for the Colonel difficulty. I called it winnable after Fredericksburg for BG. and while my MG campaign is hard fought and most definitely more of a challenge then I expected I believe I'm at the point where the Confederates simply take more casualties than me and cannot stand on it feet. I'm at the battle of Gettysburg, so this should be an easy win for me, especially if I can use Buford's Division of practically all skirmishers to whittle down units on Day 1. By the time on both campaigns for Col. and BG I've had 5 corps(Col. was full 2500 man brigades and what not. while the BG had around 1800-2000 in each brigade) and really only needed to throw more men at the problems I had. if you know where the enemy is coming in from as well during the first phases you can set up a division to shoot at them and 4 of the 5 brigades that show up usually surrender( you may need to charge here and there, but it is quite easy to beat the reinforcements that come in from few areas). While I don't think I'll take the same approach, merely because I don't' believe I'll have the manpower to do so, I don't see being overly difficult to win. Now the problem in my Confederate campaigns(all difficulties) is that I run into manpower problems. I always have some money and guns, but not enough troops(go figure) and it definitely starts to show just before Antietam for me or right after since I take huge losses, while there is some respite in Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, provided I can pull it off quickly, Gettysburg I try and cause as much damage as possible since I know I'm gonna be on the offensive in some battles that will cost me lots of men(and probably the game should I lose). when all is said and done and I hit Washington. that's when the real fun begins because I roll in with 100k(no manpower remaining, little to no money or guns) have to take what is it 5 forts(plus Washington) then defend them from anywhere to 150-200k Union troops. Let me tell you stress levels were quite high the day I spent reloading saves everytime I lost. can't wait for the next one, Short answer: UUUURRRRRRAAAA!!!
  7. All I'm saying is I hope to get picked for the beta for the next game, simply waiting for the release or even minor footage was hard on me when I heard about a sequel to UGG. And to JaM, i like your thinking on how a Nap wars should be released followed by American Revolution, it makes sense, and hey you could even add the war of 1812 in there if you wanted
  8. for all my campaigns i've never seen Horseshoe ridge at chickamauga.
  9. I figured but you know it’s just one of my nitpicks that id like to know. It’s not really that important
  10. I know it’s gonna be a stretch but I would like to see a more dynamic game, almost like the first one, but with the mechanics from the civil war, with army management and what not, while it would require essentially making the battles really long with multiple routes and even multiple ways of going into them. Now im gonna simplify my list by making different tabs of what I’d like - regiments or the ability to split off regiments - a more in depth army management( I know more micro but hey I like that stuff) - a more dynamic campaign - battles that are able to have more dynamic actions - the ability to choose between volunteers/regulars/ etc( this would be good for Nap wars as you could have highlanders or polish legions or whatever - a way of knowing which brigade the division general is with or just an option to have him on the screen - more skills as a commander I really enjoyed the current ones they had plenty to offer and it was hard to choose for some of them which ones I needed to prioritize i did and didn’t like the points system for getting things from the government because if you lost a battle and didn’t have enough points you’d be shit out of luck and be replaced, doesn’t matter if you have one every battle - keep cavalry the same please, in UGG they were almost useless but in CW they are very good and I like it that way they play a vital role and many smaller details that can be overlooked as they are just a personal preference. if anybody has an addition or what they want to contest I’d love to hear it, disagreements can lead communities forward if they have meaning almost forgot for a sequel I’d like to see a revolutionary war game, it’d be just nice however I think an overdone Napoleonic wars game might expand the fan base to those who enjoy the time period and it’ll explore another part of the world instead of covering US history
  11. My strategy is simple.... I call it Git Gud. No, but for real, what i do is i take Nicomedia Hill with arty and two brigades of infantry, and hold it as long as possible. with the recent updates it's concerning whether this is a good move or not considering it always leads to the Union Flanking all the way to the left side of the map and me having to constantly move forces up to fight them off. In the Sunken road i usually station all my arty adn 4 brigades on the right over by the bridge to decimate any union troops that come across, especially early on, since they just spawn on your side of the bridge and can be easily canistered and shot up without the time to react. Finally with the Burnsides bridge, it's 50/50 for me, sometimes my third corps can hold the bridge others they can't for the most part i don't focus on it too much, i just try and hold the enemy back for as long as possible.
  12. As did I. I named one of the brigades the Iron Brigade(W), and the Other Iron Brigade(E) and was having a good ole time with my two Gibbons,then one got shot and killed in last seconds of Fredericksburg.
  13. I'm not fine with DLC, Expansion is a better term I'd be willing to support, I only say this, as we can see from DLC Kings like Total War, Paradox, and many other games coming out nowadays, you get a whole bunch of crap or content that should have been in the game, to begin with, Hell paradox is making you pay 15-20 dollars(USD) just so you can use Religious Cults in CK2 or the Mandate of Heaven for China, and these are things that should have been in the game, to begin with. An Expansion, however, is once a game is complete, they add on to it, by setting different campaigns of sorts, for instance, you could consider the Warpath Campaign an expansion to Empire Total War, as it's all about dealing with the indigenous tribes in North America or fighting the European powers. If I were the Devs the way I'd go about DLC's/Expansions is make a full fleshed out game to add on to this one. but considering It's called Ultimate General: Civil War and the whole game is based around just that, it would be hard to make expansions, as they cover many of the major battles on both fronts. I could see Free DLC in the Form of Micro-organization of your Divisions/Brigades and what not for players that would actually like to do that sort of thing, maybe somewhat if scenario's(as if the game isn't already just that) Basically, they'd be better expanding towards another game, with what they have learned from this project, while this will be years down the line, I cannot see DLC, Expansions being worth much time to the player.
  14. Thanks for the Advice I'll see what I can pull off. although I don't have the 24 brigades in the corps, so i suppose I'll make do without and push my hardest.
  15. Hi, i've beaten Chancellorsville before, but i've heard that you can do it on Day 1 or Phase 1. I've had trouble recently, i don't know how maybe the new patch or something but I keep losing and need some help taking Chancellors farm. I need some suggestions as my army has no three star brigades this time around, i've got oodles amounts of two star brigades. i've got 45000 infantry, about 2000 cavalry, and 5 full batteries of cannons
×
×
  • Create New...