[Please lower the number of casualties]

First off, I think it's important to realize that the game uses "casualties" to account for killed and wounded. In the Civil War, many relatively minor wounds were quite severe, don't forget. And it was NOT uncommon for units to suffer 50% casualties in a bloody battle - this represented the men who were "not fit for duty" afterwards. However, despite this, many did make it back to the line some period after the battle. I think trying to scale down the casualties in battles is looking at it from the wrong end.

 

My counter-argument is that the Medicine feature in generals' career points might be underpowered. Currently each point gives 2% back. Should that perhaps be raised to indicate those only slightly wounded, but taken out of the battle while it is raging, returning to the fight? What if each point gave 3% back? Over 5 invested points, that's now 15% returning instead of 10%. I think that might be a step in the right direction, and along with the obvious benefit of retaining experienced troops, would help to make some other point investment strategies viable.

 

As a final aside, for any one really interested in casualty figures and pretty much anything else, I recommend the book "The Civil War Book of Lists" from Castle Books. Has some handy information.

[Make brigades downsizeable]

I have two thoughts on this that might be a good solvent:

 

1) Allow the ability to "combine" brigades in the camp. Particularly later in the war, it was common for two or more badly depleted units to be combined to make one of reasonable size. This would allow you to take two devastated, but high veterancy, brigades and combine them - having one veteran brigade without flooding both of them with recruits. (To have two full strength brigades, you would of course then have to raise a whole new one). Rather than having two mediocre full strength, you have one near full strength but highly elite, and one raw. This is quite historically accurate. To maintain total realism, there would still be s *slight* hit to the veteran brigade to simulate loss of unit identity of the unit absorbed, but it would likely be quite small.

 

2) A new function to "save" your OOB: There should be a "Confirm all changes" button which saves everything you've already done, and a "Reset recent changes" which resets changes that have not been saved using the "Confirm" button. Then, when going to start the next battle, a pop up should say "Confirm all changes?" before going to the battle to prevent you from accidentally not saving and then entering the battle with your army unreinforced. Note that at least from the deployment screen you'd still be able to back up to the camp if necessary. (An example of what I mean by this is that sometimes you might realize after the fact that based upon the needs of the battle you might want to make additional structural changes. When I reached Antietam in the Union campaign, I had two corps of four divisions each. I learned on the deployment screen that I needed three corps for the battle - so I had to go back to the camp and take a division from each of my two corps to create a third smaller corps - and for anyone wondering, yes, I won the battle quite handily).

[Fixes Needed]

It does seem that often even when manually positioning a brigade's facing direction, they will move in such a way that opens them up to enfilade fire. I have noticed that if using the right click function to change the direction the brigade is facing, they will frequently step forward or backward much more than the turn actually requires. Conversely, if it very close to them the brigade would historically have been able to do a "side step" rather than a full turn and march. It might be difficult to get the AI under the hood to understand the difference, but it's frustrating when trying to dress a flank by just a hair and your brigade turns its entire flank into enemy fire.

[Officer suggestion]

On 12/9/2016 at 6:46 PM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

For example: A General could have simply OUTSTANDING training and politcal skills matched by zero desire to put his army into the field because his boys might get killed? Sounds a bit . . . familiar. 

Ha, yes, precisely.

 

[Adding Division Commanders on the Battle Map]

I knew about that. In my campaign battle of Antietam as the Union, towards the end I gave AI control to several divisions because I outnumbered the routing Confederates so much that the management became rather hectic, but wanted them doing something productive just in case things unexpectedly went south (pun intended).

[Adding Division Commanders on the Battle Map]

Learn something new every day. I was not aware you could combine a division like that. I'll have to check it out.

[Officer suggestion]

I've said similar elsewhere as well. Your commanders should develop both positive and negative traits. You might have to balance if the morale bonus one general provides is worth his slow arrival speed to the battlefield, etc.

[Division names]

I agree with this. It would be nice to have divisions be somewhat easier to deal with - I never even know where my division commanders are in a battle until I get told one has been killed or wounded.

[Union Campaign Crossroads Battle]

I garrisoned one brigade in the building, and deployed the other two just a bit to the northwest of it, so they could use some cover in the trees next to the river. Then, you just have to hold for reinforcements.

[Dynamic map suggestions]

I think you touch on some good points there.

 

Shiloh is a good example - just yesterday I played the historical battle as the Union and I was pleased when it became clear that at the end of Day 1, I had held the line and never needed to fall back to Pitt's Landing. Imagine my dismay when, on the second day, my troops had deemed it necessary to abandon all those positions during the night! While ultimately I inflicted far more casualties over the course of the second day than I otherwise would have (including capturing several southern brigades), I would have been quite content to have remained in my original fortifications, to say nothing of the digital families of all the little sprites that I did lose retaking the positions I had held the previous day. So, I think you are absolutely correct that the battles need at least some dynamism for situations like that.

 

Gettysburg, as you point out, is the other obvious example despite it not yet being in this game. As the army commander, it should be well within your ability to adopt a different strategy or plan than was historically used. UG:G did make serious overtures to allowing that: you had at least a couple options which dictated the flow the battle would take. The most obvious here is that under the current UG:CW structure, it seems very likely that as long as everything is "sort of" historical, Gettysburg will culminate in Longstreet's Assault on Cemetery Ridge. I think that the Confederate player (or AI for that matter) should have, at each appropriate time, the opportunity to do what General Longstreet advocated should have been done in the first place, and attempt to flank the Union Army. A Confederate player should not be forced to replay Lee's mistake. Conversely, a skilled Union player should have the possibility of holding the Confederates at arm's length north of Gettysburg.

 

Finally, a point not addressed in the original post, but which might make for interesting play is the rough ability of subordinate generals in  your divisions or other corps to not do what you tell them to do. Remember that Sickles was not supposed to advance the III Corps into the Peach Orchard at Gettysburg, and there were numerous other examples in both attack and defense where troops arrived in the wrong place, late, or not at all. While this would certainly make things a lot harder for the player, it would simulate realism (examples I can think of offhand include Jackson's late arrivals during the Seven Days, Magrude's incompetence during the same, Porter's alleged mis-aimed attacks at Second Bull Run...the list goes on). To build upon this, it would be interesting if there were more characteristics to your unit commanders than just those currently assigned by veterancy. So, a general who might be quick on the march is also not well-liked by his men and so while he might arrive earlier than expected, his troops have lower morale. The opposite might be true as well, keeping with my current example, so that while you might have a pretty good division commander, you finally relieve him because you've lost one too many battles where he didn't arrive in time.

 

Anyway, just a couple extra thoughts.

[Editor or full custom battles?]

Indeed, Paradox is an example of the community successes that can come from modding, but I am not requesting nor suggesting Game Labs goes that far. Their business model is their own, after all.

[Editor or full custom battles?]

This sort of proves my point: a full, or at least semi-full, scenario editor for UGCW would add TREMENDOUS replay value. I don't of course know Game Labs' business model, but consider the avenues that open up with just this limited ability to, for lack of a better word, mod the game (please don't misunderstand me here, as I am not asking for full modding ability - just a scenario editor).

 

There are many games out there that demonstrate the value of limited ability to edit scenarios or other parameters. If UGG can be seen as the "prototype" of UGCW, then I don't see the lack of an editor there as any argument against one here. Again, I'd cite Civil War Generals 2 as a good example in that it made it easy to not only do your own battles from scratch, but easily have a modified historical battle to easily show what might have been.

 

I'd respectfully ask the Developers to consider this proposal.

[Asset wipe needed now.]

What about having a one time general amnesty of sorts, to let people reroll to a different nation or switch servers and retain their money, ships, and materials?

[Editor or full custom battles?]

Hello everyone (and particularly developers),

 

I was wondering if there are any plans for a map or battle editor to have truly custom battles. As an example of what I am talking about, I would refer to the old game Civil War Generals 2 by Sierra (which I think this game is, in many ways, a spiritual successor to) and in addition to the normal campaign there, there was a fully functional editor which allowed you to create maps utilizing any terrain, and complete orders of battle from scratch. Such a feature in the full version of this game would add tremendous replayability, particularly since it would allow a form of controlled modding whereby the community could greatly expand upon the core game. This might also better facilitate a non-linear campaign, which many have asked for, as you could create various branching scenarios based upon a historical starting point.

 

Otherwise, keep up the good work!

[Losing Control in Melee]

I guess my issue is that the AI should be smarter about where it routs or automatically falls back. I have seen numerous occasions where the brigade routs or retreats TOWARDS the enemy's main force. Maybe a semi-hard code that if defaults to running in the direction of the corps commander unit?

[Custom Leaders]

On a similar vein, it would be nice if you could select the portrait used for "your" general, and if the portraits for the historical generals which you can recruit would look like them.

[Managing expectations]

I've been away from the forums for a week or so, and I wonder if there have been issues that have led to this. However, since this is the internet and all I want to add my input.

 

I have made suggestions in the appropriate areas for things I think the game could do better. However, this is a distant and minor point compared to the gem that the developers have already created. I have hope that it will continue to be fleshed out into something truly magnificent, since in many ways this is a niche area of interest - a truly realistic MMO sailing game doesn't have the fanbase, that, say, a World of Warcraft or a SWTOR does. But that does not make it any less viable or rewarding to those who play. In fact, I think it is quite the contrary.

 

Since purchasing this game in January on Steam, I have put more time into it than every other game I have bought in the same period combined: this includes Doom, Fallout 4, ESO, and a host of other titles.

 

The Developers should keep up their good work, and continue to provide a truly quality product at the pace which allows them to do just that. I will continue to play your game and provide support, suggestions, and feedback where I can.

[the Tavern]

I'd love to see some kind of PVP leaderboard in a tavern type setting too, though this is of course quite off topic from the OP. 

I've personally started actually keeping a log book. "Sailing in [ship] off Sunbury. Sank pirate [player] in [ship]" or conversely "was sunk by".

 

Word of mouth gets around pretty well in game, but this might be a nice touch.

[Important october patch information]

Not sure this is a good idea. Supply and demand should reign as king. If you artificially inflate the availability of these high-quality, rare resources, they're not really "rare" any longer.

In fact, I think it would a great idea to have these special goods, produced exclusively by players. It would encourage free enterprise and if that port is captured by an enemy nation, there becomes a larger demand and thereby a larger reward. The smuggler trade would indeed become very profitable.

 

I wouldn't disagree with that. My only concern was that anyone who braves the peril and is successful should have the reward available, not a "sorry but our princess is in another castle" type deal.

[Important october patch information]

These are all very interesting changes and I'm curious to see how some of the more radical changes will play out.

 

On the topic of ship quality, durability, and mods, I think this is an interesting direction to go in. Currently, based on the mechanics of the game, I subscribe to the school of combat that good sailing and gunnery beats good boarding every time. However, in the time period in question the ultimate goal was always, whenever possible, to board and take another ship - even in large fleet battles. If build quality of ship matters more than mods, then capturing a ship starts to be more appealing since even when capturing an exceptional quality ship right now, no mods are seized with it, even permanent ones.

 

This of course makes sense with ships that have multiple durability - you don't want mods essentially duplicating themselves, even the permanent ones when a ship is captured. But, if the move goes to 1 durability ships (and I am not necessarily opposed to this, but it *could* make PVP suffer if people start getting gun shy about losing their ships) then the mods on a ship, whether permanent or not, should be captured as well. This would go a long way towards encouraging people to still use quality equipment and not just "disposable" ships that they sail half expecting it to be lost.

 

For region bonuses to shipbuilding, perhaps an alternative could be to go more towards what has already been suggested for certain nation specific ships where they require specific goods. Let's use American southern live oak as an example. Let's say that it gives the strength bonuses of "normal" live oak without the speed disadvantage, but can only be found in the southern US. Rather than give a bonus for building a ship in that region, make it a good that must be bought and transferred by a trader who sails to those areas (including smugglers of course) with a very high local supply (to prevent someone braving the dangers of going there only to arrive and find it's all sold out). Thus, privateers and other merchant raiders will have specific target areas, and those traders who successfully bring back the goods can expect to turn a high profit.

["Fire as she bears", or firing in succession]

Gentlemen,

 

I think my suggestion has been completely misunderstood.

 

I am not asking for, nor suggesting, automatic firing in any way. I agree with those who have intimated it is excessive automation and removes some of the skill involved in good gunnery.

 

But, unless something has changed and I did not notice it, rolling fire is NOT successive fire.

 

Consider a broadside of eight guns where your forward gun is #1 and your aft gun is #8, with sequential numbering accordingly. ROLLING FRONT means that your guns would fire in this order: 1, 8, 2, 7, 3, 6, 4, 5. ROLLING REAR is the opposite: 8, 1, 7, 2, etc.

 

FIRE IN SUCCESSION means your guns would fire 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. This is what I am suggesting be included, if it is not already. 

 

EDIT: Gentlemen, I have been mistaken. Rolling fire does function as I suggested for "fire in succession". I have left my above post unchanged so you are clear what it was I was asking, but as it exists I clearly have egg on my face. My apologies for wasting your time.

[pvp2 BRITAIN CIVIL WAR]

The expression if you fall off the horse just get right back up there does not apply in this day in age it seems.

Like you mentioned port ownership is more about bragging rights then anything necessary but players act like its the most important thing in the game.

If you get knocked down to a few ports its opportunity to get organized use the smuggler ability and learn to play small and lay in waiting . Build lots of warships amd store them up. Dont use them till you can launch a massive effort in reclaiming some land and so on.

Unfortunately its easier to just bail on your mates and join the enemy.

 

Indeed, nor have I understood the decision by many to "jump ship".

 

Otherwise, I am inclined to agree with Lord de Villaret that this has likely run its course.

[pvp2 BRITAIN CIVIL WAR]

I have questioned since the beginning why players would want to essentially drive people away from a game they want to play. It's a shame what was done by the US to Spain, by Denmark-Norge to France and Sweden, and by the Pirates to France, Sweden, the Netherlands, and now the British. All it does is make fewer people play on the PVP2 server.

[Crew loss while in port not in battle]

Now that you mention it, I think it happened to me too. I remember puzzling at the time, but thought maybe I had accidentally left a fleet ship behind in battle or something and lost its crew.

["Fire as she bears", or firing in succession]

Same as Intrepido. It would be too OP compared to the other commands.

 

This is the second time you have argued against a well founded and historically based suggestion I have made with little against it but your own opinion. I shall try not to take offense, sir.