James Cornelius

Greetings everyone, On behalf of the Navy Department and our senior officers, it gives me great pleasure to announce the formation of the Continental Navy, a PvP Clan operating on the PvP2 server. We are rapidly expanding, and focus on group actions, fleet battles, and are beginning our crafting and shipbuilding division as well. We welcome all loyal American officers fighting for the preservation of our great Republic in defense of freedom. It is our goal for not only the Caribbean coasts to be rid of pirates, but of all foreign powers as well. We use teamspeak in lieu of signal flags, which is our only other requirement. For more information, you may contact me here, or contact one of our other senior officers in game: El Capitano, Admiral Schilling, WIKIBONG, or Archimonday. -James Cornelius Captain, Continental Navy

Dear developers, First off, this is a fantastic game. The idea and execution are top notch. My suggestions are simply to aid in immersion and user friendliness. First off, naming ships. I understand the difficulty in making this completely visible, but it would be a nice touch if the player could name their own ships, even if only visible to the player. It would be a nice touch of realism. It could be handled either where names are given as options in a list (with several hundred choices), or perhaps a system where you could create your own (of course this has the possibility to be abused, unless some sort of algorithm could ensure it complies to certain rules). This would be especially helpful in taking prizes. It would be interesting to see you have captured "ship name x" instead of "privateer" or what have you. Second, a more intuitive way to purchase, sell, and trade goods. Obviously combat seems to be the focus here, but there was always a large amount of money to be made trafficking goods and it would be nice to have a better idea as to what ports demand what; even if, for example, you're in Charleston and there is information that says "Charleston is a producer of canvas, and has a high demand for sugar." (I did notice the consumption/produced column, and if that is what this is then my apologies, but perhaps it should be more obvious). Third, some sort of virtual tavern (beyond the chat function) where specific game related news is posted. This could range from any messages from developers, to "in game" type things like "Local merchant promises great reward for import of molasses". It would incentivize trading. Along with #2, it might make cargo hauling and trading much more lucrative and worthwhile. Fourth, the interface for purchasing and equipping upgrades for ships needs work. It would be nice to know before buying an expensive purchase that your ship cannot equip it. Perhaps a tool tip that says something like "Following ships can/cannot equip this". Fifth, the leveling system. I don't know what the answer here is, but so far it really seems grinding. Perhaps it scales eventually (I've only gained the first promotion) but to go to the third rank will require the same amount of XP (1000) as it took to get to the second. It should be easier to level up, at least at the lower levels. Sixth, the open world seems under utilized. At most basic, the use of the spyglass would be helpful in the open world. While the lack of a navigational system is more in keeping with the 17th Century, the fact is that celestial navigation did exist in primitive forms (the modern sextant was invented in 1757). Therefore it ought to be possible to get a "rough fix", perhaps within a margin of error to give you a general idea where your ship is (though not exact, to preserve the realism). Thanks for reading.

It would be fantastic to get a couple more of the big Civil War battles using this engine. I'm sure tremendous work goes into making the maps, etc but if the AI and the rest of the engine is already in place I would assume the worst is already done. I mean, this game is great and very enjoyable but you can only play the Battle of Gettysburg so many times...what about Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, the Wilderness? And that's just scratching the surface of the East.

I completely see and agree with your point. I only used VPs as a mechanism to force the player to assign value to certain areas and be driven to take action concerning them - in the current UGG system this is evident in the key points on the Gettysburg battlefield. I thought that was the direction that was preferred. Since I am advocating a completely open-ended and sandbox experience, I think that not having anything like that is better because it gives the player full control on what to do. However, I am not informed enough about the game's AI to know whether or not it could function without "objectives". But, as I said, I completely agree with your take on things. I only suggested VPs as a means to an end, but it sounds like as far as the final outcome, you and I are on the same page.

True about the corps level vs cavalry, but allowances could be made. For example, even in the current game Buford's Division is treated as though it were an independent corps. I'll see if I can explain a bit better. I want to preface this by saying that I recognize this would take vast resources, but I wanted to throw it out there as "food for thought". But if it were possible, I think it would make this the ultimate Civil War "sandbox" game. So picture this: you are looking at a very detailed/rendered map with Richmond and its environs in the bottom, and the Pennsylvania/Maryland border at the top - the eastern theater of the Civil War, at least as it was in relation to the AotP and the ANV. Let's say you are playing as the Union. It is 1863 (or ideally 1861, 62, 64, etc for alternate start dates). You have a birds-eye view of that map, and centered around Washington you have several divisions or corps made up of their subordinate units, but all you can see is a "block" of troops that represents the combined columns of the subordinate brigades. Likewise, you have brigades or divisions of cavalry nearby. There are victory points assigned to major cities, rail/road hubs, and so forth. Unlike a battle where you want good ground, here you are concerned with the strategic value of these points. You can zoom in, but only to get a better look at the areas around your corps - are there hills, rivers, forests, etc. Is there a narrow gap you might conceivably have to force, and so on. Essentially, if you're the army commander or corps commander, is it good ground to have an army? You can then zoom back out to have the complete theater view again. So, being the good commander of the Army of the Potomac that you are, you start moving your corps southward towards Richmond, using your cavalry divisions to scout and screen. You might wisely leave a large garrison behind in DC....just in case. You give them orders the same way you would the brigades in the current UGG engine, but with a small caveat - you have an army HQ which you attach to one of the corps. Any order given to the others corps and cavalry divisions must be carried by courier, so that if you separate them too much, there is a significant delay before they get the orders and change to what you have re-ordered. This would simulate the appropriate issues with coordinate a large army across large distances. So while detaching a corps to secure some important rail junction or city might be useful, you run the risk of it being too far away to help you, or worse yet, set upon by superior forces. All this time, the AI controlled ANV is doing the same thing - it is trying to protect key areas like Richmond, while also seeking to take opportunities to invade the north and force you to follow. So as you are groping your way forward with your corps, the enemy is doing the same. You might find yourself at the gates of Richmond with the enemy dug in on good ground and you either have to figure out something else or launch an assault. Then, poof, you thank your lucky stars you left troops behind in Washington because a corps of Confederate infantry managed to get around you and is attempting to take Washington. Do you try to punch through to take Richmond, risking a bloody and inconclusive battle? Or do you rush back north to relieve the siege of Washington? So inevitably, the armies or components thereof would meet. At this point, you can attempt to withdraw if you so choose, or fight. Then, the birds-eye view of the theater goes away and you enter the "normal" UGG interface and the battle commences with a map appropriate to the ground that the armies are on. Battle ensues. As the battle progresses, the same sorts of options are presented as currently comes between each day, but perhaps in a more limited way. After the battle, you would have the opportunity to promote or reassign commanders based upon their performance in the battle. Commanders could be killed or captured. Division commanders would be present in some fashion (attached to a brigade in their division?). Reinforcements would also occasionally arrive to add new brigades to the army or reinforce existing brigades. You would control where these reinforcements go within the army, but not how they got there, how many you got, or what type they are (infantry, cavalry, artillery). There would be a degree of randomness to it, but it would also be affected by your performance. Furthermore, if you lose a battle too badly, or a string of battles, you might find yourself relieved of command. The difference here from this to AGEOD is that AGEOD is an overall simulation of the war. I'm not trying to suggest that. Rather, I'm trying to suggest a way to completely model being the commander of one of two field armies in the east. I hope this clarifies.

I'm not thinking of the AGEOD interface, though there are a handful of things they have there which would be useful. I am not advocating turn based at all, and I don't like the "stack" system of AGEOD. I am visualizing the same thing that UGG has now, just zoomed out to a level that all you have is the larger countryside and the units visible on the map are only broken down as far as corps-sized. Maybe the closest example I can think of regarding the degree of birds-eye view is akin to Supreme Commander, though obviously totally different in mechanics. Perhaps I am simply having difficulty articulating what I was suggesting. However, I agree that the community would perhaps be the best available resource for the creation of additional battle maps.

They could do so much more with this beyond a turn based system. Even the campaign map of a grand strategy game like discussed here could be realtime. See my other thread about it, but I think it would be amazing to have a large map covering Virginia/Maryland where the armies, broken down into corps, are ordered about and battles happen whenever and wherever they meet. That way you truly are like the commander of one of the armies - you might leave a corps behind to guard a crossing while trying to outflank the enemy (like Hooker did prior to Chancellorsville), attempt to launch an invasion of the North to destroy the Army of the Potomac, or do what Grant did and keep advancing even after bloody and inconclusive battles.

Dear all, These are just some musings I had. First, I want to commend the developers on this game, as it is by far the best Civil War game I have every played, and of course it just covers one battle! But I had some thoughts regarding what I considered would make the ideal game, with this as its foundation. This might very well be beyond the resources of the developers (though certainly not their skill, as this game attests). First, it would contain all the major battles of the war, exactly as Gettysburg is portrayed here. Division commanders would be included, and would function in a similar manner to corps commanders now, but would be "attached" to their brigades, i.e. would automatically follow the brigade(s) of their division. If brigades were divided, they would go with the larger formation, but it would give the player an incentive to keep the brigades of a division together. These would be the same as "custom" battles in the current game. Brigade, division, and corps commanders would all be possible to kill, wound, or capture. But the big draw would be a completely rendered map of Virginia and Maryland, where the armies would move in a similar manner to the brigades now, but be broken up by corps. Thus, you'd be directing the individual corps of the armies which would typically be grouped close together, but could be dispatched elsewhere if desired. Cavalry would be needed to know where the opposing army was. Then, when the two armies met to have a battle, it would take place at whatever ground they were on and with the troops available at that time. Between battles, reinforcements (new recruits, etc) could be handled abstractly by simply showing up in a pool, but you could use the existing Outcome and Statistics screen to allocate the reinforcements, reassign units, and promote your leaders based upon their performance in battle. I think you would need a larger range than the current three-star ability scale (perhaps five or ten?) and separate the experience of the individual brigades from the experience/skill of the leaders. As a further abstract, while the player would be in control at all times, if battles went particularly poorly or well, Washington or Richmond might see fit to make changes to your army, including the army and corps commanders. Maybe your success will have additional troops sent from the west to aid you, or a semi-randomized chance might require a division or corps to be reassigned from you elsewhere and you will lose it for a period of time? Maybe you manage to annihilate the Army of the Potomac but Grant's army is summoned east? What if Johnston and Lee manage to link up in 1865? Ideally, you would do this for the entire war (Western and Eastern theaters), but I think it would be better to keep it smaller because simply rendering the entirety of the terrain of Virginia and Maryland to the standards already set would be a monumental task. But still, from what I've outlined I think it would give the player truly the "ultimate" experience as the commander of the Army of the Potomac or the Army of Northern Virginia. It could run the entire course of the war, 1861 to 1865 (with the ability to win or lose earlier based on what happens). I'm sure this would be an undertaking of enormous magnitude, but one can dream!

Okay, so corps commanders are in the game and when the messages appear they reference division commanders, but am I missing them somewhere?