James Cornelius

1) More types of missions are needed and a greater variety will add more PVE content for the players who sometimes just want a lower stress experience or prefer PVE over PVP. You can essentially get it all in one place. Yar hits the nail on the head. I am particularly in favor of routine lobby type battles (which would satisfy the clamor from the lobby crowd) with historical battles. You select your side and are randomly put into a historical ship in that battle. These could be small, medium, and large battles ranging from single or paired actions, to larger battles like St. Vincent, Cape Finisterre, 1st of June, Trafalgar, etc. 2) Merge the servers. I used to be someone on the PVP2 server who opposed merging...until I moved to PVP1 and saw just how much better the game was with a larger player base. I understand concerns about ping, but I travel a lot for work and I play just as fine on the EU server over a mobile hotspot in Hawaii as I do at my home in Maine. 3) I disagree strongly with eliminating hostility and admiralty missions. I have no problem with the grind, as it's part of the realism of being a naval officer of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. 4) I support the inclusion of a statistics function for players. While word of mouth so to speak does get some reputation effect for people, the changing player base, or people who might not be active all the time, would help cement player reputations. Perhaps a formal bounty system would be easier to put into place with this feature as well. 5) Have a wide circle around port battles, and make the screening battles have an effect on the overall outcome. Balance the battles so that, for example, each battle might only allow a certain number of different ship rates to encourage more balanced fleet engagements. 6) Weather/wind changes in battle. Frequently battles were won or lost - or became very indecisive - due to weather. My namesake's great battle, Cape Finisterre, was fought in heavy fog. Having wind at certain forces would give an advantage to one type of ship or another. It doesn't need to be too specific: like "strong wind" or "light breeze" which would correspond to better or worse behavior for certain ships. It would be known when sailing in the open world, so that you could give or refuse battle partly based on your knowledge of the weather and your ships vs. the enemy. Please forgive me if this seems disjointed - they are a combination of new features/changes.

The Coalition. What else? We are fighting the French/Spanish/Danish alliance after all.... You guys do read history, right?

1) What does the pray button do?

The US maintains six academies in the country to train officers for the Merchant Marine. All but one are state academies, operated by the states they are in with the assistance of federal funds from the US Maritime Administration (MARAD). The oldest in continuous operation is the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, dating to 1891. However, during WWII there was an acute shortage of officers for the Merchant Marine (primarily because many of the trained officers and seaman entered the Navy in 1941) so in 1942 the US government created a federal Merchant Marine Academy at King's Point, NY which today is one of the service academies in the US such as the Military Academy at West Point, the Naval Academy at Annapolis, the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs, and the Coast Guard Academy at New London. The state maritime academies are in Massachusetts, Maine, New York (in addition to the federal academy), California, Texas, and Michigan.

It is true also that there was a tremendous amount of controversy over the construction of a navy, and one of the reasons why (despite the obvious, in retrospect, need to defend a merchant fleet) was the the Navy was considered by definition more "royalist" and less egalitarian than a militia army and it was resisted on principle by the Jeffersonian faction. This, coupled with its cost, was a key reason it was opposed in the US Congress. Consider that prior to the Civil War, the rank of admiral did not exist as it was seen as too close to a title of nobility. Of course, the attitude eventually changed at least partly (the rallying cry "Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute!" was characteristic of the opposing viewpoint that it was better to spend the money on a navy than to pay the protection money to the Barbary Pirates). Prior to the War of 1812, US shipping was still de facto under the general protection of the Royal Navy. This also contributed to the feeling in the US that a Navy was not needed. I heartily recommend Ian Toll's book "Six Frigates" which covers these events, and one of the most fascinating and provocative introductions in such a book I ever read was his: he outlines how, with the wreckage of Trafalgar still burning, a US merchant ship shows up in the detritus and basically says "Hey guys, what's up? You want to buy anything?" which exemplifies the ubiquitousness of the US merchant marine at the time. Finally, I will say on a personal note that this topic has a special place in my heart, as I am an officer in the modern US merchant marine. The US merchant fleet is an often overlooked, but historically vital component of the national economy and defense. From the founding of the Republic until the Navy became thoroughly professionalized with the advent of steam and iron ships (and even occasionally afterwards) many of the US navy's officers came from the merchant fleet. Even now, the Navy maintains an auxiliary reserve within the merchant marine in the event of a large enough war.

I argued a similar thing at one point, where pirates could not capture ports but only raid them - with mechanics and rewards comparable to PBs. In exchange, they would have greater latitude in what ports they were able to enter (like having a permanent smuggler tag that also works on their warships) and their home port would be hidden.

I had some very questionable experiences with some members of 18BEK a day or two ago, but nothing I recorded. I am a believer that where there's smoke, there's fire, but I understand why they might want definitive proof.

I think in the suggestions noted, there would still be time to organize at least the forces immediately engaged before entering the battle from the campaign map, or whatever it would be called. Like I said, I think a Total War style campaign overview but in real time rather than turn based would probably work just fine - but the time would be suitably compressed or adjustable just like it is in the current battle maps to allow for more efficiency.

No, because some of us aren't online at the times such rewards are being given out. Across the two servers I have three dozen ships, and only a single paint scheme (and ironically for a ship I don't have).

I would suggest at the very least some form of points being given for damage dealt in addition to kills and assists. I've played several times where we only found one or two others and if it's a 1 v 1 fight or something similar there is no top ten - it's a top one or two. In such cases, those participating should receive a handful of points by default to make going to the event worthwhile; not enough so that you might overtake someone with some kills, but enough so that if there are less than ten participants, you get some kind of credit.

I actually think the better model here would be (ironically enough since that is where Nick got his start) the Total War campaign map, except it would be realtime instead of turn based. The terrain would be generalized as "mountain/hill/open/river" etc with (hopefully) accurate battlefield maps for the area based on, say, Google Earth. Yes, that doesn't necessarily represent how the ground looked in 1861 to 1865, but it is a starting point. As with my previous suggestion. you would be moving divisions or corps on the campaign map, not individual brigades. And, as far as an existing example goes, I actually think AGEOD's "Civil War II" is a better representation of this than "Hearts of Iron", though the various incarnations of HoI are a superior game to Civil War II. If you haven't checked it out, I encourage you to do so. I would love to see UG:CW somehow end up (roughly) as if the best parts of Total War and Civil War Generals 2 had a child that was then adopted by Civil War II and a fine historical RTS game...or something.

I don't think he's suggesting that level of detail, though it would certainly be welcome from the standpoint of a hard core player, but there is some very solid middle ground.

Not just the King...the WITCH-KING! "All mortals tremble for the dread Witch-King of Angmar, Stonewall Jackson!"

I think there does need to be a function where officers have more "skills" or characteristics than what come from rank. This has been discussed elsewhere, along with the suggestions I added at that time. To briefly recap, they should develop both positive and negative characteristics that you must balance in your placement of them. For example, your division commander might raise the morale of his troops, but habitually be late arriving to the battle or his troops will suffer a movement penalty in battle. You must therefore be strategic in who you place where, and officers should be promoted by the player, not automatically based on experience. Experience will still matter, however, as they will gain traits accordingly, and they must reach a level of XP before you are able to promote them. You might also find that an excellent brigade commander ends up being a poor division commander, or an officer with negative attributes but sufficient XP (or perhaps the "political connections" trait forces a promotion for himself or causes a hit to your reputation if you do not promote him - all to simulate historic considerations at the time. The inclusion of specific officer traits is doubly important when you consider the inclusion of many historic generals as rewards or purchases through the reputation system. These officers should have traits corresponding to their historic characteristics. Getting as rewards should therefore be more important, and they should be serious considerations for urging people to spend reputation on them apart from just playing the name game. You should *want* officers like Grant, Sherman, Gibbon, Hancock, Reynolds, Meade, Jackson, Longstreet, Stuart, etc since they would often have almost universally positive traits.

The way to make that work on a larger scale is that it is not subdivided into brigades, but divisions (or potentially even corps if that proves too daunting). Then, when the battle is actually joined, it rezooms to enable the brigade level command. Yes, it will lose some precision, but from a practical standpoint it is both 1) close enough and 2) accurate in that on a campaign scale, from 1862 onwards the division was the primary sub-unit for unit movement. While still operating in realtime, it would be more of a chess match, as your army is strung out. In addition to the default historical maps, a few others could be included of various areas near, and units would arrive (or not arrive haha) from the direction they were in relation to where the two opposing armies met.

I went into a PB on PVP1 a few days ago in a Bellona (in what was already very one-sided and going to be a crushing victory no matter what I did or if I had entered in a basic cutter) and the reaction I got from the rest of the folks there...well, you would have thought I came in guns blazing for friendly fire and screaming disparaging comments about their mothers. The system needs to be improved. That's the only way to prevent the mentality currently in effect.

Let's say for a moment that part of this is dwindling financial returns for Game Labs. I think many players, as several have commented here, would support paying a few dollars for paint schemes, customizations, etc for their ships. This would add a tremendous variety and visual improvement to battles, the OW, etc as captains have the ability to make their ships unique. I am NOT suggesting pay to win - but pay to customize would likely bring in a little cash infusion as each player customizes each ship they own.

I like the inclusion of missions and the hostility rating. I find it disappointing those would be removed. There are two reasons I support the continued inclusion of missions. First, at least for the lower level or new players, it is difficult to find a suitable target to get XP and blood themselves. If all you have is a basic cutter or a pickle, you need something pretty equal to fight. I can't tell you the last time I saw either of those sailing alone in the OW, even in the rookie area. Second, for the higher tier missions, they are still a great way to get modules since wrecks no longer give them. Don't give me "free market, blah blah blah" - I understand how that works. If you get rid of higher tier missions (and this assumes elimination of "epic events", which serve absolutely no purpose at the moment since they do not have an epic reward to go with them), and eliminate hostility generation, then it is highly unlikely you'll get a fleet of 10-25 people together "just for the fun" of going after a large NPC fleet. If you have that many people, they will be looking for PVP and such NPC fleets will be either 1) obsolete and unnecessary, or 2) used as screening forces by players. You would need an all or nothing approach to this, and I believe the "nothing" approach would make the seas rather barren, leaving only the "all" approach. Finally, there are those amongst the player base who, while and preferring PVP, do not always have the time to go on a long hunt, but would nonetheless like some simple combat in the open world. Hostility and missions both support this. Nonetheless, glad to see there is a vision for 2017.

Couple potential bugs I just noticed. Played 2nd Manassas as Confederates since I noticed I somehow didn't have the steam achievement. The dates given for the battle are December 29 and 39, not August. Also, after putting a division under AI control and then retaking control, the supply wagons remain AI controlled and keep doing their own thing - which included advancing unsupported towards enemy lines.

You raise valid points. The AI would need to be able to act accordingly to protect itself.

I think you're confusing my proposal for realism as a means to add difficulty. While those things are intertwined at times, that is not my point here. Urging the player towards a historical action, while not forcing the player to do so, should be the name of the game. Difficulty is irrelevant. If you manage to rout the enemy from the field, then you would want to follow that up with a counter-attack - regardless of difficulty. So there is a difference in the loot gained from normal vs hard difficulty. Okay, that gives a slight incentive to rout or capture more brigades, but you can do that nearly as well by sitting behind your nice fat entrenchments in many battles. All I am saying is that there should be rewards commensurate with risk. It is well documented that from the end of the Peninsula Campaign, until the failure of the Gettysburg campaign, Lee's objective was the destruction of the Army of the Potomac. All other considerations, including the capture of Washington should it be possible, were dependent on that goal; it is of course doubtful that Washington could have been taken while the Army of the Potomac existed. Consider that when Lee marched north in June 1863, Hooker proposed ignoring him and using the opportunity to take Richmond. This was, of course, overruled by the War Department and Lincoln himself, despite the possibility that Washington's formidable defenses might have held Lee back on their own (but, of course, leaving the rest of PA and MD and maybe even further open to invasion). Then, once Grant took command in the east in 1864, his objective became the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia. Anything else, including taking Richmond, was only a means to that end. What I suggest is that victory objectives in at least some battles should have an additional level, such as "Crushing Victory" or the like with requirements based upon not just holding a position, but inflicting devastating losses on the enemy. The rewards for such accomplishment should not be further laurels for the player (with perhaps the exception of increased reputation) but a malus of sorts to the enemy for future battles. I understand there is a delicate balance between enacting something like this, and ensuring that the campaign doesn't become too easy by the end because of the losses you have inflicted on the enemy. And, we as players want to play as much as possible of course. But, there is some validity to complaints that after you inflict 60,000 casualties on the enemy, they should not field 100,000 in the next battle, etc.

Hello all, One of the things I've noticed in certain battles is the narrow method of achieving victory based upon certain criteria that are, often, relatively easy to accomplish. This gives you the full "victory reward" so your goal in each battle is simply "satisfy victory condition and sustain as few casualties as possible". That is fine enough, but the fact is that during the Civil War it was rare for a battle to have its objectives so clear cut. Sure, there was a key piece of ground that was defended or seized, or a lop-sided casualty count, etc. But there was a lot more to it than that. As of right now, particularly due to the limited way in which your actions affect the enemy's condition in future battles in the campaign, the player's key objective is to sustain as few casualties as possible. Anything else - even the victory conditions for the battles, outside the reputation points needed to not be removed from command - are secondary. This is counter to what was the ultimate strategy used by each side at one point another, specifically by Lee from 1862 to 1863, and Grant from 1864 until the end of the war, which was the annihilation of the enemy army. Consider, as an example, Second Manassas/Bull Run. As a Confederate player, you need only hold the line, inflict more casualties (which is almost impossible NOT to do) and...well, that's it. You win. There is NO incentive, apart from a dubious gain in unit XP, to use the reinforcements you receive as anything other than men to beef up your already considerable defensive line. Historically, Longstreet's troops counter-attacked and thus won a crushing victory, routing Pope's army from the field. I propose either a "bonus" victory condition or degrees of victory, to encourage the player to act towards a historical objective, while still maintaining freedom to act in an ahistorical way. Since this would generally require inflicting further damage on the enemy at risk to yourself, I do not suggest an increase in the reward given to the player should necessarily be the result, but rather it would function as another malus to the enemy army in the next battle phase - perhaps giving you an advantage in the small battles, just as the next couple small battles give an advantage to the "grand battle" of that phase of the campaign. To return to my example of 2nd Bull Run, this bonus goal might require the Confederate player to counter-attack and seize certain terrain further out, perhaps even as far as Henry Hill, in addition to the other victory conditions related to casualties, holding your original line, etc. It would encourage a player to act decisively as Lee did in such an occasion, rather than simply remain on the defensive. Thanks for the consideration.

I have said elsewhere specifically regarding Naval Action, but it holds true for UG:CW also: I have gotten far more enjoyment and put far more time into this than I have into "big budget" or "blockbuster" games in the same time period.

As opposed to, say, First Bull Run and Second Bull Run? I don't see repetition of ground as a legitimate reason not to do a battle. Wilderness was a year after Chancellorsville and a lot changed in that time. I think EVERY major battle should be included and the Wilderness and Spotsylvania certain count as such.

I suggested this very thing when UG:G was released. It would be a massive effort, but with technologies as straightforward as Google Earth, it could be done. It would allow such a tremendous level of strategy as you move an army, subdivided into its corps, and attempt to maneuver to gain terrain advantage. What a pleasure that would be! If you were the Union you might be forced to attack by orders from the War Department despite being on poor ground, etc... If only!