Feedback (UPDATED: 11/9/2015)

[Riekopo]

You may think it's a great game. I think it's a decent first game for a new developer. Why would the developers combine two completely unrelated things into one mechanic? Physical state and ammunition are completely unrelated. It doesn't make sense to combine them.

 

Why would placing a unit near a General increase its condition? How does the General reduce fatigue and give them ammo? That doesn't make sense. The General affecting morale makes sense, but not condition. If condition is fatigue and ammunition then why would morale affect it? That doesn't make sense. These mechanics are linked in an illogical and confusing way. They need to be separate.

[Lincolns Mullet]

How would it work if you separated it? Ammo being one condition, and fatigue being another? How would that significantly change the way you play?

As stated above, its an abstraction to represent general combat effectiveness. When possible, I keep brigades in reserve so they can replace exhausted units that have been fighting for a long time.

Ammon shouldnt even be represented, because how would you like that to be handled? If a brigade can run out of ammo, do they just stop shooting? So both sides would have a bunch of units that could only charge to be effective.

So just replace the word "condition" with "fatigue" and forget about ammo. With the General affecting "fatigue" is splitting hairs in my opinion. You keep your Generals nearby your brigades = benefit. Again, lets say they make it so the General only helps morale. The AI plays by the same rules so I'm curious how these changes would positively affect your game experience.

[Hister]

Can someone please link me to here-mentioned best players showcasong their battle-craft on youtube? Am able to beat AI no problem but playing against a human player is something completely different.

[MikeK]

Condition and morale are proper contemporary terms representing two different things, and devoting leadership attention to troops should more rapidly recover both. This is one of the good concepts in the game. 

 

I like the game and support the effort. The game was just on sale and I bought 4 extra copies as gifts (gets a little tedious repeating the whole process and transaction on Steam or I might have bought 5.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

I had been hearing rumors about Multi Player Map (Union Attack Benners Hill) Where the VPs could not be captured. I have recreated it. It seems the rumors are true. The Map seems to be broken. I have added a few pictures to show the bug. Hope this could be fixed.

[militarygamer18]

Haven't had really any problems with this game, except sometimes a brigade will march without me giving orders. For instance the Bucktail brigade marched off oak ridge and I did not want it to move. 

 

Also will the tilt-shift effect be reinstated? It made the game look really cool and I would really like to see it back. It made the game look less cartoonish but aside from that I love this game, its playing style, its graphics, and its attention to detail especially historical detail. Its very hard to come by good civil war game and this is the best so far in my opinion. I have always been picky about the visuals/graphics of a game an I love these graphics but I wish their were more uniform variation.  I know this very minute to the game and most people do not care but I think its would make the game look a whole lot better and more realistic. Also I wish the smoke would linger longer. Lingering smoke was a big problem in the ACW. 

 

 

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello everyone,

 

We would like to inform that we are going to offer a hotfix patch soon. So we already have noted some of your main concerns regarding balance and AI issues for Single Player and we will fine tune some multiplayer maps if it will be needed.

 

Any feedback written in this thread will be read with priority from now on.

 

Thanks.

[apmftw]

By far i see no issues with balance in multiplayer, what i can see is that  people just dont understand mechanix and all those tiny things called micro management. Im rly sory but if guy is posting about balance becouse hes charge on hill was unsuccessful - thats a bit funny becouse i belive in hes opinion this game should be about pressing charge and thats it ? Balance is ok, everyone got tools to make plays.

 

I see one big problem and its not about balance becouse it can hurt both sides - the problem is called wooded hills - its about how much time and resources u need to invest to take or retake that kind of hill and how hard it is to make it even possible. There should be some tool (maybe in artillery) to force those on hill to make any move at some point of battle to - engage or retreat.

 

What i would do i would think about adding some more skirmishers and cavalary to armies to make the game more about micro and more interesting.

 

There is also a problem with map - armies approach gettysburg and reinforcement timers becouse what is happening sometimes is that rebels got hes 1st 2 units of reiforcement at the begining of a game witch end up with taking two VPs and insta winning a game becouse Union player will not have time to retake both hills. I had games as Union on this map where i was able to make crazy early harras to rebels and what was happening i end up with Pettigrew and this second unit almost at mid VP and my 1st Union reinforcements where just showing up not even mention i still didnt have and sort of artillery.

 

What else - ofc u should think about some ladder with some solid statistic, maybe add some more maps similar to corner your oponent or maybe with one VP in the middle of map. There is alot of little improvements and some bigger to make and in my opinion this game has potential to be one of the best multiplayer rts in history :  ) and im not joking. U need to think about how to make this game more challenging in multiplayer way and what i mean is how to force those who dont even know this game exist ( and there is alot of those kind of ppl)  to start playing becouse of possibility to challange in a very very good rts. I need to tell u that i was a semi pro broodwar player for nearly 8 years...long time ago ;  ) and i rly felt in love with UGG becosuse this game got "something" but at same time it lack of "something" to make a huge step. That or either way rly great job.

 

 

[JonnyH13]

I am not sure if this has been posted here but there is a problem with the scenario "What if Buford had not held McPherson's Ridge".  There currently is no pre-battle briefing for both singleplayer and multiplayer modes and the scenario cannot be unpaused in multiplayer.  There is also the problem regarding a lack of Union melee damage unless it is intentional, which does not make sense.  There also seems to be a few bugs regarding unit collision during multiplayer on hills, especially the area south of round top and round top itself.  Cannister is very overpowered at the moment and confederate brigades still have the ability to regain morale at an insane rate even while fighting.  

 

My suggestion is that at a certain morale level, say 5% or 10%, brigades refuse to advance or automatically fall back regardless of orders similar to how generals fall back automatically when near enemies and refuse to respond to orders.  Also it would help to increase the morale requirement for charging to 25% or 30% morale as it is unrealistic for zero condition brigades to charge regardless of sides unless they have higher morale than base morale(ie inspired by general).  Cannister should kill an average of 30-50 men per gun per volley on clear terrain as the current average of 400 casualties for 4 guns is very unrealistic unless you want to add double cannister as a shot option which that casualty range would be fine(ish).  Also I recommend that Pickett's charge lives up to its description of being a huge scenario with the area and brigades of the singleplayer scenario "Pickett charges the Union Center" used.  Also, I know I already asked this on the steam community, on Chance to Change History is possible for Slocum's XII Corp and Johnson's division to come as I believe the size of the map is not fully used and it would encourage the confederates to attack earlier.  Also as a side note I believe the multiplayer map "Round Tops attacked from the south" or something should have the map extended to peach orchard as sometimes routing confederate brigades prematurely run off the map unable to be used regardless of state.

Edited August 5, 2015 by JonnyH13

[Nick Thomadis]

A new update that fine tunes and improves the gameplay while it fixes several inconsistencies and bugs that you reported. Better AI, improved melee, enhanced 3D visual perception of terrain and multiplayer balances are the most important changes included in this patch.

You can read more info in our blog:
http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/2015/9/3/hotfix-patch-v155

or below

Ultimate General: Gettysburg patch v1.55 (rev.10222/10203)

• Better synchronization, more realistic movement of sprites.
• Improvement of Brigade movement and visual mechanics.
• Formation, collision detection improvements (affects targeting, retreat directions, melee).
• Targeting improvements (affects AI positively, units block each other more realistically, hills become more important).
• Intensified importance of hills in defense. Some positions like Cemetery Hill and Culp's hill will feel like fortresses now.
• New better melee balance.
• Better visual representation of pseudo 3D terrain. You will be able to perceive hill obstructions more accurately as unit formation bend and scale on terrain.
• AI overhaul. AI should attack and defend much more efficiently with all personalities.
• Some scene fixes including big error in "What if Buford had not held McPherson ridge" which resulted in a broken scenario.
• Various fixes and balances for MP battles that were unbalanced. 
  - CSA  in "Pickett's charge" has now also Pettigrew and 3 other brigades at their disposal making things really challenging for the Union which get a few more artillery for compensation.
  - In "Union on the Offensive", CSA have 2 more brigades, and Union has less artillery.
  - In "Ewell advances" the CSA get 2 more brigades as reinforcements.
  - In "Devil's Den" reinforcement times for Union have been balanced.
  - In "Meeting at Cemetery Ridge" Union have one less brigade and CSA a few more artillery pieces.

 

• Various balances and improvements in combat. Balance is carried to Multiplayer version of the game and provides equal opportunities for both sides.
• Skirmishers less lethal in ranged combat.
• Altered the arrival time of 1st day/1st battle units to fit more the historical facts.
• Fixed occasional super damage bug when units were in melee that destabilised combat balance.
• Fixed many overpowered artillery batteries for both sides.
• Fixed several bugs that made AI to fight at disadvantage since almost always its altitude parameters were lower than the player's and there were also other multiple issues. Now the AI will fight to its full potential, as never seen before.
• Fixed bugs that unbalanced multiplayer according to who was hosting.

This update has been shaped up thanks to the valuable feedback of many volunteer testers. We would like to honor the most active and helpful during this test phase by mentioning them below:

Koro (Unforgiving General who punished the AI until it was able to beat him and also provided relentless multiplayer testing)
1st.TN.Reg.Watkins (Careful General who with his historical tactics forced the game to play more realistically)
OLee O'Hara (Demanding General who took detailed notes of AI failures that helped to make it better)
JamesL (Veteran General who was only getting pleased when the AI was able to inflict more casualties than him)
YueJin (Methodical General who always gives unquestionable advices for a better gameplay)
Lincolns Mullet (Elite General, missing in action most of the time, but still his brief reports mattered)

Now lets see if you can beat the new AI! Provide your feedback in our forums:
Game Labs Forum
Steam forum

[noggmoritz]

Hello.

 

This is a great game and it re-ignited my interest in the American Civil War. Overall, it's a 10/10. There are a few features however that I would love to see, and they pertain to Multiplayer.

 

I would really love to see a full dynamic campaign, instead of just individual battles, for MP. It would also be fantastic if we could get a 2v2 (or even 3v3) mode. This would definitely help me coerce much more of my gaming friends to buy the game. 1v1 is fun but it's too personal/serious for a lot of gamers, if that makes sense. When you add an element of co-op or camaraderie with larger player counts it will instantly gain higher mass appeal. A full dynamic campaign with 4 players would just be an absolute blast. I know it may be difficult to engineer this but I think the investment would be worthwhile monetarily.

 

Thanks for reading 

[Hister]

Regarding the newest patch I've spotted some differences that were not listed in the change list and would like to ask here in case I'm just imagining things.

 

Were mounted units nerfed meaning have less shooting power now? Saying this 'cos in the first historical scenario where CSA and Union meet my Union mounted units were definitely more meager then they were before. Used them to try slaughter my opponent's starting artillery from the side and failed miserably. Totally different result then before,

 

What about CSA batteries in that scenario? Are there more of them then in the previous game version? Seemed that way. 

 

Thank you for any reply. 

[Nick Thomadis]

Regarding the newest patch I've spotted some differences that were not listed in the change list and would like to ask here in case I'm just imagining things.

 

Were mounted units nerfed meaning have less shooting power now? Saying this 'cos in the first historical scenario where CSA and Union meet my Union mounted units were definitely more meager then they were before. Used them to try slaughter my opponent's starting artillery from the side and failed miserably. Totally different result then before,

 

What about CSA batteries in that scenario? Are there more of them then in the previous game version? Seemed that way. 

 

Thank you for any reply. 

 

We mentioned an overall re-balance of combat. Included, there has been an overall balance to favor a more realistic effectiveness of brigades or artillery vs cavalry. Cavalry is useful but does not have the impact it had in older versions of the game (in which we got many complains). Large units of mounted cavalry is good to cover flanks and attack artillery or wavering brigades. These small units "Videttes" are more useful for scouting or for hit and run tactics. Cannot survive if player keeps pushing them to charge or attack for long.

 

The amount of CSA artillery has not changed since many patches.

[Hister]

Ha, I knew I wasn't imagining things (minus the CSA artillery). Good changes Nick. Thank you for your answer.

[CSA Watkins]

 {Determined//ANV}                                                                    - The Unions 2nd and 3rd Corps Flanking Maneuver -

http://imgur.com/a/SC2aX/layout/horizontal#0                                                           - July 2nd 1863, 06:30 -

 

Good battle.

Pettigrew's n Davis' Brigade's,

are missing from the Initial formation of the game,

n throughout the Battle.

Battle Report: http://imgur.com/a/SC2aX/layout/horizontal#13

 

Also missing 3rd. Corps Commander.

This is why I have advocated for Divisional Cmdr. to be present

on the field, if n when Divisions are Alone/Attached.

Heths' Divisional Brigades'/Batteries' became Battle Fatigued n was hard to get 

there Morale n Condition to regenerate, thereby easily routed.

[David Fair]

1st TN Reg. Watkins,

 

Thanks for the post - I keep watching your battlefield statistics to see if artillery batteries are still as effective as infantry brigades.  

This report confirms that batteries continue to be as effective as infantry brigades.  

As long as this relationship exists it is difficult for me to get very excited about UGG.  

 

It is great to hear the cavalry finally received an adjustment.  Hopefully the game will continue to trend toward the reality of the ACW.

[David Fair]

One of the fundamental problems with artillery in UGG is if you make artillery too effective then the CSA infantry needs to be beefed up to unrealistically to compensate for the preponderance of Federal artillery batteries.  

 

The net effect is the Union infantry is too wimpy vs. the CSA infantry.  

 

Overly powerful artillery destroys the game balance and the relationships that existed during the ACW.  

 

The goal of the game is to make it possible for either side to win in the various scenarios.  Some scenarios may be more or less difficult to win; but it should not be impossible to win or why play?

 

Thoughts regarding artillery:

 

On the battlefield there were two classes of artillery. The first was artillery that was supported by infantry or dismounted cavalry.  The second was artillery without support.

 

The former class was difficult to dislodge and had a significant impact on the moral of enemy ordered to attack a line of combined arms on the defensive.

 

The latter class was a target that could be overrun with minimal casualties.  Artillery batteries simply could not stand alone and unsupported.  

 

Even a line of guns could be taken unless the attackers moral was close to being shattered at the time they encountered an unsupported line of artillery.  See: Missionary Ridge at Chattanooga for example.

 

Gettysburg is also a prime example.  Seven individual batteries deployed as isolated batteries were overrun with minimal casualties to the attackers.  Tactically these guns were taken by men in skirmish order; the standard method for dealing with an unsupported battery.  Skirmish order kept attacking targets minimized for artillery rapidly destroyed the mobility of a battery.  

 

While UGG can't deploy skirmishers it should be able to abstract this key distinction with modified based on the operational radius of the battery.

 

Here are some practical observations...

 

Bigelow, Smith, and 5 other batteries operating in isolation were overrun.  

 

Longstreet's charge on July 2 was stopped by a line of guns deployed effectively as a 'Grand Battery' of multiple batteries brought together in a line and holding a final position until infantry support could arrive.

 

Longstreet's charge on July 3 (aka Pickett's Charge) was broken by a combined arms line.

 

From an implementation standpoint it is almost like the artillery should have a support radius similar to the Corps commanders at 'canister range'.  When friendly infantry/cavalry are close the batteries are more effective and lethal against the enemy.  When batteries are not supported, meaning no friendly units are within the battery's operational radius, the guns are much more vulnerable to enemy fire and inflict fewer casualties.  Mutually supporting batteries (batteries within each other's operational radius) might gain some benefit, but less than a line properly supported with infantry/cavalry.  

 

I haven't tested for a while now, so perhaps my comment are out of step with the current state of the game.

 

Hopefully this comment is useful.

[CSA Watkins]

David...Pls bear with me here...this is a bit long winded...

Concerning Overly powerful Artillery..

I have been thinking on this for a while.

Specifically the Unions' Batteries' and there lack of being vulnerable to battery counter fire,

and with there ability to inflict high Damage from distance.

 

I like you post above, With Historical examples. With Correcting the high shot to kill ratio seems sound.

Your analogy, n how to go about obtaining a comprehensible fix was concise/thoughtful.

---As you mentioned:

-Unsupported artillery were easily destroyed with Skirmishers.

-Even Brigades would quickly silence them when the opportunity arose.

(This is well done with the AI in game(Skirmishers/Brigades.)+++

---

As with my last post the Union's Batteries were pounding me from afar with shot.

i.e Seeley/Arnold/Buckley/Clark. South, in the Vicinity of the Snyder farm.

They had an extremely high shot to kill ratio..imo.

Those batteries were/had to be close to a 1000+ meters away

http://i.imgur.com/ksSmYZx.png

 

Now with my supported artillery in the same game had a big advantage with me firing down, n into massed brigades

the first half, is a different story.

It can be argued that Wyall's/Wallace/Graham/Reilly/Hurt's batteries did in fact have

a bit higher that average kill ratio. But than again in a game......

http://i.imgur.com/2ndIB4t.png    

 

The inability to detach skirmishers, n with the way the Developers have now kept the Artillery behind the front Lines

it is damn hard to get at them.+++

I do use the Skirmishers to guard Batteries, so I can cause a delay action when a brigade approaches for said batteries to limber n scram.

Also I Order/Send skirmishers at hand to take under fire n hopefully destroy batteries that are hammering/harassing me.

*---------------

Weather your idea for a fix is doable in game, and/or if the developers want to

undertake this job with(Gettysburg) at this time is another matter.

This fix could be quite the undertaking if was agreeable with them, n they have stated that they will not be doing any more

coding for this game.

 

I would like to see a hot fix though with the long range Artillery(Unions only)

whereas % would be lowered with kills/accuracy.

With Supported Artillery in closer quarters, it is acceptable with the rounds/type fired--- % Hits/Kills.... imo..

As stared by the Dev's, a lot of this feedback can n will be considered in the next Battle(Antietam.)

I believe that's where the resources should be concentrated now on (Antietam), in my humble opinion.

 

David you have a wealth of historical information with the ACW.

I enjoy reading  your posts as I usually learn things ,n appreciate your participation

with voicing them here, as I imagine/know others do as well.

 

-It's quite the tight rope the developers have to walk with trying to have

the game as real as possible, while still bring us a enjoyable experience with this game.

This I understand n appreciate, compromises are n have to be made. 

-Mr. Thomadis I know is well read on the subject, n works hard to get things' right....

With us working together observing/making suggestions to implement going forward....

this game(Ultimate Generals)/Future Game(s) can only get a lot better.

 

With that said I really enjoy this game, I still have only played half of all custom maps.....

Plus the maps I do replay always play out differently.

This within itself speaks Volume's for the replay Value of UG:G................

 

Cheers.....

 

Edit: For wording/Clarity

 

 

 

[David Fair]

These observations are applicable to Antietam as well - where the Federal army held a much greater artillery advantage in the caliber and quantity of the guns.  

 

My concern is the cascade effect of moving from Gettysburg to Antietam where the artillery, if left "as is', will further impact the game balance which will require increasingly superior CSA infantry to overcome the overly effective artillery that dominates the UGG Gettysburg implementation.

 

Personally, I'd like to see something in KIA statistics more like the ACW where each side claimed substantially more kills than had actually occurred.  That way players have a 'sense' of the effectiveness of units rather than a precise data point - kind of makes the game more like war which embraces the 'fog of war'.

 

Thus, people who like artillery and believe it inflicted more than 6% of battlefield casualties can choose to believe the numbers they see reported in the game, while tuning the algorithms to more correctly align with the historical record.

 

Final battle statistics could be accurately reported, but the individual phases would be 'estimates'.

 

I don't expect Nick and his team to implement my thoughts - but it does seem reasonable to share it with them.

[CSA Watkins]

Constructive n Pertinent feedback is always welcome,

Threads Title states that.

Weather they decide to use it is another matter.

 

OK here is a look at the Unions Artillery in action.

-Now within 1 minute, with two maybe three broadsides from 2-4 Batteries(12-24 Guns) as far as I can see,

did in fact kill 30 men of Smiths Brigade.

Now as you can see The brigades of Gordon's' n Smith's were only receiving Artillery fire,

n with distance it was solid shot.

In 24 minutes those 2 Brigades had 201 men killed.

 

Gordon rolled onto the field with 1508 Muskets, n lost 157

Smith rolled South with 805 Muskets, n lost 41.

At that point I quit to post here with my observations.

So something is amiss here....imo

http://imgur.com/a/jFISO#0

[David Fair]

Let's compare your UGG results with an AAR from Gettysburg...

 

 

“But one official report from Pickett’s division has been published, that of Garnett’s brigade, by Maj. C. S. Peyton, 19 Va., who was the only field officer of the division not killed or wounded. [Peyton reported] ‘…we lay during the most terrific cannonading, which opened at 1:30 P. M., and was kept up without intermission for one hour.  During the shelling we lost about 20 killed and wounded…

 

The distance from the Union line firing on Garnett's brigade is roughly equal to the distance to your screen shots.  

 

At Gettysburg a cannonade twice as long with more than double the number of Federal guns (60 to 80) inflicted "about 20 killed and wounded" on Garnett's brigade.  If we double the numbers for Garnett's brigade to get us up to a division in UGG it suggests about 40 killed and wounded in an hour at long-range.

 

By comparison in UGG your losses in half that time by, what looks to be about 3 or 4 batteries (18 to 24 guns), is 5X  more effective than the historical reports.  

 

Every time we compare historical data with UGG the artillery is consistently about 5X too lethal.  

 

Sigh...  

[David Fair]

Just for fun here is a more complete excerpt from Peyton's AAR.  Note the line highlighted and underlined.  

 

What is fascinating about this line is that the battery on LRT (Hazlett's) was commanded by Rittenhouse.  Rittenhouse states in his report that only 2 of his guns could target the Confederate advance - there simply was not room on the top of LRT to deploy his entire battery in the direction of the attack.  The other 4 guns were firing - but in the direction of Devil's Den.

 

 

“But one official report from Pickett’s division has been published, that of Garnett’s brigade, by Maj. C. S. Peyton, 19 Va., who was the only field officer of the division not killed or wounded. [Peyton reported] ‘…we lay during the most terrific cannonading, which opened at 1:30 P. M., and was kept up without intermission for one hour.  During the shelling we lost about 20 killed and wounded…the order to advance was given…[the enemy’s skirmishers were first met, and immediately driven in.  Moving on, we soon met the advanced line of the enemy, lying concealed in the grass on the slope about 100 yards in front of his second line, which consisted of a stone wall, about breast high…about 30 paces from the crest of the hill which was lined with their artillery…Up to this time we had suffered but little from the enemy’s batteries…with the exception of one posted on the mountain [Little Round Top]…which enfiladed nearly our entire line with fearful effect, sometimes as many as 10 men being killed and wounded by the bursting of a single shell…We were now within about 75 paces of the wall, unsupported on the right and left…Gen Kemper’s line was discovered to be lapping on ours…a staff officer rode back to the general to request him to incline to the right…but in consequence of the eagerness of the men in pressing forward, it was impossible to have the order carried out…within about 20 paces of the wall…a terrific fire that poured into our ranks both from their batteries and from their sheltered infantry…Gen. Armistead…rushed forward with unyielding determination to plant the Southern banner on the walls of the enemy…the fighting over the wall became hand to hand and of the most desperate character…those who were not killed or wounded were captured, with the exception of about 300 who came off slowly, but greatly scattered, the identity of every regiment being entirely lost…The brigade went into action with 1287 men and about 140 officers…casualties will show, of 941 killed, wounded, and missing.’”

 

 

 

 

Note also that these shells that killed 10 men with a single shell were noted by other first-had witnesses and there were only a few of these extraordinarily high casualty rate single rounds fired during the entire battle 

 

Bottom line - either you believe in the data from the hospitals - or you don't.  If you don't believe in the data from the hospitals then it would be great if anyone can point out sources for other data.  Fox's Regimental Losses is based heavily on the hospital records so it is not clear that any other sources actually exist.

[SuperstitiousTwat]

Some angry reporting, anyone...

 

 

Look at these canons, limbering all the time without shooting.

 

 

 

Look at these ai tactics, just horrible:

 

1 Enemy is attacking, awrite, awrite.

 

2 But how? Pettigrew and Perrin are going north! Pettigrew along my lines! While Brockenbrough, Lane and Scales are going to the east against Paul and Cutler. General is somewhere... Oh, and look at these canons, they are not shooting. 

 

 

 

3

 

Lane is already beaten, while Brockenbrough is standing against my overpowered line with no attempt to retreat. Pettigrew is going back, too, after taking some big losses. Perrin is alone and lost. You can imagine, what happened.

 

 

I can not believe this. The patch before 1.55 was way better in case of flanking out the enemy, make some main emphasis and so on and so on.

 

 

This is my result:

 

 

With that patch, the game is a bloody mess to me.

[JonnyH13]

The cannon bug pops up whenever the cannons are ordered to halt while limbered.  It occasionally happens and to fix it simply move the cannon around a bit.  In regards to the poor AI tactics it depends on which AI type you chose.  Also looking at the tactical situation, the confederates will have a hard time attacking at all and the scenario map is too small for flanking attacks.  Of course the confederates will have a hard time attacking because according to history they did have a hard time.  If only the union positioned their forces more efficiently and brought up Steinwehr's division they may have actually repulsed both Ewell and Hill's attack.  The confederates really have to blitz in the beginning because once the union become entrenched, the confederates will have little chance of taking the hill or ridges.  Like in the pictures, it will be a massacre.

 

 

Also, for any future games, can you make a battle scenario that spans the entire battle from start to finish?  I really find the lack of a continuous game to be a major downside.  The constant interruptions and re-positioning take away some replayability from the game as your plans can easily be disrupted if certain troops are moved around from their positions

Edited October 2, 2015 by JonnyH13

[Mr. Mercanto]

I feel like the damage modifiers are really unbalanced in this update. I've watched the Iron Brigade, on high ground, with cover (Oak Ridge) lose volley after volley against Davis's Brigade, which is totally exposed on low ground. Its gotten to the point where the only way I can win is using canister fire, as my brigades cannot fight the Confederates under any conditions, 

I never had this problem before, but I after the 1.55 update I really feel like the game is almost unplayable. No matter what the conditions, no matter what the brigade strength, in a shoot out battle the Union always loses now. Am I the only one this is happening to?