I love/hate this game

[Clinch]

I love it:

Great concept, love the map and units, love the sounds, love the movement arrows.

I hate it:

If I wanted to play whack a mole clickfest, im sure I could have found it at the app store. The game moves too fast which is probably great for fps type gamers BUT THE PEOPLE WHO PLAY GAMES LIKE THIS ARE LOOKING FOR A WARGAME! You have to have an option for slower game speed. I dont care if the game takes me longer for each scenario. Why do my units keep farting around moving to and fro? I told the iron brigade to move to this spot, why do they keep playing leap frog with each other? Can you give us some kind of guard mode and maybe a skirmish mode.

Sorry if I sound like a dic#

Just wanted to give my 2 cents. I do like the game and appreciate your endeavor

[TheCenturion]

Press 'Hold' to get a unit to hold its ground. However, be wary that units can be routed fairly easy like this. Standing your ground takes balls, and the game models that; when units 'leap frog', that's the unit AI taking the best action possible to keep the unit steady. Standing in the line of fire, or bracing for a charge, isn't necessarily a good idea. 

[Clinch]

I forgot about these commands on the right. For some reason my screen cuts off part of the view.

[Myes!]

Press 'Hold' to get a unit to hold its ground. However, be wary that units can be routed fairly easy like this. Standing your ground takes balls, and the game models that; when units 'leap frog', that's the unit AI taking the best action possible to keep the unit steady. Standing in the line of fire, or bracing for a charge, isn't necessarily a good idea. 

 

 

I don't know. I think the current auto-fallback is fucking infuriating, and has nearly lost me objectives.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

I agree, it seems units give up and run too easy.Then you find yourself racing to turn each brigade and then hold so your line don't run away. Also having to wait till your Brigade arrives at its destination, then can you tell them to rotate direction. That gets annoying.

 

I do like the Random personality AI. I wonder if there is a way to make each battle have a seperate personality AI, when you pick random. That would be interesting.

 

I got Picketts charge and crushed the Union. I love how your Brigades prior Deaths/Kills are still represented on your Brigades after each Battle.

 

It would be more rewarding if after you just won or lost a Battle a more detailed After-Battle report describing the Kill/Death each Brigade suffered in the entire battle. Perhaps a breakdown of each specific day and a total.  When you win the game it seems a bit of a empty victory cause you just vested so much time and interest in that battle and all you get is a simple After-Battle report saying you killed 20,000 they killed 20,000 You win.

 

Also where are the Divisional Commanders?

[Savathor]

I think some of you are forgetting that this game is not finished yet. It's still in early access .

 

 

As for Division Commanders, I'm fairly sure they already mentioned somewhere that they are working to get those in. 

 

I do agree that this whole ''auto-fallback'' mechanic is quite annoying though. It makes you have to babysit your units a whole lot more, which is not really a good thing in this context.

[RowleysBottle]

I'm going to disagree with some of the things in this thread.  I do think the game could slow down a bit, or at least offer a way to alter game speed.  I think the game is fantastic, I love it.

 

I think the dynamics of a battle are well represented.  In a few other games i've played, lines either held or broke, with this game i get the feeling (as they auto-fallback) of a line that is wavering.  I think this is something that I've never seen in these types of game, and I think it's awesome.

 

If every unit did exactly what you wanted, you would win every time.  In reality - lines break, men break... there simply is no way to easily represent this.  I've been longing for a game that captured this aspect of warfare, and I think these guys have made a great run at it.

[lotharr51]

I found that the ability to create a strong defensive line doesn't really exist. Troops don't create improvised defenses, which they did fairly regularly by this point in the war. That coupled with a faster rate of fire for newer rifles meant that "firstest with the mostest" was a key doctrine of that period. Formations were chewed to pieces trying to take improvised defensive positions.  Also, terrain and elevation matter much less than micro to flank.

 

I would also like to see a bigger boost to moral and the ability to prevent auto fall back when units are supported on their flanks and rear. This was a huge factor for formation integrity and one reason the less durable union forces were able to hold the line: they had more troops that backed each other up on good ground. 

[David Fair]

Iotharr51, when I suggested "breastworks" responses in the forum came back with "fortifications".  It's not clear that some understand the difference.  I agree completely that defensive position were prepared and improved over time - The Culp's Hill breastworks were sufficiently robust after a night's preparation that Ewell's Corps lost 2,000 men to the Union's 800 on day 2.  

 

Defensive works and lines in UGG don't reflect the reality of Gettysburg.  The design team is focused more on game balance and, while not intuitive to me how this helps game balance, degrading defensive capabilities seems to be part of this proposition.

 

Lee prepared defenses after Day 3 hoping Meade would attack him.  He waited all day on July 4 then retreated that night.

 

IMO a more balanced game would include robust defenses.  That way if an army is getting beaten is still has the option to rely on the defenses to balance the losses they've sustained.

[lotharr51]

@David,

 

Yeah, I think Gettysburg was a great example where maneuver would quickly turn into siege and trying to turn a flank at the operational or strategic level was so critically important. I believe the battles for the round tops and Ewell's failure to attack make that point pretty clear. 

 

Maybe the primacy of defense will get another look if people keep pointing this out. 

[Townsendvol]

I am certainly for the ability to dig in our build some type of fortification.  I like the way SMG handled it, I believe if a unit was idle for a few mins they would auto dig in.  Made sense. 

[fdsdh1]

I agree the agree to slow or speed up the clock would be nice, at the moment time is scaled up to give a more realistic length, but it would be nice to occasscionally slow it down a bit.

[CmdrMctoast]

These armies cut and cleared whole patches of forest for breastworks in mere hours at times, built bridges in advance of retreats as well as assaults and had engineers in the rear doing it all day long for fallback positions, I thnk the army corp of engineers in the game is historical and would play a major role in this as well.

 

 

http://civilwarhome.com/engineers.htm

Engineers In The Civil War

        When the war began, the Union had 2 engineer corps.  The Corps of Topographical Engineers conducted explorations, surveys, and reconnaissance's of uncharted areas and sites for defenses, first under the command of Col. John J. Abert, then beginning Sept. 1861, under Col. Stephen H. Long.  B for reasons of efficiency, the Corps of Engineers absorbed the topographical engineers in 1863.
        The Corps of Engineers' duties included planning and erecting defenses, construction and destroying roads and bridges, placing and removing obstruction, conducting topographical surveys during campaigns, reconnoitering enemy works, and preparing and distributing accurate maps. The wartime chiefs of engineers, Brig. Gens. Joseph G. Totten and Richard Delafield (who succeeded to command in 1864), attempted to perform these duties with an assortment of Regular Army and volunteer officers and men, and with hired civilians.
        The Confederacy established a Corps of Engineers commanded by 4 chief during the war:  Brig. Gens. Josiah Gorgas and Danville Leadbetter, Col. Alfred L. Rives, and Maj. Gen. Jeremy F. Gilmer.  Fortunately, the Confederate engineers obtained the services of trained officers who had resigned from the U.S. Army, but they lacked equipment and maps when the war began.  Equipment was purchased from foreign countries, captured from the enemy, and manufactured in the South, but deficiencies continued throughout the war.  Among other duties, engineer officers energetically prepared maps that were quickly distributed to the various army commands.  The Confederacy also organized engineer troops and hired hundreds of civilians and slaves to work on fortifications, roads, and bridges.
        Both Union and Confederate armies were unable to or, at times, unwilling to furnish sufficient men and equipment to the corps to complete important tasks.  In spite of deficiencies, the engineers performed valuable and diverse services, and many trained engineer officers--among them George G. Meade,  P.G.T. Beauregard, Joseph E. Johnston, and Robert E. Lee--became worth commanders of troops.
 

Wikipedia Civil War

Pontoon bridge across the James River, Virginia, 1864

The Army Corps of Engineers played a significant role in the American Civil War. Many of the men who would serve in the top leadership in this institution were West Point graduates, who rose to military fame and power during the Civil War. Some of these men were Union Generals George McClellan, Henry Halleck, George Meade, and Confederate generals Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, and P.G.T. Beauregard.^[5] The versatility of officers in the Army Corps of Engineers contributed to the success of numerous missions throughout the Civil War. They were responsible for building pontoon and railroad bridges, forts and batteries, the destruction of enemy supply lines, and the construction of roads.^[5] The Union forces were not the only ones to employ the use of engineers throughout the war; and on 6 March 1861, once the South had seceded from the Union, among the different acts passed at the time, a provision was included that called for the creation of a Confederate Corps of Engineers.^[10]

The progression of the war demonstrated the South's disadvantage in engineering expertise; of the initial 65 cadets who resigned from West Point to accept positions with the Confederate Army, only seven were placed in the Corps of Engineers.^[10] To overcome this obstacle, the Confederate Congress passed legislation that gave a company of engineers to every division in the field; by 1865, they actually had more engineer officers serving in the field of action than the Union Army.^[10] The Army Corps of Engineers served as a main function in making the war effort logistically feasible. One of the main projects for the Army Corps of Engineers was constructing railroads and bridges, which Union forces took advantage of because railroads and bridges provided access to resources and industry. One area where the Confederate engineers were able to outperform the Union Army was in the ability to build fortifications that were used both offensively and defensively along with trenches that made them harder to penetrate. This method of building trenches was known as the zigzag pattern.

[CmdrMctoast]

 NEW NECESSITIES OF WARFARE   

The increased deadliness of firearms taught the commanders in the Civil War the habit of greatly strengthening every new position occupied with earthworks as formidable as possible. The works in the upper picture were thrown up in a night by the Federals near North Anna River, Virginia, in 1864. It is apparent how they would strengthen the resistance of a small force to larger numbers who might advance across the open upon the position. In the lower picture we see the salient of " Fort Hell," with its ditch and abattis and breastworks constructed of gabions, the result of many days' work of the soldiers in anticipation of attack. This was one of the fortifications about Petersburg, where the construction of fieldworks was developed to the highest point of efficiency.

 

[Lawrence]

Well I just got done playing for about 4 hours and I notice some things that could be better. For this game only being in Alpha, I'm realllllly impressed; excellent work! 

Things to work on:

 

Troop attacking- It should be easier to select a unit and attack another enemy unit. For example total war is very simple and that's what you should try to model it as. 

Troop Movement- Again referring to total war, there should be a right click option to place the troops in a certain direction. Rotating the arrow is hard and kind of annoying, especially when you need to maneuver your troops quickly.

Moral: The men are retreating wayyyy to fast... They should stand and fight longer than they do if you tell them to hold, instead of them running.. It is hard to defend if your men only run away after a few volleys.

Graphics- Is there anyway you guys can make the game, when finished- look smoother and have better graphics? The game feels very 2d and not 3d... Kind of a buzz kill.

 

Aside from that the game is excellent and keep working! 

[R.E.B.Blunt]

To rotate a Brigade Wait till the Brigade comes to a halt at location you want the press the middle wheel on your mouse like a button and turn your Brigade by moving mouse side to side with middle wheel held down.

[WesleyBarras]

I agree, it seems units give up and run too easy.Then you find yourself racing to turn each brigade and then hold so your line don't run away. Also having to wait till your Brigade arrives at its destination, then can you tell them to rotate direction. That gets annoying.

 

I do like the Random personality AI. I wonder if there is a way to make each battle have a seperate personality AI, when you pick random. That would be interesting.

 

I got Picketts charge and crushed the Union. I love how your Brigades prior Deaths/Kills are still represented on your Brigades after each Battle.

 

It would be more rewarding if after you just won or lost a Battle a more detailed After-Battle report describing the Kill/Death each Brigade suffered in the entire battle. Perhaps a breakdown of each specific day and a total.  When you win the game it seems a bit of a empty victory cause you just vested so much time and interest in that battle and all you get is a simple After-Battle report saying you killed 20,000 they killed 20,000 You win.

 

Also where are the Divisional Commanders?

Here here!

[MikeK]

Regarding the calls for auto-entrenchment - the routine in the eastern theater of veterans spontaneously digging in during the last year of the war was not the habit as of the beginning of Gettysburg, which moreover began as a fluid open field battle rather than defense of a fixed position which if dug-in could not be turned. 

 

Troops cannot both dig in and be held in fresh condition and readiness for action at the same time. Moreover, it was a common view up until World War 1 that entrenchments had the weakness of sapping the offensive spirit and morale of troops, though their defensive advantages were appreciated.

 

Where Union troops took up defensive positions they meant to hold permanently (i.e., until ordered out) that offered good terrain and materials, some officers did have their men improve the position at Gettysburg when given time without interruption by the enemy. This is, however, the exception.  Although Lee was an engineer and already head a reputation as a general attentive to his defenses, the Confederates were on the offensive and did not prepare positions for defense until their hopes of an offensive victory evaporated.  

[Zelekendel]

 

Graphics- Is there anyway you guys can make the game, when finished- look smoother and have better graphics? The game feels very 2d and not 3d... Kind of a buzz kill.

 

 

You're serious, right? No, they will not do another graphics engine for this game after the game is finished. I don't think you realize what you're asking. 

Also, it just makes me sad when you speak as if 3d is inherently greater than 2d - I waited so many years for the return of quality 2d after years and years of every game that would've been beaufiful ruined in the 3d marketing craze, and while 3d has caught on there's still a great artistic difference and a great difference in price between 3d modeling and 2d art.

[Husserl]

Moreover we want UG games to be able to run decently in "humble" systems as well (old PCs, laptops, etc.) and not only in "exotic" spec machines. 

[Xenutheeviloverlord]

I actually like the auto-fallback, especially for the skirmishers and think that with a few tweaks (such as implimenting an auto-engage, where brigades and skirmishers will try to maintain firing contact after falling back.) Should be a real mechanic in the game to note, consider and use. 

 

Although it does feel frusturating at times, (mainly because once they fallback, they do not push back up and try to re-engage the enemy) its easy for me to remind myself that although this is a game, the game is trying to represent real soldiers and leaders who are confused and terrified.

[MikeK]

Non-routing retirement behaviors are under-represented in wargames. It is good to have it here - it may by providing relief and a more secure position increase current morale and confidence to stand, or if closely pressed by an enemy may lead to disintegration and route. 

[WesleyBarras]

Regarding the calls for auto-entrenchment - the routine in the eastern theater of veterans spontaneously digging in during the last year of the war was not the habit as of the beginning of Gettysburg, which moreover began as a fluid open field battle rather than defense of a fixed position which if dug-in could not be turned. 

 

Troops cannot both dig in and be held in fresh condition and readiness for action at the same time. Moreover, it was a common view up until World War 1 that entrenchments had the weakness of sapping the offensive spirit and morale of troops, though their defensive advantages were appreciated.

 

Where Union troops took up defensive positions they meant to hold permanently (i.e., until ordered out) that offered good terrain and materials, some officers did have their men improve the position at Gettysburg when given time without interruption by the enemy. This is, however, the exception.  Although Lee was an engineer and already head a reputation as a general attentive to his defenses, the Confederates were on the offensive and did not prepare positions for defense until their hopes of an offensive victory evaporated.  

 

MikeK, I'm sorry but you are wrong. The Union did entrench when they had time.  Example: Culps Hill, they build up log entrenchments.  I think it was Green. That is why they were able to replush Ewell. They had sent so many of their men to help the right flank that they were weakened.  As strong as their position was, if they didn't entrench they would have gotten ran over on the 2nd and 3rd day.