ความคิดเห็น

• gamedeal user

  Aug 21, 2023

  So, actually this game does a lot of things way better that the whole Total War series do. Enjoyed is severely. Hope the devs will make something similar to this in the future. 10/10
• Mlbfan

  Sep 11, 2023

  love killing rebels
• Ваня

  Oct 9, 2023

  Chef's Kiss. This game feels how 19th century battle maps look.

  Perfection In Simplicity

  There are only four unit types; infantry, skirmishers, artillery, cavalry. Many unit behaviors we are used to micromanaging are automatic; infantry fire and reload on the move when an enemy is in range while they are carrying out a move order, skirmishers hold fire while undetected, skirmishers and cavalry fall back to reload after firing, artillery switch between shot types and (un)limber, all units turn to face the nearest enemy.

  Tactics and Maneuver

  Units do not rock-paper-scissors each other. Prevailing in an engagement comes from terrain, flanking, concentrated fire and equipment usage. You do not send unit A to hard counter unit B. 200-500 skirmishers can engage, survive, flank, and delay a 2500 strong infantry battalion. Rookies in favorable terrain with close artillery support, and flanking skirmishers or infantry can handily beat back hardened veterans. Maps and armies are large enough, upwards of 120,000 soldiers, to allow large maneuvers. Identify the weak flank and send half or more of your army to roll up their sides and rear - if you have time before nightfall. Just like Chancellorsville but this time it's your idea :) Forests, rivers, fields, towns; attack the weakest areas - or send your men to the meat grinder of breastworks, I'm not your dad.

  Your Army - Your Way

  Control over all levels; battalion, division, corps, army. The units you bring into battles are all your own. How many of each type, how many men in each battalion, how many guns in each battery. Artillery battery with 24-pounder howitzers (shotgun kings) or 20-pounder Parrots (counter battery scythes)? 250 skirmishers armed with long range Whitworths or short range repeating rifles? 1500 veterans or 2500 rookies? Spend your budget on the troops you want... and to replace your egregious casualties :(
• gamedeal user

  Nov 17, 2016

  INITIAL REVIEW: If you enjoyed "Ultimate General: Gettysburg", I definitely recommend this. I've only played a couple of battles so far (Philippi and Gaines Mill), but I am greatly enjoying it. Admittedly, it's been a while since I last played "Gettysburg", but combat appears to be improved (artillery actually does noticeable damage, you now have to resupply troops with ammo, charging doesn't automatically cause your troops to rout, etc.). The campaign also looks like it will add some depth to the game (allowing you to upgrade and reinforce your forces after each engagement as you fight through the war), so I am excited to explore that more. As it is now, this is a fun game for Civil War nerds like me. I guess my only concern at this point is that I don't see many of the other major late-war battles (i.e. Wilderness, Spotsylvania CH, Cedar Creek, etc.) on the list of future additions to the game, but that has no real bearing on my opinion of the game as it is now. At any rate, I will update my review later as I continue to play with it. UPDATE: Ater investing another 10ish hours since my initial review, I have a few more observations. I've only encountered a few minor bugs, which I have faith will be fixed upon release or soon after. Battles are still fun. I enjoy the "Historical Battles" most, as these are closest to what actually happened (although I wish the Dunker Church at Antietam actually looked like the real thing). The campaign on the other hand is definitely in need of some work. I have started three different campaigns (Brig. Gen. difficulty). I lost the first two and I'm actually stuck on the third. The biggest issue with the campaign at this point is that as the game progresses, your army needs to grow in size. I have the unfortunate tendency to lose almost as many troops in battle as I gain afterwards. So, when I can fight battles I am almost always outnumbered (even when I play as the Union). In my current campaign, I cannot progress because I need two corps in order to fight Gaines Mill, but I cannot create a second corps. I think this could be fixed fairly easily if we could simply get more rewards for winning minor battles or even getting draws (receiving rewards for losses seems silly). That said, I look forward to seeing what will be improved upon/expanded as the game is fully released.
• gamedeal user

  Mar 17, 2017

  I want to recommend this game because I have enjoyed the time I put into it but I can't, at least right now. 1) The scripting of the battles and the larger campaign leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, at Shiloh as the Union, I held the CSA at the first battle line. The game then said "fall back to this line" and I said "rather not, doing fine here." It keep telling me to fall back. I killed all but ~800 of the CSA army. Day 2 starts and I have an army of 25,000 facing their 800 - but I've bet set back to the edge of the map at Pittsburg Landing. Why? Also why did the AI engage on the second day? 2) The larger campaign has these same problems. I was playing the the series of battles in the Peninsula Campaign as the Union and won each one by huge margins. And the next battle would load - a holding action to cover our retreat. Why are we retreating? I've inflicted massive losses on the AI but am retreating because that is what historically happened? This leads to a cognitive dissonance. I have control over the units on the battle but what the units do doesn't matter because the next events are all pre-scripted and rigid. If we allow the player to deviate from history in the battles (e.g., by winning or inflicting massive losses in an ahistorical way), it doesn't make sense to have the next battles be bounded by history. A battle, like Gettysburg, happened because of what happened at Chancellorsville. Having Gettysburg occur in a reasonably historically accurate way after a union win at Chancellorsville just doesn't make sense. Without a branching or dynamic campaign, it feels pointless to win/lose/draw the battles. 3) The scaling. I understand the importance of the scaling to keep the game challenging but it needs some sanity bounds. If I inflict near-complete losses on the AIs army, they need to start the next battle with similarly low solider counts. The soliders could be better under the hood (harder to kill, better shots under the reasoning that some of those who survived did so for a reason) but to inflict 80% losses and then see the army with near 100% or more than 100% recovery at the next battle just doesn't work. 4) Broken mechanics, specifically the AI's ability to run everywhere and do endless melee. Also the endless melee. It seems to have gotten worse. I recently watched a battle as the AI charged my lines. The targeted unit had a 2 to 1 or more advantage over the AI in troops, was totally rested and had 100% morale. There was no attempt to soften the target with rifle or cannon fire - just a charge. The AI unit was routed and it retreated about 300 yards, regrouped and then came back and repeated the charging process. Elsewhere on the battlefield, an AI unit charged an approximately evenly matched unit, again totally rested and ready to fight. The AI did this charge up a river bluff and without any other prior engagement. They just saw my unit on the top of the hill and went for it. They had 2 batteries of arty that could have been deployed and another unit or two that they could used to provide some fire or attempted a flanking move. Nope. They just went for a headlong frontal assault. Which failed, lead to a rapid regroup, repeat and eventual sucess. Basically, once the AI sees a unit, it charges. There seems to be no regard for the unit's relative strengths or the tactical situation. This is a larger problem because the AI can charge over near-infinite distances and doesn't suffer issues with dropping condition in melee/movement/battle (at least as far as I can see). Melee itself is broken (sticky melee is the bane of my playtime). The AI also doesn't have the persistance that your army does - high losses are okay because they are reset as soon as the battle is over. So there is no reason for the AI to not meat-grinder its units into your lines. This just results in tactically uninteresting battles. "Oh, there is the Rebel corps I was looking for - they are running across 2 miles of open ground in a charge for my center. Despite being outnumbered 3 to 1 and me having a strong position." 5) "Magic hill syndrome." The game has this by the truck load. The reason the hills became important on a field was because of the actions taken by the armies on the field. Suppose for some reason that Meade had set his line far to the east of Gettysburg and Lee had choosen to attack him there. Would Little Round Top have mattered? No. The hills and strong points became important in the tactical context of the battle - otherwise they are just as unimportant as the hill down the road from your house. But that isn't how the game treats the hills. You absolutely must hold certain points on the battlefield because they were tactically important in the historical battle - regardless of their importance in your current battle. Kill and rout the AI but fail to capture the magic hill in time? Draw or defeat are your only options. The AI is aware of these magic hills. I was playing Antietam and pushed the CSA back to the limits of the town of Sharpsburg. Both of our armies were very beat up. The only points on the battle that mattered tactically were where we were fighting to the NE of Sharpsburg. I'm getting ready to do a slight flanking move with my cav and notice the AI is marching a unit towards the VP at Dunker Church. That point has no value - the AI is about to have several units encircled to the NE of town and the first few blocks of Sharpsburg. But the AI is like "hey, Dunker Church is undefended and historically important, so we should capture that. The actual tactical situtation on the ground is irrelevant." Eventually, every playthrough, I lose interest. Why spend this hour fighting this battle if the result doesn't matter when it comes to the battle I fight next? Or the army I face next? Or how well I fight doesn't matter as much as if I can send a unit on an end-run march to capture and hold some historically important (but not important in the context) point on the map? Hopefully some patch comes out that fixes the melee, fixes the endless charging and maybe someday a branching campaign mode. Because it certainly does not "fully depend on player actions and battle results" right now. It is almost fully independent of player actions and results. If that happens, I'll be excited to revise this review and put as many hours as I can spare into the battles.
• gamedeal user

  Jun 8, 2017

  All of the negative reviews here about the AI's enemy army not being effected by your victories and tactics are obsolete with update v0.90. Enemy armies now have a pool of forces to draw from that is directly altered by your efforts during the dynamic campaign. Basically fixes every problem that everyone, myself included, had with being able to play the game. Unlike some early access developers, Game-Labs has been listening to and altering the game based on the player base's feedback. Necessary edit: Mind you, the game is still difficult as all hell. Don't go into any difficulty other than easy thinking you can spread your attribute points out across all traits and hope to come out ahead; you have to pick a strategy and stick with it otherwise you'll notice yourself dragging behind a bit as the war rages on. This is not a forgiving game and you will not be playing the superhuman savior of America. Aside from that small tidbid of information, all you need to know about the game is that it's a fantastic Civil War strategy simulation. Anyone who may be a fan of the time period, Total War games (specifically the combat aspect), or strategy and war games in general, will absolutely love Ultimate General: Civil War. Not only does this game fill a real niche market by providing the best Civil War based video game in decades, but the team of Game-Labs is headed up by the renowned modder that brought fans of Sega's Total War series DarthMod; a modification famed for its vast AI improvements, improvements that are evidently present in Ultimate General: Civil War. Ultimate General: Civil War is an underated game that I guarantee you'll enjoy playing at this stage; even when it had its issues, it was still hard to keep yourself from coming back frequently and now that the most pressing issue has been fixed, it's going to be hard to leave at all.
• gamedeal user

  Jun 27, 2017

  This game has come a long way from what it was during release, and even further from its predecessor, 'Ultimate General: Gettysburg'. For a time, the reinforcement pool that the opposition would draw on would be relatively static. This lead to a number of negative reviews due to the game being unfairly difficult. You'd destroy the enemy army in a battle, but the next one they would be even larger and well equipped despite the casualties inflicted. With the 0.90 update of a dynamic enemy army size, this is no longer a problem and I am enjoying my Legendary difficulty run right now. Let's start off with this. The game is grueling, with the lead game designer being the man behind the DarthMods of several Total War game. The AI is much more difficult to handle than any present in the Total War franchise, especially the entries with the closest in era, (Empire & Napoleon). The game also plays much more differently than the aforementioned games. Instead of infantry regiments, you'll be working with entire brigades as a singular unit. Battles will require you to manage multiple divisions at once. In more ways than one, the game is very macro-tactical. You're not so much worried about the formation of a single unit, than you are about your entire force as a whole. If this wasn't clear, do not play this as if it were Total War. You're going to have a bad time and be frustrated if you do. For those interested in getting attached to their units, much like XCOM, you'll be happy to know that brigade names are completely customizable. Considering how valuable veteran units and officers are, you will get attached to them as if your battles depended on them... because they do. It is rewarding to see scruffy units full of recruits turn into battle-hardened heroes throughout your campaign. It's a must-have for anyone interested in this period of conflict and strategy. Considering it is on sale, I would grab it. This is a promising game coming from an indie studio that surely will bring quality strategy games in the future. Edit <18 July 2017>: The game has finally released out of early access and there's a few things that I want to add to the consumer that wants some straightforward info that I left out in my original review - note that I still wholeheartedly recommend this game. Even at release, there are some frustrating things with the game and that comes down to the level design or at least flow design of certain campaigns. You'll find yourself managing different parts of a battle at different times. Sometimes when the part of the map switches, you won't have access to some trips that you were relying on, or the position they start in isn't optimal and you have no say on how they are placed. I found myself forgiving this in early battles, but in later battles I found it annoying since more was on the line. I found it especially annoying since many of the early battles still allowed you to place units in certain positions even when "taken by surprise". I found that sometimes the enemy reinforcement pool would not apply to certain battles, most noticeably the final battles of both campaigns, (Washington and Richmond). By that I mean, I would crush the enemy army to only have 50k troops, and yet there would be 105k+ waiting for me around Richmond. I only barely forgive this because it would be a dull and anti-climactic end to a campaign. It is rather depressing to get to the end of your campaign after many hard fought battles to attrit the enemy, only to find that it was useless just within arm's reach of the final goal. On a historical note, I noted that casualties for battles, especially on harder difficulties, would be extraordinarily high compared to history. Battles like the 2nd Bull Run would have 90k in casualties. To put that in perspective, Gettysburg had ~40k casualties for both sides total. This can be a turn off to some, but a more accurate representation would just result in units running away more - so for the sake of mechanics, this is fine in my eyes but it may not be for you. Again, I still recommend this game. The fact that a game with a relatively static campaign can allow for more in-depth tactical and strategic-level thinking than the open campaigns of the newer Total Wars can is fantastic.
• gamedeal user

  Aug 16, 2017

  August the 15th, 2017 Dear Sarah, The indications are very strong that we shall leave for work soon-- perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to write you again, I feel impelled to write lines on this masterful strategic simulator that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more. You may find the complexities of control, slow pace, and lack of text over hard-to-identify unit icons difficult. You may find the lack of a topographical mapmode severely difficult when placing artillery. I know how strongly you reacted to this game's predecessor, UG: Gettysburg. We owe a great a debt to that title that came before this one now. And I am willing—perfectly willing—to accept that this title suffers from the same limitations of Gettysburg—simplistic flanking mechanics, a steamrolling Union campaign—to help support this game, and to pay that debt. But, my dear wife, when I know that you will experience the new depth that resource management, equipment management, and the political system brings, my own joys lay down nearly all of yours. You will encounter one of the most adapatable and intuititive AIs seen since the golden age of Close Combat games—even better than Gettysburg. You will enjoy the care and depth of each major battle—none repetitive, none ignored nor half-measured—and the pleasure of reading AI news dispatched begging for reinforcements against your victorious march. You will appreciate how the games resourcing forces you to choose between a retreat that preserves your army, or a last-stand to defend a capture point. Sarah, my love for the maps and unit graphics is deathless, it seems to bind me to each battle with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; and yet my love of Country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly on with all these chains to the battlefield for I cannot bear to play the Confederates yet. Forgive this game's few UI faults, and the many pains its drop-prone multiplayer have caused you. How thoughtless and foolish enemy brigades can sometimes be, standing still in open cover and taking 50-60% losses without retreat! How gladly would I wash out with my tears every little spot upon your happiness, and struggle with all the misfortune of this world, to shield you and my children from harm. But I cannot. To enjoy this game is to understand that while no perfect tactical simulation game exists, as far as the Civil War genre goes, Ultimate General: CiviI War is as close to one as exists on Steam. Sarah, do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for me, for we shall meet again. O Sarah, I wait for you there! Come to me, and lead thither my children. Grito Major El Grito 2nd Rhode Island Infantry Manassas, Virginia
• gamedeal user

  Sep 4, 2017

  I've been playing this game off-and-on since its release and generally I enjoy it! I think this an all-around great RTS. However, I have a bit of a concern about some of the historical battles. They seem to be FAR too scripted based on historical events, leaving little room for real player strategy. For example, in the Stones River battle, as the Union, I managed to to the CSA left flank and ball up his army against the river by the end of the second scenario of the battle (which extends to first scenario). However, by the third scenario, the game basically tossed away all my gains, balled my army up on the road, and left me with CSA troops on three sides (presumably per the history of the battle). It basically made all my efforts futile. In a second, more recent example, during the Chancellorsville scenario, I managed to secure both the Plank Road objectives with the Union Army on the second scenario (the Stonewall Jackson flank attack scenario). But, like Stones River, by the third scenario my army was balled into a haphazard perimeter around that farmhouse per history and all my gains were lost. What made it particularly worse was that after I won the third scenario, I had to RETAKE all that ground I had already earned. What's the point of fighting these battles if the player is simply locked into script that decides the outcome regardless of how well I do? It's very frustrating. . . .
• gamedeal user

  Oct 28, 2017

  Edited: A new mod has been released which fixes many of these problems. Ultimate General: Civil War is a fun game when you first play it. I've even written a few guides for the game. It bills itself as an authentic historical game with good AI. At first glance, the game does all of this wonderfully. Deeper analysis of the game reveals fundamental design problems that only become visible with time. Many of these problems are known to the developers. However due to the mechanism the devs use to solicit feedback these issues remain unaddressed since early access. Other problems are more fundamental, such as a lack of true player agency (a la Mass Effect 3) Problems with the AI Once you get past being beaten by the AI in the beginning and get used to the quirks of the game then the advertised 'strong' AI vanishes. Each map basically devolves into one of two strategies depending on if you are on offense or defense. The challenge the AI provides against you is not in the AI being smart. Rather the challenge is in the sheer numbers the AI has versus you. The problem gets worse if you play on half speed. With careful micromanagement, it's possible to defeat armies with 5x the number of men you have as well as drive back the relentless AI charges (if you aren't playing offensively that is). You can even cancel AI charges if you do things right. The AI pretty much always reacts the same way to you and it is easy to learn how the AI reacts and do the same thing every game. This is a regression from UG:GB where the AI had different personalities and acted differently. Problems with Game Mechanics Some of these problems with AI involve various bugs. These include AI breaking charges if you reposition units, AI favoring charges even if the unit is exhausted (which you can halt the advance by micromanaging artillery). Others are more fundamental. For example, early on in early access the AI had problems defending their artillery. So the game devs, instead of making the AI better at defending their artillery, made artillery invincible to melee. Similar examples of game mechanic problems exist elsewhere. Melee mechanics were broken since early access. 2 brigades of 200 men in melee will perform 4x casualties as 1 brigade with 400 men in melee. Thus, some players (in a single player game mind you) liked to stack lots of tiny cavalry brigades and abuse the melee mechanic bug to beat battles. This bug was reported and these players complained the game was 'too easy'. Instead of fixing the broken melee system (or *gasp* asking the players to not use such strategies in a single player game), it was decided that 'cavalry was too powerful' (since this was the most commonly abused unit). Thus, cavalry got nerfed to the ground so much that the only way to use them is to abuse the melee bug. A 400 men cavalry brigade can't even chase down 90 skirmishers without getting routed. Problems with Realism These issues of game design, where bugs are not fixed but instead hidden, permeates to the entire game. It results in unrealistic situations that hurts realism of the game. Such as 750 cavalrymen who manage to surprise 200 artillerymen from the rear failing to beat the 200 artilleryman and instead being routed and losing half your men. BUT if those very same 750 cavalrymen were dismounted before engaging the artillery, then the results won't be as disastrous (AI will still not lose men though thanks to invincible AI artillery). It results in the best way of dealing with artillery being shooting them (and eating canisters to the face) rather than charging the cannons. It results in on harder difficulties having to play the game a certain way rather than having true agency. Problems with Player Agency On the topic of player agency, UG:Civil War does a poor job of this. On easier difficulties player agency is somewhat there as the AI is not gifted tons of men to produce artificial difficulty. Thus as the game goes on if you manage to defeat the AI (where the AI loses 3-5x your men) the AI won't be able to reinforce. This creates other problems such as the 2nd half of the campaign being too easy. Due to this complaint (and also due to complaints from players exploiting game bugs and AI weakness on higher difficulties) combined with the lack of difficulty levels, hard and legendary difficulties are not only incredibly broken but also unfun, a tedious chore, and lack player agency. The AI patently ignores the 'army intelligence' screen where you see how many men it should have and deploys much more men than the number shown. This means you can't play with a small, elite army that's lowered the AI army strength, no, you have to bring as much men as possible. Since the game ignores the army strength on higher difficulties there's no point to capturing or killing AI at all. Instead it's a matter of force preservation (since you only get limited recruits). As the AI is gifted a new army each time you destroy an army, the facade of player agency collapses completely. It simply does not matter what you do or how many men the AI loses. Fundamentally these problems are a result of a lack of dynamic campaign. This is compounded by game bugs exploited by players on hard/legendary that were never fixed which makes the game 'too easy' for them. Or the lack of a true dynamic campaign where you can choose to end the war early if you manage to defeat the enemy army. No, the solution chosen by the devs was to brush the bugs under the rug and just give the AI more men (or men invulnerable to their weakness such as invincible artillery). This doesn't result in a fun game. Rather it results in a game where battles become a CHORE to micromanage and abuse AI weaknesses (not to mention all the small bugs which still have not been fixed). It's not any more challenging or hard in a tactical level. Problems with Feedback One aggravating factor which lead to these decisions has to do with feedback. Due to the many different ways one can play a game, issues which may crop up for some players may not crop up for other players. Similarly, due to the vast difference between normal and hard in difficulty (different AI bouses), playstyles/bugs which may work on normal may not work on hard. Instead of soliciting feedback from the playerbase as a whole, the general impression I have from watching the game progress since early access is that a small privileged group of testers (who tend to be experts and or play using certain strategies) have their suggestions favored more by the devs. This isn't necessarily the fault of the devs, as these players are simply more active in providing feedback. This generally wouldn't be a matter if it wasn't for the fact that some of these more active players have a habit of discounting other player's problems (since it doesn't occur for them with how they play). This leads to issues where unless a problem is faced by a majority of players, problems which only affect some players are routinely ignored or outright dismissed. It also leads to poor balance changes and honestly a terrible experience for new players who are thrown into the game (eg the patches making the first intro/tutorial level harder and harder and harder to the point where new players have to go on the forum and ask for how to beat the FIRST LEVEL). Hostility to Modding Many of these fundamental issues would be solvable if there were modding support by the devs. One would think the modder DarthMod would have supported modding in his/her commercial games, having come from the modding community. Instead, impediments to modding were added on purpose to reduce the basic modding possible in UG:CW. Conclusion I would honestly prefer to play the first early game access version of the game rather than the current version of the game as it is now. I lack faith the devs will be able to fix fundamental problems based on experiences since early access.