Matrix Games Forums

I've put in a request to review for the blog

I have bought it, and it looks very promising.

It's clearly in beta state (version 0.66), and the interface is most probably going to change and improve. But the game plays already rather good. It reminds me very much of that old gem, Civil War Generals (1 and 2). You start commanding a few regiments, in a small battle. The casualties you sustain and experience you gain carry over, and between major engagements you can recruit more regiments, create and manage your own divisions (you apparently assume the role of a corps commander), recruit replacements, upgrade the rifles and guns (if you have the money). The maps and terrain look very good, and now we even have other elements: forts to capture/man, ironvlads, supply wagons to protect, etc.

As for it being RTS, it is not really an issue. I am also past my Command and Conquer or Total War click-fest days, but here the pace is much more slow, and you can pause the game at will while giving orders or adjusting your regiment´s positions.

There is in fact a "Custom Battle" option, but for now you only get the Dunker Church Battle, and you can select your troops and their deployment, but that's all. I do not know if there is going to be possible to create from scratch a sandbox battle.

It has the potential to become a true classic, IMHO.

I hate realtime games..but found this games predecessor very enjoyable and fell into that rare category of real time games those who hate real tome games enjoy..like the first Close Combat games or Graviteam Tactics series.

This is what I'd hoped Norbsoft's Civil War series would turn into. I like his animations better.

Anyone know if the game will have any kind of optional orders delay? After watching a few videos on Youtube it looks like fun but units seem to be able to change direction and dart all over the map without any kind of realistic delay.

A couple of things I've learned about this game for the historical/realism purists (like me). The formation(s) used for the brigades in this game are not historical. They are all basically 3-deep Napoleonic columns of regiments, roughly speaking. Also, there is NO "friendly fire"; friendly units can fire at the enemy through other friendly units. Just saying, in case such things matter to you.

It definitely looks like it's on the "beer and pretzels" side when it comes to historical accuracy. That's fine, and being an old codger, the days of me wanting to wade through 200+ page manuals just to play a game are pretty much over.

It certainly looks good, but my recollection of the Scourge of War games is that they are more historically correct in these regards than UG:CW. I just don't understand why simple historical conventions aren't observed, bier und pretzel or not.

Bought it and put a few hours in last night. Really enjoying it. Reminds me a lot of a modern Civil War Generals 2, a game i loved.

Its playable as is, will only get better. Casualties seem to high, but i think this is to fit in with the game mechanics.

Like you I hate RTS games due to click fest\speed etc..however the previous game fell into that rare category where things go at a pace that's easily manageable and it never felt like a click fest..

ORIGINAL: zakblood

RTS still? if so i'll pass, as i don't have the speed to play them, TB only for me

may give it a try once out of EA, but too many to play that i don't have time for either atm, so thanks

This one is definitely on my list, but I'll probably give it some more time to mature. Enjoyed the first game, so being able to play through a full campaign will be awesome.

Review on Rock Paper Shotgun: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/1 ... ore-415947

Looks like there was an update yesterday: https://steamcommunity.com/games/502520 ... 7250341778

Are these canned missions or the actual Civil War theater and you pick and choose where you want to fight?

They are mostly canned. In the career mode - you frequently get a choice of battles to fight but they are generally a run up to a well known battle that you need to participate in to move onto the next part of your career.

The game really isn't grand strategic in the sense that Forge of Freedom and Civ war II are.

That being said there are some elements of army management. You assign recruits and commanders to your units and even get a choice of weapons that you want to use ( all within a budget).

There is also a choice of simply fighting bigger battles- but those are set pieces like Ultimate General Gettysburg.

There is also provision for "custom battles " - not sue what this will be yet. There is only one scenario in the early access version. So it may be generic battles or design your own.

I bought Ultimate General civil war : it's a gemm, fabulous game. Probably one of the best and addictive wargames I never played. The perfection for 99,99% (only little défaut is that there is no map and scenario éditor and very poor moddability = too complicated for me to mod it). Very great game, I hope they will do a Napoleonic opus.

Thank you for the link. Very useful for me now.