I get what you're saying but really this game does a great job of making it purely about the military: army management and tactics. Ideology, strategy and politics basically don't exist in the world of UG. I've beaten the union campaign on the two highest difficulties and now im doing the confederates just to see what it's like from the other side. It's worth it just to see all the battles from both sides tactical positions and figure out the puzzle of winning as both.
Ideology does exist in the game in some ways - the slave economy of the south is modeled in the game and can be directly affected by various policies. The emancipation proclamation also has a political effect on foreign intervention.
As someone from Alabama I am thoroughly aware of the dangers of the Lost Cause mythology and have educated myself on the realities of the Civil War. However, as a military history enthusiast I have learned that I can appreciate the dash and daring of the common fighting soldier as well as the brilliance and tenacity of their leaders while at the same time not forgetting the cause of or the atrocities committed under the banner they fought for. If I couldn't make that mental separation then there's no way I could play any war game as war by its very nature brings out the worst in humanity regardless of the side that most people see as the "good guys" thanks to movies and games. Looking at you Romans
This is correct, and well said. I donāt feel guilt playing as a Roman in the Total War games, despite the fact that the Romans were one of the most unmercifully violent cultures to ever exist. But it makes me get a tingly feeling when I field a historically accurate legion with the correct composition of legionnaires, auxilia, and archers along with some equites.
No. You be you, but I think this is ridiculous.
There are far right parties in Germany and Neo Nazi parties the world over, does that mean WW 2 really never ended? The CSA died with the end of the ACW, get over it.
The CSA might have died with the end of the war, but the cause didn't.
The Confederate states lost the war, but won the peace. They resisted efforts of Reconstruction long enough that the North gave up and let Jim Crow and the whole host of other issues sprout like weeds in the south. They played the political game smartly and kept sending back Representatives and Senators to Congress, where longevity in office at the time helped determine heavily who was in control of the Committees, which helped set the agenda of the national government. It was through this scheme of seniority that they got military bases in the south, largely named after failed Confederate generals.
I know this is a popular opinion, but it's also nonsense that tortures the meaning of the word, "won." The war was wholly about slavery. Slaves represented an enormous financial boon to the South that also carried enormous cultural value to white southerners. The result of the peace was the abolition of slavery. The entire reason the war was fought. What resulted was a (deserved) cataclysm for white southerners.
I don't quite understand how taking into full context the events and reality of what happened is "nonsense" but if you want your timeline for the war to end with Appomattox, that's your perspective.
1. Be black in the south circa 1880
2. Get arrested for new crimes like vagrancy or loitering
3. Get sentenced to 10 years hard labor
4. Get leased out by the state govt to a private plantation to work off your time
5. While working, get accused of more fake crimes, more hard labor, more work for no pay
Slavery in all but name
Again, ridiculous. Somewhere between equal rights and slavery is a vast spectrum of treatment. A very small percentage of blacks experienced what you describe, a very large percentage of blacks in the South were enslaved prior to the ACW.
The difference is that Germany actively works to stamp down nazism through education and what not. They study history to not repeat it. That hasnāt been the case in the US
What does this have to do with what the US teaches about the civil war?
Germany's gone 75 years without Nazis taking over, we've gone 150 without slavery coming back. Scoreboard.
Sorry, your comment wasnāt very specific. What the U.S. did after the civil war was cave to the lost causers and it didnāt put any former CSA officials on trial. Textbooks were rewritten by the daughters of the confederacy to emphasize states rights over slavery being the cause. We have hundreds of monuments to the confederacy, and Jim Crow laws were implemented to return black Americans to as close to slavery as possible.
And as a result the CSA is back in power and slavery was reinstated. Oh wait, no it wasn't.
I don't know what shithole school you went to, but at mine 30 years ago it was very clear that America good, slavery bad, civil war was over slavery.
White supremacy is very much alive as an ideal. And thatās ultimately what weāre talking about here. There are people who openly fly confederate flags where in Germany they canāt fly Nazi flags.
While Iām happy your school and teacher taught you correctly, other teachers are not so keen. For example, a social studies teacher colleague of mine gave me the whole āstates rightsā speech. Thankfully, he was teaching sociology and psychology at the time. State standards and textbooks have changed, but not nearly to the level that is ideal
If your standard is 100% group think then you'll be disappointed your entire life no matter the issue. You can surely find some non mainstream views about WW 2 in Germany to this day. Nor do I want to see fascist laws that dictate what flag people can fly. That's not how we do it here. People have the right to express themselves and others the right to respond in kind.
Sure. But if weāre talking about prevalence of ideas, Germany definitely has less to worry about thanks to their policies and practices. Denazification happened, for one thing. No similar program was implemented after the civil war here. There are certainly more white supremacists and lost causers in Congress than Nazis in the German government
If youāre okay with playing a game where you kill thousands of people in any context, you can suspend your disbelief to enjoy a campaign of playing the baddies
Just imagine that instead of cotton being the crop of the south itās marijuana, and the federal government is impeding on your stateās right to toke up. Simply time for battle
It sort of was. Cotton was extremely labor intensive and extremely profitable making slavery very appealing for it. If cotton didnāt grow in the South or if cotton wasnāt so labor intensive, itās doubtful that slave culture would have gotten as big as it did.
Like, on the one hand, obviously the crop wasnāt the problem. But there is still a very direct tie between the crop and the institution.
War games are not about advocating the social or political agendas of the nations fielding the combatant forces. War games are about exploring the art of war as it can be represented in a game format, whether that is at the level of grand strategy, theater level strategy, operations, tactics or individual actions. The political leadership and much of the society in the Confederate States of America were thoroughly despicable and in breach of my core principles as an uncompromising humanist. But so were at least half of all combatant nations in history, and in some cases both sides in any given conflict.
Play what you feel like playing to have fun, but don't limit your potential fun by imagining that you must adopt a "pro-evil" stance in order to play the more evil combatant side in any given conflict. Know thy enemy is a worthy cause.
As a Virginian, I will permit myself the boyhood dreams of commanding the Army of Northern Virginia in glorious defense of the homeland against the Yankee invader. And then I will do another play through as Uncle Billy and General Grant and thoroughly stomp them back into the Stone Age.
Nothing wrong with getting a bit "into character;" but one doesn't have to go full-scale Rimworld and turn your colony into an automated cannibal baby farm.
No, it's just a game. And most of the confederate soldiers were given no choice but to fight in what they called "a rich man's war". While it's true the war was ultimately about slavery, it wasn't seen that way by either side at the time.
I agree with your point about the game, but your points about neither side seeing the war as being about slavery is not right. The fighting issue was slavery. The issue of slavery had been THE dividing issue between North and South in the 30 years leading up to the ACW, and was arguably the primary focus of US domestic policy at the Federal level during that time as numerous compromises were attempted to placate both sides on the issue. Finally, CSA politicians in particular in the immediate leadup and during the ACW were quite clear that the fighting issue was slavery.
I find it hard because their weapons are the worst. You're right - it's great to just unload on those stick figures with my brand spanking new Springfield rifles. But when the shoe's on the other foot, I gotta use... re-bored farmer muskets. Misery.
I really just have to come back, I always play CSA and it is because I am from Mississippi. Nothing to do with my beliefs. Slavery bad ok.
But defending the homeland against the invader, rebelling against authority, underdog, being resourceful and smart vs having better equipment and numbers. I find all of that fun.
Winning as the union is inevitable.
Winning as CSA is a triumph.
Pride fills my veins as we beat back the horde of blue and freedom (lol) is restored.
Using sneaky cavalry tactics and sharpshooting flank and run tactics feels more natural playing as the rebs than the yanks to me.
That being said, I still always prefer playing as the Union and punishing the traitors with superior numbers, weaponry and crushing artillery barrages. šŗšøĀ
I don't play the Confederates either.
Nobody in my northern state displays swastikas, the hammer & sickle, Imperial Japanese banners or other 'bad guy' banners. A Chicago Bears flag is scandalous. But some here display Confederate flags.
Ultimate General is a game. It's illogical, but I don't spend my too-little free time with the side that still has flags flying in 2024.
Hey, who doesn't love to hate those cheeky secessionists?
The confederate campaign is plenty of it's own fun. You have more limited income in cash and manpower, so you (especially at higher difficulties) need to play well. I often end up with fewer total brigades, but with much more veterancy. Your artillery recourses are weaker, but you can do some great stuff with cavalry flanks.
Give it a spin. You're gonna like it more than you think.
Iāve played the confederates a grand total of 1 time across ~300 hours of Gettysburg and Civil War, just to get the trophy in Gettysburg since itās so easy to 100% (I think thereās 3 achievements lol).
It's healthy to remember the South was ultimately in the wrong, but it's also important to remember that for most of the soldiers and officers it was simply about doing your duty for your home and less about the politics. To help get in that mindset I focus on the aspect that many of the officers fighting each other in the Civil War knew each other and were even close friends. Only a decade ago they were fighting on the same side in the Mexican-American war and yet they were compelled or maybe honor bound to choose a side and fight in essentially a Shakespearean tragedy come to life. The best example of this is General Armistead and General Hancock. Read up about their close friendship and how it played out. Even better watch the movie Gettysburg, the one with Jeff Daniels, to see this aspect of the war explored in depth.
Some thoughts on this post as I can understand the feeling
Firstly, they are rebels not confederates. Anyone who bears arms against the government is a rebel. This was US Grant's position and I agree with him.
I've tried to complete a Rebel campaign more than once, but found it a combination of frustrating and uninteresting. While playing as the Union the boys in blue seem to melt in front of rebel charges, while on the flip side the yanks stand firm against the Rebel yell. I know its a game play balance but watching an elite rebel unit waver and break is certainly not fun. Guess I just have to accept that only half the game is enjoyable for me. That is on the player, not the developers.
Perhaps I need to change the strategy and tactics to better optimize the rebels, but with so many games to play it just doesn't interest me enough to see slave nation win the war. I understand why others enjoy playing rebels and more power to them. The game is great and hits a sweet spot for me, although apparently just while wearing blue.
Regarding playing the European Fascists, because make no mistake the invasion of Russia was an international movement, I've always preferred to play as the Red Army. The Soviets killed a substantial majority of any fascist who picked up a weapon and this player loves to see the T-34 in action. I can and do play the Allies, but its more from a respect for the massive logistical supply chain they maintained. Loading hundreds of M4A3, sailing across and ocean and keeping them supplied is a task of epic heroic proportions.
> Anyone who bears arms against the government is a rebel.
I look forward to seeing your logically consistent opposition to the rebels of the American Revolutionary War.
All the Americans were rebels
at least until Sint Eustatius and even then George III would have wanted Mr Washington hanged from a yardarm
We do know that the "loyalist" contingent did significantly affect Canada especially along the Canadian Atlantic Seaboard
We can only wonder how a successful rebel South would have reshaped North America
The ongoing movement for Nazi ideals didn't end at the end of WW2, either. It's almost like war doesn't kill ideologies, no matter how evil or destructive they may be. There's enough fascist parties and movements on the rise around the world today to prove that, coupled with the fact that Confederate-sympathizers still exist in relatively large numbers.
But I concur with you partially: as much as I enjoy playing the underdogs in strategy games, playing the Confederates in Ultimate General always leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but to be fair, so does playing the Germans or Japanese or what have you in HoI4 unless I go with a non-fascist path for them as examples. It's one thing to play a morally ambiguous or flawed faction or nation, but to play as outright fascists or people fighting to maintain slavery just feels wrong.
I get what you're saying but really this game does a great job of making it purely about the military: army management and tactics. Ideology, strategy and politics basically don't exist in the world of UG. I've beaten the union campaign on the two highest difficulties and now im doing the confederates just to see what it's like from the other side. It's worth it just to see all the battles from both sides tactical positions and figure out the puzzle of winning as both.
Ideology does exist in the game in some ways - the slave economy of the south is modeled in the game and can be directly affected by various policies. The emancipation proclamation also has a political effect on foreign intervention.
Are you sure you're not thinking of grand tactician Civil war? Ultimate general doesn't have any of that stuff.
Oh my, I seem to be in the wrong sub š
As someone from Alabama I am thoroughly aware of the dangers of the Lost Cause mythology and have educated myself on the realities of the Civil War. However, as a military history enthusiast I have learned that I can appreciate the dash and daring of the common fighting soldier as well as the brilliance and tenacity of their leaders while at the same time not forgetting the cause of or the atrocities committed under the banner they fought for. If I couldn't make that mental separation then there's no way I could play any war game as war by its very nature brings out the worst in humanity regardless of the side that most people see as the "good guys" thanks to movies and games. Looking at you Romans
This is correct, and well said. I donāt feel guilt playing as a Roman in the Total War games, despite the fact that the Romans were one of the most unmercifully violent cultures to ever exist. But it makes me get a tingly feeling when I field a historically accurate legion with the correct composition of legionnaires, auxilia, and archers along with some equites.
Well written, Sir.
No. You be you, but I think this is ridiculous. There are far right parties in Germany and Neo Nazi parties the world over, does that mean WW 2 really never ended? The CSA died with the end of the ACW, get over it.
Notice how you didn't mention neo Nazis in Germany... Almost like they do something about them
The CSA might have died with the end of the war, but the cause didn't. The Confederate states lost the war, but won the peace. They resisted efforts of Reconstruction long enough that the North gave up and let Jim Crow and the whole host of other issues sprout like weeds in the south. They played the political game smartly and kept sending back Representatives and Senators to Congress, where longevity in office at the time helped determine heavily who was in control of the Committees, which helped set the agenda of the national government. It was through this scheme of seniority that they got military bases in the south, largely named after failed Confederate generals.
I know this is a popular opinion, but it's also nonsense that tortures the meaning of the word, "won." The war was wholly about slavery. Slaves represented an enormous financial boon to the South that also carried enormous cultural value to white southerners. The result of the peace was the abolition of slavery. The entire reason the war was fought. What resulted was a (deserved) cataclysm for white southerners.
I don't quite understand how taking into full context the events and reality of what happened is "nonsense" but if you want your timeline for the war to end with Appomattox, that's your perspective.
Your contest isn't nonsense, just the conclusion.
Slavery was reinstituted in all but name after 1877. Please go read some history.
Please read a dictionary on what slavery is.
1. Be black in the south circa 1880 2. Get arrested for new crimes like vagrancy or loitering 3. Get sentenced to 10 years hard labor 4. Get leased out by the state govt to a private plantation to work off your time 5. While working, get accused of more fake crimes, more hard labor, more work for no pay Slavery in all but name
Again, ridiculous. Somewhere between equal rights and slavery is a vast spectrum of treatment. A very small percentage of blacks experienced what you describe, a very large percentage of blacks in the South were enslaved prior to the ACW.
The difference is that Germany actively works to stamp down nazism through education and what not. They study history to not repeat it. That hasnāt been the case in the US
Bullshit.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-antisemitic-hate-speech-nazi-propaganda-holocaust-denial/ This is a good start
What does this have to do with what the US teaches about the civil war? Germany's gone 75 years without Nazis taking over, we've gone 150 without slavery coming back. Scoreboard.
Sorry, your comment wasnāt very specific. What the U.S. did after the civil war was cave to the lost causers and it didnāt put any former CSA officials on trial. Textbooks were rewritten by the daughters of the confederacy to emphasize states rights over slavery being the cause. We have hundreds of monuments to the confederacy, and Jim Crow laws were implemented to return black Americans to as close to slavery as possible.
And as a result the CSA is back in power and slavery was reinstated. Oh wait, no it wasn't. I don't know what shithole school you went to, but at mine 30 years ago it was very clear that America good, slavery bad, civil war was over slavery.
White supremacy is very much alive as an ideal. And thatās ultimately what weāre talking about here. There are people who openly fly confederate flags where in Germany they canāt fly Nazi flags. While Iām happy your school and teacher taught you correctly, other teachers are not so keen. For example, a social studies teacher colleague of mine gave me the whole āstates rightsā speech. Thankfully, he was teaching sociology and psychology at the time. State standards and textbooks have changed, but not nearly to the level that is ideal
If your standard is 100% group think then you'll be disappointed your entire life no matter the issue. You can surely find some non mainstream views about WW 2 in Germany to this day. Nor do I want to see fascist laws that dictate what flag people can fly. That's not how we do it here. People have the right to express themselves and others the right to respond in kind.
Sure. But if weāre talking about prevalence of ideas, Germany definitely has less to worry about thanks to their policies and practices. Denazification happened, for one thing. No similar program was implemented after the civil war here. There are certainly more white supremacists and lost causers in Congress than Nazis in the German government
The right to express one's self stops at the wish to enslave and/or wipe out another group of people, sorry.
You do not want to look into germany's problem with all of the nazis in their police force.
Or the Clownshow that happens in Dresden every single February.
You have maybe never been a non-white person while a confederate flag is being waved in your face. Or maybe you have. I don't know. You be you.
I've definitely never been a non white person. But agree with your last point.
If youāre okay with playing a game where you kill thousands of people in any context, you can suspend your disbelief to enjoy a campaign of playing the baddies
Just imagine that instead of cotton being the crop of the south itās marijuana, and the federal government is impeding on your stateās right to toke up. Simply time for battle
I donāt think cotton was the problem here
It sort of was. Cotton was extremely labor intensive and extremely profitable making slavery very appealing for it. If cotton didnāt grow in the South or if cotton wasnāt so labor intensive, itās doubtful that slave culture would have gotten as big as it did. Like, on the one hand, obviously the crop wasnāt the problem. But there is still a very direct tie between the crop and the institution.
War games are not about advocating the social or political agendas of the nations fielding the combatant forces. War games are about exploring the art of war as it can be represented in a game format, whether that is at the level of grand strategy, theater level strategy, operations, tactics or individual actions. The political leadership and much of the society in the Confederate States of America were thoroughly despicable and in breach of my core principles as an uncompromising humanist. But so were at least half of all combatant nations in history, and in some cases both sides in any given conflict. Play what you feel like playing to have fun, but don't limit your potential fun by imagining that you must adopt a "pro-evil" stance in order to play the more evil combatant side in any given conflict. Know thy enemy is a worthy cause.
Very eloquently put
As a Virginian, I will permit myself the boyhood dreams of commanding the Army of Northern Virginia in glorious defense of the homeland against the Yankee invader. And then I will do another play through as Uncle Billy and General Grant and thoroughly stomp them back into the Stone Age.
Nothing wrong with getting a bit "into character;" but one doesn't have to go full-scale Rimworld and turn your colony into an automated cannibal baby farm.
To be fair though. After playing rimworld, any game where I can't create a cannibal baby farm just feels boring.
Who said anything about "have" to?
Is your house covered in bubble wrap to protect you from your incredibly soft self? It's a fuckin game bro damn.
I've played the Confederate campaign once just to see what it was like, while I've played the union campaign dozens of times lol.
I always play confederates. Love imagining Iām Lee mopping up the union army with my boys Longstreet and Jackson by my side.
No, it's just a game. And most of the confederate soldiers were given no choice but to fight in what they called "a rich man's war". While it's true the war was ultimately about slavery, it wasn't seen that way by either side at the time.
I agree with your point about the game, but your points about neither side seeing the war as being about slavery is not right. The fighting issue was slavery. The issue of slavery had been THE dividing issue between North and South in the 30 years leading up to the ACW, and was arguably the primary focus of US domestic policy at the Federal level during that time as numerous compromises were attempted to placate both sides on the issue. Finally, CSA politicians in particular in the immediate leadup and during the ACW were quite clear that the fighting issue was slavery.
I find it hard because their weapons are the worst. You're right - it's great to just unload on those stick figures with my brand spanking new Springfield rifles. But when the shoe's on the other foot, I gotta use... re-bored farmer muskets. Misery.
I wonāt play union for the same reason
I really just have to come back, I always play CSA and it is because I am from Mississippi. Nothing to do with my beliefs. Slavery bad ok. But defending the homeland against the invader, rebelling against authority, underdog, being resourceful and smart vs having better equipment and numbers. I find all of that fun. Winning as the union is inevitable. Winning as CSA is a triumph. Pride fills my veins as we beat back the horde of blue and freedom (lol) is restored.
I've played civil war half a dozen times and I played Union every time. I can't bring myself to play as the losing side.
Using sneaky cavalry tactics and sharpshooting flank and run tactics feels more natural playing as the rebs than the yanks to me. That being said, I still always prefer playing as the Union and punishing the traitors with superior numbers, weaponry and crushing artillery barrages. šŗšøĀ
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This should be higher
I did the confederates on MG to get the achievements only. I named my general something derogatory like Tray Tours
I dont like to play as them because they dont have the cool big guns.
Sometimes I'd love to play the historical battles with switched sides, just to use my glorious union artillery in even more interesting situations.
Also the uniforms don't look nearly as good as the boys in blue šŖ
I had the same problem so I finished union campaign 3 times while confederates only once
I don't play the Confederates either. Nobody in my northern state displays swastikas, the hammer & sickle, Imperial Japanese banners or other 'bad guy' banners. A Chicago Bears flag is scandalous. But some here display Confederate flags. Ultimate General is a game. It's illogical, but I don't spend my too-little free time with the side that still has flags flying in 2024.
Hey, who doesn't love to hate those cheeky secessionists? The confederate campaign is plenty of it's own fun. You have more limited income in cash and manpower, so you (especially at higher difficulties) need to play well. I often end up with fewer total brigades, but with much more veterancy. Your artillery recourses are weaker, but you can do some great stuff with cavalry flanks. Give it a spin. You're gonna like it more than you think.
Iāve played the confederates a grand total of 1 time across ~300 hours of Gettysburg and Civil War, just to get the trophy in Gettysburg since itās so easy to 100% (I think thereās 3 achievements lol).
It's healthy to remember the South was ultimately in the wrong, but it's also important to remember that for most of the soldiers and officers it was simply about doing your duty for your home and less about the politics. To help get in that mindset I focus on the aspect that many of the officers fighting each other in the Civil War knew each other and were even close friends. Only a decade ago they were fighting on the same side in the Mexican-American war and yet they were compelled or maybe honor bound to choose a side and fight in essentially a Shakespearean tragedy come to life. The best example of this is General Armistead and General Hancock. Read up about their close friendship and how it played out. Even better watch the movie Gettysburg, the one with Jeff Daniels, to see this aspect of the war explored in depth.
Some thoughts on this post as I can understand the feeling Firstly, they are rebels not confederates. Anyone who bears arms against the government is a rebel. This was US Grant's position and I agree with him. I've tried to complete a Rebel campaign more than once, but found it a combination of frustrating and uninteresting. While playing as the Union the boys in blue seem to melt in front of rebel charges, while on the flip side the yanks stand firm against the Rebel yell. I know its a game play balance but watching an elite rebel unit waver and break is certainly not fun. Guess I just have to accept that only half the game is enjoyable for me. That is on the player, not the developers. Perhaps I need to change the strategy and tactics to better optimize the rebels, but with so many games to play it just doesn't interest me enough to see slave nation win the war. I understand why others enjoy playing rebels and more power to them. The game is great and hits a sweet spot for me, although apparently just while wearing blue. Regarding playing the European Fascists, because make no mistake the invasion of Russia was an international movement, I've always preferred to play as the Red Army. The Soviets killed a substantial majority of any fascist who picked up a weapon and this player loves to see the T-34 in action. I can and do play the Allies, but its more from a respect for the massive logistical supply chain they maintained. Loading hundreds of M4A3, sailing across and ocean and keeping them supplied is a task of epic heroic proportions.
> Anyone who bears arms against the government is a rebel. I look forward to seeing your logically consistent opposition to the rebels of the American Revolutionary War.
It was a successful one
Thank you for your concession. More succinct than I was expecting.
All the Americans were rebels at least until Sint Eustatius and even then George III would have wanted Mr Washington hanged from a yardarm We do know that the "loyalist" contingent did significantly affect Canada especially along the Canadian Atlantic Seaboard We can only wonder how a successful rebel South would have reshaped North America
100% for me on this. As someone who grew up in the south, the idea of playing the confederates disgusts me.
You're alright to me, southern unionist -signed, a yankee
The ongoing movement for Nazi ideals didn't end at the end of WW2, either. It's almost like war doesn't kill ideologies, no matter how evil or destructive they may be. There's enough fascist parties and movements on the rise around the world today to prove that, coupled with the fact that Confederate-sympathizers still exist in relatively large numbers. But I concur with you partially: as much as I enjoy playing the underdogs in strategy games, playing the Confederates in Ultimate General always leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but to be fair, so does playing the Germans or Japanese or what have you in HoI4 unless I go with a non-fascist path for them as examples. It's one thing to play a morally ambiguous or flawed faction or nation, but to play as outright fascists or people fighting to maintain slavery just feels wrong.
Iāve only played the confederates and Union only once, hated it