Ludo

OK, done. Metacritic users score currently standing at 8.1, not bad for a newly launched game (or hopefully series of games).

I voted for the total freedom option 3. If people buy a game you should let them play it the way the want to and not what you think is best for them. That approach is very customer unfriendly, as is keeping game options locked until the player complies with certain conditions.

Without a doubt strategy, grand or otherwise, is the way to go. Most of Napoleon's greatest victories were not down to brilliant battlefield tactics, but to his being able to bring the right amount of troops to the right place at the right time. Strategy would enrich the game enormously.

I don't have any problem with an AI boost. If you don't want it, don't use it.

I would love to see some sort of strategic level added to this game. It is an absolutely brilliant tactical battle simulator but how battles are fought, or where they are fought, or when they are fought are all as a result of strategic decisions. The lack of Confederate cavalry at Gettysburg was because of a strategic decision, and Waterloo would not have been Waterloo without the strategic maneuvering that led to Ligny and Quatre Bras. I think the battle engine itself is good enough to be easily adapted to any scenarios of the horse and musket era, and even beyond, so I'm not too bothered about which continent or time period it moves on to. But having a campaign level strategic map where opponents can maneuver at army, corps or divisional level would add a whole new dimension and put this excellent battle engine into the context it deserves. I'm not suggesting that it should go in for the sort of Total War micro management of towns, buildings and units. The great strength of the current design is that the gameplay has been well thought out and cut down to key essentials. Similarly, any strategic level should be kept simple but should at least include terrain effects on movement speed, and also some recognition of the need for sources of supply. As with the current game, simple but smart is the key. Of course, having a strategic level means that you would not necessarily end up with the same battles as actually happened historically. In design terms, I suppose it is all about whether you want to stick to playing historical battle re-enactments (which you can still do) or whether you prefer a more sand box approach.

I too have had trouble with routing enemy units getting in the way, though it hasn't been a major issue for me. However I would like to comment on the speed issue raised earlier. I remember Darth's scathing comments when NTW first came out about how the units ran around the battlefield like crazed ants. UGG is vastly better on that score but would still benefit by giving the player the ability to change the pace at times, even if it means losing the sound sync. I have been playing computer based battle simulations for over 30 years. I'm a big fan, and when Total War first moved into the gunpowder era I held my breath. Unfortunately I'm still holding it due to the dumb AI and the concentration on graphics rather than gameplay. A classic case of form over content. For me, UGG is simply the best battle simulator I have ever seen and has the potential to develop into something even greater. I think everyone should buy this game, if only to give Nick and the team enough money to go on and do what they are capable of. Well done so far, guys.