Command and Control: units order delay

[fabgov]

Let me start saying that I love the game.

 

In real life however, orders to the units would not be transmitted instantaneously as now in the game.   It'd be great to add a delay for each order to a unit  *based on its distance to the nearest leader*.  Is that something that is being considered? It would add a layer of realism of the game and it could be an optional rule. An existing game that does that very well  is 'Command Operations'.

[Husserl]

This is a very interesting feature and we intent to test it sometime in the future.

[dagdriver]

I hope that if you really intend to implement that feature it will be purely optional - I am absolutely sure that it will kill the fun in this game.

 

Please keep the focus for this game as being fun to play - nerdy micro details just for simulations purpuses does not necessarily equal fun gameplay!

[thekev506]

Scourge of War does something similar, you can choose to have your orders relayed by horseback courier.  It's a novel idea and adds an extra layer of challenge, especially as the couriers can be killed, but it can also bog the game down badly.  It'd need some form of visualisation to not be frustrating (use the cavalry sprites as couriers maybe?), and it would need to be optional, but I'm not completely against the idea!

[David Fair]

Great as an option.

Terrible as a fixed feature.

[Bivoj]

I am definitely pro something like Battleplan: ACW has - orders sent by couriers from the HQ. But simple order delay, like Command Ops serries games has would be good as well.

 

Absence of Command and Control is one of the biggest flaws of the game - the HQs are not acting as HQs and are completely useless at the moment.

 

And no, it would not kill the fun. Limited command and control is fun, proven by many good wargames.

[thekev506]

Many good wargames.  That's the problem: is UGG a wargame or an RTS game?  I think it's somewhere between the two, so you have to cater for both audiences.  It'd actually be pretty interesting to run a poll seeing whether people want a wargame or an RTS game.

[David Fair]

thekev506,

UGG claims to be a historical battlefield simulator.

It would be interesting to nail some of these terms down because I agree UGG is a hybrid.

Some historical - some decidedly not historical.

Below is a cut of how UGG might be categorized, with some definitions, and my thoughts on the applicability. Interestingly UGG reminded me a bit of "I'm thinking of an animal" once I had my cut at the definitions.

Please course correct as I'm not certain I have all the nuances of the terms properly detailed and may have missed potential categories.

Here's my cut:

1. Historical Battlefield Simulator - If HBS = Gettysburg/ACW historical fact as the primary design goal (Seems not to apply rigorously).

2. Legacy Wargame - Turn based? (Does not apply).

3. RTS Game - Simultaneous movement wargame (Seems to apply).

4. Arcade Game - Requiring mouse speed and dexterity to master the game (Seems to me to apply at times - particularly in larger Phases where battle does not fit on the screen).

5. Indy Game - Independently developed game (Seems to me to apply).

What are your definitions and perspectives?

[thekev506]

My take on those five:

 

1.  Historical Battlefield Simulator - simulator is the key word, if you're going to simulate a battle it's going to be in minute detail.  Scourge of War is a Historical Battlefield Simulator.

2. Wargame - high detail, often turn-based and close to a simulator, usually come from some form of military training.

3. RTS - Total war games, to keep it simple.  There are plenty of others, of course.

4. Arcade - Fast-paced and more tactical than strategic.  Starcraft, Rise of Nations.

5. Indy - self explanatory.

 

UGG is blending things from 1 and 3.  It doesn't recreate the complete ORBAT of each side or supply trains like Scourge of War, but it's got a little more to it than a typical battle in Empire Total War.  I'd be a fan of having visualised order delay (and limited supplies) available as an on/off feature, it'd help the player find that blend of 1 and 3 that they like.

[David Fair]

thekev506.

Hmmmm, I'm curious why you've included 1 & 2, but excluded 3 & 5?

Based on your definitions there isn't much "minute detail" in UGG and it is clearly not turned based.

[dagdriver]

Well I am not sure I agree that we have to put UGG in a certain category - plenty of (indie) games nowadays can't be shoehorned into 1 -  but the development team needs to decide which direction they want to take UGG.

AND they definately need to be strong enough not to get swayed if an ACW buff wants some detail included OR some casual gamer want something removed if that does not fit the game they want to create.

 

For my part (this being my first ever bought greenlight game) hope for a game with dynamic ebb and flow of battles, a game that is not being dragged down in slow pace due to lots of (unneeded) detail, on the other hand not being more shallow and turned into a click-fest.

Although I have many fond memories of SMG, I actually do not care one way or the other about Gettysburg or the ACW as such,probably would rather have had a "UG:Waterloo ", but I would have bought it regardless of the setting, because of how the interface and battlefield mechanics were handled. In other words - I was buying a game that seemed fun, not a simulation.

 

Now dear development team what are you going to create ?

[dagdriver]

I am definitely pro something like Battleplan: ACW has - orders sent by couriers from the HQ. But simple order delay, like Command Ops serries games has would be good as well.

 

Absence of Command and Control is one of the biggest flaws of the game - the HQs are not acting as HQs and are completely useless at the moment.

 

And no, it would not kill the fun. Limited command and control is fun, proven by many good wargames.

 

"proven by many good wargames" - that only applies if you LIKE deep detail wargames - again too much simulation do NOT equal good game

[Bivoj]

"proven by many good wargames" - that only applies if you LIKE deep detail wargames - again too much simulation do NOT equal good game

 

And my point is obvious: good wargame is a good game.

 

But if you put it like you did in your post, than there is nothing like "good game". 100 people = 100 tastes

This would also mean, that implementing delayed orders would not "kill the fun", because it is not killing fun for me and for many many people, who spent their money for games like Command Ops series, Close Combat, Combat Mission, etc. Maybe it would "kill the fun" for you and for people like you, but not in general.

 

I hope, that this game will not follow mainstream childish approach, but adult wargame approach. There is an audience for such approach and audience with money to spend.

[grrunt]

you'd need to revamp the whole entire game, just for it to be an option, thats obvious. These guys are doing a good job. stop nerding out. Its fun and multiplayer will be insane. its a civil war rts. nothing to complain about there. Yes, in general it will kill the fun except for a handful of super nerds

[Bivoj]

you'd need to revamp the whole entire game, just for it to be an option, thats obvious. These guys are doing a good job. stop nerding out. Its fun and multiplayer will be insane. its a civil war rts. nothing to complain about there. Yes, in general it will kill the fun except for a handful of super nerds

 

I am trying to give feedback, supporting suggestions I like from other people and contributing in this way to make the game better at the end (it was the reason, why I bought it as early access and not wait till it is finished). And I try to do it in as polite and civil way as possible. I do not understand, why are you so offensive and using invectives. It is not necessary and not adult.

 

The game is quite OK as is. It is fun, but I expect more at the end (the game is not finished yet); I expect something better than Empire: Total War with Darth mod; something more realistic, authentic and still fun. And at this moment, I consider Ultimate General inferior to TW with Darth Mod. Which is OK - the game is not finished and I have no doubt it will be far better at the end.

[dagdriver]

Well Bivoj I guess that we can agree to disagree

 

I did not state that good simultion wargames does not exist, or that completely dumbed down games are only fun.

 

But let me repeat: the development team needs to decide which direction they want to take UGG, and not get distracted from the game they aim for,  by every person-with-money-to-spend 's idea's.

too many chefs spoils the dish!

 

I have stated my point, I hope they dont f*ck up what looks like a promising gem of a game.

[CmdrMctoast]

Let me start saying that I love the game.

 

In real life however, orders to the units would not be transmitted instantaneously as now in the game.   It'd be great to add a delay for each order to a unit  *based on its distance to the nearest leader*.  Is that something that is being considered? It would add a layer of realism of the game and it could be an optional rule. An existing game that does that very well  is 'Command Operations'.

I also like the idea as an option if possible, im all for adding another play style to the game.

[Bivoj]

Dagdriver,

yes, the approach should be chosen. And I am here to add my 2 cents to the discussion. Its Darth's decision, that matters. And I fully agree with:

 

I hope they dont f*ck up what looks like a promising gem of a game.