UGCW Feedack 0.76 and higher

[A. P. Hill]

Sorry, but as in the fog of war, the enemy is never aware of your forces. Therefore being "alarmed", or told the AI is receiving reinforcements should not be something the player would be privy to.

[The Soldier]

1 minute ago, A. P. Hill said:

Sorry, but as in the fog of war, the enemy is never aware of your forces. Therefore being "alarmed", or told the AI is receiving reinforcements should not be something the player would be privy to.

Pretty sure I never mentioned "getting an alert when the enemy received more men", only for when you spot previously unknown units.  Besides, that's already in the game if you have Level 4 Reconnaissance and you're quick enough to notice the power meter change - in fact, it changes slightly before the men entire the battlefield.

[A. P. Hill]

Maybe you didn't specifically. 

But that was pretty much what I got out of your post. Otherwise I never would have mentioned it. 

Your post sounded like you were pissed you missed something and you want the developers to "fix" so incase you fail to keep troops placed on vps, the game will let you know. 

I fail to see how or why the developers need to implement a player safeguard for failed tactics.  

[Wandering1]

@A. P. Hill

I tend to think of it less as failed tactics, but rather giving the player flexibility on number of brigades brought to the battlefield. 

Players with fewer brigades are not going to have nearly have as long a line as the computer (since, if I were to recall, the computer has a fixed number of brigades regardless of how many you bring, just the numbers of those brigades change). Thus, for maps where the VPs are widely spread out (Shiloh, Prospect Hill Fredericksburg, Chickamauga), the go-to would be to add more brigades rather than make the brigades denser in order to get around the fact that you have widely spread out VPs. While we can argue whether that's the right design for the game, to me the more important issue is whether this is obvious to a new player or not.

[Aetius]

9 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

I fail to see how or why the developers need to implement a player safeguard for failed tactics.  

It's not about failed tactics - the game already supplies these notifications. The problem is that they are easily missed in the chaos of battle.

[Admiral666]

Primarily a cosmetic suggestion, however: Currently, if you select a Corps or a Brigade, it shows the respective information, commander, etc, at the bottom left. However, if you select a division, this does not occur. It would be a nice improvement if doing so would show the division commander, current condition, morale, losses, etc, much like selecting a Corps does. Again, a small thing, but it would go a long way toward me actually interacting with/having any connection to division commanders, who are otherwise essentially invisible.

[sonnypemberton]

11 hours ago, Admiral666 said:

Primarily a cosmetic suggestion, however: Currently, if you select a Corps or a Brigade, it shows the respective information, commander, etc, at the bottom left. However, if you select a division, this does not occur. It would be a nice improvement if doing so would show the division commander, current condition, morale, losses, etc, much like selecting a Corps does. Again, a small thing, but it would go a long way toward me actually interacting with/having any connection to division commanders, who are otherwise essentially invisible.

building on this, it would be nice if a division commander stepped in if a KIA or WIA occurred, much like they step in when divisions are combined.

[Nox165]

20 hours ago, Admiral666 said:

Primarily a cosmetic suggestion, however: Currently, if you select a Corps or a Brigade, it shows the respective information, commander, etc, at the bottom left. However, if you select a division, this does not occur. It would be a nice improvement if doing so would show the division commander, current condition, morale, losses, etc, much like selecting a Corps does. Again, a small thing, but it would go a long way toward me actually interacting with/having any connection to division commanders, who are otherwise essentially invisible.

please this

[Lannes]

I have played the whole campaign. Now, there is nothing to do but wait for improvements. I've got bored. I will probably not play it again. My suggestions fall on deaf ears. E.g., the figures are too small by far. They are not colourful. They do not represent the way the two armies were uniformed. The cavalry does not move like cavalry. The skirmishers do not move like skirmishers. The infantry does weird snake-like movements to change position.

The good part is that you can place your own general officers and field officers in command from the Barracks, and you can upgrade your weapons from the Armoury.

The reason why the cavalry is so badly programmed, I think, is because (a) the developers do not understand cavalry in American Civil War history very well, and (b) because they think that American Civil War cavalry not being European, must behave like cossacks (which were never regular cavalry).

Edited March 20, 2017 by Lannes

[Nicolas I]

2 hours ago, Lannes said:

...the figures are too small by far. They are not colourful. They do not represent the way the two armies were uniformed...

You can always go back to your toy soldiers :-).

[civsully1]

2 hours ago, Nicolas I said:

You can always go back to your toy soldiers :-).

Wow! What a finely dressed outfit this is! Hey....How come they're better equipped than my troops????  

[A. P. Hill]

10 minutes ago, civsully1 said:

Wow! What a finely dressed outfit this is! Hey....How come they're better equipped than my troops????  

And they definitely look a lot more happy than my troops.

[veji1]

19 hours ago, Lannes said:

I have played the whole campaign. Now, there is nothing to do but wait for improvements. I've got bored. I will probably not play it again. My suggestions fall on deaf ears. E.g., the figures are too small by far. They are not colourful. They do not represent the way the two armies were uniformed. The cavalry does not move like cavalry. The skirmishers do not move like skirmishers. The infantry does weird snake-like movements to change position.

The good part is that you can place your own general officers and field officers in command from the Barracks, and you can upgrade your weapons from the Armoury.

The reason why the cavalry is so badly programmed, I think, is because (a) the developers do not understand cavalry in American Civil War history very well, and (b) because they think that American Civil War cavalry not being European, must behave like cossacks (which were never regular cavalry).

You are being quite stern in your comments. The game as it is already exists indeed, changes are going to be marginal beyond completing the campaign, but better behavior for cav for example is most certainly doable. No need to get on your high horse on the devs' presumed ignorance, it's quite rude actually.

On your point about the figures being too smal and not colourful enough, etc.. I actually disagree. They give the right feeling in terms of mass and make for a game that run really well on a middle of the pack machine. Great animated graphs for thousands of little guys are a major sink for a machine.

Lastly you have to be a bit more optimistic. The devs have hit on a very nice tactical formula for battle reenactments that is well balanced an great fun to play. They will probably be able to do napoleonic games, and other using that same tactical engine. Developping a real campaign rather than the current "robert Lee civil war" chain of battles would be a fantastic challenge. But give time to that small team. One customer can be arrogant and rude when talking about EA or big developpers. No need for that here.

[Lannes]

2 hours ago, veji1 said:

You are being quite stern in your comments. The game as it is already exists indeed, changes are going to be marginal beyond completing the campaign, but better behavior for cav for example is most certainly doable. No need to get on your high horse on the devs' presumed ignorance, it's quite rude actually.

On your point about the figures being too smal and not colourful enough, etc.. I actually disagree. They give the right feeling in terms of mass and make for a game that run really well on a middle of the pack machine. Great animated graphs for thousands of little guys are a major sink for a machine.

Lastly you have to be a bit more optimistic. The devs have hit on a very nice tactical formula for battle reenactments that is well balanced an great fun to play. They will probably be able to do napoleonic games, and other using that same tactical engine. Developping a real campaign rather than the current "robert Lee civil war" chain of battles would be a fantastic challenge. But give time to that small team. One customer can be arrogant and rude when talking about EA or big developpers. No need for that here.

Which words did I use that you think are (1) stern and (2) rude and (3) arrogant, please? I HAVE to be optimistic? Why do I HAVE to? Do I have any rights as a buyer and free tester of this game? Or, do I have to just pay up, suck up and shut up?

I have bought a new pair of glasses for my computer and I can tell you I get sore eyes with this game.

The Developers have the technology to make Naval Action and yet they stick this overpriced and overrated item under our noses.

(Actually, 25mm miniature figures wargames are much more interesting then electronic wargames, but what can one do if one's 1,860 beautifully painted, Napoleonic period figures have been left behind 12,000 miles away. Electronic wargames are the poor cousin to 'toy soldiers' wargames.)

Edited March 21, 2017 by Lannes

[veji1]

Look my point is that it's a matter of realism to accept that improvements are going to be incremental at this stage, and on the issue of how well the soldiers are rendered, it is a matter of opinion, some of us are fine with the current degree of detail that allows the game to run smoothly.

[The Soldier]

2 hours ago, Lannes said:

The Developers have the technology to make Naval Action and yet they stick this overpriced and overrated item under our noses.

I honestly hope you do realize it's not the same development team as team who made Naval Action  If you didn't, then don't know much about how game development works.  These are the people who made Ultimate General: Gettysburg, and UG:CW is made in the same vein as that.

Furthermore - if you want the graphics style to change, then I'm gonna have to pop your bubble there too.  There are many things that can change or be added during game development that weren't planned originally, but others are more or less set in stone and have a snowball's chance in hell of getting changed.  The game engine and the entire graphics appearance fall into the latter category - it's not going to change.  Sure, there are exceptions (like how Star Citizen switched it's engine, but no one talks about that game anymore nowadays), but those are few and far between.  Also, as @veji1 stated, it really helps performance.  If anything ate more performance that it already did the game would slow down to a crawl at some points - at Chickamauga, for exmaple, I slow down to 11 FPS with an i7-6700k and a 1070 when Stonwall Jackson makes his flank attack.

Also; my eyes don't hurt when playing this game.  Maybe you need to back your face away from the screen.

Edited March 21, 2017 by The Soldier

[Wandering1]

43 minutes ago, The Soldier said:

I honestly hope you do realize it's not the same development team as team who made Naval Action  If you didn't, then don't know much about how game development works.  These are the people who made Ultimate General: Gettysburg, and UG:CW is made in the same vein as that.

Furthermore - if you want the graphics style to change, then I'm gonna have to pop your bubble there too.  There are many things that can change or be added during game development that weren't planned originally, but others are more or less set in stone and have a snowball's chance in hell of getting changed.  The game engine and the entire graphics appearance fall into the latter category - it's not going to change.  Sure, there are exceptions (like how Star Citizen switched it's engine, but no one talks about that game anymore nowadays), but those are few and far between.  Also, as @veji1 stated, it really helps performance.  If anything ate more performance that it already did the game would slow down to a crawl at some points - at Chickamauga, for exmaple, I slow down to 11 FPS with an i7-6700k and a 1070 when Stonwall Jackson makes his flank attack.

Also; my eyes don't hurt when playing this game.  Maybe you need to back your face away from the screen.

To be fair, not everybody here has 20/20 vision; we have to care about the people who are wearing bi-focals also. 

The bigger problem in general with regards to performance is that the game is not multi-threaded to support the massive number of units on screen. This is a limitation with the Unity engine, as the Unity engine doesn't like multi-threading.

Side note, I think you're talking about Chancellorsville and not Chickamauga; Jackson was not alive for Chickamauga. 

[civsully1]

6 hours ago, Lannes said:

Which words did I use that you think are (1) stern and (2) rude and (3) arrogant, please? I HAVE to be optimistic? Why do I HAVE to? Do I have any rights as a buyer and free tester of this game? Or, do I have to just pay up, suck up and shut up?

I have bought a new pair of glasses for my computer and I can tell you I get sore eyes with this game.

The Developers have the technology to make Naval Action and yet they stick this overpriced and overrated item under our noses.

(Actually, 25mm miniature figures wargames are much more interesting then electronic wargames, but what can one do if one's 1,860 beautifully painted, Napoleonic period figures have been left behind 12,000 miles away. Electronic wargames are the poor cousin to 'toy soldiers' wargames.)

Ahh I think here lies the answer. Great to see someone actually remembers/plays the 25mm figures. Lannes I think you are a purist at heart. And a computer game will never satisfy that. And my hat is off to you for the time and patience it took to paint 1,860 Napoleonic figures! That is a true achievement to be sure. I hope you can be re-united with them in the future!

And though not Napoleonic a small tribute to your collection......

[civsully1]

I as a more modern era wargamer have to say that what the development team has done to date with UG CW is nothing less than extraordinary and we're still playing the early release version!

Is it perfect no, but it seems to me that they are incorporating feedback to make it better.  When I have gone back to my Order of Battle and Strategic Command or Hearts of Iron it is very difficult to do so after playing UG CW!!

As I am about to play Day 2 of 2nd Bull Run I am dreading what the Union will throw at me and whether my selection and placement of my troops will weather the impending storm. I am enjoying the squiggly lines of troops engaging each other. I'm especially enjoying both the strategic and tactical choices that have to be made simultaneously to fight these battles.

I've gotten my money's worth so far. I just hope that it is possible to add some sort of " a playback" feature so one can watch a battle replay afterwards. 

But really how could any computer game give what miniatures can??  But I'm hoping UG CW continues to evolve into the "next best thing"!

Edited March 21, 2017 by civsully1

[Lannes]

Thanks for your heartening replies.

What would it take to make the UGCW figures just a little bit bigger? I have an i5 4690K 4x3.5Ghz GTX 960. It plays Rome II with 10,000 figures on the screen no problem. The scale of UGCW figures to men varies, but it is about 8 : 1. It is no different than Rome II. Surely, it is possible to have the figures made bigger and even some uniform differences and colours added for certain brigades. I won't play Confederate, because they are all brown. What fun is that?

I know some wargamers have a different point of view and some are a little colour blind. I recall one wargaming friend, during my wargames' table years, saying that it woud make no difference to him if the units were represented by blocks of wood.

Cheers.

[veji1]

7 minutes ago, Lannes said:

Thanks for your heartening replies.

What would it take to make the UGCW figures just a little bit bigger? I have an i5 4690K 4x3.5Ghz GTX 960. It plays Rome II with 10,000 figures on the screen no problem. The scale of UGCW figures to men varies, but it is about 8 : 1. It is no different than Rome II. Surely, it is possible to have the figures made bigger and even some uniform differences and colours added for certain brigades. I won't play Confederate, because they are all brown. What fun is that?

I know some wargamers have a different point of view and some are a little colour blind. I recall one wargaming friend, during my wargames' table years, saying that it woud make no difference to him if the units were represented by blocks of wood.

Cheers.

It is a matter of opinion but the point is that smaller figures gives a mass effet and keep resolution low. if you make them bigger you have to make them more detailed, and it makes graphs a lot more power hungry. I use this game on my laptop mainly when I travel for work, I love how it runs smoothly compared to many other games that are "over-graphed" and either lag severely or force me to downgrade massively their detail level ending up playing in barren landscapes.

 

I can understand your concern, but my point of view is completely opposite. Sure a tiny tad more color or detail, why not, but nothing that could affect performance or requirements.

[Kiefer Cain]

Since this recent update, I have been having trouble placing and/or tracing routes for the brigades.  I can't pick a spot and swivel the facing of the brigade like I did before.  Is this something unique to me, or is anyone else experiencing a hesitant mouse to brigade relationship?  When I am trying to place units in a hurry this makes it very frustrating to not get the facing correct.

[Aetius]

6 hours ago, Kiefer Cain said:

Since this recent update, I have been having trouble placing and/or tracing routes for the brigades.  I can't pick a spot and swivel the facing of the brigade like I did before.  Is this something unique to me, or is anyone else experiencing a hesitant mouse to brigade relationship?  When I am trying to place units in a hurry this makes it very frustrating to not get the facing correct.

I haven't had any trouble with this. There have been mouse-related issues previously on high-resolution screens, so might be related?

[civsully1]

11 hours ago, Lannes said:

I know some wargamers have a different point of view and some are a little colour blind. I recall one wargaming friend, during my wargames' table years, saying that it woud make no difference to him if the units were represented by blocks of wood.

Cheers.

And Lannes, Speaking of "blocks of wood", here ya go! 

[A. P. Hill]

You guys got nothing.

 

Here's a real Diorama or mess of toy soldiers for ya. :)

 

Enjoy.