Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

48 Excellent

About veji1

  • Rank
    Able seaman
  1. Gee that Percon guy sure reads cranky...
  2. Indeed. Not only there are 3 different types of infantry (well actually 2 and guard units of the 2 types, but let's say 3) but also in battle formations are a lot more flexible : from the pure line to the mixed order to batallon up to divisional columns, the variation is huge. The cav component of the game would be capital, if done well it would set the tone for the combined arms ultimate orgasm that a napoleonic wargame can be : light cavalry for scouting, probing, pursuing and occasional charging. Heavy cavalry for shock assault, dragons with the ability to dismount as well... There is a massive amount of fun to be had.
  3. Bah, if we think about it in a cold simple way, a napoleonic game is totally obvious : it's the most money making machine, it's a natural ambition for a game designer to want a make a great game about this holy totem of an era. I mean you nail Waterloo and such properly and your game becomes the Sid Meier's of its time. So I am pretty confident I will get to play an ultimate general Napoleon by next christmas time. Book it !
  4. Like many of you, as a silly impatient customer I just can't wait for an announcement, hoping it will be a Napoleon type game. I have been dreaming of a quality nappy tactical game since the battleground series !
  5. You only charge up a hill when you don't have a choice, be it by lack or space or lack of time : You need to take that position to break the ennemy's back and justify the whole battle and campaign, you try it, because endless flank turning isn't an option anymore lest the opportunity slip away. This is why although frontal assault was never the right option, it kept happening...
  6. Some (more in depth) questions...

    Come on, this is a bit of a passive aggressive comment here isn't it ?
  7. So, I was wondering... What's next?

    Talking a bout a UG - Napoleonic wars, what I would really like to play is the 96-97 italian campaign, with the lean demi-brigades, the key tactical decisions, many exciting battles with lean and nimble armies of 20 000 to 30 000 men, cavalry and preciously limited arty man must make the best use of.
  8. UG Civil War’s Future

    I am sure the devs would be fine providing a patch if some players prepare it I suppose, but I think they now have other plans in mind and other things to do : This game is done, beautifully so, and it's time to work on the next one with all lessons learnt from this one !
  9. UG Civil War’s Future

    Honestly this game is done, it's great, it's fun, i'ts enough to be enjoyed... Rather than painstakingly making marginal improvements to please customers who already bought it, might as well expand on all they have learnt and build the next game !
  10. Cavalry is in a good spot right now

    Melee cavalry just shouldn't exist... All cav should be better in melee in the open but very brittle if encountering resistance imho
  11. What I would like to see in a Napoleonic or 18th century game is the variety of uniform colors while still having sprites that are simple and not memory heavy so that the game can run smoothly on most computers including laptops one uses when travelling for work.Something akin to the sprites used in the Battleground series from John Tiller (but animated of course). We would still have the jolt of colors while keeping simple and effective sprites, not going with full Total War details which should not be the priorities for such a game.
  12. This is also why in 18th century and napoleonic warfare cavalry to cover the flanks was really really vital.... infantry would get massively messed up if caugh in enfilade by fire or charged on its flanks because it needed lots of time to turn. Light cavalry was needed for that job as well as the scouting and this is why generals always sought to anchor their flanks. In a future UG-Napoleon this is the actual part of the game I would most look forward to : the inter-arm interactions. In a Napoleonic game one would really have to play one's cavalry well to win the game, it wouldn't be an afterthought at all, but actually really important to repeal an infantry attack, harass flanks, slow down ennemy movement, etc.
  13. Actually not most battles, but the ones we remember because they were so many of them ! If you look at any singular campaign (Austerlitz, Iean/Auerstedt, Eylau, etc...) we tend to focus on the big singular clausewitzian battle but there were many smaller engagements varying for brigade size to corps size. You would have room for a very similar type of campaigning as in UGCW : 3/4 minor battles and then the big one.
  14. The french cavalry peaked in the war against Prussia in 1806, this is where the cavalry pursuit disintegrated on a strategic scale the prussian army after Iena/Auerstedt. This cavalry was the best it would ever be : it had training and drilling aplenty (in the camp de Boulogne an years prior to 1805), it had battle experience (the 1805 campaign), it had top quality mounts extracted as a peace condition from Austria and basically picked throughout the rhine confederation AND it hadn't suffered many losses yet. The fall and winter 1806/1807 campaign already profoundly damaged that, culminating in the Eylau battle, and froom then on continuous "paper cuts" in Spain and more massive manoeuvering had rendered the cavalry less nimble and effective. The french cavalry starting the Russian campaign is enormous but it is already far from the peak it had reached 6 years prior.