Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

deltahill

Members
  • Content count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About deltahill

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  1. deltahill

    can this happen

    I have to say that this ultimate general takes the cake and puts a lot of the civil war games and total war games to the test for first place. It lets you interact with the units on a personnel level and i love the direction its going. If the designers can install ultimate general with a sand box version strategically starting from fort Sumter 1861 to Appomattox surrender in 1865 it would put this game over the total war series games by a huge margin. I been playing these kind of games since computers came out and the 70's when i first discovered Avalon Hill games, Ultimate general is so far the best game design out for the civil war period and i truly hope the designers are on it to make it even better and they continue to support the product. Letting players build the army's from scratch with a generated battle map like total war will make it that much better....allowing them to make there own strategic decisions will jump this game into hyper drive. All the pre-set up famous engagements are great don't get me wrong. But you can only play same game a few times before it becomes repetitive and gets labeled as a space saver. giving the player a new terrain map to plan his tactics will keep the ultimate general players going for years and no doubt put a few more bucks into the pockets of the designers.
  2. deltahill

    Battle of Chickamauga

    I think that when you win the victories you have prior to chickamauga that the AI should have been more depleted to fight this battle any ways. Why don't they have torn and reduced units that carry over from previous battles they lost? for example they fight one battle with 2500 troops in a brigade and the very next battle they got the same strength again and full supply even when they were all captured or dead prior .... This is one of very few concerns i have about long term play-ability with out sand box generated campaign map options. Playing the same maps over and over the designer may not have much choice but to give the AI historical numbers and force the players to fight depleted wile the AI gets off Scott free. The AI does not lose any supplies when you win a battle like the players do. If the game was sandbox it would balance this out more so that captured strategic location on the grand map would dictate the tactical options of every fight not make the fights more progressively harder as you go but erratic with more fluctuations of the AI units strengths accordingly. I am hoping that the designers consider these ideas. If you look at games like the total war series they are great games but are missing the element that ultimate General has. Put the 2 concepts together and now you have a game. Secondly if the designers are not planning to look at it, that they at least bolster the Players with historical units to balance out the AIs historical numbers so you have a chance. There has been battles that i fought in this game that were not historical because i lost all my troops prior to arriving on the battle field i should have had at least 3 full corps to start with historically. Instead i had 2 battered corps with troops ranging per brigade of around 200 to 600 lol. The AI showed up with everything pretty much averaging 1500 to 2500 or more troops in each lol. so it seemed lol. So as i am reading your guys-es posts it seems you are having the same issues i am with the enemy's getting more powerful and we are getting weaker. So is it designed to force the player to keep up to the story line battles? it seems more like a game of attrition with AI getting unlimited supply wile we are forced to keep what we ended up with. Regardless i love the concept and playing its still fun. just like to see those fixes, and i be willing to pay for them.
  3. deltahill

    Battle of Chickamauga

    One issue that should be implemented is the fact that even when you win every battle the enemy still manages to be stronger then you and larger then you. The AI should also have to play by the same conditions if they lose lower troop reinforcements and supplys. However the sandbox idea is best as your supplies would be generated by the strategic locations you captured on the grand campaign map. Maybe the div's will sort this out some day soon
  4. deltahill

    DLC addons?

    Yes i would pay for a DLC if it was a good one that changed the strategic play-ability but not if it was a patch or fix for a bug. i love to see a sand box game of this game were players would form there own battles on the ground they choose with a generated map system
  5. deltahill

    Ultimate General vs. Total War

    I posted earlier about the sand box version of ultimate general it would satisfy every tactical/strategic concern. if the div's implemented a generated map system as they move strategically that would create all the play-ability for every gamer strategically and tactically.
  6. I have to say that this ultimate general takes the cake and puts a lot of the civil war games and total war games to the test for first place. It lets you interact with the units on a personnel level and i love the direction its going. If the designers can install ultimate general with a sand box version strategically starting from fort Sumter 1861 to Appomattox surrender in 1865 it would put this game over the total war series games by a huge margin. I been playing these kind of games since computers came out and the 70's when i first discovered Avalon Hill games, Ultimate general is so far the best game design out for the civil war period and i truly hope the designers are on it to make it even better and they continue to support the product. Letting players build the army's from scratch with a generated battle map like total war will make it that much better....allowing them to make there own strategic decisions will jump this game into hyper drive. All the pre-set up famous engagements are great don't get me wrong. But you can only play same game a few times before it becomes repetitive and gets labeled as a space saver. giving the player a new terrain map to plan his tactics will keep the ultimate general players going for years and no doubt put a few more bucks into the pockets of the designers.
  7. deltahill

    Phantom cavalry

    I ran into this problem as well. Cavalry and routing units both moving though solid infantry and reforming behind the enemy and attacking a rear attack on them. My suggestion is that any routed unit that contacts a formed enemy unit should be captured or permanently removed from battle
  8. deltahill

    Ultimate General vs. Total War

    I own all the total war series games and any/all american civil war games on the market. I have to say that empire total war is a great game but this ultimate general takes the cake. It lets you interact with the units on a personnel level and i love the direction its going. If you can put ultimate general with a sand box version starting from fort Sumter 1861 to Appomattox surrender in 1865 it would put this game over the total war series games by a huge margin. I been playing these kind of games since computers came out. Ultimate general is so far the best game design out and i truly hope the designers are on it to make it even better and they continue to support the product. Letting players build the army's from scratch with a generated battle map will make it that much better....allowing them to make there own strategic decisions will jump this game into hyper drive. i used to have all the AH games as well i loved them american civil war is my favored period of warfare in strategy. I remember buying the first game in in 1978-79. great strategy games
×