'Cosmetic' Suggestions

[Nick Thomadis]

That is an extremely good idea man, I don't know nuffin' about the Battle of Gettysburg (except that Benny Hill is impossible to take) so a preview of the map you get at the start of a phase would be helpful in choosing.

Ha ha, we certainly need to speed up the decision room maps development

[P-Dup]

Don't know if this was posted before. but I think the symbole for telling different kinds off units apart (inf, arty, cav) in the unit's marker is too small  to be easily recognized (at least for me), especally in dense situation, where you have to react quckly..

[Pierre]

This isn't entirely cosmetic but the arrow drawing should be fixed up a bit.  Right now when trying to do flanking maneuvers  my arrows get all squiggly and ugly because I'm not a god at drawing perfect parabolas.  I suggest that the arrow drawing at least have an option to just be straight lines or parabolas, instead of this free form squiggly line stuff.  I don't see a point to drawing squiggly arrows really, parabolas and straight lines do everything you need in regards to troop movement.

[neogodhobo]

squiggly arrow is good if you want your armies to walk in cover of enemy fire ( zig-zaging between houses, hill, and stuff )

[patton17]

This game already looks pretty good graphically and well done Darth but I've noticed that the explosions from artillery look different in the early release picture than they do now. It would be great if the explosions looked like the picture, its makes the battle feel so much more intense and immersive. I would like to see as well, variations in uniforms( which i believe was already mentioned, would add great realism to the battle. Also if any of you guys have ever watched Ken Burns: The Civil War, the music in that documentary is amazing and would make great music for the main menu. 

[CaptainZizi]

hello everybody, I play the game since few day, and I find it very good, i've got some idea :

- as say previously, make the arrows of movement less visible (thinner, etc...);

- make the general icons more visible;

- show clearly the selected unit (sometimes I make a mistake and I give some orders to the wrong unit);

- why not, put the gauge of moral/condition/reload above the units.

[Mr. Mercanto]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but there is a little, innocuous cosmetic element in UGG that bothers me a bit. When the Rebels charge, they sound like they are giving a "Rebel Yell." Awesome, just like they're supposed to. When the Federals charge however, they also give the same foxhound yip. Now, as perhaps one of the few proud pro-Unionists that seem to be on this forum (lol) it bothers me a bit to not hear the emphatic "Hoorah!" that the boys in blue would cry on the charge. Though the Union Hoorah may not have been as famous as the Rebel Yell, it was in effect their response to the yell and the simulation just doesn't feel right without it. 

So can we give the Loyal Unionists a Hoorah rather then a Rebel Yell? 

[Mr. Mercanto]

This game already looks pretty good graphically and well done Darth but I've noticed that the explosions from artillery look different in the early release picture than they do now. It would be great if the explosions looked like the picture, its makes the battle feel so much more intense and immersive. I would like to see as well, variations in uniforms( which i believe was already mentioned, would add great realism to the battle. Also if any of you guys have ever watched Ken Burns: The Civil War, the music in that documentary is amazing and would make great music for the main menu. 

I don't know if they could get Ashokan Farewell but the dev team may be able to snag some public domain Civil War Era music (which comprises the rest of the Burn's series). 

Either way, I think you're right on the music, in that the game could use some. The ambient sounds of battle are an effective soundtrack but music could make it even more intense. 

[Mr. Mercanto]

Well the game engine is not that heavy for a modern rig. I think almost everyone could br able to enjoy full scale battles without framerate losses.

Very much agree with you. I use a mid-tier PC and if the game was more graphically demanding then there would be no way for me to play it. I'm happy to trade TW graphics for a game that is actually on the scale of a real battle (and all the other amazing things about UGG).

[llcw08]

​Color Bearers: While yes; research for each regiment, division, and brigade would take some time, this would better all around for cosmetics.

Covers/Caps/Hats: Where are the Iron Brigades kickin' black caps? Or the Bucktails awesome bucktails? 

 

Not on the cosmetic side; but the general game set up is better based for division or brigade combat, rather than the entire Army. Think of it this way; you can shrink the map a bit, like Day 1, let us fight on Little Round Top, Culps Hill, Devils Den, The Wheatfield, The High Water Mark/Pickett's Charge, and so on, so forth. This would make the battles more interesting, less confusing, and possibly give them a better flow.

 

There were what, 35 Union Generals plus another 5 high ranking Colonels? , and 20 Confederate Generals in all? This idea does go with the games theme after all...

I Love this idea! Battles Within the battle! It would be a Huge, whole other layer; but a Super Idea for an UGG "add-on"! Oh Yes, the 20th Maine on Little Round Top!

[Orkdung]

​Color Bearers: While yes; research for each regiment, division, and brigade would take some time, this would better all around for cosmetics.

Covers/Caps/Hats: Where are the Iron Brigades kickin' black caps? Or the Bucktails awesome bucktails? 

 

Not on the cosmetic side; but the general game set up is better based for division or brigade combat, rather than the entire Army. Think of it this way; you can shrink the map a bit, like Day 1, let us fight on Little Round Top, Culps Hill, Devils Den, The Wheatfield, The High Water Mark/Pickett's Charge, and so on, so forth. This would make the battles more interesting, less confusing, and possibly give them a better flow.

 

There were what, 35 Union Generals plus another 5 high ranking Colonels? , and 20 Confederate Generals in all? This idea does go with the games theme after all...

 

 This this and more of this.  And werent there Zouaves fighting at Gettysburg?  I'd love to see some Zouave flair, granted most were companies within regiments, but to see a few men marching in a New York regiment, for example, would be exciting.

 

Weed's Brigade (Gettysburg)

• 140th New York – fez, Red Fez Red Tassel, Dark blue jacket, dark red trim, med Blue Sash, Dark Blue pants

• 146th New York – fez, red fezzes with yellow tassels; possibly a few men sported white turbans on the fezzes. Officers probably had a mixture of red or dark blue kepis, 2nd opinion: Red Fez Red Tassel, Dark blue jacket, dark red trim, med Blue Sash, Dark Blue pants, 3rd opinion: sky-blue jackets and chasseur pants with yellow trim

• 91st Pennsylvania – fez – red fez, Dark Blue jacket, yellow trim, sky blue pants

• 155th Pennsylvania – fez – red Fez, Dark Blue jacket, yellow Trim, red edge sash with yellow trim? Dark Blue pants with red trim, NCO Chevrons were yellow with a red backing, USMC style

 

. 

[Kirq]

First of all, I want to say hi, and note that I really like the game. It's best early access I participated. It runs rock solid, and have more tactical depth than 90% RTS on the market.

 

I would love to final version of the game have:

 

- Ability to zoom out to see whole map, with vicoty locations, friendly units and spoted enemy units marked with some kind of flags/icons.

- Ability to continue to create unit's already set route, by grabbing the arrow's tip and dragging it further.

- Ability to set my units facing after it moves to final location.

- More detailed mid battle brieffings and better battle decisions explanation - map with marked locations etc.

- Useful cavalry.

- Ability to set my formation, manually and auto. We should be able to set column, line and square.

[David Fair]

Kirq,

 

What's your definition of useful cavalry?

 

In the ACW cavalry avoided infantry like the plague - which is why there is an East Cavalry Field where the cavalry could fight each other in relative safety.  

ACW cavalry had a binary choice when facing infantry: 

Choice A - inaction.  

Choice B - suicide.

 

ACW cavalry performed scouting, intelligence, cover for flanks, and cover for rear area protection.  

 

Are you advocating adding these roles to the game?

 

Or are you suggesting Napoleonic shock cavalry in the ACW?

[Elvin]

I'm currently trying to unlock all the possible scenarios. However, I'm having trouble distinguishing which ones are locked compared to which ones I've done before, just from the title and description text availalbe in the campaign. Would it be possible to get some little icon that represents either having done this level previously, or vice versa saying you've never done it before? Would make unlocking everything much much easier

[Kirq]

David Fair,

You are right about calvary vs line infantry face to face encouters. I'm not an expert in mid 19th century military tactics, but I believe that well timed and placed cavalry charge, like into unprotected artilery battery or rear of infantry that is beeing engaged from the front by my infantry, should be rather effective. In current UGG state it is completly unefective. Cavalry stops at artilery/infantry position and fails to make any real damage or even break infantry morale.

[David Fair]

Kirq,

 

There aren't right or wrong answers - UGG is an RTS game with a great AI implementation.  

But UGG is not true to history - and does not aspire to be.

The design team is highly responsive to what the community wants - history plays a very subtle second fiddle.

 

Argue enthusiastically for the game you want to play!

 

 

Here is the historical reality, as I understand it, and some places where UGG deviates:

 

ACW cavalry usually fought dismounted and most often in a skirmish line.  Particularly when facing artillery.

UGG - designed for tablets - does not mount/dismount cavalry.

 

Horses were highly valued and the terrain made cavalry critical in their non-combat roles.

None of the cavalry's historic responsibilities are represented in UGG - IMO this is a good thing because it would involve unnecessary micromanagement and add nothing to a brigade-level game.

 

There are examples of cavalry charging unprotected batteries when they took them by surprise as an isolated unit (Winchester for example).

I honestly can't think of any cavalry actions where 150 troopers took a battery on any major battle of the ACW.

Certainly if this happened it did not happen with videttes.

 

Note that "videttes" are 4 to 6 men placed every couple of hundred yards apart to provide an intelligence screen for the army.

They are not a "unit".  The officers for the Union videttes at Gettysburg were stationed near the Seminary building and were responsible for collecting and distributing information.

Thus, the highest ranking officer in the "videttes" would be a lieutenant.  They would not have the authority to gather the videttes, alter their mission, issue orders, and attack anything.

 

UGG created mythical "vidette units" - they are weak by design - and should not have any impact on infantry morale and historically could not charge anything.

 

This is really a question about what you want in a game - history or fiction?

 

UGG is a hybrid - fictional units are designed to provide historic results.

Buford had 2 cavalry brigades.  He posted about 400 of his men as videttes.  

Buford's brigades lost a total of just over 100 men at Gettysburg.  

They never charged anything.  

They never routed anyone.

 

Heth's orders to avoid an action contributed as much to the Union I Corps defense on McPherson's Ridge as Buford's cavalry.

 

In UGG these 2 brigades are broken into 5 units.  

The design goal was to keep the CSA on Herr's Ridge for Phase 1 - to replicate the historical result. 

By taking this approach Heth's brigades take a hammering from cavalry that did not happen at Gettysburg.

This is why most games start with Union infantry on McPherson's Ridge.

UGG took a different - less historical approach.

Then adjusted the Union units until they achieved the result that the design team wanted.

 

Note that the artillery in UGG is glacial - not at all accurate for ACW artillery.

Artillery could keep up with ACW cavalry and often covered the retreat of infantry (Union XI Corps for example).

The artillery limbered by section (2 guns) and leapfrogged forward or to the rear - they had to be careful not to run over their own infantry.

A battery with order to "Limber to the rear - gallop easily outpaced infantry.

[Kirq]

David, thanks. It's always a pleasure to read/listen to someone who obviously knows what's He's talking about.

[David Fair]

Hi Kirq,

 

The three volume Pfanz books are a good resource, "Gettysburg - The First Day".

 

Below I've summarized his description of four of the Union I Corps batteries escaping from Seminary Ridge pulling back to Cemetery Hill while the Union infantry had pulled back from Seminary Ridge:

 

Wainwright with Stevens, Cooper, Stewart, and a section from Reynolds Batteries. 

Batteries instructed to move at a walk for fear of creating panic and running down the I Corps infantry retreating through Gettysburg.  Wainwright waited for the road to clear then ordered “Trot” and then “Gallop”.  All of the guns escaped.

 

This is also the situation with the Union XI Corps batteries - but since four batteries were mentioned above - this looked like a data point that might be of interest to you.

[b.westall]

State of orgin for regiments i.e. 5th Ohio

[Biplane]

Hi, I'm new here, but I just got back from a week in Gettysburg last week and HAD to try this game out. It's fantastic, by the way!

If we're tossing out some suggestions here, though, one thing that would be cool, and I don't know if it's been suggested anywhere else, or if it's implemented in the game or anything, would be an after-action report that summed up how individual units did in the battle. I love me some statistics. Even though I put them through hell, it'd be cool to see just how much hell the Iron Brigade gave back.

[Elvin]

Hi, I'm new here, but I just got back from a week in Gettysburg last week and HAD to try this game out. It's fantastic, by the way!

If we're tossing out some suggestions here, though, one thing that would be cool, and I don't know if it's been suggested anywhere else, or if it's implemented in the game or anything, would be an after-action report that summed up how individual units did in the battle. I love me some statistics. Even though I put them through hell, it'd be cool to see just how much hell the Iron Brigade gave back.

That feature is due in the patch that should be being released today (or possibly tomorrow considering it's close to the end of business for the devs, I think)

[Husserl]

Yes it will be. Sorry for the postpone but  a last minute issue in MP tests forced us to delay it for another day.

[savior578]

1. Officers and Musicians as well as Flags in each Unit. 

 

2. Also if the unit is a unique unit such as the Iron Brigade, a picture next to the leader in the unit showing the unique uniform, or on the unit themselves.

 

3. A mini map would also be a great addition to this game. 

 

Love the way this game is turning out, keep up the great work.   

[Fearless]

3D terrain please!

[Elvin]

3D terrain please!

 

Sorry to say but that simply isn't going to happen. The game's been designed in 2D and it'll stay that way, especially as a full release isn't that far off. The amount of work to create all the 3D elements would likely be in the order of a couple of months solid work, if you include not only the graphics but having to re-program the AIs to deal with a completely different input map.