What would you like added to UGG

[R.E.B.Blunt]

What would you like added to Ultimate General: Gettysburg?

 

You can delete your votes and recast votes as new options are added to Poll.

 

Anything I missed?

 

 

Edited: so you can have ---

             multiple choice

             Modding

             Wound/Kill General

             No Victory Points

             Historical Battle

             Limber Artillery

             Random AI Personality after each Battle

             Eliminate cavalry/videttes/skirmishers ability to TAKE VP locations

             Add After-Battle Report of Kill/Death ratio of each Brigade

             Brigades target more than just one enemy within their firing arc

             Dress Line left or right

             Full Civil War Campaign

             Partial Theater Campaign

             Switch sides after each Battle

             Adjustable speed variable (Slow, Normal, Fast)

             Give bonus to AI Morale and Condition for more difficulty

             Sandbox Mode, Scenario Generator

             Other Civil War Battles

             Combine all Skirmishers and Videttes into two Brigades

[Reisman17]

I would really like several however  voted for unit formations. Would also like to see Divisional Generals and surrendering units as well and of course multi-player :-)

 

Reisman17

[TheIronKing]

Haha voted for everything apart from limited ammo, just feel how the game is at the moment this feature wouldn't work and would leave troops doing nothing for entire battles as charges tend to fail (which is good realism)

[Tormidal]

Add an option for modding.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

This is to help the Developers know what we would want from this game. If you think of anything else I will add it later.

[nemo73]

Brilliant 

[Reisman17]

Also to clarify I think being able to dig in/build barricades is rather senseless in this particular game. Both armies ran into one another and neither  had time to prepare proper digging in/barricades. Having said that it might be good for future games that may involve different battles just not this one in my opinion. 

 

Reisman17

[N.C.rebel]

Hey Reb Blunt this ain't fair I want them all lmao

[N.C.rebel]

You also need to post this on the steam forums, there's a lot of traffic.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Also to clarify I think being able to dig in/build barricades is rather senseless in this particular game. Both armies ran into one another and neither  had time to prepare proper digging in/barricades. Having said that it might be good for future games that may involve different battles just not this one in my opinion. 

 

Reisman17

 

That is actually NOT true.

 

On the First day Ewell was given orders to take Culps hill, He thought the hill was unoccupied and with no haste walked up the hill to find Union Generals Wadsworth,  later Candy and McDougall standing on top of the hill with well over 3k Union Soldiers. Retreating and almost being captured. At the bottom of the hill Confederates Began to chop down trees in case the Union Counter-attacked and built breast works. The Union was doing the same thing and were cutting down trees to build Breastworks on top of the hill. By the Second day Union had a very good Breastwork defensive line and the Confederates lost the initiative.

 

The Picture is of Culps Hill on July 3rd done by Edwin Forbes

 

*Edited

      

 

 

[N.C.rebel]

That is actually NOT true.

On the First day Anderson was given orders to take Culps hill, He thought the hill was unoccupied and with no haste walked up the hill to find Union Slocum Division with Generals Wadsworth, Candy and McDougall standing on top of the hill with well over 3k Union Soldiers. Retreating and almost being captured. At the bottom of the hill Confederates Began to chop down trees in case the Union Counter-attacked and built breast works. The Union was doing the same thing and were cutting down trees to build Breastworks on top of the hill. By the Second day Union had a very good Breastwork defensive line and the Confederates lost the initiative.

The Picture is of Culps Hill on July 3rd done by Edwin Forbes

Culps_Hill_July_3_Edwin_Forbes.jpg

Culps and little round top were the only ones that were dug in so really don't need this option really especially gettysburg maybe other battles like cold harbor, Petersburg, etc and everything 1864-5

[varangian]

I was going to add this to the 'Artillery LoS' thread but here is equally appropriate. Whilst there may be problems with artillery determining a realistic LoS in some parts of the map that's really just a bug. Once fixed I think making best use of artillery will still be difficult as you often can't get a good handle on what a battery will be able to see from any given location. I've found in some of the scenarios - fighting for Cemetery Ridge for example - that artillery over right at the west of the map (playing Confederates) will merrily fire away whilst batteries on ridges and hills just across the valley stay silent. Some of this might be explained by bugs with the LoS determination so may improve in time but the effect is that I spend my time micromanaging the placement of batteries just to find somewhere they could fire from.

 

What would help would be a 'ghost move' type option. So instead of LMB click dragging to move a battery you'd Alt+LMB to drag a ghost version of the battery to a new position. Once you'd stopped moving for a second or two then the LoS for the chosen position would be determined and shown as a colourful overlay (red and blue for example) so you'd know whether moving a battery to that location would be useful or not. Conceptually someone in command has sent a staff engineer to survey the ground in order to get the artillery in a good location. Being the case it would therefore be fair to impose a speed penalty on the battery when it moves for real to reflect this, so you'd have a choice of making slower relocations to places you know should work or faster moves to places that might not.

[Adrian]

Game Labs so when will be added new upgrades (Surrendering Units,Unit Formation Line, Double Line, Skirmish, Column ,Wound/Kill Generals,Divisional Generals appear in battle, capture enemy cannons,General Lee and General Meade to appear in battle)

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Game Labs so when will be added new upgrades (Surrendering Units,Unit Formation Line, Double Line, Skirmish, Column ,Wound/Kill Generals,Divisional Generals appear in battle, capture enemy cannons,General Lee and General Meade to appear in battle)

 

This poll was not created by Game Labs or any of the developers. Instead it is a mere venue to show to the developers of UG:G what we the players of this game would want to make this game better and more realistic.

[moesislack20]

I would love to see multiplayer in the early edition.  Either player v Player or 2 players against AI.

[N.C.rebel]

Multiplayer is coming in the upcoming weeks very soon

[Jade Falcon]

I voted for surrendering units, formations and the full three day battle with no breaks as things I would really like to see. 

[Paul_KT]

It would be cool if the historical options in custom battles were unlocked from the start.

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

R.E.B thank you for organizing this! 

[David Fair]

I'd add to this list:

Eliminate cavalry/videttes/skirmishers ability to TAKE VP locations.

(It is one thing to have them hold VP locations - but Videttes sneaking around in the back of the ANV to capture Herr's Ridge is really annoying.

I'd suggest modifying:

"No Victory Point" to "Option to turn VPs on and off".

(Players learning the game need VPs to understand how to proceed/learn the game).

[R.E.B.Blunt]

I'd suggest modifying:

"No Victory Point" to "Option to turn VPs on and off".

(Players learning the game need VPs to understand how to proceed/learn the game).

 

I really like that idea. That is the premise of what I meant to say. You just worded it better.

 

*Edited

[thekev506]

To play devil's advocate: why should the devs be looking to add things to the game?  They'll have a design document produced and a direction/features in mind, surely their time is better spent refining those rather than constantly adding new things.  You're never going to please everyone and a lot of early access games have gotten bogged down because of that (project zomboid springs to mind.)

[R.E.B.Blunt]

To play devil's advocate: why should the devs be looking to add things to the game?  They'll have a design document produced and a direction/features in mind, surely their time is better spent refining those rather than constantly adding new things.  You're never going to please everyone and a lot of early access games have gotten bogged down because of that (project zomboid springs to mind.)

 

Oh trust me I agree with your statement. I was just growing tired of seeing all the different threads out there of everyone posting pretty much the same things; asking what they want, but on different threads (I am guilty of same thing). Asking for what we would want to make the game better and putting it in a POLL is more of constructive feedback so that once the Developers say "OK, we have worked out the bugs, the game is fully released. Oh look! The fans have already created a thread on what they would want us to work on next. Wait a second these are not bad ideas!"

 

Hopefully the Devs do not take it wrong that we don't appreciate the work that is currently done. Cause we sure in the hell do. But instead say "Wow, these people really do care about this game!"

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

VP on/off option would be great.  deleted and then re-entered my votes to add it. 

[mp_spc4]

I'd like to add an option:

 

Having brigades be able to target more than just one brigade within their firing arc.  That, at least in some way, would make people who want regimental control slightly happier while also extending the functionality of the larger brigades, both for union and confederacy.