Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
michaelsmithern

Next Ultimate General Game, What would you like to see?

Recommended Posts

Perhaps we should make a poll? It will include say, 10 best suggestions and the one that takes the most votes will be picked up by the developers.

i would start a poll, but i'm afraid i'll need to start a new thread. if you can tell me a way to implement one on this thread i'll do it no problem. i'll look through all the post, and see which 10 scenarios are most wanted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about singleplayer or multiplayer?  Just wondering as I've been able to hold all the VP's in the first battle of day 1 as Union even against boosted AI.

It was single player, but i found a way to hold them, turns out i was just unlucky and the confederates would only charge. but i finally found a solution to stop that...

P.S. it's artillery and lots of firepower from brigades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what you're talking about. I've managed to hold the Confederates even with the A.I being Determined AND having it boosted. They keep charging straight into my cannons and volleys and fall back with horrendous casualties. I find the first scenario rather easy while being the Union simply because you have a couple of Veteran Brigades with the largest Union Elite Brigade, along with plenty of Cannons and the best Union General. 

finally got there myself, it was just an unlucky streak i had going on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great to have Napoleonic wars. So you can do not concentrate on historical battles and do something like Sid Meyer's Civilization, but the battles took place the way you did in UGG.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice to have some response from Devs, what are their plans and all.

As far as I'm concerned I don't want to see a sigle battle no matter how interesting I would rather have a campaign map and a 3d battle map but maybe I'm asking for too much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be fantastic to get a couple more of the big Civil War battles using this engine. I'm sure tremendous work goes into making the maps, etc but if the AI and the rest of the engine is already in place I would assume the worst is already done. I mean, this game is great and very enjoyable but you can only play the Battle of Gettysburg so many times...what about Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, the Wilderness? And that's just scratching the surface of the East.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antietam will be made. It was said map will be real 3D while units will be 2D sprites. They will basically be able to port over current mechanics so less work for them then if they would be making everything from scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see:

 

1. Froeschwiller, 1870

2. Gravelotte-St. Privat 1870

3. Spicheren 1870

4. Mars-la-Tour 1870

5. Koeniggratz 1866

6. Solferino 1859

 

Nothing has been done on these major battles that changed the face of Europe and set the stage for the First World War.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys first time around
some suggestions to enhance the game
 
Have the ability to edit the game

  • Create scenarios, Battles, Operations, Grand Campaign.
  • Strategic movement and battle resolution phase.
  • Assign units.
  • Type of units, strength.
  • Create victory points and assign value.
  • Programme reinforcments entry and point of entry into battle.
  • Ability to vary time duration of the battle.
  • Have the ability to have prepared postions.
  • Ability to split big units (time consuming).
  • 360 defensive positions.
  • have a popup small strategic map.
  • Ability to regulate the speed of the game (slow it down)
  • Lots and lots of maps.

Give it sort of the same flexibility one has with the close combat serie of games.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play mostly MP so in the next game I would like to see some useful leader board and battle statistic of each player. It would also be nice to have some possibility to organize the tournaments with the brackets and results implemented directly in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think operational and strategic levels of command are needed. Goal of UG game(s) is to faithfully depict classical formation battles and not operational level of war. I dunno what developers think of this, though.

 

Gravelotte, Mars le Tour, Borny-Colembey are very interesting and were not depicted in any game so far (the Franco-Prussian war is a massively neglected topic in media in general), so is Spicheren if you like battles on a smaller scale (30k vs 37k men). Note that it was mostly incompetence of French command that decided the outcome of these and other battles. French victory in this war might mean absolute dominance of France in W. Europe and possibly even partition of Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the Siege of Sevastopol, in the Crimean War? It could be broken down into segments corresponding to its actual battles (lasting several months, rather than a few days), with various strategic alternatives for the player; or the focus could be on just one of those. This is the scene of the Thin Red Line and the Charge of the Light Brigade; it's close enough to the ACW that technology shouldn't be drastically different (1854-1855), it's famous enough that we have a wealth of information on it, the units involved, and their geographical goals, and it's even somewhat topical due to the unfortunate recent events in Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although a bit smaller in aspect, I'd love to see a war of 1812 game.  It'd be a fairly interesting development to appeal to the Brits, Canadians AND Americans to duke it out :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anglo-Zulu war of 1879.

Although you guys would really need to fix the movement speed of cav vis a vis the movement speed of infantry to make that work. In this game, foot units can match the pace of horse over a sustained run, and occasionally elude them -- that might have been necessary to achieve game balance for the Gettysburg scenarios, but it really does jar a bit as a game mechanic.  Natali Mounted Police, dragoons, and irregulars all play a heavy role in Brits vs Zulus so fixing it matters.

Whoever coded the skirmishers and Confederate morale probably has a good set of ideas to craft the different Zulu tribes confronting the British columns invading their land.  You know how Union skirmishers tend to be grouped into one main body and two smaller bodies? Very Zulu. It's how you go for the flanks and exploit your mobility.  They couldn't crack a wall of massed fire so they had to maneuver, and they were good at maneuver.

Whoever coded the Union will have a decent idea of how to code the Brits.  The Brits are a cross of Reb close quarter battle skills and Union discipline on the defensive, which is why Rorke's Drift is such an iconic battle for them. The Fortify skill you guys added for the iPad version of UGG would be crucial for the Brits and probably not even available to the Zulu unless game mechanics made it absolutely necessary.

You have three different kinds of artillery for the British. 7 pounder guns, gatling guns, and -- rockets! Yes, they had rockets, even in the late 1800s. Believe it or not they got the idea in India where their opponents first used crude rockets against their infantry.   They didn't have explosive warheads, they just shot huge flaming missiles into the oncoming attackers. Fire was what killed. The Brits said 'this is a good idea' and started making better versions of them.   Picture that on the screen -- the guns like we have now, the stream of the gatling fire, and then the big fiery whoosh of the 9 pound rockets firing from their troughs.

The Zulu don't have arty; if they did, the Brits would have perished. They do have some captured British rifles in addition to their typical arsenal of assegais and knobkerries, but they couldn't make use of any arty they captured. And they have numbers.  And the Zulu were fearsome warriors that on several occasions beat the better armed Brits.  At Isandlwana they annihilated the Brits -- sort of their Little Bighorn moment. And unless you were keen eyed, you could miss them until you were right on top of their ambush, because they made expert use of their terrain -- even though the Zulu were usually bigger on letting you see them lined up and waiting for you. Like the Rebs, their skills on offense included making use of psychological warfare to intimidate an enemy. And they responded to the presence of their nDuna in a way that closely corresponds to how UG treats corps commanders.  And to mix it up, the Brits can even have native volunteer troops of Zulu fighting on their side.

Both sides have a range of unit quality from below average to elite.  The main theme would be the Brits having better units that they have to shepherd and the Zulu enjoying better numbers and starting position on the battlefield that they have to exploit. The whole campaign historically featured a wide range of types of engagement over a wider range of terrain.

Finally, it would be simplicity itself to offer a Boer war expansion where the Brits are fighting Dutch settlers.  That would be much more symmetrical and closer to the ACW in terms of how combatants match up, but would lack the flair that Brits vs Zulus have, so it'd probably be a better follow on than a lead in. Still, you're probably already mostly there in terms of the AI for these units and getting them to act historically consistent in a fashion that makes for good gaming. And once you get a coded Brit army that works well, it won't be hard to find other historical examples you can use featuring British regulars, because over they years they pretty much fought everyone at least once, from irregular and comparatively primitive forces to the soldiers of other major nations. 

If you do the Anglo Zulu war? My one big overriding request is to make the iPad version a little heftier.  That form factor is just awesome for gameplay. Give if more oomph in terms of what all you can do on it. The Gettysburg scenarios have crazy replay value even without most of the best features of UGG; if you allowed campaign mode OR head to head, either or, let alone both, I think your next game on the iPad might end up defining the genre.

  My second request would be to make it a little harder to accidentally select a leader and all his nearby affiliated troops, because you end up accidentally unfortifying your men and repositioning the line while under direct fire.  One fat fingered swipe or double tap and the battle changes direction in a way that isn't entertaining at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×