My hopes for UG Civil War

[Riekopo]

I liked UG Gettysburg. However, I don't think it was amazing. I felt it was more like a simplistic mobile game than a serious strategy game. My main two problems with it were bad readability (mostly visual) and over-abstraction of some mechanics like "condition" for example. In my opinion different things like fatigue, ammunition, morale, etc should not be arbitrarily combined into one highly abstracted mechanic. I hope UG Civil War separates these things into their own entities.

Also, reading the terrain for things like obstacles and height was extremely difficult. I usually gave up on trying to position cannon correctly for example. I hope that UG Civil War has a much more clear and "readable" terrain. I would like to see color coded and icon based map overlays for things like height, terrain type (corn field, grass, marsh, forest), obstacles, etc that makes clear the bonuses and penalties.

Another thing I think would benefit the game is a "timed execution" option for orders. I think the player should be able to give different units different orders and have them execute at the same time or in a specific order and timing.

 

[michaelsmithern]

14 hours ago, Riekopo said:

 

Also, reading the terrain for things like obstacles and height was extremely difficult. I usually gave up on trying to position cannon correctly for example. I hope that UG Civil War has a much more clear and "readable" terrain. I would like to see color coded and icon based map overlays for things like height, terrain type (corn field, grass, marsh, forest), obstacles, etc that makes clear the bonuses and penalties.

Another thing I think would benefit the game is a "timed execution" option for orders. I think the player should be able to give different units different orders and have them execute at the same time or in a specific order and timing.

 

well UG: Gettysburg had a terrain map feature that showed the Topography, which really helped a lot of players when placing units. Although like yourself i never really got a good control of arty, so i usually just let it do it's thing until i was certain i could move it up and not have it be destroyed, if at least half of the guns fired, i didn't move all the batteries. as for the other terrains like grass and what not, i thought it was fairly easy to distinguish the two, grass was mostly just the green on the map, aside from the forest which had trees, corn was usually yellow, rivers blue, and it was a rocky formation it usually had grass with some rocks mixed in. 

 

as for timed execution, sounds interesting wouldn't mind it, although not sure it's entirely needed since you can just push the units up yourself...although it would be helpful if you have a large army.

[Llewellyn Jones RN]

Camera angles would help change that if you could zoom into regiment level so you could see what the unit sees would be nice.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Llewellyn Jones RN

[Kolakhan]

I would love to be able to zoom in somewhat closer.  Also I was really hoping for a "dynamic" campaign but my early impression this is just a bunch of battles linked together.  Can you at least lose a battle and still progress or is this like Order of Battle: World War II where if you lose a battle you have to keep playing it over and over until you win or the game stops? 

[Lincolns Mullet]

You can definitely lose battles and continue. You will still gain some cash and men even with a loss, but you will lose reputation. Lose too much reputation and you will be relieved of command (game over). In fact, its imperative to know when to retreat/withdraw from a battle you know you are no longer able to win. Don't continue losing men if there's no chance of winning. This is where a good General swallows his pride to save lives but lose reputation. They can live to fight another day and hopefully win that next battle.