Purchased - I'd like to like UGCW as I do UGG

[MikeK]

Love UGG. After finding that a new game was available on this site and briefly looking for a manual or guide to features, hotkeys, config etc., I bought it on the strength of UGG.

I expected Civil War to look and play much like UGG but with strategic elements. Nice map graphics, though somehow less period-charming. The command UI seems to have problems. Detach skirmishers is a good feature if it plays well, but how about M for elevation?  Playing what I think is the intro scenario, it played very differently from UGG.

The quick access unit bar is nice, but if double clicking does not take me to the unit or commander, it's not much use.  Unlike UGG< where friendly units and enemy in LOS were very easily seen and identified on the map zoomed out, UGCW with its wooded terrain in particular makes the units far less visible and the text and labels are more subtle (harder to see). I miss the flag cues, and the flag's ability to make a unit more visible. With time running, a couple of units that retired a long way got a nice nap for themselves since they blended so well with the terrain. I'm rather discouraged by the visuals - I'd gladly take unattractive NATO counters plopped on the map as practical alternative to the ways the units look on my screen. And thicker, more visible fonts as well.  

I've played realtime games and know well how it rankles to struggle with unit location and identification rather than seeing things at a glance. Losing visual track of my general easily was particularly a negative.

How do those of you without the sharpest eyes see this?

Reference to a manual or guide would help. Any other advice on the UI issues would help.

Thank you

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by MikeK

[Koro]

Read my tips for new players thread in the stickies.  

Should be plenty to get you started with the tutorials there. 

[sukha]

I actually went from playing UG:CW to UG:G and I could not stand it. The controls are all awkward, the rotation of units is horrible, unit selection and movement by drawing lines and circles is terribad. Double click to halt a unit?!? Wth kind of controls are that?!?

One thing I liked was the Topography map and the range indicators on cannons for 3 different rounds. Other than that I just quit the game and went back to playing Civil War.

How do you lose your general? Its literally a massive STAR on the battlefield. Double clicking on a unit icon on the bottom does center the camera on that unit...The flags were another thing that annoyed me in UG:G, felt like a waste of space on my screen. I know I am Union or Confederate, I don't need a flag on every unit to tell me that.

Artistically I find UG:CW much more sleek and sexy looking unlike UG:G with its overblown UI fonts and stark color contrasts.

Overall your complaints are very subjective and I doubt that developers are going to redo the whole UI and art style because it doesn't fancy you. You cannot please everyone, consider yourself collateral damage in the never ending cycle of improving and change.

[Speedkermit]

I agree with MikeK. I preferred the visuals and UI from UG:G. The game is still early access so feedback should be welcomed.

I'm quite surprised that we have no elevation map functionality yet.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

21 hours ago, Koro said:

Read my tips for new players thread in the stickies.  

Should be plenty to get you started with the tutorials there. 

 

You have some excellent tips in your guide. A lot of this stuff is going to fix itself when they finish shuffling code, God willing. But I agree the Army Org and Recon are the best two paths. In fact, my first commander for the US campaign was Nathan Brittles, a career US Cavalry commander from West Point; and, as some have surmised already, he looks a hell of a lot like John Wayne. 

Besides. I love a gamer with the stones to say that understanding his philosophy requires reading Sun Tzu's Art of War. Tell them to throw a copy of Clausewitz from West Point in there. Oh, and Basil Liddel-Hart's 'Strategy' just because of his analysis of Jackson's Foot Cavalry; and his statement that Sherman's Indirect Approach out of Georgia to the Atlantic Coast is the first modern 'blitzkrieg' in history. .  

With all respect . . . . 

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

"M" for map contours would be nice like in UGG because that always helped me micro my artillery.  Artillery is much easier in this game but is less murderous so I am that much more interested in maximizing its effectiveness, especially when on offense. 

double-click on a unit in the quick bar to center on it is a good idea. 

On 12/6/2016 at 9:24 PM, MikeK said:

...With time running, a couple of units that retired a long way got a nice nap for themselves since they blended so well with the terrain...

Thank you

Mike

Yeah man I feel you on this... best advice is to keep an eye on your mini map. 

[z4ys]

I guess terrain didn't effect artillery in UG: CW like it do in UG: G. I know for sure that artillery can shoot behind ridges which wasn't possible in UG: G.

To do as much dmg you need a cannon with high dmg in short range and caught the enemy in open field as close as possible without that the canons can be focused.

[Koro]

Just to clear something up - double clicking on an icon takes you to the unit in question.

On 8/12/2016 at 2:39 AM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

 

You have some excellent tips in your guide. A lot of this stuff is going to fix itself when they finish shuffling code, God willing. But I agree the Army Org and Recon are the best two paths. In fact, my first commander for the US campaign was Nathan Brittles, a career US Cavalry commander from West Point; and, as some have surmised already, he looks a hell of a lot like John Wayne. 

Besides. I love a gamer with the stones to say that understanding his philosophy requires reading Sun Tzu's Art of War. Tell them to throw a copy of Clausewitz from West Point in there. Oh, and Basil Liddel-Hart's 'Strategy' just because of his analysis of Jackson's Foot Cavalry; and his statement that Sherman's Indirect Approach out of Georgia to the Atlantic Coast is the first modern 'blitzkrieg' in history. .  

With all respect . . . . 

Thanks Andre. Much appreciated :). I enjoyed Sun Tzu's art of war a lot and while it seems so simple what he says in there, once you take his thoughts "to the field", so to speak, they really start to make sense.

[MikeK]

Thank you Koro - guides are helpful. The in-game help is a good start but the how to and why of the battle set-up process could be made clear. "Deploy" 5/3 is a little cryptic. 

Can you briefly explain the conditions under which a unit surrenders and how exactly they are liberated?  

Moving mutli-brigade formations as a whole seems harder now.  Issuing a right click group order and rotating can give a coherent formation at some angles and otherwise a jumble of light green shapes. Didn't have the trouble in Gettysburg - is there a trick to it?

I spent too much time trying to find an elevation or LOS feature or distinctive design elements to identify rises and dells to use the lay of the land including rear slopes and better LOS.  Other than the gross features and the lamp post marking a vantage point, I'm not seeing these subtleties of the terrain artwork as in UGG.

This is a stylish approach, especially in Gettysburg, and many 19th century topograhic drawings used styled lines of varying width, length and separation as well as shading, shapes etc. to provide practical contour info.  LOS shadowing would do.

I suppose if it is true that elevations are disregarded for artillery LOS as Ii read, it sort of mitigates this in one respect. 

 

On 12/6/2016 at 10:30 PM, sukha said:

I actually went from playing UG:CW to UG:G and I could not stand it. The controls are all awkward, the rotation of units is horrible, unit selection and movement by drawing lines and circles is terribad. Double click to halt a unit?!? Wth kind of controls are that?!?

Effective. They were experimenting with something beyond roping units with dopey rectangles, and it worked.  

at 10:30 PM, sukha said:

How do you lose your general? Its literally a massive STAR on the battlefield. Double clicking on a unit icon on the bottom does center the camera on that unit...The flags were another thing that annoyed me in UG:G, felt like a waste of space on my screen. I know I am Union or Confederate, I don't need a flag on every unit to tell me that.

On 12/6/2016 at 10:30 PM, sukha said:

He can get washed out in a jumble of similar colors as in towns, but as for disappearing he was just gone from the battle but popped up again after the battle none the worse for wear, apparently not even wounded.  Maybe his horse was shot and carried him off the field?  

Civil War enthusiasts appreciate flags (especially correct ones, though that takes work) - it was one of the last wars in which standards were tactically important. Now there are badge icons which are OK.

 

On 12/6/2016 at 10:30 PM, sukha said:

Overall your complaints are very subjective and I doubt that developers are going to redo the whole UI and art style because it doesn't fancy you. You cannot please everyone, consider yourself collateral damage in the never ending cycle of improving and change.

 

I am thinking you do not know that what "subjective" means is not what you think it means. I have stated some facts, some opinions, some likes and dislikes, some of which are subjective and some not. It is objectively true that larger font sizes and color contrasts are among things that make it easier and faster for the normal user to scan and process information, and that in the field of presenting information and UIs there are effective and ineffective approaches. With superior perception, you may see visual aids as useless crutches and clutter but that would an objective statement of your subjective experience and not reliably applicable in general to new players or those visually impaired.

There's no need to be snarky, so as you went beyond the call of duty and made the extra effort I shall do you the courtesy of appreciating your wit in this regard. And I do concede that UGCW does have a nice and stylish look.  What UGG and Sid Meier before that were after was bringing the look of the battle illustrations in the old American Heritage Civil War book to life, and well executed that was. 

 

[sukha]

7 hours ago, MikeK said:

I am thinking you do not know that what "subjective" means is not what you think it means. I have stated some facts, some opinions, some likes and dislikes, some of which are subjective and some not. It is objectively true that larger font sizes and color contrasts are among things that make it easier and faster for the normal user to scan and process information, and that in the field of presenting information and UIs there are effective and ineffective approaches. With superior perception, you may see visual aids as useless crutches and clutter but that would an objective statement of your subjective experience and not reliably applicable in general to new players or those visually impaired.

Bigger or smaller font and color schemes are a matter of taste as you do not hold the right to deem what a "normal" user is.  The developer is at liberty here to express its artistic style at will and it is your "Personal Taste" that dictates if you like it or not, hence its subjective.

You also complain about controls without seemingly having fully explored them. Generals do disappear when they are killed. Rotation holding shift will always face where your mouse cursor is, no need to even look at the green outline.

The new way of moving multiple units is to hold right click and draw a line to which the army will align. Its weird that they removed the drag movement option when selecting a whole army tho.

When it comes to flags I think they should be a part of the Brigade model itself, there should be a visible flag bearer. That would be both realistic/historically correct and just plain cool looking without cluttering the AI itself. Maybe even have the brigade Officer with a saber present.

They could also bring back the cool MAP outline around the game like UGG had, maybe devs tried it and it looked out of place with how the aesthetics are a bit more realistic looking this time around.

The topography lines like UGG is supposedly in the works.

Edited December 10, 2016 by sukha

[Koro]

12 hours ago, MikeK said:

Thank you Koro - guides are helpful. The in-game help is a good start but the how to and why of the battle set-up process could be made clear. "Deploy" 5/3 is a little cryptic. 

Can you briefly explain the conditions under which a unit surrenders and how exactly they are liberated?  

Moving mutli-brigade formations as a whole seems harder now.  Issuing a right click group order and rotating can give a coherent formation at some angles and otherwise a jumble of light green shapes. Didn't have the trouble in Gettysburg - is there a trick to it?

I spent too much time trying to find an elevation or LOS feature or distinctive design elements to identify rises and dells to use the lay of the land including rear slopes and better LOS.  Other than the gross features and the lamp post marking a vantage point, I'm not seeing these subtleties of the terrain artwork as in UGG.

This is a stylish approach, especially in Gettysburg, and many 19th century topograhic drawings used styled lines of varying width, length and separation as well as shading, shapes etc. to provide practical contour info.  LOS shadowing would do.

I suppose if it is true that elevations are disregarded for artillery LOS as Ii read, it sort of mitigates this in one respect. 

Glad my guides were helpful. 5/3 means that you can deploy 3 out of your 5 brigades.

It's not exactly clear anymore what causes a unit to surrender though heavy pressure is one of them. In the beta, it was rather easy to get units to surrender and the chance was turned down. Maybe it's a roll of a dice as a unit is routing. They are liberated though when coming in to direct melee contact with a friendly unit. Even your general can recapture units and capture supplies f.x. which can occasionally be useful.

There is no LOS feature like UGG but I haven't quite understood the calls for it .To me, it is clear what is up and down and if in doubt, you zoom in close in 3D mode and see the terrain very clearly.

I think the reasons why artillery has easier LOS than in UGG is the massive amount of complaints from people about their guns not firing. So this is taking some micromanagement out of your hands.

[MikeK]

Makes design sense given pacing. Thanks for the tips. 

Didn't see a 3D setting - just vsync and screen res and windowing - but  I can see how that would be helpful.

[Koro]

It's not a true setting but changes the angle of the camera, next to the map

[MikeK]

Yes, I saw the TAB changes the view angle, but that and scrolling in and out still is not that helpful in finding ridgelines and defilade positions behind them.

Of course, if the ground doesn't block or buffer shot, and if shot doesn't ricochet on even ground, then this kind of tactoca; detail doesn't matter in the game. Which when it gets into a large number of brigades is arguably while an essential consideration it is a low-level issue.  

 

 

[MikeK]

I like the game. I am getting used to the mechancis, though elevation/LOS remains an issue and I'm waiting to figure out revised scaling.

 

 Panic from remote or implausible flank or rear threats seems excessive, but better that we overdone than underdone - the Civil War was all about officers with similar forces and similar tactical approaches on either side trying to outflank each other.