Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

More battles/features/campaigns? Hell yeah I'd pay for that! I think this game has nearly infinite mileage with something like a scenario/campaign editor, and that seems like something they could do a DLC for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not against DLCs if they are worth the extra money. After all DLCs guarantee that Devs will continue on working on this title. If content and price are fair I would buy instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang, I hate arguing with my favorite CSA general, however, DLCs are not fixes,patches, or updates, but expansions.  They are a way for developers to add a little more content and make a little more money and probably a lot more margin since the basics of the game are in place and working. Remember, if they don't make money, we don't get game.  And I like this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ask the wrong question. 

You have a fixed budget that keeps the lights on and your people paid. You have two options before you, both will take exactly the same amount of time, manpower, and resources. 

Should they: 

Develop a bunch of DLC, multiplayer, thousands of portraits and generals names. Unlimited detail to bog down a very simple, elegant game. 

Or. 

Would you prefer they took everything they learned in this game and start all over at the beginning on a new game entirely using every trick they've learned to this  point? 

Don't know what you'd like to see, but I damn well know which option I prefer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not fine with DLC, Expansion is a better term I'd be willing to support, I only say this, as we can see from DLC Kings like Total War, Paradox, and many other games coming out nowadays, you get a whole bunch of crap or content that should have been in the game, to begin with, Hell paradox is making you pay 15-20 dollars(USD) just so you can use Religious Cults  in CK2 or the Mandate of Heaven for China, and these are things that should have been in the game, to begin with.

An Expansion, however, is once a game is complete, they add on to it, by setting different campaigns of sorts, for instance, you could consider the Warpath Campaign an expansion to Empire Total War, as it's all about dealing with the indigenous tribes in North America or fighting the European powers. 

If I were the Devs the way I'd go about DLC's/Expansions is make a full fleshed out game to add on to this one. but considering It's called Ultimate General: Civil War and the whole game is based around just that, it would be hard to make expansions, as they cover many of the major battles on both fronts. I could see Free DLC in the Form of Micro-organization of your Divisions/Brigades and what not for players that would actually like to do that sort of thing, maybe somewhat if scenario's(as if the game isn't already just that)

Basically, they'd be better expanding towards another game, with what they have learned from this project, while this will be years down the line, I cannot see DLC, Expansions being worth much time to the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would immediately pay a lot if it were a multiplayer DLC.  That way people who play multiplayer can invest in the DLC while people who only play single player don't have to bother.  Plus you could do this after launch.  I guess I was one of the few who played UG online a lot.  

 

Oh and there is no server worry guys.  Like nearly every RTS or Turn Based Strategy game in the last 17 years relies on your pc being the server.  Still have to write all of that protocol though... 

Edited by crazycaptain560

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id be in favor of a "Landmark" DLC.. Say it overhauls  the look of the Dunker Church at Antietam and basically everything on the current Gettysburg map. It would just make the game/map more accurate and immerse you into the history 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 22ndNorthCarolina said:

Id be in favor of a "Landmark" DLC.. Say it overhauls  the look of the Dunker Church at Antietam and basically everything on the current Gettysburg map. It would just make the game/map more accurate and immerse you into the history 

With all due respect, those maps are some of the most visually appealing I've ever seen for a game of this type. 

Take the Cemetery Ridge, phase 2 of Gettysburg. You don't need little signs pointing out the Wheat Field, Devils Den, or the Peach Orchard. If you know what you are looking for, they are very, very easy to spot. 

I can hardly criticize them for using what appears to be the same 'church' buidling at Shiloh, Dunkers Church, etc. And it is unrealistic to think a major investment will be made for that sole purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2017 at 9:13 PM, crazycaptain560 said:

I would immediately pay a lot if it were a multiplayer DLC.  That way people who play multiplayer can invest in the DLC while people who only play single player don't have to bother.  Plus you could do this after launch.  I guess I was one of the few who played UG online a lot.  

 

Oh and there is no server worry guys.  Like nearly every RTS or Turn Based Strategy game in the last 17 years relies on your pc being the server.  Still have to write all of that protocol though... 

And writing that protocol will take a year, to do it properly. History suggests about 5% of the gamers will ever boot up and play multiplayer even one time; and no more than 1-2% of players use mulitplayer more than once. So, who can blame them for not wanting to take that financial hit for something the overwhelming majority of players will never use? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Hobo

Quote

Dang, I hate arguing with my favorite CSA general, ...

Thanks I think.  :)   But we're not arguing, at least not yet!

Quote

... DLCs are not fixes, patches, or updates, but expansions.  They are a way for developers to add a little more content ...

Again, I refer you to my earlier statement ... make it right the first time. (you put all that stuff in before you market and sell it.) I mean there's only so far you can go with a historical recreation before it becomes non-historical.

Quote

... Remember, if they don't make money, we don't get game.  And I like this game.

Of course creating a new title using the same engine has a tendency to generate revenue as well ... not just adding DLC upon DLC.

And I like this game too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't do a DLC, do more games with the same engine adapting it to the times... do a "War of XIX europe" where the player gets to play the crimean war, italian war of independence, austro-prussian and franco-prussian war. Do a Napoleon game, do a War fo Louis XIV/18th century europe game, etc... those are called new games on the same engine, not DLCs. That's what I want to see !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, veji1 said:

Don't do a DLC, do more games with the same engine adapting it to the times... do a "War of XIX europe" where the player gets to play the crimean war, italian war of independence, austro-prussian and franco-prussian war. Do a Napoleon game, do a War fo Louis XIV/18th century europe game, etc... those are called new games on the same engine, not DLCs. That's what I want to see !

Me too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the DLC is great i would pay for it, how a Multiplayer DLC. For this work i would pay the Price.

But i must say: Other Games with the Engine would be better: A Napoleonic War Game or the American Independence Day, or another Way: A Game of Thrones Game with this Engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proper DLC for this IMHO would be simply selling more maps and historical battle sets that you could play as standalones or fold into the campaign.

I would pay $5-$10 each for the following.

Grants river fort campaign

Vicksburg Campaign

Chattanoga campaign to follow Chickugama.

Campaign for Atlanta

Sheridan's valley campaign/confederate 1864 valley campaign

Franklin/Nashville Campaign

Petersburgh, Five Forks, Appomattox Campaign

I recognize that each of those would take work, particularly to fold into the campaign properly, and would be willing to pay for that to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally, i think only DLCs worth paying for must add some interesting gameplay mechanics..  i hate when game devs release DLCs with just some  retexstures etc.. like the CA does..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see a DLC for the Franco-Prussian war of 1871 or the Second Schleswig war, because the time period is almost the same and the weapons that were used are similar. I would prefer if the devs could make an entire seperate game that focused on the wars in Europe including the two mentioned above and maybe the Prusso-Austrian war but i do realise that the studio is small and maybe the don't have the budged to release a new game that could be made into DLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JaM said:

personally, i think only DLCs worth paying for must add some interesting gameplay mechanics..  i hate when game devs release DLCs with just some  retestures etc.. like the CA does..

Exactly. 

Going back to the well too many times just makes the water brackish and undrinkable. 

Take what you've learned, and start again on something new and fresh. In the entire history of Linear Tactics, this is the only interesting conflict worth visiting?

Oh, but please finish the game you're currently working on. First things first.

Then, regroup, take what you've learned. Start all over again on something new.  And, in a couple of years, revisit the whole project all over again. 

UG: CW II, coming Q1 2020. (give or take a couple of years)

I kid, but would not be surprised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i would pay for a DLC if it was a good one that changed the strategic play-ability but not if it was a patch or fix for a bug. i love to see a sand box game of this game were players would form there own battles on the ground they choose with a generated map system

Edited by deltahill

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

×