UGCW Feedback v0.90+

[maojoejoe]

On 6/17/2017 at 7:00 PM, quicksabre said:

I tend to divide casualties by about 4 for roleplaying purposes.  It isn't ideal, but it generally makes sense.

Yeah it definitely is not ideal. Seeing the enemy army take 75% or more losses really just destroys immersion for me; especially when they come back in the next battle (like 3-6 months later) with a full strength army again. 

[vren55]

My issue is that the AI pool is great... buuuut the reinforcements they get can be prettttyyy stupid.

My CSA Army just finished Gettysburg (Brig Gen Difficulty). AI had a pool of 92-97k troops. I gave them a beating, shown here:

Yeah I pulled off a Take Cemetery Hill on the First Day thing, but here's what occurred.... I would screenshot, but the max total size of post isn't letting me do this sooo insert comedy

*cough*

*Captured Reports*

"Dear sir bla bla bla we can still fight General Ronald Spiers (my commander)*

Reply: "General Headquarters is unable to provide more soldiers, but I"ve managed to convince them to send weapons and ammunition. A supply of brand new rifles and cannon are being shipped to you and should arrive shortly"

Me: Okay that's fine. I'll just accelerate replacing my vets guns with Richmonds. No biggie. *reads on*

*** Urgent Report***

Dear General Ronald Spiers we have to warn you that the enemy is sending multiple infantry divisions toward you by rail. We estimate that they are more than 55000 soldiers with unknown number of cannon. It appears after the Battle of Gettysburg, the Federals are mobilizing for a major operation against you.

Me: *puts down paper, puts head into hands* notices that the men count for AI army pool is 122K.

WHYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cause seriously. How. It's freaking 1863. I've won every battle minor and major with men to spare. How are the federals able to magic 55,000 men by this point of the war? Just what IS the AI's army pool reinforcement algorithm that it can pull this out?

 

Edited June 25, 2017 by vren55

[Andre Bolkonsky]

On 6/24/2017 at 10:48 AM, BerretBonden said:

It would be nice to see rolling cloud shadows move across the land while you play. Rain possibly, snow.

 

No. Thank you. Last thing I want to deal with is rain and dry powder.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

2 hours ago, vren55 said:

My issue is that the AI pool is great... buuuut the reinforcements they get can be prettttyyy stupid.

My CSA Army just finished Gettysburg (Brig Gen Difficulty). AI had a pool of 92-97k troops. I gave them a beating, shown here:

Yeah I pulled off a Take Cemetery Hill on the First Day thing, but here's what occurred.... I would screenshot, but the max total size of post isn't letting me do this sooo insert comedy

*cough*

*Captured Reports*

"Dear sir bla bla bla we can still fight General Ronald Spiers (my commander)*

Reply: "General Headquarters is unable to provide more soldiers, but I"ve managed to convince them to send weapons and ammunition. A supply of brand new rifles and cannon are being shipped to you and should arrive shortly"

Me: Okay that's fine. I'll just accelerate replacing my vets guns with Richmonds. No biggie. *reads on*

*** Urgent Report***

Dear General Ronald Spiers we have to warn you that the enemy is sending multiple infantry divisions toward you by rail. We estimate that they are more than 55000 soldiers with unknown number of cannon. It appears after the Battle of Gettysburg, the Federals are mobilizing for a major operation against you.

Me: *puts down paper, puts head into hands* notices that the men count for AI army pool is 122K.

WHYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cause seriously. How. It's freaking 1863. I've won every battle minor and major with men to spare. How are the federals able to magic 55,000 men by this point of the war? Just what IS the AI's army pool reinforcement algorithm that it can pull this out?

 

I wouldn't worry about it to much. Ronald Spiers and Tertius both know the value of his men thinking he was the meanest, toughest son of a bitch in the whole Roman legion. 

No Smoking, Ronald! We need the prisoners alive this time!

[Hitorishizuka]

On 6/25/2017 at 4:32 PM, vren55 said:

Cause seriously. How. It's freaking 1863. I've won every battle minor and major with men to spare. How are the federals able to magic 55,000 men by this point of the war? Just what IS the AI's army pool reinforcement algorithm that it can pull this out?

It gets worse. This is post-Chickamauga (Victory).

[vren55]

2 hours ago, Hitorishizuka said:

On June 25, 2017 at 4:32 PM, vren55 said:

 

It gets worse. This is post-Chickamauga (Victory).

Whaaat. Okay devs, explain? I am not looking for a fix. I just want to know how and why 

[vren55]

On June 25, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

I wouldn't worry about it to much. Ronald Spiers and Tertius both know the value of his men thinking he was the meanest, toughest son of a bitch in the whole Roman legion. 

No Smoking, Ronald! We need the prisoners alive this time!

No smoking indeed!

[Zagor]

Hi, all. Compliments for everything you have done with the game so far. One suggestion about artillery. Artillery should surender to an overwhelming force that attacks it and cannons should became available to winning force at the field. Similar like the supply wagon. If that is not possible due to game mechanics, then artillery should surender to larger force exactly as infantry does. Situations where 200 artillery man fight with 2000 soldiers to the death is little ridiculos. 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

9 hours ago, Zagor said:

Hi, all. Compliments for everything you have done with the game so far. One suggestion about artillery. Artillery should surender to an overwhelming force that attacks it and cannons should became available to winning force at the field. Similar like the supply wagon. If that is not possible due to game mechanics, then artillery should surender to larger force exactly as infantry does. Situations where 200 artillery man fight with 2000 soldiers to the death is little ridiculos. 

At one point during game development, Artillery batteries would dissolve if touched. They may be a bit tougher than they should be now, but it beats the previous alternative. 

[Major Grigg]

10 hours ago, Zagor said:

Hi, all. Compliments for everything you have done with the game so far. One suggestion about artillery. Artillery should surender to an overwhelming force that attacks it and cannons should became available to winning force at the field. Similar like the supply wagon. If that is not possible due to game mechanics, then artillery should surender to larger force exactly as infantry does. Situations where 200 artillery man fight with 2000 soldiers to the death is little ridiculos. 

I like the idea of them being used by the force that captured them due to the fact that this actually happend. 

[A. P. Hill]

1 hour ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

At one point during game development, Artillery batteries would dissolve if touched. They may be a bit tougher than they should be now, but it beats the previous alternative. 

Civil war batteries as a rule and by the nature of the "beast" ... unarmed gunners ... usually lost every melee fight they got into.   It's tough going up against an armed enemy with rammer staffs, worm staffs, and handspikes.   So yeah, I would expect them to pretty much vaporize or capitulate almost immediately.   I've seen completely armed units go up against unarmed artillery who melees for the better part of 10 minutes real time and then watched as the attacking unit routed.   Completely and totally unrealistically. 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Just now, A. P. Hill said:

Civil war batteries as a rule and by the nature of the "beast" ... unarmed gunners ... usually lost every melee fight they got into.   It's tough going up against an armed enemy with rammer staffs, worm staffs, and handspikes.   So yeah, I would expect them to pretty much vaporize or capitulate almost immediately.   I've seen completely armed units go up against unarmed artillery who melees for the better part of 10 minutes real time and then watched as the attacking unit routed.   Completely and totally unrealistically. 

This is a game. It is not a reinactment. 

Sorry, my old friend; but we've had this conversation before and the answer will never change. 

[Bigjku]

1 minute ago, A. P. Hill said:

Civil war batteries as a rule and by the nature of the "beast" ... unarmed gunners ... usually lost every melee fight they got into.   It's tough going up against an armed enemy with rammer staffs, worm staffs, and handspikes.   So yeah, I would expect them to pretty much vaporize or capitulate almost immediately.   I've seen completely armed units go up against unarmed artillery who melees for the better part of 10 minutes real time and then watched as the attacking unit routed.   Completely and totally unrealistically. 

Touching artillery for infantry is basically death to your stamina regardless of if you win.  Something is off there.

Ideally the gunners should just run away and abandon the battery.  Then be able to reoccupy it later if not caught and killed.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

2 minutes ago, Bigjku said:

Touching artillery for infantry is basically death to your stamina regardless of if you win.  Something is off there.

Ideally the gunners should just run away and abandon the battery.  Then be able to reoccupy it later if not caught and killed.

Spike the guns!

 

[civsully1]

I believe this still to be an area for improvement before final release. Arty batteries and their men had the one, maybe two shots to break an assault within 100 yards and that's IF they had cannister shot available and loaded. Now that might be different if there was a sufficient sized unit holding a position just forward of the batteries to provide the firepower to break an assault/charge before reaching the arty.

I think the comments above concern a larger infantry/cavalry unit attacking an isolated battery without close supporting infantry. In which case one maybe two shots fired probably wouldn't stop the attack. The likelihood that artillerymen would be able to repel or successfully survive a melee with 500+ and more infantry would be rare if not impossible.

I've seen in the game where a 500 cavalry unit of vets charge and attack isolated arty battery that didn't get off a shot before melee and see it repel the charge.

Sorry AB but in this case I think you're wrong and A.P is correct.  I'm willing to change my opinion if you can find historical evidence on a routine occurrence that arty batteries were able to withstand melee attacks by infantry/cav units greater than several hundred men+ in good condition. And I think the early tendencies to break is more realistic than what we see now.

I think that there should be a "harsh penalty" for leaving your arty exposed to direct attack without a screening force of infantry or cav. And that would be the routing of the artillerymen and the abandonment of their guns.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

3 hours ago, civsully1 said:

I believe this still to be an area for improvement before final release. Arty batteries and their men had the one, maybe two shots to break an assault within 100 yards and that's IF they had cannister shot available and loaded. Now that might be different if there was a sufficient sized unit holding a position just forward of the batteries to provide the firepower to break an assault/charge before reaching the arty.

I think the comments above concern a larger infantry/cavalry unit attacking an isolated battery without close supporting infantry. In which case one maybe two shots fired probably wouldn't stop the attack. The likelihood that artillerymen would be able to repel or successfully survive a melee with 500+ and more infantry would be rare if not impossible.

I've seen in the game where a 500 cavalry unit of vets charge and attack isolated arty battery that didn't get off a shot before melee and see it repel the charge.

Sorry AB but in this case I think you're wrong and A.P is correct.  I'm willing to change my opinion if you can find historical evidence on a routine occurrence that arty batteries were able to withstand melee attacks by infantry/cav units greater than several hundred men+ in good condition. And I think the early tendencies to break is more realistic than what we see now.

I think that there should be a "harsh penalty" for leaving your arty exposed to direct attack without a screening force of infantry or cav. And that would be the routing of the artillerymen and the abandonment of their guns.

This has nothing to do with historical evidence. Infantry is intentionally stationed around artillery to protect the gunners, has been since the days of Tercios and Squares. It is no great trick to cite battles where gunners were driven off, and later returned to their guns. This is why spiking artillery is so necessary for an attacking army. But you can't model that in this game. Sorry. 

This matter is purely a matter of game balance. In game terms, artillery becomes obsolete if it shatters at the first sound of a bugle. it is too expensive, too valuable, too necessary to be that vulnerable. Can't happen. Sorry. There are no provisions for recovering a shattered unit in the current game build, and adding it would be highly problematic. 

Probably won't change, but I'm hardly the final word on the matter. 

[A. P. Hill]

Sorry, I don't buy the Ironman artillery battery defense theory just because it's a game.  Everyone here has made various arguments and points for historical accuracy regarding infantry, cavalry, and including artillery with regard to damage delt with various rounds, and yet you want to look the other way regarding accuracy when it comes to melee with an unsupported, unarmed artillery battery of 110 men against a 200 or more man units of armed and lethal enemy units?

Yeah, I get it!

 

NOT!

Please insert another quarter and try again.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I'm out of quarters and I don't care anymore. 

I have given you the logical reasoning behind the decision as I understand it. Take it for what it's worth. You're arguing with the wrong guy; but if I had the power to start changing things in this game, that one would be WAAAAAY down the list. 

[Major Grigg]

16 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

I'm out of quarters and I don't care anymore. 

I have given you the logical reasoning behind the decision as I understand it. Take it for what it's worth. You're arguing with the wrong guy; but if I had the power to start changing things in this game, that one would be WAAAAAY down the list. 

What would be towards the top of your list? 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

1 hour ago, Major Grigg said:

What would be towards the top of your list? 

Cracking the code on Camp. Fixing all the little things like naming your own divisions / pick your own commander's portrait / be able to rename commanders coming out of the academy. Be able to split/combine brigades. Creating a way for units to drop their weapons and/or their leaders in order to better organize your troops. And, actually, drop all the brigades into a big bucket and allow the player to build his corps individually without being required to shuffle, shuffle, shuffle after every battle. 

This is where I would begin. And none of this is happening either. 

Doesn't mean the game is broken, just means its not perfect. But what is? 

[Major Grigg]

2 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Cracking the code on Camp. Fixing all the little things like naming your own divisions / pick your own commander's portrait / be able to rename commanders coming out of the academy. Be able to split/combine brigades. Creating a way for units to drop their weapons and/or their leaders in order to better organize your troops. And, actually, drop all the brigades into a big bucket and allow the player to build his corps individually without being required to shuffle, shuffle, shuffle after every battle. 

This is where I would begin. And none of this is happening either. 

Doesn't mean the game is broken, just means its not perfect. But what is? 

Naming divisions would be way nice. I agree with you there. 

[A. P. Hill]

3 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

.... You're arguing with the wrong guy; ... 

Sorry, but you're confused.

I'm not arguing anything. Just stating historical fact. 

[Nanocapitan]

I am not sure if is here where i must post this so, sorry if i am wrong.

I have some suggestions to improve and complete Ultimate General Civil War.

 I am a fervent gamer of your ultima games saga. I think you have improved a lot the experience with the last one but i would like to share with you some suggestion if i can.

 

 First: supplies carriage: put the option of supply to a specific unit on battlefield. Because when you have low supply and you need give ammo urgently to a specific brigade to keep firing, and you cannot take it off from the frontline, your supplies go to the other brigades near you want to give it all. That is important to distribute ammo as well as possible.

 

 Second: in custom battle, when we decide our own battle and army, it would be great have the option of upgrade the brigade paying for that, to get several stars of experience.

 

 Third: Custom battle, when finish timer, give to us the chance to keep fighting to finish the maneuver. Give the chance to exterminate the enemy completely.

 

 Fourth: It would be awesome can play campaing in cooperative mode, 1vs1 or 2 agains the AI. Thats sound so great and i will pay an extra for that ^^ Please consider it

 

 Fifth: cavalry must be stronger when charge. I used it to charge against artys, supplies (in that case works very well) and against skirmishers. I launch to attack with melee specific weapons and swords to kill faster small units, but it take long time to kill the unit and usually i miss a lot of my horse riders and i dont get the objetive to eliminate enemy unit completely. I think cavalry must be devastating when charge against small and medium units and against infantry brigade if is running away.

 

 Sixth: When I want to exchange two officers each other, for example; officer of first brigade i want to move it to lead the Second brigade, and the other lead the First brigade, you know? but if I have not a officer on reserve list i cant.

 

 Seventh: Multiplayer mode please. I suppose that it's on way and in that case, put the option of turn off the timer to extend the experience and enjoy more and better the game. And add Multi Player option, i mean, 2 vs2, etc.

 

 I hope be heard by devs. see you on battlefield generals!

[civsully1]

53 minutes ago, Nanocapitan said:

I am not sure if is here where i must post this so, sorry if i am wrong.

I have some suggestions to improve and complete Ultimate General Civil War.

 I am a fervent gamer of your ultima games saga. I think you have improved a lot the experience with the last one but i would like to share with you some suggestion if i can.

 

 First: supplies carriage: put the option of supply to a specific unit on battlefield. Because when you have low supply and you need give ammo urgently to a specific brigade to keep firing, and you cannot take it off from the frontline, your supplies go to the other brigades near you want to give it all. That is important to distribute ammo as well as possible.

 

 Second: in custom battle, when we decide our own battle and army, it would be great have the option of upgrade the brigade paying for that, to get several stars of experience.

 

 Third: Custom battle, when finish timer, give to us the chance to keep fighting to finish the maneuver. Give the chance to exterminate the enemy completely.

 

 Fourth: It would be awesome can play campaing in cooperative mode, 1vs1 or 2 agains the AI. Thats sound so great and i will pay an extra for that ^^ Please consider it

 

 Fifth: cavalry must be stronger when charge. I used it to charge against artys, supplies (in that case works very well) and against skirmishers. I launch to attack with melee specific weapons and swords to kill faster small units, but it take long time to kill the unit and usually i miss a lot of my horse riders and i dont get the objetive to eliminate enemy unit completely. I think cavalry must be devastating when charge against small and medium units and against infantry brigade if is running away.

 

 Sixth: When I want to exchange two officers each other, for example; officer of first brigade i want to move it to lead the Second brigade, and the other lead the First brigade, you know? but if I have not a officer on reserve list i cant.

 

 Seventh: Multiplayer mode please. I suppose that it's on way and in that case, put the option of turn off the timer to extend the experience and enjoy more and better the game. And add Multi Player option, i mean, 2 vs2, etc.

 

 I hope be heard by devs. see you on battlefield generals!

Nice post Nano! I really like item #1. This would be great but I fear the coding to do so might probe to be a challenge. But if doable it would be something! !

[civsully1]

8 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

I'm out of quarters and I don't care anymore. 

I have given you the logical reasoning behind the decision as I understand it. Take it for what it's worth. You're arguing with the wrong guy; but if I had the power to start changing things in this game, that one would be WAAAAAY down the list. 

So AB, I appreciate your thoughts and contributions while interacting with us here on the forum. I'm sure as a tester you present solid input to the Development Team. Now I think I and AP may be more right than wrong on the Cav vs Arty issue but I respect your side of the argument too. Keep up the good work!