Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Nick Thomadis

UGCW Feedback v1.0+

Recommended Posts

I have suggestion about degameifing scenarion specific units. For example in Chancellorsville as UNION, you get several thousand men armed with spencers. For game purposes, it's best to hold the bridges with as much losses as possible, so that you get those spencers. There is no incentive to save those units. You can't even use them later if you fought well and they reamined on the battlefield. (Which they in my case did, inflicting thousands of casualties and receiving about 30% themselves)

It would be nice, if the game would notice that the player had taken care of those units and gave him a reward for this - for example by saying "The local force was impressed with your skill in battle and commander approved X volunteers to join your army" and player would get some money/manpower, based on percentage of survivors. Even better, receive a unit for cheap or no political points (like Iron Brigade).

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all the game is great. Strikes a nice balance between the detail and realistic complexity of Gettysburg! engine games from 15-20 years back and the faster paced CA games. I don't think I have had this much fun on virtual battlefield since Medieval 1 TW and Austerlitz. The camp is in conception much superior and less distracting from the real deal than TW series' campaign and still preserves the fun of building your own army. And indeed thank you for at least partially adressing those scaling issues from EA that threatened to make the camp rather pointless (and turned me off personally).

Nevertheless some critique and suggestions:

A big one I think is the lack of information in battle deployment. You have no idea besides previous experience of the battle of exactly how useful a given corps is in a battle. Some of the later battles at least remark "tomorrows reinforcements" but simple breakdown, for example when hovering mouse over assigned formation in the pre-battle screen where you assign your corps' would be nice. For example "10 brigades will be available immediately, 5 will be available early on the first day, 5 will be available late on the second day".

The Fredricksburg phase transition is really, really gimmicky and there is absolutely no warning of it. Is it not possible to include the whole map when the Rebel center is opened up ala Shiloh?

Brock road map in the Cold Harbor campaign could use extension to the south by about roundshot's range. There is this really nice patch of woods in SW corner of the map flanked by creeks that is both perfectly accessible even to infantry and also a sensible spot as Union to delay or stop Longstreet's reinforcements and prevent them linking up with Hill on the northern victory point. However at the moment the map is quite congested and you end up spawn camping Longstreet if you deploy into those woods.

Shiloh and Stones River could both use either alternative second day or at least possibility for Union victory on the first (either by standing your ground or via some mild counterattack objective). The sudden Union retreat on Stones River was particularly awkward as I was all the way at Murfreesboro at end of first day.

I'm less certain if there should be chance for second day Union win at Chancellorsville. On the other hand the player may have foreknowledge that Lee is divided and press hard to the south for early victory and Jackson is almost surprisingly easy to delay and stop (some good defensive terrain there), but on the other hand it is odd to take a stab at the southern VPs for third time and being defeated in detail is ultimately the risk in dividing your force as Lee did. Possibly add a foward VP in Jackson's way, hold them all and Union wins on second.

The corps commander MG skill pick (the cavalry/artillery/infantry one) is a virtual no brainer. Meanwhile division commanders are just command stat padding. Move the corps commander MG skill to division commanders (unlocked and chosen at MG rank, perhaps automatically upgraded to slightly stronger form at LG) and give corps commanders new set of second tier skills to choose from.

Minor quibbles:

Allow us to rename random leaders. Some of the names are eyesores and they can get repetitive.

Lorenz and C.S. Richmond: were they really supplied with katana-bayonets unique among minie rifles? The high melee ratings on the pre-minie rifles are bit odd too particularly as these were fairly short weapons.

Burnside and possibly Maynard carbines could use bit buffing I think. The sense of progression with cavalry weapon seems to kinda stall at Sharps at the moment until you have those few Spencers in the end.

Recolour the remaining predominantly bronze artillery pieces. 6 pounder, 12 pounder howitzer, James.

Lastly a random, wild thought: How about an independent cavalry division slot under army command where you can only ever assign cavalry (and possibly a single special slot for a horse artillery) to avoid that "but I would be better off with another infantry brigade" syndrome. Would require probably excessive tuning of the battle deployments I suppose.

Edited by Bounty Jumper
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've finished the game as Union and I was a bit sad that I wasn't given an option to review my soldiers one last time. Some kind of credit roll maybe? It would be fun if the game would recognize a unit which has been with me since the beginning, the unit with the most overall kills, the unit with most losses, the unit which lost the most commanders etc.

 

I've grown to love some of those units. I care. Now they are gone because I've won :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ACW has not been my favourite period to game in the past, although I have read a decent bit of the history. UGCW has changed that and has been a great experience so far (still playing through my first campaign). I love the battlefield tactics part, which are generally easy to understand and adjust to, and look fantastic. I also love the campaign, with the experience of dealing with major decisions of where to focus, medicine vs logistics vs politics, etc. I spend more time in camp than in battle, but it is all very interesting, knowing that what I do will soon be tested in battle. 

Congratulations to Nick and the studio.

I hope in the future to see them tackling events of 80-50 years earlier, which would be spectacular. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, thanks for a marvelous game. I do hope it is not the last game covering the civil war epoc we get from UG.

 

That said, there is always room for improvement, and here is one thing that has been bothering me:

It would be very nice to differentiate skill and grade among the officers of the army. The one surely does not equate the other. Promotion could be earned by showing skill and a good mind for war, but could just as well be a earned through having friends in the right places. Political allegiance or enemies in the wrong places could make or break a military career during the Civil War. (McClellan didn't want Grant to be in the army due to his record of sippin' too much, much of congress didn't like McClellan since he was a democrat, Hood got promoted to army command because Davis liked him, Bragg was kept as an army commander for much the same reason, Meade was almost pushed into resigning after Gettysburg because of Lincoln was irritated at a report indicating the CSA in fact was a foregin nation, etc. etc.) Point is, just because someone showed ability, that didn't mean the officer got promoted. There might not be a vacant place to fill, there might be other aspects to regard. 

If we look at this from an in-game perspective: the player controls the army and it's organisation on a tactical and semi-strategic level. I can create brigades and organise them into divsions and corps. It would make perfect sense that I also want to control who is promoted and when, without regarding the officer's competence. If I want to make an unskilled favourite captain of the artillery into a lt. general with command of and infantry corps, that should be possible. No matter said captains skill as a corps commander. And on the other hand, maybe I don't want to promote that fantastic divison/brigade commander to higher command, since he is invaluable in that position. And naturally, with every promotion (esp those where levels of command have been skipped, i e brigade >>>> corps promotion) there should be a marked drop in skill for that commander. This was shown many times during the war to be the case. Ewell and AP Hill were skilled division commander's, but were less impressive (though competent) as corps commanders.

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, a bit like what Ageod did with it's political point system and varying abilities in their civil war games. It would add some role play element to the game although it would tend to pull it away from the realism / fun strategy balance it has struck right now. As options though it would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 12:00 PM, Bounty Jumper said:

 

Minor quibbles:

Allow us to rename random leaders. Some of the names are eyesores and they can get repetitive.

 

I really like this

On 9/18/2017 at 4:00 PM, darktatka said:

I've finished the game as Union and I was a bit sad that I wasn't given an option to review my soldiers one last time. Some kind of credit roll maybe? It would be fun if the game would recognize a unit which has been with me since the beginning, the unit with the most overall kills, the unit with most losses, the unit which lost the most commanders etc.

 

I've grown to love some of those units. I care. Now they are gone because I've won :(

Also, that would be great.  Some of those brigades had been through hell.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great game just one thing has the battle for south mountain been taken out the 1863 Gettysburg campaign playing the union side on mg mode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ballzack said:

Great game just one thing has the battle for south mountain been taken out the 1863 Gettysburg campaign playing the union side on mg mode?

South mountain is in the game but not in the gettysburg campaign it's in the campaign after 2nd bull run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ceutermark said:

South mountain is in the game but not in the gettysburg campaign it's in the campaign after 2nd bull run

Actually, from what I can see, South Mountain isn't in game. At least from the CSA aspect of the game.  I personally have never played the Yankee side to Antietam yet.

The battle between 2nd Manassas and Antietam is Jackson's possession of Harpers Ferry. 

But you are correct historically.  The battle of South Mountain was in 1862 and not 1863.  That said however, South Mountain played a very minor role in 1863 since the Southern forces used it to screen their March into Pennsylvania. 

Edited by A. P. Hill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since winning as Union, I haven't had the heart to start a new campaign. I miss those units. I've played some scenarios, but I really miss those units. The whole game I was made to care, it's gut wrenching just to take them away. I want the game to recognise the bond.

So If I may, some suggestions:

  • Wall of honour - best units in several categories for union && confederate campaigns.
  • New Game+ - carry over unit or two with their commander, loose their weapons. Or maybe offer them as political prize?
  • Credits - statistics for the campaign for each unit, with maybe units marching on the background (victory parade).
Edited by darktatka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

want to say hello as I just joined this forum and send my congrats for the best strategy game I've played since Panzer General series and it's all variations. 

Although I have some observations derived from both playing the game and intensively researching the overall topic of Civil War. 

1. It would be nice to include weather conditions, as they had a vast influence on troops performance.
2. CSA side didn't use medals, I know it's nice to award the player with a medal, but it's historically inappropriate, the highest honour one could receive (apart from promotion of course) is mentioning in an army order. It's not a big thing, rly. 
3. Uniforms - I know it would make the game less transparent, but unified colours of uniforms (especially for CSA,which had no unified cloth apart from some rare,short-lived exceptions) is also something worth looking at - Black Hats, Zouaves etc. etc. - there were various types of clothing used by these units, worth taking into consideration imho. 
4. More battles :) It would be great not to stop developing more side battles. 
5. Divisional/brigade leaders traits - it would be super neat to introduce an additional system of gaining traits by div/brigade commanders, as it was a thing during the Civil War, not only Corps Commanders had exceptional abilities. 
6. Capturing cannons - come on, ordnance captured and turned around was a battle changer. 
7. Recovering ammo during battle from fallen soldiers, when stamping upon fallen enemy soldiers, the advancing troops would have an option to collect the ammo, it would slow down the move and increase damage if fired upon, but it would add some realism to the game (would be autonomous from captured guns after battle, no impact at all).
8. Supply Wagon - one per corps is a bit low number, maybe divisional wagons would be more on spot. 
9. Landscape influence - the cannon holes on the ground are great, but when firing upon a forrest or buildings the cannon fire should reduce them as well as their cover value (well, really also gunfire caused damage in the landscape). 
10. Formations - simple change of the troop alignment when moving, always the pattern is the same - one line of infantry, skirmishers up front, cav and arty behind, a variation of formations is something the game lacks and it's one of it's major flaws (correct me if I'm wrong and there is a way to make double-three lines of troops).
 

If anything more comes to my mind, I will post it. Correct me if I'm missing something.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dutmistrz said:

10. Formations - simple change of the troop alignment when moving, always the pattern is the same - one line of infantry, skirmishers up front, cav and arty behind, a variation of formations is something the game lacks and it's one of it's major flaws (correct me if I'm wrong and there is a way to make double-three lines of troops).

Yes it would be nice if they offered options and if they go Napoleonic, you're going to need them.

But how?

Choose brigades with left mouse button either by "roping" of using the ctrl key. Choose location to move with right mouse button which causes a pop-up at the point of movement giving options (single line, double line, etc). Choose option with left mouse button, then by rotating mouse give it the direction you want it to face.

Edited by LAVA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LAVA said:

Yes it would be nice if they offered options and if they go Napoleonic, you're going to need them.

But how?

Choose brigades with left mouse button either by "roping" of using the ctrl key. Choose location to move with right mouse button which causes a pop-up at the point of movement giving options (single line, double line, etc). Choose option with left mouse button, then by rotating mouse give it the direction you want it to face.

That would be ok, although I'm curious about one more thing, is there a way to group the units on spot during battle? Ex I want to create an ad hoc diviosn made out of different based brigades? This would easen things a bit; as we know no soldier thinks about his command tree under fire ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 10:22 AM, LAVA said:

Yes it would be nice if they offered options and if they go Napoleonic, you're going to need them.

But how?

Choose brigades with left mouse button either by "roping" of using the ctrl key. Choose location to move with right mouse button which causes a pop-up at the point of movement giving options (single line, double line, etc). Choose option with left mouse button, then by rotating mouse give it the direction you want it to face.

Better alternative: When drawing fronts for your units to deploy at have excess units deploy in ranks instead of adding even more to width. Any formation choices should be reserved to things like line, checkerboard, left echelon, right echelon, etc. Drawing lines so deploy troops in already implemented and is an easy and natural way to determine the shape and length of your lines. The only two problems are the lack of unit pathfinding and insistence on a single shoulder to shoulder line no matter what. If I tell 12 infantry brigades to man a front fit only for 4 the remainder should form ranks 2 and 3. Likewise if the line is too long then they definitely should start spreading out. Nobody in the history of mankind has ever needed skirmishers to line up 3 ranks deep when they have just enough guys to man every last inch of the ridge they were ordered to hold. Implement those changes and Ultimate General's battle UI would be sitting on the event horizon of perfect.

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

×