Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Riekopo

What could this game learn from Sid Meier's Gettysburg/Antietam?

Recommended Posts

I've been playing Sid Mierer's Civil War Collection and really love the game even after all these years. It's a real gem. I love the little videos and narration especially. I was wondering what you guys and gals think this game could learn from that old game.? I definitely think there are some things that Sid Meier's does better, but I'd like to read what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sound. The drums and fifes and rebel yells from those two games are some of my greatest early gaming memories from when I was a kid. While the sound in UG:CW is by no means bad, it's just not a strong point in the game and I can completely understand why. Having said that, I really hope Nick and the devs invest more into it because good sound really helps turn a good game into a great game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesny matter, because noone gives a f... about suggestions. Nick and whoever else makes this game has their own vision of the game. Having it from the early access, the only thing that changed is the man pool, and messages in between the battles, thats it. You might write as much as you want, but for what? It wont be in the game. Its its still in the early access to be honest, and couple next month, years are needed to change that.

The very same bugs that exist since day 1 release, are still there. How can anyone dare to call this crap a "full release"? Its a joke.

Edited by Perkon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Perkon said:

It doesny matter, because noone gives a f... about suggestions. Nick and whoever else makes this game has their own vision of the game. Having it from the early access, the only thing that changed is the man pool, and messages in between the battles, thats it. You might write as much as you want, but for what? It wont be in the game. Its its still in the early access to be honest, and couple next month, years are needed to change that.

The very same bugs that exist since day 1 release, are still there. How can anyone dare to call this crap a "full release"? Its a joke.

That's a great attitude to have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It changed. As I wrote, I did support it, buy early, ancouraged others to play it, share links, etc., for what? Just to have another shitty failure early access dissapointment. Should keep lying to myself "it well get better", or just realize what is going on?

As long as all these fanboy keep on licking Nick ass, it wont change. He need to read, and hear that the game suck, and then maybe... maybe there is a change it will get fixed. As long as he only sees "amazing game, etc.", I think he sees no need for any improvements, because why if players are happy with the current state of the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From sid meier's Gettysburg , i remember AI always know how to use the roads. That is the most important feature i miss in UGCW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that those games could let your units entrench wherever on the map. Would have been fun if UGCW had that feature implemented as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Perkon said:

It changed. As I wrote, I did support it, buy early, ancouraged others to play it, share links, etc., for what? Just to have another shitty failure early access dissapointment. Should keep lying to myself "it well get better", or just realize what is going on?

As long as all these fanboy keep on licking Nick ass, it wont change. He need to read, and hear that the game suck, and then maybe... maybe there is a change it will get fixed. As long as he only sees "amazing game, etc.", I think he sees no need for any improvements, because why if players are happy with the current state of the game?

Interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Col_Kelly said:

I read somewhere that those games could let your units entrench wherever on the map. Would have been fun if UGCW had that feature implemented as well.

I'm not so sure about that. The entrenching might not be that useful in most missions and might be redundant with the fortifications/earthworks. Also, fortifications as of now are not very reliable anyway. I would rather have something like a "Hit the Ground" mechanic which will provide some cover bonus but immobilizes the unit. It would be useful in a shootout in open terrain with no cover. Whether this will be available to infantry brigades or to skirmishers only is up for debate.

For longevity and replayability, a multiplayer mode may be good. Historical battles with 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 (with each player controlling 3, 2 or 1 corps each) would be very fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Col_Kelly said:

I read somewhere that those games could let your units entrench wherever on the map. Would have been fun if UGCW had that feature implemented as well.

This was a cool feature - units just dug in if you left them in one place for a while. Although it was annoying because the moment the unit moved at all you lost the entrenchments.

The other 'cool feature' I'd pull from those games is morale bonuses for having friendly units on your flank. The result was that when the next unit over broke the unit would lose it's morale boost and could potentially break too if it had been under heavy fire, creating the possibility of a mass route.

 

One thing that really should be in UGCW is, as 'no one' pointed out, a pathfinding mechanic. I'm sick of marching through the woods next to the road instead of on the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hannibalbarca said:

Tell me more about your gratification issues, as a child was mother not alaways there for your needs?, btw is this half hour consult or the full hour?, please make the payment to Freud not fraud this time please....

Good one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2017 at 2:12 PM, Perkon said:

It changed. As I wrote, I did support it, buy early, ancouraged others to play it, share links, etc., for what? Just to have another shitty failure early access dissapointment. Should keep lying to myself "it well get better", or just realize what is going on?

As long as all these fanboy keep on licking Nick ass, it wont change. He need to read, and hear that the game suck, and then maybe... maybe there is a change it will get fixed. As long as he only sees "amazing game, etc.", I think he sees no need for any improvements, because why if players are happy with the current state of the game?

what about this game is so bad and sucks so hard that you accuse all of us as being 'licking nick ass fanboys'?

Edited by william1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2017 at 11:14 AM, william1993 said:

what about this game is so bad and sucks so hard that you accuse all of us as being 'licking nick ass fanboys'?

At least I got a free psychological diagnosis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing this game could learn from Sid Meiers is that having a large, well funded, gaming studio behind you and a large warchest to use on developing your game really, really helps. 

What the companies that back games like the myriad of less successful versions of Civilization and Total War could learn from this game is that small, innovative games that turn the page on gameplay by revolutionizing its aspects are frequently far more fun to play than their glossy big brothers, even if they are a bit rough around the edges. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2017 at 8:15 AM, Riekopo said:

I hope the devs read posts like these and continue to improve the game if it does well enough to afford it.

Certainly, another game will follow this one. The leap from Gettysburg to Civil War was huge. I'll be interested to see what they learned from Civil War and how they'll apply it to their next game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

The best thing this game could learn from Sid Meiers is that having a large, well funded, gaming studio behind you and a large warchest to use on developing your game really, really helps. 

What the companies that back games like the myriad of less successful versions of Civilization and Total War could learn from this game is that small, innovative games that turn the page on gameplay by revolutionizing its aspects are frequently far more fun to play than their glossy big brothers, even if they are a bit rough around the edges. 

Multiplayer is the only saving grace of Total War as of now. Even if we overlook the fact that it's Battle and Campaign AI are both crap (it's not easy to program a good one anyway), their previous releases still have the issue of being a bare bones streamlined game.

On the other hand, Paradox games are still one of the better gaming companies out there even with their expensive DLC practice (they still support their games with free patches though. For instance, EU IV came out in 2013 and was given a treatment of an MMORPG in how the devs continue to support it until now 2017).

Share this post


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

 (it's not easy to program a good [AI Player] anyway)

I agree with you completely. 

I do think that is one of the things Dartis does very well. I've watched the process over the past few months as the play balance swung back and forth during development, and he is pretty meticulous in wanting things to behave properly in the manner that they should. And slowly and methodically the game has become more and more 'realistic' without losing the fun. Because who cares how realistic a game is if it is not fun to play? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strongly disagree, in todays world of crap arcade games made mainly for kindergarden kids, that are supposed to click couple buttons on their gaypads, there are less, and less games that require any thinking, and especially minority that could be called realistic. I strongly support all kinds of realistic games, because thats fun. Realism is fun, just has to be done right. Unfortunately games are nothing else than business, and are made to earn money, therefore as everything else, they are adressed to the widest possible audience, and thats why gaming has been steadily deterioratin in quality over the years, and it wont change. As long as there will be people saying "Because who cares how realistic a game is if it is not fun to play ", things wont get better. If you are spit in the face, and then you say "oh, its raining", then... youd do everything a favor, and just stop being a gamer.

 

 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×