Post your most wanted sequel to ultimate general no matter how insane they are.

[A. P. Hill]

6 hours ago, JaM said:

not many done right...

Still, way too many.  Give other eras equal time and exposure. 

[JaM]

not all eras are as interesting i'd say... besides, Darth was working on both ETW and NTW mods back in his days.. so why not just show CA how its supposed to be done? 

[Bobby Fiasco]

17 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

Nah, there are way too many of these types of games already.  Spread the love around to some other era.

But few are as awesome as Ultimate General! I would love to make cavalry squares and French attack columns with this engine and AI. Also love the medieval idea.

Whatever it may be, it would be great to have more dynamic battles, i.e.: if I take a point, don't "advance to the next day" and kick me halfway back across the field to where I've given up my hard-won position.

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

Alright, call me crazy, but the next game I want is...

Ultimate General: Civil War II

This game was the most incredible war game of the decade, but there's still so much more potential. Multiple fronts, with a separate campaign in each one? Perhaps even some more speculative scenarios?  General ratings? More customized options concerning flags and such? More roleplay potential? The possibilities are endless!

But given that will probably never happen, I would love a Revolutionary and/or War of 1812 game. 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

3 minutes ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

Ultimate General: Civil War II
 

Greatly enhanced 'Camp' operations

Linked, multi-theater, operational zones

Strategic oversight

Yes

But you're about 10 years too early, I fear. 

[DeRuyter]

6 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

Still, way too many.  Give other eras equal time and exposure. 

You may well be correct but some of those other eras may be too esoteric at least from a business perspective, whilst Napoleonics would be more marketable from a global perspective.

I'd love to see The War of 1812 but that could be sold as DLC for Ultimate General: Napoleon.

[jekct1212]

19 hours ago, LAVA said:

Exactly.

A lot more too it though, but I really shouldn't get into details on a public forum.

This would work well for wwi, different fronts, Somme, Ypres, Mons, Verdun etc.

Or you could have a Napoleonic one where you have to focus on Europe, Africa, the Americas and the peninsula

Edited October 9, 2017 by jekct1212

[JaM]

20 hours ago, DeRuyter said:

You may well be correct but some of those other eras may be too esoteric at least from a business perspective, whilst Napoleonics would be more marketable from a global perspective.

I'd love to see The War of 1812 but that could be sold as DLC for Ultimate General: Napoleon.

Exactly. Napoleonic wars have a lot of marketing potential, while combat of that era is different from Civil War, yet very unique. It would allow implementing different gameplay mechanics, put more emphasis on formations, cavalry battles, artillery concentrations.. Napoleonic era was extremely rich tactics wise, a lot more than Civil war where role of cavalry was very limited and rifles + canister shots would make a quick work of any massed attack.. Can you imagine charge of Cuirassier division against your deployed infantry, rolling down on you in perfect double line formation, while you would be scrambling to adapt the square formations while preparing your hussars  to counter-charge the repelled cuirassiers?

Or have different infantry formations, where you could deploy your regiments in line formations or mixed order or columns, based on what you are trying to achieve,  having multiple types of Infantry, Grenadiers, Fusiliers, Chasseurs, Voltigeurs all with different pros and cons, different tactics, deployments etc etc.. 

 

 

[dutmistrz]

16 minutes ago, JaM said:

Exactly. Napoleonic wars have a lot of marketing potential, while combat of that era is different from Civil War, yet very unique. It would allow implementing different gameplay mechanics, put more emphasis on formations, cavalry battles, artillery concentrations.. Napoleonic era was extremely rich tactics wise, a lot more than Civil war where role of cavalry was very limited and rifles + canister shots would make a quick work of any massed attack.. Can you imagine charge of Cuirassier division against your deployed infantry, rolling down on you in perfect double line formation, while you would be scrambling to adapt the square formations while preparing your hussars  to counter-charge the repelled cuirassiers?

Or have different infantry formations, where you could deploy your regiments in line formations or mixed order or columns, based on what you are trying to achieve,  having multiple types of Infantry, Grenadiers, Fusiliers, Chasseurs, Voltigeurs all with different pros and cons, different tactics, deployments etc etc.. 

 

 

Mother of battles... 

Also that was an era where Jacksonian: "Giv'em the bayonet!" counted more than continuous volleys, a tactical joy to behold. Also the colourfulness of participants, their number would do a great deal. Just to keep the corps management from UG:CW , as with some little additional touches would be near-perfect.  

[A. P. Hill]

It would also offer one more additional thing to the above list.

The inclusion of different uniforms.  

Edited October 19, 2017 by A. P. Hill

[Esprit]

Napoleon!

[jekct1212]

I can see it now. You've formed your highly trained 2 star British line infantry, with the perk that allows them to fire by companies, behind the brow of a low hill. On your right is the Coldstream with its colors proudly flittering in the wind. In front a chain of Green jackets have started peppering the massive French columns that are beating the pas de charge. You can hear them shouting "Vive Le Empereur!" at each break. They smash into your line and your on the ropes until Wellington and his staff gallop up and your morale stabilizes and starts increasing as bagpipes start blaring "Blue bonnets over the border" and highlanders counter charge. You run off the Frog infantry only to see the dazzling array of French cavalry appear out of the fog of war...

[dwin75]

Napoleonic era! 

[Friedrich]

Ultimate General: Crisis, set in Europe during the fall of Rome including the both the crisis of the third century and the fifth century collapse. Could also feature Wars of Justinian .

At the start of the game you pick a culture, the options would essentially be Greco-Roman, German, East Germanic, Oriental/Syrian, Persian, Hunnic, Celtic, and Berber. Each culture would have its own unique predispositions regarding unit types and strategic management. All would include one or more playable factions which would have their own starting situation and objectives. Detailed diplomacy and economic management would be largely ignored although civil vs military investment would be an important aspect and coordinating your moves with non-hostile factions is important as everyone is an underdog in one way or another. The biggest focus would be on growing and maintaining influence over your faction via key military accomplishments.

The Game would be split into four levels of warfare: Strategic, Operational, Battle, and Camp. The Camp and Battle areas would be largely unchanged from UG:CW and UG:G. The camp would essentially just be an improved version of what we have now with more subdivisions of units and an overall greater volume of customization. Similar is true for battles. There it would see some quality of life improvements like autopathing for units when moving long distances and an even better system for drawing frontlines, where each frontline will have units organize into additional ranks if they exceed the designated width and the player has more options so that square, circular, oblique, wedge, etc. formations can be quickly drawn up with little effort. There would also be the usually affair of AI improvements and whatnot. The main change would be to the dynamicism of the battles by allowing players to alter their plan and objectives mid-battle to account for any changes that may occur during it. Battles would end only when both players agree it has and reinforcements can be issued new orders to ensure they they are put to the best use they possibly can be, for example, ordering three divisions of light cavalry to flank the enemy to the right and attack the opponents camp, thus forcing them to immediately divert troops, withdraw, or see their most imediate fallback position compromised and most of their supplies captured. This would be enabled via crossover between the battle and operational gamemodes.

Operational (a mix of Corps deployment and battle selection as they exist in UG:CW) and Strategic (Kinda like selection in UG:CW but mostly new) is where the big changes would be made. The operational level would focus on giving the player plenty of options regarding what their corps and divisions are doing and by extension creating chances to take risks, make gambles, and make mistakes. During this phase corps would be deployed at various start points depending on the player's army composition and perks. Divisions can also be deployed in this phase by breaking them off from corps or having them exist independently from the outset. Corps mobility and stealthiness is important as setting the terms of engagement during this phase is key. Minor encounters between units can result in skirmishes occurring but if enough troops are in range or the battle lasts long enough (neither player opts to withdraw essentially) it could escalate into an all out battle involving entire armies. The goal here is to prevent the enemy from achieving their objective while you much achieve yours. Typically this will involve capturing (usually via a protracted siege) and/or holding Major settlements and geographical strongpoints to preserve control over the area while either capturing, destroying, or holding various minor settlements which although failing to provide a decisive edge to anyone are still important. The latter will typically force each player to spread out their army and fight smaller skirmishes over these areas while the main forces get locked in various standoffs and manuver-countermanuver loops as they are essential for forage and are the only way to reliably supply your forces and cities. They will also demoralize the owner if captured and especially if destroyed, though the latter can sometimes have the opposite if the conflict still seems winnable, the enemy has been dishonorable, and/or the allied force is quick to respond. Major battles would be less common but are mostly forced by initiating offensives against a force who sees themselves superior and/or has no defenses to fallback on. Regardless of the specific events that occur the outcome is the same: setting the stage for interesting and meaningful battles which are truly dynamic in both their occurrence and outcome.

Finally there would be the Strategic layer. This one would be about balancing the allocation of resources between different regions so that you aren't compromised on fronts which you yourself are not deployed in. Playing factions off one another, maintaining alliances, breaking up your opponent's, manning and maintaining garrisons, and ensuring that enough investments are made to civil and infrastructure projects would all be key to ensuring that you don't have to call off successful campaigns due to lack of resources, attacks on an undermanned region, or disruptions in your supply chain. It would also be where you determine your top level goals for the war and as such determines what your military objectives your operations are intended to achieve and by extension determines the content of those operations.

Hey now, you did ask for insane. 

 

Edit: Oh, and anything that would not make sense to be in realtime would instead use a double-blind turn based system where each side decides what they will do simultaneously, commits to it, and then may or may not receive the option to respond to their opponents decision depending on the precise circumstances.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Friedrich

[Urkhardt]

How about Russian Civil war?

March hundreds of kilometers in the snow! Introduce advancing reds to the wonders of chemical industry! Create the first motorized infantry division! Push Denikin's men out of the trenches and under artillery barrage! Crush the the lines of bolsheviks with mighty tracks of Mark IX-s! Go into psychical attacks with banners high and men marching to beat! Hold directions with companies against divisions!

And most importantly, try out that beast of an armored train standing on the reserve line!

[jekct1212]

32 minutes ago, Urkhardt said:

How about Russian Civil war?

March hundreds of kilometers in the snow! Introduce advancing reds to the wonders of chemical industry! Create the first motorized infantry division! Push Denikin's men out of the trenches and under artillery barrage! Crush the the lines of bolsheviks with mighty tracks of Mark IX-s! Go into psychical attacks with banners high and men marching to beat! Hold directions with companies against divisions!

And most importantly, try out that beast of an armored train standing on the reserve line!

Just make wwi

[z1gz4g]

The Old West!  Custer vs the Indians, the Hardship Campaign...Al Swearengen!

[z1gz4g]

Oh and might be cool to see more biblical stuff, like the Jews pillaging through all their neighbors on their way to their promised land.  

[Urkhardt]

On 18.10.2017 at 9:26 PM, jekct1212 said:

Just make wwi

WWI is largely positional war. Russian Civil War is much less so.

[A. P. Hill]

I can't help but think a whole army of Iron Foot Dwarves couldn't hurt.

 

[jekct1212]

22 hours ago, Urkhardt said:

WWI is largely positional war. Russian Civil War is much less so.

I mean make it into one game, wwi plus the Russian civil war, you can play as Russia, England, France, Germany etc. and if your doing a Russian playthrough at some point you have to decide what side to take

[veji1]

The added value of UGCW compared to the Total wars is how perfectly it emulates line warfare. Line warfare appeared progressively in the XVIIth century and lasted until the 1870s basically. So any game in that period would be great. Obviously there are 2 massive and obvious candidates :

- UG-Napoleonic Wars (including french revolutionnary wars if wanted)

- UG-Wars of Frederick the great (basically the mid XVIIIth century wars of Austrian succession and VII years wars).

Those or the 2 next games I would love to see.

[jekct1212]

6 hours ago, veji1 said:

The added value of UGCW compared to the Total wars is how perfectly it emulates line warfare. Line warfare appeared progressively in the XVIIth century and lasted until the 1870s basically. So any game in that period would be great. Obviously there are 2 massive and obvious candidates :

- UG-Napoleonic Wars (including french revolutionnary wars if wanted)

- UG-Wars of Frederick the great (basically the mid XVIIIth century wars of Austrian succession and VII years wars).

Those or the 2 next games I would love to see.

I'm pretty convinced its gonna be Napoleon. Hopefully it'll cover the whole era not just one campaign but it'll still be cool either way!

[Zajuts149]

I think the format of UG lends itself very well to a limited theatre with protracted fighting like the Peninsular War (1808-1814).

Edited October 24, 2017 by Zajuts149

[jekct1212]

3 hours ago, Zajuts149 said:

I think the format of UG lends itself very well to a limited theatre with protracted fighting like the Peninsular War (1808-1814).

I agree totally, I also think there are enough major battles and small skirmishes to fill the campaign. There could be a cool guerilla mechanic.