First impressions

[Jordy]

Good interview, glad to hear you planning to do pre-orders already by the end of the summer, looking forward to it!

[adambomb]

I can't wait for your game to come out. (loved you modding TOTAL WARS still playing Napoleon with you mod of course, the only way I play their games is with your mod, don't know what I'm going to do with Rome 2 when it comes out.) Any way I'll do kickstarter or crowdfunding or both, how ever you decide to do it. I just wish you were doing the whole Civil War, you know campaign style. But I'll be happy with what ever you decide of course.

[adambomb]

Love your  map also.

[adambomb]

CAN I ORDER NOW. LOL

[Digby]

Can I ask why you chose Gettysburg in particular? While I can understand the choice from the point of it being perhaps THE critical battle of the ACW, its also been covered very well by other games from other devs, most recently by Norbsoft in their "Scourge of War" series.

 

It would be nice to see a less well known but still interesting battle such as Shiloh or Chicamauga or even some form of mini-campaign or linked sequence of battles such as Jackson's Valley campaign or the Seven Days.

 

In addition the ACW gets too much exposure from games developers I feel, particularly in comparison to the Napoleonic wars. I think there is a huge market in treating a subject from the Napoleonic Wars such as Waterloo, Leipzig, Austerlitz or Borodino. The sales market for a good Napoleonic PC game may even exceed that of the ACW if sales are a consideration.

[Nick Thomadis]

- Jordy, we have in mind the pre-orders but first we think when we will be actually ready (quality wise) to ask. So yes, as it seems, after this summer we will have this alpha version we want to show you.

 

- Hey Adambomb thanks for the appreciation man!

 

- Digby, well the battle of Gettysburg is a very inspiring battle to start with and allows us to make a framework that we can use for future games. It is also a fact that we wanted to celebrate the 150th Anniversary of the battle with our game. 

[Vengurd]

The first question that comes to mind when I see that picture: Is that the strategy map or the tactical map? Is there a difference?

 

 Will gameplay be similar to the Total War series: Turn based Strategy, Real time battles, or is everything purely turn based/real time?

 

Are we limited to just Gettysburg or, despite the name, are we able to play in various different areas?

 

 An interesting scenario would be to have the map of America, if not the whole North American Continent and fighting to control the whole land mass- probably a bit much for a first project, but it could be a later addition, a bonus or extra added on should the actual game prove to be as fruituitous as it looks to be.

 

Beyond those questions I don't have much else to say other than that I lurked quite a bit on TWcenter and used your mod(s) frequently. Have a good day.

 

 

 

EDIT: To help with any research still going on, I recommend watching Gods and Generals and Gettysburg movies. Both are, to the best of my knowledge, very accurate and very well done. I'm sure the movies can help in more ways than one (historic accuracy, art, sounds, etc)

Edited July 31, 2013 by Vengurd

[Nick Thomadis]

The first question that comes to mind when I see that picture: Is that the strategy map or the tactical map? Is there a difference?

 

It is an old pre alpha battle map section. We will not have a big campaign map for Gettysburg but only a wide area around the town.

 

Are we limited to just Gettysburg or, despite the name, are we able to play in various different areas?

 

Various areas around Gettysburg can serve for random custom battles.

 

An interesting scenario would be to have the map of America, if not the whole North American Continent and fighting to control the whole land mass- probably a bit much for a first project, but it could be a later addition, a bonus or extra added on should the actual game prove to be as fruituitous as it looks to be.

 

Yes this is something we surely consider for the future. 

 

EDIT: 

Thank you for the share. Yes I know, old classics that insprire a lot.

[adambomb]

Just saying HI,, can't wait for game to come out.

[Tomakaze]

I haven't taken the time to read all the posts but:

 

a) One of my favorite games of all time is Sid Meier's Gettysburg and thank god I can still play it on my main computer... which leads into

 

I will buy this

 

This almost reminds of of R.U.S.E. in style.  I liked that game, but when many battles last for an hour or more it gets tiring.  In my mind this is Sid Meier's and R.U.S.E. twisted, I could be way off the mark there, but I eagerly await this game.

 

Thanks.

 

Edit: One more thing, are you considering Steam Greenlight?

[templarteppo]

Seeing as how there are several thousand men on screen representing tens of thousands, in the future will it be possible to have tens of thousands of men on screen representing even more?  For example 20,000 men representing 100,000 (brigades, divisions, Corps).  I ask this only because since this game is also being developed for tablets, I am worried that tablet development will hold back the possibilities of the pc version.  In your Darthmod Napoleon which has advanced 3d graphics, I regularly fight 15,000+ battles.  Either way I will BUY your game and support it through kickstarter if you so wish, I just want it to be what it can be by taking advantage of the PC's power, that is all. 

 

By the way Nick,  you would make a great voice actor.

[reamond]

I looked at the movie "Gods and Generals", its adds some extra spice to the characters...and some ideas how it worked from the point of the commanders. "Discipline wins the day!"...

So I would like to suggest some kind of uncertainty in the game play...  related to commanding troops... if morale is low... they should react slower. Type of commander should affect their man's moral and behavior. Don't rely on a commander with the push forward, who is not aggressive enough but cautious... the result should be different. Troops with overconfidence should attack without order.... and so on... It can spice up a little bite, so the game gets its own character and not so clinic... in ETW... the troops follow order exactly... Its also gives more dimension to the action where the user need to check what troops / commanders they are using for what. 

Information between commanders was written that time... that could be also visualised in the game where the commanders character would come through.  

 

It should be also possible for troops to lay down or take cover... to try to avoid enemy fire or to get spotted (see Waterloo). And of course the opposite should be possible as well... to make sure that troops is in the clear for efficient fire. Vegetation should affect fire efficiency. My feeling is  that ETW is very bad regarding that..Big firefight in the woods... positioning artillery... If I remember correct in the game Sid Meier's Gettysburg its possible to clearly see what the unit is able to aim at. That is something I would prefer.

 

Scouting... by spotting a commander... it was possible to estimate unit size on the other side (ACW both side new each other very well and that made "easy" for them to foresee what troops around a spotted general), the role of different type of flags slowly disappeared after the Napoleonic war and that made hard to get information of unit size based on a spotted enemy flag.    

[Laserg]

I've read your interview Darth. If you succed - make Sid Meyer's Gettysburg with new graphics(it looks sweet now), great engine and AI and add a campaign like in Total War - than omg, my dream will come true. I will sell my family just to buy that game. Keep the good work!

[Nick Thomadis]

Seeing as how there are several thousand men on screen representing tens of thousands, in the future will it be possible to have tens of thousands of men on screen representing even more?  For example 20,000 men representing 100,000 (brigades, divisions, Corps).  I ask this only because since this game is also being developed for tablets, I am worried that tablet development will hold back the possibilities of the pc version.  In your Darthmod Napoleon which has advanced 3d graphics, I regularly fight 15,000+ battles.  Either way I will BUY your game and support it through kickstarter if you so wish, I just want it to be what it can be by taking advantage of the PC's power, that is all. 

 

By the way Nick,  you would make a great voice actor.

 

I wish this day will come but it will be odd to exaggerate troop size while with current technology game industry is struggling to reach equal troop size due to hardware limitations. On the specific topic of Ultimate General: Gettysburg, because we have main aim to represent thousands of soldiers than a handful of detailed troops, we are making many compromises on the visuals in order to achieve this, because Tablets are not fully ready to support the graphics we would all dream of.

We focus mainly on gameplay and realistic replication of ACW warfare while simplifying controls. So PC version, in a way, becomes limited as well, but we are thinking to allow more graphics enhancements for it in comparison to tablets version.

 

PS,.I guess you heard one of my online interviews. I wish I had spoken better English in these  

 

I looked at the movie "Gods and Generals", its adds some extra spice to the characters...and some ideas how it worked from the point of the commanders. "Discipline wins the day!"...

So I would like to suggest some kind of uncertainty in the game play...  related to commanding troops... if morale is low... they should react slower. Type of commander should affect their man's moral and behavior. Don't rely on a commander with the push forward, who is not aggressive enough but cautious... the result should be different. Troops with overconfidence should attack without order.... and so on... It can spice up a little bite, so the game gets its own character and not so clinic... in ETW... the troops follow order exactly... Its also gives more dimension to the action where the user need to check what troops / commanders they are using for what. 

Information between commanders was written that time... that could be also visualised in the game where the commanders character would come through.  

 

It should be also possible for troops to lay down or take cover... to try to avoid enemy fire or to get spotted (see Waterloo). And of course the opposite should be possible as well... to make sure that troops is in the clear for efficient fire. Vegetation should affect fire efficiency. My feeling is  that ETW is very bad regarding that..Big firefight in the woods... positioning artillery... If I remember correct in the game Sid Meier's Gettysburg its possible to clearly see what the unit is able to aim at. That is something I would prefer.

 

Scouting... by spotting a commander... it was possible to estimate unit size on the other side (ACW both side new each other very well and that made "easy" for them to foresee what troops around a spotted general), the role of different type of flags slowly disappeared after the Napoleonic war and that made hard to get information of unit size based on a spotted enemy flag.    

 

In a way all these will be simulated. For example troop behaviour is automatically affected by morale and other factors and you not only sense this but you see it by noticying less disciplined and coherent formations.

Units with low morale will refuse to charge and maybe we will add "auto-charge" for very heroic units but we are not sure yet, because currently there is much auto-thinking of soldiers and this can make things worse for the player.

With our new realistic LOS, hiding and taking good firing positions will be crucial while they will gradually appear according to range and visibility obstacles (not pop up). About Commander's role in the battlefield I will write more when we get implement them in a final way.

I've read your interview Darth. If you succed - make Sid Meyer's Gettysburg with new graphics(it looks sweet now), great engine and AI and add a campaign like in Total War - than omg, my dream will come true. I will sell my family just to buy that game. Keep the good work!

 

 

This is our goal! I hope very soon I can share more visual info of the game.

 

EDIT:

In case someone has not noticed yet, I published the latest news of August progress http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/august-progress.

If you have any comments please place them below or in the blog.

[Spalas]

Hello Nick!

I am glad to see that you are creating a game and I will buy it!

Why it is so important to release it on a tablet since it will restrict it on many aspects? I would prefer a symbiosis of the two, like having the tablet alongside the PC to use it as a tactical map for instance, like a tool to advance gameplay and not hold it back.

But in the end I am sure I will like the game! And I will definitely pre-order if you make it available.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello Nick!

I am glad to see that you are creating a game and I will buy it!

Why it is so important to release it on a tablet since it will restrict it on many aspects? I would prefer a symbiosis of the two, like having the tablet alongside the PC to use it as a tactical map for instance, like a tool to advance gameplay and not hold it back.

But in the end I am sure I will like the game! And I will definitely pre-order if you make it available.

Hello friend. The game will be available also for PC (Windows, Mac) and will be smoothly playable even on older rigs. If something is holding us a bit is the compromise between visuals and performance because to have good performance on tablets and thousands of soldiers is a big task. But the major focus in our game is gameplay and dynamic strategic feel which I believe it will be something authentic and unique. We hope this month we will be able to share much more interesting info about our progress,

[adambomb]

I go for making it for PC and using tablet as helper to game.  I'll buy your game either way.

[The Colonel]

Hi, i registered as soon as i found out about this title in development. I've been a player of Civil War Generals 2: Grant, Lee, Sherman for many years and still consider it a best tactical-level turn-based strategy game ever released. It has the best battle mechanics, smart army and troop scaling, and gives an authentic feeling of being in command of army, not treating your men like mobile muskets like in 3D games.

 

Although this is an RTS title i'm still excited about it, because it take the good old birds-eye 2d approach, that makes wargame exciting. One thing i never liked about scourge of war series is that you are able to give your troops command to face this or that direction, instead of giving orders like "attack", "fall back" "dig-in" etc. 3D will never give birth to great wargame IMO.

 

I'm looking forward to this title, it already looks sweet, and i like your approach and priorities.

 

My impressions and feelings coming from my years of wargaming experience are as follows:

 

- Too steep hills and ridges make battlefield look unrealistic. 90% of wargames make this mistake. Yes, many battles had some positions that were very high and impassable for cavalry, but too much of terrain being dressed with hills, ridges and rocks, and it looks unnatural.

 

- There should be fog of war feature, that would provide vision related to viewpoint of most elevated troops. If you cannot see enemy's artillery, you should not be able to counterfire it.

 

- If there is one advantage of large-scale battlefields (controlling full engagements, instead of separate scenarios and skirmishes), it is that it gives a high-replay value and more options to approaching an enemy. Small map combined with small force = not much space fo breating.

 

- Slower pace gameplay gives many advantages - more time to react, more time to relax (avoiding the click-fest is crucial for war game), more time to think of alternative ways to replay one same scenario etc. In the end, every virtual generals likes to watch the battle unfold, not only give orders franticlly.

 

 

Now i have many questions related to game:

 

Will there be supply system included, and perhaps, having a baggage camp to care about as well ?

 

How are troops going to be deployed ? Will you have free deployment option, will they be pre-deployed (my least favourite), or will they arrive on the field from historical directions, and then left for you to freely operate them (feature i simply loved in Civil War Generals 2).

 

Since Gettysburg was multiple days engagement, is there going to be night ?

 

What about skirmishers, commanders, role of cavalry ?

 

Ill stop here for now Best Regards.

[Nick Thomadis]

Good questions Colonel. I needed to find time to reply. So quickly about:

-

One thing i never liked about scourge of war series is that you are able to give your troops command to face this or that direction, instead of giving orders like "attack", "fall back" "dig-in" etc. 3D will never give birth to great wargame IMO.

 

No complexity like that. In reality it is never that complex. The most difficult is to take the right decision at the right moment because in reality you cannot take decisions back and correct at will. So in UGG we will try to emphasize on the important strategic commands like: "Take these 3 brigades and move to capture that hill." Then these brigades will have a good sense of self awareness to fight on their own while you do other things. It would be nightmare to micromanage more than 30 units you can lead into battle as we have now.

 

- Too steep hills and ridges make battlefield look unrealistic. 90% of wargames make this mistake. Yes, many battles had some positions that were very high and impassable for cavalry, but too much of terrain being dressed with hills, ridges and rocks, and it looks unnatural.

 

Very happy to know because this is exactly what we did in our final map. Soon we will share images so I would like to hear your opinion. Ridges and Hills will be just about right, not gamey gigantic, not too small either to look flat.

 

- There should be fog of war feature, that would provide vision related to viewpoint of most elevated troops. If you cannot see enemy's artillery, you should not be able to counterfire it.

 

Implemented. Not sure if the current LOS we have is found in another game, really. It looks like something I have never played before. Units do not pop up randomly and you can progressively see them to appear or vanish as they hide behind trees and hills. Ambushes and surprise attacks in Gettysburg will be simulated very well. AI also will try to predict, estimate according to character how many forces there are in locations, he will not know anything as in other games. He will be equal with player in terms of reconnaisance and efficient enough to use it.

 

- If there is one advantage of large-scale battlefields (controlling full engagements, instead of separate scenarios and skirmishes), it is that it gives a high-replay value and more options to approaching an enemy. Small map combined with small force = not much space fo breating.

 

It is on schedule to add typical custom battles situated in Gettysburg with a battle randomiser feature so to have many different play sessions, not only play dynamic campaign.

 

- Slower pace gameplay gives many advantages - more time to react, more time to relax (avoiding the click-fest is crucial for war game), more time to think of alternative ways to replay one same scenario etc. In the end, every virtual generals likes to watch the battle unfold, not only give orders franticlly.

 

This is my "profession"

 

Will there be supply system included, and perhaps, having a baggage camp to care about as well ?

 

Although it would be very interesting, at this first stage of the game we are not going to add but maybe with a patch we add more features like that.

 

How are troops going to be deployed ? Will you have free deployment option, will they be pre-deployed (my least favourite), or will they arrive on the field from historical directions, and then left for you to freely operate them (feature i simply loved in Civil War Generals 2).

 

Units will be deployed automatically according to previous battle and historical locations. When battle starts you can easily re-position them. I think most users are bored to patiently deploy units before a battle + it is very unrealistic to deploy troops with teleportation while enemy army stands (and unfair for AI). So we simulate dynamic battle. Deploy as you want but in real time.

 

Since Gettysburg was multiple days engagement, is there going to be night ?

 

In some scenes we consider to make light less to simulate night engagement, yes.

 

What about skirmishers, commanders, role of cavalry ?

 

There will be some special skirmisher units (historical) that will be very annoying for the enemy... but only that. Brigade Lines will rule the battlefield. Cavalry will be either mounted or dismounted (skirmishers). In late battles there will be a possibility to have big Cavalry clashes against Stuart and Union Cavalry, because, why not, it could happen if East Cavalry Field was overrun by Stuart. Then Stuart could attempt to attack Cemetery Hill from behind, and then we can see thousands of horses charging to brigade lines. But it will be a random situation not very likely to happen.

[The Colonel]

It would be nightmare to micromanage more than 30 units you can lead into battle as we have now.

 

 

 

Indeed, micromanagment also kills fluidity of a battle.

 

This is my "profession"

 

 

Good to know

 

Although it would be very interesting, at this first stage of the game we are not going to add but maybe with a patch we add more features like that.

 

 

Since it is an RTS game, it is understandable. Such feature is mostly seen in turn based games where it is much easier to implement it. In American Conquest series, they gave baggage camp units points, so capturing these would bring you points, but this will have little meaning in battle sim.

 

There will be some special skirmisher units (historical) that will be very annoying for the enemy... but only that. Brigade Lines will rule the battlefield. Cavalry will be either mounted or dismounted (skirmishers). In late battles there will be a possibility to have big Cavalry clashes against Stuart and Union Cavalry, because, why not, it could happen if East Cavalry Field was overrun by Stuart. Then Stuart could attempt to attack Cemetery Hill from behind, and then we can see thousands of horses charging to brigade lines. But it will be a random situation not very likely to happen.

 

 

True, horse clashes were a rarity.

 

Well, let me add 2 more questions i forgot, and then i will slip away into the shades and wait for blog info.

 

- I forgot about stats - how many were killed, wounded, captured, how many enemies surrendered etc. Possibility to see that ?

- Strategic map, to switch to for better view of situation (if maps are extensive), or will zoom out feature be suficient ?

[Nick Thomadis]

- I forgot about stats - how many were killed, wounded, captured, how many enemies surrendered etc. Possibility to see that ?

 

Up to now we have casualties and it is on schedule to divide them by killed, wounded, captured in the battle reports. Not sure if this will be available in the first release or a patch because it needs some time to implement right.

 

- Strategic map, to switch to for better view of situation (if maps are extensive), or will zoom out feature be suficient ?

 

Zoom in/out feature will be more than sufficient to monitor what is going on in the battlefield and we will have two special type of cameras for the player to pick what he likes best.

[templarteppo]

Any updates coming soon? 

[admin]

Any updates coming soon? 

 

we are preparing the next developer report that will come soon.

[kingtyris]

I was incredibly pleased with what I've read so far. This looks amazing. I'm looking forward to the Kickstarter or whatever other fundraising means you announce.

[Shigawire]

I love the style of the map, though the Depth Of Field looks extremely shallow.

http://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/how-to-shoot-with-an-extremely-shallow-depth-of-field--photo-3082